Lorna the Exorcist [1974]

As Linda is turning 18 - her father is being harassed by a mysterious woman named Lorna who is demanding that he turn over his daughter to her.

This is an amazing hyper-sexual head trip - it's a glorious treat for Franco fans that this film was finally found and reconstructed and released with such care by Mondo Macabre. The print has been damaged by the porn distributor who purchased it and cut in hardcore sex into it - but enough of the original print survived for it to fixed back to its original form as scratchy at time as it appears - unfortunately the soundtrack seemed to have suffered more.

Even with the hardcore scenes removed - Franco's version is intense for how sexually explicit it was. His fascination with the female genitalia is in full force - not only with his usual zoom into that region - but the lingering of the shot - and the fact that the actors actually engage each other in that region. It indeed takes you out of the movie a bit - but it also is part of the head trip that was designed as part of the story. It's purposely hypnotizing and graphic but also misleading as it becomes horrifying with Franco introducing a quite possibly one of his most disturbing ideas when he has monsters creeping out of a woman's privates. That must have been conflicting and personal for Franco - making his favorite part of a woman's anatomy horrifying.

Lina Romay as Linda was outstanding - one of her best roles - right up there with the Countess from Female Vampire. She was youthful and energetic - and slowly became more disturbed - culminating with what seemed like a complete loss of restraint and giving herself over completely into the role. Pamela Stanford commanded your attention - with her slinky, smooth, cool and mysterious demeanor - as Lorna. I'm not sure how much her ridiculously wild eye make-up played a role in how strangely fascinating she was - but she carried an amazing intensity to the role.

Franco used a resort town in the south of Spain as the setting for this story - it was still in the midst of being constructed - which allowed him to cleverly pull of successful flashbacks. Also, considering how it was being made as a resort town the architecture was a bit more unique and pretty - it provided a very surreal background for this old world Faustian tale.

The direction was classic Franco - where there were plenty of lingering scenes - which hypnotize you and leave you unaware of exactly all that's going on. The film starts with an 8 minute sex scene - and it's so intense and lingering you are left wondering what's going on - and as it pulls you out - he switches it up quickly and throws a lot at you. I personally love that shit - it pushes the boundaries of what you should be expecting and keeps me more engaged to his films than most directors. His use of a pulsating repetitive music in his soundtrack was also put to great use making the atmosphere of the film more surreal and hypnotic.

Lorna the Exorcist is a must see for Franco fans - storming into my Top 5 list of his films - and I'm grateful that this print was finally reconstructed and released with such care. I think it's a perfect representation of Franco working in his wheelhouse of sexual horror using universal themes in the early 70's - it's quite brilliant and haunting.

Centurion [2010]

A Roman legion is ambushed by the Picts (a Scottish tribe) and the few survivors must try to make it back safety before they are hunted and killed.

Neil Marshall’s play on the legend (mostly myth) of the Roman 9th legion in Britain – an unstoppable group who went “missing” while guarding their post. What I really liked about the movie is that you are given two sides – both give the viewer equal justification to root for. The Picts are defending their land against invaders – as well as Etain who has her own brutal reasons for wanting to hunt down the Roman scum. Then you have a somewhat likable group of Roman soldiers headed by Quintus Dias (Michael Fassbender – who plays the title Centurion) – who you realize are pretty much left up to their own – with no cavalry coming to save them simply looking to get back home.

Marshall gives us his traditional theme of having strong women characters who don’t need men to save their asses – and they don’t need to show their asses. His films are violent and gory – and very masculine in that sense – but you throw in the strong female badasses in his films they are very feminist. That duality is one of my favorite things about Marshall’s films – the female characters don’t cower until they are “saved” – they stand up for themselves the entire time.

I think the cast did their part quite well - Fassbender brought a weight an sympathetic side to Quintus which worked very well and Olga Kurylenko was awesome as the silent assassin Etain. – and though the plot was thin – it was good enough for a fun survival-chase “genre” film. It’s a “you get what you pay for” Neil Marshall film – with plenty of gore and in camera effects – instead of the computer generated nonsense.

I wasn’t as enthusiastic about Marshall’s direction of Centurion as a whole – I felt he had a real energy and eye in his previous works – I’m not sure what really happened in this one. He still managed some beautiful shots – and some great compositions – but it felt a bit more vanilla.

Out of the 4 feature films Neil Marshall has done – it has no place to go but 4th on the list due to the strength of his previous work and obvious weaknesses in Centurion. Being a dork I just realized that this is his first film that didn’t start with D – The Descent, Doomsday & Dog Soldiers – and he was attached to Drive for a long while before Winding Refn took over the project (that would have made a VERY different film – but equally as awesome in a different way).

I liked the movie – but I can easily see how others would think it is derivative and just a boring hack and slash film. It is just a lot of bloody fun.

Captain America: The First Avenger [2011]

The USA designs a super soldier in order to combat the Nazi’s and their very own super soldier project.

I thought this movie was a lot of fun. Really I did. I kind of didn’t expect that – I figured it would be kind of a paint by numbers affair – but it was good. There was some good heart – some good action – Chris Evans worked well as Steve Rogers/Capt America. The majority of the film took place back in WWII – like 99.8% – I was somewhat worried about it becoming a time travel movie. The Red Skull effects were all right – nothing special – not like the skinny Chris Evans effects – those were top notch! I really liked Agent Carter – Hayley Atwell – she was a looker! I would’ve asked her to dance even though I am built like the skinny Chris Evans!

