A Vulgar Display Of Power (Savage Streets)

Last week I mentioned that I watched my first Chuck Norris film, "The Octagon". This alone would have been a great topic for a blog entry. However, the film was so confusing and littered with strange quotes, scenes and casting choices that putting my view into words would not be enough. It's not like writing about a film such as "Wrong Side Of Town", as even though it was riddled with plot points, I got the gist of the story. With "The Octagon", I can barely make sense of the film without reading up on the plot on the internet. Hell, I didn't even see an octagon throughout the movie, unless I didn't realise it at the time.

So instead I went with a film that came up as a recommendation on Amazon last week. One of my friends on Facebook posted a link to the film earlier this week, which was a strange coincidence. So I decided to writing about the 80's exploitation flick: "Savage Streets".

Before I proceed.....

At time of writing, the full movie could be viewed on YouTube, so for the purpose of this review, I posted it. Now I am in no way condoning the act of watching films for free on the internet, as I would rather watch it through legal means. However, there are certain times where I might break this rule. For this, the movie is on YouTube and not on some video hosting site with countless pop-ups. Plus the film is pretty much out of print, and can be found on Amazon at an exuberant price.

So if it gets to a point where I don't have the money needed to watch a certain movie, or find any other means of watching it, then I would go through this alternative route. That said, if I could find a way to watch "Killer" (aka "Bulletproof Heart") by these means, I'd be on it. I now regret missing my opportunity before it was pulled without warning on Netflix. But I digress, here is "Savage Streets" for the initiated.

What caught my eye when browsing through my recommendations on Amazon was the cover art, which shows an image of Linda Blair in a revealing outfit. Now, Linda Blair is famous for playing the possessed Regan in "The Exorcist", one of my favourite horror movies of all time. It is interesting to see how one time child actors fare in films as they grow older. With Linda Blair, she falls into the same category as Drew Barrymore and Alyssa Milano, where you can't help but notice how much she's, erm, "grown".

Ahem, moving swiftly on.....

WARNING: SPOILERS

93 minutes later.....

I have to say it was fun to watch a genuine exploitation flick, as even though I'm a fan of the films that came from the "Grindhouse" concept, I have rarely seen any of the original 70's and 80's flicks that these are a homage to. Now when I say that I enjoyed it, I do find some faults with the film. These can be genuine plot holes and poor direction, but since it wasn't the intention of the filmmakers to make a credible film (or at least I hope not), this can be just a bit of nitpicking, if I wanted to take it serious.

To give a brief description of the story, it's a vigilante tale in which Linda Blair stars in the lead role as Brenda (but from this point on I'll just refer to the actress' name as I keep forgetting the name Betsie.....I mean Brenda). She stars as a schoolgirl (I'll get to that in a minute) whose deaf sister is raped by a gang of drug pushers, who are later responsible for the death of one of Linda's friends, and proceeds to avenge them.

Alternatively, you could just look at the captions on the movie posters at the start of this review, and below.

Do I really need to mention the hair?

The story itself is basically "I Spit On Your Grave" with elements of a vigilante movie. But one of the major problems I had with it is that it is painfully slow. It takes 25 minutes before the attack on the sister happens, and it is around the hour mark where the friend is murdered that Linda Blair decides to take the law into her own hands. Right after a scene of her topless in the bath, set to some 80's cheesy rock montage music. Well, whatever makes me forget that this was the person who uttered the line "your mother sucks cocks in hell" as a kid.

The rest of the movie is just showing the majority of the cast being a bunch of dicks, whether it be the evil gang, Linda Blair and her friends, along with the other, erm, teenagers. Yeah, unless these people go to the same school in "Beverly Hills 90210", these are clearly people in their mid to late 20's. It would have been more realistic if these people were in community college, even though I only have a vague idea what a community college is, through American film and TV. But no, there are cheerleader rehearsals, and a class about the reproductive system.

All this does is throw mixed signals at the viewers. Well, let's be honest, male viewers. There is quite a bit of gratuitous nudity, including a catfight with Linda Blair and some cheerleader because her footballer boyfriend keeps coming on to Linda and the blonde cheerleader still blames her, when it's clearly him in the wrong. I know it's an intentionally cliched couple, but the guy looks too goofy to be attractive to either of these women (using the term "girls" just seems wrong at this time). And considering the fact that he even laughs at his girlfriend when her top is ripped off, what could anyone possibly see in this jerk?

