**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
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Habit
In 1997, the movie Habit was released, written and directed and starred in by Larry Fessenden. This is an independent movie with no major stars. If you have to see one vampire movie, this is the one you cannot miss.
This movie is one of those simple movies that is gritty and realistic in such a way that it seems it could be real. The people in the movie are not overly attractive and the places are not overly lavish. The story is about Sam, a guy who is down on his luck: his girlfriend is separating from him, his father has just died, work is hectic. But he has some friends that are really close, and when two of his best friends host a Halloween party, he meets Anna. Anna becomes his companion and lover, but we soon learn (as does Sam) that she's really vampire slowly sucking him dry. The story builds to a confrontation between Sam and Anna which will lead you breathless.
The interesting thing about this movie is the slow introduction of the vampire traits. Immediately, we notice that Anna seems to appear and disappear out of thin air. She never eats or drinks either. We see her bite his lip at one point early on, but each encounter seems to be a little more intense. The introduction of the vampire traits are so subtle that they are hardly noticeable most of the time. And if you really look, you will references to classic vampire lore. Lenny is a reference to Lucy from Dracula. The old professor (I believe he was Mr. Lyons?) was like Van Helsing. Even the boat at the beginning and end was like the abandoned ship that arrives at port in Dracula. The most obscure vampire reference is the fact that vampires are entranced by knobby ornate lacy things, which is shown when Anna gets enthralled by Rae's grandmother's dress. Also, the old references of the crucifix, garlic, and being invited inside are all present. Either way, this movie is filled with vampire references that most won't catch, and even less will recognize.
I highly recommend this movie. For a vampire movie, it's not scary and not meant to be. It is basically a love story between a man and a succubus. I believe that like all vampire movies, this movie is a metaphor, and I believe the metaphor in this movie is about love. There is a great scene between Sam and Anna where they are talking about love, and he says that love always ends in pain, at least that his experience. And Anna tells him that men like to fall in love, but they don't like to stay in love. There is a lot of nudity and sex in this movie, which only points to two things: love and vulnerability. Both of which are portrayed perfectly. If you want to see the most realistic vampire movie ever made, check this one out.
ps - an interesting tidbit is that this is actually a remake. Larry Fessenden made Habit in 1980 for a film class, then remade it as an independent feature in 1997, and claims he isn't opposed to making it again.
Unfortunately, I can't find a trailer for you. You'll just have to find the movie!
This movie is one of those simple movies that is gritty and realistic in such a way that it seems it could be real. The people in the movie are not overly attractive and the places are not overly lavish. The story is about Sam, a guy who is down on his luck: his girlfriend is separating from him, his father has just died, work is hectic. But he has some friends that are really close, and when two of his best friends host a Halloween party, he meets Anna. Anna becomes his companion and lover, but we soon learn (as does Sam) that she's really vampire slowly sucking him dry. The story builds to a confrontation between Sam and Anna which will lead you breathless.
The interesting thing about this movie is the slow introduction of the vampire traits. Immediately, we notice that Anna seems to appear and disappear out of thin air. She never eats or drinks either. We see her bite his lip at one point early on, but each encounter seems to be a little more intense. The introduction of the vampire traits are so subtle that they are hardly noticeable most of the time. And if you really look, you will references to classic vampire lore. Lenny is a reference to Lucy from Dracula. The old professor (I believe he was Mr. Lyons?) was like Van Helsing. Even the boat at the beginning and end was like the abandoned ship that arrives at port in Dracula. The most obscure vampire reference is the fact that vampires are entranced by knobby ornate lacy things, which is shown when Anna gets enthralled by Rae's grandmother's dress. Also, the old references of the crucifix, garlic, and being invited inside are all present. Either way, this movie is filled with vampire references that most won't catch, and even less will recognize.
