Done, finito, finally!
All of my reviews from the Bloodbath horror festival have now been posted. It only took six weeks, when I intended to take two. And, well, technically, I haven't done a review of the final, bonus movie at Bloodbath, called Porcelain Man. That's because I slept through most of it, and it would be unfair to give a review of something I only saw about half an hour of, although that, in itself, might give an indication of how gripping it is. In short, it's a bit like 28 days later but with less horror, and more political intrigue. I think.
Would I do it again? Well, proper (if you can call them that) reviews take quite a while, at least for me, and I have a life outside the blogosphere (it's called the biosphere, and it's quite nice, there are other people who you can see and touch, there are trees and clouds and home cooked meals and horses running over green fields - you should check it out sometime), so no. But then again, what the hell, bring it on... I don't really like horses anyway. First, though, I think we might need to come up with a similar challenge for Meatpopsicle. After all, this site is called "Holland -vs- Woon", not "Holland where's Woon?".
So now I can get back to the real job of whinging about how unnecessarily expensive movies are these days.
Showing posts with label horror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label horror. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Chain Reaction
Director: Olaf Ittenbach
Starring: Christopher Kriesa, Martina Ittenbach, Simon Newby
Production Budget: US$1.5M
Running Time: 103 min
Released: 2006
A dead Raven starts a freak chain of events leading to a prison transport bus crashing in the Rocky Mountains. The prisoners escape, kill the guards, take a doctor hostage and flee into the woods, heading for Canada. En route they stumble across an old homestead, and a young woman 'milking' (by which I mean bleeding) a goat. They break in and find a strange family, who speak nothing but dire old-English, resemble 18th century pilgrims and drink goat's blood. It turns out they are a family of vampires or demons or some-such and things soon turn messy, very messy.
This movie is really, incredibly stupid, and at times hilarious. Made by German director Olaf Ittenbach, it is pretty well directed, the acting is mostly OK - especially considering they are mostly Germans playing Americans - and the dialogue is mostly terrible. The residents of the house are supposed to be speaking old-English, perhaps like the Amish would speak, but it is basically incomprehensible. It's kind of a combination of bad Shakespeare and Yoda. Apart from "Aye, have I", which Martina Ittenbach's character constantly answers to every request, I don't have any particular quotes that I could give, as I didn't write them down at the time (and the internet has failed me, curse you!). But trust me, there are some piss-funny lines in there, as the chuckles throughout the cinema at supposedly serious conversation can attest.
Thou be able to enjoyest much bloodshed. Wherein thine prisoners findest a saw of chain, thou does not know, but byest then hast reason been given over to madness.
Sorry, what I mean is, there is plenty of blood, guts and decapitations. Where the hell the prisoners find a chainsaw in a primitive farm house I will never know, but by that point, reason has already taken a severe beating, and soon gets sawn in two (or possibly twain).
This is apparently one of the less gory of Ittenbach's movies, but since he is considered one of the goriest directors around, there is no shortage. He often works as a special effects supervisor on his own and other director's movies, and it shows. The make-up and effects are really good for such a low budget film - although I suspect IMDB (where I get most of my budget info) might be slightly underestimating the budget - if not, I'm impressed. The battle scenes are fairly short, but highly entertaining.
Oddly, this is like a movie and its sequel all in one. Once the first lot of action concludes, our good doctor is sentenced to prison, and while being transported on a prison bus a dead Raven starts a freak chain of events leading to a... never mind. I guess they just didn't have enough material for a full length movie. And the melodramatic ending is surreal and stupid.
Taken with two or three beers and a few mates, you should have a good time with Chain Reaction (called House of Blood if you are in the U.S.). Aye, didst I.
$$$
Starring: Christopher Kriesa, Martina Ittenbach, Simon Newby
Production Budget: US$1.5M
Running Time: 103 min
Released: 2006
A dead Raven starts a freak chain of events leading to a prison transport bus crashing in the Rocky Mountains. The prisoners escape, kill the guards, take a doctor hostage and flee into the woods, heading for Canada. En route they stumble across an old homestead, and a young woman 'milking' (by which I mean bleeding) a goat. They break in and find a strange family, who speak nothing but dire old-English, resemble 18th century pilgrims and drink goat's blood. It turns out they are a family of vampires or demons or some-such and things soon turn messy, very messy.
This movie is really, incredibly stupid, and at times hilarious. Made by German director Olaf Ittenbach, it is pretty well directed, the acting is mostly OK - especially considering they are mostly Germans playing Americans - and the dialogue is mostly terrible. The residents of the house are supposed to be speaking old-English, perhaps like the Amish would speak, but it is basically incomprehensible. It's kind of a combination of bad Shakespeare and Yoda. Apart from "Aye, have I", which Martina Ittenbach's character constantly answers to every request, I don't have any particular quotes that I could give, as I didn't write them down at the time (and the internet has failed me, curse you!). But trust me, there are some piss-funny lines in there, as the chuckles throughout the cinema at supposedly serious conversation can attest.
Thou be able to enjoyest much bloodshed. Wherein thine prisoners findest a saw of chain, thou does not know, but byest then hast reason been given over to madness.
Sorry, what I mean is, there is plenty of blood, guts and decapitations. Where the hell the prisoners find a chainsaw in a primitive farm house I will never know, but by that point, reason has already taken a severe beating, and soon gets sawn in two (or possibly twain).
This is apparently one of the less gory of Ittenbach's movies, but since he is considered one of the goriest directors around, there is no shortage. He often works as a special effects supervisor on his own and other director's movies, and it shows. The make-up and effects are really good for such a low budget film - although I suspect IMDB (where I get most of my budget info) might be slightly underestimating the budget - if not, I'm impressed. The battle scenes are fairly short, but highly entertaining.
Oddly, this is like a movie and its sequel all in one. Once the first lot of action concludes, our good doctor is sentenced to prison, and while being transported on a prison bus a dead Raven starts a freak chain of events leading to a... never mind. I guess they just didn't have enough material for a full length movie. And the melodramatic ending is surreal and stupid.
Taken with two or three beers and a few mates, you should have a good time with Chain Reaction (called House of Blood if you are in the U.S.). Aye, didst I.
$$$
Sunday, December 17, 2006
The Uncanny
Director: Denis Héroux
Starring: Peter Cushing, Ray Milland, Donald Pleasance
Production Budget: ~US$600,000
Running Time: 89 min
Released: 1977
As a life-long cat hater, The Uncanny didn't change my opinion of cats any, but I'd be interested to see what die-hard cat lovers think of it. Maybe if this movie inspires a few people not to own cats, then the birds, small mammals and allergy sufferers of the world will be thankful. So, as an allergy sufferer, I highly recommend this to all cat owners and would be owners. Everyone else, watch if it's on the telly, and there is nothing better on.
Starring: Peter Cushing, Ray Milland, Donald Pleasance
Production Budget: ~US$600,000
Running Time: 89 min
Released: 1977
"Kitty at my foot and I want to touch it"Peter Cushing brings his unique comic stylings to this trilogy of tales about our fine feathered friends and secret rulers of the Earth, cats. It begins with him visiting a publisher and begging him to publish his book detailing the evils perpetuated by cats around the world. Being a pretty smart guy, he chooses a publisher who is a cat lover, duh. To prove his feline conspiracy theory, he relates a series of far-out feline tales (with plenty of far-out feline tails thrown in for good measure). The first involves an old rich woman who writes a will leaving most of her assets to her dozens of cats, and none to her no-good nephew. The nephew hatches a plan with the maid to kill the woman, destroy the will and take the fortune that is rightfully his (you know, rightfully his because his dad's sister is rich). The cats have other ideas, and things soon turn bloody and people get eaten (there are lots of cats in this one). The second sees a young girl unusual powers move in with her aunt and uncle when here parents die. Her bitchy cousin causes her grief until she and her beloved cat enact a squishy revenge. In the third episode, a famous actor (Pleasance) kills his actress wife in an "accident" and replaces her with a young, pretty, and untalented actress in both his current movie - coincidentally a filmed version of The Pit and the Pendulum - and his bed. But the dead wife's cat has other ideas.