Gratuitous nudity is one thing, but the lecherous objectification of women sends off some pretty mixed signals. The rape scene is one that is disturbing, and shows the drug gang as violent sexual predators. But in other scenes where they are demeaning women and groping them in inappropriate ways, the women themselves don't look look like they are in danger, upset, or worried. They seem to be slightly irritated, but are just willing to shrug it off. And when the women are overly sexualised, it does raise question on whether you're sick for getting slightly aroused by the flesh on display, given the context. And it doesn't help that the actors don't convey any realistic reactions in these scenes.

Even when her top is ripped off, she doesn't look horrified, so it's okay. That's my errr, I mean, some pervert's excuse.

As for the rape scene, it's pretty much copied and pasted from the original "I Spit On Your Grave", even down to the unwilling participant of the gang, albeit shorter and more effective. Don't get me wrong, both are hard to watch, as with any rape scene, but I always got the impression that "I Spit On Your Grave" was a feminist propaganda movie disguised as a thriller, as the pivotal scene went on for too long, as to demonise men as a species, instead of the people who.....

STOP GETTING OFF TRACK!!!!!

Okay, I'm looking way too much into a section of a film which is just an exploitation flick, hence the title of the genre "exploitation". I guess if a film like this came out today it would be instantly labelled as misogynistic. And it doesn't help when the settings are in a school and most of the cast are meant to be teenagers, hence the rape scene is that more harrowing. So it was from that point of the movie where I have other option but to look past the supposed age group played by these adults.

And now, back to the rest of the movie.....

Referring back to the unlikable cast, there was one person that I found entertaining was the principal, played by John Vernon. He comes off as the figure of authority in a comedy film, which makes it funny but cringeworthy when it seems like he has inappropriate thoughts and feelings towards his female students. And of course, he comes out with the best line in the film. Of course I found Linda Blair entertaining, but for different reasons. As for acting? Well, she did win a Razzie for her appearances in this, "Night Patrol" and "Savage Island". Neither of which I've seen, but I'm not so sure if I would want to watch them.

But then again.....

As for Linda Blair's character, there's nothing much to say about her, other than she's a tough cookie who seems to be an outsider even to her own group of friends, but is a sweetheart when it comes to her sister and her mother. There's not much to go on in terms of background, other than that her father passed away. She acts no different even when her sister is fighting for her life in the hospital. There's no real interaction with her friends that would make you feel for her when one of the group is murdered by the drug gang.

But all that extra characterisation nonsense can be pushed aside, as long as we get to the vigilante section of the movie. Coming in 20 minutes before the end, thanks to the long wait, this section is quite entertaining. But it's more to do with silliness instead of the action. The weapons she uses, including the elaborate traps, were already foreshadowed during the opening credits of the film, and when she has the gang leader tied up, it felt like this film will have a satisfying, kick ass ending.

But instead, she gets hit with a gate door, and suddenly becomes a damsel in distress, runs away from him and hides in a DIY store where they have their final showdown, which is more akin to a lead female in a horror movie fighting the odds to defeat whatever evil person/creature she's afraid of. This is a complete 180 turn for a character that has been portrayed as an 80's version of Rizzo from "Grease" throughout the entire movie, until she gets knocked in the head by a gate door, and loses whatever attitude and confidence she had. It just comes out of nowhere, and the movie just falls flat right before the finish line.

Better say something nice.

Verdict?

While there are some really stupid parts to this movie, including pacing, acting, setting and story, I can easily forgive it for the fact that, for what its worth, it's just a silly exploitation movie that throws realism out the window, among other things. It's not to be taken too seriously, even if it does have some questionable and shocking moments. With the right mindset, it can be very entertaining, and I'm sure I'd enjoy it more if I was having a few beers while watching it. Especially as you need the alcohol to get through the film's slow pace. But it has enough cheesy moments and ridiculous scenes to keep the viewer's attention, and it does have that 80's charm that gives it a nostalgic feel, even if you've never seen it before.

And if you don't like it, go f**k an iceberg.

And on a final note.....

Back to "The Octagon"; take a look at the blurb on Netflix:

"Terrorist ninjas have been wrecking havoc on a wealthy woman named Justine, so she hires former karate champion Scott James to be her bodyguard. To take down the dangerous thugs, James must start with their training ground, known as The Octagon."

