The Blair OHSHIT Project

'The Blair Witch Project' doesn't offer anything new that could be considered original, but it's a personal belief of mine it's not the idea that truly matters, it's how the idea is executed. Although this film has been subject to countless parodies by now, what a lot of people don't quite remember is how chilling the film itself actually is.


I believe what makes this movie truly pop is the fact it plays on one of the most basest of human fears- being lost and afraid. Sure, we as the audience would say "Oh, if I were in that situation, I would (insert whatever brain child strategy here)" but when left in such a desperate and frightening situation with Heather, Mike and Josh, emotions take the reigns and well-laid plans are laid waste pretty darn quickly. In their misguided youthful wisdom, and a massive dose of their own self-overestimation, the three college students assumed they were well-prepared for their little adventure in the woods, but their overconfidence soon gives way to a steady progression of a mental breakdown that is captured in full on camera. It goes without saying that all three actors ran with the vague outline they were given and went above and beyond the call of duty performance wise. An obvious example of this is Heather Donohue's 'confession' sequence, filming herself with the most unflattering angle for any actor and just going full-bore with the waterworks. It's parodied so much, but Donohue truly puts herself out there in that short yet memorable scene and I have nothing but admiration for her.

Joshua Leonard and Michael Williams aren't afraid to dive right into the maelstrom, they aren't token jocks/geeks/dicks or anything most horror films pass as male characters- these could be guys you know. One moment you love them, the next you think they are all total dickheads. When affairs take a turn for the worse, they are down right scared- no macho fronts, no heroic speeches or cheesey lines. These men are frightened, just like Heather. You don't see a lot of men being truly fearful for their lives in cinema and it's refreshing to see these two guys lay bare their emotional states in such a way you are right there with them.

                                               Mental breakdown in T-Minus 15 seconds...


Ahhh, but what of the frights? Well, there is plenty of freaky fare to go around. Obviously nothing about this movie is in your face scare-wise, but that is never to suggest it's not there, because oh, it is. If the initial premise of getting lost in the wilds of nature without a clue how to survive isn't enough, when the trio descend deeper into the woods, all manner of frightening things happen, things that can't be explained. At first it is distant noises outside their tent, then the noises come closer, they assume the form of the human voice and they start to find that their equipment has either gone missing or been strewn across their campsite. And that is just the beginning of it.- the further they flounder, the more disturbing things become. Whatever it is that is menacing these young people isn't playing around- it's hunting them down as if they were weakened gazelles. It means BUSINESS.

                                                                  
At first they dismiss all of this as a prank, some idiots who just want to scare them, but the days grow longer, food becomes sparse and time grows short and it becomes apparent that whatever is out there means them harm. They aren't just lost in the woods- they are lost in time. The most horrifying thing is, instead of banding together to combat whatever it is, the stress of the situation gradually begins to tear the already tenuous ties that bind apart.


It goes without saying the Burkittsville forest in itself is a character. When the three students first start their trek, it is green with lush shrubbery, full of life with birds singing, you can hear creeks bubbling nearby and it is as beautiful as you would expect nature at it's best to be. As things get worse though, you start to notice that the trees are bare of leaves, their branches not unlike cruel, sharp claws. You can't hear any water flowing and the song of birds is mysteriously absent. It must have been something for the three actors to experience these locations, especially because of how influential it was to their performances. Another creative move on the film makers part (the actual directors) was the clever move of using both professional actor plants and regular people in the town where Heather, Josh and Mike go to gain testimony regarding the Blair Witch legend because it adds a nifty little sense of authenticity. Unless you knew who the plants were, you'd think they were all regular folk humoring (and perhaps having a little fun with) these college students.

Ignoring the subsequent slew of imitators, 'The Blair Witch Project' really is a rare beast, dare I say, a contemporary classic of it's genre. Although not all reception has been positive and in it's favor, let's look at it from this perspective- if a movie spawns hundreds of like-minded offspring, it is because it has true credence and such a property is far too profitable to let be. Every single movie craze starts with one memorable cornerstone, and while 'The Blair Witch Project' was not the first of the found-footage genre, it was and always will be a stalwart of it's kind.


BTW: I actually didn't think it's comparatively Hollywood sequel 'Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows' was too bad either, but that's a story for another day.

Not anemic but not full-blooded either

Technically, Masterpiece Theatre's Dracula (made exclusively to television by BBC in 2006) would have been a miserable failure- it's too short, it glosses over several important factors and it's quite an unusual piece to be released by the normally prestigious production company. However, what ultimately saves it (and us) is that it takes a deliberate step to deviate from the tale with some compelling performances to back it up. In my personal opinion, this may have worked better if this production was a sequel rather than a proclaimed 'faithful' and truncated version of the tale.

Rather than focus on the supernatural elements of the story (which are still there), Dracula turns it into a drama that focuses on the Victorian anxieties of disease, sex, loss and personal shame, and all of these things are compounded by the arrival of Dracula himself. The handsome Arthur Holmwood is about to marry his beloved Lucy Westenra (Sophia Myles), but he is petrified to consumate their marriage due to the fact that he has syphilis. He is desperate to find a way to remedy this and resorts to extreme measures that even he cannot fully understand. Young Mina and newly-appointed solicitor Jonathan Harker have just been married but Jonathan must leave at once for Transylvania to close an important business deal with the elusive Count Dracula, leaving Mina alone and uncertain of what has become of her husband. Doctor John Seward, who has for a long time adored Lucy feels bitter that she chose Arthur to be her husband despite their long term friendship. All of these characters are in an unenviable state that only gets worse upon the arrival of Dracula.

