**Spoilers Included**
In 1978, a movie called Mountain of the Cannibal God was released, directed by Sergio Martino, written by Sergio Martino and Cesare Frugoni, and starring Ursula Andress and Stacy Keach. This is a movie of the "cannibal movie set in exotic locations with violence that doesn't add to the plot" type of movie.
This movie is an obscure movie from the Italian gore style of movie. The plot follows a woman (Ursula Andress) and her brother who recruit an adventurer (Stacy Keach) to help them find her lost husband in the jungle. The consensus is that the husband went into an island that is legendary for its cannibal islanders. As the story moves along, we find out that the adventurer had been abducted by the cannibal tribe and assimilated, but he had escaped and had watched the village be destroyed. They lose their help, but recruit another adventurer. The first adventurer starts to go crazy at the idea that the cannibals are not all dead, but actually following them. He ends up dying, but the remaining three find an area that is rich in uranium. It is revealed that the husband was going to exploit the mountain for its rich uranium and leave out the wife and her brother, but since they know where the uranium is, they can get rich on their own. One problem: that is the home of the cannibals, who kill the brother, take the second adventurer captive, and make the wife a queen. Why? Because her dead husband has been disfigured by the radioactivity and now has a Geiger reader in his chest that keeps bouncing, so they think he is eternal, and she will reign over them with the corpse. Naturally, the two remaining do escape.
So, now you don't have to watch the movie. And you have to be in a strange mood to even want to watch this movie. The violence against people is almost comical. The blood and the guts do not look real at all. When the first adventurer falls off the waterfall, it is obvious that it's a dummy. The human flesh the cannibals eat doesn't even look like meat, nor do the lizards they eat. But this movie has fills of animal violence which is real, and rather disturbing. They shot footage of animal violence while shooting the movie. There is a bird of prey against a snake, a crocodile against a large turtle, and most infamously a monkey against a python. The director claims the python had been following them during the shoot, and there were monkeys around and they happened to get the footage, but if you slow the movie, you can see the monkey is pushed toward the python who eats it alive slowly.
This movie is not for the faint of heart because the animal violence is real, but with all movies of this type the story is hollow and flimsy. There was no real reason for two adventurers unless they are starting out together, which they don't. A big problem I have is when the wife tells the second adventurer that she and her brother used him to find the uranium, he then rescues her from the cannibals instead of just escaping. Also, I find it odd that Stacy Keach's character dies about halfway through the movie. But my biggest complaint is the use of animal violence all the way through. It adds nothing to the plot and only shocks the audience. I thought the plot with its cannibals and human violence should do that, but of course those effects are crappy, so I guess they couldn't. The only good thing about it is you get to see the beautiful Ursula Andress naked.
Either way, this is a bad movie that could have been so much better. I don't recommend this for viewing unless you want to punish yourself.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMMJyNvQGRA
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Jaws Quadrilogy - Part 1
So, a lot of people have seen the movie Jaws. Released in 1975, this movie quickly entered pop culture with a band and will not leave anytime soon. Since I've been trying to keep these posts relegated to movies that most people haven't seen, I'm not here to critique Jaws and tell you things that you already know. Instead, I'm going to compare the book to the movie.
The novel Jaws was written by Peter Benchley who went on to write many novels about the oceans and sharks, but Jaws was his debut novel. It was an instant success, and two producers (David Brown and Richard Zanuck) both read the novel and wanted to make it a movie. After one failed director, Zanuck and Brown got Steven Spielberg to direct.
The script went through many versions which is normal, but the versions it went through were interesting. Peter Benchley wrote the first draft of the script. He was told to cut out the backstory and make it a simple A-Z adventure story. So, he did. Spielberg read the book, then wrote a complete script of his own, which very little stayed in the movie from. Howard Sackler, the great playwright, made a draft, but asked that his name be kept off the credits because he couldn't commit entirely to the movie. Carl Gottlieb wrote a draft of the script as well, and actually has a part in the movie (Meadows, the reporter). Also, John Milius, Sackler, and Robert Shaw wrote parts of the USS Indianapolis speech. Filming was never-ending, as it took about 8 months to film. But when it was released, it was an immediate sensation.
