Here's where we can review books, movies, articles, theater, art, you-name-it.
I've been on a Tony Hillerman kick lately. He has several mystery novels that are placed on the Navajo resevation. Lots about Navajo, Hopi and other Indian cultures, and their interaction with white culture. Interesting stories.
I've been reading "The Great Transformation" by Karen Armstrong. It's quite interesting - she explores the shared traditions that led to everything from Hinduism to Christianity, and looks at the origins of eastern Asian religions as well.
Also, I recently had a chance to re-watch the original version of "Flight of the Phoenix" (with Jimmy Stewart, Sir Richard Attenborough, and Ernest Borgnine). I had forgotten how good the movie is. It's a pretty close race between it and Apollo 13 for the title of "best movie where engineers save the day".
Ah, the chance to post reviews of obscure movies again. Must go to work on "The Call of Cthulhu" (2005) immediately! ;D
Hmmm Movies I've seen as of late:
-The Omen (remake) - Meh.
-The Grudge2 - Good until the last 3rd of it. Fascinating story line that all falls apart at the end. It's like they ran out of money/ideas and decided to go with 'fukkit'. (Pardon my french)
-Hunting Season - Omg! Kronos and I laughed so hard at the deer's version of the Teddybear's picnic song that people thought we were insane. No joke.
Books:
- The Witch's Dream by Florinda Donner-Grau:
Sort of a 'Carlos Castenada' feel to it (He did the Intro for it actually), but with a female slant. Good read. Good 'thinker'.
- The Anansi Boys by Neil Gaiman:
Man's father dies. Man discovers his father was a God. And he has a twin who has Godlike powers of his own. Of the trickster kind. Let the hilarity/thought provoking moments ensue...
Loved it. It's Neil Gaiman... duh.
I saw The Bridge (http://www.thebridge-themovie.com/new/index.html) last night as part of a documentary series at a theatre in Toronto. They had a Q & A session with the filmmaker afterward.
The movie's about the people who commit suicide at the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. He set up a camera near the bridge every day for a year, and apparently got 23 suicides on film.*
The movie is mainly a series of interviews with the friends and family of people who committed suicide there (and one of the very few people who jumped off and survived), interspersed with shots of the bridge and, sometimes, people jumping to their death; the shots of the bridge (and the jumpers) are from half a mile away, so nothing overly graphic or gruesome is seen, though it is disturbing to watch the people falling.
I wouldn't say it's a happy movie, but it was definitely not done in a gratuitous way... the storyline is fairly organic, but it explores a lot of the issues around suicide: what drives people to it? How can people be guided away from it? How does it affect others?
Actually, there was one thing that the filmmaker discussed afterward, but didn't touch on much in the film: several times, you see someone standing on the ledge in full view of anyone who cares to look, yet people walk right by without saying a word. Personally, I think I found that more disturbing than watching people fall.
An unpleasant topic, but fairly and respectfully done, IMO. I definitely got something out of it.
Anyhow, it's playing in limited circulation right now, so if you're interested, have a look for it in a major city near you.
* The filmmaker told us their policy during filming: when they saw someone they thought would jump, they would phone the police. Sometimes, the cops would get there in time, but many times they wouldn't. Also, they deliberately hid the reason for their filming, for fear that if word got out in the community about why they were there, they'd attract people who wanted their suicide immortalized on film.
Edit:
The next movie in the series is Jesus Camp, a film that was discussed in depth at TOP. If you're interested in seeing it and don't mind a road trip to Toronto (http://www.bloorcinema.com/), mark January 10th in your calendar. :)
Even more disturbing are gathering crowds that shout "Jump!Jump!Jump!".
That's not just in movies but happened for real over here recently.
Quote from: Swatopluk on December 08, 2006, 09:33:59 AM
Even more disturbing are gathering crowds that shout "Jump!Jump!Jump!".
That's not just in movies but happened for real over here recently.
Crowds: a large gathering of humans, who temporarily have had their brains suppressed and all their empathy removed.
Your "Jump!Jump!" brought to me an image of a crowd at a public hanging, with the many 'greedy eyes' awaiting the spectacle of suffering of which was to come.
Writing this has dredged up another image, from a very old B&W movie
A Tale of Two Cities, and the mass-insanity of the French Revolution.
It seems the very thin veneer of humanity is easily stripped away by the simple act of being in an "anonymous" group. :P :P :P :P :P
The typical crowd behaviour was one of the reasons why public executions were abolished in the Western world. Lynch mobs are the probably most extreme example. I am pessimist enough that it would not take much to organize one even today in certain areas. And there are still some (even prominent guys) that openly decry that burning at the stake is not an option anymore (not for themselves of course).
I would likely agree, provided it is the proponents that get charcoaled :taz:
Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on December 08, 2006, 04:44:09 PM
Your "Jump!Jump!" brought to me an image of a crowd at a public hanging, with the many 'greedy eyes' awaiting the spectacle of suffering of which was to come.
I think the folks who would have gone to public hangings in the past now have their bloodlust satisfied by going to NASCAR races to watch the crashes. ::)
Why do you think there is almost always a traffic jam forming on the opposite lane, if there is a car crash happening?
Do you look? ;D
Quote from: Sibling Lambicus the Toluous on December 11, 2006, 04:10:13 PM
Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on December 08, 2006, 04:44:09 PM
Your "Jump!Jump!" brought to me an image of a crowd at a public hanging, with the many 'greedy eyes' awaiting the spectacle of suffering of which was to come.
I think the folks who would have gone to public hangings in the past now have their bloodlust satisfied by going to NASCAR races to watch the crashes. ::)
Or, a Hockey game? ::)
Hockey is not so interesting any more.
The fights aren't occuring as often as they used to. :(
Or the "no adequate transportation land mass".... North America doesn't have the masses to support decent mass transport, 'specially up here (maybe Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver are adequate... not sure. Calgary is marginal, IF you're on the train line).
Around here, mass transportation is picking up a friend to share the 15 mile drive to a supermarket, where you can actually buy food, not just pre-packaged 'stuff'. Movin' to the country has drawbacks, but housing's cheap.
And you can eat a lot of peaches, according to the Presidents of the United States of America. ;D
At least around here, urban planners and municipal officials have started to tune into the need for intelligent municipal planning: things like "lay out your city so people can live close to where they work", which sounds obvious enough, but goes completely against the decades of growth through "bedroom communities" that we've had previously.
I thought I had it bad with the trip to my local grocery store (about 5 km).
But still... POTUSA wasn't wrong about the peaches, were they? ;D
"movin' to the country / goin' to eat a lot of peaches"
...
"and if I had my little way / I'd eat peaches every day"
Nope, and if I get my lazy butt out there and prune the peach trees, and remember to THIN the peaches or the blossoms before they become baby peaches, I can grow my own. We have 4 small peach trees.
I'm gonna plant some seeds from the neighbor's tangerine tree's tangerines, too. And eventually add another pecan tree. The one we have is a huge native pecan, but i'd like a variety that puts out a bigger, maybe papershell pecan. Easier to shell and eat!
You need to know that according to a 4 year old I knew at the time, that song's lyrics are "Movin' to the country, gonna eat a lot of peaches. Gonna eat some peaches, eat 'em with the Sneeches."
http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0210462/sneetches.html
Makes sense to me.
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on December 15, 2006, 08:14:26 AMThe one we have is a huge native pecan, but i'd like a variety that puts out a bigger, maybe papershell pecan. Easier to shell and eat!
Aaaah, but I'm certain you already know this ... but the native, smaller nuts are richer in flavor than the larger papershell ones.
I certainly did not know that until my sister-in-law's mother gave us a pecan pie (all homemade) made from native pecans.
Now, I'm one of those that has never, ever had a pecan pie that I did not find at least edible. (I really, really like pecan pie. Even "bad" ones are pretty good, in my estimation. <heh>)
But, a pie made from native pecans was absolutely the most fabulous flavor of any pie I've ever eaten. (and I come from a Strong HomeMade Pie Tradition on my mother's side. :D )
And when I volunteered to shell more native nuts so as to have enough for more pies, I realized the labor of love that first pie was.
But, it was soooooooo worth it-- to me at least!
You may keep your papershells with their larger gorgeous-looking pecan halves. They are VERY tasty, indeed.
But nothing like that subtle, rich flavor of a native nut. Mmmmmmmmm! :drooling:
Maybe we should do a thread split. We walked a bit far away from movie&book reviews.
I'll reel it back in for you Swato.
Bob, could you please make a movie about your experiences with the native pecans and how they compare to non-native pecans when used in pecan pie so that we may review it.
Thanks,
MB
Let's for a change review some piece of pure entertainment
Sakuya - The Demon Slayer (Japan 2000)
Japan in the Edo/Tokugawa period. The increasing wickedness of humans and the neglect of religious duties disturbs the natural cosmic balance. The Kami (gods/good spirits) are weakened and the Oni (demons/evil spirits) are strengthened.
In reaction Mount Fuji (a god also and protector of Japan) erupts in anger, destroying a protective shrine nearby and hereby releasing an army of demons under the leadership of the queen of the earth spiders. A wasteland realm of darkness spreads around the mountain (think Mordor). The shogun orders the formation of a corps of demon slayers led by the Sataki clan.
The best and sometimes only weapon that can kill the demons is a special sword called [-----] but does so at a cost. It's power is derived from the life force of the wielder (symbolized by a candle in a temple that becomes shorter everytime the sword is used). When the life force is drained completely, the wielder dies and the next in line has to take over. At the beginning of the movie this happens to the father of Sakuya fighting a clan of Kappas (water demons), and the young girl has to finish the job. But afterwards she finds a newborn Kappa and is simply unable to kill the helpless infant. Instead she decides to raise it as a younger brother (and as we learn later male heir apparent of the Sataki line). The baby (called Taro) grows fast (3 months) to the level of a ten year old boy looking perfectly human except for a large green spot on the top of his head. Sakuya decides to go for the jugular and confront the demons on their own turf. On the way she and Taro confront the mad puppet player (turning life girls into dolls) and a cat demon disguised as a white-haired grannny (an extremly common character in Japanese movies). They are joined by two ninjas send by the authorities for their protection. Not the best choice because one them openly shows an extreme dislike for Taro because of his demon descent. This and a nasty episode occuring right after arrival in the demon realm allows the spider queen to tempt Taro to change sides. The boy is torn between loyalty to his adopted family and his demonic origin. That the demon slaying swords begins to show some bad extra habits isn't going to make the situation easier.