"Kitty ran up and scratched me though my jeans"British horror studio Amicus was in decline when this movie was made - failing to get adequate funding in the UK, most of the financing and production came from Canada. The Uncanny follows an identical structure to previous Amicus anthologies such as Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1964) and Tales from the Crypt (1972), which is a downside, as, by 1977 the traditional horror anthology had had it's day - although George A. Romero and Stephen King had fun with the concept in the 80's with the Creepshow movies - and this movie has the feel of a 1960s movie rather than a late 70s one, and probably looked dated when it was made. While mostly a bit silly - cats just aren't that scary - it is saved by some cool scenes, especially in the mass attacks and brutal killings in the first episode, and the surprising and bloody ending of the second.
As a life-long cat hater, The Uncanny didn't change my opinion of cats any, but I'd be interested to see what die-hard cat lovers think of it. Maybe if this movie inspires a few people not to own cats, then the birds, small mammals and allergy sufferers of the world will be thankful. So, as an allergy sufferer, I highly recommend this to all cat owners and would be owners. Everyone else, watch if it's on the telly, and there is nothing better on.
"Fuck you kitty, you're gonna spend the night... outside!" - The Presidents of the United States of America$$$
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Dark Intruder
Director: Harvey Hart
Starring: Leslie Nielson, Peter Mark Richman, Judi Meredith, Gilbert Green
Production Budget: Small
Running Time: 59 min
Released: 1965
This was originally filmed as a T.V. pilot for a series called Black Cloak. The series was never made, so they released it as a film in an attempt to recoup costs. It is not immediately obvious that this is a T.V. show, but the structure and especially the ending imply something that will be ongoing.
Leslie Nielson plays Brett Kingsford, a playboy in San Francisco in the late 19th century who secretly aids the police in investigations of the occult. The story concerns a series of brutal murders, apparently committed by someone/thing not entirely human. After each murder a strange statuette appears, which slowly mutates, providing the key clue. Assisting the police in matters of the occult does not sit well within Kingsford's peer group, so he takes to wearing disguises when out with the police - although, why he would need a different costume for each meeting belies explanation. Kingsford's eccentricity is established early on, as we are introduced to him, his dwarf butler and has large old house full of secret passages.
It's unlikely that many people will get a chance to see this. After five minutes searching the Internet, I couldn't find any information about DVD availability. I guess it's the philosophical question of our time... if it's not available online, does it actually exist.
$$$
Starring: Leslie Nielson, Peter Mark Richman, Judi Meredith, Gilbert Green
Production Budget: Small
Running Time: 59 min
Released: 1965
This was originally filmed as a T.V. pilot for a series called Black Cloak. The series was never made, so they released it as a film in an attempt to recoup costs. It is not immediately obvious that this is a T.V. show, but the structure and especially the ending imply something that will be ongoing.
Leslie Nielson plays Brett Kingsford, a playboy in San Francisco in the late 19th century who secretly aids the police in investigations of the occult. The story concerns a series of brutal murders, apparently committed by someone/thing not entirely human. After each murder a strange statuette appears, which slowly mutates, providing the key clue. Assisting the police in matters of the occult does not sit well within Kingsford's peer group, so he takes to wearing disguises when out with the police - although, why he would need a different costume for each meeting belies explanation. Kingsford's eccentricity is established early on, as we are introduced to him, his dwarf butler and has large old house full of secret passages.
"Surely you cant' be serious."This movie was made well before Airplane (a.k.a. Flying High), after which Nielson became typecast (and made millions of dollars) as the deadpan we all knew and loved, and then got sick of - anyone keen on Scary Movie V? It's in production. In this he plays the playboy (or should that just be 'plays the boy') with a knowing glint in his eye. The character is quite similar to Bruce Wayne, in that he is superficially a self-centred nob, but secretly has a deadly serious vocation, which his wealth allows him to pursue.
"I am serious, and don't call me Shirley"
It's unlikely that many people will get a chance to see this. After five minutes searching the Internet, I couldn't find any information about DVD availability. I guess it's the philosophical question of our time... if it's not available online, does it actually exist.
"Surely there must be something you can do."Maybe it will come on the telly late one night. If so, it's worth a look. It's entertaining enough and you may see Nielson as you have never seen him before - although if you feel that way inclined, Forbidden Planet is a really good early Nielson film.
"I'm doing everything I can... and stop calling me Shirley."
$$$
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Darklands
Director: Julian Richards
Starring: Craig Fairbrass, Jon Finch, Rowena King, Roger Nott
Production Budget: US$750,000
Running Time: 90 min
This movie will probably never be mentioned without being linked with The Wicker Man, which is a shame. It's not that the films aren't similar, (they are) it's more that mentioning the similarities between Darklands and such an iconic film a) belittles this film, and b) ruins the ending which would otherwise come as a shock. It is perhaps because of this that whereas the ending of The Wicker Man is rather drawn out, the ending here is quick and brutal - perhaps Richards realised that the ending would be widely known beforehand, so there was no point dwelling.
Julian Richards admitted before the screening that he didn't know everything about film-making when he made Darklands, which was released in 1996, and for the DVD release he has re-edited the film, removing 7 min that were either awkward (including taking out a sex scene: who has ever done that voluntarily?) or slowed the first act. This 'director's cut' was what we saw at Bloodbath, and while I have not seen the original for comparison, I was pretty satisfied with this version. After the film, Richards complained that he was forced to use Craig Fairbrass in the main role due to a pre-existing contract Fairbrass had with the financiers. He felt that Fairbrass was not suited to the role, but, even so, I thought he was quite good, and certainly the biggest presence in the movie. The other performances are also pretty good.
While others would complain that Darklands is derivative, there are some original elements which I really liked. One particular scene which I found particularly cool (although it may be just me) was when Truik is filling his car up at a petrol station, when the police arrive. He asks the attendant where the toilets are (cliché), then climbs out the window of the toilet (cliché) and flees through the backyard where he has to scale a barbed wire fence. All clichés up to this point. But then, instead of barely escaping with torn clothing as you'd expect, he gets stuck on the fence, rips his leg open, and gets arrested and taken to hospital. Like I said, cool.
I believe this is the best Welsh horror film I have ever seen.
$$$1/2
Starring: Craig Fairbrass, Jon Finch, Rowena King, Roger Nott
Production Budget: US$750,000
Running Time: 90 min
The fact that the writer/director had to write his own plot summary on IMDB sums up the lack of interest in this movie. Just to rub it in, there are no trivia and no goof listings.Darklands follows journalist Frazer Truick as he investigates the mysterious death of the brother of trainee journalist Rachel Morris. Delving deeper, Truick becomes convinced that the tragedy was murder, committed by a bizarre religious cult. But as the evidence unfolds, things take on a more sinister and potentially lethal significance for the reporter, as he becomes embroiled in devil worship, witchcraft and ultimately human sacrifice!
Summary written by Julian Richards
"Darklands, a 1996 Welsh horror film." - The complete text of the Wikipedia listing.
This movie will probably never be mentioned without being linked with The Wicker Man, which is a shame. It's not that the films aren't similar, (they are) it's more that mentioning the similarities between Darklands and such an iconic film a) belittles this film, and b) ruins the ending which would otherwise come as a shock. It is perhaps because of this that whereas the ending of The Wicker Man is rather drawn out, the ending here is quick and brutal - perhaps Richards realised that the ending would be widely known beforehand, so there was no point dwelling.
Julian Richards admitted before the screening that he didn't know everything about film-making when he made Darklands, which was released in 1996, and for the DVD release he has re-edited the film, removing 7 min that were either awkward (including taking out a sex scene: who has ever done that voluntarily?) or slowed the first act. This 'director's cut' was what we saw at Bloodbath, and while I have not seen the original for comparison, I was pretty satisfied with this version. After the film, Richards complained that he was forced to use Craig Fairbrass in the main role due to a pre-existing contract Fairbrass had with the financiers. He felt that Fairbrass was not suited to the role, but, even so, I thought he was quite good, and certainly the biggest presence in the movie. The other performances are also pretty good.