The story, on the other hand, was similar to the book's, but it deviated many times for many reasons. It's hard to say which was the biggest change. In my opinion, the interactions of the characters was the biggest. In the movie, Hooper and Brody become good friends very quickly, whereas the book shows them constantly about to jump at each other, mostly out of jealousy and distrust. Quint is like a hired hand in the book who doesn't really care about anything but making a little money for his trouble until the very end. Another big difference is the change of backstory. In the book, Hooper was from the island as was Ellen. Ellen and Hooper's older brother once dated, and when Hooper comes back to town, they start a tryst (which is where the distrust comes between Hooper and Brody). In the movie, Ellen and Brody are not from the island. Also, they are new to the island, whereas the book puts them in their fourth year on the island, so they know a lot about the island. Another bit that I don't think worked was Mayor Vaughn's ties to the mob. It was an interesting idea, but not necessary for this movie. The two things that I thought were great in changing were the leaving out the Mayor's mob ties and the Ellen/Hooper tryst. Because of those two elements, I felt like the book lost its focus. Another difference was Brody's children: the book had three (Billy, Martin Jr., and Sean) but the movie had two (Michael and Sean). The attacks were different too: the July 4th attack in the movie was much worse than the book's. The whole boat scene was different in that they came ashore every night in the book, which didn't give you the idea that there was any real sense of danger. The book also had Hooper die when the cage is attacked, which doesn't upset the reader because he isn't the nice guy he is in the movie. The ending of the book is rather subtle and anticlimactic. The one thing the book has over the movie is the town politics. If the shark runs off the summer crowd, the town dies, and a conspiracy is hatched to quiet it down, which Brody doesn't like, but he has to go along with it. Similar to the movie, but in the book his hands are figuratively tied, which is why the scene in the movie with Brody and Mrs. Kintner is so powerful, but I don't like the scene without some of the buildup from the book. Reading the book makes that scene more powerful.
The movie is an impressive achievement in filmmaking, and everything in it seems to work. Everything from the acting, the dialogue, the music, the lighting. It has a timeless feel, and very little of it is really dated (maybe some hair styles). There is rich character development in the movie and the characters (even the unlikeable ones) are great. The opening scene is one of the best openers. The lack of seeing the shark is a great idea, even though it was unintended. The shark kept breaking, so they couldn't use it as much as planned, but that only added to the Hitchcock feeling.
All in all, this is one of the best movies ever, and certainly one of the best thriller/horror of all time. My opinion is that the book is pretty good, but it lacks so much. If in doubt as to whether to read it or watch it, I say watch the movie. This is one of the only times that the movie is a hundred times better than the book.
Here is a link to the original long trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt_JTkUVL6I
The novel Jaws was written by Peter Benchley who went on to write many novels about the oceans and sharks, but Jaws was his debut novel. It was an instant success, and two producers (David Brown and Richard Zanuck) both read the novel and wanted to make it a movie. After one failed director, Zanuck and Brown got Steven Spielberg to direct.
The script went through many versions which is normal, but the versions it went through were interesting. Peter Benchley wrote the first draft of the script. He was told to cut out the backstory and make it a simple A-Z adventure story. So, he did. Spielberg read the book, then wrote a complete script of his own, which very little stayed in the movie from. Howard Sackler, the great playwright, made a draft, but asked that his name be kept off the credits because he couldn't commit entirely to the movie. Carl Gottlieb wrote a draft of the script as well, and actually has a part in the movie (Meadows, the reporter). Also, John Milius, Sackler, and Robert Shaw wrote parts of the USS Indianapolis speech. Filming was never-ending, as it took about 8 months to film. But when it was released, it was an immediate sensation.
The story, on the other hand, was similar to the book's, but it deviated many times for many reasons. It's hard to say which was the biggest change. In my opinion, the interactions of the characters was the biggest. In the movie, Hooper and Brody become good friends very quickly, whereas the book shows them constantly about to jump at each other, mostly out of jealousy and distrust. Quint is like a hired hand in the book who doesn't really care about anything but making a little money for his trouble until the very end. Another big difference is the change of backstory. In the book, Hooper was from the island as was Ellen. Ellen and Hooper's older brother once dated, and when Hooper comes back to town, they start a tryst (which is where the distrust comes between Hooper and Brody). In the movie, Ellen and Brody are not from the island. Also, they are new to the island, whereas the book puts them in their fourth year on the island, so they know a lot about the island. Another bit that I don't think worked was Mayor Vaughn's ties to the mob. It was an interesting idea, but not necessary for this movie. The two things that I thought were great in changing were the leaving out the Mayor's mob ties and the Ellen/Hooper tryst. Because of those two elements, I felt like the book lost its focus. Another difference was Brody's children: the book had three (Billy, Martin Jr., and Sean) but the movie had two (Michael and Sean). The attacks were different too: the July 4th attack in the movie was much worse than the book's. The whole boat scene was different in that they came ashore every night in the book, which didn't give you the idea that there was any real sense of danger. The book also had Hooper die when the cage is attacked, which doesn't upset the reader because he isn't the nice guy he is in the movie. The ending of the book is rather subtle and anticlimactic. The one thing the book has over the movie is the town politics. If the shark runs off the summer crowd, the town dies, and a conspiracy is hatched to quiet it down, which Brody doesn't like, but he has to go along with it. Similar to the movie, but in the book his hands are figuratively tied, which is why the scene in the movie with Brody and Mrs. Kintner is so powerful, but I don't like the scene without some of the buildup from the book. Reading the book makes that scene more powerful.