The confrontation with the queen and her host take up about the last third of the movie and the special effects (conventional and CGI) run really wild (without looking too cheesy).
The movie is clearly targeted at a younger audience (and there is a really annoying and superfluous scene with dancing Kami looking like the result of a hostile takeover of Studio Ghibli by Disney). The story is obviously not new either.
What makes the movie worth a look (apart from the exotism of genuine Japaneseness) is its avoidance of a simple black/white scheme. It is the humans that disturbed the balance and the fight for its restauration taints those doing it. There are some parallels to Lord of the Rings but also differences. Like the ring the sword has a problematic personality that can't be completely controlled, and the wielder has to balance the needed powers against the fatal effects on him/herself. What is lacking is the element of corruption. The wielder has to take the decisions deliberately. (S)he has to step halfway into the demon world to make use of the weapon (allowing on the other hand the half-humanization of the demon Taro) but the end result is simply death not becoming a full demon. Unlike Sauron the spider queen has a real claim and has only to be fought for overstepping. Her temptation of Taro is therefore not just a deception but has a genuine ring to it. Unfortunately the movie goes for action instead of further deepening this aspect.
Action and effects lovers get definitely their money's worth in the lenghtened opening and the grand finale. Computer imagery is used extensively complementing/enhancing the conventional effects. This creates a surreal atmosphere in the monster scenes. The computer-generated light effects would seem excessive but at the same time they hide the natural cheesiness of monster masks and makeup (especially visible in the confrontation with the demon cat that does mostly without the light show).
Yes, it is popcorn but of an interesting enough flavour to merit a look (not necessarily a buy).
I give it 7.4/10
And now for something completely weird
Hausu (Japan 1978)
Seven Japanese schoolgirls visit the lonely landhouse of the old aunt of one of them. Unfortunately the aunt has white hair and a cat and in Japan that can only mean one thing...
Terry Gilliam on LSD meets Yellow Submarine in Haunted House for Burnt Offerings is probably the closest description for the impression this movie makes on the viewer. Sets, real landscape and cartoon backgrounds are in permanent change, when one by one the girls meet their fate in bizarre ways accompanied by special effects that quite probably owe a lot to the Gilliam style in Monty Python's Flying Circus and possibly to the Beatles' Yellow Submarine. The lighting has a psychedelic quality too. The plot is obvious an old hat and the way it is handled more or less routine. 7 different characters, most with appropriate nicknames: Mac(overweight and always hungry), Melody (musically gifted), Fanta (romantic dreamer), Kung Fu (kicks ass), Sweet(always helpful), Gari (spectacles, brain), Oshare (it's her aunt). Do I have to tell you, who gets eaten by the piano?
To rank this movie is highly dependent on what you take it for.
Despite some nudity and a little gore this is not a typical teenie slasher but more of a traditional haunted house flick with the finale having some similarity to Burnt Offerings (the house renewing itself through its victims).
If you are just looking for a straight horror, the weird effects and the occasional black humor will turn you off and you may think it to be a very bad movie. If you want a LSD trip without taking the actual drug the more straight horror parts may disturb you slightly.
Provided the weirdness is fully intended, I would give it quite high marks in the 7-8/10 range despite the girls being a bit annoying in the beginning. I strongly recommend to rent or borrow it first because it is clearly an either-love-it-or-hate-it affair.
Ahh... Swato gets to review the rare lost gems, while I get to review...
Eragon (the movie)
How can I say this in an non offensive way? coming from the book the movie is the worst possible thing I have seen in a while.
It is an abomination.
I wrote a review on IMDB that I will not transcribe here, in any case here is the link:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0449010/usercomments-280 (http://imdb.com/title/tt0449010/usercomments-280)
Be warned, I hated the movie.
Thatk you, anon. No matter who wants to see it, it's coming off the Netflix list. (My gift subscription, I choose the movies, and allow some requests. I just vetoed that one.)
My Brother and I are what could be called "hard to gift" personalities. ;D
This year, I got him a new OSU (Oklahoma State) sweat-shirt in OSU orange-and-black. (also got my sister-in-law a matching one) they are both HUGE fans--which has zero to do with gravity. ;D (sister-in-law is easy, though: any sort of nice chocolate. ANY choco, for that matter-- she never met chocolate she didn't like <heh>)
Anyway, my brother, in turn, got me Star Trek, the animated series in return. All 22 episodes in a nice white collector's box.
This was a Saturday-morning cartoon series made in the 70's, using the original voices of the original series, with Shatner as Kirk, etc.
Since it was animated, they kept to the original themes of Star Trek, but had new and interesting aliens and situations, not cheaply possible in the 70's without looking cheezy.
Roddenberry is listed on the credits, so his hand (and vision) is evident in the stories so far. Each is only about 20 minutes long, and the animation is typical 70's style: minimalist movement of the backgrounds.
However, there is little cartoon-y feel about the animation. No surreal or larger-than-life aspects of the characters. It's very similar to comic-book adaptation series of the same period, like the original Spider Man animated series, the original Fantastic 4, the original Sea-Quest. It is very similar to the original Johnny Quest style as well.
So far, the stories are as good as I remember: akin to good to very good SciFi short stories using well-known characters and background. Plots are not complex, as would be expected with 20 minutes to develop and resolve. But, the subjects are not shallow at all-- in keeping with the better plots of the original TV series.
But, for Trek-fans, it is a must-have. For the mildly curious, I would suggest renting one or two of the discs first. (And I cannot fathom it NOT being available for rental very soon.)
I'll review more, and in more detail, as I watch through all of the 22 episodes, and look at the special content.
(I also received one of those small portable DVD players. Has a 8" screen, and a battery. Just the ticket for looking at low-detail content, like animated TV series, in bed just before going to sleep. Mine is a <$100US unit from BestBuy. It's their house-brand, but so far the quality is acceptable. And the size is darn convenient for placing on my chest, with my head propped up with nothing more than a plumped-up pillow. More on this, too, if I notice anything positive/negative. Likely I'll be using it to watch the rest of Trek.)
I am writing to agree with Anon on his critique of Eragon. A bunch of us that read both Eragon and Eldest went to see it over Christmas. We all are enjoying Christopher Paolini's trilogy (even though it is obvious that Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter have influenced him immensely {to be nice about it}) and thought that we would like the movie. Yuck! The worst movie that I have ever seen! PU! With a capital P and a capital U! Cheesy, cheesy, cheesy. Poorly written, poorly acted (expect for Jeremy Irons, who portrays Brom, my favorite character in the book). The whole thing is as Anon so eloquently states "an abomination"!
Instead, go and see The Pursuit of Happyness (Happyness is spelled that way for a reason). I wrote about it in Open Water and I will post it here also, what a terrific movie!
I highly recommend this movie, I hope that many of you have the chance to get out and see it; it was one of the best movies I have seen in a long time.
It is based on a true story and the main character, Chris Gardner (played by Will Smith), is such an inspiration! His strength of character, determination and perseverance to try and break out of the cycle of poverty is simply awe-inspiring. Anyone that tends to cry at movies, please take plenty of tissues, I had tears streaming down my face several times.
Two quotes by Thomas Edison came to mind as I watched this: "Success is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" and "Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up."
Again, if you are looking for a very worthwhile, inspiring movie to see over the holidays, go and see this one!
Happy New Year Sweet Poppets!
I apologize my lack of ability/ambition in movie reviews, but I wanted a little feedback from anyone else who has seen 'I (http://images.google.ca/images?q=tbn:Cw71zkAuRY74YM:http://www.drakken.it/forum/images/smiles/emoticon-0143-heart.gif) Huckabees'. I know many people were quite enamoured by this movie - please tell me why!
I watched it this weekend, and wasn't quite sure to expect going in, but was overall disappointed. Both myself and my fiancee' drew separate parallels to 'What the Bleep Do We Know!?'; although the intent and style of the two movies were completely different, there was the same feeling that one was being served a under-heated can of Big Thoughts Chowder for People Who Don't Think Big Thoughts in a fancy bowl. I kept waiting for it to get better, or pay off in the end - no dice. Total 'meh'. :P
See also any of the low-star reviews at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356721/usercomments, which pretty much sum it up for me.
OK, something positive now.... I watched 'Treasure Planet' a couple of weeks ago (raiding the children's DVD shelf at the library again - yay for free movies!), and while I don't want to be over-enthusiastic, I expected it to be total junk - and found it to be pretty entertaining! A good choice for little space-pirates, maybe... and a surprisingly good effort from Disney, especially if it's been a while since you've read the original (haven't read it in ages, so wouldn't have noticed storyline-mangling). Won't hold up to most of the adult-entertaining children's animated movies like Shrek, but worth a rent if you have young'uns, perhaps.
Also watched 'Robots' this weekend, and while it's nothing special, I did appreciate the anti-corporate, anti-consumerist theme woven through the main plot. Very surprising in children's entertainment these days.
Two weeks ago I went to see Pan's Labyrinth (thanks to either Vita or Opas -sorry I don't remember which ;) - for the warning about extreme violence) and I loved it. The idea of a fairy tale in the middle of an historical tragedy (the fascist regime of Franco in Spain) is quite innovative. Beautiful photography and good performances.
This weekend I saw Volver from Pedro Almodóvar, (which is a very characteristic movie coming from him), tragedy, folkloric comentary/humor and a touchy subject (and I will not touch it to avoid spoiling the plot). Nicely done, good performances from all the cast.
I agree with you Anon1mat0, Pans Labyrinth was one of the most beautiful, disturbing and thought-provoking movies that I have seen for a while. It was wrenching to see the girl use fantasy as a tool in coping with her fear, anguish, worry, etc. As you said a fairytale in the midst of the madness of Franco's regime. The graphic violence at times made me hide my eyes and I did not look, sometimes peeking through my fingers. Take someone to hold onto and don't get anything to eat.
I have just watched the two part SkyOne version of Terry Pratchett's The HogFather.
I found that the Discworld was very well realised and that the casting was just about perfect. The screenplay seemed to be very true to the book and I found that the characters well matched my personal visualisation of them which is a pleasant surprise. The only exception to that was Albert, who was quite different to the way I have imagined him, but the characterisation worked well anyway. Anyone who is a Pratchett fan will enjoy this IMHO. As usual, DEATH stole the show and got to get in some of Pratchett's philosophical thoughts and comments on human nature in a very effective manner. Great stuff.