While others would complain that Darklands is derivative, there are some original elements which I really liked. One particular scene which I found particularly cool (although it may be just me) was when Truik is filling his car up at a petrol station, when the police arrive. He asks the attendant where the toilets are (cliché), then climbs out the window of the toilet (cliché) and flees through the backyard where he has to scale a barbed wire fence. All clichés up to this point. But then, instead of barely escaping with torn clothing as you'd expect, he gets stuck on the fence, rips his leg open, and gets arrested and taken to hospital. Like I said, cool.
I believe this is the best Welsh horror film I have ever seen.
$$$1/2
Friday, December 01, 2006
Pit and the Pendulum
Director: Roger Corman
Starring: Vincent Price, John Kerr, Barbara Steele, Luana Anders, Antony Carbone
Production Budget: US$200,000 (1961 dollars)
Running Time: 80 min
Roger Corman directed a number of Edgar Alan Poe adaptations in the early '60s, and this was the second - and the second to feature Vincent Price - after House of Usher (1960). Price plays neither the Pit nor the Pendulum, instead taking on the role of Don Nicholas Medina, 16th century Spanish (or possibly Italian, I never quite worked it out) lord and grieving husband. The movie starts with the rather clichéd man rides in carriage to castle, but local carriage driver refuses to get close to the castle so man has to walk the rest of the way scene (also seen in the recently reviewed and much older Nosferatu). The man in question is Francis Barnard (Kerr), Englishman and brother to the recently deceased wife of Nicholas. He insists on finding out the truth about the death of his sister Elizabeth (Steele), while spending some quality time with Nicholas' sister, the lovely Catherine (Anders). Nicholas initially insists that Elizabeth was killed by a blood disease, but things turn a little murky when a local doctor (Carbone) and friend to the Medina's comes to visit, and they admit that she was killed from fright. Or was she? Events begin to get a little darker when we discover that Nicholas' father was in the Spanish Inquisition, and used to hold his 'inquiries' in the dungeon of the castle, and nobody ever bothered to remove the tools of that particular trade.
The mystery evolves throughout the movie, with plenty of twists and surprises along the way, all leading to an excellent shock ending. The castle setting is beautifully realised, especially the dungeon. The performances are fantastic, with Price giving a very subtle performance for most of the film, as the distressed and confused husband, although you get a few glimpses of the wacky and crazy act he was so famous for. Everything works; the scares are scary, the twists are unexpected but 'obvious when you think about it' (the perfect kind of twist, in my opinion) and the tension builds nicely throughout. A class act.
$$$$
P.S. I still would like to see Uwe Boll direct an adaptation of Pitfall!, but I guess I'll have to wait until he is done butchering Dungeon Siege.
Starring: Vincent Price, John Kerr, Barbara Steele, Luana Anders, Antony Carbone
Production Budget: US$200,000 (1961 dollars)
Running Time: 80 min
Roger Corman directed a number of Edgar Alan Poe adaptations in the early '60s, and this was the second - and the second to feature Vincent Price - after House of Usher (1960). Price plays neither the Pit nor the Pendulum, instead taking on the role of Don Nicholas Medina, 16th century Spanish (or possibly Italian, I never quite worked it out) lord and grieving husband. The movie starts with the rather clichéd man rides in carriage to castle, but local carriage driver refuses to get close to the castle so man has to walk the rest of the way scene (also seen in the recently reviewed and much older Nosferatu). The man in question is Francis Barnard (Kerr), Englishman and brother to the recently deceased wife of Nicholas. He insists on finding out the truth about the death of his sister Elizabeth (Steele), while spending some quality time with Nicholas' sister, the lovely Catherine (Anders). Nicholas initially insists that Elizabeth was killed by a blood disease, but things turn a little murky when a local doctor (Carbone) and friend to the Medina's comes to visit, and they admit that she was killed from fright. Or was she? Events begin to get a little darker when we discover that Nicholas' father was in the Spanish Inquisition, and used to hold his 'inquiries' in the dungeon of the castle, and nobody ever bothered to remove the tools of that particular trade.
The mystery evolves throughout the movie, with plenty of twists and surprises along the way, all leading to an excellent shock ending. The castle setting is beautifully realised, especially the dungeon. The performances are fantastic, with Price giving a very subtle performance for most of the film, as the distressed and confused husband, although you get a few glimpses of the wacky and crazy act he was so famous for. Everything works; the scares are scary, the twists are unexpected but 'obvious when you think about it' (the perfect kind of twist, in my opinion) and the tension builds nicely throughout. A class act.
"No one will ever enter this room again" - Catherine MedinaIt is worth seeing this movie for that line alone.
$$$$
P.S. I still would like to see Uwe Boll direct an adaptation of Pitfall!, but I guess I'll have to wait until he is done butchering Dungeon Siege.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
The Call of Cthulhu
Director: Andrew Leman
Starring: Matt Foyer, John Bolen, Ralph Lucas
Production Budget: Unknown (v. small)
Running Time: 47 min
A man inherits the notebooks of his great-uncle, in which are detailed an investigation into a strange cult. He becomes obsessed with continuing the investigation, and travels the world searching for clues, becoming more and more frantic as he gets closer to the horrible truth - that there is a big squid demon living on an island in the pacific (kind of a spoiler, I know, but it is on the poster).
H.P. Lovecraft published The Call of Cthulhu in 1928, and while this movie was released in 2005, it is made to look as if it were made at the time the story was published. Produced by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society, this is a fascinating example of budget film-making, and an amazingly well made movie.
The movie was produced in what the makers call 'Mythoscope' - combining modern equipment with old techniques to make the movie appear as though it was filmed in the 1920s. There is no dialogue or sound other than music, and the special effects involve miniature sets, stop motion animation and water imitated by waving sheets. There is no CGI but some green-screen. The attention to detail is such that they even rough up the footage and add silent film flickering in post-production. The music is likewise altered to appear older. While it is unlikely to fool anyone into thinking it was actually made in the '20s - it's still a little new looking - I adore what they have done with it. Rather than attempting to make a low budget film look like a big budget film (like some of the other movies in the festival, which fail rather miserably), they have used the low budget to their advantage - they are not afraid to make things that look a bit fake in order to capture the silent-movie look and feel. They have also avoided the often dangerous task of modernising the story for a contemporary audience (although someone else is doing precisely that, with Tori Spelling, no less), and have instead embraced the anachronisms, and remained very faithful to the story (er, at least I assume so, having obviously not read it - see my preview).
The music is amazing. It is a big symphonic score, precisely matching the on-screen action, and it just blew me away. It's rare that music in a movie has such a big effect on me, but I guess that given that the movie is otherwise silent, the music is more in-your-face than usual. There are some moments that are quite scary, especially a scene involving a police raid on a cult gathering in a swamp. While the imagery is quite disturbing at this point, I can also imagine closing my eyes and being equally frightened by the haunting tunes. Actually I'd probably be more frightened as I wouldn't be able to see what was happening and my imagination would go crazy from the aural bombardment.
Apparently some people genuinely believe in and worship Cthulhu, but then people like blood sausage too. People are morons.
$$$$1/2
Starring: Matt Foyer, John Bolen, Ralph Lucas
Production Budget: Unknown (v. small)
Running Time: 47 min
A man inherits the notebooks of his great-uncle, in which are detailed an investigation into a strange cult. He becomes obsessed with continuing the investigation, and travels the world searching for clues, becoming more and more frantic as he gets closer to the horrible truth - that there is a big squid demon living on an island in the pacific (kind of a spoiler, I know, but it is on the poster).
H.P. Lovecraft published The Call of Cthulhu in 1928, and while this movie was released in 2005, it is made to look as if it were made at the time the story was published. Produced by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society, this is a fascinating example of budget film-making, and an amazingly well made movie.