I didn’t like that there seemed to be way too many forced references to the other two franchises of Thor and Iron Man – I felt like this should have been Captain America’s story – we can leave the other characters out of it for a while. I actually thought the Thor shit was REALLY annoying – I didn’t get the reference – and I didn’t like the weight it carried – it became a case of you should have known“well of course if you do that – then this will happen” – which lead to a VERY ANTI-CLIMATIC ending. I guess I didn’t take enough notes when I was watching Thor and should’ve realized that I needed them to follow this movie.

Overall – it was fun – I just wish they had a better ending action sequence that didn’t hinge on shit.

Faceless [1988]

Also known as - Les Preadateurs de la Nuit

While having a night out on the town a disgruntled ex-patient confronts Dr. Flamand with a beaker of acid – missing him and dumping it on Flamand’s sister’s face. Flamand becomes dedicated to figuring out how to do a face transplant surgery in order to save his sister’s, Ingrid’s, beauty – by kidnapping and forcing donors.

There I go again with another long synopsis – sorry about that.

Everything was a bit too 80’s for my taste – especially since it’s a Jesus Franco film. It was apparent he’s got a budget – and a one really crappy 80’s synth pop song to play over and over. In a way it the 80’s is a great decade for Franco to do another medical oddity film – considering that seemed to one of his favorite genres – the 80’s you have the rise of excess and plastic surgery – it makes sense.

The problem with giving Franco a budget though is that some of his filmmaking charm gets lost – and with a budget also comes producers wanting to wrap things up before they go over budget – so not every little fun part Franco may have planned can be included.

The acting was fairly solid – I was pretty impressed and happy that everyone fit into place wonderfully. Helmut Berger was delightful and intense as Dr. Flamand – and his devious sexy assistant Natalie [played by Brigitte Lahaie] made for a great duo with solid on screen chemistry. Chris Mitchum was a slimy private eye – looking into one of the missing girls – not sure if the role really needed slime – but it worked.

There was a fun cameo – with Franco alums Howard Vernon as Dr. Orlof and Lina Romay as his wife. I’m thinking I might need to dig into my Orlof box-set that I picked up on the cheap – maybe this will be a Jess Franco Halloween? Who’s with me? Who knows what the hell I’m talking about? Yay!

Anyway, Dr. Flamand had a really creepy obsession with his sister – it kept confusing me if it was his wife or his sister. I mean – getting off watching his sister playing dominatrix with their grunt is a bit much – and those lingering full lipped kisses in his flashbacks. Creepy. But hell – sexual deviance is a mark of a good Franco film – so I’ll take it!

The effects were pretty good – though it was obvious that Ingrid was tearing off latex from her face when the acid was thrown. The Nazi face transplant specialist tearing up the dummy head when the operation went bad was odd – and cheesy – but it was a solid effect. That’s one thing a budget will do for you – increase the realism/creepiness of the effects – which isn’t something that I’ve personally seen in a Franco medical oddity film.

The plotline was easy to follow – which was very nice. The pacing worked and the direction was solid. My only issue was that my copy just didn’t seem to work – every 20-minutes or so it would jump to the main menu – then I would have to fast forward through the chapter selection to get to where it left off and it would play fine for another 20-minutes.

It seemed like Franco wasn’t happy with the film – but said in the interview that with time he seemed to think “it’s not all bad” – and I’d agree. It’s all right – certainly watchable – not especially memorable.

This is my 400th published entry – thanks for reading & checking me out! I appreciate it!

The Rites of Frankenstein [1972]

Evil Caligostro sends his evil bird vampire woman creation to kill Dr. Frankenstein so that he may steal his monster to have it do his bidding!

The middle part of the film was a bit of a mess – and I’m not really too sure what Caligostro was aiming at having the monster kidnap beautiful women. It sounded as though Caligostro wanted the women for himself as Melisa mentioned at one point – they were to be of such beauty and please him – but suddenly he was interested in creating his own woman monster to pair up with Frankenstein’s monster. The purpose was also very unclear – maybe he liked watching monster sex?

There was a VERY undeveloped sub-plot involving Lina Romay as Esmerelda – who heard evil voices – that mostly liked to repeat her name. She would ask some old lady what the voices were all about – but I’m not sure if this old woman knew she was in a movie – she looked very concerned that this young woman in thigh high boots and a frock kept putting her head in her lap.

It’s especially a muddled up mess when you are introduced to the zombies – which I thought were called Panthos. I later come to question if they were just zombies and Panthos was some kind of demon spirit they all worshiped. If Caligostro had an army of zombies – why did he need Dr. Frankenstein’s monster? They didn’t explain that. From what we saw of the zombies – it only looked like they were good at wandering through the woods with sheets wrapped around them – with their faces poking out - looking like ghosts that were afraid they would bump into stuff.

Melisa the bird vampire creature was kind of fun – but the tweeting sound effects she made when she stalked or feasted was (really) annoying. She was hot though! Vera Frankenstein was a misguided character – I thought she was all about bringing down Caligorstro – but she pretty much turned herself in – and submitted to his will. Caligostro himself was a master of having Melisa speak for him – even though he was not mute – but it gave him time to stare with his eyes very wide. The monster was actually pretty good – a big man covered in silver paint – there wasn’t much more needed.

Here’s the thing – if you go into a Jess Franco film thinking that you’ll understand everything that is happening right away – or be able to follow a simple plot line – you’re going to be disappointed. He seems to provide puzzle pieces at times – and expects you to take the leap with those pieces in order to complete his story. It’s not exactly a successful narrative style – but for people who enjoy his work – it’s fun.

