Frankly my dear, I DO give a damn

Love it or hate it, 'Gone With The Wind' is and always will be a cinematic and literary phenomenon. Even in the 21st century, re-releases of both the film and the novel are constantly being churned out and people continue to lap it up. It is overrated, overpraised, and inflated, but above all, it is one of the most ambitious projects ever known to humanity for almost a century and will stay that way for perhaps another hundred years more. When you compare this against 'Twilight' and 'Harry Potter' I will bet dollars to dounuts that GWTW will remain standing. But I suppose time will tell.

GWTW well and truly set the benchmark for the term epic- sweeping story, rounded (though not always endearing) characters, trials, tribulations, love, both idealised and unrequited, complete with an almost mythical sense of romantacism and melodrama. But perhaps the key aspect of the film that people look over when admiring it's passion is that at it's core, it's about the most primal of human needs- to survive. Honestly, I could go on and on about the sumptuous production values, costumes, score and everything that helps make David O. Selznik's passion project sing, but let me focus on the characters, the ones who are in the thick of it all. All of these characters are polarized to the extent of almost fancy, and yet, you can admire all of them.

Vivien Leigh's Scarlett O'Hara is not a nice person. When we first meet her, she is self-centered, spoilt, vain and proud. She wants every man chasing after her, but the only man she wants (or, THINKS she wants) is Ashley Wilkes, or rather, the version that she sees, not the man himself. When the gracious Melanie (Olivia deHavilland) remains her friend for thick and thin, all Scarlett can do is curse her good name behind her back. Despite these flaws of character and good conscience, she is also incredibly tough. She is able to let loose a few buckets of tears before she picks herself up and continues, stronger than before. While her more shallow traits are off-putting, it is Leigh's determined nature that makes Scarlett not just a woman, but also a fierce force of nature that we all wish we could be in times of adversity.

                                                   Bitch, bitch, bitch, that's all you ever are.

Similarly, the character of Rhett Butler (Clark Gable), is quite the morally questionable rogue who takes a shine to Scarlett. He sees himself in her, and despite the fact deep down he wants to live an honorable life, he knows he is not that sort of man. All the same though, he appreciates genuine compassion when he sees it, although Scarlett isn't one to give that... well, selflessly. For all intents and purposes, Rhett is indeed a bastard. He's a loose character who is proud of the indiscretions he has committed and yet, like Scarlett, he has an indominatable character. He is a fearless blockade runner who uses his wits and charm to get out of sticky situations, and he has a mostly nonchalant attitude when he is cornered. At one point he is playing cards with some Yankee guards in a jail, with the possibility of execution hanging over his head and here he is laughing and being completely chummy with them. He even has the audacity to shut the door to his cell in the face of an officer when Scarlett comes to him.

                         Doesn't hurt his cause none because he has a FAB mustache.

Scarlett's opposite, the previously mentioned Melanie could have been boring and nauseously one-note were it not for deHavilland's performance. When you look at deHavilland, you can't help but think of her as an Angel of Mercy, ready to bestow forgiveness against all who wrong her. Even when Scarlett was caught kissing her husband, Ashley, Melanie stands by Scarlett, firecely defending her honor, right to her grave. Yes, Melanie is a total pascifist and disgustingly selfless, but deHavilland captivates you- you may call her a sap, but you really must admire her virtuous nature and her unfaltering loyalty to her family and friends. Rhett Butler especially is grateful for her, and it is she who he chooses to confide in during his moments of doubt and personal pain. In a way, Melanie is the ideal woman. When I say that, I mean the ideal woman of the time of which the novel was written, not as women SHOULD be in the present. You may not agree with Melanie's strong morals and unconditional love no matter how much it blows in her face, but you can admire her will to love as passionately as she possibly can and still retain her dignity.

The only character that I didn't really care for was Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard). Howard isn't a bad actor at all, and his embues Ashley with all the nobility and stoicness the novel possessed, but character wise, he was weak. Scarlett sees him as gallant and strong, but in reality, he, like Melanie is submissive, despite his loyalty. Also, when I look at him, I think "This guy over Rhett Butler? Seriously? Come on!". Once again, this is absolutely no fault of Howard's, he is playing the character to a T, but the character himself is almost boring. However, when paired with Melanie, if the term 'soulmates' had been coined back when GWTW was made, it no doubt would have applied to the pair of them.