When Bram Stoker wrote his magnum-opus, scandalous and provocative things were known but were never discussed freely. It is this element of fear being like a dark, unknown and forbidden abyss that is personified by Dracula- nobody knows what he is, or where he truly came from. There are theories, and only physical facts but no actual wisdom about him. I don't want to give away an important plot point in the case of this production, but let's just say Van Helsing is not so much an esteemed professor on the matter- he is as much a victim of Dracula as anybody else is. Stoker was very well aware of how his fellow humans felt at the time, and he addressed this by creating a fictional agent to reflect it. 2006 Dracula keenly addresses this, though it never shoves it in your face and rubs it in. The entire production plays out a little like a fever dream- you can certainly feel the sensation of something being wrong, but it is hidden behind a dreamy masque. It would almost be erudite were it not for the fact it never truly reaches the potential.

                                                   Plus the fanfiction kinda writes itself...

Make no mistake, the repressed sexual desire is there, as is an at times, dreamy atmosphere, but these elements don't combine the way they should have. As I said, what saves it from drifting into complete incomprehension are the actors and their approach to their roles.
The ever ravishing Sophia Myles, in my mind, makes for a perfect Lucy- charming and likeable but with a highly palpable sensuality that emanates from her even before she becomes fangy. Her chemistry with Stephanie Leonidas (Mina) is very sweet and convincing. You can see why all of the men adore her (which in turn will make you adore her also). By the way, her intimate scene with Dracula is HOT. Stephanie Leonidas keeps Mina real, but at times, she allows hysteria to become her leading emotion when it feels a little forced. But that's just me. Tom Burke is an interesting young actor with a fascinating face and he embodies Seward's personal bitterness as well as his desire to be the best man of medicine he can be. Dan Stevens is incredibly handsome and he makes for a good choice of this version of Arthur Holmwood. He may not be to everybody's tastes, but he takes on the material the best he can. David Suchet is quite a unique Van Helsing. I'll leave that up to you to see for yourself.

                                                     Sophia Myles: Happy now?

So where does this leave Marc Warren? The guy isn't the embodiment of Dracula as we know him, but this version of the Count has been written to be more of an insinuating menace than an overt one. He is also quietly predacious. Warren's stature is not upfront intimidating, but he doesn't try to be, instead, he uses it to his advantage, especially when it comes to his more intense scenes. The man can just stand there and stare at you with his piercing ice blue eyes and you know a world of hurt and Hell will come upon you. He isn't what you'd call traditionally handsome (thank God for that), but like BBC's other Dracula, Louis Jourdan, he is still very sexy in how he carries himself. His forthright nature, his animalistic attributes, his growly, intimate tone, it works beautifully for him because those are his strengths and he plays to them like a champion. He reminds me of a younger and leaner Malcolm McDowall- that's a compliment. The only thing that worked against him was his 'Old Dracula' make up- Warren, despite his angular features still has a youthful look and you can still see that through all the prosthetics and aged make up he wears when we first see him, and the wig, heh, well.

                                                 
All in all, 2006's Dracula still would have worked as a sequel rather than another re-telling- it has a solid bunch of ideas and an awareness of the time period, a competent cast and a dangerous sexuality lurking beneath it, but it never quite delivers because it never knows quite what it can be. I wanted very much to love this version, but all I could do was like it. I'm not saying that is a bad thing in itself, but when you have all of that great material and you don't use it to maximum effect, why bother showing it at all?

                                       Marc Warren- BECAUSE IT'S MY BLOG, DAMN IT.

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.

Divorce Was Never This Messy

 When it comes to remakes of classics of old, it is a touchy affair, one could say, to see the remake and consider it better than the original would be considered infidelity.

*See what I totally did there? :D*

Andrew Davis's re-imagining of Hitchcock's 'Dial 'M' For Murder' (which was loosely based on a play) doesn't spit upon The Master's work, nor does it try to ape it and that's why I personally feel it is the better of the two. This is perhaps one of the better contemporary suspense thrillers of last century that never fails to keep the audience pinned to the chair with anticipation and excitement.

                                                                            Orly?

Steven Taylor (a snide and quietly maliciously Machivellian Michael Douglas) lives a pretty cushy life as a business-savvy Wall Street bull who is married to the lovely (and much younger) trophy wife, Emily, a worker for the UN. This changes when Taylor's investments begin to unravel and, being the ruthless bastard he is, decides that killing Emily for her rather sizeable fortune is the best way keep his financial head above water, as ya do.
Adding fuel to this dastardly plan is the fact that Steven knows that Emily is involved in a passionate affair with David Shaw, a painter of limited means who just happens to live in a rather large loft. Rather than do the decent thing and talk to Shaw about how he's wreaking his (admittedly one-sided marriage) with Emily, Steven offers Shaw the opportunity to get a massive share in his murder plot by being the one to take Emily's life.