The movie was produced in what the makers call 'Mythoscope' - combining modern equipment with old techniques to make the movie appear as though it was filmed in the 1920s. There is no dialogue or sound other than music, and the special effects involve miniature sets, stop motion animation and water imitated by waving sheets. There is no CGI but some green-screen. The attention to detail is such that they even rough up the footage and add silent film flickering in post-production. The music is likewise altered to appear older. While it is unlikely to fool anyone into thinking it was actually made in the '20s - it's still a little new looking - I adore what they have done with it. Rather than attempting to make a low budget film look like a big budget film (like some of the other movies in the festival, which fail rather miserably), they have used the low budget to their advantage - they are not afraid to make things that look a bit fake in order to capture the silent-movie look and feel. They have also avoided the often dangerous task of modernising the story for a contemporary audience (although someone else is doing precisely that, with Tori Spelling, no less), and have instead embraced the anachronisms, and remained very faithful to the story (er, at least I assume so, having obviously not read it - see my preview).
The music is amazing. It is a big symphonic score, precisely matching the on-screen action, and it just blew me away. It's rare that music in a movie has such a big effect on me, but I guess that given that the movie is otherwise silent, the music is more in-your-face than usual. There are some moments that are quite scary, especially a scene involving a police raid on a cult gathering in a swamp. While the imagery is quite disturbing at this point, I can also imagine closing my eyes and being equally frightened by the haunting tunes. Actually I'd probably be more frightened as I wouldn't be able to see what was happening and my imagination would go crazy from the aural bombardment.
Mental Note: keep eyes openIf you are a fan of gothic horror, silent film, or the beauty of low-budget film making, seek this movie out. If you can see it on the big screen, great, otherwise get the DVD and turn it up LOUD.
Apparently some people genuinely believe in and worship Cthulhu, but then people like blood sausage too. People are morons.
$$$$1/2
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
The Witches Hammer
Director: James Eaves
Starring: Claudia Coulter, Johnathan Sidgwick, Stephanie Beacham
Production Budget: Unknown (small)
Running Time: 93 min
A young woman is killed, then genetically modified into a vampire by government scientists and forced to work in their vampire slaying department. When her agency is destroyed by vampires and witches, she hooks up with a different set of witches to find an ancient tome called Malleus Maleficarum or, in English, The Witches' Hammer (what do you know, I was right about the bad grammar in the title) before the bad guys get it. This main story is interspersed with the back-stories of a number of the supplementary characters, and the story of the book itself.
A fanboys wet dream, this movie has it all: vampires, witches, demons, ninjas and circus freaks. The producers are obviously big fans of Buffy, Highlander and Blade.
There isn't much new here. It very much resembles an early episode of Buffy, with special effects to match. Coulter is effective in the main role, being tall, athletic and sexy, and Stephanie Beacham adds some class as the head witch. There are a few inventive set pieces, and a clever torture scene involving a vampire and a sun-bed, and the back-stories look nice.
A few things don't make sense, like at the beginning of the film I am sure she was attacked by a vampire. Why then, was it necessary to genetically modify her into a vampire? Anybody? Also, while it is admirable to incorporate historical facts into the movie, it's a little odd that the Witches' Hammer is this movie is a handbook for witches, when the actual Malleus Maleficarum was a witch-hunters handbook. This is the kind of thing the Buffy crowd are going to pick up on. I feel sorry for the director and actors if they ever find themselves at a science fiction convention.
$$1/2
Starring: Claudia Coulter, Johnathan Sidgwick, Stephanie Beacham
Production Budget: Unknown (small)
Running Time: 93 min
A young woman is killed, then genetically modified into a vampire by government scientists and forced to work in their vampire slaying department. When her agency is destroyed by vampires and witches, she hooks up with a different set of witches to find an ancient tome called Malleus Maleficarum or, in English, The Witches' Hammer (what do you know, I was right about the bad grammar in the title) before the bad guys get it. This main story is interspersed with the back-stories of a number of the supplementary characters, and the story of the book itself.
A fanboys wet dream, this movie has it all: vampires, witches, demons, ninjas and circus freaks. The producers are obviously big fans of Buffy, Highlander and Blade.
There isn't much new here. It very much resembles an early episode of Buffy, with special effects to match. Coulter is effective in the main role, being tall, athletic and sexy, and Stephanie Beacham adds some class as the head witch. There are a few inventive set pieces, and a clever torture scene involving a vampire and a sun-bed, and the back-stories look nice.
A few things don't make sense, like at the beginning of the film I am sure she was attacked by a vampire. Why then, was it necessary to genetically modify her into a vampire? Anybody? Also, while it is admirable to incorporate historical facts into the movie, it's a little odd that the Witches' Hammer is this movie is a handbook for witches, when the actual Malleus Maleficarum was a witch-hunters handbook. This is the kind of thing the Buffy crowd are going to pick up on. I feel sorry for the director and actors if they ever find themselves at a science fiction convention.
Least. Historically. Accurate. Movie. Ever.Not a bad effort, but the concept is perhaps a bit ambitious, and the small budget does hurt (did I just say that?). It lacks the wit of Buffy, but people who are into that kind of thing will find plenty to like here.
$$1/2
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Dust Devil
Director: Richard Stanley
Starring: John Matshikiza, Robert John Burke, Chelsea Field, Rufus Swart
Production Budget: £4,300,000
Running Time: 103 min
The last film in the Compass of Horror, was, oddly, North, considering the movie shown was 1992's Dust Devil, made by a South African in Namibia. Not to worry, as it was a fine end to a great festival.
The titular Devil is a shape-shifting spirit who takes the form of an American nomad (Burke), wandering the desert roads of Namibia around the end of South African 'administration'. He finds lost souls - the lonely and unloved - and rather violently puts them out of their misery, usually after fulfilling their and his immediate sexual desires. Wendy (Field) is one such soul. Having run off from her husband, she picks up a hitchhiker who, while charming at first, turns out to be the previously mentioned psycho killer. Meanwhile, the local police are on the lookout for a serial killer with the help of the local shaman/drive-in movie manager, and Wendy's husband is looking for his wife.
Filmed on location in Namibia, Dust Devil is slow moving yet riveting. There is not much to the story itself - with a mystical element added to the traditional serial killer/slasher flick/road movie formula - and the acting is reasonably good, but the visuals are fantastic. There are some nice shots of long, straight desert roads, and Stanley makes great use of the heat haze that sits over the desert. There is also an amazing scene set in an abandoned mining town, half buried in sand. There are only a couple of scenes that could be considered horror per se, mostly centering on Wendy's attempts to escape from the Devil. The tension, however, is well maintained throughout, and the Dust Devil is well crafted bad guy. It cuts nicely between the three competing story lines, following Wendy, the police, and the husband at different points. The ending is also clever, with a bit of a twist that I wouldn't have seen coming, except that some academic spoiled it for me in a lecture on psychoanalysing movies the previous evening. If I ever see him again, I'll give him something to psychoanalyse.
The film includes elements referencing the end of apartheid, and the effect this had on not only the South Africans, but the people of Namibia, which was administered by South Africa during this period. Scenes invoking the after-effects of South African politics include the beating of a white man in a bar full of black men (they just can't trust him, even though he means no harm), and the beating of a black man by a couple of white policemen. The pull-out of troops enlivens the final scene of the movie.
I can't recall seeing many movies set in southern Africa. There is The Gods Must Be Crazy and that's about it. A location can have such a big impact on the feel of a movie, and Dust Devil is all about the location. This gives the movie a uniqueness, when it otherwise could have been just another horror/road movie.
After the movie, Richard Stanley and critic Kim Newman had a panel discussion, with Stanley giving some great and some bizarre answers to audience questions. He described spending a night painting mystical drawings on a wall with pig's blood in order to get one of the classic shots in the film. He also described his relationship with the druids (they won't let him in their stone circles because he won't wear white), and his sister (he genuinely expects her to be murdered for her continued belief in Apartheid). He also explained why he was booted off/quit the remake of The Island of Dr. Moreau, that he had written and had started shooting before John Frankenheimer took over. He thinks the reason is that the movie he wanted to make would be too extreme for a mass audience, yet the budget was such that a mass audience was needed to recoup costs, and the producers got scared. Also, he's not allowed to make any more movies in Namibia, even though he'd love to, because the government has a thing against sex and violence. Apparently for his next movie, he's moving on to Canary Islands sex and violence, for a project called Vacation, which sees an American couple stuck in the Middle East when a nuclear war begins.