As soon as I read the first two words, I cracked up laughing, hence why I chose this as my first Chuck Norris film. How could you go wrong with "terrorist ninjas"? Well, a lot actually. But that can be turned around into something of  a marvel to watch. Despite the fact that it brought much confusion to this reviewer, and it didn't have as much fight scenes with Chuck Norris as I expected it to have, I would recommend watching it just to sit back and enjoy the absurdity of it

Grimm Fandango (Hansel & Gretel: Warriors Of Witchcraft)

As I begin to write this, once again I have missed my Sunday deadline. The combination of suffering the effects from going out last night (which I rarely do these days), going to the cinema to see "Lincoln" (great performances from Daniel Day-Lewis and Tommy Lee Jones, but visually dull), "Wreck-It Ralph" (very enjoyable movie, coming from someone who likes computer games), along with watching terrible but fun action movies at home (which included subjecting my friend to watching "Wrong Side Of Town", which I wrote about on here), has me at a disadvantage.

In saying that, there was one other film that I watched in the cinema this week: "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters". Before I went to see this in the cinema, I noticed one film popping up on Netflix, which was made last year, which had a very similar title. I thought this was the work of "The Asylum", but as it turned out, they have their own version. So I was curious as to what this one was about, especially after I saw its namesake in the cinema.

WARNING: SPOILERS

What did I think of "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters"?

The film was alright, with some entertaining gory bits and a laugh here and there. Also the 3D looked fine, but then again the only films that seem bother with 3D technology are questionable horror films. However, this film makes the same mistake "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" made; it takes itself way too seriously. It takes away any sense of fun that the title of the movie is suggesting. Which doesn't help when Jeremy Renner takes the role seriously and Gemma Arterton, who I find very pretty to look at ever since "Three And Out" (among other things in that movie.....ahem), is almost channeling Kate Beckinsale in terms of bland, wooden acting while looking hot.

The only person who looked like they were having fun was Famke Janssen, the supporting character named "Ben" is just pointless and annoying, and the biggest problem I had with the movie was the aimless direction it has. It didn't know if it wanted to be a lighthearted action fantasy flick (like the godawful "Van Helsing", which I also wrote about last year) or a violent, twisted take on an old tale. I didn't know if it was catering for the teenage crowd or for blood thirsty adults. It's like watching "Van Helsing", but with added blood and the "F" word littered here and there. Sure it could do with those things to make it interesting, but given the context of the rest of the film, it just seems out of place.

So in short, it was watchable, but if it decided on which direction to go with from the start, it could have been a lot better (going the adult orientated route), or it could have been bland (see "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter".....not literally, of course). With that, I was sure it was going to look like a masterpiece when compared to the ingeniously titled: "Hansel & Gretel: Warriors Of Witchcraft").

83 minutes later.....

Wow, I am actually shocked that these films can be released nowadays. I swear this looks like some film student's first year project. But further research shows that director David DeCoteau has a few titles to his name, albeit the majority of it I've never heard of. But for someone who has experience behind a camera, this is even an insult to amateur film work.

While the film takes place on school grounds, courtesy of the reused establishing shots of the campus (examples including two people talking by a tree, the signposts, side of buildings, people walking where one of them is wearing a t-shirt with "Still Undefeated" written on the back), the rest of the movie doesn't look like it was shot in a school. Hell, even classes which have five students in total take place outdoors.

Infact, the "campus" looks like the exterior of a day care centre. I even came up with a theory that this was filmed in a rehab clinic, where part of the extracurricular activities is doing film projects. Which could be the only logical explanation as to how Eric Roberts ended up in the film, as he could have been in rehab also. Maybe he doesn't get a lot of work nowadays, but for a guy who has starred in "The Dark Knight" and "The Expendables", I find it hard to believe that he needed the money that badly.

The production values are almost one step above "Birdemic", in that it has better "special effects" and has "star names". Well, if you call Eric Roberts and the hot babe in "Kingpin" (Vanessa Angel) as "star names". Other than that, the rest of the cast are a bunch of unknowns, with one of them playing a student/jock/witch that's taller than the rest of the cast. Oh, and the male lead is played by someone called Booboo.

No, not that Boo-Boo.