If you get the chance to watch, do youself a favour and do so. I can only hope that the same team get to make some more of Discworld books into movies.
Wordless, breath-holding WANT is filling my soul.
They GOTTA get it on DVD here SOON.
You may try the animated Soul Music and Wyrd Sisters first. Those are already on DVD.
Christopher Lee is the VOICE of Death there.
Coincidentally, I've just watched a Canadian indie animated film called "Mr. Reaper's Really Bad Morning" - title is pretty self-explanitory. Worth a few giggles, especially if you are a Death fan.
Not sure why, but it does my soul good to watch (and re-watch) the scene where Calgary is destroyed by a giant flaming meteor. ;D
Must find the time and patience to write a few new reviews.
Watched Operation Lune/Dark Side of the Moon last week.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0344160/
It's quite a nice demonstration (deliberate) of the possibility of media manipulations.
One could call it a game of "when (if at all) did you get it?"
The outward premise is that the Apollo 11 films/photos are fake (though not the moon landing itself!) and that Stanley Kubrick directed it.
The 'evidence' presented looks indeed highly convincing in parts.
The twist is that the makers seemingly do not rely on the usual conspiracy theorists but present to us the real persons behind it (Kubricks's widow, Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Buzz Aldrin, Nixon's secretary etc.) and let them talk on camera. There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence presented, e.g. the (real, not faked) clip of Nixon announcing the death of the Apollo 11 astronauts (produced just in case).
Then the film goes into high gear telling us the story of how Nixon dealt with those in the know that potentially could spill the beans. For those who still haven't realized that their leg is pulled the bizarro level is increased exponentially including the insinuation that Nixon escalated the Vietnam War in order to get some of the participants in the moon hoax that had hidden in Cambodia (after a covert CIA operation failed) or that Reagan becoming president was a payback to Hollywood for helping.
If you check the film in detail you'll find a lot of hints (=deliberate inconsistencies) from the start: a Dave Bowman in NASA mission control, an ex CIA Head talking French, a witness by the name of Ambrose Chapel etc.
If you listen closely to what Rumsfeld, Kissinger & Co. actually say, you'll realize that it is completely devoid of context, and that the context is only provided by the narrative and the combination with external material.
For those that even in the end do not get the joke the credits are combined with a blooper reel.
What this film demonstrates is that it is possible to make a completely bogus but nonetheless convincing 'documentary' with a minimum of actual faking and even using highly visible figures to unknowingly contribute (The director stated in an interview that none of the "real" people, not even Kubrick's widow, was informed beforehand, and that everything was done by conventional editing).
One problem will be of course that the film will end up as a further "proof" for the "moon hoax" conspiracy fans.
Finally got around to seeing Pan's Labyrinth. Was a disturbing film, but compelling as well.
I saw two ways to interpret the film: it was a fantasy, and therefore the girls "dreams" reflected reality, and the human-created violence reflected a world of human-creation, and therefore was not as real.
The other way, is that a small girl was thrust into a violent situation, and the only way she could cope, was into a fantasy world of her own creation.
I like the first interpretation better-- I like fantasy genre, and always try to take it at "face value". When it's rules are internally consistent (as in this movie), it works very, very well.
And, a fantasy-"take" on the movie leaves one with a very happy ending.
The other "take", leaves the movie as just a dark, violent portrayal of the capacity for humans to justify anything to themselves, given enough motivation.
So. Great fantasy movie. Lousy war movie. See it in either case-- worth the $$.
I need to find time to watch it (the DVD is still wrapped).
At last found the time to watch Hogfather. Both episodes in one go (and DVDs still have no commercial breaks, thank whoever)
I also say that is is almost perfect and far better than could have been expected.
Ridcully could have been a little more aggressive (otherwise a perfect choice) and the Dean a bit fatter. Mr.Teatime had an uncanny likeness to a young Hardy Krüger and Susan reminded me slightly of Kate Winslet (this is not meant as criticism, both do their role absolutely perfect). The voice of Death was also a good choice, I think, but I am too used to Christopher Lee in that role (in the animated versions of Wyrd Sisters and Soul Music), to be more than 95% happy ;).
So, if you have any love for Discworld at all and own a DVD playing device, GET THE DVD!
This is meant as a recommendation by me and I have no financial interest in boosting the sales ;).
I just went to watch the latest Harry Potter installment with my son. To start with the end (in more than one sense) my son was almost fuming at it. Having read the whole thing a few (several?) times he was very mindful of all the things that changed from the book, but the ending is what upset him the most and from then I started thinking on the whole ordeal. Saying that the (a) movie wasn't faithful to the (a) book is normally stating the obvious and in this case while the main events from the book are there a good part of the spirit of the book died at the hands of the script writer and the director. Don't get me wrong I don't think the movie was a disaster (like that pathetic attempt of a movie called Eragon) but all the teen angst that overflows the 5th book is almost completely absent; is like the anger of a 15 y/o had been shrunk to a 9 y/o's size, and to complete the coup the very last scene is so cheesy that seems copied from a 80's TV series. The book is dark and the movie barely tries, which is perhaps what upset my son so much more than the scissors that made the 2'18" movie possible.
Apart from that, the movie is technically well crafted and quite entertaining. Imelda Stauton does a great job as Dolores Umbridge forcing you to hate her from the very first time you see her on the movie. The combat at the ministry is visually well done although it doesn't fully show the hectic scene portrayed in the book. All in all it would seem that someone tried to make the movie PG (and failed BTW) and in the process the story loses some of its potency. Pity.
I'll still wait for some time until the cinemas are not that overrun.
There has been a tug-o-war since the beginning of the series between the Disneyoids that wanted "family-friendly" movie versions* and those that wanted the movies to follow the books into the darkness. Still a bit of overeliance on FX (the dragon fight was far too long) but I think that e.g. the maze in the movie actually improved on the book (I doubt that it would be possible to reproduce that claustrophobic effect in writing).
If it is necessary to keep the spirit of the books, an R rating should not be shunned imo. Part 2 was slightly abridged in the German version to get a lower rating (knowing that I ordered the DVDs from the UK).
*now they have Narnia, so I hop they will leave us in peace.
I saw a really good movie on Wednesday: Four Sheets to the Wind (http://www.imaginenative.org/newsdetails.php?id=7). It was the opening night screening for the imagineNATIVE (http://www.imaginenative.org/) film and media festival.
Here's the plot summary from the festival web site:
QuoteBeautifully crafted and set under gorgeous Oklahoma skies, this poignant and wryly funny story of family and healing begins the morning Cufe Smallhill (Cody Lightning) finds his father quieter than usual, an empty bottle of pills at his side. Fulfilling his dad's wish, Cufe sinks his father's body in the pond to spare him the big circus of a funeral. Cufe, his cousin, and mom decide to fake a funeral to satisfy the community, and Cufe's beautiful and tormented sister Miri (Tamara Podemski) comes home just long enough to convince Cufe to leave the reserve and visit her in the city. Once there, shy Cufe meets a girl who gently opens up his world.
I'm not normally one for a movie describe as "poignant" or as a "story of family and healing", but it was really good, funny at times, and just... wow. Very well done, especially considering it was shot in 18 days and made for a budget of $250,000.
Apparently, it's not going into general cinema distribution (though you may be able to find it at your local art house theatre... maybe), but it's being distributed on DVD, so you should be able to find it at Blockbuster before too long. It's worth checking out.
Oh- that Cody is one hottie. Yes I am old enough to be his mother-- but I'm not his mother- so there :mrgreen:
OK, here is the promised Häxan review
If there ever was a golden age of moviemaking, it must have been the decade following World War 1. Cinema shed its reputation of a mere sensational novelty of fairs and amusement parks and was eager to establish itself as a genuine art form. The medium had also reached a certain maturity allowing directors to follow their visions without being too constrained by the technical limitations. Also the garage shops had been replaced by larger studio infrastructure that could afford to hire professionals in front and behind the camera. But like the pioneers those studios were still willing to take certain risks, not just playing it safe (although the first cases of sequelitis did occur at the time).
In Europe (starting in France but reaching full development in Germany) there was a clear trend towards the bizarre and grotesque turning from the hilarious (pre WW1) to the uncanny, weird and dark. There began the age of Expressionism that gave us masterpieces like The Cabinet of Dr.Caligari(Wiene), Nosferatu – A Symphony of Horror(Murnau), House of Wax(Leni) or The Golem(Wegener) and also the first monumentals, exemplified by Fritz Lang's series of two-part movies like The Spiders, Dr.Mabuse – The Gambler, The Nibelungs etc.
Most of those movies also made ample use of special effects (many developed then are still used today).
What is less known is that this era also saw the coming of the large-scale documentary making use of the same technical wizardry (some stunning even by the standars of today).
This brings us to the movie to be reviewed today: Benjamin Christensen's Häxan (The Witch aka Witchcraft through the Ages). It was made in total secrecy between 1920 and 1922 in Denmark with Swedish financial backing (it became the most expensive silent film ever made in Scandinavia) and was originally planned to be just the first part of a trilogy on the topic of human superstition (the second and third parts dealing with saints and ghosts). This was not to come because the film caused an instant scandal leading to outright bans or at least severe cuts in most countries. It thus became a financial disaster and the director never again got the creative freedom he enjoyed with this one. His skill was acknowledged though and he made several other movies in the next 2 decades. Variety summed up the controversy with "Wonderful though this movie is, it is absolutely unfit for public exhibition.". I guess a reissue on public TV in the US would still cause a puritanical uproar.
But now to the piece itself. It starts rather unpromising with a dry theoretical introduction using contemporary images (woodcuts, manuscript pages etc.) and models (both contemporary and (then=1920) modern). There is even a wooden pointer employed to "highlight" details. About the only interesting thing here is the "animatronic" hell, a quite complex mechanical contraption with devils picking victims from a kind of conveyor belt and putting them into boiling cauldrons while others work the bellows below it.