This may be the last time this film gets shown in a cinema, as Stanley is donating his copy of the print to the BFI archives, which is a shame, because the scope of this film is such that it really shines on the big screen. Unlike End of the Wicked, oh man, did I mention how crap that was?
$$$$
Starring: John Matshikiza, Robert John Burke, Chelsea Field, Rufus Swart
Production Budget: £4,300,000
Running Time: 103 min
The last film in the Compass of Horror, was, oddly, North, considering the movie shown was 1992's Dust Devil, made by a South African in Namibia. Not to worry, as it was a fine end to a great festival.
The titular Devil is a shape-shifting spirit who takes the form of an American nomad (Burke), wandering the desert roads of Namibia around the end of South African 'administration'. He finds lost souls - the lonely and unloved - and rather violently puts them out of their misery, usually after fulfilling their and his immediate sexual desires. Wendy (Field) is one such soul. Having run off from her husband, she picks up a hitchhiker who, while charming at first, turns out to be the previously mentioned psycho killer. Meanwhile, the local police are on the lookout for a serial killer with the help of the local shaman/drive-in movie manager, and Wendy's husband is looking for his wife.
Filmed on location in Namibia, Dust Devil is slow moving yet riveting. There is not much to the story itself - with a mystical element added to the traditional serial killer/slasher flick/road movie formula - and the acting is reasonably good, but the visuals are fantastic. There are some nice shots of long, straight desert roads, and Stanley makes great use of the heat haze that sits over the desert. There is also an amazing scene set in an abandoned mining town, half buried in sand. There are only a couple of scenes that could be considered horror per se, mostly centering on Wendy's attempts to escape from the Devil. The tension, however, is well maintained throughout, and the Dust Devil is well crafted bad guy. It cuts nicely between the three competing story lines, following Wendy, the police, and the husband at different points. The ending is also clever, with a bit of a twist that I wouldn't have seen coming, except that some academic spoiled it for me in a lecture on psychoanalysing movies the previous evening. If I ever see him again, I'll give him something to psychoanalyse.
The film includes elements referencing the end of apartheid, and the effect this had on not only the South Africans, but the people of Namibia, which was administered by South Africa during this period. Scenes invoking the after-effects of South African politics include the beating of a white man in a bar full of black men (they just can't trust him, even though he means no harm), and the beating of a black man by a couple of white policemen. The pull-out of troops enlivens the final scene of the movie.
I can't recall seeing many movies set in southern Africa. There is The Gods Must Be Crazy and that's about it. A location can have such a big impact on the feel of a movie, and Dust Devil is all about the location. This gives the movie a uniqueness, when it otherwise could have been just another horror/road movie.
After the movie, Richard Stanley and critic Kim Newman had a panel discussion, with Stanley giving some great and some bizarre answers to audience questions. He described spending a night painting mystical drawings on a wall with pig's blood in order to get one of the classic shots in the film. He also described his relationship with the druids (they won't let him in their stone circles because he won't wear white), and his sister (he genuinely expects her to be murdered for her continued belief in Apartheid). He also explained why he was booted off/quit the remake of The Island of Dr. Moreau, that he had written and had started shooting before John Frankenheimer took over. He thinks the reason is that the movie he wanted to make would be too extreme for a mass audience, yet the budget was such that a mass audience was needed to recoup costs, and the producers got scared. Also, he's not allowed to make any more movies in Namibia, even though he'd love to, because the government has a thing against sex and violence. Apparently for his next movie, he's moving on to Canary Islands sex and violence, for a project called Vacation, which sees an American couple stuck in the Middle East when a nuclear war begins.
This may be the last time this film gets shown in a cinema, as Stanley is donating his copy of the print to the BFI archives, which is a shame, because the scope of this film is such that it really shines on the big screen. Unlike End of the Wicked, oh man, did I mention how crap that was?
$$$$
Sunday, November 12, 2006
End of the Wicked
Director: Teco Benson 
Starring: Charles Akafor, Hilda Dokubo, Alex Usifo
Production Budget: US$50,000
Running Time: ~100 min
The Nigerian film industry (Nollywood, seriously) is one of the biggest producers of feature films in the world. Nearly all of their films are produced on video, and are therefore called video-film. Why have we westerners never heard about this industry, and why do these films not cross-over to the western cinema audience, as occurs with the occasional Bollywood and Iranian movie? The Nigerian video-films are nearly all in English, even. But you won't see this movie at your local video store, cinema or T.V. channel. You won't even see it on the IMDB (so therefore it doesn't exist, right?). How come?
Well, I could go into the rather extreme cultural differences between us and them so-to-speak, and how the traditions in storytelling and Nigerian superstitions do not translate well. But I couldn't really be bothered, so I'll leave that to other, more understanding critics (like this , the only other review I could find). I'm just going to rail into it, because I think is that this movie sucks, badly.
There is a story. Chris Amadi has a good life. He is prosperous and has a loving family. There is just one problem, his mother is really a witch named Lady Destroyer. She begs the devil to destroy him and his families. I couldn't exactly work out why she did this, but I think it was something to do with him being happy and successful, and witches can't stand that kind of thing. So Chris' life starts falling to pieces, his son becomes one of the devils minions, his business falls apart, people close to him start dying, and in desperation he seeks help through black magic. Bad idea. His wife, on the other hand, seeks solace in Jesus Christ, and things turn out OK for her.
The first half an hour or so are quite fun, in a 'this is so bad it's funny' kind of way. The scenes in the witches coven (which are genuinely supposed to be terrifying) are particularly funny, with the witches dancing around (seductively, according to the devil's instruction) and laughing manically except when the devil (frequently) raises his arm to speak. The soundtrack for these scenes consists of a chorus of people crying 'woooooooooo... woooooooooo... wooooooooooooooooo', you know, like you used to do to scare your little sister. But once I grew tired of these scenes, which are basically the same scene over and over again I got bored, and then I got concerned at the in-your-face religiousness of it, gaped at the mother producing a giant penis with which to rape her daughter-in-law and then they cut a goats throat on screen and I pretty much gave up on it from there. There is no motivation for anything that happens (money, power, sex, surely everything in life is related to one of these), it is simply that these witches are bad people and they like bad stuff to happen to other people.
This movie was not disturbing like other horror films can be, but I was disturbed. It appeared to be an attempt to perpetuate myths and superstitions among an uneducated population to scare them into going to church. Or was it? It all became a bit clearer and scarier when the producer of the film, Evangelist Helen Ukpabia spoke following the screening. Those opening credits weren't some ironic joke, of the 'this is based on a true story' kind. No, she actually believes this stuff, and is intent on showing true representations of the effects witchcraft can have on families in Nigeria. So, it is 'based on a true story' but without the irony. Suffice to say I'm staying the hell away from Nigeria.
If you are truly interested in an unusual cultural experience, well I suppose you could do worse. After all, female circumcision is an unusual cultural experience.
$
Starring: Charles Akafor, Hilda Dokubo, Alex Usifo
Production Budget: US$50,000
Running Time: ~100 min
The Nigerian film industry (Nollywood, seriously) is one of the biggest producers of feature films in the world. Nearly all of their films are produced on video, and are therefore called video-film. Why have we westerners never heard about this industry, and why do these films not cross-over to the western cinema audience, as occurs with the occasional Bollywood and Iranian movie? The Nigerian video-films are nearly all in English, even. But you won't see this movie at your local video store, cinema or T.V. channel. You won't even see it on the IMDB (so therefore it doesn't exist, right?). How come?
Well, I could go into the rather extreme cultural differences between us and them so-to-speak, and how the traditions in storytelling and Nigerian superstitions do not translate well. But I couldn't really be bothered, so I'll leave that to other, more understanding critics (like this , the only other review I could find). I'm just going to rail into it, because I think is that this movie sucks, badly.