The other thing fans of Franco’s work expect – is a bit (of a barrel full) of sleaze – and for some reason there were plenty of great opportunities for sleaze – but no sleaze! A woman is strapped down to a table – perfect opportunity for her to be buck naked. There was an artist model posing fully clothed – and it made me really wonder if a nude portrait would be more fun. There’s a woman who’s taking off her clothes – another fairly good opportunity for her to be shown in the buff – but she’s a modest undress-er on camera. It turns out that the Synapse release was some non-sleaze version – where all the sleaze was actually hiding in the ‘Alternate Footage’ section of the DVD – but it also shows all those scenes redone with nudity.

Overall – for a Franco film – it was more coherent than some and fairly fun. I wish my version had the sleaze in the film – which would have made it better. Also, if Lina Romay got a chance to do anything more than lay her head on an old woman’s lap and sit by a creek – it would’ve been even better. Yet, as it is – it’s okay – a take it or leave it Franco film.

The Thing [2011]

An alien spacecraft and creature are discovered under the Antarctic ice – they send a scientist down to meet with the established Norwegian research crew to discover what it could be. The creature – breaks loose and starts mimicking the humans – leaving everyone uncertain who is human and who is alien.

Usually, I leave the synopsis vague – but since this is a prequel to John Carpenter’s 1982 remake (of The Thing from Another World, 1951) – I think we all know what’s really going on. The ultimate question is – does it hold up to Carpenter’s remake – in a word: Yes.

Sure, the effects are updated a bit – given a nice computer upheaval for elements that simply would be too difficult to do without computers – but there also seemed to be plenty of analog effects that worked just as well as they did back in 1982.

The scares were plentiful – and I’m not sure if it was just the theater I was in – but my ears are ringing a bit from all the intense sound effects. The story stayed true to the 1982 version – and you want to stay and watch the ending credits sequence – and run home and pop in your copy of the 1982 version.

The direction was just what you needed in a horror film – going from intense calmness or lingering fear – to scare! The acting was fairly standard – though some of these Norwegian’s looked the same to me (I don’t mean it that way – don’t give me that look – NO not all Norwegian’s look the same – you know what I mean – sorry – okay). The questions in regards to who is a Thing is a fun one – I liked how they tried to get to that – and I liked how for the most part the pieces fit.

Here’s the thing (didn’t mean the pun) – if you haven’t seen the John Carpenter version – it’s ultimately more creepy to watch that one and not even bother with the prequel (though it’s a good horror film) – because the aftermath of everything that happens is shown in the very beginning of that film – and it’s almost always better to be left with that air of mystery with a horror film. Carpenter’s version is one of my favorite films of the 1980’s – it holds up very well – I recommend it if you haven’t seen it.

I do recommend this film – if you’re looking for a big screen scare this Halloween – especially if you enjoyed Carpenter’s version and would liked to have a few questions answered. It’s a good film and it stands alone by itself – it encapsulates its very own story. I’m not going to tell you it’s creative – because it’s a retread of a lot of the ideas from the Carpenter version – but it entertains and doesn’t insult you and that’s just as good.

[SPOILER – there’s a Thing in this room!]

The Howling [1981]

A TV news anchor, Karen White, is investigating a series of gruesome murders – ends up so traumatized she is sent off to a relaxation camp – unfortunately for her – it’s not too relaxing.

The film really set a great atmosphere. Investigating a serial killer – the dark claustrophobic city – the way everyone was so intense about this crazed killer – the close-up shots. It was exciting.

Then we find ourselves whisked away to the “woods” or the “beach” or the “mountains” (I really could not tell) to a One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest set of weirdos – and it became fairly comical. How anyone was expected to “relax” at that “resort” is beyond me. The psychiatrist’s relationship with Karen and the rest of her news team really confounded me – and it didn’t seem so weird in the beginning – but as the film went on and his relationship with his resort really made me question the legitimacy of his character within their world.

The film ended up boiling down to be an effect film (which were saved up for the end as they were either really cool or really cheesy) – but felt like kind of a horror comedy. When someone is turning into a werewolf in front of you – you don’t just hang out and watch – make your move and attack or run (wolfmen have nards remember). The bizarre nympho woman character was entertaining I guess. The most likable character was killed – which is always a bummer in a horror film.
- -
So, I have a stack of 8 horror films waiting to be watched for the posts leading up to Halloween – some of the films I have seen previously but haven’t watched my copy of it – some of the films I bought blind. This was one of the movies I bought blind at the Goodwill – I figured that since it spawned a series sequels (some notoriously bad) – it might be worth a looksee. Unfortunately, it’s making me question watching these blind purchase horror films.

Somewhere [2010]

A world famous actor stumbles through the course of a few days looking for meaning – when his daughter is dropped off.

The acting was solid – the tired and lonely quality of the performance was not lost on me. Stephen Dorff was great – that was fairly surprising to me – not that I can recall something that he was in. The directing was a lot of just let the camera sit and let’s watch – so it felt very lazy – because not much happens – Sofia Coppola was smart to use that technique but considering not much happens – I wish one style would have changed – but that’s not what the movie was. The two scenes with the twin pole dancers were shot in an uncomfortable way. It felt like a letter from Sofia to her father or something along those lines about how she felt isolated as he was famous. Ultimately, I felt like this movie fell short of its potential and abandoned any narrative structure for a considerable more style over substance - and it was a frustrating film.

If you want to watch this movie and you are sensitive to SPOILERS – please look away.

By the end of the film – I was frustrated with it. They portray the main character as needing a direction – and when he gets his daughter for an extended period you start to think “this is that missing direction he needs” – but it’s not. He drops her off for camp – apologizes – and you expect that he’s going to correct his direction and make his life about his daughter. Yet, at the end of the movie he checks out of the hotel – abandons his car in the middle of the road out in the middle of nowhere and walks away – and gives a smirk to the camera. Thusly, abandoning his daughter at camp – and honestly – I don’t get it. The smirk is what gets me – I get the “fuck the world” kind of rebel attitude – but it just felt like it was misdirected and made an odd twist to what was expected.

