Black Death

I sort of stumbled on this film by accident. I had attended the Toronto International Film Festival once many years ago, to see a little horror film called Severance. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, which straddles the often un-straddle-able (hyphen abuse!) line between horror and comedy. Director Christopher Smith sort of dazzled me with some very unique visual flair during the course of some of the films more harrowing scenes, and left me wondering what else this director has done. Long story short, I discovered he went from horror comedy, to dark medieval epic with the unfortunately titled "Black Death".

Cool.

I say unfortunately because the title of the film makes it sound like some cheap straight to DVD exploitation movie trying to make a quick buck by having a heavy handed title. When I look at this title I don't think "Plague!", I think "trashy slasher horror flick", which this film is not. Honestly, I truly believe they could have come up with a better title. The one that stuck will most certainly turn people away. Maybe it is just me.

Anyway, I was already excited, but it wasn't until I found out who was headlining the film that I decided I MUST watch this movie NOW: Sean fucking Bean.

Bean's turn as Boromir in the first Lord of the Rings was the best performance in the entirety of the trilogy. And his death scene gets me choked up all the time... And then there is the fact that Bean is convinced that healing a stab wound attained from defending searingly hot woman's honor is done with a pint.

Having said that, the film itself includes a hefty dose of pathos during its little romp through the black plague. Religion and faith take center stage as "Black Death" examines how faith can both divide and unify and that the beliefs of people are not beyond manipulation for malicious purposes.

The story takes place during the time of black plague. Just this setting presented many fascinating questions from me, namely how would a populace understand why the plague was happening? It seems they would rationalize it any way they could. It is almost like anyone's theories are acceptable. Throw out an idea and it might stick! This is an incredibly dangerous climate to live in. Many innocently turn to god to explain the unexplained. Very quickly, sides are taken, stands are made, and suddenly, instead of banding together against a foe that is indiscriminate, we fracture and fall divided. I don't want to go into too much of the plot, since I was quite engrossed in the movie from the opening credits to the epilogue, but suffice to say the film is poetic. It will leave you pondering the many layers of religion, faith, and politics and how they can be twisted together to manufacture hate, prejudice and destruction that dwarfs the devastation of the "pestilence" in question.


Lets talk about Sean Bean. Here he plays a similar character to Boromir; a flawed knight. He plays the role with such utter conviction that the faith of Boromir Ulrich the Christian knight becomes quite unsettling. He's big, hes burly, he's got an awesome beard, awesome hair and an awesome voice. He is The Bean, and he is displayed in all of his gravelly, earthy glory here.

The main character's arc was satisfying. I bought into his delivery of some of the emotional scenes, especially the events of the end of the film. The acting ranged from competent to great, which is more than I can say for other films with similar budget and subject matter. 

The action scenes is where the movies low budget reared it's ugly little head. Kills are made with the actors facing the camera, which obscures the actual effects of slashing and tearing. A cheap, but effective little money-saver move. But, the film does has some very satisfying kills, which I would expect coming from the director of Severance. When central characters go in this movie... They go in style.

This is truly a great and honest take on how a population ruled by Christianity would react to a force such as an unstoppable, unseen viral outbreak. What all factions fail to see is that the plague stops for no one, and does not discriminate between the faithless or the faithful. Humans create their own rationale, and then destroy each other when the rationale is challenged.

Moral ambiguities run rampant through the movie, which is something I truly enjoyed. Overall, the film came as a bit of a surprise to me. While the action beats and gore are all present, it is also a thought provoking take on the views of various factions during the time of an un-explainable terror, and how those views destroy more than any plague.

Attack the Block

I just managed to catch a free screening of Attack the Block tonight in NYC at the Sunshine Theater, one of my favorite theaters in the city. It also happens to be about 2 blocks from my apartment (sick!). I was riding off a sweet buzz the film gave me, so I thought I would give it a quick write-up while the film was fresh in my mind.

I had heard some serious positive word of mouth about this movie for a while now. When I saw the poster and the original trailer, I couldn't help feeling that this is the type of film I loved as a kid. It is no secret that I am a sucker for a good monster movie. I have seen many disappointing monster flicks this year (Wolfman, I am looking at you), but I am here to tell you all that Attack the Block is a fantastic monster movie.

The film starts by introducing us to a set of what seems to be the most unlikable characters a film could possibly throw at you. These South London street thugs are not to be trifled with it seems, and director Joe Cornish tries hard to make that apparent. They are introduced via a shameless mugging of a helpless woman at knife point, which is rudely interrupted by a meteor that smashes into a car next to them. After a brief investigation, a cudly little E.T. pops out of the car and tries to maul the lead gang members face off. The gang, flustered, pursue E.T. until they corner and kill it.

Two things I noticed immediately:

1) This film wasted ZERO time getting to what we want to see. The E.T's show up in the first 5-10 minutes, with no pussy-footing about. This is a good thing.

2) These are not likable characters. This is a bit of a daring move. The audience does not like these characters straight away. It was an interesting opening and leaves a lot of room for the characters to grow as the movie progresses.

The action from there on in plays out fast and furious, with a truly masterful balance of comedic and horrific moments. Although audiences have seen these types of character arcs in the past, the growth of the characters is surprisingly believable in the movies short 90 minute time frame.

But, let's get to the meat and bones of the film. The aliens. The team that designed these aliens have put together one of the most effectively economic movie monsters ever created. The E.T.'s in this film are best described as a cross between the homicidal apes from Michael Crichton's Congo, and the werewolf from An American Werewolf in London :

+  = ? Maybe!