The plot feels like it came from a rejected script for an episode of "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", with some minor changes here and there. After Booboo gets into a fight in school (judging by the establishing shot of two people talking and another one with a tree), he and his twin sister are transferred to an exclusive boarding school, which shows the exterior of the day care centre.....and the same two shots of the people talking and the tree.

Already in the first few minutes, the editing dismisses all continuity. Whenever the film takes place indoors, half the time I'm not sure where these people are supposed to be, thanks to the confusing campus setting and confusing stock footage. For example, when Booboo's sister finds out about her birth parents from looking by the fireplace, I don't know where this fireplace is supposed to be. The stock footage shows an apartment complex with a car park, but is that supposed to be part of the school? Is it the foster parents' place, even though at the beginning it looks like they're in a suburban neighbourhood? Is it Eric Roberts' office? His home? It's never explained.

This guy was in "The Dark Knight" for crying out loud!

There is not much to the plot itself, where the twins don't fit in with the rich kids, Booboo gets in a fight, then starts hanging with the rich kids, who turn out to be witches who kidnap other students, so their master can take their souls. Booboo's sister suspects something is going on, confronts her brother, they argue, and she learns about their true origin. And about an hour later, Eric Roberts reveals himself to Booboo's sister as a witch slayer who fought alongside her dead parents, and that the oh-so-nice guidance counsellor (Vanessa Angel) is actually, quelle surprise, the head of the coven of witches.

It is at this point of the movie, where Eric Roberts trains Booboo's sister to be a slayer by throwing baseballs at her for a minute or so, when the movie tries to cram as much backstory and character motivation as it can before the end. But even then this raises more questions, one of which was whether Vanessa Angel knew her co-worker had a secret identity as a witch slayer. I admit I didn't pay attention to her speech in the final confrontation with the twins, as I was ready to fall asleep with 20 minutes to go before the end. But hey, if the film isn't making an effort, then why should I? And that was before the anticlimactic finale of that scene.

Since I can't find any images of the film, here's an
image of Vanessa Angel and Erika Eleniak in Baywatch.

Oh, and what has this got to do with Hansel & Gretel? Well halfway through the movie Vanessa Angel (while disguised as a kind, caring guidance counsellor who holds her sessions in a gazebo) tells Booboo's sister that the stories of the Brothers Grimm have an element of truth, including the tale of Hansel & Gretel. Not to mention the name of the school roughly translates as "gingerbread house" or something. These scenes and information seem out of place and quite confusing at first, until the very end where the twins find their original birth certificates. And what were their original names? Take a wild guess.....

Verdict?

This film is just a complete waste of time. The editing is atrocious, the story is wafer thin, and the acting from the amateur cast is so bad I pity them instead of finding any form of humour from their performances. The outdoor scenes make no sense, from the coven meetings in broad daylight, to the aforementioned classroom setting. In the "Chillerama" short "I Was A Teenage Werebear", the outdoor scenes where they're supposed to be indoors at least had a comic intention to them. Here it just comes off as bizarre and stupidly cheap.

In my last article, I had a theory that "Quarantine 2" was its own separate movie until it was stamped with the "Quarantine" name. For this movie, I bet the original idea for the movie was a mixture of "Buffy" and "Twilight", until someone saw a trailer for "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters". So to get people interested in this cheap "Buffy" knock-off, they attempted to write in the Hansel & Gretel storyline without any thought, and hoped for the best. Hell, out of all the Hansel & Gretel movies out there, I bet the film below makes more sense than "H&G: Warriors Of Witchcraft".

"From the producer of Twilight"?
I guess those films can drive people to drugs.

And on a final note.....

In my opening paragraph, I mentioned that I was watching dumb action movies during the weekend. One of them was a film called "The Octagon", which I was tempted to write about this week, instead of "H&G: Warriors Of Witchcraft". It was also the first time I watched a film where the leading man was the action hero/living internet meme himself, Chuck Norris.

Loose Connection (Quarantine 2: Terminal)

After last weekend's movie marathon in Cork, not to mention reaching the second season of "Breaking Bad", I managed to watched a few (questionable) movies this week, including the subject of this week's write up. These include "The New Guy" (don't ask), "Superhero Movie" (again don't ask) and "Kickboxer". The other film I watched this week was inspired by attending the screening of "The Bay" last week, which got me thinking about "found footage" films in general.