Dead Man [1995]

An accountant from Cleveland, Walter Blake, comes out west on promise of a job working for an eccentric tycoon – only to be turned away – and become an outlaw.

This was a great star studded dark comedy – which also made for a great western. Neil Young’s soundtrack was exceptional and made Blake’s journey more unnerving. Jim Jarmusch’s direction as interesting – he allowed for very static shots where nothing was happening while the distorted guitar would blare – and somehow it worked at being interesting as opposed to being annoying. Johnny Depp was off kilter as Blake – he had some great acting chops even back then - I wish he’d have gotten the credit and continued down that quirky road – instead of being Burton’s go-to puppet. I loved how this film could be left up to interpretation as to what was actually happening. I loved how it seemed like this film was kind of a commando production done in the back woods. It was most certainly dialogue driven in a better way than Tarantino’s films. I really loved the metaphysical change in Blake from an inept accountant to outlaw.

Overall – it was a great film – my presumption disparity may be off on this one – so the shock of being pleasantly surprised may tamper my long run view of the film – but I really liked it.

50/50 [2011]

A young man is diagnosed with a rare type of cancer that the internet says he’s got a 50/50 shot at survival – this is the story of how he copes.

Honestly, this was a great movie. Much better than I had hoped - but my presumption disparity was geared toward expecting a lower brow stoner comedy – with “heart”. Mainly due to the fact that Seth Rogen was involved – I find him amusing at times – and much (much) less than amusing at other times.

Happily, the film remained in the correct tone throughout – it had its ups – it had its downs – and the performances remained strong. Not once did I feel like it betrayed the topic and tried to make it all a big laugh. The film generated laughs organically – from the story and from the characters – not from gags. The only thing crude and/or low-brow was some of the language – but who the fuck cares anymore?

The film kept up a good pace – allowing us to dwell in some of the down times for just long enough as to not be depressing – but to get a solid feelings across. I’ve seen a lot of great performances on the big screen this summer as I’ve been picky with what I’m paying to see these days – and Joseph Gordon-Levitt gave a powerhouse performance. That scene of sudden intense fear before surgery was subtle and beautiful – that scene will stick with me. I expect Levitt and Angelica Houston to both get a lot of much deserved Oscar buzz.

The film was written by Will Reiser based on his experience with having cancer – so the truths explored in the film were rooted in reality – and all that makes it all the more hopeful of a film. It’s a great screenplay – something I would like to read – time to do some research.

I don’t know if it’s too early for me to say this – as it’s still all too fresh – but it’s certainly the frontrunner for my movie of the year.

Trollhunter [2010]

Trollhunter was a fine concept – but unfortunately it was the narrative structure that they chose for the film that was their downfall. College film students decided to follow a suspected bear poacher – and soon discover that he’s not a poacher at all – he hunts trolls. I thought that with the whole cinema verite style that they chose to tell the tale – was a good choice – but ONLY if they wanted to stay within that realm and not venture off that path. I don’t know many documentaries where instead of shooting what they were out to shoot – they relied so heavily on showing reaction shots of the filmmakers. When there’s a troll coming your way – and it’s never been filmed – and you’ve got a big huge motherfucking amazing story to show the world – something that exposes and causes doubt in everything as a society we all believe – why do you turn the camera away from it in order to see the sound girl gawking? SPOILER: With about 30 minutes left in the film they bring on a new character – essentially to replace one of the other characters – this whole thing broke my suspension of disbelief – they are no longer student doing a documentary but now something entirely different. Students are still students – and to replace a character like that doesn’t make any sense using the narrative structure they chose.

Otherwise – it was an all right film – like I said I liked the concept of it all – but if they would have just dropped the cinema verite structure and made it a straightforward film – it would have been much better. Neat effects.

Nevermind again...

Listening to this album 20 years after it has been released in the newly “remastered” form – really doesn’t add much to the experience honestly. It’s not like the original cut was so muddy or that the remaster was cleaned up incredibly startling so that we can hear so much more – it’s pretty much the exact same album (minus pretty much all the time between Something in the Way and Endless Nameless).

I wonder if they could have published this remaster with different takes – or analog – or whatever they’ve got back in the vaults. Something like that would have made it an easy purchase for me – rather than the hesitant purchase that it was.

I think I hear Breed cleaned up a little – but it’s not as amazing as the Butch Vig rough cut on the box set. Territorial Pissings seems to have lost a bit of power in the build up from intro to song – Kurt’s voice seems crisper – but with a song like this it’s almost better that it’s muddy and lost in the music a bit. The moan at the beginning of Lounge Act is crisp and gave me a little chill. I prefer the down and dirty fun of Pay to Play to what ended up on Nevermind as Stay Away – so this cleaned up version just makes me miss the original that much more.

The b-sides off the singles sound nice – even though I have all those songs from various sources already – the solo to Even in His Youth had me bouncing up and down like a nerd. The Smart Session tracks are nice – they are great to hear how some of the songs progressed (especially Imodium (Breed)). I love their VU cover of Here She Comes Now – one of my favorite VU songs and just a hell of a cover. The “Boombox” demos – are interesting and kind of fun – but mostly unlistenable sound quality wise.