When you look at the contrasting relationships between the two lead couples, you can see a distinct divide between them. Melanie and Ashely's relationship is based upon trust, dependence and domesticity, it is the idealised version of love that to this day, film continues to perpetuate. Meanwhile, the relationship between Scarlett and Rhett is unpredictable, passionate and wildness. Granted, their relationship goes downhill when they marry, but even so, Rhett is a man who knows what he wants and Scarlett is a woman who knows what she wants. They are a perfect match for each other because of their selfishness and desire to live. Although the relationship is quite fantastical and melodramatic, it also stands as a representation of love if it is not realised, something that is sadly quite common these days. Usually it takes a catastrophe to make people wake up to themselves, but in Scarlett and Rhett's case (in the movie at least), it is far too late for them.

                                                                                  VS.

I know how anti-climactic this write up has been for those of you hoping to get massive insight to the film in general, but I find that already, countless articles of literature have been composed dedicated to every facet of GWTD that to have an amatuer such as myself try to offer anything new would be old hat. However, honestly speaking, this is one of my favourite films for all of the reasons why it has been lauded. There is no such thing as an unequivocably perfect film, but if GWTW is as popular now as it was back in 1939, that is saying something. There is a timeless quality about this film that will no doubt continue to bewitch audiences to come.

Viva Fang Vegas

Newsflash, folks. Creativity, GENUINE creativity in the horror genre in Hollywood is rare to come by these days, if not completely extinct. Almost everywhere you look, you see a 'remake', 're-imagining', 'reboot', 're-whateveryouwannacallitjustgimmeyourmoney'. Some are better than others of course, but on the whole, there really is nothing new to pick from, even a novel concept like 'Paranormal Activity' has already sadly become a boring franchise.

Saying this, it comes as no surprise that eventually, fun 80's vampire flick 'Fright Night' was next on the slate. I remember when it was first announced, I won't lie, I facepalmed like Jean-Luc Picard. WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY? Simple. Cash. That is what remakes are made for primarily. To my mind, the charm of the original would be lost, and well, without Chris Sarandon and Roddy McDowall, two of the main draws, I automatically thought "This is gonna fail miserably." Some time down the track however, my outlook changed, first and foremost due to the casting- Colin Farrell as Jerry Dandridge and David Tennant as Peter Vincent? Hmm, okay. Set in Las Vegas? Sure, that COULD work. With massive creative input from some of the folks who re-invented 'Buffy'. Right, at least it's not Stephanie Meyer. The more I heard about it, the more I began to change my mind. When I heard additional reassurance from the creative crew that it wouldn't actually be a remake, rather a stand-alone retelling, I was actually getting... excited.

Eventually when it was released in the States, to my pleasant surprise, it actually got many decent reviews, which basically sealed it for me. I would give 'Fright Night' a damn good shot, I figured it would at least be worth $10 of my movie club membership. So what can I say?

                                                       

The most crucial thing to remember watching this movie is that in no way does it attempt to impede on the territory Tom Holland's original did, instead, it borrows the most essential elements and takes them in another direction. It's a direction many have taken, but very few have done it as well as this one. For example:
a) 21st century middle American suburbia in Las Vegas- small, compact and also quite dangerous even without a vampire roaming around.
b) A cast who look and act the age of their characters, not 30 somethings playing teensomethings.
c) Potent doses of humor and scares in equal measure.
d) A distinct sense of fang-in-cheek that is relevant to today's audiences.
e) The entire story experiencing an overhaul.

All of those ingredients were essential in making this film work and it came together very nicely. Admittedly, uses of CGI are evident, but they are not obnoxiously in your face to the extent you feel you are watching a videogame. In fact, when I think about it, they mainly aided something practical. For example, Jerry's vampire face? WOW.