I have mentioned before that this genre of horror simply doesn't work in a cinema environment. The aesthetic of the "found footage", which is meant for a television screen, is lost when projected on a wide screen. These films work better when you watch them either by yourself or with a few others in a home environment, not in a cinema screen as part of an audience.

I'm sure there are those who would find them scary, but every movie of this genre that I see in the cinema, the only crowd reactions I see are laughter, or people complaining about how rubbish or cheap looking the film is. In relation to the latter, I always wondered how many of these people watch reality television on a regular basis, but I digress.

There are a lot of things that hurt the "found footage" genre, such as erratic camera work, questionable acting, and the suspension of disbelief in relation to why the person holding the camera would be constantly filming constant criticism. But two that come to mind at this time are: the use of conventional film techniques such as sound, lighting, editing, music and even recognisable actors (of which "The Bay" is guilty of), and shoddy sequels. Which brings me to this week's film, "Quarantine 2: Terminal".

WARNING: SPOILERS

What did I think of the first film?

I saw this in the cinema (along with these same audience members that I'm talking about) and I thought the film itself was okay, despite the fact that explains the boiler noise in the background to legitimize the use of a suspension inducing humming noise. Not only that, it starred the boss from "Ally McBeal", a casting choice which takes away the illusion of watching something that's meant to show "real" people as opposed to film characters. Both of these flaws also appear in "The Bay".

It's been a few years since I've seen it, and shortly afterwards I watched "REC" just to make a comparison. While REC was the better movie in terms of "realism", the one decision that I approved of in "Quarantine" was the "human rabies" explanation as opposed to the supernatural "Exorcist" route of the original. For this blog entry, I also had a choice of watching "REC3" (having seen the second film already) as I decided on reviewing a film from this "found footage" genre. I chose "Quarantine 2" for the simple reason that I didn't even know there was a sequel, and it aroused my curiosity.

89 mins later.....

Actually make that.....

1 min later.....

I was astounded to find out that this sequel, based on a film that incorporates "found footage" style of film making, is an actual film, which already has characters that I have no interest in. Not only that.....

10 mins later.....

The film already introduces so many cardboard cut-out, cliched characters, spouting moronic dialogue that makes me hate them even more, in a film style that is instantly recognisable as a cheap, run of the mill, straight to DVD flick with a poor storyline and rubbish acting. And this is supposed to be connected to the first film?

I can't be bothered looking for any interesting images from this film.

Okay I know there are a lot of sequels that drift away from the essence of their predecessors. Granted a good few of them have been questionable in terms of direction, such as "Blair Witch 2", "Halloween 3", "Elm Street 2" and "The Ring 2" for example. Ugh, even that last one still gives me a sick feeling to my stomach. But that's another story.

My point is, while these films were terrible in their own right, at least they tried to take some sort of risk with either a change in direction or concept. With the exception of "The Ring 2" which, now that I think about it, I could possibly end with writing about here. But that's because they are movies, which are all subject to artistic licence. With "found footage" films, you'd have to be pretty inventive to deviate from the formula set by the first one, even if may not work (see "Book Of Shadows: Blair Witch 2").

So the fact that the sequel to "Quarantine" is that of a sub-standard horror movie trying to tie itself to the first movie, is just as ridiculous as the premise and existence of "American Psycho 2". I remember the director of "Quarantine" talking about a possible sequel where it takes place in an airport, and I thought that seemed like a pretty good idea for a sequel. And it would have if this movie carried over the style from the first film. Instead it feels like there was an idea for a film called "Terminal", and in an effort to get more people to watch it, they stuck on the "Quarantine" name onto it.

And the scary part is, these were the thoughts that were going through my head within the FIRST 10 MINUTES of the film, and this was before the first infected passenger started attacking the crew. And given that the rest of the film annoyed me so much, I'm surprised at the direction this article has taken. I never intended this to turn into an opinion piece on "found footage" and stupid franchise sequels. But I felt I had a lot more to say about this film in relation to these topics than the actual movie itself.

Correction: there are no interesting images I can find from this film.