I’m about to speak some (what many may perceive as) blasphemy – so if you are sensitive Google up some kitten pic’s and skip this paragraph:

I’m a fan of Nirvana – but I am willing to admit that Kurt’s overall songwriting capabilities were still in such a beginning stage at the point of Nevermind. Though narratively stronger than people give him credit for - he relied on several little tricks – and a few of the songs sound very similar to each other. Not to say that I’m going to bash him for being a terrible artist at this stage – because he was revolutionary musician. What I’m doing is comparing him to himself – and even though he was great – he wasn’t amazing on Nevermind considering his body of work. Kurt really blossomed into an exciting songwriter in In Utero – he took his edgy – jokey – personal shit out in that album – and I think it’s a vastly superior album to Nevermind. That being said – I still love Nevermind.

Did you enjoy your kitten pictures?

When you think about this album – you really must place it in the context of the time in which it came out – because it’s been forever imitated ever since it was released.

My favorite song on Nevermind is Breed – I love the play on the words throughout the song (we can plant a house we can build a tree) – the fact that it’s a hard song but he’s playing the role and telling the story from the woman’s perspective. The other reason is because I used to be a singer in a horrible little garage band – and this is one of the songs we finally were able to really nail once we got a great drummer.

With all that’s been said about this album – I think my bullshit hasn’t really added to the conversation – but it’s still my bullshit and I like to share. I would get the album if you really want it – I would ask for it as a gift if you kinda want it but don’t want to part with the scratch – if you love the original and don’t feel that you need another copy – I wouldn’t blame you.

Drive [2011]

By night he’s a getaway driver – by day he’s a Hollywood stunt driver – when he gets mixed up with a girl and the mob - things get violent.

First of all, I have been anticipating this film for several months now. The talent in front of the camera (Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Albert Brooks & Bryan Cranston) as well as the talent behind the camera (Nicholas Winding Refn) got me pretty psyched up for what appeared to be a hard hitting fast paced action film.

I really did not expect the film that I watched though. My presumption disparity was blown out of the theater – and though I expected something with more pep – I got an intelligent, beautiful film that’s going to linger with more far longer than what I went in expecting. I should have expected this considering Winding Refn was at the helm – as this was an essentially an extension of VALHALLA RISING – slow build ups – questions everywhere – and graphic acts of terrifying violence.

The film was all about building tension – the slow thoughtful pacing of the film – the long pauses in conversation – the low key ethereal synth music soundtrack – the static camera – was all carefully crafted and used in order to really help build up the underbelly of the film. When an act of violence would happen – it was graphic and startling – just the way it should be – it was realistic and horrifying. I gasped – LuLu Danger jumped – it was satisfying.

The acting was top notch – Ryan Gosling at times has an approach of being blank and not showing anything and it bothers me (FRACTURE) but when given a different context that bored/blank look of his has underlying issues – there’s nobody better. His lack of emotion – his lack of dialogue – just made his character endear to me more. LuLu and I walked out asking each other back and forth questions about him – agreeing there’s ton more that we’ll never know about him – and we loved it.

Carey Mulligan was sweet and complex – there was a certain level of complete perfection about how she behaved – the elevator scene will go down as one of the greatest scenes of her still very early career – she showed a maturity unlike many actresses and hit every emotional queue in such a broad spectrum like a fucking pro.

Albert Brooks is one of my favorite comedic actors of all time – but in DRIVE he terrified me. As much as Gosling kept it internal – Brooks allowed it to flow through his pores a bit more – and I got the feeling he was a man willing to do anything (there’s early Oscar talk for Brooks in this role – and I agree – I was seriously terrified of him). Bryan Cranston has a knack for acting fatherly and believable in whatever role he tackles – which he mixed with a slimy fast talker into this role – and he did it with a certain expertise.

I don’t have any complaints about the film. There is no other director that could have pulled off a film like this – the tone – the artistic styling. The acting was all exactly pitch perfection for what this film became. Maybe it needed more driving considering it was called DRIVE – but that’s not the point.


The comparisons to exploitation films are fair – with a slow building sense of tension exploding into graphic and perverse violence. I can see how this film wouldn’t speak to everyone’s tastes – as I realized how the tone of the movie was being set very early on – I worried LuLu wouldn’t like it – but I think it’s the reality of the film’s story and the compelling performances - really proved me wrong and she loved it. I did too.

P.S. LuLu and I were enthralled by Gosling’s white satin jacket the entire film – there was a certain fucking badass look to that jacket – though it was a dated look. It really reminded me of how Christina Lindberg looked in THRILLER with the eye patch and trench coat and how there’s something simplistically amazing about it. If LuLu and I ever make it to a Comic Con – I think I know what I would like for us to dress up as.

P.P.S. I'll throw my hat in there and say even though I've been incredibly picky about what I've watched this year - this is my favorite of the lot thus far in 2011.

13 Assassins [2010]

The Shogun’s younger brother is an evil man with hate and cruelty in his heart. When the depth of his evil becomes apparent to a senior government official he hires the samurai Shinzaemon to assassinate him before he can ascend in power. Shinzaemon goes on recruit 11 more samurai for the mission – who are joined on their journey by a hunter – making it the tale of the 13 assassins.

This is a remake of a film of the same name and though I can’t find the original to rent and compare – it seems moot as it’s the exact plot of SEVEN SAMURAI – with the main differences being the number of characters – and the threat is from the government rather than bandits. Let me remind you – Rule #1 – originality is overrated. You’ve seen this movie before – I promise you – but the story is compelling never-the-less.

Given the nature of the heroes of this film are samurai – and samurai are not normally known for being expressive – that leads to what can be perceived as little character development – that perception is mostly reality. This lack of character development though – does not lead to any less desire to wanting to see them succeed with every ounce of your being. The majority of the real character depth is with the villain – and he is such a wonderfully evil villain. With his apparent evil and condescending above the law nature – you wouldn’t care if smurfs were after him – as long as someone was.