There is a story. Chris Amadi has a good life. He is prosperous and has a loving family. There is just one problem, his mother is really a witch named Lady Destroyer. She begs the devil to destroy him and his families. I couldn't exactly work out why she did this, but I think it was something to do with him being happy and successful, and witches can't stand that kind of thing. So Chris' life starts falling to pieces, his son becomes one of the devils minions, his business falls apart, people close to him start dying, and in desperation he seeks help through black magic. Bad idea. His wife, on the other hand, seeks solace in Jesus Christ, and things turn out OK for her.
"This film is coming to you by the special grace of God. There have been several near successful attempts by the powers of darkness to stop it, because of its great expositions" - Opening credits, End of the Wicked.I can forgive poor production values; Nigeria is a third world country with many poor people, and no government support for the arts. The special effects are outrageously bad, and sometimes truly hilarious, especially the flying scenes, where you can clearly see that the guy is lying on a bench. The acting is actually OK, in a pantomime kind of way. However this movie is not just badly made, it is a misguided piece of religious propaganda.
The first half an hour or so are quite fun, in a 'this is so bad it's funny' kind of way. The scenes in the witches coven (which are genuinely supposed to be terrifying) are particularly funny, with the witches dancing around (seductively, according to the devil's instruction) and laughing manically except when the devil (frequently) raises his arm to speak. The soundtrack for these scenes consists of a chorus of people crying 'woooooooooo... woooooooooo... wooooooooooooooooo', you know, like you used to do to scare your little sister. But once I grew tired of these scenes, which are basically the same scene over and over again I got bored, and then I got concerned at the in-your-face religiousness of it, gaped at the mother producing a giant penis with which to rape her daughter-in-law and then they cut a goats throat on screen and I pretty much gave up on it from there. There is no motivation for anything that happens (money, power, sex, surely everything in life is related to one of these), it is simply that these witches are bad people and they like bad stuff to happen to other people.
This movie was not disturbing like other horror films can be, but I was disturbed. It appeared to be an attempt to perpetuate myths and superstitions among an uneducated population to scare them into going to church. Or was it? It all became a bit clearer and scarier when the producer of the film, Evangelist Helen Ukpabia spoke following the screening. Those opening credits weren't some ironic joke, of the 'this is based on a true story' kind. No, she actually believes this stuff, and is intent on showing true representations of the effects witchcraft can have on families in Nigeria. So, it is 'based on a true story' but without the irony. Suffice to say I'm staying the hell away from Nigeria.
If you are truly interested in an unusual cultural experience, well I suppose you could do worse. After all, female circumcision is an unusual cultural experience.
$
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Ginger Snaps
Director: John Fawcett
Starring: Emily Perkins, Katharine Isabelle, Chris Lemche, Mimi Rogers
Production Budget: US$5 million
Running Time: 108 min
They Don't Call it the Curse for Nothing
Ginger (Isabelle), 16 and Brigitte (Perkins), 15 are inseparable sisters who live in the dull Canadian suburb of Bailey Downs, well, dull apart from the 'Beast of Bailey Downs' which has been tearing apart the local dog population. They hate the world, and they cannot stand the idea of growing up and being like everybody else (they have had a suicide pact since they were seven). For their school project they stage and photograph violent death scenes.
They are out in the woods one full moon when Ginger gets her first period. The blood draws the attention of a certain 'beast' which proceeds to savage Ginger, who quickly recovers - a little too quickly - but is not quite the same from then on. Obvious changes such as hair where their wasn't any, and a tail that grows longer each day combine with psychological changes such as a sudden interest in boys to put a strain on Ginger and Brigitte's relationship. The death of the local bitches (one dog, one girl) doesn't help matters. Things draw to a head as the next full moon approaches.
The performances from the leads are good. Perkins sulks her way through the whole film, while Isabelle transforms from boy-hating virgin to slut to beast with ease. The supporting cast are pretty forgetful, apart from Mimi Rogers who is fun in her role as the girls' ever-optimistic mother.
The special effects are pretty cool for such a low budget film. There is no extended transformation scene such as in An American Werewolf in London, A Company of Wolves or The Howling, but this movie concentrates more on relationships and diallogue than over-the-top effects. The werewolf itself is a little odd looking (did I mention it has breasts) but effective, and the last ten minutes are suitably creepy to mark this as a genuine horror film.
Ginger Snaps is funny, scary and nicely directed, and it make you wonder why no-one previously thought to link werewolves and their lunar cycles with girls and their menstrual cycles. It was obviously a good enough idea that two sequels were produced; Ginger Snaps Unleashed, which follows the events in the first movie, and Ginger Snaps Back, an alternate universe type sequel set in the 19th century. I saw Unleashed a couple of years ago without realising it was a sequel, and still liked it, and I'm keen to see the third.
After the movie, they showed the short documentary Menstrual Monsters: The Ginger Snaps Trilogy, a somewhat interesting dissection of the themes in the films, although it had what I thought was a rather pointless audience survey portion at the end, which came to the obvious conclusion that girls generally like it and think it has feminist themes. The panel discussion with director John Fawcett and the makers of Menstrual Monsters had some interesting moments - apparently the Americans hated Ginger Snaps, while the Brits loved it - although way too much time was spent talking about feminist themes and lesbian subtexts, when they could have been talking about why they put breasts on the werewolf. Actually, I guess that's all part of the same thing.
$$$$
Starring: Emily Perkins, Katharine Isabelle, Chris Lemche, Mimi Rogers
Production Budget: US$5 million
Running Time: 108 min
They Don't Call it the Curse for Nothing
Ginger (Isabelle), 16 and Brigitte (Perkins), 15 are inseparable sisters who live in the dull Canadian suburb of Bailey Downs, well, dull apart from the 'Beast of Bailey Downs' which has been tearing apart the local dog population. They hate the world, and they cannot stand the idea of growing up and being like everybody else (they have had a suicide pact since they were seven). For their school project they stage and photograph violent death scenes.
They are out in the woods one full moon when Ginger gets her first period. The blood draws the attention of a certain 'beast' which proceeds to savage Ginger, who quickly recovers - a little too quickly - but is not quite the same from then on. Obvious changes such as hair where their wasn't any, and a tail that grows longer each day combine with psychological changes such as a sudden interest in boys to put a strain on Ginger and Brigitte's relationship. The death of the local bitches (one dog, one girl) doesn't help matters. Things draw to a head as the next full moon approaches.
"It's a metaphor you see, for being horny." Sid Greenfield - Chef Aid: The South Park AlbumThis movie wears it's metaphor on it's sleeve. Blood, hair, libido, uncontrollable rage - it's par for the course for a teenage girl, and here it's all wrapped in up in a snarling beast, with breasts.
The performances from the leads are good. Perkins sulks her way through the whole film, while Isabelle transforms from boy-hating virgin to slut to beast with ease. The supporting cast are pretty forgetful, apart from Mimi Rogers who is fun in her role as the girls' ever-optimistic mother.
The special effects are pretty cool for such a low budget film. There is no extended transformation scene such as in An American Werewolf in London, A Company of Wolves or The Howling, but this movie concentrates more on relationships and diallogue than over-the-top effects. The werewolf itself is a little odd looking (did I mention it has breasts) but effective, and the last ten minutes are suitably creepy to mark this as a genuine horror film.
Ginger Snaps is funny, scary and nicely directed, and it make you wonder why no-one previously thought to link werewolves and their lunar cycles with girls and their menstrual cycles. It was obviously a good enough idea that two sequels were produced; Ginger Snaps Unleashed, which follows the events in the first movie, and Ginger Snaps Back, an alternate universe type sequel set in the 19th century. I saw Unleashed a couple of years ago without realising it was a sequel, and still liked it, and I'm keen to see the third.