But then the director changes gear and transports us directly into the house and kitchen of a witch. Had there been Academy Awards at the time, the first would have been deserved for this set alone. The depths and details are simply incredible. This is not the usual painted backdrop, it feels absolutely real and lived-in. The second Oscar would be for the make-up (apart from the director obviously having plundered the Hags'R'Us catalogue to get this collection of crones ;) ). Now it's time for business . Two other witches bring severed body parts from the gallows to be used for potion-making and a female customer asks for a philtre to seduce a monk (allowing time for some comic relief). Having established the main scenery the director now treats us to a series of grotesque and often hilarious scenes depicting the superstitions of the day that revolve around the perceived actions of Satan (played by himself (i.e. Christensen, not the Evil One)). He leaves no doubt though what he thinks about this, i.e. that those beliefs are superstitions, and prepares the stage for the rational explanations that await us in the third part of the movie. But before that we come to the central part. A man has become ill and his realtives unwisely consults a quack that tells her that a witch with an evil eye is responsible. The suspicion falls on a beggar woman in the kitchen and the (pretty) young wife is sent out to call the Inquisition. A fatal mistake because the young monk receiving her feels temptation which in turn his superiors take for the effect of witchcraft.
Under torture the beggar woman spills out the tales expected. Everyone knows the script of course and the director takes the opportunity to start the next sequence of grotesque scenes, this time a detailed presentation of the witches sabbath. But the old woman also takes revenge by accusing her accusers of being accomplices leading to new arrests, new "revelations" about accomplices and so forth until at last the young woman is tricked into confession to safe her baby child. With nor more victims to expect the Inquisition leaves for new hunting grounds. Thus endeth the second part.
In the last section Christensen tries to give a rational explanation by drawing parallels to the present time (1920). His main thesis is that the people in the past interpreted certain phenomena that they couldn't understand based on their mythical worldview. In a series of parallel montage (using the same actors) he demonstrates that many things playing a role in the past are still around but now not seen as possession, satanic manifestations etc. but as symptoms of certain illnesses, especially hysteria (which then was a regular scientific term in the psychyatry/neurology). Autosuggestion is also a powerful argument with "witches" believing that certain actions will affect somebody and the "victim", believing the same, actually feeling the effect. "Hysterics" fail the needle test as did the alleged witches, Thumbscrews elicit absurd confessions from voluntary students etc.
We are also told that people suffering from mental illnesses or severe trauma hallucinate nightly visits. While medival people imagined demons, modern patients may see persons of authority or fame, although the Evil One is still around occasionally. Christensen tells us that the old woman that played the first victim of the Inquisition told him that the devil was real and that she had seen him personally sitting at night on her bed (she also showed him a modern booklet about how to detect the presence of the devil). Trauma patients can show symptoms of compulsive disorder, committing acts that are the exact opposite of their natural behaviour (a fire victim compulsively lighting matches or a war victim turning kleptomaniac). This is paralleled with scenes of nuns under severe mental stress (constantly fearing the hellish temptation) committing sacrilege (stabbing the consecrated wafer, spitting on crucifixes) claiming that Satan made them do it and demanding to be punished. The film ends with another contrast of images, a woman that flies not using a broom but a biplane and a person consulting a clairvoyant, thus demonstrating that even our "enlightened" times have not yet completely shed the mythic views of the past but that the advance of science may be a reason for (qualified) optimism.
Christensen is today occasionally accused of providing unreliable information and being misogynous for presenting "hysteric" women as the "guilty" part. I think that is unfair. Though historians now see a number of things, especially the number of "witches" that became victims during the scare, differently, the director can't reasonably be blamed for using the sources available at the time. Neuroscience and Psychiatry were also far less sophisticated than today (this was the high time of Freud!), which Christensen openly admits ("we just begin to understand"). It is also clear that the "hysteric symptoms" are at best the seed that sets the inquisitorial madness in motion leading to a chain reaction where torture brings "believable confessions" (because everyone knows the script), further corroborating the expectations about the satanic conspiracy and so forth. That this vicious cycle is a reality has been amply demonstrated in the 20th century and we have to just look at the "Global War on Terror" and the discussions about "waterboarding" to realize that this is anything but a thing of the past. So, while we have to be careful not to accept the information/details of the film as gospel, I think that the main thrust/message is still valid and by no means outdated. Apart from that this film shows such enormous creativity and is executed with so much skill that it deserves a place among the great masterpieces of cinema.
So: See it and don't get discouraged by the slow opening.
Trivia:
Major parts of he film were shot at night, which was extremly uncommon at the time, thereby creating an atmosphere that could not have been achieved with the usual day-for-night.
With most actors being blue-eyed the use of blue filters resulted in a very uncanny effect in the finished film.
The Flight of the Witches to the Brocken was done with a landscape model on a huge turntable (the house models were up to 2 meters high, allowing for extreme details) and a prototype optical printer allowing for multiple exposures. The shown multitude of witches were individuals, not just a handful of actors performing multiple times.
Even for todays jaded standards the film is surprisingly explicit in its depiction without giving the impression of being deliberately "titillating".
The film was rereleased in 1967 in a sped-up version (105 -> 76 min, mainly through display at 24 frames per minute instead of the original 18) with a jazz score and a narration by William S. Burroughs (replacing parts of the intertitles).
And another review I should have done a year ago
Jigoku (Hell), Japan 1960, directed by NAKAGAWA Nobuo
Monty Python meets Shakespeare on a bad trip to Dante's Inferno might sum up this movie, which seems to be unavailable on DVD outside Japan.
A student is betrothed to his professor's daughter. Without her parents knowing they already had sex and without him knowing she is already pregnant. Driving home one night with a (very uncanny) colleague, who seems to know things he shouldn't, he runs over a drunkard. Persuaded against his better judgement by the colleague he drives away resulting in the victim to die. This truly pisses off the female relatives of the man and they decide to find and kill the perpetrator. Driven by bad conscience (reading in the papers about the man's death) and against the colleague's pleads, the student decides to go to the police. His fiancee accompanies him for moral support. But the taxi they use has an accident and she is killed. To get away from it all our man decides to visit his ailing mum at a country hospital where he encounters a young woman that looks exactly like his dead fiancee. Most people at the hospital (patients and doctors) have obviously tons of bad karma of their own and on the occasion of a high holiday all the other characters from the city (including the avenging females) arrive at the scene too. In an increasingly absurd sequence of events everyone ends up dead. A few selected reasons of death: falling from a suspension bridge (in connection with high heels), suicide by train, mass food poisoning (from rotten fish), poisoned sake, strangulation, shooting, falling down stairs...
But the movie is just half over. The whole company finds itself in the Buddhist hell and is treated to assorted punishment according to the crimes and misbehaviours committed while alive. Our hero is in permanent pursuit of his fiancee's angelic soul and that of his unborn child. He is informed that finding and protecting the latter will be his only chance of salvation. In the end we see him on the great turning wheel of fate trying to reach the baby that lies on the opposite site. With his fate undecided he is actually one of the lucky ones. The director releases the whole pandaemonium on the rest of the cast (also giving us the details about the crimes they have managed to keep hidden). While the first part of the movie kept to a highly realist style, the second half is technicolor* creativity going wild. Critics have compared it rightfully to the visions of Hieronymus Bosch in a Japanese setting. Demons with tridents, boiling lakes, foggy wastes etc. It's probably not everyone's idea of fun to get dismembered by demons, put together again and repeating that cycle for eternity ;). It has to be emphasized though that it does not leave the impression of exploitation for its own sake (as many other Japanese movies) but one of catharsis.
I would not recommend this as a blind buy for it is clearly not for everyone's taste. But should you have the chance to watch it somewhere, give it a try. The same is true for other films by this director, who (among other things) pioneered the modern Japanese (ghost) horror but yet without the cliche vengeful child ghost in white with long hair before the eyes that today dominates the genre.
*the emphasis is less on primary colours though but more on "-ish" tones.
Unheimliche Geschichten (Weird Stories), Germany 1919
Prologue (Frame)
In an antiquariat after closing hours 3 paintings, showing Death (Veidt), Devil (Schünzel) and Strumpet (Anita Berber), come to life. After scaring the shop owner away, the amuse themselves by reading stories from the books lying around. The trio takes the leading roles in the following five episodes
Episode 1: Grausige Nächte (Nights of Fright)
Veidt comes to the aid of a woman (Berber) that is harassed in the park. After learning that the guy (Schünzel) is her insane ex-husband, who has tried to kill her in the past, he provides her with a hotel room and there leaves her because she claims to feel not well. Returning late at night and drunk after an evening with friends he wants to check the room but finds it empty and completely stripped of everything. Thinking that he got the wrong room he goes to bed and tries again in the morning. Now the room is completely refurnished and everyone in the hotel claims that he had come alone without a female companion. The guestbook also lacks her signature. The police says the same (without explainging how they should know). There he also encounters the mad ex who thinks that he had disappeared her (he had followed them to the hotel). When he learns the truth in the end is quite a shock (also for the viewers that are completely unprepared for the turn of events).
Episode 2: Die Hand (The Hand)
Veidt and Schünzel compete for the hand of Berber. When Veidt wins a play of dice intended to decide the matter, he is strangled by his rival (and later found by her). The story jumps a few years ahead (logic hole: nobody seems to suspect the likely culprit). She has started a career as a dancer and invites her surviving suitor to the theatre for her first public solo performance. But he is not going to enjoy it because he finds the spectre of his victim behind his seat. Unwisely persuaded to take part in a seance afterwards he begins to behave rather erratically (think Macbeth and the ghost of Banqo). After everyone but her leaves, Veidt manifests and kills his murderer either through strangling or by shock.
Episode 3: Die schwarze Katze (The Black Cat)
An adaption of the Poe story. Veidt takes an interest in the pretty wife of a drunkard (Schünzel, who else?). After a quarrel with his wife about her black cat and her unwillingness to drink a large mug of beer he attacks her and she ends up dead. This was clearly not his intention but he has to get rid of the body and simply walls her up in the cellar. He can't find the cat afterwards but doesn't care anyway. Nonetheless there is talk in the neighbourhood that he has killed her and Veidt, hearing that and being quite unconvincingly lied to by Schünzel, goes to the police to demand a search. At first nothing is found and the police is already leaving when Veidt remembers the existence of the cellar. That almost proves a dead end too but then the cat is detected behind the fresh wall. Unknowingly the murderer had immured it with his victim.
Episode 4: Der Selbstmörder-Club (The Suicide Club)
This is an adpation of a story by Stevenson.
Schünzel (who is not what he seems to be) follows a hint towards an officially unoccupied house and encounters Veidt, who runs the suicide club (such societies seem to be taken for granted). Joining the company (it is not completely clear whether voluntary or not) he walks into a room with the ominous Dante quote of Lasciate ogni speranza voi qentrate (abandon all hope you who enters here) above the door. A number of men sit around a table and Veidt lets them draw cards. The one getting the ace of spades is going to die at midnight. I think you can guess who gets that card and is left trapped in the room.