They have no eyes, and their fur is jet black. When I say black , I truly mean black. They are solid black, with absolutely NO variation. With no eyes, and color/light swallowing black fur, what the hell could make these things so interesting you might say? How about... fluorescent... glowing... teeth. Sweet baby Jesus... that looks AWESOME! The teeth are used throughout the film to endow the creatures with some sort of personality. When they are attacking, they light up with their mouths wide open. When they are stalking, they have their mouths closed which makes their glowing teeth look eerily like a pair of glowing eyes. When they die, the light extinguishes. Not only is this is a great tool for communicating to the audience that the creatures have some kind of personality, but it is also a great tool for creating suspense. I applaud this director for not going flash-cut happy on the action scenes. There are beautiful wide shots of the aliens creeping in on their prey, showing the audience silhouettes against the city- scape. I can't tell you how ecstatic I was to see a scene where a creature is filmed from a far distance, fully showing off it's approach, and holding on it until it springs. These types of shots show a surprising confidence in Cornish, who is not afraid to establish time and physical space and distance to create tension and allow the audience to truly buy into what is happening on the screen.

His confidence must have come from the creature designers. I am a huge proponent of practical effects in  movies. I can write a whole essay about this, but lets just say when something is CG, and it does not need to be, I get a little... vexed. I feel the greatest use of CG is to augment reality, to create something that cannot possibly be done via practical effects. I am happy to say that this film has found the sweet spot: The perfect balance of CG and practical effects, the results of which are beautiful. The creatures in the film have real-world weight. They smash things, claw at things but never ever to they feel what I can only describe as "floaty". Quite the opposite really. They are lumbering and sometimes even clumsy. The man-in-suit style practical effects breathe life into these creatures. The entire Star Wars Prequel Trilogy couldn't hold a candle to what was done in this film. The Prequels gave us lifeless, floaty, and most of the time annoying cartoon characters that gave the actors nothing to react to; and it showed. This film has a reach-out-and-touch-it reality that is backed up by incredible sound design and smart editing that leaves no audience member in doubt of what these creatures are, and what they are capable of.

The sound design for the creatures are also worth mentioning. Being an avid fan of monster movies, I have heard quite of bit of the soundscape that otherworldly, ethereal and fantastical creatures have to offer. Often the sound design is recycled. A lion growl here, a puma grunt there etc. etc. If you want to create something truly unique, memorable and frightening, it is just as important for the audience to be aurally bewildered as it is for them to be visually stunned . Some examples of this are:

1) Aliens from Aliens

I think this was a combination of 50 different animals, but all I remember was this horrible almost elephant-like trumpeting squeal that gave me goosebumps. This film has both the striking H.R. Gieger designed Alien, as well as the signature squeal that I will always remember

2) Jurassic Park

This film had more than one example, but the T-Rex and Raptor take the cake. I cannot possibly forget the first time I heard that T-Rex scream in the theater... it was both the most fascinating and frightening moment in my life.

3) Predator

Almost like a rattlesnake moving in slow motion, the methodical clicks and subsequent roar of the Predator is legendary.

4) Balrog from Lord of the Rings Fellowship of the Ring

They created the sound of the Balrog by sliding two cinder blocks together. 'Nuff Said.

By the way, it is no coincidence that the genius Stan Winston created 3 of the 4 above famous movie monsters. His passing was a terrible blow to the practical effects industry. There are many more examples that I have to give, but I will likely write a whole other article on this later.

Attack the Block provides a unique sound for their monsters. This high pitched squeal sounds much like a husky woman's scream mixed with a chimpanzee. It is a unique sound that is menacing and adds tension to the already suspenseful scenes.

The monsters of this film are brilliantly implemented. The practical effects lead to an unprecedented level of physicality, while the sound design heightens the sense of dread. Both of these pieces come together in a beautiful visual and auditory experience that is sure to stay with audiences as the leave the theater.

This movie needs word of mouth. These screenings are meant to generate buzz. The movie deserves the positive feedback it has been getting. It also deserves more exposure. I would compare this film to one of my favorite monsters-run-amok movie: Tremors. Oddly enough, both monsters share the same "no-eyes" trait. If you have a theater near you that is playing the film either as a free screening, or during its limited release in July, please seek it out. You and your friends will have a great time at the theater.

I have more to say about the film, but I will likely include those as edits in the next few days. I just wanted to get this post up before the details of the film faded.

Valhalla Rising

My last post detailed two films that I was interested in watching solely based on the actor in the lead role. These also happened to be actors with great names. Valhalla Rising is no different. Continuing the trend of utterly cool names, Mads Mikkelson is an actor I had been interested in since I had seen him in Antoine Fuqua's re-imagining of King Arthur, where he played the Asian-influenced Tristam. The content of the Valhalla Rising was also something that immediately caught my attention: Vikings. Norse mythology, and by association, the Nordic cultures in general are topics of great interest for me. I love me a film with some god damned Vikings!

Just from viewing the trailers for this film, I could tell it was completely mis-represented. Because of this, I was almost ready for what I experienced. More on this after the main portion of the review...

I will try to sum up the film with an in-cohesive babbling of words and phrases:
Slow, deliberate, contemplative, bursts of violence, 30 lines of dialogue, beautifully shot, almost supernatural/fantastical.

If the above description confused you, do not worry: so will this film. It is at once the most beautiful and absolutely frustrating kind of movie I could watch.

