Time for your bloodbath, Easyl. Part II

Check out Part I if you are wondering what the hell is going on.

On to Saturday's Bloodbath in Bristol.

12pm - The Pit and the Pendulum
This is obviously a filmed version of the classic Atari video game Pitfall!. I remember it fondly. The film-makers weren't able to secure the movie rights from Activision, so they had to change the name. It's pretty obvious, though, that they've copied most other aspects of the game, as it is just 90 minutes of a guy running along in a straight line jumping over pits and snakes and swinging over alligator infested ponds, just to collect piles of gold and silver. The Pendulum part of the title describes the hypnotic swinging ropes that populated this classic game, and the Pit is, well, I'll move on. Unfortunately, this movie was directed by Uwe Boll, the German director of such "classic" video game adaptations as Alone in the Dark, House of the Dead and BloodRayne, all fully entrenched in the IMDB all time bottom 100 movies.

2pm - Darklands
This is not the most descriptive title I've come across, so I'll just make up a movie that I'd like to see:

The world is in eternal darkness. Demons roam the land, dragons rule the sky and all people are enslaved, except a small group who remain hidden, living underground, scavenging what they can. A young woman with special powers and a leather G-string may be the only one who can bring the world back to the light. Can she find the magic sword that can unleash her powers, and can she keep her top on for more than five minutes? All is revealed, and I mean all.

4:30pm - Boy Meets Girl
OK, I'm tipping this has lots of sex in it. After all, how can you have a weekend of horror, cult and exploitation movies without at least something with lots of sex in it? I'm sure there will be a story of sorts, but who cares because this one has lots of sex in it.

8:30pm - Left for Dead
Time for a revenge movie:

Kerry is a slightly geeky teenager living in middle America. One night she is hit by a car full of High School boys out on a drunken binge. They drive off leaving her unconscious and bleeding. She is saved by a passing cyclist, but spends the next five years in hospital rehabilitating. No one is ever charged for the hit-and-run, because that's the kind of thing that you get away with in a small town when you are the quarterback of the local football team and your daddy is the mayor. She knows who they are, however, and it's not long before all involved start dropping dead in the most unusual of circumstances. Notable for early performances by Naomi Watts and Matthew McConaughey.

10:30pm - Dark Intruder
I thought about going down the route that this was some kind of KKK propaganda film ending with an almighty lynching, but that's going a little too far. So how about this:

In the vane of classic slasher flicks like Halloween and Friday the 13th, this sees a quiet Denver suburb terrorised over one night by a knife wielding maniac dressed entirely in black. The only distinguishing feature is that the arse cheeks have been cut out of his trousers (in Sweden it had the alternate title Full Moon). Strangely there was no Dark Intruder 2, 3 or Freddy vs Dark Intruder.

That's it for Saturday's programme. One day's B.S. to go, then I might have some actual information to impart.

Time for your bloodbath, Easyl. Part I

I mentioned in an earlier post that I am planning to go to the Bloodbath Horror Festival in Bristol this coming weekend. Now that the full festival programme is out and there are only four sleeps to go, I can practically taste the blood.

I checked out the programme, and was shocked/pleased to note that I know nothing about any of the films being shown. Nothing about the stories, nothing about the directors, the actors, or when or where they were made. So I thought the best thing to do was to go for a bit of IMDB research on each of the films and write a brief preview, so any of the (2, possibly 3) people who regularly visit this site can share my anticipation.

But then I changed my mind. Screw that! I like not knowing anything about these movies, I'm excited to go to the festival completely blind, and take it as it comes.

So instead of a well researched preview of the Bloodbath Horror Festival, I'm going to do the classic judge a book by its cover. So here is my impression of each film, taken solely from the title, followed by a brief, completely made-up summary and review.

I'll start with the Friday session, and move onto Saturday and Sunday over the coming days.

7:30pm - The Witches Hammer
I have an inkling that this is some sort of classic, but I haven't a clue about it. I'm going to assume that the grammar is correct and Hammer is the name of the Witches rather their property (otherwise it would be called The Witch's Hammer or The Witches' Hammer). So here goes:

Three girls, Betty, Jane and Esmerelda Hammer, are bored teenagers who start meddling with the dark arts. Pentagrams, magic circles, animal sacrifice and frequent nudity ensues. Meanwhile, the school principal gets suspicious when the school mascot, Buttman the Goat, goes missing. Atmospheric in parts, but largely disappointing.