I highly recommend this movie. For a vampire movie, it's not scary and not meant to be. It is basically a love story between a man and a succubus. I believe that like all vampire movies, this movie is a metaphor, and I believe the metaphor in this movie is about love. There is a great scene between Sam and Anna where they are talking about love, and he says that love always ends in pain, at least that his experience. And Anna tells him that men like to fall in love, but they don't like to stay in love. There is a lot of nudity and sex in this movie, which only points to two things: love and vulnerability. Both of which are portrayed perfectly. If you want to see the most realistic vampire movie ever made, check this one out.
ps - an interesting tidbit is that this is actually a remake. Larry Fessenden made Habit in 1980 for a film class, then remade it as an independent feature in 1997, and claims he isn't opposed to making it again.
Unfortunately, I can't find a trailer for you. You'll just have to find the movie!
Sunday, April 11, 2010
61*
In 2001, HBO aired the movie 61*, directed by Billy Crystal, written by Hank Steinberg, and starring Barry Pepper, Thomas Jane, Anthony Michael Hall, Christopher McDonald, and Bruce McGill. This is another made for TV movie from HBO that is one of the best sports movies ever made.
Set in the backdrop of the night in 1998 when Mark McGwire broke Maris' record of 61 home runs in a single season, this story is about the 1961 baseball season when Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle vie for breaking Babe Ruth's single season record of 60 home runs. The story goes that Mantle and Maris were rivals playing for the same team (the Yankees) and nobody liked Maris. The truth is that Mantle and Maris were great friends and even roommates. Maris is from the Midwest, so his family and baseball are first in his life. Mantle is partier, great at baseball, but loves to party. Maris calms down Mantle's partying and drinking, but injuries get the better of Mantle eventually. But then there's the media and what the public saw. Mantle was good with the writers and the journalists, but Maris was quieter and more reserved which the journalists mistook for arrogance. The media frenzy took hold of Maris and squeezed him. This movie shows the behind the scenes of this baseball legend. His death threats, the fans throwing chairs at him in the field, the nervous breakdown: it's all here in this amazing movie.
Class is one of those things that is talked about in sports, as in how classy one player is over others. Maris was a class act, and Pepper's performance shows that. Jane's performance of Mantle was spot on: good with the media, and good with the girls, but when on the field, he's all about baseball. Class act also fits with Joe Dimaggio who wasn't the nicest guy and isn't shown to be. Neither was Babe Ruth's widow. But when it comes home to 1998, and McGwire goes into the stands to the Maris family, what a classy move. Just like Maris was, McGwire showed what class was in that moment.
The title comes from the statistic in the baseball lore. It obviously stands for the number of home runs hit in that 1961 season by Maris, but the asterisk is one of the most vile exploits in sports. Because the 1961 season was a few games longer than the season that Ruth had, Ford Frick (the commissioner of baseball, and non-lover of Maris) announced that there would be two records: Ruth's of 60, and Maris' of 61* which denotes that he didn't hit 61 in the same amount of time. This of course is a baseball controversy ever since 1961.
This is baseball history movie that I think is not only one of the best baseball movies, but one of the best sports movies of all time. It is definitely a movie worth watching, even if you're not a baseball fan. It shows the triumph (or as much as he could have) of one man against the world that hated him for no good reason. Being born in the St. Louis area, and a diehard Cardinals fan, I also like this movie for the 1998 Cardinals' sequences, and for Maris himself, who left the Yankees, and found himself a Cardinal a few years later. He never really recovered from that 1961 season, and even regretted hitting all those home runs. But he serves as an inspiration to not give up or give in to pressure.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1po8PgfJU_Q
As a bonus, here is a link to a news short showing Maris' 61st homer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJnhHdjs0DI&feature=related
Set in the backdrop of the night in 1998 when Mark McGwire broke Maris' record of 61 home runs in a single season, this story is about the 1961 baseball season when Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle vie for breaking Babe Ruth's single season record of 60 home runs. The story goes that Mantle and Maris were rivals playing for the same team (the Yankees) and nobody liked Maris. The truth is that Mantle and Maris were great friends and even roommates. Maris is from the Midwest, so his family and baseball are first in his life. Mantle is partier, great at baseball, but loves to party. Maris calms down Mantle's partying and drinking, but injuries get the better of Mantle eventually. But then there's the media and what the public saw. Mantle was good with the writers and the journalists, but Maris was quieter and more reserved which the journalists mistook for arrogance. The media frenzy took hold of Maris and squeezed him. This movie shows the behind the scenes of this baseball legend. His death threats, the fans throwing chairs at him in the field, the nervous breakdown: it's all here in this amazing movie.