Valhalla Rising is not for viewers looking for a concrete explanation of... well... anything. I would compare this in terms of pacing and plot, to Asif Kapadia's The Warrior. They are both metaphysical films about violence and faith. The difference between the films is that The Warrior is infinitely more accessible than Valhalla Rising. The Warrior tells an incredibly simplistic story about a man's turn from violence, and his road to revenge. It tells the story with landscape and movement, weaving a story using only a small amount of dialog. If The Warrior was a book that was light on the details, then Valhalla Rising is a book that gives you the introduction and the ending, and asks you to figure out what the hell happened in the middle, using fragments of scrambled phrases taken from the Bible and Beowulf.

Rising starts with an introduction of our "hero", One-Eye. I will let you guess why they call him that. One Eye is a warrior. He is being whored out to brawls that more often than not end in brutal death, which others bet money on. Oh yeah, and One Eye? He doesn't talk, and has no past that I could extract from the films dialog. And this is the first problem this film has: A main character with no dialog and no past to speak of (see what I did there?) makes for an incredibly hard character to connect too. You could argue that One Eye is not the focus here, and that the characters around him are the ones who the audience should be connecting too. If that is true, the film doesn't make it obvious, since a large percentage of the screen time is dedicated to One Eye.

That is not to say that is a terrible thing, given how striking Mads looks in the role. His One Eye is incredibly imposing, and embodies all of the physical attributes of someone with whom no one should ever fuck with. His (lack of an) eye, body scars and tatoos only further push to establish that One Eye has seen a lot (tehee!) of violence, and has somewhere along the line found that it is something he is good at.

Mads, as you may have figured, decides he doesn't like being jerked around and stages an escape, after which he and some other Christian Crusaders proceed to go on what seems to be the ultimate acid trip. That is the best way to explain it. The plot spirals into a series of incredibly mystical events, which lands the group in North America, nearly starving them all in the process. From here, things only get more psychedelic, with Native Americans showing up and and the band of merry travelers slowly losing their minds.

The film never really throws the audience a bone. As soon as you are coming to grips with an event that seemed almost fantastical, you are hit with another nearly inexplicable event that almost taunts you by saying "Try and explain THAT one!".

The near fantastical plot is completely counterbalanced by the down and dirty realistic look of the film. It is beautiful to behold. The film was shot primarily in Scotland, and is framed with an incredible eye for natural beauty. The film looks majestic. I saw this film in high definition, and truly feel that is the only way it should be experienced.

I originally thought it impossible that they ended up in the Americas, and was quite turned off by the thought. They start off by trying to sail to Jerusalem, in a small boat. The supposedly short commute turns into a harrowing never-ending descent into hell as they are thrown way the fuck off-course by what seems to be malicious mist. But as the movie trucked along, I grew to accept the fact that many of the events that occur are a mixture of real gritty, muddy violence and surreal moments, which include One Eye's prophetic dreams. The dreams are quite visceral, using this incredibly shocking red filter, which coupled with the fantastic cinematography, ingrained them into my memory. 

Let's talk about some of the violence in the film. First and foremost, the violence is quick and brutal. If you blink, you might miss it. I truly enjoyed the framing and filming of the action. My feelings toward the action scenes are similar to 13 Assassins in that the people in this film are truly trying to hurt each other. One Eye seems to have an unconventional "diving-chop" move that is so unpredictable and practical that I honestly believed that he could take on a group of 3 or more using this element of surprise. I got a full sense of geography and distance between the fighters, and the incredible landscape provided a dramatic stage for some of the violence that plays out.

The film does not hold back on the depictions of violence. Blood, gore, and innards are thrown about in a nonchalant fashion, but are not lingered upon. The violence is lean and mean; serving a purpose rather than being used as a dressing for gore-hounds. 

Oddly enough, the violence is about as sparse as the dialog. There are only a few scenes of action, and those scenes last only a short time. I did not mind this, since from the trailers, I was ready for this movie to NOT be an action film.

That was not the feeling that may others shared going into the movie. Take a look at the trailer for the film:

The trailer shows clips from every one of the brief action sequences. Although the trailer doesn't outright claim this to be a balls to the wall action film, it seems tailored to attract the crowd that would be interested in such a movie. The overuse of action shots in the trailer gives the false pretense that the film is focused on action, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Armed with only the add campaign, this movie likely played out to an audience that was not ready for the film they were about to experience. I can imagine as the the film progressed, the audience would grow increasingly mystified and even agitated by the films lofty plot and mystical nature.

I have already made the comparison of Valhalla Rising to The Warrior. Here is the trailer for that film for comparison:

The poster of the film (seen at the top of the post) however, was incredibly effective. It displays two of the films strongest attributes: the landscape, and the physical presence of the lead. I think I might actually purchase this bad-boy.

Valhalla Rising is a film that either captivates or aggravates the hell out of you. The lofty nature of the film makes it hard to make an audience truly care about any of the characters. But, as long as you are willing to take the plunge into rabbit hole, the experience can be rewarding. At once both a nightmare and a dream, this films descent into hell can be an incredibly engrossing experience, as long as you let go of the trappings of the average plot driven film and allow One Eye to take you on the journey.

Why Am I Excited: Skarsgård and Stormare

I just wanted to drop a quick post to show you all two films I am really excited to see starring two of my favorite character actors. And it's not just because they have awesome sounding names.

Small Town Murder Songs

Why am I excited?

This film is shot in Ontario, and Peter Stormare is the headline actor. I don't know about all of you, but I feel Stormare brings serious gusto to whatever film he happens to be in. Even though he seems to be relegated to secondary roles in other big budget Hollywood films, the character he plays is the character that audiences remember when they leave. Some examples are (in no particular order):

•  Constantine
• While I consider this movie as a whole to be kind of a huge slap in the face to anyone familiar with the source material (re: Hellblazer), one thing I enjoyed watching was Peter Stormare's charismatic Satan. Delightfully morbid!
• Bad Boys 2
• I can't remember anything about this movie, which lends insight into its quality. Again, Stormare pulls through as the Russian mobster who delivers the most only memorable line of this film - "The Russian Grim Reaper is here."
• Armageddon
• While this goofy film is filled with cartoon characters of all types, Stormare again manages to whip out a little bit of dialog that I won't forget any time soon - "American components, Russian components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!"

