Holland:
There is something comforting about a Harry Potter movie. It's a bit like when you meet up with an old friend that you haven't seen for ages, and within five minutes you're happily chatting away, having settled into the old routine like you'd just seen them yesterday. Going into the sixth film in the series, I had read very little about it and had managed to avoid all reviews, yet I was pretty sure that I knew what I was in for, and I got exactly that. Mostly, the reason I enjoyed this film is simply that these characters are fun to hang out with for two-and-a-half hours. And that's lucky, because they don't really do a lot in that time, except, well, hang out. The plot is pretty much this: Harry Potter and friends laugh, cry, whinge and snog their way through another year at Hogwarts, with occasional glimpses of Draco Malfoy up-to-no-good-as-usual and Harry helping Dumbledore save the world and getting chummy with yet-another-new-teacher-with-issues. A lot of the movie focuses on romantic misunderstandings (but we just know that they're going to get together in the end), and I don't think I've heard such blatant use of the word snog since Doctor Seuss' The Snogs that Snogged Snogsville. And the film-makers sneak in a couple of cool scary bits - a scene at the Weasly's house is particularly tense - that will frighten the bejesus out of any little kids watching. I can't wait until I have little kids of my own to torture with stuff like this.
The formerly child-now-adult actors still fit their characters perfectly, and as usual the real adults (a who's who of British acting royalty) are amazing, and obviously having a total blast. Alan Rickman is just brilliant as the squinting, scowling Professor of the Dark Arts, Severus Snape. I used to think that Daniel Radcliffe's standard Harry pose, whether angry, confused or nervous - bolt upright, with a blank expression and a slight tic (almost vibrating) - was caused by a lack of acting ability, but I've come to the conclusion that he's doing it on purpose because that's how Harry Potter is. It makes him much less annoying when one gives him the benefit of the doubt.
So in conclusion, a fun movie for the whole family; don't forget the little kids, and don't forget to change their sheets the next morning. I give it a "See it on the big screen and then buy the DVD when it's cheap".
Sadly, I also own the game-of-the-film, which loosely follows the plot of the movie without actually having any plot, and sees you running around Hogwarts having wand battles, broomstick races and making potions. I give it a "Pull a swifty and get it for free at JB by trading in a second hand game you just bought for $24, then give it to your wife, girlfriend or child, unless you are one of those three, in which case enjoy".
Hold your breath, because Woon will post his review shortly, if and when he actually sees the movie. And here it is...
Woon:
There are good months and then there are bad months when it comes to escaping the family for a few hours for personal social time. July is a bad month, but thanks to the wonders of the internet, I was able to put together the movie via wikipedia, forum posts, trailers, extended trailers and youTube. Okay, not really, but part of the last sentence was true, the internet is wondaarrful.
So to the review. I'd have to admit I am not a Harry Potter fan. Right from the beginning when they pushed a trolley through a pillar in the middle of a train station with "muggles" everywhere was pretty much when I gave up on all the hype. I tried to get into it, I really did but when all the films all look the same, i.e. dark cinematography, way to much CGI to be impressive and a mystery that only gets revealed in the final third of the film, it is much easier to read the corresponding wikipedia article.
This movie is actually quite hard to review if you think about it. All the main characters are the same and played by the same people. And given that it is the 6th in the series, the producers are unlikely to change the look, feel and the amount they stray from the book (I assume). The two highlights are therefore when Harry drinks the "luck" potion and when Ron accidentally sniffs the love letter. Apart from that it more of the same same. I give it a "Go see it if you are fan, and if you are not, wait for the Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince in 5 Seconds video on youTube"
For the record Holland, the word "snog" was only said 6 times. I'd reference the times, but I don't think I could sit through those two hours again, even with MasterChef running in the background.
Holland:
Six times is pretty blatant, considering that snog was said a grand total of zero times in the previous five films? I'm also pretty sure that Ron ate love potion infused chocolates and didn't just sniff a love letter (I guess that scene came up when Po was having trouble with her final dish on Masterchef). As for straying from the book, your wiki friend should have told you that the major battle from the end of the book has been omitted from the movie, so you assume wrong. And I don't know why familiarity with the characters and story, and the consistent tone of the series makes it hard to review. You either liked it or you didn't like it. If preconceptions make you more or less likely to enjoy it, so be it.