After the movie, they showed the short documentary Menstrual Monsters: The Ginger Snaps Trilogy, a somewhat interesting dissection of the themes in the films, although it had what I thought was a rather pointless audience survey portion at the end, which came to the obvious conclusion that girls generally like it and think it has feminist themes. The panel discussion with director John Fawcett and the makers of Menstrual Monsters had some interesting moments - apparently the Americans hated Ginger Snaps, while the Brits loved it - although way too much time was spent talking about feminist themes and lesbian subtexts, when they could have been talking about why they put breasts on the werewolf. Actually, I guess that's all part of the same thing.
$$$$
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Rampo Noir
Directors: Akio Jissoji, Atsushi Keneko, Hisayasu Sato, Suguru Takeuchi
Starring: Tadanobu Asano, Mikako Ichikiwa, Hanae Kan, Ryuhei Matsuda, Kaiji Moriama
Production Budget: unknown but small
Running Time: 134 min
Rampo Noir is a four part horror anthology from the more extreme end of the Japanese film industry. It is based on the short stories of 1920s Japanese supernatural author Edogawa Rampo (who was himself hugely influenced by Edgar Alan Poe, hence his name). Each part has a different director, and a different aesthetic, although all are linked by the presence of Tadanobu Asano, the Johnny Depp of Japanese cinema.
The Mars Canal: A short, almost silent piece following a naked man in a stark, otherworldly wilderness.
The Hell of Mirrors: Police investigate the strange deaths of several women, and the trail leads to a beautiful man with a strange fetish for mirrors.
The Caterpillar: A woman cares for her armless, legless, scarred and mute husband (the caterpillar). She cares for him by keeping him in a partially destroyed WWII bunker, feeding him, torturing him and using him for her own sexual gratification. Nice.
Crawling Bugs: A man with uncontrollable itchiness (due to the presence of imaginary bugs) fantasises over the actress he chauffeurs, and naturally ends up killing her, then setting about dressing her and painting her skin to preserve her beauty while her corpse slowly rots. Very black and quite funny.
It is strange that while this movie is not overly explicit in either sex or violence (it received an MA15+ classification in Australia), the visuals are still at times highly disturbing. This is especially so in The Caterpillar, where the man is so horribly deformed and helpless that it is as if the woman is doing these horrible things to a baby. The fourth story is the best, with Asano giving a great performance as the chauffeur, going about his preservation of the rotting corpse as if it is the most normal thing in the world. The ending is bizarre, yet brilliant.
I'm not a big fan of anthology movies, but this is suitably bizarre and fascinating that I did really enjoy it.
The director of The Caterpillar segment, Hisayasu Sato, attended the screening, and had plenty to say about the film, in Japanese, and I am sure we missed lots of juicy bits in the translation. A number of times he matter of factly mentioned his past as a creator of 'adult films', and how he sees little difference between that kind of film-making and how he went about making this movie. I suppose he is right, in that while this is no porno, it is certainly a film for adults, and pushes boundaries in a way that his 'pink' films no doubt do, er, not that I've ever see one. He also mentioned that Rampo Noir was a conscious effort by the producers to create a Japanese 'horror' film that moved away from the commercially successful but overly clichéd J-horror movies such as The Ring, Ju-On: The Grudge and Dark Water. I believe they succeeded, as I cannot really see this movie being remade in Hollywood, starring Sarah Michelle Gellar as the caterpillar.
A great start to the festival. Next up is Canadian werewolf chick-flick Ginger Snaps.
$$$$
Starring: Tadanobu Asano, Mikako Ichikiwa, Hanae Kan, Ryuhei Matsuda, Kaiji Moriama
Production Budget: unknown but small
Running Time: 134 min
Rampo Noir is a four part horror anthology from the more extreme end of the Japanese film industry. It is based on the short stories of 1920s Japanese supernatural author Edogawa Rampo (who was himself hugely influenced by Edgar Alan Poe, hence his name). Each part has a different director, and a different aesthetic, although all are linked by the presence of Tadanobu Asano, the Johnny Depp of Japanese cinema.
The Mars Canal: A short, almost silent piece following a naked man in a stark, otherworldly wilderness.
The Hell of Mirrors: Police investigate the strange deaths of several women, and the trail leads to a beautiful man with a strange fetish for mirrors.
The Caterpillar: A woman cares for her armless, legless, scarred and mute husband (the caterpillar). She cares for him by keeping him in a partially destroyed WWII bunker, feeding him, torturing him and using him for her own sexual gratification. Nice.
Crawling Bugs: A man with uncontrollable itchiness (due to the presence of imaginary bugs) fantasises over the actress he chauffeurs, and naturally ends up killing her, then setting about dressing her and painting her skin to preserve her beauty while her corpse slowly rots. Very black and quite funny.
It is strange that while this movie is not overly explicit in either sex or violence (it received an MA15+ classification in Australia), the visuals are still at times highly disturbing. This is especially so in The Caterpillar, where the man is so horribly deformed and helpless that it is as if the woman is doing these horrible things to a baby. The fourth story is the best, with Asano giving a great performance as the chauffeur, going about his preservation of the rotting corpse as if it is the most normal thing in the world. The ending is bizarre, yet brilliant.
I'm not a big fan of anthology movies, but this is suitably bizarre and fascinating that I did really enjoy it.
The director of The Caterpillar segment, Hisayasu Sato, attended the screening, and had plenty to say about the film, in Japanese, and I am sure we missed lots of juicy bits in the translation. A number of times he matter of factly mentioned his past as a creator of 'adult films', and how he sees little difference between that kind of film-making and how he went about making this movie. I suppose he is right, in that while this is no porno, it is certainly a film for adults, and pushes boundaries in a way that his 'pink' films no doubt do, er, not that I've ever see one. He also mentioned that Rampo Noir was a conscious effort by the producers to create a Japanese 'horror' film that moved away from the commercially successful but overly clichéd J-horror movies such as The Ring, Ju-On: The Grudge and Dark Water. I believe they succeeded, as I cannot really see this movie being remade in Hollywood, starring Sarah Michelle Gellar as the caterpillar.
A great start to the festival. Next up is Canadian werewolf chick-flick Ginger Snaps.
$$$$
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror
Director: F.W. Murnau
Starring: Max Shrek, Gustav von Wangenheim, Greta Schröder
Production Budget: unknown but small (it was 1921 after all)
Running Time: 88 min approx.
The first filmed version of Bram Stoker's Dracula, Nosferatu almost ceased to exist when Stoker's widow tried to sue the production company for copyright infringement (they declared bankruptcy) and had all 'known' prints destroyed. Being unable to secure the movie rights to Dracula, the producers had simply changed the names of the characters and hoped no one would notice that it was otherwise almost exactly the same. Fortunately, it has survived, and a number of different versions are floating around, some poor video transfers in black and white, and some, like the version I saw in the cinema, beautifully restored with colour tinting.
If you've seen any version of Dracula, or read the book, you already know the story: The Count (in this case Count Orlok) sends word to a local real estate agent that he wants to buy a house, so the agent sends a young employee to Transylvania to get the paperwork sorted out. While there, the Count sees a picture of the young man's wife, gets a bit peckish for her beautiful neck, and sets about making his way via ship to see her, while the young man rushes back overland to try and stop him.
I had not seen this film before, but I had seen Shadow of the Vampire, the fictionalised account of the making of Nosferatu (where it turns out the Shrek really is a vampire - or is he a big green ogre?), and combined with the many references and scenes that have made their way into other movies, T.V. shows and music videos (e.g. Under Pressure by Queen and David Bowie) meant I had already kind of seen a reasonable chunk of this movie. It was however nice to watch it in it's entirety, to get a feel for the pacing and how it all went together.
When watching a film like this, like looking at a classic painting, it is important to take into account the time and place in which it was created. With that in mind, I can forgive the bizarre acting (especially Wangenheim and his incredible overacting) and the extremely dated special effects (one ends up giggling at scenes such as one where Nosferatu's carriage comes racing through the forest in fast forward, which was probably terrifying at the time, but now gives it a Benny Hill feel), and concentrate on the brilliant performance of Shrek, and the
technical brilliance of the production.