His gusto alone has made him a memorable character in nearly every movie he has been in even though he was surrounded by what would be considered to be "mega-stars". I am very excited to see a film in which the focus is on him to deliver in a dramatic role. Here is hoping for the best. 

A Somewhat Gentle Man

Why am I excited?

Stellan Skarsgard is the kind of actor that can actually get me to watch films that normally would slip under the radar. His mere presence generates interest from my end. I have admired his work in a wide spectrum of movies, big and small:

• Deep Blue Sea
• HA! This one is a doozy that I quite enjoyed. Skarsgard's doctor has the most memorable... dismemberment, and as a bonus his character introduction has him pissing into the wind. Comedy gold. 
• City of Ghosts
• This surreal Matt Dillon directed flick has Skarsgard delivering on the daramatic acting chops that have made him an international star. 
• King Arthur
• I may write about this movie later because I feel it gets an unjustly bad wrap. Antoine Fuqua's excursion into Roman occupied Britain was definetly a leap for the director, considering his forte seemed to be modern urban filmmaking. Despite that, I feel this was a very effective re-telling of the Arthurian Legend, thanks in no small part to Skarsgard's Cerdic, the underdeveloped yet entirely menacing Saxon leader. His mano-a-mano conversation with Clive Owen's Arthur before the final battle was particularly effective. His swagger and line delivery make this a memorable role.
• Insomnia (1997)
• The film that Christopher Nolan re-made has Skarsgard front and center playing a cop with questionable morals. His nuanced delivery makes his character at once despicable and sympathetic at the same time. I recommend checking this film out, you will find many of what seemed to be the most compelling plot and character moments from the Nolan film are lifted completely from this one. 
• Beowulf and Grendel
• I really enjoyed this oddball film. It took the complete opposite approach to both the mythology, as well as the method of film making that Robert Zemekis's motion captured Beowulf did. It told the story from Grendel's point of view, using make-up and the natural beauty of Iceland to its advantage. Director Sturla Gunnarsson (Icelandic names are awesome) crafts a story that is whimsical, savage and quite funny at times. Skarsgard's King Hrothgar is played with an air of desperation that allows the audience to believe that he is truly a man running out of options. His uniquely comedic delivery adds to the oddball nature of the entire film, which is what made it memorable as a whole. 

Peter Stomare and Stellan Skarsgard are actors that no one really knows by name, yet once a movie goer sees their faces, there is an instant recognition. As soon as recognition is established, exclamations of "Oh! he played this character in this movie, and that character in that movie!" seem to steadily stream from any movie-goers memory. Stormare and Skarsgard's ability to remain memorable amongst a sea of top talent is a testament to their acting ability, and that is why I am looking forward to these two films. 

Goemon

Not too long ago, I was looking for my first batch of blu ray's to purchase on Amazon. Some of my searches included films like Mongol and Red Cliff, both of which I ended up purchasing. But Amazon being the magical site it is, managed to catch my eye with some suggested products. The suggestions included two films: Goemon and Casshern. Both films are directed by Kazuaki Kiriya. Goemon is the more recent of the two films, so I decided to check it out.

Watching the trailers of both of these films, it is small wonder they are directed by the same person. Kiriya certainly loves his digital environments and actors. Goemon seems evokes the style of the airbrushed and too-pristine-to-be-real 300 look convolved with the absolute insanity of a next generation video game  cut scene. I would go as far as to say that this is an animated film with real actors in it.

I was not sure whether this was a good or a bad thing at first. I liked Frank Miller's 300 graphic novel, but the movie left me cold with its synthetic environments and hyper-stylized, slow-motion fetish (here's hoping Zack Snyder doesn't pollute Superman with the same level of gimmickry).

"This. Is. Slloooowwwww moootttiiioooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn"

After Goemon's boisterous first scene, it was clear that this film was not trying to bamboozle the audience into thinking this was real. Kiriya not only embraces the insanity of the cartoonish delivery, he revels in it. Make no mistake: this film loves being bat-shit crazy. Goemon manages to use the same tools as 300, while being its exact opposite. Kiriya uses his CG wonders not as a painful exercise in over exposed slow-motion film making; he uses it to speed things the fuck up. His action is breathlessly paced. People are running, jumping, vaulting, chopping and flying through the air with such speed as to leave the audience running to catch up. Goemon himself is a shinobi who can seem to leap hundreds of feet in the air and ride a horse down the side of a mountain that any normal person would call a sheer cliff without pausing for a breathe.

While none of this looks particularly realistic, I personally found this literal change of pace to be the most attractive part of the film. No more over-use of glorifying slow motion. This film has CG environments and actors that keep the action moving exceptionally fast, and can be quite breathtaking at times.

That is, if you can get over the fact that the abilities of the characters in the film seem to be chaotic at best. You would think Goemon himself is a god considering the maneuvers he pulls. There does not seem to be any over-arching explanation as to what these shinobi can do, and when they can do it. That type of logical gap tends to get under my skin. Essentially, it seems to be a film without any rules. When you have a film that doesn't establish any rules, all of the action scenes lose their potency because there is no real element of danger.