Episode 5: Unheimliche Geschichte (Weird Tale)
This is in a completely different mood, signaled from the start by the use of funny rhymed intertitles.
A young Baroque lady feels neglected by her husband (Veidt) and shows a keen interest in the nobleman (Schünzel) who is brought in unconscious after a chariot accident. Waking up he loses no time trying to impress her with his "fiery temperament" but has some trouble to get his theatrically drawn sword back into the scabbard. The husband observing this scene decides that is time for a prank. He declares to have been called to fulfill an important mission and would leave his wife secure in the brave nobleman's hands. The hilarious haunting (e.g. pictures and the chandelier going up and down) that follows is (surprise, surprise) too much for the "brave baron" and everyone else has a good laugh. The lady who finds that there is obviously more to her husband than she hitherto suspected gives him a big kiss. Veidt comments that with the last fourliner saying that a tale must be really called weird when it ends with the wife lovingly kissing her husband.
Epilogue (Frame)
The shopowner returns with the police but the trio has already gone back to its frames.
Left alone he eyes all three and they grin back with the devil blowing some smoke in his face.
This movie is clearly a precursor of the episode films a la Amicus and the Corman series with Price, Lorre and Karloff with Schünzel taking the role of Lorre (there is even quite an outward similarity plus a hint of Lugosi) and Veidt that of Price. But this is not technicolor and happily hamming it up (except the last episode) but an early example of the dark German Expressionist (silent) movie with the heavy makeup and eyeliner typical for the time. This makes everyone look creepy from the start. But Veidt doesn't actually need that. He could outcreep Nosferatu himself in his sleep and gives a first-rate performance as usual. In real life he was an extremly pleasant person also possessing great integrity. He was one of the few that openly defied the Nazis and stood up for his Jewish colleagues. Like Chaplin he took the (false) claim that he was a Jew himself as a badge of honour. As an actor he specialized in ambiguous* sinister roles and I think he has not been surpassed in this by any later actor** (Alas, we won't see the likes of his again!).
Schünzel, as already said above, delivers a performance at least on par with Lorre at his darkest being creepy, slimy, insane but also fully convincing as the (seeming) victim of Veidt in the suicide club or the bufoonish baron in the last episode. That his frame character is The Devil (in Mephistophelian mode) is only appropriate. Anita Berber is mainly reduced to the role of playing the reason for the Veidt-Schünzel conflict but she also keeps the ambiguity of her partners, so we can't be sure, whether she is playing a game of her own. That's most important in the first episode but leaves us also guessing in the last. Is she really drawn to the baron or does she just pretend to tease her husband?
The movie keeps the promise of its title (German "unheimlich" lies somewhere between creepy, uncanny and sinister) even almost a century after its production. If you have a chance to see it, I heartily recommend it. I think it works best completly silent without distracting music. That's the way I have seen it and I was impressed.
*For example the "Spy in Black", (in) the Powell&Pressburger film of 1939.
**It was a true revelation for me to see Veidt play Jew Suess in the British movie that induced Goebbels to make the infamous antisemitic film we today associate with that title. It demonstrates just how bad the Veit Harlan piece really is. Veidt masterfully portrays a complex character torn between different loyalties and failing in the end because he is not the monster he is claimed to be. Marian in the German movie is a pure caricature that sows destruction for destruction's sake and his own sadistic pleasure (the "good" Germans around him on the other hand give the impression of having an IQ that would allow Paris Hilton to outwit them while stoned).
The Spy in Black, UK 1939, Powell&Pressburger
World War 1. A German Uboat commander (Conrad Veidt) returns from a successful war patrol but finds a huge discrepancy between his own experiences, the situation on the homefront (even luxury hotels can't provide a devent meal anymore) and the newspaper headlines ("England Starving"). Before that has time to sink in, his leave is cancelled and he is sent on a secret mission he resents from the start on. He is to proceed to the Orkneys, meet with a German agent that will bring him in contact with a British traitor, a naval officer whose career is not looking well. From him he will receive information that will allow a wolfpack to catch an important section of the Grand Fleet in the open and thus level the playing field for the German High Seas Fleet. Veidt will do his duty as ordered but makes clear that he considers it to be against his honor as an officer (he is also uncomfortable with unrestricted submarine warfare but sees it as unavoidable). The contact is actually a woman (Valerie Hobson), the new schoolteacher of the village. The real new teacher (a pretty young woman) has been drugged and thrown off a cliff by other German agents (you can imagine the reaction of Veidt's character, when he learns about that details). The first thing Veidt does after entering the house is to get his uniform back on (If I am captured it will be as a naval officer). The (drunk) traitor arrives the next day and there is an immediate clash of characters that Miss Spy can barely keep under control (additionally fueled by both men being interested in her). He nonetheless promises to deliver the data the next day. But not everything is as it seems and Veidt barely escapes capture when his contacts turn out to be British Intelligence planning to lure the Uboats into a trap. Unable to reach his own ship Veidt catches the leaving ferry boat and commandeers it with the help of German prisoners. Trying to warn the waiting pack he is spotted by his own Uboat and shelled. After helping the passengers into the lifeboats, including the spy missus that her husband (the false traitor) has put on the ferry to get her out of the firing line, he voluntarily goes down with "his" ship (he has to persuade the original skipper first who thinks that he has to honor that tradition too). The Uboat is in turn surprised by British destroyers and sunk.
So much for the bare plot. This should be enough info to see that this movie could not have been made in the US (or Germany). Even for Britain it is remarkable considering that WW2 was just about to start when it was made. But it is also the first cooperation of Powell & Pressburger who would make it their trademark to go against the common style and conventions by choosing "tainted" heros and complex "villains" that defy the simple black and white scheme, often telling the story from the point of view of the "bad" character. Veidt is the perfect choice for this kind of role. He displays the ruthlessness one can expect from a German officer in wartime and the strict understanding of honor and duty of the same. But he is also a person that cares for others. Foremost of course his crew but also noncombattants, provided they do not try to interfere with his job. This puts him in stark contrast to the spies of both sides who sacrifice innocents without hesitation. When Veidt threatens the people on the ferry boat with immediate execution, should they try to stop him or talk without permission, the viewer has no doubt that he would do it. But when he notices a mother holding a crying baby he immediately adds a "with one exception" in quite a different voice without losing credibility. I think there are few actors able to get away with something like that*. The trouble is that the movie as a whole has to rely on Veidt's extraordinary skill a bit too much. The other actors do an acceptable job but none is really strong enough to be a sufficient counterweight. The plot (based on a novel according to my movie dictionary) is also not the strongest. Later efforts of the P&P team manage a better balance by either giving the protagonist a strong opposite or forming a dramatic triangle (not necessarily based on erotic rivalry). The Spy in Black can therefore be seen as a promise that would be fully fulfilled only later. By itself it is worth seeing because of Veidt lifting it above the average but I would not consider it as "essential viewing". So, should it come your way, give it a try but don't be too upset if it doesn't. To my knowledge it is not currently available on DVD.
A slight irony: Christopher Lee idolizes (his own words) Veidt and this was the first movie he saw him in. Lee should later play typical Veidt roles and also had a minor part in Ill met by Moonlight, the last of the P&P movies** (Spy in Black being the first one as mentioned).
*In the US Veidt had to play German officers without that complexity. Most notorious of course the role of Major Strasser in Casablanca
**He can also be spotted in Battle of the River Plate as a Spanish speaking barkeeper (a role he got just for being available and fluent in Spanish).
Beowulf: Epic and new film adaption
There is a general problem today with the adaption of classic epics for the big screen that did not yet exist e.g. in the 30ies. The audience of today (even the mainly action-crazy crowd) expects a certain psychological depths to its characters and some kind of non-straight motivation. Simple honor, obligation, custom won't do anymore. And today even the monsters have their advocates that demand more than a simple "this is an evil monster and those have to be slain by heroes, no questions asked". This does not mean that those old epics are shallow but that the expectations of the target audience were different from those of the (jaded) people today. WW1 has probably played the largest part in that change (though one might say that the US lags behind a good deal on that, simplistic b/w views still have their appeal).
The epic of Beowulf has its underlying moral grounded in the shift from the Pagan to the Christian era. It's unknown author is undoubtedly a Christian but one with remarkable respect for the ways of old (which many contemporaries lacked). No surprise that Tolkien was attracted to it because that was also his own position. But the existing moral is difficult to transport to the screen without becoming either too blatant or risking it not being understood by an uninformed audience.
So, now let's compare the original with its newest adaption.
King Hrothgar (Denmark) has built a new mead hall, Heorot, for his entourage to celebrate in (think loud discotheque with free drinks). The noise late at night annoys the neighbourhood monster Grendel living with his single mum in the nearby bog (film: cave). Since Grendel doesn't trust the authorities to enforce the noise regulations, he smashes the party personally until Hrothgar is forced to close shop and put an ad in the papers "Hero wanted for vioent pest control. High awards in case of success". In Southern Sweden Beowulf hears the call and books a passage to Denmark for himself and a bunch of volunteers. In the epic he asks his king and relative, Hygelac, for permission. This is not mentioned in the film where he seems to be a mercenary. In the movie his main companion is Wiglaf who in the epic appears only at the end as a young man while here he is of the same age or slightly older than Big B. They meet the coast guard who admits them to the court of Hrothgar where they are welcomed by the king but challenged by his chief counsellor Unferth. This scene was copied down to detail by Tolkien for the arrival of the remnant fellowship at Theoden's golden hall (Meduseld, the name is taken from the hall of Beowulf in the final part of the epic btw). Beowulf answers the challenge with a telling of an earlier act of heroism. While the epic takes it as genuine, the film insinuates that Beowulf may exaggerate the event. The film introduces a parallel plot absent from the epic with our hero falling in love with the queen who has some quarrel with her husband. Hrothgar offers him a golden drinking horn in the shape of a dragon as reward, should he be able to dispatch of Grendel. In the epic this piece plays a role in Beowulf's final adventure but here it becomes a central part of the plot from the start. After a noisy celebration to lure the monster everyone goes to sleep and Beowulf decides to fight it without weapons. In a fight that smashes the hall he wrestles with Grendel who loses an arm in the attempt to flee and bleeds to death when coming home to his mother. Mum is pissed and swears revenge. Great celebration at Heorot until in the next night Grendelmum goes on a killing spree. Here begins the main split between epic and film. While in the epic it is just about finishing the job, in the movie Hrothgar promises to make Beowulf his heir, if he deals successfully with Grendelmum. In any case Unferth apologizes and gives his famous sword Hrunting to Beowulf who enters the monster's den alone (Wiglaf would follow if asked but seems happy when beowuld declines).