Visual nom noms aside, I'm proud to report that I was very happy with the performances of Anton Yelchin and Imogen Poots (the latter UK actor successfully adopts an American accent) as Charlie Brewster and Amy Petersen. Watching those two interplay with each other and others was a lot easier to swallow than William Ragsdale and Amanda Bearse in the original. Not to suggest the latter couple were awful, but you could certainly see their age and at time it did look quite ridiculous to see them TRYING to behave like teenagers. Additionally, when Jerry abducted Amy, I wasn't really pulling for Charley to rescue her. Seeing Yelchin and Poots was a wonderful breath of fresh air because their characters and interactions were far more relatable and they were a joy to watch.

                                                                               YAY!

From this dynamic, we move to the second one: David Tennant and Colin Farrell.

David Tennant's Peter Vincent is so not Roddy McDowall it's not funny- thank Hera for that! While McDowall's older persona fitted Peter Vincent's role as a washed out TV presenter like it was nobody's business, the character had to be successfully updated in order to translate on the big screen and Tennant's foul-mouthed Cris Angel-esque stage-whore magician fits the bill. The moment he drops his stage persona, he is a booze-guzzling, crotch-scratching, loud-mouthed prat who struts around his mega-expensive penthouse surrounded by props, so-called 'artifacts' and tributes to himself. Underneath it all though, he is still an insecure coward who really ain't as brave as he portrays himself to be. This ain't Doctor Who, folks, this is Peter Vincent if he were younger, brasher and regularly blew his money on eBay, the poor little rich boy.

                                                           And yet we still love him.


The other main character (and I would be REMISS if I were to just gloss over him) is Colin Farrell's rendition of Chris Sarandon's vamp-next-door. If Sarandon was the smooth operator who could charm the good sense out of you, Colin Farrell's Jerry is a shark. Sure, he does make a bit of time to thrall his victims, but this guy really is as much a predator as he is a pervert and a punk. Everybody in the neighborhood is his, they just don't know it yet. This guy doesn't just kill and eat his victims, he drinks Bud (fantastic and inspired sequence involving his beer of choice and Charlie in the Brewster's kitchen at one point), eats apples with his mouth open, watches trashy late night television AND wears a wifebeater. Never mind he's a vampire, he's white trash!
Another awesome element that Farrell brings is a very malicious sense of jocularity that makes you think "You sir are an asshole... you're awesome.". In one very well-paced suspense sequence, Charlie invades Jerry's house to rescue his neighbor, but things don't go as planned, much to Jerry's delight. That's all I'll say. :-D.

                                                                             Dick

So, what didn't I like about the movie? Well, I wouldn't say I hated anything about it, but there was one factor that did stand out like a sore thumb- McLovin' as Evil Ed Lee.

I don't believe Christopher Mintz-Plasse is a bad actor at all, but the character of Evil Ed is a very specific one, given Stephen Geoffreys turned in such a fascinating performance and Mintz-Plasse was somewhat miscast in the role. Granted, Evil Ed is meant to be irritating, but what makes me partial to Geoffreys' portrayal is that he was a victim. Underneath his smack talk and hyena-laughing exterior, Ed was a very troubled, upset kid who nobody could connect with. There were times that I felt Mintz-Plasse's Evil Ed missed the mark of being sympathetic because most of the time he was exceptionally bitter. That being said, he still made me appreciate what he could bring to his scenes with Yelchin as well as his encounter with Jerry, quite a memorable sequence.

                                                 You just needed to grow on us more, dude.

Another aspect that I feel I best address is some of the pacing. While it moves at a brisk speed, I felt there were some sequences that were added in as an after-thought, I can't remember A specific scene, but there was one part in the hospital that I felt was a little superflous and inorganic to the rest of the story, I found myself thinking "What's this got to do what is going on?" Then again, that could just be me being doey, so make of that what you will.

All said and done, 'Fright Night' 2011 is a great, rollicking ride that I can certainly recommend to casual horror film-goers and vampire buffs alike. It has the audacity to follow what it's predecessor basically did, but it has the smarts to walk to it's own pulsebeat. Would I mind a sequel at this point? If it follows the route it has set for itself here and dares to go one step further, I'd be more than happy to oblige.

And ladies/dudes who like dudes:

              

The things we do for love...