The villain’s character development is a major triumph for this film – because if you consider giving 13 characters a personal sense of purpose – goals – motivations – and the like would be exhausting and make the film 4 hours long – much like SEVEN SAMURAI (which is one of my top 5 favorite films of all time – so I’m not knocking it). But if you give the bulk of the character development to the villain – you come to accept the assassins as being in the right even if you don’t know them – and it makes each of their deaths equally sad.

The film – in the cut that was released to Blu-Ray in America is roughly 2 hours – with the final 50 minutes of the film being essentially a bloodbath. Not once through the final battle did I think that it was taking too long or getting boring. I saw it as less of an extended action scene and more of a dramatic scene that kept me engaged throughout. There was no music playing over the bulk of the battle – as to not falsify the emotion and give you the traditional movie triggers to tell you to care. The clangs of the swords, the screams and shouts and the visuals of the mud and blood – was enough to jar me into caring and kind of leave me dumbstruck.

That’s not to say the film was essentially a build up to the action scene – as the assassin’s quest prior to the battle was an interesting story. There wasn’t a cheap scene in the build-up – which is just strong storytelling. The conclusion of the story was extremely satisfying – and even a little bit of a twist that didn’t exactly fit in with the exact nature of the story – but it was pitch perfect to resolve the film (though I interpreted it one way – and considered it the only solution – I guess some could want to believe the other).

For some, I can see how the lack of character development could lead to a lack of recognition while they fought and died muddied and bloodied – but with such beautiful noble samurai deaths – it didn’t phase me. Several of the assassins were given a small bit of this or that that allowed me to recognize them upon their demise – several were not and I didn’t recognize them as being X or Y – but like I said – it didn’t worry me.

I guess I found a few small instances of new technology a tiny bit distracting – but it was used so few and far between that it didn’t impact me that much. I would say for the most part – a lot of old school directing techniques and action sequences helped sell me.

Netflix refused to send this movie to me for a while – though it sat on the top of my rental queue with no wait – which brought up my excitement – and could have easily made the presumptive disparity hard to overcome – but it met and exceeded my expectations. This is not just a renter – but a movie I want to own and kind of wish I didn’t already returned it because I want to watch it again already – I highly recommend it.

* I apologize for lack of pictures – I like to use them to break-up the text – but it appears that once I Googled some up most have been removed due to the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act – which is a shame it’s a visually stunning film and would like to showcase it in my review

The Purple Rose of Cairo [1985]

A disenfranchised woman escapes her dismal marriage by going to the movies. She goes so often that one of the actors in the movie notices her and steps off the screen to be with her.

This was actually quite a charming little film about the escapism people experience when they are really drawn into a movie. It is set in the depression era New Jersey – so the escapism in films was probably even more intense as it is these days considering that Hollywood movies were so glamorous.

I was charmed by Mia Farrow in her role as Cecilia and Jeff Daniels in dual roles as Tom Baxter the escaped actor and Gil Shepard the actor who plays Tom Baxter.

I thought the writing was a little off with the character of Tom Baxter – who keeps explaining that his character has X defined trait and X defined knowledge of such things – because it wasn’t clear that he could learn outside of those designed character traits. In one scene he finds out his money is fake movie money – in another scene he hands some out to a man waiting in line at the soup kitchen. It doesn’t make sense to me – unless it’s just a gag – though the film didn’t seem to rely too much on gags.

I was also confused with some of the direction – Cecilia leaves her abusive husband early – then we see her wander around – and then show up at a door and enter it. Up to this point we haven’t been introduced to the outside of her house – so I wasn’t sure if she was going to her sister’s place or retreating back to her abusive relationship – especially considering they don’t show Cecilia together with her husband for some time after that scene.

Harmless errors – that are easy to overlook as it turns out it was really a lot of fun. I enjoyed watching the other actors in the film that Baxter stepped out of bicker and complain about not being able to go on with the movie (for a little while). The audience interacting with the actors was kind of fun (with a few characteristically Woody Allen jokes). I really liked the love triangle that developed between Cecilia, Baxter and Shepard – it would’ve been interesting to hear what would’ve happened to Cecilia if she stepped into the film with Baxter to live happily ever after and the film ended its run (a depressing technical question that shouldn’t be asked in a fantasy film such as this).

I’m getting more serious about considering purchasing and learning to play a ukulele.

Anyway, it’s real charmer of a film – and would recommend it to you if it sounds like something you’d like.

Double Feature Friday: [REC] (2007) / [REC 2] (2009)

A news segment about a reporter following a local Barcelona group of firefighters on their nightly routine suddenly becomes documentation of some kind of outbreak of some contagious disease that causes people to become rabid killers.

[REC] is one of my top 5 favorite horror movies of the past decade. It’s essentially a zombie movie – but it’s far more thrilling than the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake because it’s told from a first person point of view. It blends what feels like news footage from a war zone into what’s simply a claustrophobic zombie experience.

Throw in the intrigue of how quickly the building is quarantined and the intrigue into what mysteries are being hidden and where – the film works on a variety of levels for both thrills and on-the-fly narrative. The direction of the film must have been tricky – as you would have to have your cinematographer running around as a character – and monitoring the adlibbed both camera movements and dialogue – it’s an easy recipe to fail at for someone who didn’t have a big pair of brass balls. The lead actress is likable and convincing as both a fluff news reporter – and as a terrified as she becomes as the situation unfolds.

[REC] was remade almost shot for shot in the US and released as the film QUARANTINE – I beg you to SKIP that version and go straight to the source.