I think I may as well just wrap this up, given that I have work in the morning, and at time of writing it is past midnight and I've already missed the Sunday deadline for these posts. Otherwise I'd have to do a part 2, and believe me, I do not want to put myself in a position where I have to watch it again, in order to do that. So, to prevent myself from going on a rant, here are 10 things off the top of my head of the problems I had with this film:

• Why did nobody realise the old man with Parkinsons Disease was not with the group when they escaped to the cargo holds? Wasn't the snobby old lady supposed to look after him? Then again, she couldn't look after her cat.
• Speaking of which, the part where the cat is eating the vomit from the infected fat guy was so forced in its foreshadowing.
• Nevermind the hamsters who turned out to be infected rats, did the cat get on-board in the first place? Don't animals have to be in a separate section of the plane?
• Why am I so fascinated about this bloody cat?
• I still can't understand why the infected pilots killed the token black guy, but left the old guy with Parkinsons alone.
• The scene where the whole group of passengers are rallying against the air hostess/"leader" just comes off as stupid and unnecessary.
• The baggage handler couldn't find a better time to tell the group about the tunnels underneath the hanger while all this was going on?
• The night vision goggles are a poor reference to the first movie, and come off as tacky.
• It plays like a children's movie with the kid passenger trying to convince the air hostess/"leader" about the guy she has the hots for. And not only is he one of the principal characters, but he is the sole survivor at the end, despite the fact that he becomes a total idiot within the final moments of the film.
• Actually that's a lie. There was a second survivor, and that turns out to be.....

THAT GODDAMN CAT!!!!!

Last Minute Research

If there was one thing that actually shocked me about the film, it was while looking through the film's IMDb page. Not only has it got a rating just over the 5.0 mark, but the listed reviews from the critics for the most gave it a favourable review in comparison to the first film. Considering the other questionable sequels I mentioned above got mauled by critics on release, this one gets off easy. At least those films took some risks, this one just doesn't do anything to stand out from the endless amount of forgettable movies of this genre, other than a recognisable series title.

Somehow I think it got off lightly for the simple reason that it went straight to DVD, and that it didn't have much of a budget to work with. Not only does the release history not excuse the quality of the film in my book, but these same critics complain about the first film, of which had even less of a budget compared to the sequel. It's pretty clear that these people hate "found footage" style movies, and that's fine. But if their idea of an improvement is a dull, predictable, run of the mill horror film, then their opinions are no better than those who find enjoyment in performing monkey tryouts disguised as TV talent shows.

But I have a theory. This movie was produced by Sony, and the product placement for Sony throughout the film is obvious (but not as blatant as Virgin's forced advertising in "Dracula 2000", mind you). Infact, I bet Sony gave anyone reviewing this film a Vaio or PSP-Go in return for a good review. Then again, if Sony offered me a PS4 to give a good review for a crappy movie they produced.....

Sony should make the PS4 backwards compatible with previous PS games,
as a form of apology for their involvement in "Quarantine 2: Terminal".

And on a final note.....

Speaking of "Kickboxer" at the beginning of this article, I remember watching the final fight scene as a kid many years ago. But I never watched the whole movie until a few days ago. Have to say, it was hilarious to watch, in terms of 80s cheese, poorly staged fight scenes, and JCVD in general. And he didn't show his ass, like he does in a few of his movies. Thank God/Buddha/Allah/Duracell Bunny. As for this video, well, I'm easily amused.

Twisted Celluloid Film Festival (Day Four)

As I come to the end of these short festival related updates and reflect on this past weekend, I have to say that I enjoyed my small trip to Cork, and it was nice to watch a bunch of films that I've never seen before, whether they be good or bad. I managed to watch 10 films out of 15, which isn't too bad. The season ticket cost me 80 euros, but if I bought the tickets for each individual film I saw, it would have amounted to 77.50. So it's not that much of a loss in fairness, plus I could attribute the remainder to that glass of wine I got on opening day.

Black Sunday & Shadow People

As I mentioned in the previous festival related update, I was dying of a hangover. For that reason, I had to sit out "Black Sunday" and "Shadow People", both of which I heard good things of from some of the attendees. But during this time, I was rehydrating myself, filling my stomach with comfort food, and even went down to a shop down the road called "Dealz" and bought myself this game for 1.50 euros. For the laugh

This mutated Keith Chegwin will haunt my nightmares.

The ABCs Of Death

A collection of short films from 26 directors on the subject of death, each with a corresponding letter of the alphabet. This compilation is eclectic to say the least, ranging from weird, funny, dark, serious, gory, and even some scatalogical humour thrown in. Something for everyone then, that is, if you have a twisted sense of humour to begin with.