9:30pm - The Call of Cthulhu
I actually know that this is based on the novels of H.P. Lovecraft, and I reckon there is some kind of monster in it. How about:

Made in 1965, this movie uses the threat of a large monster terrorising a small U.S. community as a metaphor for the cold war, e.g. the lurking beast only comes out at night, when it's cold, just like those filthy commies. Beautifully filmed in black and white, this is a chilling movie which is as relevant in the post 9/11 world as when it was made.

10:45pm - The Mask of Fu Manchu
This one is pretty self-explanatory. There is an mask that belongs or belonged to an oriental gentleman. I'm going to go with belonged, and make this a Film Noir:

An ancient Chinese artifact is stolen from Metropolitan Museum in New York, and a series of bizarre murders follow. Starring B-actor Jonathon West as P.I. Jack Cramble, and Chinese superstar-turned Hollywood also-ran Ping Kai as femme fatale Missy Ho, this is more a detective story than a fully fledged horror, although there are a few nasty surprises. There is also a long and beautifully filmed chase sequence through the sewers of New York that strongly references Carol Reeds The Third Man, although it has an altogether different and more horrific conclusion. It is quite nicely shot, mostly outdoors on location at night, in deep fog. It is, however, let down by the wooden acting, and not your soft kind of wood like balsa, but more an ancient hardwood that has fallen, down, been buried by volcanic ash and turned to stone. West in particular is just bloody awful.

Here ends the Friday session and Part 1 of my made-up preview to the Bloodbath Horror Festival.

Feel free to mock me and/or make up your own preview. Just don't tell me what really happens.

Hey Borat! Show me the money!

So I went and saw Borat yesterday. This is a very funny movie and I was intending to do a glowing review. A clever movie filmed on virtually no budget, documentary style, just the kind of thing I love. Imagine my horror, when, in the course of my online research, I find out that 'virtually no budget' is actually US$18M. I am outraged.

Some movies are lauded as $5M movies that look like they cost $20M. Well, here's a movie made for $18M that looks like it cost $100,000.

Let's just see if we can work out where all that money went.

Sets: zero (it is filmed entirely on location in Romania and the U.S.A.)
Cast: 3 credited (all other people on screen are real people, reportedly unpaid)
Special effects shots: 1 (a black bar over Sacha Baron Cohen's willy). FX crew: 1
Costuming: Borat wears the same suit (never washed) throughout the movie
Bears: 1

The previous weeks highest grossing movie in the US, Saw III, cost $12M, has a cast of 27, complex, specially built sets and an 11 man visual effects crew. That sounds like pretty good value. Admittedly it didn't have any bears in it, as far as I know.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it is really expensive to make a movie look this cheap. I can't really see why, though - surely the easiest way to make something look cheap, is to make it with very little money. Certainly, if the entire thing was a setup, it would have cost a fortune to stage. However, given the publicity surrounding the 'victims' of Borat and subsequent litigation it is pretty clear that the majority of the film was not setup.

I can only think of one cost the could blow the budget out that high. Wages.

I have one word for Mr. Baron Cohen... percentages. If you are the creative force behind a movie project, or any kind of big star, have enough confidence in your success to take minimal payment upfront, and a percentage of profits.

Another possibility is that the production budget included a large war-chest to fund the inevitable lawsuits that followed the release of this film, à la Google's Youtube purchase. I doubt it, though, and that doesn't count as a 'production' cost anyway.

Regardless, I can't and I won't review this movie, as much as I'd love to.

Even though Borat has passed $100M at the box-office, I just hope they realise that by not making this movie for less than $10M they will be missing out on the significant revenue that would have been generated through a full review on this site. According to Google Analytics, there have been 11 unique visitors in the past week, not including Meatpopsicle and myself. That's right, 11, Mr. Greedy Baron Cohen. Think about that next time you make a 'low-budget' movie.

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?

$$$$

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.

"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.

$

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.

"It's a metaphor you see, for being horny." Sid Greenfield - Chef Aid: The South Park Album

This 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.

$$$$

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.

$$$$

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

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.

Clerks II

Director: Kevin Smith
Starring: Brian O'Halloran, Jeff Anderson, Rosario Dawson, Jason Mewes, Kevin Smith, Trevor Fehrman
Production Budget: US$5 million
Running Time: 97 min

In 1994 I was an innocent 18 year old. I believed the Death Star was built by bad people, that the number 37 had no particular meaning, and if anyone had asked me to make like a Circus Seal I would have clapped. Then I saw Clerks, and my eyes were opened. This was the greatest "No Budget" film ever made (US$27,000). Smart, funny and extraordinarily crass, I loved every minute of it. So, 12 years later, has Clerks II opened my 30 year old eyes?