Epic: Gendel's mother pulls him down to her lair and tries to kill him. The sword fails and he grabs another from the wall. This sword kills her but melts up to the hilt (so, she is either a relative of the Lord of the Nazgul or of the Alien). Beowulfs goes back to the surface with her head, the sword hilt and Unferth's sword that he gives back to its owner (playing down the fact that it failed). Hrothgar rewards him kingly and Beowulf and his surviving comrades go back to Sweden.
Film: Beowulf uses the golden drinking horn as a magic lantern and meets Grendel's mother who turns out to be a beautiful woman that seduces him promising him eternal power in exchange for the horn and becoming the father of her next child. She also melts his sword blade. When he returns to court he tells the story as in the epic. Hrothgar who was actually the father of Grendel knows that he is lying but also knows that the curse has now rests with Beowulf. He names him heir of kingdom and wife and jumps out the window to his death.
Jump forward a few decades (50 years in the epic). Beowulf has to fight the Friesians, in the epic for his king who dies in battle (making him first regent then king when the last heir is murdered), in the movie as king himself.
Epic: a servant fleeing from his master steals a precious drinking vessel from a dragon's hoard to get back into his master's favour (cf.Bilbo in The Hobbit). The dragon goes on a rampage destroying among other things Beowulf's hall. The hero, old but still in good shape, goes out to fight armed with a metal shield against the dragon's fire and accompanied by (young) Wiglaf and about a dozen highranking men form his entourage. He wins the fight with Wiglaf's help (the others flee) but is killed himself. Wiglaf, the last member of the royal family, orders a royal funeral and the hoard is entombed with Beowulf in the mound. The scene was also copied by Tolkien for the burial of Theoden.
Film: A mistreated servant of Unferth finds the golden horn in the bog and brings it to court. This breaks the covenant between Beowulf and Grendel's mother (as obviously happened to Hrothgar when he too regained the horn). Their son in the shape of a golden dragon devastates the country and, when Beowulf goes out to meet him, tries to kill the queen (and his young mistress). They are saved by Wiglaf while Beowulf dies in slyaing the dragon. Wiglaf becomes Beowulf's heir anf gives him a Viking burial (flaming ship). He sees Grendel's mother coming from the sea claiming the corpse. She begins to stare at him while he stands on the shore with the golden horn in his hands. Will the cycle start again? We will never know because the movie ends at this point.
So, what are the main differences? The movie keeps the story completely in Denmark, transferring the role of king Hygelac to both Hrothgar and Beowulf. I think this is a completely legitimate simplification, the same as expanding the roles of Wiglaf and Unferth by giving to them (additionally) the parts of nameless characters ("spear-carriers") in the epic. The main change is to give the monsters a background that connects them to the main characters by a cycle of guilt. Thereby it also partially taints the character of Hrothgar and Beowulf making the point that the "songs" and the real persons behind them can differ significantly. This is not just implied by also explictly stated by several persons in the movie. This process is seen as fatal (e.g. the Frisians attack to dethrone the legend in order to become famous in song themselves) but inevitable (because the heroes are fallible and have no means to stop posterity from exaggerating their deeds anyway).
I think this is an interesting re-interpretation of the old epic and one that has its own standing. Thus I consider it a justifiable adaption for the present age, not a rape of an old text that can't defend itself (like so many other "adaptions" of classics). My problem with the movie lies not in this idea but in the execution in detail. Especially in the second half the effects take over from the story. The dragon from the epic for example seems to be a good deal smaller and (following Nordic tradition) not airborne but more like a big armored snake (worm) able to breathe fire. The movie dragon is huge and flies in a spectacular fashion (the effects people did a marvelous job indeed). There is also a tendency here to show off with the 3D effects (used with restraint in the first half).
In my opinion the movie is worth watching (especially given the chance to see it in 3D) but less would have been more.
A few last words on the moral background of the original epic.
Beowulf's actions decline in justification while the means he uses increase.
First adventure: Grendel
Grendel is a disturber of the peace (complaints about noise do not justify murder). To kill or stop him otherwise is legitimate from both a Pagan and (contemporary) Christian point of view. Beowulf fights him on equal terms, i.e. unarmed (btw, the epic says that he is immune to mortal weapons anyway) and on the scene of the monster's crime. Grendel dies as result of losing his arm by trying to escape (selfinflicted wound).
Second adventure: Grendel's mother
From a Pagan point of view Grendel's mother has a certain right of revenge (she has not from the Christian POV) but this makes her also a disturber of the peace. Both parties act therefore from an at least partially legitimate position. Beowulf attacks her in her home with a weapon, while she is unarmed.
Third adventure: The Dragon
The epic makes clear that the dragon is the rightful owner of the hoard. The previous owner hid it but died without an heir. The dragon found it and could therefore claim rightful ownership. A precious piece is stolen from the hoard by a person lacking legal status (buying it back with the stolen property). The dragon's ensuing rampage may be excessive but he acts from a position of violated rights. Beowulf's actions are motivated not purely by his duty of defending the realm but also to a degree by greed (the desire to get possession of the hoard). He uses special weaponry (a metal shield because the standard wooden model would not withstand the dragon's fire-breath) and is accompanied by a dozen warrior companions (although only one of them proves to be helpful). He wins but also dies in the effort. The won hoard stays with him in death, so the "armed robbery" does at least not benefit anybody.
Just try to transmit that message to a cinema audience that for the most part has no idea about Pagan/Medieval Christian legal reasoning. The author of the epic had enough room to provide the message without explicitly stating it (because his audience was in the know), a movie can't spare that time and it would have to be wordy (breaking the flow and boring most viewers). Leaving that part out on the other hand would make the movie just another mindless noble-hero-slays-evil-monsters flick. Too many of those around already.
As said above this makes the attempt by the scriptwriters to give the tale a new meaning a debatable but justifiable undertaking (without making them the undertakers of the old song ;-) ). Just a bit lower on the special effects please.
Very interesting reading, thank you Swato! :)
I'm actually tempted to go and see the movie with your review in hand. And to reread my copy of the Beowulf epic. :)
Also, you are completely right about the traditional looks of Scandinavian dragons.I've read somewhere that winged dragons first appear on stained glass windows in in churches (pictures of St George I presume) during the middle ages in Sweden.
The wingless Scandinavian are also called Lindorm in Swedish and was usually born by a woman (often royal) but fathered by dragon. The word Lindorm refers to the tradition of wrapping an infant in swaddling clothes, a Lindorm is an orm (=dragon/snake) once wrapped in cloth like an infant since it was born by a woman.
The Beast (aka The Beast of War)
The Beast is an US produced war movie but a rather uncommon one. It is set in Afghanistan in 1981 during the Soviet occupation and based on a stage play. All characters are either Russian or Afghan, no Americans etc. in sight (or even mentioned iirc). The mocie was shot in Israel using locals for the bulk of the Afghan characters. The tanks seen in the film are Soviet-built T62, captured by the Israelis (probably during the Yom-Kippur War), credible stand-ins for the unavailable T72. Apart from the unusual setting another decision proved controversial. The Afghan characters speak their native tongue (Pushtu?), the actors had to learn their lines phonetically, and are subtitled (though I have read that this was not the case for all distributed copies). The Russian characters on the other hand speak English with the natural accent of the actors, no fake Russian accent is used. The tank drill also follows the American model. This naturally offended both purists and ordinary US cinema goers (who consider subtitles a violation of their human rights) and probably had something to do with the movie becoming an (undeserved) flop. A (possibly) more reasoned criticism is directed against errors in the portrayal of Muslim religious customs but if there are (I do not know enough to judge), they are clearly not deliberate or offensive. An in my view very wise decision by the makers was to open the film on an ultraviolent note, showing everything, and then for the rest of the movie to just hint at the violence happening. This way the film avoids to be just a gorefest (there is actually pretty little blood) but without falling into the trap of sanitizing.
A desert village in Afghanistan. Sudenly explosions everywhere. Out of the dust a group of Russian tanks approaches. But the village is not defenseless, an RPG is fired but to no avail except making the Russians extra angry. They dismount and go to work with grenades, flamethrower and assault rifle (the latter used to mow down a herd of sheep). They also poison the well. But do not underestimate the tribespeople. One tank goes up in flames when a grenade is dropped down the hatch. Interestingly the Russian leader does not commit a massacre (only one civilian victim yet) but he lets his men grab the only present male (who fired the rocket launcher and now is wielding an antique musket) and puts him in front before one track of his tank. When the man refuses to talk, the tank driver is ordered to go forward. He does so only after direct threads (and hair-pulling). What follows is the most gruesome scene in the whole movie, and the camera does not shy away (I wonder how they did it without really killing the actor).
(http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x97/Swatopluk/PDVD_014-4.jpg)
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x97/Swatopluk/PDVD_014-4.jpg
Now it's time to go home to base (the rest of the group has already left) but unfortunately the map was in the destroyed tank and part of it got burned. As a result the tank takes a wrong turn and drives down a valley that seems to lead directly to the Kandahar road but is actually a cul-de-sac (the is a canyon at the end with the road on the other side). When the men of the village return (they are indeed Mujahedin) and learn what happened they swear revenge and go into pursuit. The son of the crushed man (who was the village Elder as it seems) is named the new leader despite not feeling up to the job ("That's the proof that you are!"). The group is clearly divided from the start. Taj the leader acts out of duty, his rival is in it just for the fun and possible loot. The village women, seeking revenge, follow them against orders (btw, the movie opens with a Kipling quote that a wounded man should better shoot himself than to fall into the hands of Afghan women).
In the takn harmony is also absent. Dazal the commander who as a boy fought at Stalingrad is a pranoid fanatic who only cares for his machine and will sooner sacrifice his crew than it. Koverchenk the driver is a bespectacled intellectual with a still working conscience. The other two standard crew members are spineless opportunists. This leaves the fifth man, the Afghan translator who on the hand is a devout Muslim but also believes in the progress the Russians promise. The film makes him a likable character, clearly not a traitor or Quisling. Dazal believes him to be an agent of the enemy and also fears that Koverchenko will report the events in the village. Paradoxically despite this fear Koverchenko is the only one he can confide in. In a sense they are both idealists – that connects them – but Dazal has become a monster who will sacrifice everything for his once noble but now totally perverted ideals (then defending his country against the Nazis, now behaving like one with his country invading another). This becomes important at the very end of the movie.