The movie is an impressive achievement in filmmaking, and everything in it seems to work. Everything from the acting, the dialogue, the music, the lighting. It has a timeless feel, and very little of it is really dated (maybe some hair styles). There is rich character development in the movie and the characters (even the unlikeable ones) are great. The opening scene is one of the best openers. The lack of seeing the shark is a great idea, even though it was unintended. The shark kept breaking, so they couldn't use it as much as planned, but that only added to the Hitchcock feeling.
All in all, this is one of the best movies ever, and certainly one of the best thriller/horror of all time. My opinion is that the book is pretty good, but it lacks so much. If in doubt as to whether to read it or watch it, I say watch the movie. This is one of the only times that the movie is a hundred times better than the book.
Here is a link to the original long trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt_JTkUVL6I
Mirrors
In 2008, a movie called Mirrors was released, directed by Alexandre Aja, written by Alexandre Aja and Gregory Lavasseur, and starring Kiefer Sutherland and Amy Smart. This is the first horror movie that I've posted on here, and I'm posting it for good reason. For a horror movie, I thought it was quite well done.
Mirrors is a remake of a Korean horror movie called Geoul Sokeuro (Into the Mirror). I have not seen the original, but I have read that it scarier than this one (imagine that, the original being better). This movie follows an out of work New York cop named Ben Carson (Kiefer Sutherland) who is staying with his sister and separated from his wife and two children. He gets an overnight job as security officer at a department store that had burned some years earlier. Beginning on his first night, he begins seeing strange things in the mirrors of the store. He then goes on a quest to unlock the mysteries of the mirrors and uncover the horrors that lie behind them. He finds out that the store used to be a psychiatric hospital years earlier that used mirrors to treat schizophrenia. Carson finds a woman who was "cured" of her schizophrenia, but then explains that what was in her was a demon that collects the souls of whomever it kills. The demon wants the woman back, and the price is his family's lives.
What makes this movie interesting is the fact that any mirrored surface works. It takes some times before you find that out. At first it's just the mirrors in the store. Then it's the mirrors at home. Then it's the mirrors in the car. Then it's reflective surfaces such as in a morgue or windows or water. Water is perhaps the most terrifying since it travels. The only plot hole I can think of at this time is when Carson removes the rearview mirror in the car, one would think he would remove the side mirrors too, but he doesn't. Not sure why not, and it isn't explained either.
This movie is based on the psychological idea that mirrors do not reflect, but instead they show an opposite reality. For people that lose touch with reality, they look at the person in the mirror (their reflection) is someone else, and therefore is able to do things without their knowledge. This idea leads to the notion of multiple personalities, which not many psychologists agree with anymore. Either way, this movie does a good job of terrifying the viewer into looking at mirrors in a different way. No longer is it safe to look at your reflection, even in water. And the ending, I thought was brilliant. There are certain aspects that most will look at as typical horror, but I thought the concept was strong, and the ideas were strong. For a horror movie, I thought it was quite well done.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O92QxxgeCO8
Mirrors is a remake of a Korean horror movie called Geoul Sokeuro (Into the Mirror). I have not seen the original, but I have read that it scarier than this one (imagine that, the original being better). This movie follows an out of work New York cop named Ben Carson (Kiefer Sutherland) who is staying with his sister and separated from his wife and two children. He gets an overnight job as security officer at a department store that had burned some years earlier. Beginning on his first night, he begins seeing strange things in the mirrors of the store. He then goes on a quest to unlock the mysteries of the mirrors and uncover the horrors that lie behind them. He finds out that the store used to be a psychiatric hospital years earlier that used mirrors to treat schizophrenia. Carson finds a woman who was "cured" of her schizophrenia, but then explains that what was in her was a demon that collects the souls of whomever it kills. The demon wants the woman back, and the price is his family's lives.
What makes this movie interesting is the fact that any mirrored surface works. It takes some times before you find that out. At first it's just the mirrors in the store. Then it's the mirrors at home. Then it's the mirrors in the car. Then it's reflective surfaces such as in a morgue or windows or water. Water is perhaps the most terrifying since it travels. The only plot hole I can think of at this time is when Carson removes the rearview mirror in the car, one would think he would remove the side mirrors too, but he doesn't. Not sure why not, and it isn't explained either.
This movie is based on the psychological idea that mirrors do not reflect, but instead they show an opposite reality. For people that lose touch with reality, they look at the person in the mirror (their reflection) is someone else, and therefore is able to do things without their knowledge. This idea leads to the notion of multiple personalities, which not many psychologists agree with anymore. Either way, this movie does a good job of terrifying the viewer into looking at mirrors in a different way. No longer is it safe to look at your reflection, even in water. And the ending, I thought was brilliant. There are certain aspects that most will look at as typical horror, but I thought the concept was strong, and the ideas were strong. For a horror movie, I thought it was quite well done.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O92QxxgeCO8
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)