Most of the original male cast returns, older, fatter and no better at acting. There is poor loser Dante (O'Halloran), at his last day at work before moving to Florida and getting married. There is his best friend Randall (Anderson), who seemingly spends most of his life trying to ruin Dante's. And, as always, there is Jay and Silent Bob, the perpetually loitering local drug dealers. The two main additions are Mooby's manager Becky (Dawson, who can act) and nerdy, god-fearing 19 year old Elias (Fehrman, who can act, weirdly), aka Optimus Prime, the butt of many a Randall put down. And there's a donkey.

The story pretty much mirrors the original: Instead of the Quick Stop convenience store, Dante and Randall now work at fast-food restaurant Mooby's, and we once again experience a day in their lives, with all the hijinx and emotional turmoil it entails. The jokes are all there, be they scatalogical or sexual, or sexually scatalogical, or about drugs, beastiality, racism or The Lord of the Rings. Before seeing this movie, I had never realised that you could put the words 'ass' and 'mouth' together with a simple preposition and get something so distasteful. It's not outrageous, splitting your sides funny, but it does have a lot of great jokes, the kind you'll want to quote among your friends (but not your grandma). Awkwardly, it also has a lot of melodrama, which tends to fall flat through parts of the movie, although I guess the romantics in the audience probably appreciate it more than I do. And it does have a surprisingly emotional and uplifting ending.

So, to answer my own question, no, I am not a changed person for having seen Clerks II. Basically, it's Clerks all over again, with different jokes, colour film and a donkey. The main thing that was missing was originality, and I didn't have the same "I'm cracking up because I can't believe they are saying that" experience I did with the first movie. But I did have an enjoyable hour and a half, and I look forward to seeing it again on DVD.

What are you waiting for? Go and see it, you little porch monkey. And take your girlfriend... tell her it's a romantic comedy, with a donkey.

$$$$

Superman Returns - IMax 3D

Director: Bryan Singer
Starring: Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey, James Marsden, Parker Posey
Production Budget: US$270M
Running Time: 154 min

The title sums it up really. After a five year search for his home world, Superman (Routh), er, comes back. Everyone is pretty chuffed to see him, except the love of his life, Lois Lane (Bosworth). Nevermind the fact that he has just saved her from guaranteed death on an aeroplanes stuck to a space shuttle - in 3D thank you very much - she's moved on with a new man (Marsden as Richard White), a small child, and a Pulitzer prize for an article entitled "Why the world doesn't need Superman". Meanwhile, professional evildoer Lex Luthor (Spacey) is up to no good, with a typically harebrained scheme to create a new continent in the middle of the Atlantic.

The events in this movie follow on from Superman 2 - Singer has wisely ignored the travesties that were Superman 3 and 4; advice we would all do well to follow.

If you are of the age where the original Superman was a childhood masterpiece, there is no way to watch this film without making comparisons. Unlike in Batman Begins, Singer hasn't tried to do recreate the Superman mythos from the beginning; he has remained faithful to the original movies. Brandon Routh was specifically cast for his resemblance to Christopher Reeve, and he does a fine job, although he doesn't bring anything new to the character. Kate Bosworth is OK as Lois Lane, although she lacks the sassiness of Margot Kidder. Kevin Spacey has fun as Lex Luthor, channeling Gene Hackman to good effect. His mistress Kitty, played by Parker Posey, is a joy.

In 1978, the SFX in Superman: The Movie were groundbreaking. Looking at them now, some are good, some look terrible. The effects in Superman Returns are in general awesome. It contains the best use of bullet-time since The Matrix, including an awesome shot of Superman being shot at point blank range in the eye. In the Imax version, four scenes have been transformed into 3D: a scene from Clark's childhood where he first learns to fly, the aforementioned jumbo jet + space shuttle near disaster, a sea rescue and the final scene. They look pretty good, with plenty of depth, but as with all 3D movies, fast action is a little hard to follow. I enjoyed the novelty of the 3D scenes, but I was pleased that the whole movie wasn't done in 3D, because 2.5 hours of it would probably have done my head in.