Class is one of those things that is talked about in sports, as in how classy one player is over others. Maris was a class act, and Pepper's performance shows that. Jane's performance of Mantle was spot on: good with the media, and good with the girls, but when on the field, he's all about baseball. Class act also fits with Joe Dimaggio who wasn't the nicest guy and isn't shown to be. Neither was Babe Ruth's widow. But when it comes home to 1998, and McGwire goes into the stands to the Maris family, what a classy move. Just like Maris was, McGwire showed what class was in that moment.
The title comes from the statistic in the baseball lore. It obviously stands for the number of home runs hit in that 1961 season by Maris, but the asterisk is one of the most vile exploits in sports. Because the 1961 season was a few games longer than the season that Ruth had, Ford Frick (the commissioner of baseball, and non-lover of Maris) announced that there would be two records: Ruth's of 60, and Maris' of 61* which denotes that he didn't hit 61 in the same amount of time. This of course is a baseball controversy ever since 1961.
This is baseball history movie that I think is not only one of the best baseball movies, but one of the best sports movies of all time. It is definitely a movie worth watching, even if you're not a baseball fan. It shows the triumph (or as much as he could have) of one man against the world that hated him for no good reason. Being born in the St. Louis area, and a diehard Cardinals fan, I also like this movie for the 1998 Cardinals' sequences, and for Maris himself, who left the Yankees, and found himself a Cardinal a few years later. He never really recovered from that 1961 season, and even regretted hitting all those home runs. But he serves as an inspiration to not give up or give in to pressure.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1po8PgfJU_Q
As a bonus, here is a link to a news short showing Maris' 61st homer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJnhHdjs0DI&feature=related
Zombies of Mass Destruction
In 2009, as part of the After Dark Horror series, Zombies of Mass Destruction was released, directed by Kevin Hamedani, written by Kevin Hamedani and Ramon Isao, with no major stars. This movie is a steaming pile of epic proportions.
As the movie starts, I was intrigued by the music. It reminded me of a 60's/70's zombie movie, you know, where they take themselves seriously. But within the first few minutes I was disappointed, and I realized I was in for a long ride. My first problem is that the movie doesn't take itself seriously, which is typical for zombie movies today, but when dealing with heavy themes such as racism and racial profiling, one would hope they'd take at least that seriously. The idea for this movie came up after a discussion about how after 9/11 people of Middle Eastern descent were looked at differently. The idea of this movie is that the zombie disease is actually a weapon from a Muslim terrorist. Throw in some old fashioned rednecks and some religious nuts, and you've got this movie.
Not one moment of this movie can be taken seriously except for when the rednecks are blaming the one girl of Iranian descent of being a terrorist, and the religious nuts who are torturing the two gay guys for fear of turning into zombies. The fact that it selectively points out which groups it's going to be sympathetic to really bothers me. There is no real character development in a normal sense since all the people are caricatures and not real people. The gays, the American-Middle Easterners, and the liberals are the good; and the rednecks, the religious conservatives, and the in-between types are the bad. As much as I enjoy teaching rednecks and religious conservatives a lesson, at least if you're making a movie, try to mix it up a bit. This movie makes the race card a little too obvious. But then again, there's a message about racism in there, but without a serious movie backdrop, how can anyone take it seriously?
Many have compared this movie to Shaun of the Dead. There are similarities, for sure. But Shaun of the Dead is an all out comedy, and meant to be so. This movie isn't sure what it's supposed to be. Comparing it to Shaun of the Dead, in my opinion, is an assault on Shaun of the Dead. In this movie, the acting is poor, the special effects are marginal, and the blood factor is over the top. Is it really necessary to see a face ripped off? Does that really add to the movie? And once again, my least favorite act in a horror movie: why do people go into the dark scary place? They will just die. It's too obvious that you're just trying to get rid of the character. I find it much more interesting if the dumb are enlightened, then die in a noble manner - like trying to save the others. I like it to be a no way out kind of scenario. I don't like my movies predictable... which is all this was.