Nearly an hour since the events in [REC] a swat team is sent into the quarantined building along with a priest to find out what’s going on.

What [REC] succeeds at – [REC 2] tries to tweak only mildly. Each swat team characters has a helmet camera to monitor what they see – so there are multiple cameras at work as opposed to the single camera in [REC]. Then it takes what the audience perceives as the rabid zombie virus and turns it on its ear – which is hinted at toward the end of [REC] – but even if there was never a sequel – one could be happy with the direction of the first film without this film as an addendum.

[REC 2] does more story telling than the first film – it leads the audience down a certain path instead of spinning them around in an office chair and dropping them into a mess. So, in a way they are two completely different films – but the same concepts were being used as story telling elements. I do admit that the freshness of the first film doesn’t come off as well into the second – but I think that has more to do with the storytelling in the second – which is understandable – you have to change the formula a bit for a sequel to this kind of film.

I love how it turned the zombie element on its ear – I’m honestly getting a little bored of zombies – not as much as I’m sick of vampires – but there’s too much zombie stuff going around these days. There are some good twists – and some head scratchers in this film – but after a step back from watching them both – they make far more sense than most American horror movies.

Though I have not seen QUARANTINE 2 – from the previews it appears that it abandon’s all that the premise that makes [REC 2] special – which actually makes me curious to see Q2 a bit.

Two additional [REC] films are being planned – reading that just now gives me a little chill up my spine – I can’t wait.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes [2011]

A young scientist eager to discover a way to create virus that will reverse the damage Alzheimer’s does to the brain – creates something that makes the apes he’s testing it on super intelligent.

I watched all I could of the original PLANET OF THE APES films – which consisted of the first film – quickly losing interest in the second – and the boring Tim Burton remake. So, I was quite surprised when I found myself becoming more excited for this “reboot” – or origin tale – I’m not sure what it’s meant to be. It seemed to be garnering a fair share of positive reviews – and less scrutiny than I figured it would get – even some Oscar talk for Andy Serkis. I had to admit after watching the commercial a few times – it looked well executed – even if all they advertised was the apes going nuts – it might be a fun action film.

The first thing I noticed was that the tone was grounded in Will Rodman’s quest to help his father defeat Alzheimer’s – but as discoveries were made and the focus shifted to Caesar the heart of the original tone remained strong. It’s easy for effect films to start out strong with identifiable feelings to get the audience to connect with the characters – then use that initial connection to get you through the nonsense effects that follows – but this isn’t one of those films. It successfully worked with the special effects to create a fully realized story – something that could work without the effects.

The effects were wonderful – you’re never lost on the fact that Caesar was a chimpanzee – which is glorious considering he was being portrayed by Andy Serkis and motion capture. The effects weren’t distracting as make me feel like I was watching a fake monkey. The human aspects Serkis brought were so smartly used that the blurring the lines between the two species were difficult to grasp. Serkis’ performance was powerful – it really made Caesar a sympathetic character and the most fully realized rounded character of the film.
When it comes to the human characters each was essentially a caricature of the mad scientist/misunderstood creature film – but it works because they were framed creatively and each character is allowed to hit their marks instead of being forced into each plot point. The story was injected with enough heavy handed moments to make the story as a whole a success.

Casting was a great strength – James Franco was excellent as Will Rodman the man who was desperately trying to discover a way to save his ailing father Charles - played expertly by John Lithgow. Brian Cox is an expert at playing the uncaring asshat who runs the animal sanctuary – and Tom Felton who plays his son is dangerously close to being typecast as a menacing little git – this should be his last Draco Malfoy performance for a while.

My only regret was watching this movie at a brew & view – where I was pulled out of watching some of the scenes by a waitress asking if I wanted a refill on my iced tea. Trying to get the pen to work and sign my tab – made me miss the culmination of the major end battle scene. Missing some of the big action though didn’t detract my enjoyment of the film – as I thought it was a great film for the entire journey not just the results of the journey.

The possibilities of sequels were hinted at throughout and nods to the original series were made – I hope for the continuance of the intelligent filmmaking that made RISE a success and never to give up the real emotional threads for effect films. I’ve only seen 4 movies in the theater this year – but this is my pick for best summer movie.

Stray Dog [1949]

Set in post WWII Japan - a rookie cop is pickpocketed and loses his gun. He begins a desperate search to find his weapon in fear of what damage it could cause in the wrong hands.

The film unfolds as if it’s meant to be a modern day fable of not allowing the weight of the world crush you – yet there’s a bit a disconnect when it comes to the universal “ah-ha” moment we are meant to feel at the end of a good fable. We are given the “wisdom” of a senior officer – and it basically boils down to “you’ll get over it, kid” – which even though may be true – isn’t as powerful as you’d like for a fable or a movie.

I’ve only really seen Toshiro Mifune in Kurosawa’s samurai films – and could barely recognize the man – but the intensity of his performance was ever present. As he investigates the emotional build up keeps showing itself through Mifune’s face and body language – the guilt he feels – as if this major dishonor to him speaks for the culture of post war Japan.

As he learns of the crimes his missing weapon has been involved in – he is encouraged not to put the weight of the world on his shoulders even though it’s hard not to feel guilt in a situation like this. He must learn in order to deal with his own humanity that it’s the choices that people make that define them – not the mistakes and curves life throws at them. He could have chosen to move on with his life and career – he was given a punishment – but instead he chose to move forward with the investigation and retrieve his weapon because of the character of his being.

Thus again – this would speak as maybe a message from Kurosawa to post war Japan – to not be in shame and use the defeat to lead down the road to bad things – but to learn from the mistakes and grow from out of those lessons.