My favourite scene in the film involves an earthquake in an amazingly detailed scale-model city, complete with explosions, train collisions, people falling into cracks in the ground - all the things you'd expect to see in a real earthquake. It's beautifully filmed, and is clearly a nod by Singer to the scale model effects that were used in the original Superman.

The love triangle between Lois, Clark/Superman and Richard is quite well done. Typically, you would expect the Richard character to be either bad or incompetent, someone the audience can easily hate, and who is bound to get dumped by the end. In Superman Returns, however, Richard as a nice, loving, genuinely resourceful and even heroic character. This adds a lot of emotional weight to the story, as the audience is torn over who to support, and there is therefore no linear progression to an obvious, happy ending.

Superman Returns is probably the most expensive movie made to date, and the spectacle is, as they say, spectacular. Throw in a pretty decent story and you have the best blockbuster I have seen this year. I still find it hard to see $270M on the screen. Considering most of the effects are obviously completely computer generated, I reckon you could get a lot of computers (and nerds to work on them) for much less than that. But at least it was a good movie.

Overall, a fun time was had by all.

$$$$

Summer is almost over. I want my blockbuster!

So I'm still waiting to see a summer blockbuster that's better than just OK. It could happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

This is the list of $100M+ films being released in the UK in the next month.
Miam Vice - $135M
...er, I guess summer must be almost over.

And some highlights in the sub $10M category
A Scanner Darkly - $8.5M
Clerks II - $5M

I'm hoping something blows me away soon, after all, I don't want to become disillusioned with the movie industry, because, well, I have no where else to go. I guess I could give a weekly 5 star review of the latest Simpsons episode, but then hopefully I'm here to tell you something you don't already know.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Director: Gore Verbinski
Starring: Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Kiera Knightley, Bill Nighy
Production Budget: US$225M
Running Time: 150 min
Extraneous Running Time: 50 min

The biggest hit of the Northern Hemisphere summer, DMC reunites pretty much all of the characters from the previous film, The Curse of the Black Pearl, and some.

The story goes: Will Turner (Bloom "what I lack in personality I make up for in prettiness") is threatened with the execution of himself and his soon to be wife Elizabeth Swann (Knightley "when are people going to realise that I'm not that attractive and am a bit annoying, really") unless he gets Captain Jack Sparrow's (Depp "woohoo, this is fun, and I'm getting paid a shitload of money") magic compass for the new head of the East India Company. Not everything goes to plan (duh?) and Turner ends up getting caught up in Captain Jack's latest adventure, trying to escape the dreaded Davy Jones (Nighy who is always good in a grumpy kind of way, although surely it would have been more appropriate to use the real Davy Jones), who has come to claim Jack's soul for eternity, which is about how long the movie goes for.

The Dead Man's Chest title turns out to be quite clever, given that it refers to the chest or locker that our heroes must find to defeat Davy Jones, but it also alludes to the object that resides therein. Hmmm...

What follows is a mash of action, comedy and drama. Most of the way too long running time is spent either in huge action set-pieces (some are over-the-top great, especially early on, and some are over-the-top confusing, especially later on) or introducing or re-introducing a multitude of semi-major characters. They manage to squeeze in a story, although it doesn't make a lot of sense, and that doesn't seem to matter. Its pretty easy to get the gist of it. One gripe I have is that there is no sense of time or distance between locations, leaving me wishing for a simple map like that used so effectively in Indiana Jones. After all, it is a pirate movie, a map would make sense.

DMC is a mostly enjoyable movie. It's fun to watch Johnny Depp hamming it up, and the locations are stunning, but it's too long. Some movies genuinely need a long running time because there is so much story to get through, but here the story is very light, and it's not like they had a huge novel that they had to remain faithful to, such as Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. I just think they had such a massive budget, that the producers must have kept saying things like "Uh, Gore, we've still got $80 million left, better make the Cracken attack the ship again, and uh, that scene where three men are sword fighting on a huge waterwheel, it looks great on the trailer, make it twice as long will you, and why not have it go crashing through the jungle. We've paid for this location, so we're bloody well going to trash it. Thanks".