The tank develops technical trouble, the engine overheats, and they have to slow down or even stop on occasion, allowing the pursuers to gaon on them. The situation becomes especially tense at night. One night attack fails (reducing the Mujahedin to just one RPG round) and the tank gets away. On another occasion the tank does a 360° turret turn with all weapons firing (including the flamethrower, very impressive) but the crew finds out that they have actually fried a herd of deer.
(http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x97/Swatopluk/PDVD_023-2.jpg)
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x97/Swatopluk/PDVD_023-2.jpg
Dazal also tries here for the first time to kill the translator but Koverchenko refuses the order to gun him down from behind. Koverchenko and the translator also have a chat about local customs including the vital information about the formalized plea of mercy.
The chase goes on. A waterhole on the way is poisoned and Dazal now machineguns the translator personally. When Koverchenko threatens to report it, Dazal has him tied up boobytrapped with a grenade and left for the dogs or the Mujahedin. The mercy plea he learned comes in handy when the pursuers find him (though the women want to kill him noenetheless). He later even earns their trust when he repairs their damaged RPG launcher.
(http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x97/Swatopluk/PDVD_021-1.jpg)
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x97/Swatopluk/PDVD_021-1.jpg
The tank reaches the canyon nearly out of fuel but the crew is able to contact a helicopter. Dazal refuses to abandon his tank and forces the helicopter crew to provide him with fuel (otherwise he will open fire). Back it goes down the valley and past the pursuers who can't come close enough for a secure kill with their only round. At the water hole the helicopter crew lies dead from the poison. When the Mujahedin arrive there too the group splits because Taj will follow the tank but his rival is interested only in the money he hopes to gain for the helicopter ("can anyone of you fly this thing?").
At the valley entrance it is time for the great showdown which I will not go into to leave at least a bit of suspense.
So, what makes this movie special? Despite a moderate budget and no really grand names the makers deliver a very well-made product with impressive action scenes but at no point doing effects just for effect's sake. As stated above the extreme brutality at the start allows for restraint for the rest of the movie without cushioning the impact. The emphasis is on the characters (this being originally a stage play), and the leads deliver absolutely convincing performances. Extremly uncommon for an US war movie is also the avoidance of pure b/w painting. The Afghans are clearly not your traditional good guys and despite their atrocious acts the Russians are not just one-dimensional monsters. The roles of the nominal good guys, Taj and Koverchenko, may be a touch too noble but both have to reach that state through obstacles. The end is kept deliberately open (another uncommon thing for a US movie) avoiding the trap of cliche.
So I say, give this movie a chance* but keep it away from the kiddies (The original age limit of 18 in Germany, now lowered to 16, is not completely without merit). 8/10
*even if you are not a special fan of the rolling heavy metal. For tank enthusiasts this is of course a must-see in any case.
I Tre Volti della Paura (Mario Bava It/Fr 1963)
Literal title: The 3 Faces (=aspects) of Fear
English title: Black Sabbath
The movie with the prophetic cover motive :mrgreen:. The movie poster unmistakably shows Michael Jackson after turned into a cosmetic surgery zombie as one of the faces of the title.
The English title was chosen to draw a connection to another Bava movie, La Maschera del Demonio(1960), that ran as Black Sunday in the States very successfully.
I3VdP is an episode film based on stories by A.K.Tolstoj (not Leonid of War and Peace fame), A. Tchechow and Guy de Maupassant.
The American cut is not as Bava intended it, I will therefore refer to the original here, if not explicitly stated otherwise.
Boris Karloff, who stars in the second also introduces the other episodes and delivers the directors final joke after the last.
Episode 1 – The Phone
A call girl (A) is threatened repeatedly on the phone by someone who seems to not only know her intimately but also what happens at any moment in her flat. He announces that he will come and kill her soon. She calls a friend (colleague?)(B) for advice who promises to come but then calls her back with disguised voice with another death threat. Is she actually the psychopath or in league with him? She comes to her friend's flat willing to stay there until the situation is safe again. After supplying her (A) with a knife and sending her to bed she (B) sits at the desk. The psychopath enters the flat approaches the sitting woman(B) from behind and strangles her. Mistaken identity? No, he knows exactly what he is doing and now approaches his next victim. Now the knife turns out to be really useful. In the original cut the episode ends here, in the American cut the phone rings again and the ghost(?) of the murderer announces that he will terrorize her for the rest of her life.
Episode 2 – Vurdalak
Vladimir, a young nobleman rides over land. He finds a headless corpse and is later informed that is the body of a bandit, suspected of being a vampire (vurdalak). In the evening he comes to a farmhouse and asks, if he can stay overnight. The nervous family waits for the return of the father who is out to kill the above-mentioned bandit. But there is a catch. Should he not return before midnight of this day, he has asked his family not to let him in but to kill him because then he would have become a vurdalak himself. Unlike the vampires we know, vurdalaks only kill/transform people that belong to the family or those they love otherwise. The old man (Karloff) arrives but midnight has just passed. Nonetheless the family lets him in when he demands it. A fatal mistake because one after the other his family members become his victims. Vladimir flees with one of the daughters he has fallen in love with. But when they have to rest the vampirized family catches up with them and take the woman back. Vladimir returns to the farm to rescue her but since she loves him (see condition above) he becomes her prey. We don't stay for the wedding but move to the last episode.
Episode 3 – Drop of Water
A nurse and occasional layer-out is called to the flat of a dead medium/clairvoyant. The dead woman looks simply hideous (nobody one would want to meet after dark) but she has an obviously very expensive ring on her hand. The nurse falls for the temptation and takes the ring when she is left alone for a moment. The weather is not good this night, the electric light fails, and additionally all water taps in her own flat seem to be dripping. The sound begins to unnerve her, her conscience awakes, and she has the impression that someone else is in the flat. Has the medium come back to reclaim what is hers? There she is in the rocking chair, now she moves trough the hall towards her...
In the morning the nurse is found dead with her hands at her own throat. It looks like someone forcefully removed a ring from her finger.
Epilogue
Karloff with his youngest son/victim rides rapidly past pine trees shaken by the wind to give us the appropriate farewell. Then the camera pulls back and we see that he actually sits on a mock-up and that the trees are actually men with pine branches running round him while a fan produces the wind.
Many consider this Bava's masterpiece and it is said to be his favorite too. It is perfectly balanced with the longest episode at the center, flanked by the two shorter ones. The "improved" recut/expansion demanded for the American market spoils a lot of that. The first episode is completely real (and could have been made by Hitchcock), the second completely fantastic, the third deliberately ambiguous. With the epilogue Bava pokes fun at cheap but effective "special" effects and the audience's ease to fall for them.
The latter was not taken well by US audiences, from what I read in imdb commentaries.
For myself I have to say that I suffered something like a temporary personality split while watching the movie, the third episode in particular. On the one hand I could clearly see and rationally analyze the tricks (technical and psychological) Bava used, on the other hand I was totally frightened, when the dead lady went for the woman who stole her ring. While one side of me cried "that's a very cheap rubber doll on wheels", the other side was grabbing for the insta-faint button. Also very unnerving without actually showing anything frightening was the scene in the second episode, when Karloff uses his first victim, the already buried youngest boy, to plead to his mother to open the door for him. "Mother, I am cold! Let me in!".
Few directors at the time would have chosen the ambiguous approach to the third episode (a very good choice in my opinion). Is there really a vengeful ghost or is it all in the victim's mind caused by bad conscience and the eerie atmosphere? Has the ghost taken the ring back or has it been stolen from the thief and/or will there be a new victim the next morning?
The subtlety of the treatment makes it still a very effective chiller even almost half a century later and definitely worth a look. But try to get the original cut, not the US version.
And look out that Michael Jackson does not haunt your dreams! :mrgreen:
The Calamari Wrestler, Japan 2004
Another one of these movies that raise the question what kind of dope Japanese film directors and script writers smoke before going to work.
Taguchi Koji has just won the Japanese pro-wrestling championship and proudly lifts the trophy belt above his head, when suddenly a large calmar climbs into the ring and rips it from his hands. The irregular fight following ends with the victory of the maritime challenger (the standard grips don't work on an invertebrate). Independently several people believe to recognize the fighting style of The Calamari Wrestler (as he is immediately named) as that of the former champion Kanichi Iwata who mysteriously disappeared exactly 3 years ago. The trouble is that Myako, Taguchi's fiancee, was formerly in love with Iwata (and knows more than she will admit at this point). Taguchi wants a re-match but his bosses ban the Calmar from the ring when he refuses to take part in a rigged fight (with the human winning). But the huge fan base the calmar immediately attracts, the appeal of some old wrestling hands and the promise of huge profits lead to a change of mind and the new match is announced. Meanwhile not all is well with Taguchi, Myako etc. and Taguchi, thinking that he has no chance, takes the offer of the shady trainer and promoter of the calmar to undergo a special training in the same location in Pakistan. You can guess what happens ;-). In the great fight between the Calamari Wrestler and the Octopus Wrestler the calmar triumphs again and now has a bit of trouble to deal with his glory. But a new challenger arrives: The Sqilla Boxer, a giant mantis shrimp (those actually have an absolutely deadly punch that can with ease crack the armour of other crustaceans). Who will be the master seafood in the wrestling world?
The Muppets meet Godzilla in the ring as some critics have called it was made by director Minoru Kawasaki, the self-professed Japanese Ed Wood with talent. Whatever one may think about this film, it his highly entertaining from start to end. That the squids are clearly men in rubber suits (the shrimp looks far more realistic) does not matter at all, on the contrary it is remarkable how well the operators/actors do cope. The fights are impressive. But maybe even harder is the task to transport emotion and personality with a non-human body. But one has to see the calmar in Zen meditation, going shopping, handling a mobile phone etc. to believe. This is a first-rate performance easily outdoing most of the human competion. Given the whole cast the acting is straight and only slightly exaggerated, no Oscars in sight but adequate (what do you expect in a wrestling or boxing sports B movie?). A lot of the humour arises from the fact that everybody takes the giant intelligent sea creatures for granted and the only debate is about whether they can enter human wrestling contests. Of course no sports movie cliche is left out and people knowing Rocky 1-3 and the like will probably laugh even harder. I read that some participants are in the business in real life and known to the Japanese audience, providing "credibility" (and extra amusement).