 

                                            "Here's to you and your trust fund, sweetie."

How's your head? It gets better, and by that, I mean more complicated. :-D


The reason why 'A Perfect Murder' works much better than it's predecessor is it's characters and their psychology. You have Steven, constantly scheming, always making plans and formulating exquisite lies, you have Emily, an unknowing victim of these plans who is trying to stay alive and get to the bottom of this shit, and then you have Shaw, who may, or may not be who he says he is, and may or may not, want to kill Emily. As convoluted as this story seems, it is something you can go with because it is masterfully done.

 

                                                                 Plus, it's pretty sexy.

While the characters and their motives are the primary focus, the rest of the movie isn't sacrificed. We have a marvelously subtle score by James Newton Howard, some terrific camera craft (a strong example being the initial attempt on Emily's life- very suspenseful) and the excellent use of the unimitable scenery of New York, as well as it's locations (I SO want Steve and Emily's townhouse! I SO want Shaw's strangely affordable studio loft!).

Sure, Hitchcock's 'Dial M' is a classic, but in no way does this update try to intrude on the ground recently tread by The Master. Technically speaking, 'Perfect' is bound more to the theatrical play that was the source of 'Dial M' and that is what gives it a separate life of it's own. Another reason why I feel 'Perfect' surpasses the 'Dial M' is because it is more culturally relevant to audiences now, even though this movie was made way back in '98. Sure it has dated a little, but it boasts a far more relatable assortment of talent as well as social relevance. For example, when it comes to pro-active female roles in cinema today, Paltrow's character, while blonde and vulnerable on the surface, is a lot tougher than Grace Kelly was. Yes, her character was a cheater, and yes, her morals are flawed, and no, she isn't exactly a role model, Paltrow ensures that Emily's strength shines through as Steven continues to secretly make her life a living nightmare.

On the whole, 'Perfect' may not be perfection, but it's quite an impressive adaptation of a remake of an original. If you are looking for a vastly entertaining suspense thriller, this one should be on the list because there is heaps to love in ample time to kill.

Perfection Comes With A Price

What can I say about 'Black Swan' that for the most part has not already been said by people who have enjoyed Darren Aranofsky's (quite frankly more compelling) rendition of popular ballet 'Swan Lake'? Nothing. Seriously, I got nothing to add. Now, while I didn't think this was a brilliant film across the board, that it not to say that it hasn't earned the positive praise it has garnered, especially the tour-de-performance of Natalie Portman as troubled ballerina Nina Sayers who just wants to be the best she can be. This is one of those movies that you have seen time and again, but as I always say, it's all in the execution and this one takes off splendidly. Now what has THIS got to do with possession? Read on.

This movie has all the right ingredients to be an effective psychosexual thriller that deals with the losing and finding of identity, repression, fighting personal inhabitions and giving it to the great void. If we look at this movie from the angle of demonic possession, it may make you scratch your head, but look at it from this perspective- you have a fragile human soul in the form of Nina being victimized by her own insecurity, an insecurity that takes many forms, one of them being free-spirit Lily (Mila Kunis). Lily isn't the BEST ballet dancer like Nina, but she does her dancing with more emotion than Nina ever has, and this affects Nina profoundly. On top of that, Nina is haunted by her demanding stage mother who wants to live vicariously through her daughter, to feel the glory she misses now that she is 'old hat'. Nina is babied, coddled and shaped by her mum, even her room looks like that of a girl child's. Then there is the matter of her ballet instructor, Tomas (Vincent Cassell), a man who uses some pretty unorthodox methods to coax the best out of his dancers, one of them being sexuality, something Nina finds almost foreign.

                                                  I will keep my own thoughts here quiet :D

All of these things comes to a head when Tomas surprisingly gives her the role of the White and Black Swan in his upcoming re-imagining of 'Swan Lake'. Nina is brillaint as the White Swan, but she lacks the passion and lust for life the Black Swan possesses, a fact that frustrates her when she sees Lily who is the very embodiment of that. So encompassing is this desire of Nina's that she subjects herself to various methods of becoming like Lily, one of them being striking up an actual friendship with her (and you know where THAT leads.). In another case, after a... shall we say, STIMULATING rehearsal with Nina, Tomas encourages Nina to pleasure herself so she is not so frigid in her performance. She does this, but then is inhibited by an outside presence which only inflames her frustrations. All of these things are demons that are possessing Nina, following her, getting into her mindset, influencing her actions, pushing her towards the very edge with devastating results.

                                                  Creatively smashed mirrors being a bonus

Forgive me for giving in to the elephant in the room, but seriously, Natalie Portman for the most part IS the movie. Certainly not to take anything away from Kunis and Cassell, both of whom are in fine form, but this movie is all about Nina and her affliction, and Portman commits herself to her character. You have to remember that not only is Portman dancing, she is also acting through her dancing, and trying to emote what Nina is feeling must have been no small feat for Portman when she was preparing for this role. I'd say that the awards she has been given were DAMN well earned.

                                                     Well done. Now eat this burger, woman!