If you've seen Star Trek 2 or The Empire Strikes Back then I guess I just gave away the 'Cliffhanger' ending... and the plot of the next movie in the trilogy. I think it's going to be called The Return of Barbossa's Search for Sparrow.

$$1/2

The Seven Samurai

Director: Akira Kurosawa
Starting: Takashi Shimura, Toshirô Mifune, Yoshio Inaba, Seiji Miyaguchi, Minoru Chiaki, Daisuke Katô, Isao Kimura
Production Budget: $500,000

I was planning on seeing Superman Returns last weekend for my big budget action movie review, but things unfortunately didn't pan out. So in lieu of that, I've decided to go back to the beginning, the beginning of all action movies that is. The Seven Samurai, made in 1954, is touted as being the very first action movie. Ranked at number 7 on the IMDb top 250, I had high expectations that this movie was going to be an all out sword slashing, face pummeling, blood gushing samurai romp. Let me tell you now, it is not. The first piece of sword play comes almost 45 minutes into the movie and without a hint of that Hollywood metal clinging and clanging.

The basic plot runs like this. A farmer inadvertently hears the bandit's plans to attack his village after their barley harvest. They gather round and seek the advice of an elder who tells them to seek out samurai who are willing to help them in return for 3 meals a day. The first part of the movie deals with the recruitment and each samurai(s) character introduction. It would have been insanely boring if all 7 samurai were ruthless warriors, instead we had a commander, a youngen, a perfectionist, a crazy man, a joker, commander's friend and a red shirt. They return to the village and work on training the farmers and building defense. The final battle sequence does not disappoint, long enough to make the whole 206 minutes worth it.

The movie works on subtle cinematic techniques. Suspense is built with clever cinematography; close up on faces, body language, environmental effects. All taken for granted in today's movies. Action sequences are rudimentary, not like the scripted and rehearsed scenes nowadays where combatants SOMEHOW know where their opponent is going to strike next. They are also filmed in wide angle so you can actually see what is going on. Dialog, even though it is in Japanese, is well delivered, interspersed with jokes to not make the whole film too dire or desperate. The only negative points I have about the movie are the farmer characters. They can't all be that scared and sad!

The Seven Samurai has been consistently listed as one of the top movies of all time. This, of course, is subject to other peoples tastes, likes and dislikes. If you had never planned on seeing this movie, I would recommend you find the time to do so, even if it is just to see what all the fuss is about.

$$$$

Poseidon

Director: Wolfgang Peterson
Starring: Kurt Russell, Josh Lucas, Richard Dreyfuss, Jacinta Barrett, Emmy Rossum
Production Budget: US$160M

Poseidon was a flop (it did less than $60M in the USA, creeping towards $130M worldwide). What a disaster of a disaster film... the irony of it all! Although really, if a cheaper film had made that kind of money, it would be a massive success. Hell, Brick, my favourite film so far this year, has only made just over $3M worldwide, yet it is technically as successful as this year's biggest movie at the box-office, The Da Vinci Code (both made back around 6 times their production budgets).

And the strange thing is, Poseidon is better than The Da Vinci Code. Unlike The (abysmal) Da Vinci Code, it doesn't pretend to be anything it isn't (i.e. clever), it goes for less than 100 minutes (i.e. it isn't boring) and it has reasonably likeable characters and they are used to suitable dramatic effect. That doesn't mean that Poseidon is a good movie, but it is a reasonably well made genre movie. The problem is that the genre is high concept disaster movie, which typically has mediocre acting, horrible cliches throughout and costs a lot of money. This movie is typical of the genre.

Even if you can't tell from the poster, or the fact that it's a remake of a 70's movie, the plot of Poseidon doesn't take a lot of explaining. A ship tips over, and a group of survivors try to escape. The survivors fit the following stereotypes: father figure, young lovers, old man (although he is gay, and he is Richard Dreyfuss which adds some interest to the character), mother and child, the arsehole (I wonder if he's gonna die comically early on?), and a single, attractive man and woman. Sadly, there is no token black guy, unless you count the ships captain.

The best two scenes occur before 20 minutes have passed. The opening scene, panning from underwater to a 360^o tour around the ship, entirely computer generated, is cool, and the ship-tipping scene is equally impressive... big, loud and not at all like a model in a bathtub. From then on, it's a by-the-book escape from the sinking and burning ship type thing. Coincidentally, the two main stars just happen to be a former fire-fighter and navy seal... how convenient. The female leads do nothing except provide the usual eye candy, emotional angst and up the tension by slowing down the men. And the kid isn't at all annoying, which is annoying. Once the wave hits, we pretty much follow this group as they race to reach the bottom (which is the top... the boat tipped over you see) before the ship sinks... cue lots of just making it to the next level as the level they are on goes completely under water.