Survey says: skip this movie if you want to avoid a steaming pile of crap. If you want to torture yourself, then have at it. Seriously, with a tagline like "They're just like you ... only dead", how good could it be?
Here's a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUFjHjU0bK8
As the movie starts, I was intrigued by the music. It reminded me of a 60's/70's zombie movie, you know, where they take themselves seriously. But within the first few minutes I was disappointed, and I realized I was in for a long ride. My first problem is that the movie doesn't take itself seriously, which is typical for zombie movies today, but when dealing with heavy themes such as racism and racial profiling, one would hope they'd take at least that seriously. The idea for this movie came up after a discussion about how after 9/11 people of Middle Eastern descent were looked at differently. The idea of this movie is that the zombie disease is actually a weapon from a Muslim terrorist. Throw in some old fashioned rednecks and some religious nuts, and you've got this movie.
Not one moment of this movie can be taken seriously except for when the rednecks are blaming the one girl of Iranian descent of being a terrorist, and the religious nuts who are torturing the two gay guys for fear of turning into zombies. The fact that it selectively points out which groups it's going to be sympathetic to really bothers me. There is no real character development in a normal sense since all the people are caricatures and not real people. The gays, the American-Middle Easterners, and the liberals are the good; and the rednecks, the religious conservatives, and the in-between types are the bad. As much as I enjoy teaching rednecks and religious conservatives a lesson, at least if you're making a movie, try to mix it up a bit. This movie makes the race card a little too obvious. But then again, there's a message about racism in there, but without a serious movie backdrop, how can anyone take it seriously?
Many have compared this movie to Shaun of the Dead. There are similarities, for sure. But Shaun of the Dead is an all out comedy, and meant to be so. This movie isn't sure what it's supposed to be. Comparing it to Shaun of the Dead, in my opinion, is an assault on Shaun of the Dead. In this movie, the acting is poor, the special effects are marginal, and the blood factor is over the top. Is it really necessary to see a face ripped off? Does that really add to the movie? And once again, my least favorite act in a horror movie: why do people go into the dark scary place? They will just die. It's too obvious that you're just trying to get rid of the character. I find it much more interesting if the dumb are enlightened, then die in a noble manner - like trying to save the others. I like it to be a no way out kind of scenario. I don't like my movies predictable... which is all this was.
Survey says: skip this movie if you want to avoid a steaming pile of crap. If you want to torture yourself, then have at it. Seriously, with a tagline like "They're just like you ... only dead", how good could it be?
Here's a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUFjHjU0bK8
RKO 281
In 1999, HBO aired RKO 281, directed by Benjamin Ross, written by John Logan, based on the documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane, and starring Liev Schreiber, James Cromwell, Melanie Griffith, John Malkovich, and Roy Scheider. This is a short made for HBO movie that will stand the test of time, just like Kane has.
HBO has really always made good original shows and movies. They are more known at this time for shows like Deadwood, Oz, Carnivale, and other gritty shows that are too hot for regular cable. Occasionally they are known for making movies that are great pieces of work. RKO 281 is one of these. It is the story of how Citizen Kane was created, from idea to filming to the controversy, as well as the backlash it created when released. It is also surprisingly accurate for what it shows. The acting is quite good. Schreiber as the pretentious Orson Welles is great. Just like the real Welles, we are left feeling betrayed by him: should we be grateful or angry at him? Should we like him or loathe him? He uses people to get what he wants, but in the end, he gets his movie made. But at what cost? Hearst (playing by Cromwell) offers one warning at the end: "My time on this earth is almost over. It's not my life you are sabotaging; it's yours." Doubtful that those words were actually said, much less that meeting in the elevator, but it is a nice end since Welles never was able to come close to topping his masterpiece.
The only bad thing I can say about this movie is that it is too short for what all really happened. There were court battles and there were lots of hostility and none of it was shown. However, this movie is very tightly written. There is nothing in it that doesn't add to the movie's story. There is either character development, plot development, or borderline documentary recreations of the making of Kane, which only reinforces either plot or character development.