The plot of the film is fairly forgettable. It seemed like quite a long film, and I felt it did not have the right to be so. There was at least one action set piece I thought was to be the final scene, but was proven wrong when another scene, the scope of which was even larger, played out extending the run time of the film.

The characters suffer from some of the same issues in 13 Assassins. The chief offender being the one-dimensional antagonist.

Our second one-dimensional Japanese antagonist. Sadly, no nickname was given...

His one-dimensional offense? He throws a baby in a vat of boiling oil.

...

Yeah. What a douche-bag. 

One thing about the action that I cannot go without mentioning are some of the up close, torso-up running shots. There are scenes with Goemon racing through the rain and facing the camera that are shot almost portrait style, while the background zooms by behind him. These scenes induced what I hope to be unintentional laughter from me, due to the fact that it is painfully obvious that the actor is on a green screen set, running on the spot, and probably having water thrown onto his face.

That's right. Running on the spot. It seems to be so obvious that it's kind of hysterical. All of the effects wizardry to create feats bedazzling to behold, and the production had to rely on an actor running on the spot to film these intense sequences? Did they not have a treadmill they could use? Maybe a steady-cam they could have attached to the actors waist and have him actually run to help represent the physical action? 

I appreciate Goemon for what it is: An exercise in style which attempts to separate itself from other efforts by building energy in its action scenes using speed. The plot is forgettable (except for that baby scene, which was ridiculously memorable), and the drama overwrought. Goemon is strictly a visceral experience which is not ashamed of its heavy reliance on its digitally rendered universe. I applaud Kiriya for attempting to do something different with a set of tools that have been abused in the past.

Scream 4

First horror movie on this list. I could have gone with some of my favorite horror films first, but since I was pretty excited to check this film out, and I saw it a few days ago, I thought I would throw in my two cents while it was fresh in my mind. 


Just to set some expectations: I really like the first two Scream films. I think the first film is the slasher horror film of my generation. It single handedly revitalized a fledgling genre, breathing fresh new life into a genre of film that had been stabbed just as many times as its unfortunate cinematic victims, and left for dead. Scream 2 took meta-film to the next level by capitalizing on the expectations of the audience, while delivering an entertaining knife-happy second round through Woodsboro. 


Scream 3 made the mistake of fully becoming exactly what the filmmakers were lampooning in the first 2 films. 


Now, a whopping 11 years later, Scream 4 is out. And I can't remember the last time I have had so much fun in a theater. But, that doesn't make this a great movie. It makes it a fun one. 


Scream 4's opening is something an audience member either loves, or hates. I loved it. It opens as any Scream film does; inside a house with the first victim receiving a phone call from our friendly neighborhood sociopath / horror geek. But the filmmakers are out to make a movie that is self-aware, and what follows is a series of movies within movies within movies. Openings of the various movies based on the main characters trials of the first three Scream films, affectionately titled "Stab" are shown to the audience. Even though I felt it was slightly over the top (the head-fake happens twice), but overall I felt it was in line with what the movie had to say about the post-scream horror films. There are many comments thrown around about movies that aren't scary, but are instead gross (Saw, Hostel et all). This is the kind of dialog I enjoy listening to, courtesy of screenwriter Kevin Williamson, who wrote the first two entries, along with some assistance from Ehren Kruger. This dialog can only come from Williamson. His deconstruction of horror movies today is on point, and kept me interested in the dialog enough until the mayhem begins. 


The whole "meta" aspect of the film is something that I feel many movie goers are split on, which is why this whole opening could potentially make or break the experience. Since I love to talk about film to others, there is nothing that appeals to me more than to watch a film where people have the same discussions (and sometimes share the same opinions!) as I do, while demonstrating how people with that knowledge react when put in a situation that is similar to the films they love. I find that to be entertaining, and that is really the crux of why I love the Scream films. I can always relate to the characters in the film (especially the designated nerd), and find that this connection make the film that much more fun to watch. 


Being a fan of the first two films, it is nice to see all of the principles back in the fray. I feel the stand-out here is David Arquette's Dewey. He is that lovable goof ball you are always rooting for in the previous films, and his is a welcome return. All of the characters look their age. Voices have gone raspy, husky, and have dropped an octave. Even Ghostface's voice sounds like the original's after a few years of aging and/or smoking. Not even omnipresent psycho-killers can avoid father time I suppose. This plays in favor of the film, which is not afraid to show that their principles are real people. There was a great moment in the film where Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) is planting a cameras at a party in the film. The cameras themselves look like fairly large and bulky security cameras. But the killer has the same idea, and has cameras of his own. Except they are sleek, round and wirelessly controlled webcams. Although not very subtle, the effect was amusing. It seems the movie revels in showing how different the era's of the first Scream and this one are.


The stand-out new character is by far Kirby Reed (Hayden Penettier). This girl is kind of awesome in this movie. This is probably because I have a huge boy-crush on her character. She is attractive, spunky, and most importantly, a horror movie nerd. She goes toe-to-toe with Macaulay Rory Culkin in a horror movie trivia stand-off, which was just mind-blowing. Just her little trivia session scene with the killer near the end of the film was worth the price of admission. Great hot, nerdy, awesome character and probably the only new character who is worthy of any attention. 


The film also takes a few shots at Hollywood remakes and the generally creatively deprived state of Hollywood genre film making as a whole. I appreciate the film trying to call out the competition, and trying to emphasize that it is an original property which is a rarity these days. It is strange for the film to take such a stance, the irony here being that Wes Craven has had many of his movies remade, and some he has even had hand in remaking. The Hills Have Eyes (and it's remake sequel), Last House on the Left and Nightmare on Elm Street are all remakes of Wes Craven movies. The first two in the list he is actually credited as producer. 