I saw this in the IMAX, and it certainly is an IMAX friendly movie, big, loud, and dumb.

So, while Poseidon has very little going for it, apart from some nice effects at the start, it isn't bad, and if you like this kind of thing, then you'll like this. And I did enjoy the fact that for most of the movie the floor is the ceiling and vice versa.

$

Warning: although it is not a long movie, Poseidon has over an hour of the sound of pouring water, so you may want to check the level of your bladder before entering the theatre.

X-Men: The Last Stand

Director: Brett Ratner (not as good as Bryan Singer, well duh)
Starring: Hugh Jackman (good), Halle Berry (dull), Ian McKellen (good at being bad), Patrick Stewart (good) and many, many, many more...
Production Budget: $210M

Whose side will you be on? Indeed. Following on from the rather good X-Men and X2, the third and final (shyeah right, I'd bet its $100M+ opening weekend in the U.S. on there being more) X-Men movie has a reasonable amount to live up to. Replacing director Bryan (The Usual Suspects) Singer with Brett (Rush Hour) Ratner did not so much increase my anticipation as reduce my expectations, which I suppose made it harder for me to be disappointed.

X3 yet again sees a disagreement between the two factions of mutants, the 'good-guys' led by Patrick Stewart's Prof. Charles Xavier, and the 'bad-guys' led by Ian McKellen's Eric Lensherr/Magneto. And once again this disagreement leads to the near destruction of the world as we know it. Why can't these guys just learn to get along? This time around it's a 'cure' that turns mutants back into regular people, with Magneto deciding that this is yet another attempt by the humans to wipe out mutants, and therefore all humans must die. Throw into the mix the return of Jean Gray (Famke Janssen) as the super-powerful, emotionally desturbed, boyfriend-killing Phoenix and about twenty new mutant characters and you're in for one hell of a super-speedy, porcupine skinned, Goldengate Bridge levitating juggernaut of a ride.

The problem with this film is that there are too many characters, and therefore too many subplots involving teenage angst, love triangles, prodigal sons and other distractions. The main characters, do still get ample screen time even if they don't really contribute to the story, presumably to either apease fanboys or to fulfill contractual obligations (I'm still not sure what the point of Halle Berry's character is after three movies). Sometimes it looks like instead of writing a story, and adding characters where appropriate to the story, they have chosen characters, and then written a series of set-pieces showing off each of their powers, and slapped a story around it. At other times it's as though characters have been inserted into the story to somehow increase the emotional impact, but really, how can one become emotionally attached to a character with five minutes of screen time (see Angel below).

Here is a selection of new characters and how they fit into the story:

Beast (Kelsey Grammar): The mutant ambassador to the White House. He's a bit embarrassing as the blue-skinned/glasses wearing/suited ambassador, but quite cool when he starts kicking arse.

Juggernaut (Vinnie Jones): Magneto's new toughguy. He looks a little weird with his huge body, but is good fun as he runs through walls head first, and the highlight of the movie is his battle with Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page replacing Katie Stuart from X2).

Angel (Ben Foster): Son of the guy who invents the mutant cure, oh, and he's a mutant. Everything that is wrong about this movie is summed up in this character. Corny and overly melodramatic, and more of a plot device than a fully developed character. Oh, and he is a crap mutant - sure he can fly, but I reckon I could beat him with a pair of wing-clipping scissors, or maybe one of those leather thongs falconers use to control their birds.

Callisto (Dania Ramirez): Magneto's new 'flashy' right-hand woman. The badguy equivalent of Halle Berry's Storm. Would you be surprised if I told you they came up against each other one-on-one at some point?

And I have to mention Rebecca Romijn's character Mystique because... well... you know...

The special effects cannot be faulted, but then for that kind of money they bloody well should be good. And that's all they are, good. Not awesome, not mind- or wad-blowing, just good. The major set-piece involving the Golden Gate Bridge is so ludicrous that it's kind of distracting from what is otherwise a reasonably cool standoff on Alcatraz. And I kept wanting to say "Pyro, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!".

The ending keeps the sequel option wide-open, and by doing so ruins the emotional edge it would otherwise have had. Oh, and there is a bonus scene after all of the credits that fans will probably enjoy (if, like me, you couldn't be bothered waiting through the credits, or you saw the film and didn't know about it, there is a good description in the wikepedia entry).