Woon:
*Retracted*
Friday, July 17, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Hangover
Woon:
Giving a movie a title like The Hangover does not leave much to the imagination. And from the ad campaign, which was quite extensive in my opinion, the entire plot was essentially told to you even before you paid for your allocated seats at the box office. I was expecting a T&A romp much like Bachelor Party from the early 80's where movies of that period, such as Animal House, Porky's and Revenge of the Nerds pushed the taste and ratings classification boundaries. And even if I knew the plot and most likely the ending, I was hoping Heather Graham would make it worthwhile.
After seeing the crap trailer, I had absolutely no interest in seeing this movie, but I was convinced to go by a favourable review from Margaret and David and a text message from my friend Kristy stating "Funniest. Movie. Ever." (she probably didn't use that many full stops because she's not that geeky, but I know what she meant).
Having Vince Vaughn AND, not or, Will Ferrell in this movie would not have saved it. Nothing was missing from the acting, it just lacked cleverness in the lines. It needed a bit of Apatow wit sprinkled on it.
I think having those two in it would have made it a much worse movie. The great thing about the Alan character was that he was so quiet and understated, and if Will Ferrell had played him (as he surely would have) it would have been so manic and over-the-top that the whole thing would have been ruined and I would have had to book the next flight to Hollywood just so I could track him down and punch him in the face.
I've just been looking through his filmography, and I've realised that I haven't seen a single movie that Judd Apatow has written or directed, and of those he has produced, I've only seen The Cable Guy (funny), Anchorman (very funny) and Taledaga Nights (ugh!). We might have to book in an Apatow festival.
Giving a movie a title like The Hangover does not leave much to the imagination. And from the ad campaign, which was quite extensive in my opinion, the entire plot was essentially told to you even before you paid for your allocated seats at the box office. I was expecting a T&A romp much like Bachelor Party from the early 80's where movies of that period, such as Animal House, Porky's and Revenge of the Nerds pushed the taste and ratings classification boundaries. And even if I knew the plot and most likely the ending, I was hoping Heather Graham would make it worthwhile.
I believe this movie was trying to sell itself as THE naughty movie for the noughties, but alas, it was not. Everything was so PC and stereotypical. The plot for the first half felt like a TV cop show episode where the protagonists worked from clue to clue, going from the previous nights consequence to consequence. Many of these consequences, as I've said before, were shown in the ads and when the scene came up, it just didn't make me chuckle. It just felt like a re-worked version of Dude Where's My Car.
There were funny moments though but more in the stupidity of the lines delivered as apposed to the situation they were in. The stereotypical characters were well played. In particular the Asian gang leader, quite different to his role in Knocked Up. In fact, this is probably its saving grace. I give it a "Wait for it in a 3 in 1 DVD release"
After seeing the crap trailer, I had absolutely no interest in seeing this movie, but I was convinced to go by a favourable review from Margaret and David and a text message from my friend Kristy stating "Funniest. Movie. Ever." (she probably didn't use that many full stops because she's not that geeky, but I know what she meant).
There were a lot of jokes in this movie. Some fell pretty flat, and some brought a small chuckle but were childish, e.g. lets all laugh at the naked fat guy, the naked old man or the naked Chinese guy. Still, there were enough original, clever and funny jokes that I went along for most of the ride. And any movie that can get away with masturbation jokes involving babies gets a thumbs up from me.
While the performances are perfectly fine, all of the characters are pretty much your stock standard bachelor party stereotypes - the obnoxious stud who is up for anything; the nerd who constantly worries - with the exception of the socially inept Alan, played by Zach Galifianakis, who may well have created a new stereotype, like a cross between John Belushi in Animal House and Rain Man. He gets all of the best lines and I would say that this was a not that great movie without him, but include him and it becomes a pretty OK movie.
I found my interest waning from about the middle of the movie, and while most of the movie thankfully lacked melodrama, the ending was painfully awash with schmaltz, and my groaning was only halted by some silly crassness over the end-credits.
Woon, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I don't think they were trying to make this the naughty movie of the noughties, as much as you love the pun. This is just the latest in a long line of frat pack movies, the only difference being that this one doesn't have Vince Vaughn and/or Will Ferrell in it. Just look at the director Todd Philips' filmography for starters. And I think you'll find that the naughtiest mainstream comedy this year is Kevin Smith's Zack and Miri Make a Porno. It's rated R for starters.