Odd as that is, the film has one major problem: it cannot avoid the pitfalls it is calling out in other films. Look, there is a certain amount of predictability to this type of film. But the Scream series has always been about anticipating that audience... anticipation, and throwing something else at them. This movie, despite all of it's talk, simply cannot avoid the standards of the genre. While I am not overly concerned with plot cliches, I am incredibly concerned with suspense technique and atmosphere, which can make this movie irritating to watch at certain points. Wes Craven is an established film maker with many years of experience. He can spin a tightly woven suspense tale in a creative and unique way (Red Eye). Sure he has had some pitfalls in the past (Cursed... what the fuck was that?), but in the end, if Craven can do anything, its create a sense of suspense and dread. 


So, why the fuck is it that he falls back on cliched editing, sound design, and camera tricks to try to make the audience afraid? Let's talk about some examples:


Editing:
- Now you see him now you don't move. I like to call this "Ninja, Vanish" or "Batman Syndrome". The killer is lying on the floor one moment, and the next has vanished into thin air. Now, the only fictional person who is allowed to do this is Batman. And maybe members of the Foot Clan. But a human maniac with no training or supernatural assistance is not allowed to do this in a film. This is a cheap move that will always, always always get a tired groan out of a movie going audience, even if they are enjoying the film.


Sound Design:
- Consider this. Take a preview audience, put them in a dark theater, and have nothing but text from this book scrolling slowly on the screen. Now, play the loudest fucking noise you can get your hands on randomly during this... film. Each and every time your audience will jump. Scream even. Does that make you a good horror film maker? No. It does not. This is not suspense. This is shock. And it is not hard to shock people. Craven, even after all these years, relies on shock cutting, and shock sound design to scare the audience. A hand reaching from the shadows to grab a character is always accompanied by some sort of loud electronically created sound that causes the audience to jump. I admit, "Jump-scares" are an essential part to a film of this type, but you have to earn them. Relying solely on them means you have run out of ideas.


Camera Trickery:
- Ever feel like the characters in a film are blind as bats? Consider the character standing in a hallway, only to get completely blindsided by a killer running at full tilt. This would imply 


a) This character has absolutely zero peripheral vision.
b) This character is completely deaf. 


It annoys me to no end that the framing of the camera seems to assist the killers element of surprise, keeping him just out of frame. It almost always feels like if we can't see him in the frame... then the character most certainly cannot see him. This is despite the fact that any average human being would be able to detect the killers presence by either seeing or hearing him coming. The killer must be wearing his hush puppies to be running around so silently. 


Look up "Horror Movie Cliches", you will find each of the three above topics in some form or another. 


Craven employs each of these tactics in this film. Not as much as an inexperienced director mind-you, but they are still there. If anything, he has truly perfected this "art". I really wish we could just get away from these types of cheap tactics. Craven has proven he can create an atmosphere of suspense and dread with Red Eye. Why not make use of some other tactics? I always wish horror film makers would not cut the film so tightly, and let the film relax a little bit. Tight cutting doesn't always equal tension. A slow burn shot of the killer approaching his victim out of focus in the background would be a welcome change from some of the jack-in-box maneuvers pulled in this film. 


That is not to say that the film is devoid of suspense. I actually quite enjoyed Ghostface's banter on the phone, and felt it added to the tension. While sounding older, his dialog is more relaxed. Sometimes, it is down right funny (one scene, after being accused of being a kid playing a prank named Trevor, has him exclaiming in annoyance "THIS ISN'T FUCKING TREVOR!"). Those moments of amusement are cut with flashes of extreme anger and make his conversations unpredictable. I enjoyed the fact that he almost always starts with disarming conversation, and suddenly (violently) changes over to something a little more sadistic.


Re-visiting the dialog for a moment, I really enjoyed all of the shout outs to what is probably the last 20 or 30 years of horror movies. The "Cinema Club" at Woodsboro Highschool contains posters for many movies I have enjoyed in the past, and it is nice to see the movie pay homage as well as poke some self-aware fun at the films that inspired its creation. Also, the "Stab" films within the film are directed by Robert Rodriguez. That is all sorts of awesome. 


One particular shout out I thought was pretty great was the name of the cop that Anthony Anderson plays. They keep referring to him by his last name, "Perkins", until once and only once in the film he is called by his first name, "Anthony". That would make him Anthony Perkins, the actor who played Norman Bates in the original Psycho (and sequels). Funky. While we are on this, I also thought it was worth noting that Anthony Anderson is no stranger to the genre, having parts in Urban Legend: Final Cut, and going as far as to being the star of Scary Movie 3 and 4 which started out as lampooning the Scream franchise!


The movie's stand-out death occurs in when a character is attacked in her room, while the neighbors watch helplessly as she is sliced and diced. This scene, and the scene leading up to it were handled exceptionally well. I felt the tension ramp up as multiple phones were being used, and the distance between the characters seemed to get farther and farther as the scene went on. And the pay-off attack scene was filmed and edited for maximum shock, but it was shock that I felt was earned. 


I also enjoyed how the town of Woodsboro itself has handled the killings. It is interesting to see that the town has embraced them, and looks to capitalize on the tragedies. Dewey says it best, "One generations tragedy is another's joke" (that is from memory, I could be a little off on the actual line). I feel that the movie is at its best when it emphasizes the generation gap, and shows how the town has learned to cope. Woodsboro has moved on, but the murders have become a part of the town, and there is no way to escape it, and pop culture ensures that the wound will never heal.