I'm resisting going into detail about the plot because I have a future posting planned that will detail the making of Citizen Kane, which is just as amazing a story as the movie itself. The documentary (from which this movie was adapted from) is one of the best documentaries ever made. As I said earlier the performances are great: Schreiber as Welles and Cromwell as Hearst are unforgettable. But the one that always gets me is Malkovich as Herman Mankiewicz; what a great role and great performance. Griffith as Marion Davies was good as was Scheider as George Schaefer. The best moment for me that developed a character was Louis B. Mayer (as in Metro Goldwyn MAYER) at the beginning eating a sandwich and talking at the same time about having Welles literally fail at making a War of the Worlds movie, which will fail but earn them some more money, but kill Welles's career. That moment told me that Mayer was a fat cat, as were all the studio heads (which you get to see them all in one room at one point, including Disney, Selznick, Zanuck, etc.) who were only after making a quick buck then moving on.
My recommendation is to watch this movie. If you watch Kane first, then you will see details in a different way (such as the confrontation between a drunk Jedediah and Kane). If you watch this first, you will appreciate Kane a little more. It's definitely a love triangle: Citizen Kane, the documentary Battle Over Citizen Kane, and RKO 281. And in case you're wondering what the title of this movie means, RKO is the production company and it was production #281. This was industry code for Citizen Kane.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.reelzchannel.com/trailer-clips/25372/rko-281-trailer
HBO has really always made good original shows and movies. They are more known at this time for shows like Deadwood, Oz, Carnivale, and other gritty shows that are too hot for regular cable. Occasionally they are known for making movies that are great pieces of work. RKO 281 is one of these. It is the story of how Citizen Kane was created, from idea to filming to the controversy, as well as the backlash it created when released. It is also surprisingly accurate for what it shows. The acting is quite good. Schreiber as the pretentious Orson Welles is great. Just like the real Welles, we are left feeling betrayed by him: should we be grateful or angry at him? Should we like him or loathe him? He uses people to get what he wants, but in the end, he gets his movie made. But at what cost? Hearst (playing by Cromwell) offers one warning at the end: "My time on this earth is almost over. It's not my life you are sabotaging; it's yours." Doubtful that those words were actually said, much less that meeting in the elevator, but it is a nice end since Welles never was able to come close to topping his masterpiece.
The only bad thing I can say about this movie is that it is too short for what all really happened. There were court battles and there were lots of hostility and none of it was shown. However, this movie is very tightly written. There is nothing in it that doesn't add to the movie's story. There is either character development, plot development, or borderline documentary recreations of the making of Kane, which only reinforces either plot or character development.
I'm resisting going into detail about the plot because I have a future posting planned that will detail the making of Citizen Kane, which is just as amazing a story as the movie itself. The documentary (from which this movie was adapted from) is one of the best documentaries ever made. As I said earlier the performances are great: Schreiber as Welles and Cromwell as Hearst are unforgettable. But the one that always gets me is Malkovich as Herman Mankiewicz; what a great role and great performance. Griffith as Marion Davies was good as was Scheider as George Schaefer. The best moment for me that developed a character was Louis B. Mayer (as in Metro Goldwyn MAYER) at the beginning eating a sandwich and talking at the same time about having Welles literally fail at making a War of the Worlds movie, which will fail but earn them some more money, but kill Welles's career. That moment told me that Mayer was a fat cat, as were all the studio heads (which you get to see them all in one room at one point, including Disney, Selznick, Zanuck, etc.) who were only after making a quick buck then moving on.
My recommendation is to watch this movie. If you watch Kane first, then you will see details in a different way (such as the confrontation between a drunk Jedediah and Kane). If you watch this first, you will appreciate Kane a little more. It's definitely a love triangle: Citizen Kane, the documentary Battle Over Citizen Kane, and RKO 281. And in case you're wondering what the title of this movie means, RKO is the production company and it was production #281. This was industry code for Citizen Kane.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.reelzchannel.com/trailer-clips/25372/rko-281-trailer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)