All, up there is quite a bit to like about this movie, and there are enough one-liners that repeat viewings will probably throw out a few gems missed on earlier viewings. I give it "watch the DVD with a couple of mates and a keg".
Having Vince Vaughn AND, not or, Will Ferrell in this movie would not have saved it. Nothing was missing from the acting, it just lacked cleverness in the lines. It needed a bit of Apatow wit sprinkled on it.
I think having those two in it would have made it a much worse movie. The great thing about the Alan character was that he was so quiet and understated, and if Will Ferrell had played him (as he surely would have) it would have been so manic and over-the-top that the whole thing would have been ruined and I would have had to book the next flight to Hollywood just so I could track him down and punch him in the face.
I've just been looking through his filmography, and I've realised that I haven't seen a single movie that Judd Apatow has written or directed, and of those he has produced, I've only seen The Cable Guy (funny), Anchorman (very funny) and Taledaga Nights (ugh!). We might have to book in an Apatow festival.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Terminator Salvation
Holland:
Here is the basic premise of T4: John Connor is searching for a young man, Kyle Reese, so that he can then send him back in time to have sex with his mother and, hence, become his father. But John Connor is already there, so he must have found Kyle and sent him back, right? So why all the stress? Time travel movies require the suspension of disbelief, and this is fine, providing the movie is funny (Back to the Future, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure) or kick arse (T2). In T4, it is just annoying. The other annoyance is with the Terminators themselves, and this is a 2-part annoyance: 1. Why are there so few Terminators, the third act is set in a fricking Terminator factory? 2. Why do they insist on throwing people against walls, giving them a chance to escape or be rescued instead of a) shooting them dead or b) smashing their head in?
There are a couple of pretty good action scenes, and I like all of the actors (Sam Worthington is particularly good). It also has a brief surprise appearance from an old friend, which got a good crowd reaction. If it was a stand alone futuristic action/sci-fi movie I probably would have thought that it was an OK popcorn movie. But this is a Terminator movie, and I demand more, dammit!
The ending of T2 was kind of corny, but it was also perfect. The ending of T4 is kind of similar, but is just stupid. Actually, I think this pretty much sums up the whole movie. It ticks all of the boxes for what you'd expect in a Terminator movie, but it just isn't very good.
They are certainly keeping their sequel options open. Not only does nothing really get resolved in this movie, they don't even get up to the point where Reese is sent back in time. Urgh!
I don't want anybody else spending money seeing this movie. It will just encourage them to think that people liked it, and when the next Terminator movie is made (which is pretty much inevitable), we might get lumped with another mess like this. My score therefore has to be: If you really want to see it, "see it on TV".
Woon:
Let's face it. Time travel movies are a fallacy. James Cameron essentially screwed the pooch in the original Terminator when he let John Conner send his own father back in time to let him be born. There are so many plot holes to do with that side of the story that the only way not to give this movie a zero is to review it without that subplot. OK, so the baddie robots are from the baddie aliens (BA) and the goodie robots are from the goodie aliens (GA). John Conner has a unique DNA mutation that threatens the existence of the BA race. The GAs must protect John Conner because he is the ultimate weapon. Both aliens can't come to earth because it would freak everyone out and we would kill them both.
T1: BA sees John's mother as having the potential to mutate. GA recruits Kyle Reese to protect her. Cool looking robots, bit of T&A, explosions and ends in an industrial setting. T2: BA sees the mutated John, sends next model to kill him. GA sends captured old model to protect. Cool looking robots, no T&A (just male glutious maximus), explosion and ends in an industrial setting. T3: BA still looking for John, GA sends captured old model to protect. Cool looking robots, censored T (dammit), explosions and ends in an industrial/military setting.
And now to T4, well you know the drill. The look of the film was a lot grittier than T2 and T3. Scenes reminiscent of Mad Max 2 during the highway chase and Saving Private Ryan during the headquarters escape. All the old favorite lines were there as well as the T-800 (with and with out skin - spoiler). It definitely is like all the other Terminator movies, but minus the fate/can't change destiny tagline. I was expecting a John Conner centric story with his heroism finally shown, but this was not the case. I think the makers could not decide whether to focus the story on him or the Terminators and in the end it was a half arsed attempt to do both and they failed at both.