As far as this kind of crap goes, it was OK, I guess. But then I'm more of a D.C. boy anyway.

$$1/2 (in other words, exactly average)

Mission: Impossible 3

Director: JJ Abrams(Felicity, Alias, Lost)
Apperances: Felicity (Felicity), Eric Weiss(Alias), Flight Attendant #2(Lost)
Production Budget: USD$150M

What do the three pictures on the right have in common? Answer, they're all COOL. When going to see a movie that was made for over $150M, you can't expect the producers to spend $140M on the script and $10M on the action. The more likely distribution is to have $5M on the plot and $145M on COOL.

Being the third installment of the M:i franchise, this movie works on an already proven formula. (Just like for Bond films). We not only see one infiltration operation, but three. We not only see that patented face first drop from a wire once, but twice. Add a storyline where the agent tries to hide his work from his wife and his co-workers ribbing him about it. Combine in COOL guns(H&K G36E), COOL locations(Shanghai), COOL hotties(Felicity), a plot twist and you've blown your $150M.

Okay, top 3 COOL scenes:
1. Swinging from building top to building top, landing on your back, sliding backwards while taking out 2 former Red Army soldiers, spinning around, and stopping yourself on the very last edge.

2. Lip reading. Once at the beginning to then be linked to a crucial plot direction later on.

3. An older, but still hot, Felicity firing a H&K P9S.

$$$(out of 5)

Continuing with the trilogy theme, my next movie will be X3(Hugh Jackman), not to be confused with xXx(Vin Diesel) or a triple X(crazy horse).

Brick

Director: Ryan Johnson (also writer)
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt (the kid from 3rd rock from
     the sun)
     Nora Zehetner (girl at party in American Pie 2)
     Lucas Haas (saves the world in Mars Attacks!)
     Emilie de Ravin (the pregnant Aussie girl in Lost)
Production Budget: $0.5M

When his girlfriend (de Ravin) is murdered, Brendan (Gordon-Levitt) goes in search of the truth behind the killing. He does this the only way he knows how, by asking tough questions, and having the crap beaten out of him repeatedly. He slowly insinuates himself in with the local drug dealers, headed by the mysterious Pin (Haas), and the pieces start falling into place. This is set in and around a Southern California high school, but with Femme Fatales, coded messages, and language more reminiscent of The Maltese Falcon than the O.C., this is no lame-arse American Pie rip-off high school film.

The central mystery is intriguingly played out. Brendan doesn't give much away, only really speaking when he is asking questions of others. We don't even find out what the 'Brick' is until a good way into the film (and if you are wondering, it's not the shit-a kind). And unlike The Da Vinci Code, it does not pound you over the head with its 'revelations'. Instead, you have to actually pay attention in order to fully appreciate the plot machinations. And best of all, it makes you want to see it again (take that Ron Howard).

It all sounds a bit like kids acting out adult roles, but Johnson plays to this with the few adult interactions in the film. The Pin's mother is particularly hilarious - reminiscent of Marge Simpson and "Are you boys through playing war? Then here are some cupcakes".

Writer/director Ryan Johnson has done a brilliant job with this film. You never get the feeling that it was filmed on money raised from families and friends. It looks great, it's funny, occasionally shocking and so very cool. A death scene is particularly evocative. The cast is fantastic. The script is written in old-school noir stylings ( e.g. "Throw one at me if you want, hash head. I've got all five senses and I slept last night, that puts me six up on the lot of you."), and the actors speak the lines like they own them. Gordon-Levitt is particularly charismatic as the main man.

It's not for everyone, and that is why you should go and see it. Now!

$$$$1/2 (out of 5)

Please Follow The Usher To Your Seat

Hello and welcome to our change of direction. This site previously detailed the diet challange between Daryl and I, and since that has been run and won (congratulations again to Holland), we had to find something else to do with this site. We could not think of any better way to show off our new found figures than by sitting in the dark.

Welcome to FilmQuest. A site dedicated answering the ultimate question of Budget vs Blockbuster. Easyl (along with a new figure a new alter ego for Daryl) and I, as you can read from the title, each have differing opinions on what consitiutes a good movie. We have each been dragged into one anothers movies once too often in the past only to walk out in the end wanting our two hours back. In the coming weeks/month/whenever we get around to it, we will each be reviewing our criteria-ed movie. We hope you can stick around and enjoy this site as much as we enjoying watching our own choice of movies. Please feel free to leave comments and suggestions on what movie we should review next.

And Now For Something Completely Different

Holland -vs- Woon is changing. This is a post to show you what the original page looked like.