Nosferatu is most effective when Shrek is on screen. The rest of the film drags a bit. He is only on screen for a few minutes total, so the audience doesn't get used to his bizarre appearance and mannerisms. Whether beautifully framed in a doorway, filmed as a shadow only or glimpsed staring out a distant window or rising from a coffin, every shot is awe inspiring. The way he stares out with those bulging eyes (he never blinks on-screen) is hypnotic, and creepy. It is very easy to see why his performance has been so admired/referenced/copied over the years.
I saw this film the Saturday before Halloween at the Arnolfini in Bristol, complete with live musical accompaniment by COMA. Having the live music certainly added to the experience, although I found it a bit too improvised, and lacking in melody. I haven't really experienced colour tinting on black and white films before, and it previously would have had me worried that it meant the kind of dreadful colourisation of black and white films that used to be popular in 70s T.V. versions. Actually, colour tinting was used extensively during the black and white era in order to evoke particular moods or lighting conditions. A great example in Nosferatu is that darkness is always represented as a blue tint, while dawn might be represented pink, and a forest at midday by green, etc.. It's all very subtle, and without this it would be impossible to recognise that Count Orlok only ever comes out at night: the technology back then made it impossible to actually film in low light.
I cannot promise that you will love (or even particularly enjoy - although I did) this film, but if you are interested in the origins of film and especially horror film, this is essential viewing. Nosferatu is now in the public domain, meaning it can be shared freely. So, you could watch the whole thing on, for example, Google Video, though if I were you I'd look out for it on the big screen. Otherwise you might mistakenly think it's crap.
$$$1/2
Starring: Max Shrek, Gustav von Wangenheim, Greta Schröder
Production Budget: unknown but small (it was 1921 after all)
Running Time: 88 min approx.
The first filmed version of Bram Stoker's Dracula, Nosferatu almost ceased to exist when Stoker's widow tried to sue the production company for copyright infringement (they declared bankruptcy) and had all 'known' prints destroyed. Being unable to secure the movie rights to Dracula, the producers had simply changed the names of the characters and hoped no one would notice that it was otherwise almost exactly the same. Fortunately, it has survived, and a number of different versions are floating around, some poor video transfers in black and white, and some, like the version I saw in the cinema, beautifully restored with colour tinting.
If you've seen any version of Dracula, or read the book, you already know the story: The Count (in this case Count Orlok) sends word to a local real estate agent that he wants to buy a house, so the agent sends a young employee to Transylvania to get the paperwork sorted out. While there, the Count sees a picture of the young man's wife, gets a bit peckish for her beautiful neck, and sets about making his way via ship to see her, while the young man rushes back overland to try and stop him.
I had not seen this film before, but I had seen Shadow of the Vampire, the fictionalised account of the making of Nosferatu (where it turns out the Shrek really is a vampire - or is he a big green ogre?), and combined with the many references and scenes that have made their way into other movies, T.V. shows and music videos (e.g. Under Pressure by Queen and David Bowie) meant I had already kind of seen a reasonable chunk of this movie. It was however nice to watch it in it's entirety, to get a feel for the pacing and how it all went together.
When watching a film like this, like looking at a classic painting, it is important to take into account the time and place in which it was created. With that in mind, I can forgive the bizarre acting (especially Wangenheim and his incredible overacting) and the extremely dated special effects (one ends up giggling at scenes such as one where Nosferatu's carriage comes racing through the forest in fast forward, which was probably terrifying at the time, but now gives it a Benny Hill feel), and concentrate on the brilliant performance of Shrek, and the
technical brilliance of the production.
Nosferatu is most effective when Shrek is on screen. The rest of the film drags a bit. He is only on screen for a few minutes total, so the audience doesn't get used to his bizarre appearance and mannerisms. Whether beautifully framed in a doorway, filmed as a shadow only or glimpsed staring out a distant window or rising from a coffin, every shot is awe inspiring. The way he stares out with those bulging eyes (he never blinks on-screen) is hypnotic, and creepy. It is very easy to see why his performance has been so admired/referenced/copied over the years.
I saw this film the Saturday before Halloween at the Arnolfini in Bristol, complete with live musical accompaniment by COMA. Having the live music certainly added to the experience, although I found it a bit too improvised, and lacking in melody. I haven't really experienced colour tinting on black and white films before, and it previously would have had me worried that it meant the kind of dreadful colourisation of black and white films that used to be popular in 70s T.V. versions. Actually, colour tinting was used extensively during the black and white era in order to evoke particular moods or lighting conditions. A great example in Nosferatu is that darkness is always represented as a blue tint, while dawn might be represented pink, and a forest at midday by green, etc.. It's all very subtle, and without this it would be impossible to recognise that Count Orlok only ever comes out at night: the technology back then made it impossible to actually film in low light.
I cannot promise that you will love (or even particularly enjoy - although I did) this film, but if you are interested in the origins of film and especially horror film, this is essential viewing. Nosferatu is now in the public domain, meaning it can be shared freely. So, you could watch the whole thing on, for example, Google Video, though if I were you I'd look out for it on the big screen. Otherwise you might mistakenly think it's crap.
$$$1/2
Easyl's horrible month
By a lucky series of coincidences, the period from the 28th of October - 26th of November has suddenly become packed with a whole lot of horror movies, all on the big screen, that I just absolutely must see.
It all started last Saturday at the Arnolfini with a screening of Nosferatu: A symphony of terror, the 1922 silent vampire movie, complete with live orchestra accompaniment. Next up was a visit to Cineformation at the Watershed, where Christopher Smith, the director of Creep and Severance discussed his movies, along with a couple of local short film-makers. I've not seen either of these movies, but after seeing the clips that Smith showed, 'the operation' and 'the beartrap', I'm keen, and will see them soon.
Next up is the Compass of Horror International Film Festival, a mix of horror films from around the world, with Rampo Noir from Japan, Ginger Snaps from Canada, End of the Wicked from Nigeria, and the British film Dust Devil. These films were selected by four different contributors to Film International, and these critics and the directors of the films will be there to discuss the films and the genre in general. I am well excited.
And from the highbrow, intellectual musings of Compass, I move on to the lowbrow dodgefest that is Bloodbath at the Cube from the 24th to the 26th of November. A three day marathon of feature films and shorts from extreme horror to extreme sci-fi to extreme exploitation. I sure am a sucker for anything with the word extreme in it.
So, as I'm pretty sure every one of the (possibly) 20+ horror films I'll be watching were made for considerably less than $10 million they get the Easyl stamp of approval and therefore I'm going to attempt the improbable and write a review for every single one. Wish me luck.
If you are anywhere other than Bristol, U.K., most of these movies won't be coming to a cinema near you, but hopefully I can find a few gems to bring to your attention. Then you can keep an eye out for them in your local video store bargain bin.
It all started last Saturday at the Arnolfini with a screening of Nosferatu: A symphony of terror, the 1922 silent vampire movie, complete with live orchestra accompaniment. Next up was a visit to Cineformation at the Watershed, where Christopher Smith, the director of Creep and Severance discussed his movies, along with a couple of local short film-makers. I've not seen either of these movies, but after seeing the clips that Smith showed, 'the operation' and 'the beartrap', I'm keen, and will see them soon.
Next up is the Compass of Horror International Film Festival, a mix of horror films from around the world, with Rampo Noir from Japan, Ginger Snaps from Canada, End of the Wicked from Nigeria, and the British film Dust Devil. These films were selected by four different contributors to Film International, and these critics and the directors of the films will be there to discuss the films and the genre in general. I am well excited.
And from the highbrow, intellectual musings of Compass, I move on to the lowbrow dodgefest that is Bloodbath at the Cube from the 24th to the 26th of November. A three day marathon of feature films and shorts from extreme horror to extreme sci-fi to extreme exploitation. I sure am a sucker for anything with the word extreme in it.
So, as I'm pretty sure every one of the (possibly) 20+ horror films I'll be watching were made for considerably less than $10 million they get the Easyl stamp of approval and therefore I'm going to attempt the improbable and write a review for every single one. Wish me luck.
If you are anywhere other than Bristol, U.K., most of these movies won't be coming to a cinema near you, but hopefully I can find a few gems to bring to your attention. Then you can keep an eye out for them in your local video store bargain bin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