Hopefully now somehow I have convinced you that this is more than just what it has been sold to be, and more than just an excuse to show (admittedly steamy) sapphic sex. This film is for all intents a movie about possession, but this time, it's not Satan, Legion or Glenn Beck. It is about the demons of the mind and how they are perhaps the most potent demons of them all. In the case of 'Black Swan' while succumbing to your demons may lead you to glory, there is still a price to pay- would you be prepared to pay it?

The Last? Pffft.

I believe there is some sort of unspoken convention when it comes to making contemporary horror films that I'm sure a lot of you have seen as well- the revered or reviled 'shaky cam'. Relied on to offer up a more 'realistic' atmosphere, it can go either way from the effective ('Blair Witch Project', [REC], 'Paranormal Activity') to the not so effective and quite frankly, annoying (any of the later Romero 'Dead' entries... sorry George). Another device that is commonly used to promote a film is the association it has with a prominent figure in genre film making, in this case, unknown director Daniel Stamm's 'The Last Exorcism' has Eli Roth to thank for the fact it had been released on the big screen rather than simply being dashed straight to DVD. Usually when you hear about something like this, you may assume that the film really ain't all that and it was used as a simple ploy to make a little more money on the side. While 'The Last Exorcism' won't cater to every genre fiend's taste, I must give kudos to Roth for making sure this film got a good look.

                                        Okay, who is it this time? Pazuzu? Beezelbub? Ann Coulter?

Believe you me, this is a film you have seen many times, just with different actors and directors, and perhaps different demons. Hell, many of the possession/exorcism sequences will harken to other films, some superior, others... well... let's not go there. Given the mockumentary approach, there is a sense of realism that must be given credit, as well as the reletively unknown cast, the possessed lead actress who plays Nell being one of them (we are treated to some outstanding physical acting on her part. If there was any CGI enhancement, none of it really stood out, at least to me). By the way, I know I'm not the only one who has noticed this, but have you ever noticed that demons almost always seem to be after women? Almost all of the stories and films I have encountered usually involve the demonic possession of a female character rather than a male. Why is this? Let me be an intellectual for a moment, I promise to be brief.

I think the reasoning behind females being more suseptible to demonic menace reflects how the patriarchial society sees women- oh don't say I'm being too paranoid, look around you. Despite the fantastic advances women have made in today's society, there are still club-weidling bigwigs disguised as modern men who believe that women are not human, but things, UNKNOWN things. What happens when we encounter something we do not fully understand- we fear it and we react to this fear by spreading rumours, nurturing hatred and ignorance. Additionally, when it comes to works of fiction like the Bible (oh yeah, I'm going there, baby), when we look at the chapter of Genesis, it is Eve who is supposedly responsible for the suffering that humanity endures after she and Adam are cast out of Eden, a place of unimaginable paradise, never mind the fact that it was the Devil, whose power is far beyond human comprehension, much less the comprehension of the first human female who, like Adam, doesn't know what is right and wrong and was only given a crytpic warning about the apple tree. Why couldn't God say "Look, honey, don't take anything from that tree because you will be tempted by my greatest enemy  because if you do, you and your boyfriend will be removed from this lovely place and be forced to endure pain after pain after pain." Another example- the story of Pandora. She was warned not to open the box containing wonders beyond comprehension, without being told that if she did it, she would unleash unending calamity on humanity. Another? Cassandra- she had the gift of foresight, but society (led by men, surprise surprise) didn't believe her warnings until it was too late, THEN, she was deemed to be evil. Going back to my point, women seem to be the blame for everything, and one of the ways of disguising this sadly inbuilt uncertainty is to tell tales of which the female is the cause of calamity. 

Sorry, I really didn't mean to get on a high horse there, but honestly, think about all of those things, heck, conduct some of your own research then think about how demonic hauntings seem to center around females rather than males.

BACK TO THE MOVIE!!!!!

For the better part of the movie, Nell's possession is an object of doubt- she is afflicted with a dysfuntional family situation plus mental illness- when you think about that, all of her contortions, speaking in tongues and profane behaviour could very well be the trait of a mentally unstable person... but then there are other things that psychology and physiology cannot explain. Is she or isn't she? This is for the audience and the characters to speculate throughout the film, but let me assure you, there is a lot of freaky goings on to keep you entertained and to keep the characters uncertain.

                                                       Demonic possession or back pain?


Another notch on this one's belt is that even though there is bloodshed and general nastiness, this film is more about questioning what you didn't see rather than examining what you did (given Eli Roth, who had thus far made a career out of bathing us in gore and blood has had a hand in making this see the light of day still surprises me :D) all of which makes up for the fact this film is for the most part predictable and nothing new. Rather than focusing on what we do know, let us look at what we don't- the best advise I can give is to just watch it and enjoy it, but I certainly wouldn't hold it against you if you read between the lines.

Possession Week Now Showing!

Who doesn't enjoy a tale of demonic possession? This week I will be reviewing films that entail the unwilling (or sometimes willing) hosting to an entity that is not of this world. Some of these films may be comedies, others will be straight up horrors, while some will leave you shaking your head and wondering "What the *BEEP* was THAT?". This won't be a religious debate (I don't have the time or the intellectual fortitude to meditate on such deep matters), this week was made purely out of fun and out of boredom and love for such a genre. If you are a person of faith and you cannot abide stuff of this nature, I urge you to skip this week. For those of you who can't stand my writing in general, I understand. Have a nice day.