Giving it a rating of "worth a torrented DVD rip but only if you have nothing else to use your end of month quota on".
Holland:
I'm not sure that your rewriting of the Terminator mythology minus the time travel solves any of the problems with this movie. It vaguely works for the first three, but the whole point of T4 is that it is the future and John and the Terminators are looking to change the past. I prefer to leave time travel in and just not think about it too much. It got me thinking though, that the makers of T4 should have taken your advice and removed the time travel element from the movie. Then we could have just sat back and enjoyed a futuristic robot vs man (I bags being the robot) action romp.
And thanks for the reminder about the hot naked chick in T3.
Woon:
Whomever fed the knowledge into Skynet so it could become self aware should have shown it less of the Austin Power's trilogy and more of Third Riech playbook. I'm calling this as the last of the franchise.
----
Next up: Hanna Montana.
Here is the basic premise of T4: John Connor is searching for a young man, Kyle Reese, so that he can then send him back in time to have sex with his mother and, hence, become his father. But John Connor is already there, so he must have found Kyle and sent him back, right? So why all the stress? Time travel movies require the suspension of disbelief, and this is fine, providing the movie is funny (Back to the Future, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure) or kick arse (T2). In T4, it is just annoying. The other annoyance is with the Terminators themselves, and this is a 2-part annoyance: 1. Why are there so few Terminators, the third act is set in a fricking Terminator factory? 2. Why do they insist on throwing people against walls, giving them a chance to escape or be rescued instead of a) shooting them dead or b) smashing their head in?
There are a couple of pretty good action scenes, and I like all of the actors (Sam Worthington is particularly good). It also has a brief surprise appearance from an old friend, which got a good crowd reaction. If it was a stand alone futuristic action/sci-fi movie I probably would have thought that it was an OK popcorn movie. But this is a Terminator movie, and I demand more, dammit!
The ending of T2 was kind of corny, but it was also perfect. The ending of T4 is kind of similar, but is just stupid. Actually, I think this pretty much sums up the whole movie. It ticks all of the boxes for what you'd expect in a Terminator movie, but it just isn't very good.
They are certainly keeping their sequel options open. Not only does nothing really get resolved in this movie, they don't even get up to the point where Reese is sent back in time. Urgh!
I don't want anybody else spending money seeing this movie. It will just encourage them to think that people liked it, and when the next Terminator movie is made (which is pretty much inevitable), we might get lumped with another mess like this. My score therefore has to be: If you really want to see it, "see it on TV".
Woon:
Let's face it. Time travel movies are a fallacy. James Cameron essentially screwed the pooch in the original Terminator when he let John Conner send his own father back in time to let him be born. There are so many plot holes to do with that side of the story that the only way not to give this movie a zero is to review it without that subplot. OK, so the baddie robots are from the baddie aliens (BA) and the goodie robots are from the goodie aliens (GA). John Conner has a unique DNA mutation that threatens the existence of the BA race. The GAs must protect John Conner because he is the ultimate weapon. Both aliens can't come to earth because it would freak everyone out and we would kill them both.
T1: BA sees John's mother as having the potential to mutate. GA recruits Kyle Reese to protect her. Cool looking robots, bit of T&A, explosions and ends in an industrial setting. T2: BA sees the mutated John, sends next model to kill him. GA sends captured old model to protect. Cool looking robots, no T&A (just male glutious maximus), explosion and ends in an industrial setting. T3: BA still looking for John, GA sends captured old model to protect. Cool looking robots, censored T (dammit), explosions and ends in an industrial/military setting.
And now to T4, well you know the drill. The look of the film was a lot grittier than T2 and T3. Scenes reminiscent of Mad Max 2 during the highway chase and Saving Private Ryan during the headquarters escape. All the old favorite lines were there as well as the T-800 (with and with out skin - spoiler). It definitely is like all the other Terminator movies, but minus the fate/can't change destiny tagline. I was expecting a John Conner centric story with his heroism finally shown, but this was not the case. I think the makers could not decide whether to focus the story on him or the Terminators and in the end it was a half arsed attempt to do both and they failed at both.