The 80's was perhaps the best time to be a Freddy/Jason/Michael. No matter how paper thin your plot was, people came to see blood and cheese and expected nothing but mindless entertainment from you and your hapless, screaming horny teens. However, an unexpected dark horse arrived on the scene: 'Hellraiser'. Nobody quite knows where he came from or what exactly he stood for, but shit, he goes around tearing people up with hooks dressed in S&M leather with sharp pins lodged in his face, he HAS to be part of the grain!

Well no, actually. While the subsequent sequels of the franchise were most certainly a wonderful excuse to show off some creative red stuff, the first film is quite a different beast. For one thing, it was directed by the very man who wrote the novel 'The Hellbound Heart' which the film was based on: Clive Barker. Secondly, although Pinhead is perhaps the most iconic figure of the series, he is only in the film for at least 15 minutes, and even then, the movie wasn't about him. This movie was, and still is, a drama first and foremost. A ROMANTIC drama.

English fish out of water Julia has just married the loving and kindly American Larry Cotton and has moved into a new house to start a new life, however, Julia is still in love with Frank, Larry's sexual deviant brother, who passed away under mysterious circumstances. Julia is trying to settle in to married life and is attempting to  bond with Larry's daughter Kirsty when she makes a harrowing discovery- Frank is alive... yet not altogether whole.

                                                                      Frank: This is him. 


Julia, upon getting over her shock, is overjoyed when he tells her that they can be together again if she promises to keep his existence a secret, and if she brings unsuspecting schmucks back for him to kill and absorb their bodies to help repair his own. This is all going dandy (well, as it can be) until Frank tells Julia to sacrifice her husband, his brother. After this final sacrifice, Frank will become whole again and they will be together forever more. However, therein lies a dilemma- the mysterious entity Pinhead and his Cenobites will come a huntin' for him because of his cheating death, because the way they see it, Frank is robbing them their eternal due.

                                     Pictured left to right: Nemesis, Pinhead and Dan Ackroyd


There is no hiding the fact that this film boasts some truly off-the-wall, nightmarish shit with amazing visual effects. Bodies are blamelessly torn apart and Hell dimensions are opened, but believe it or not, it is the lead human characters who truly run this show. Clive Barker is no stranger to dealing with transgressions that plague humanity in his writings, and in this case, none of his notions are lost, a major rarity when it comes to horror films based off novels. Naturally, it all depends on how you view this film, but more often than not, 'Hellraiser' proves that horror, and it's characters for that matter, can be intelligent and relatable. The character of Pinhead himself isn't a wise-cracking asswipe, nor is he a silent momma's boy who wears a mask hacking up shrieking, big-breasted blondes. He is verbose, complicated and completely rational, you could almost argue he is perhaps the most sanest mind in the entire movie. Rather than coming across as an inefficient, single-minded killing machine, on the film poster, he's described as "... Demon to some, Angel to others" it's this kind of ambiguity that separates him from the typical boogeyman. In this movie, he actually comes off as a neutral force who just wants his payment, not bloody revenge. I would be remiss however if I didn't also mention the other actors, because they truly do carry the film. Andrew Robinson (yes, Scorpio from 'Dirty Harry')  brings a likeable, affable presence to the film, Ashley Laurence, Kristy, really is a wonderful surprise. Her character comes off as completely natural and not once does she resort to bimbo behavior, I LOVED her. However, major credit must be given to Claire Higgins, Julia. The woman is absolutely formidable to watch. Her proper demeanor has a distinctly classical sense of sinister beneath it that is hard to ignore. She was hateful, but at the same time, you could still understand her reasoning for her more extreme actions.

While there is no denying you could put a time-stamp on this movie by merely looking at it (hellooooooo shoulderpads!), and while it is not an utter masterpiece in every sense of the word and it may even come off to some as utterly pretentious, 'Hellraiser' is a seminal part of horror cinema that is more inclined towards telling a story with a view to real characters rather than how much blood can be spilled and how wide their bodies can be torn apart.

                                                                   Cheer up, bro.

Mon esprit, mon ennemi...

*A note before we begin: In no way am I absolving Polanski for his transgression, this is a FILM review, not an opinion on Polanski himself*

The beginning credits of 'Repulsion' shows a close up of an eye with words travelling at various angles across the screen while the eyeball flits around following their progress. It is fitting that when the title of the film appears directly over the eye, it is the first of many symbols to come when it comes to the nature of repulsion itself- it's in the eye of the beholder.