But for those of you still here, sit back, relax and and have a cold one with Legion, Belial and Pazuzu- this week is all about you... AND YOUR SOUL! :D

Ice Cold

'Basic Instinct' really is one of those movies you will either appreciate or say is utter trash, and it just so happens, if done cleverly, I love utter trash which has an entertaining face. While this film really makes no bones (he he, I said 'bones') about what it is on the surface (a lurid, early 90's erotic thriller), deep down, there are so many issues that can be discussed on an intellectual basis.We all know that this movie did not and never will win any awards for being a sterling look into the human spirit, but it is almost always overlooked as an important piece of cinema just because the audience saw va-jay-jay. To me, this is a very stylized look of the ever-going battle of the sexes on celluoid. While this battle has seen many arenas through drama, comedy and even action, 'Basic Instinct' takes this to the battlefied of sex, violence and mindgames, a clever option because those three sensationalist elements really do put bums in the seats. Paul Verhoven, you really are a sly bastard. 

Happy ending! Stabbity stabbity!

Upon viewing this movie recently, what surprised me is that despite the movie opening with a bang (literally), there really isn't a lot of the torrid sex this film is lauded to have. Yes, it is there and yes, it's explicit, but a distinct aura of sex is what truly permeates through this movie more than the sex itself. When we first see Catherine Trammell (Sharon Stone, in a performance which truly has defined her career for better or worse) she was the Hitchcockian icy blonde for the '90's- she doesn't give anybody the time of day unless it's for her own amusement. Despite her gorgeous looks, she is anything but vulnerable. She is feminine yet masculine in how she conducts herself around other men. She is for all intents a purposes a predator rather than prey in the male gaze. Although she isn't afraid to show off her body, she doesn't allow anybody to touch it without her permission- in short, she is a sex bomb, NOT a sex object, something which no doubt makes her a threat to the male characters in this film.

When vice-ridden Detective Nick Curan (Michael Douglas) decides he is the best man to bring Trammell to justice and in the process becomes involved in a dangerous affair with her, he knows she could very well be the death of him, but does that stop him? 

                                                                  Of course not, silly!

I am of several minds when it comes to this movie. I do not believe this is a terribly intelligent film, nor do I believe it is strictly an excuse to show flesh. Countless musings have been made about 'Basic Instinct' and how it symbolizes the on-going 'battle of the sexes', transgression, sexual preferances and a whole plethora of matters that concern society even today. Back in 1992, although bisexuality and homosexuality was indeed common, it held an enormous amount of shock value when it came to displaying its extremities on the big screen. One of the major selling points of this movie that has provoked so much discussion is the portrayal of these sexual culture- it is seen as highly sexual, but to the hetrosexual outsider Nick, it is an alien world filled with temptation and danger. 

                                               Well aren't you boys just the CUTEST?

On the flip side, others have said it is a film about female empowerment, with Catherine Trammell as the figurehead of this. Sure, it's not a wholly positive portrayal of pro-feminism, but it is a sensationalized example of it. Whatever was Verhoven's actual intent may always remain an mystery, but you can't blame people for analysing this movie and the two central characters. 

Personally, how I feel about this movie changes every time I view it. One day I may see it as this 'battle of the sexes' masked as an erotic thriller, others I may see it as a cheap yet entertaining tramp who only looks pretty but is otherwise a boring ride... so to speak. In saying that, I really have nothing new to add to this movie that hasn't already been said someplace else, but Paul Verhoven is a director who is (in my opinion only) dismissed unfairly just because he tends to exploit the more graphic elements of humans and their world. Okay, his films aren't ashamed of wallowing in exploitation (hola, 'Showgirls'), but at the same time, they never feel as if they are done PURELY for sensationalism for they actually have something to say (take a look at 'Starship Troopers' and 'Robocop'- both of them focus on the absurd lengths the propaganda machine goes, the excessiveness of violence in Western culture performed for our entertainment). Verhoven isn't saying EVERYBODY does it, his films come across as a general statement. In the case of 'Basic Instinct', Verhoven is possibly saying that people are too eager to be titilated about the unknown elements of sexuality and turning it into some whacked out adventure rather than focusing on what it really is. Dare I say, 'Basic Instinct' is masquerading as a form of arousal in order to make fun of how humans think and act.

Verhoven... you slick Dutch bastard.

Hoo, hoo, hoo, hah, hah, hah!

Note: The title was actually meant to be my rendition of a monkey call, my apologies to those who thought I was off my rocker.

What has happened has happened and cannot be reversed... right?