Actually, as I write this I’m beginning to realize how the fable actually works very well as a message to the society as a whole - though I would’ve liked to see a major “ah-ha” moment – but I guess you can use that ambiguity to say “it’s your move, society”.

As for the film – you’ll find me pretty hard pressed to say that Kurosawa doesn’t know what he’s doing – because he’s as good as a director as have ever been. He keeps the story engaging throughout – uses the composition of his shots, lighting and single continuous shots wonderfully as always.

I had reservations about the story – but after having time to think – it’s quite good – though I realize I’m not always in the mood for ambiguity – I’d recommend it if it sounds interesting.

Insidious [2011]

A family moves into a new house – and suddenly their son is in a coma and the wife sees a bunch of creepy people all around who menace her newborn and attack her – but when she calls for hubby’s help – they’re gone! So, they move – and it keeps happening!! What’s going on here?

After a certain amount of dropping piano sounds and screams – I became apathetic to the whole movie. It wasn’t a bad movie – it just relied too much on those aspects to get scares – when I thought it was doing a fine job building suspense on its own – it didn’t need to result to cheap tactics.

The movie reminded me a lot of the atmosphere that the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY movies were trying to build (and it’s from the makers of – so it makes sense) – with the calm eeriness – then something happens that grips your throat and you’re instantly freaked out. Instead of allowing that air it self out though they threw in a loud bang sound effect – which I honestly couldn’t tell if they wanted you to believe that it was coming from inside the house or from the soundtrack.

I also felt the filmmakers almost intended to make a simple haunted house movie by the way they introduced the books falling off the shelf while everyone was in the kitchen eating breakfast in the beginning. If you’ve seen the movie and know the “twists” – then you’ll know how this scene doesn’t make any sense – unless it’s JUST the house. I guess they will leave those answers to the eventual sequel.

The ending was a shame – there’s a lot of horror movies that end the exact same way – and I would’ve just liked to see the opposite because I felt that would’ve made for a BETTER twist.

Again, it wasn’t a bad film – there were some redeeming qualities – such as the reliance of the idea of what is left unseen. I’m not sure if it was intended as part of the freaky nature – but the relation of where things/people were in relation to each other was left me confused and it brought me into the story a bit because it wasn’t set in a way that I could immediately identify. I tend to think it was a bit of bad filmmaking but it worked for me.

From the advertisements I saw – it was pimped as being from the ‘makers of PARANORMAL ACTIVITY’ – even if it was directed by the creator of the SAW franchise. So, when the SAW puppet made a blatant cameo I felt that was a dick length scene – the “I’ve spawned more sequels and I was on the scene before you PARANORMAL ACTIVITY guy” – because I CAN’T see the point of having that puppet drawn on the chalk board in hubby’s classroom. No point – other than Ego of the director. It’s fine if you want to work the puppet in – but making that blatant? There’s a lot of moving boxes – couldn’t the puppet be somewhere in the background half hidden by boxes? No... Let’s essentially turn a scene where we’re supposed to concentrate on the lead character having a phone conversation – and put a drawing of the puppet over his shoulder the entire time!

The film isn’t bad – but it’s just above average for me – you’ll get for the most part what you expect from it.

Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid [1969]

Infamous bank robbers Butch & Sundance rob some banks and escape the law!

That’s one of the more difficult synopsis I’ve had to write – because what do they do in this movie? They love on their women – rob some banks – and escape the law – then the ending comes on. I can appreciate it for what it is but I’m not really sure what exactly it is.

Instead of it being in the guise of Butch and Sundance – Newman & Redford could’ve played just about any cowboys, gangsters or medieval knights. There was nothing particularly special about them in these specific historical figures – other than their chemistry which was great – but nothing that the roles brought. One’s a lover (Butch/Newman) - one’s a fighter (Sundance/Redford) – and those traits could’ve been portrayed in any role they chose to play.

Don’t get me wrong – I liked them together – but I think the story was weak and disjointed. The whole film felt like an interlude to the end gun fight. Butch and Sundance flirted and bickered like an old married couple - but there was no real depth to the characters – other than the bickering which showed they had been together long enough to be comfortable with that layer of male-flirtation. Butch liked to plan and think – Sundance liked to shoot first – but those were clown hammer traits – it would’ve been nice to see more of their characters developed through the story – maybe even a short explanation as to why they were that way.

I’m not wild musical breaks in the story especially if it feels like goofing around filler – and Barry Manilow’s ‘Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head’ bike riding sequence and the whole “Dabba dabba” song sequence of Butch & Sundance in Bolivia – really just took me out of the story. It probably worked for the carefree time that the film came out – but it doesn’t hold up for me – and maybe it would have if I didn’t feel like they came out of nowhere as the tone up to that point was light – but not THAT light.

At this point I realize I’m sounding like a film curmudgeon – because I’m aware that this film has been honored as being one of the greatest American films of all time – and it is considered a classic. I can’t help but wonder if it’s really the performances and the fondness people have for Newman & Redford that really make this film a “classic” – not really the film itself.

It was at the same point in movie history that Sergio Leone had completed his work with Clint Eastwood in Spain and created 3 of my favorite Westerns – elevating the genre to something it had not been. Hollywood instead, was having fun with two great actors injecting pop culture into the genre and in a way allowing itself to take a step back – which is disappointing.

I didn’t hate the movie – I didn’t even think it was “bad” – I just found more to criticize about it than to embrace about it. You can find any number of people who would love to tell you how “great” it is – but I simply can’t overlook aspects and do that. I wouldn’t watch it again if I was in the mood for a western – I would watch it again if I was more in the mood for some good male bonding banter.