Amidst the pure fun there are also a few traces of social criticism (aimed at both the wrestling business and the Japanese society as a whole) giving it a bit of depth but the movie should be taken as what it primarily is, a shameless opportunity to have 90 minutes of unadulterated fun. Btw, is the dope the makers used available outside Japan? ;)
That last one does sound like unmitigated fun--- have you had the pleasure of "Warning from Space" or Uchujin Tokyo Ni arawaru 1956-- you should see it a real treat and the 'transmutation' scene is pretty good for the era(IHMO).
Directed by Koji Shima starring Keizo Kawasaki, Shozo Nanbu- etc
here is a review -short one
"House of Wax" remake 2005
Run away, stab your own eyes out, really don't go near this turkey, don't let your teenagers choose movies from NetFlix.
Best part: when what's her face gets a pole through the forehead
I repeat-- do not let your teenagers choose movies from NetFlix
Is a warning actually needed :mrgreen:? That movie has Paris Hilton in it, and I know people that went to watch it just because she dies in it (and imagining it to be for real :o)
I also think some went to see it in the hopes of having a 'Big Screen' version of the One Night In Paris experience....
:barf: (imo)
I call them all "what's her face" :mrgreen:
El Vampiro
Mexico 1957, directed by Fernando Mendez, starring German Robles
A forgotten jewel of a gothic horror movie from a place where one would least expect it.
Mexico is known for its cheap mass production of pathetic horror movies that will only terrify cinephiles and cause potentially fatal laughing attacks in everyone else. But El Vampiro (The Vampire) is a rare exception. Not only it is not just a cheap imitation of Tod Brownings Dracula, it is quite original, but also well acted and with production values that look much higher than they probably were. It has also to be suspected that someone showed it to Terence Fisher, who made the first Hammer Dracula the following year. If this is indeed the case, it would be the eponymous missing link, for El Vampiro stands about halfway between the Browning and the Fisher depiction of the compulsive sanguiphile. German Robles, who plays the Count (that is definitely not Dracula under a false name), could easily change places with Lee and ol' Chris would have to put some effort into just equaling the performance of his Latino colleague (he speaks Spanish fluently btw, so it would have been theoretically possible).
(http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x97/Swatopluk/ElVampiro1.jpg)
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x97/Swatopluk/ElVampiro1.jpg
As in the Spanish Dracula version made at the same time and in the same sets as Browning's, the acting is less restrained (and less stilted) here but without going over the top. The score is quite effective and (for the time) not very intrusive. Of course there are the ominous strings, serving as the early warning system but it is not overused. Quite remarkably the film does not follow the (macho) cliche formula. The nominal heroe(s) are quite ineffective and the dirty work has to be done by those one would not usually expect it from. It is also quite a rare thing that the women are not reduced to the damsel-in-distress or window dressing role but carry at least equal weight as their male counterparts. One might even say that the two aunts are the main antagonists, not the count and the doctor (whose duel ends essentially in a draw). The movie also manages to keep some characters quite ambiguous for a good deal of the running time. When I first saw this movie, I could not decide for quite some time, whether Aunt 2 was dead or alive and on which side she actually stood (though the fact of her handling a crucifix made it unlikely that it was the count's). The doctor was clearly the inevitable love interest but his actual intentions were not revealed until quite late (and he did not come to look for undead aristocracy). What owns this movie a prominent entry into the genealogy of the vampire movie in any case is the fact that probably for the first time the vampire actually showed his fangs. Bela did not (probably due to censorship) and old Nosferatu was clearly a rodent with elongated incisors not canines. Another attempt to deviate from the tradition that did not catch on was the two-bite rule. A person would only turn into a vampire after the second attack, provided the first bite was survived. Later movies made it the decision of the biter, whether to kill or vampirize the victim and whether to do it immediately or feed over a longer time from the same victim. El Vampiro is able to get some suspense out of its invention, and it became the central point of the sequel (which I hear is quite inferior though). If you can lay your hand on a decent copy of El Vampiro, you should not miss the opportunity. But watch it in Spanish with subtitles, the English dubbing is said to be dreadful. Most of the movie can be easily understood even without the dialogue (that does not mean it is in-your-face or redundant), acting and directing do a very good job here.
Btw, this is possible also the first movie with a vampire spelling his name backwards to hide his identity. Mr.Alucard is just a copycat.
(http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x97/Swatopluk/ElVampiro2.jpg)
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x97/Swatopluk/ElVampiro2.jpg
Maybe now it is time to lose a few words about the plot, so this is the SPOILER ALERT.
Marta, a young woman returns to the remote hazienda she grew up on because her aunt Theresa has fallen ill. When she arrives at last, the aunt has already been buried for a few hours. She is said to have gone insane through the fear of vampires. As it turns out the old lady was actually right. The second aunt, Eloisa, has become a vampire and is in cahoots with Count "Duval", who has come to avenge and revive his brother Karol de Lavud, who has been killed a century ago and buried in the crypt of the hazienda (together with he movie's director, if we believe a certain burial slab). Despite aunt Theresa's precautions (she is not as dead as she seems) Marta is bitten by the count but only the second bite will turn her into a vampire too. Meanwhile a romance develops between Marta and the stranger Enrique she arrived with (he was actually called by her uncle to testify on Theresa's mental state). When Marta notices the tell-tale signs that Eloisa is a vampire she and the count poison her and she is laid out for dead. Just before she is buried too the housekeeper spots a finger moving and she is revived.
No Theresa's coffin is searched and found empty. The housekeepers now reveal that the same treatment was applied to the old aunt and she comes out of hiding. But now, while everyone else is in the crypt, the count abducts Marta to apply the second bite. Eloisa manages to get most pursuers off the count's trail but Enrique reaches him seconds before it is too late. In the following duel sabre against torch Enrique barely manages to hold his ground and the count only flees when the room catches fire and his henchmen arrive. With his pursuer occupied the count reaches his coffin just in time for daybreak. But aunt Theresa who has dispatched of Eloisa in the meantime (by strangling her!!!) enters the room and drives a furniture leg into him. Enrique carries Marta out of the flames just in time. Time to go back to civilization. The film ends where it started, at the railway station.
Moral: don't underestimate old aunties, they can be vicious.
QuoteMoral: don't underestimate old aunties, they can be vicious.
Yep. You rite... :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mua:
Ossibiss - Dragan StanlozISBN 0-9523647-0-0
let me preface this book review by saying that you may find it difficult to acquire a copy of this work. It was self published by the author (with the bizarre statement on the back that this "exciting trilogy" is "now published as one volume for the first time in this country". I found one copy on a rare book website so happy hunting...
And happy you will indeed be if you find a copy of this masterpiece. If you like a good laugh it will provide endless hours of fun. I would not recommend that you try to read this cover to cover - it has no discernable plot and when i tried I got to page three before my brain started to bleed. Simply dip in and out - preferably in company - and enjoy the wonders of a book that is without doubt the worst ever written in the English language.
Stanloz appears to believe that he is a writer in the L Ron Hubbard mould. The book claims to contain mystical truths and whilst I have found much that is mystical there is no discernable truth. At a whopping 686 pages of close packed text in 137 chapters there may be some truth in there but is so intermingled with the various dinosur fights, talking computers, witches, scorpions, spheres and sundry other delights culled from a bizarre range of authour and B Movie influences, as to be completely unintelligible. Stanloz has attempted to create a vast sweeping canvas covering time and space - think Asimov's Foundation and Empire meets Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle. What he has in fact created is a vast porridge of drivel. The constant technobabble, pseudo science and mysticism is bewildering and bizarre. I believe the truth may be something about umbilical cords of humanity, dimensions and circles but it is very hard to tell.
The language is startling in its originality. I am reminded of the quote from Iago Montoya in The Princess Bride "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". Heaven alone knows what 'ultramundane' means but surely something cannot be both ultramundane and weird? If the language is unusual then the dialogue is simply extraordinary. I cannot describe it adequately but sentences are interspersed with the lighting of pipes and the conversation is strangely stilted. The Author uses language like a vast pick and mix. Characters alternate between sci-fi technospeak and the patois of the olde worlde. The scenes of intimate affection need to be seen to be believed. When you put intimacy and conversation together you get passages such as...
Quotethe sweet smell of her body filled his nostrils;the air and the sun danced on their bodiesas their souls swayed in a torrent of exquisite sensations.
"we have found a real paradise in this wilderness," he said. "Happy?" he asked her between two passionate kisses.
"Happiness is now such an inadequate word to express how I feel at this moment darling," she said, her face illuminated by her happiest smile. "too trivial to convey my sense of wholeness, completion. It's rather an awakening to the real unity with this virgin, unspoiled world."
I could go on, Stanloz does, but suffice to say that within moments the moment is ruined by Pteranosaurs.
So why am I reviewing this terrible, terrible book? Because it is BRILLIANT! It is so utterly awful that it needs to be seen by everyone at their earliest possible convenience. had it been one fifth the length it might have found a publisher as a passable spoof pastiche of the whole of science fiction and fantasy writing. In its unabridged form it is a monstorous white elephant, a sprawling cataclysmic catastrophe of a book that demands respect for the sheer audacity of the author to have put this into print. Stanloz clearly believes evereything he is writing. Ossibiss has an earnestness born only of the true zealot. It would be a terrible shame if more people were not given the chance to unravel the truths it apparently contains.
So buy it! lend it to your friends! Recommend it to your Book Club! Did I mention the dinosaurs, witch burnings, spaceships, scorpions, spheres, umbilical cord of humanity, Crystaloids and talking computers.....
I'm not sure about a review, I'll try. I have posted this film before, but for some reason it keeps recurring in my head and I walk round giggling. I also cannot stop signing the "song".
So, Nuts in May, Mike Leigh, quinticentially English, utterly cringe- worthy (more than anything I have ever come across) mike Leigh is the most brilliant film director ever. His fiilms are not scripted and rely on the cast getting into character and improvising, but they do then rehearse once the improvisations become co-herent. He has made quite a lot of films, some are excrutiating to watch, like this one, they make you squirm, unimaginabe how he can capture these moments, but also some of his films are more ordinary life well observed, a bit like Pinter.
If you haven't seen it, watch and squirm
[youtube=425,350]ptugM-zad9A[/youtube]