Psychoanalysis admittedly is a difficult subject to translate on screen and make it comprehensible, especially when it focuses on the subject of sex. 'Repulsion' is what you could consider an Absurdist Surrealist take on sexuality, social pressure and personal claustrophobia taking place in an earthly metropolic setting. 

Young and shy Parisian beautician Carole Ledoux lives with her sister Helene in a cramped modest apartment in London during the 1960's, an era of which gender roles were changing, both in public and behind closed doors. Carole, despite the fact she has a job, is emotionally dependent upon her sister and despises how Helene allows her married lover, Michael, to stay overnight on a regular basis. Every morning she must wait until he leaves just to go to the bathroom because he leaves his grooming tools next to her toothbrush. If this wasn't enough, Carole receives constant attention from the opposite sex, namely from the persistent young buck Colin who is dying to date her, it also doesn't help matters when her job is monotonous. Simply put, Carole is a very, very, VERY repressed young woman living in an unyielding world that is moving too fast and too much for her fragile mind. When her sister leaves on a vacation to Italy with Michael however, Carole's problems are only just beginning...

                                           Mind cracking or shoddy architecture? Either way, not good.

I want to say upfront that prior to viewing this film, I had heard ballyhoo such as "Best thriller ever!" "Polanski's best!", "You haven't seen a movie until you have seen 'Repulsion'", automatically, I get suspicious. Not because I assumed the opposite, but that's the nature of the hype machine- when something is talked up that much, your expectations are talked up with it, but when you see the product for yourself, it may not be all that and a bag of potato chips. Same thing goes for 'Replusion'. Don't get me wrong- this film isn't a failure, nor is it uninspired, in fact, it stimulates the mind and manages to keep you fascinated. The cost is, you need to wait 40 minutes. Before you ask, I have no qualms with slow-burn thrillers- just look at Ridley Scott's 'Alien'- nothing nasty happened for the same about of time, but Scott kept up the atmosphere and steadily and consistently wound the tension until things really took off. In 'Repulsion' however, I was feeling quite drowsy until Carole was left alone in the apartment and to me, that wasn't a good sign. For a movie that "holds you and doesn't let go!", it only held my undivided attention whenever action was occurring onscreen. It's not that I didn't appreciate any of the subtleties that Polanski used, I did, especially when imagery such as distorted reflections and horrors in Carole's increasingly menacing apartment manifested themselves audibly and visually, but I felt Polanski's mind was more concentrated in dream logic more than it's actors.

Hungry? -_-

The symbolism in this film is undoubtedly it's strongest point- I am of the mind that if this film were a picture book, it would still be captivating. Polanski makes common surroundings become pregnant with such monstrosity that it digs into your mind like a splinter. At times, it reminded me of David Lynch's 'Eraserhead' though that involved a different subject matter. It is a shame though that these images out-weigh the actors who co-exist with them. Up until her mind seriously began to unravel, I didn't really care for Carole and her mental problems. For a film that is widely seen as a cautionary tale about the dangers of mental illness and the pressures those afflicted with it suffer, it doesn't take much care in looking at Carole herself, just upon her bulging psychosis. A shame, because the young Deneuve really is quite good even when she is being upstaged by her apartment. 

           "We're not touching you, we're not touching you, is this bothering you, we're not touching you."

So what am I actually trying to say in this review? Put quite simply, if you are a fan of intelligent cinema, and if you are quite partial to visually stunning films, 'Repulsion' is certainly as good as any to see for yourself. That being said, I advise you not to allow yourself to be swept up too much by it's praises- an older film doesn't equal a classic, no matter how much has been said about it. If you approach this film with a fairly grounded set of expectations, you will probably enjoy this better. Alternatively, if you watch this movie and you don't enjoy it, you won't receive any judgement from me, because quite frankly, there are better movies out there that deal with the problems that Carole has, but at least you can say you have seen one of the stronger contendors.