I am possibly gonna cop some flack for this, but in my eyes, '12 Monkeys' really is one of the best time travel movies made. I really haven't seen any other films that can compare to Terry Gilliam's take on such a novel concept. While this movie isn't an original idea (it is actually a full-length, moving remake of  'La Jette') Gilliam and co offer up something truly unique when it comes to making a psychologically dark science fiction that could, the more fantastical elements aside, actually happen. Humans are wonderful creatures, but at the same time, they can be the absolute worst. We are a diverse species with diverse beliefs, though there are some out there who are unwilling to accept this and resort to extreme actions to enfroce their own. In the case of  '12 Monkeys', some yahoos released a deadly virus in the world resulting in mass human extinction, with survivors being forced to live underground as animals and vegetation (immune to the virus) reclaim the world again. Humanity has been attempting to find out about the virus by sending so-called 'volunteers' (also known as convicts) up to the surface to collect samples day by day. However, this changes when time travel is made possible, thus, 'volunteers' are sent back through time in hopes of preventing the apocalypse. The proces isn't easy and most of the time, quite fatal, as Cole (Bruce Willis) finds. He is catapulted back and forth through time, his mind barely able to sustain it's sanity, and that is where one of the crucial elements of the movie comes into play- sanity and insanity is relative and when human beings are exposed to extraordinary circumstances, all bets truly are off.

                                                                  The hapless traveller

I think one of the main reasons why I love '12 Monkeys' is because it is a very human-driven story as opposed to simply relying on visual effects and fastastical situations to tell a science fiction tale. What would you or I do in such a situation that poor Cole is exposed to? How would we cope? What would happen if we could not? '12 Monkeys' poses these questions throughout the twisting narrative all the while remaining enthralling as what could be considered as a 'genre film'. Another reason why it's stuck with me is that it showed me how skilled an actor such as Bruce Willis can be when he is saddled with such material. Gilliam made a 'Bruce Willis Movie Cliche' list  to ensure he got a down-to-earth performance out of Willis and it shows- no 'hero' poses, no mordant one-liners and no 'steely blue eyes' look and wonders of wonders, Willis was completely willing to follow these paramters and the movie benefits.
Other than Willis's wonderful performance, this must be said...

This guy ROCKED.

I want to make this clear- I never have been of those women who ever thought Brad Pitt was gorgeous, I don't know why- I can see why women would consider him attractive, but not me. But it was also his manic performance as Geoff Goines, leader of a terrorism cell known as The 12 Monkeys who may or may not be responsible for the end of the world, that convinced me the man can be a phenomenal actor. Pitt really lets go in this role, but despite all of his bombasticisms, he stays true to the type of personality his character has- he doesn't just think outside the box, he rips the box apart and turns it into insane origami. His performance is such a stark contrast from Willis's, but he still plays it for real. Pitt actually booked into a psych ward in preparation for this role and he drew upon everything he saw there and translated it on screen for us to see. That's committment, people.

Nuts and loving it

While this could very well be bias toward this movie, I never found anything particularly wrong with it. It was paced well, there really was never a dull moment and all of the actors were competant with the material. Madeline Stowe in particular, while her performance may not be as talked about as Willis's and Pitt's, acts as a balance. Her character counsels Cole, even when she is in doubt of his sanity, which makes it a small reprieve from seeing Cole suffer. I wouldn't call this relationship love, but it could have been if matters  and mind sets were different. One of my favourite sequences between Stowe and Willis was when their characters were driving down a street at night, and a song Cole remembers comes on the radio. He wants nothing more than to lean out of the window and feel the night air as he listens to this song, as he knows this will be his only opportunity to experience this sensation.

I feel this is a tremendously important film for not just science fiction, but as a social statement. We must remember that we live in a temporary world with temporary lives, and there is only so much our human minds can comprehend. If we are struck by a devastating event, it changes us all profoundly. In the end, we must pay attention to not just the world but each other because what happens to one happens to all, it's just a matter of time, something we do not always have.

Do You Read Sutter Cain?

'In The Mouth of Madness' is a film by John Carpenter that has a special place in my heart, not because it was panned badly upon it's release (WHY?!) but because it shows Carpenter at his best when he has control of his project with minimal interference by high-faloutin' studios. It is not necessarily a scary movie (at least not to me), but it has a brilliant unsettling atmosphere to it, why, one could almost say this movie is what would have happened if Carpenter and H.P Lovecraft met...

Because it IS! :-D

In 2003, John Carpenter wrote a introduction to a comic book that told a fictional account of Lovecraft's life, saying- "Most people who have watched my movies will notice my recognition of [those footprints of Howard Phillips Lovecraft]. From Innsmouth references in 'The Fog', to the general premise of 'In The Mouth of Madness', I have used the tools of cinema to put my own spin on the Lovecraftian mythos." This being such an obvious statement aside, his sonnet to Lovecraft in this movie is certainly fit to be considered Lovecraftian because it does stay true to Lovecraft's unique brand of terror all the while keeping Carpenter in his horror element.

John Trent (Sam Neill) works for a book publishing firm (with none other than Charleton Heston as his manager in an inspired cameo), and when one of their most distinguished and popular clients, Sutter Cain, goes missing, complete with his manuscripts, Trent and a fellow collegue Styles, (Julie Carmen) track Cain's last known whereabouts to Hobb's End, a sleepy little town that does not show up on any map. Once there, they look for the elusive Cain, but find many other things in his stead, strange things... frightening things.