Giving it a rating of "worth a torrented DVD rip but only if you have nothing else to use your end of month quota on".
Holland:
I'm not sure that your rewriting of the Terminator mythology minus the time travel solves any of the problems with this movie. It vaguely works for the first three, but the whole point of T4 is that it is the future and John and the Terminators are looking to change the past. I prefer to leave time travel in and just not think about it too much. It got me thinking though, that the makers of T4 should have taken your advice and removed the time travel element from the movie. Then we could have just sat back and enjoyed a futuristic robot vs man (I bags being the robot) action romp.
And thanks for the reminder about the hot naked chick in T3.
Woon:
Whomever fed the knowledge into Skynet so it could become self aware should have shown it less of the Austin Power's trilogy and more of Third Riech playbook. I'm calling this as the last of the franchise.
----
Next up: Hanna Montana.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Star Trek 11
Woon:
7 Years since the last movie and 4 years after the television series ended, this is the much anticipated JJ Abrams reboot. Made for $150M and targeted for a more "general audience", there is no doubt that the franchise owners are hoping for a revival to match that of the 90's.
I am not a fan of TOS but I did follow TNG, enjoyed a bit of DS9, tried to get into VOY but by ENT, the stories were becoming all too familiar and the battles all to infrequent. The canon definitely needed something spectacular. I was hesitant at first that this film would be diluted by TNG centric jokes and the other Star Trek directives of peace, love and conflict resolution without violence. This was not the case and it definitely delivers.
Action scenes were fluid, the level of detail superb and the cinematography extremely grand. The only complaint is to turn down the lens flare. Not every external space shot needs it. The acting was adequate and given that it was a prequel, the writers pretty much had the freedom to do what they wanted as long as the actors were the right colour and had the right accent.
Overall, a solid effort and not a hint of cliffhanger-ness. Score: "Worth a Friday night viewing"
Holland:
TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT? It took me a couple of minutes to decipher these acronyms, so I am clearly not much of a Star Trek fan, and I certainly would not consider myself a Trekkie, or is it Trekker? I therefore hope that none of the die-hards read this and take offense that an ignorant outsider is reviewing their precious, precious movie. Actually, given that Trekkies are all four-eyed weaklings with a rudimentary knowledge of astrophysics and a penchant for made-up languages and dress-ups, I don't really care what they think.
But enough of the unnecessarily derogatory taunting, because I actually quite enjoyed this movie. I think the story was well thought out, with the characters introduced in a believable and entertaining way, and it had a good twist of sorts that ensures that the franchise can move into the future unencumbered by the baggage/events of the previous 10 movies. Based on my limited experience - I've seen most of the movies and a couple of episodes of TOS and TNG - this was a bone fide Star Trek experience, complete with ridiculous time-warps, over-the-top space battles and in-the-nick-of-time improvised weapons.
The one gripe I have that totally bugged the hell out of me was a totally contrived and way too coincidental sequence of events leading to Kirk meeting one of his 'old' friends. What are the chances that a person ending up in a random location on a barren planet would, within five minutes, just happen to be saved from certain death by a stranger who just happens to be the one person in the universe that can help him save Earth? Well, I guess it worked in The Empire Strikes Back.
I agree with Woon on the CGI lens flare. Seems like they were trying a bit too hard to make it look like it was actually filmed in space. I think the score "Worth a Friday night viewing" is a bit generous and doesn't give you much room to move up in the scoring system when you actually see a really good movie, especially seeing as "See it on opening night" really isn't an option at this point.
Overall, an entertaining if somewhat forgettable film, like most of the Star Treks. Score: "See it in the cinema, but wait for a 2-for-1 offer"
Woon:
The Force explains a lot in the Star Wars galaxy, but no such luck in the Star Trek one.
Holland:
There might be some lame-arse Vulcan mind thing going on, but I don't buy it.
----
So that's it for this review. It seems kind of poetic that our attempt at rebooting the Holland vs Woon franchise is though a successful reboot of another franchise. At least I hope it is poetic, and not ironic.
As always, comments are more than welcome, and are cherished like diamonds magically falling from the sky into our desperately outstretched hands.