Dracula Spectula Decemba

Let's try this again. Starting December, I will be reviewing films based on, or featuring, The Prince of Darkness, primarily because it will be a self-indulgent project on my part, plus, I failed to deliver on my Possession Week pledge. Also, I'm not dropping hints much December will be my birthday, so this will be my gift not only to my fellow Dracula/vampire fans, but also to myself. So, fingers crossed, crucifixes out and garlic pizzas permitting, December will be the month of Dracula. I will probably not get through EVERY Dracula film ever made, but I'm gonna give it a damn good try.


*Note: I will be reviewing the Dracula films that I have NOT included on this site*

An apology...

For the last few months I have really been slack due to several issues, so I want to apologise to those who have enjoyed reading my posts for waiting so long between drinks. I will make it my mission in the coming weeks to crank out as many as I can, since I am now free from being a lazy fuck my other commitments. Thanks to all who have been patient with my tardy incompetence- I will make it up to all of you, I swear as a fellow film-lover.

Kommen, Unvermeidlicher Tod

I believe it is safe to say that you are not a vampire fan if you have not seen, what is considered to be the grand-sire of vampire films, 'Nosferatu', a silent German Expression film directed by the visionary F.W Murnau. Nine years before Bela Lugosi became synonymous with the character of Dracula thanks to Universal, it was Max Schreck who was seen as the face of terror, and for good reason...

You'd THINK he'd be able to afford bigger doorways -_-

I actually feel that writing this review is highly redundant considering how well known and universally appreciated it is, honestly, what is there that I can say that will be any different? I got absolutely nothing to say that would do this film justice. It's a film that is not only a product of it's own time, but it's also one that looked forward as well. Silent cinema is obviously a defunct institution these days, but when you view films such as 'Nosferatu', films that aren't just visual-based, but also based upon story and atmosphere, they never fail to hold you within their grasp. To think, this film was almost lost, never to be seen again were it not for some quick artistic license on the part of the film makers. The way I figure it, 'Nosferatu' truly did pave the way for vampire cinema. Sure, Count Orlok isn't who we automatically think of when we hear the name 'Dracula' (Bela Lugosi had and always will have that honor), but Orlok is evidence that not all vampires have to be charming, well-suited lounge lizards who have a way with the ladies. In fact, he is a downright grotesque- shaven head, spindly fingers, bug-eyes and sharp, ratty teeth, Orlok is more of an abomination rather than a human being.

                                                Freaky shadows are also deal-breakers...

 When Werner Herzog, for all intents and purposes, remade the film in 1979, he too followed this agenda, by ensuring Klaus Kinski's vampire was a pathetic, miserable creature who brought disease and calamity everywhere he went. 'Nosferatu', is what you could consider a nightmarish tale of sickness, not only the physical kind, but also the mental and social. Although Murnau's film does not make this connection overt, it is still there and it's something every era can relate to. Orlok is a metaphor for the cruelty of suffering, illness and the indiscriminate nature of death. Orlok cares not about who he infects, he is aware of the turmoil he brings, but he cannot help it- it's in his nature.

                                                              So's waking up grouchy.

Although Orlok is by no means a romantic creature, he becomes eerily infatuated with Ellen/Mina Hutter/Harker, the wife of Thomas/Jonathan because of her purity (and quite possibly, her presumed virginity). To him, her blood is the song of life, a temporary solace from his suffering, and it is this single-minded obsession that eventually drives him to his doom. It's a story we have seen countless times, but in 'Nosferatu', the impact drives that point right into your mind so much that it becomes unforgettable. 

                                                              Sunlight... what a dick.

Beauty and ugliness is subjective, but I am in the camp that firmly believes that not only is 'Nosferatu' a relevant and inventive film, it really deserves every single bit of praise it receives. Think about it, all of those years ago, people weren't spoon-fed in movies the way we mostly are now. Audiences were required to use their minds in order to fill out the blanks that these films left, they had to make do with what they were given in terms of what they did see, but also, these films were magic tricks in their own right- they knew ultimately what they were watching wasn't real, but their presentation is what inspired audience's imaginations. Certainly not all silent films were as masterful as this, but it goes to show the ingenuity and creativity of film back before audiences were constantly bombarded with CGI, explosions and other flashy treats we take for granted these days. 'Nosferatu' is not just a film, it is also a legacy, and legacies live on even after their death, or in this case, UNdeath.