The Lords Of Salem

This was the screening with the most attendance during the whole festival, even more than "Maniac". As a fan of Rob Zombie's music, coupled with a new found admiration for his early directorial work, I have to say I quite enjoyed this film, even though it can be a bit slow in parts. I did enjoy the visuals, especially towards the end, but the plot can be unclear in parts ("The Shining" clearly an influence on this movie), which I'm guessing that was the intention. I'll also give credit to Sheri Moon Zombie on her performance, which I was surprised with how well she pulled it off.

And on a final note.....

Along with "Maniac", I think I will go to see "Lords Of Salem" when they play over in Dublin (unless plans change otherwise). Both were the main attractions of the "Twisted Celluloid" festival, and for me, both of them were mind-melting to watch (plus the booze didn't help with "Maniac"). So again, I believe another viewing is in order.

Van Gore (Antichrist)

Normally in these intros I mention a few films I've seen, whether it be in the cinema, Netflix, or DVD/Blu Ray. Other than the films I've watched at the "Twisted Celluloid" Film Festival, I watched "A Good Day To Die Hard" this week. In short, the movie was terrible. It doesn't beat "Movie 43" as the current holder of "worst film of 2013" (and it's only February), but I'm starting to think it's even worse than "Texas Chainsaw 3D".

Before my trip to Cork I watched the film "Antichrist". It was recommended to me by a friend a long time ago, along with "Dear Zachary: A Letter To A Son About His Father", as movies I should that would disturb me. I managed to find "Dear Zachary" on the web, and found it to be very sad, but intriguing and shocking. In otherwords, I highly recommend it.

As for "Antichrist", I've heard mixed reviews on it, raging from terrible to good, but all I know that it was controversial at time of release. All I knew about the director was the Nazi comment controversy a few years ago. I never got around to watching it until recently (thank you Netflix). Not knowing what to expect, and for the sake of my curiosity, I decided to watch it, just to see what all the fuss was about.

WARNING: SPOILERS

108 minutes later.....

Okay, this movie is just.....well, weird. While it wasn't as shocking or disturbing as I was lead to believe, I can understand why this film courted much controversy. But overall, I just thought it was an odd movie.  It certainly grabbed my attention from the start, with a graphic sex scene from Willem Dafoe and Charotte Gainsbourg (who I never heard of, but apparently starred in "I'm Not There", a pretentious semi-biopic of an artist I can never get into musically, but that's another story).

While this scene is playing to some opera piece, their infant son escapes from his cot, climbs up onto a windowsill, and falls to his death. I don't know what it says about me when the first thing that came to my mind was the song "Tears In Heaven". It's like my subconscious was making offensive joke, and my conscious self was not only offended, but ashamed of myself for making that connection.

With an opening scene that unsettling, the early scenes of the couple dealing with the grief are pretty heavy in tone. Their names are never revealed, and they turn out to be the main focus of the film, with no other supporting characters, except for the child at the very start. There were some background characters walking alongside the hearse soon after the beginning, and at first glance, I noticed that their faces were blurred. At the time I wasn't sure if I imagined that, as I never bothered to rewind and pause.

From this point on, the film was hard to watch. Not because of the depressing tone, but because the film was so boring. The first half is just filled with scenes of crying, psychobabble psychiatry, back and forth arguments, spontaneous bouts of nookie, and a drawn out hypnotic dream involving a cabin in a forest, where they decide to go as part of the healing process. The first half could easily have been trimmed down, were it not made as an arthouse type of film.

I don't mind long, drawn out scenes with minimal exposition, as its not the type of film that panders to the audience, and delivers everything on a plate in easily digestible portions. I understand that the film is setting the tone and atmosphere onscreen, even if some of the scenes just look odd for arts sake, which can be too much pretentiousness to stomach. But the problem I had with it was that the movie is painfully slow for the first half, to the point that I had to keep myself awake and not become easily distracted, just so I could see where this "controversial" film was going.

The director makes use of conventional horror film methods such as the suspenseful music in one scene, cutting to the next scene when you realise there's nothing scary around the corner. Granted this bait and switch method is an often used method that, when executed, can be effective. But again, this method is used in even the most cliched ridden of horror films. But here, it just comes off as distracting. It was just over the halfway mark when the film started to get that much weirder, when parts of the background begin to blur (again, I didn't rewind and pause to see if it was just my eyesight going, or my overactive imagination fighting boredom), and Willem Dafoe comes across a decomposing fox that says out loud "chaos reigns".