 Item A

Item B

I'm not going to say any more than that plot-wise, but trust me, this movie deserves a better reputation than what it already has. While fellow director Stuart Gordon is the go-to guy when it comes to modernizing Lovecraft for today's audiences, Carpenter's passion for the writer's work is evident. Some of you may be familiar with Carpenter's Apocalpyse Trilogy which involves 'The Thing', 'Prince of Darkness' and this film, all of which deal with the end of the human race due to means we cannot and perhaps wouldn't want to understand. In this case, the apocalypse is brought around by a work of fiction that is so powerful that it ends up turning the world and the people who live in it upside down. In this case, it is Cain's wild tales of monsters, dimensional travel and age-old cosmic beings that bring forth the twilight of humanity. A belief that I have is that all of Carpenter's films have some sly satirical edge (excluding the obvious context of 'They Live!'), in 'Madness's case, it is a commentary on religion and how fundamentalist mass belief can bring about destruction. When you consider a religious work such as The Bible, what is, at least from an academic point of view, a fairy tale book, despite it's fantastical tales, people out there believe this book to be the truth, or at least parts of it. The result of such a blind belief has been countless wars, unresolved disputes, double standards on top of countless other atrocities, all because of folks who take an idea and twist it to suit their means, never taking into consideration the needs of others. On a lesser (but still, in my opinion, destructive :P) scale, the 'Twilight' phenomenon has taken the world by storm, and there are girls (and older women) out there who want their very own Edward Cullen, on the real. How scary is that?!

Terrifying...

Waxing philosophical aside (and really, I could go on and on about the discrepencies about the interpretation of religion and faith), this is a fine horror film with likeable performances, trippy visual effects and a compelling narrative. You may not piss your pants and you may sleep just fine after you see it, but this is one of Carpenter's best films of the 90's that still rings loud and clear today. If you are a horror fan, do yourself a favour and see it. You will be rewarded. To those critics who panned this movie due to your narrow-mindedness and likewise sense of perspective, I ask you...

Do you read Sutter Cain? >:-D

When Argento Met Stendhal...

ATTENTION: THE COVER ABOVE IS PERHAPS THE MOST ONLY PLEASANT THING TO DO WITH THIS MOVIE!

Although Dario Argento's recent work has not been up to scratch, however offensively entertaining 'Mother of Tears' was, the man was in his absolute prime during the 70's and 80's with films such as 'Opera', 'Suspiria', 'Tenebre'  and 'Profondo Rosso' but to name a few. As time went on, his style has become fraught with commercialism and relies primarily on shock value to grab an audience's attention. However, as with every other novelty, once the effect has worn off, we shake our heads and go on our merry way. However, during the 90's, amongst this steady decline, Argento managed to make a little-seen gem of a film that could have almost been his comeback- 'The Stendhal Syndrome'.

Detective Anna Manni (Asia Argento) works for the anti-rape squad of the Roman police. She is one of their best officers and she has been tracking down a serial killer/rapist, a search which has led her to Florence. While checking out the Uffizi Gallery, Anna is overwhelmed by the numerous works of art and she passes out. Turns out Detective Manni is afflicted with a case of the obscure Stendhal Syndrome- a strange affliction that makes the victim suffer a seizure by absorbing artwork, in Anna's case, she enters a painting and experiences the sensations the picture gives. Unfortunately, when she suffers one of these fits while in the gallery, the rapist himself, Alfredo Grossi (Thomas Kretschmann) is watching and he falls in love... you know what that means.

                                  

                                                                   It only gets worse...

Off the bat, this movie is SICK, and I mean that with nothing but love. For the first hour of the movie, Argento puts all of his talent to the fore- a compelling story, demented killers, determined victims of circumstance, gorgeous imagery and gore, marvellous, guilt-free glorious gore. Although she would later do the torrid 'The Phantom of the Opera' and the fun but ultimately stupid 'XxX' Asia Argento's work in this movie is solid and true. You are there with her every step of the way from beginning to end- you care for her and it hurts when she is subjected to Grossi's treatment. She reminds one of a stronger Hitchcockian female- vulnerable but at the same time exuding a strength that when tested can be formidable. Simultaneously, this film introduced me to German actor Thomas Kretschmann who plays Anna's foil to a T. The way he starts to gets Anna's skin even when he isn't there, how wretched he is when he plays his games with her. Kretschmann isn't a prominent actor by any means, but when he shows up in films, it's always a pleasure, even when he's playing a revolting fucker such as Alfredo. Dare I say it, Alfredo Grossi is one of my favourite villains in cinema ever, not only is he reprehensible in his actions, he's also clever, charming and attractive. Grossi is not some run off the mill killer- he is a career family man to boot. Who would believe a fine, upstanding member of society could possibly be a derranged serial killer? Another unique element that adds to the impact of the film is that, like 'Opera' it takes something distinctly highbrow (in this case, fine art) and makes it the catalyst for something quite sinister. Another matter this film deals with is sexual identity- despite Anna being a rational policewoman, she succumbs to a deeper level of psycholgical torment that makes her change not just physically, but mentally as well. She becomes as obsessed with Alfredo that he is with her, at times, it's as if he is by her side even when he is not and her attitiude begins to manifest into a different beast completely which eerily mirrors Alfredo's own. One of the many physical manifestations she takes is cutting her hair short, bulking up at the boxing ring and wearing decidedly masculine clothing.