Let's talk about the ending. The main strength of the first film comes from its enigmatic villains, and their motivation. This film has the motive, but the villains themselves are stale at best. Their delivery of the why and how of the whole situation at the conclusion of the film is weak when compared to Mathew Lillard and Skeet Ulrich's charming and energetic performances of the first film. The actor and actress playing the killers are low-energy, and you really don't buy into their state of mind. You do not FEEL that they believe what they are saying. That is a shame, because I felt the reasoning, while a bit convoluted, had some merit. I thought the filming of all the murders to up the ante was a brilliant idea. Our tech-savvy, pop-culture infused society would eat that "product" right up. Williamson was hitting the nail on the head with the line


"Look around, we all live in public now, we're all on the internet. How do you think people get famous anymore? You don't have to achieve anything! You just got to have fucked up shit happen to you."


This couldn't be more true. Antoine Dodson is a good example. His sister was nearly raped, and he got famous! 


Bottom line: these villains had a good motive, but the actors performance could not hold a candle to the original "motive-orgy" of the first film. 


A quick word on the posters for the film:

- That's what I am talking about. No floating heads. Stick to the iconic imagery established by the franchise, and make it unique. Not a SINGLE actors face on the poster! Amazing! Both are simple, elegant, effective. The one on the right ups the creepy factor with the morph into a knife at the bottom. This type of poster design gives me hope that we will get more creative posters for big Hollywood films. 


Having a look back on what I have written here, you may think I did not enjoy the film. I actually did. The crowd we saw it with was really into it, and there were plenty of screams and squeals of delight as the scares came a mile-a-minute on the screen. That whole atmosphere really helped the film come alive, and lead to one of the more memorable experiences at the theater. Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson have crafted a sequel that tries to break out of the box, but still falls victim to classic cliches. Despite this, the film has something to say about the horror genre and society's hunger for information. It also delivers some good old fashioned jump-scares while being quite funny in the process. Yes there are groan inducing cliches. Yes the best death in the movie is ruined by a truly out of place one-liner. But the films meta-charm and self awareness make it interesting and fun experience. Watch it with a group of friends. 

13 Assassins

13 Assassins


Let's start off with something that is fresh in my mind. I just saw 13 Assassins with a couple of friends this past Sunday. There has been a lot of buzz about the film since it started making the festival runs. This isn't surprising considering it's director is Tikashi "Audition" Miike. Now let's get one thing out of the way: I have only seen one Miike film, "Sukiyaki Western Django" (which I will probably write about soon). I have not seen "Ichi The Killer", or "Audition". Although I have heard they are both suitably fucked up.

After Django, I kind of went into this film expecting a very slow burn, a build up to a final climactic event. And thinking about it now, that is kind of what I got, albeit in proportions than I ever thought possible. This movie is literally split in half.

First half: Character and motivations are set up
Second half: Dismemberment/disembowelment of various kinds

The introduction of the film is actually its most powerful scene which depicts a Samurai performing seppuku. Oddly enough this is the most gut wrenching (!) scene in the film, and Miike handles it with a reverence and grace that such an act deserves. The shot it an unmoving, steady framing of the mans upper torso as he slowly and deliberately locates the correct spot on his stomach and slices himself open. It was mesmerizing, revolting and inspiring all at the same time. It was then that Miike had my complete and undivided attention. What follows is a bit of political drama and a classic banding together of men who recognize that something must be done about a seemingly bat-shit insane up and coming lord named Naritsugu. The first half of the film is the band planning the lord's assassination. The second half of the film is the execution of that planning.

The weakest link in this film is the antagonist. Naritsugu is a real asshole, there is no doubting that. Doesn't that make you hate him, and in turn, doesn't that make him a good bad-man? Not quite. This guy is SO evil, for reasons that are completely unclear, that you can't help but think the makers of the film could have replaced his scenes with a bill-board of the atrocities he has committed instead of actually having the character in the film. The film-makers are simply TELLING you he is evil.

Here is an evil man.
Here are the evil things he has done:
- Chopped off a woman's arms and feet and ripped out her tongue
- Raped a man's wife and subsequently killed her husband

He may have also killed the man's wife, but I don't remember. The fact I cannot remember is telling. I don't remember because in the end, I didn't care. Whenever he showed up on screen, I was simply waiting for another unspeakable atrocity to be committed by this prick and the scene to cut back to the infinitely more interesting characters in the film (anyone else). His shifty eyes and random acts of vicious violence made me think that this man would just up and rape anything in any scene he was in. He is THAT evil. So much so, that the character was nicknamed "Rapey Eyes" during the course of the film.

Rapey Eyes: I hate you because I was told too.  

But, in the end we get the message: He is a bad man, and he must be raped stopped.

That's where our protagonists come in, who are a colorful, if slightly clichéd group of individuals who take it upon themselves to take this asshole out. They are a mix of lovable rogues, money loving scoundrels, inexperienced youngsters and honorable leaders. Their interactions with each other and with Rapey Eyes' captain of the guard were believable. That being said, the characters have arcs that we have all seen before: the captain of the guard who wrestles with the realization that his Lord is psychotic, the showdown between friends, the youngster who is experiencing killing for the first time. These cliche's are depicted competently and are assisted by what I feel are two of the films strongest attributes: location and time period. I found the depictions of samurai culture quite arresting, and the  arc of the characters suddenly weren't clichéd. They fit. You can feel the strength of samurai code, good or bad, seething from the film as it goes. So effective was this depiction of samurai culture that I did not second guess any of their motivations. Gutting yourself in protest of serving a man you felt was evil seemed to be common sense. It all seemed to fall into place. Well, except one part... I will get to that.