I found this scene very effective, as it began to make me feel unsettled while watching it, as it just comes out of nowhere, and is well executed. It is from this point where the film actually moves a gear with the questionable mental health and motivations of the wife, which then leads to the more violent scenes, especially those that fit right in with the "body horror" genre of scary movies. You either have to be of strong stomach or find gruesome scenes comical, if you don't find some of these scenes squeamish.

While the second half was, for want of a better term, more watchable, it was still a little vague as to how the wife came to be in her mindset, and the explanation for her actions. I guess that's where the pretentiousness factor comes into play and you have to think for yourself, but sometimes I wonder if by trying to be vague, is the film showing off its intelligence, or is it trying to be arty for the sake of being arty? And the blurred out faces that I mentioned before show up again, and I'm sure there's something symbolic behind it, but I don't know, and maybe I don't care. While you can feel a little stupid for not "getting" these types of films, at the same time, maybe the reason you don't "get it" is because, when you strip everything away and analyze it, maybe there's noting to "get" in the first place?

Especially when it comes to scenes like this.

Verdict?

I should point out that when I watched this, I was quite tired and decided to watch a film before heading to bed. While it may not be the best state to watch this, I would like to think that if I was wide awake and energetic, I'd still find the film a drag at the beginning. As I write this, I'm still trying to figure out whether I liked it or not. But for now, my opinion is that the movie was pretty good, but could have been better if the first half had better pacing and editing.

It did have that outworldly feel to it, similar to the feeling I get when watching any David Lynch movie I've seen. The visuals are surreal, the background score gives it a haunting feel (even if it is minimal), and it is a challenge to understand the actual story, it does leave itself to be open for interpretation. But unlike Lynch, the visuals are more a mixture of the supernatural interacting with reality, as opposed to.....well, whatever comes out of the head of David Lynch. Plus, the film makes a little more sense, in that you don't need a "cheat sheet" (as with "Mulholland Drive") to understand what was going on, and the viewer is able to come up with their own educated interpretation.

While it was interesting to watch, in terms of understanding the different viewpoints of critics and people I know, in terms of gore, violence, story and controversy. I get the feeling that I need to watch it again so I can have a better opinion or appreciation for it. However, it is by no means the most shocking and disturbing film I've seen. That title goes to "A Serbian Film", which despite the fact that I thought was very good and powerful in its execution, I would have no intention of watching again, due to the nature of the film.

Last Minute Research

Normally I don't do that much research into films I haven't seen, as I want to write from the perspective of someone who never watched it in the first place. But I was intrigued to look up a few things from the online oracle that is Wikipedia, and was interested by a few things:

• There are different cuts of the film, and from what I gather, I saw the uncut version. Once again, thank you Netflix.
• The director made this film while suffering from an extreme bout of depression. Maybe next time I see this film, I would keep that in mind. But then again, I'm sure this fact wouldn't change my opinion of it.
• The original ending for the film had to be rewritten as one of the executive producers gave the plot away. So I could forgive the director for a slight lack of direction in this case.
• Eva Green was meant to play the female lead, but her agents wouldn't allow her.

Maybe it's just personal opinion here, but I would have preferred Eva Green to Charlotte Gainsbourg, in terms of acting ability. I know Gainsbourg won a few awards for her performance, but I just found her annoying. Her accent was grating to my ears, I wasn't that convinced by her performance, and she's not particularly good looking.

Granted that's an unfair comment, albeit shallow, and for a role such as this, it would be hard to attract a "Hollywood starlet" to take on the role. But with her body frame she looks anorexic and sickly. With a scene that involves the female character masturbating in the nude by a tree, it looks more strangely disturbing than strangely erotic. Now if it was Eva Green masturbating by a tree.....

.....yeah I think I'll just wrap up this article now.

And on a final note.....

Influenced by the title of the film, I shall post the entire "Antichrist Superstar" album by Marilyn Manson. While I had heard other heavy artists outside of the Indie/Britpop music scene I was into at the time, this was the album that changed my musical taste forever. Thanks to Marilyn Manson and producer Trent Reznor, I changed from an Oasis fanatic to something more darker. And I have no regrets either.