                                         

                                                         What has happened cannot be undone

 So, that being said, remember when I said this movie was brilliant for the first hour? Well, the second hour is not so much. You see, despite his attempts at being daring and original by introducing a new major development, he simultaneously dropped his load way too soon. To be vague, Alfredo becomes more of a secondary character whilst Anna fully takes the regins, I feel this is where the film fell on it's face. If the second half had been a seperate film, it perhaps would have felt more natural, but the way Argento does it, it's as if he realized that he has let go one of the most precious commodities in his movie and has to spend the remaining 60 minutes filling it up with line after line of intrigue. It's not until the end that the movie finally re-establishes itself, but even the most attentive audience members would struggle to maintain the amount of interest required. I really wish Argento had either re-considered the new direction the movie would take, or had focused the same amount of energy he had in the first half of the movie.

To a lesser note, that I feel still needs to be said, that outside of Argento and Kretschmann's characters, all of the supporting players were quite expendable. The only other character I had vested interest in was Manni's psychologist- he managed to take a third fiddle character and made him an enigmatic yet fascinating figure in Anna's life that she turned to when she needed guidance. One character I absolutely couldn't FUCKING STAND was Anna's douchebag boyfriend. The first thing he does to Anna when she gets off the train after her doomed trip to Florence is fucking proposition her- FUCKNUT- YOUR GIRLFRIEND WAS ASSAULTED BY A RAPIST, DO YOU THINK SHE WILL BE IN THE MOOD FOR ANY INTIMATE CONTACT OF THAT NATURE?! THINK, SHITHEAD, THINK! I know I am not alone in thinking this, and finally, when Anna has enough of his selfish ways, she make him pay for it most satisfyingly that it will no doubt make you laugh if not shock you first. Can you say "PWNED"?. >:-D

I would also like to bring up the violence in this movie- despite some pretty out there moments, this movie doesn't use bloodshed as liberally as Argento's other films and despite it being a film about rape, there is no nudity (that I saw...) and thank Mephisto for that. Argento knows he is dealing with something quite heavy, and although it may seem very odd that he is showing his own daughter being subjected to such humiliation, he still treats the issue with sensitivity and he does not glamourize it. In an essense, this is perhaps Argento's most realistic film, and despite the dated visual effects (such as pills going down an oesophagus), the story is backed by many stunning moments, such as below...

                               

                                                            Merry Christmas! :-D

Overall, this movie was as solid as they come, despite it's serious misstep, and it showcases what Argento could be if he stopped making films laden with gore and little else. If he could some day make another film with a heady mix of thrills and story credibility, he could reclaim the ground his has lost in recent years and thus reclaim his old audience and claim a new one.

Psychosexuality Ahoy!

While this film is not prominent with serial killers, mistaken identities and elaborate murder plots, it feels almost like a soul sister to Hitch's psychological ripper Vertigo. The usually radiant Tippi Hedren takes a very prim and proper turn as Marnie, a frigid wallflower of a woman who aspires to achieve higher things, but something within her mind is keeping her back. Many obstacles block her way, one of them being wealthy widower Mark Rutland, (a smoldering Sean Connery, two years after making heads turn and womens' jaws drop as James Bond). While it would be a crime on my behalf to give the particulars away, what results is a study of repressed sexuality, paranoia and confusion, Hedren's character being the catalyst and the central victim of all.


What is the truth and what is the lie?

While this film possesses its own self-imposed flaws, due to budget, time and film constraints for the era, this offering by Hitch is respectable, primarily due to Hedren's performance as Marnie. Here the usually glamourous actress was given the perfect opportunity to dive deep into a complicated role and she came out a champion. If anybody who remembers her admittedly awkward performance in The Birds, they need not be wary here. Save for one somewhat ungainly moment, Hedren nails the role to the wall. Sean Connery meanwhile further cemented his reputation as a compelling actor as well as resident sex bomb, whose character makes it his mission to protect, analyze and even dominate the mystery that is Marnie. Given the Hayes Code that applied to cinema back in the day, much is implied rather than shown, but I feel it works in the favour of the tale. As expected, Hitchcock makes ample use angles, colours, a fitting score by the maestro Bernard Herrmann, and well-adapted screenplay based off the story by Winston Graham.


Can she be saved from herself... and him?

One of the things that struck me most was how sexual this film was. Granted, innuendo is no stranger to Hitchcocks' works, but this one managed to be a little more overt, and the sexual tension between Hedren and Connery's characters is so thick you could cut through it with a hot butter knife and still not reach the bottom of the cake. One particular sequence was rather racy for the time, involves one apex of the relationship between Marnie and Mark that takes place on a luxury liner that toes the line between passion and an act of imposed power. It all makes for a highly fascinating, though questionable relationship between the pair and it will no doubt leave the viewer questioning the integrity of Marnie and Mark's feelings.

While it is not as famed or impersonated as Psycho, or as talked about as Hitchcock's other blockbusters, Marnie rightly belongs in the pantheon of intelligent psychosexual drama/thrillers that have become increasingly rare in this uncompromising era of over-exposure and absurd censorship, mainly due to Hedren and Connery's performances and a stimulating plot that manages to keep you interested, if not wholly invested in the proceedings. While the morals of Mark of may leave some audience members, females in particular, a little sour, what cannot be denied is how deep Hitchcock went with this one. While it may not push the boundary of psychological intensity like Vertigo, this one isn't afraid of prodding curiously at the idea either.