One scene in particular during the first half stood out for me, which involved the dismembered woman. Miike films this with delicacy, not reveling in the woman's pain, but delivering a visual I won't soon forget. The mournful cry of the woman near the end of the scene gave me goosebumps. And the lead samurai's reaction to that scream of pain? A smirk. Literally. Maybe I need to watch it again, but I swear, the man smiles to himself immediately after the woman wails. Why? Because he has been looking for a reason to die honorably, and with the advent of the acts committed by Lord Rapey Eyes, has found a noble cause to do just that. He is so happy about this, he SMILES. Anyone can see that this may be considered an dick move. But, I understood why he would. So much is this movie steeped in Samurai code, that although I took note of his completely insensitive reaction, I believed that his smile was justified given his reasoning. The film has a strong sense of location and culture that it fully takes advantage of to great effect.

Alright, let's get into the second half of the film. The seemingly overcomplicated assassination attempt becomes a 200 on 13 orgy of violence. Miike is surprisingly adept at depicting action. I was very impressed with how the scenes were shot, and more importantly, how they were edited. For each individual fight, I understood where the combatants were, and how what they were doing was effecting their surroundings and each other. That is saying a lot in an age of films where hyper-editing can take a huge smelly shit on a well-covered, well-shot action scene. The strongest element of the scenes, and something I admire about great actions scenes in general is that these bastards are actually trying to kill each other. Watch the sword fighting in this closely, you will notice that no fight is a 10 minute swashbuckling/dancing-with-the-stars epic. They are exactly the opposite. Fast, hard and brutal. 3 or four strikes at most and someone is down. The ferocity of which the protagonists swing their swords makes you believe they could take 200 men. The sound design is also great, if not a bit over the top. I mean, how much noise does slashing or stabbing someone really make? The sound for slashing and stabbing in this is definitely amped up to increase the impact of the fights, but it gets to the point where the sound production was nearing light-saber levels of sonic-overload.

There are some times when I actually felt sorry for the lord's guards. These 13 Assassins were just decimating their army. Great shots of extremely nimble samurai running from roof to roof, climbing ladders, leaping into crowds of enemies and annihilating them. The energy with which Miike has put together this final incredibly long action scene kept me engaged without boring me. But one scene really had me scratching my head.

I had said I would talk about a scene in which not even the location and culture of the film could explain. After herding the Lord's army into their death trap, they begin to kill many guards from the rooftops via an arrow storm and well-planted explosives. Smart. Can never be too careful when its 13 on 200. After they have reduced the guard numbers significantly, they.... voluntarily throw their bows away and proceed to engage the army in sword to sword combat.

...

They have spent most of the movie despairing over the size of the Lord's army. Logic has been something that the film had stuck to up until this point. Although the whole assasination scheme was a little contrived, it was a very politically fueled environment, and that sort eliminates the direct approach. At least the film convinced me of that. But this scene left me with a big "what the fuck!?" moment. It is inconceivable that they would give up their incredible advantage of higher ground and projectiles for close quarters combat.

You really could have just arrowed this asshole in the chest...

Other than that minor slip in logic, I found the action portion of the film to be a well shot, well edited high energy example of good action film-making. This will look and sound incredible on Blu-Ray.

Just a word on the add campaign: I really enjoyed the posters for this film. Particularly the poster used to introduce the post, and the following one:

Fantastic little piece...

No floating heads + Full figured forms + Embracing the setting and landscape = Great poster campaign.

Despite some lapses in logic and a shallow antagonist, I found 13 Assassins to be an enjoyable film. It is a tried tested and true formula, which by making excellent use of it's setting, transcends the average men-on-a-mission film to deliver something energetic and engaging. 

And here we go...

Alright. This is brand new for me. Being a pretty private person, I guess starting a blog warrants a bit of an explanation.

I love film. I love comics. I am a nerd. This is not something I hide. On the contrary, its something that I am proud of. I have met others like me that I have got along with. I have met others like me that I have not got along with. But more importantly, I like to discuss art after it has been experienced with anyone that is willing to talk about it. It is this discussion that is the reason for the creation of this blog.

Often I find myself in discussions with people that are incredibly opinionated, sometimes forcefully so. I feel that these opinions can sometimes be built on nothing but pre-conceptions and judgments based on anything BUT the material that is being discussed. None are more guilty of this than the hard-core nerd fan-boy. That is exact opposite of what I want to do here. My personal approach to experience art is to do my best to keep an open mind. Even with what would be widely considered a "bad" film, I tend to find, and focus, on what I liked about the film. That is not to say I lose perspective of what I feel the film did to earn its place at the bottom of everyone's shit-list, but I try to extract what I liked about the film and put the emphasis on that. As for the films faults, I try to be as constructive as possible.

Having said that, I am a fan-boy myself, so I would imagine that we will be seeing some childish outbursts of my own from time to time. I am sure I will go off my rocker now and again... Such is the curse of being a nerd.

The contents of the blog are going to very from films that I have seen, comics or books that I have read, film news, trailers, posters etc.

For films specifically, you will see all kinds - foreign, independent, big Hollywood productions and the rest.

I try to diversify genres, but having nerd-blood running in my veins, I do have genres that I cannot help but gravitate towards... none more dominant than the Horror Film. I will get into that more later, but I have a special strange affinity for watching crap-tastic, schlocky horror films. Hopefully, as this blog gets going, I can being to think about WHY I have this ridiculous addiction. I also like good movies. Honest!

Bottom line: This is a place for me to dump my opinions on various forms of art for the world to see. I try to keep an open mind and hopefully someone out there will find the opinions interesting enough to read, and maybe respond to.

Alright. Let's get this shit started...