7 Years since the last movie and 4 years after the television series ended, this is the much anticipated JJ Abrams reboot. Made for $150M and targeted for a more "general audience", there is no doubt that the franchise owners are hoping for a revival to match that of the 90's.
I am not a fan of TOS but I did follow TNG, enjoyed a bit of DS9, tried to get into VOY but by ENT, the stories were becoming all too familiar and the battles all to infrequent. The canon definitely needed something spectacular. I was hesitant at first that this film would be diluted by TNG centric jokes and the other Star Trek directives of peace, love and conflict resolution without violence. This was not the case and it definitely delivers.
Action scenes were fluid, the level of detail superb and the cinematography extremely grand. The only complaint is to turn down the lens flare. Not every external space shot needs it. The acting was adequate and given that it was a prequel, the writers pretty much had the freedom to do what they wanted as long as the actors were the right colour and had the right accent.
Overall, a solid effort and not a hint of cliffhanger-ness. Score: "Worth a Friday night viewing"
Holland:
TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT? It took me a couple of minutes to decipher these acronyms, so I am clearly not much of a Star Trek fan, and I certainly would not consider myself a Trekkie, or is it Trekker? I therefore hope that none of the die-hards read this and take offense that an ignorant outsider is reviewing their precious, precious movie. Actually, given that Trekkies are all four-eyed weaklings with a rudimentary knowledge of astrophysics and a penchant for made-up languages and dress-ups, I don't really care what they think.
But enough of the unnecessarily derogatory taunting, because I actually quite enjoyed this movie. I think the story was well thought out, with the characters introduced in a believable and entertaining way, and it had a good twist of sorts that ensures that the franchise can move into the future unencumbered by the baggage/events of the previous 10 movies. Based on my limited experience - I've seen most of the movies and a couple of episodes of TOS and TNG - this was a bone fide Star Trek experience, complete with ridiculous time-warps, over-the-top space battles and in-the-nick-of-time improvised weapons.
The one gripe I have that totally bugged the hell out of me was a totally contrived and way too coincidental sequence of events leading to Kirk meeting one of his 'old' friends. What are the chances that a person ending up in a random location on a barren planet would, within five minutes, just happen to be saved from certain death by a stranger who just happens to be the one person in the universe that can help him save Earth? Well, I guess it worked in The Empire Strikes Back.
I agree with Woon on the CGI lens flare. Seems like they were trying a bit too hard to make it look like it was actually filmed in space. I think the score "Worth a Friday night viewing" is a bit generous and doesn't give you much room to move up in the scoring system when you actually see a really good movie, especially seeing as "See it on opening night" really isn't an option at this point.
Overall, an entertaining if somewhat forgettable film, like most of the Star Treks. Score: "See it in the cinema, but wait for a 2-for-1 offer"
Woon:
The Force explains a lot in the Star Wars galaxy, but no such luck in the Star Trek one.
Holland:
There might be some lame-arse Vulcan mind thing going on, but I don't buy it.
----
So that's it for this review. It seems kind of poetic that our attempt at rebooting the Holland vs Woon franchise is though a successful reboot of another franchise. At least I hope it is poetic, and not ironic.
As always, comments are more than welcome, and are cherished like diamonds magically falling from the sky into our desperately outstretched hands.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Guess who's back? Back again... Daryl's back... with his friend
Hey there. It's been almost two and a half years since our last post, and we owe you a lot of reviews. The only solace I can offer is that at least two and a half years isn't as bad as the terrible Two and a Half Men. Boy does that show suck (1 star).
So finally, after some nagging from Meatpopsicle following the latest Star Trek flick (review pending), helped by my being forced to watch MasterChef Australia (2 stars) by the wife and hence I desperately need a distraction, I've rejigged the blog and am attempting to get back into the habit of posting. Note: the writing of this post is now slowing because MasterChef has finished and the very funny Talkin' Bout Your Generation (4 stars) is on.
So what's been happening with Holland vs Woon since the last post? I decided to consult our good friends at Google Analytics for some answers. Amazingly, since my last post on the 12th of February 2007 there has been 427 page views from 398 visitors. Cool! The most popular post has been my rather harsh review of the Nigerian classic End of the Wicked (63 page views, including an amazing 19 on the 10th of November last year... how come?), followed by some other reviews I did of extremely obscure recent British and German genre films (e.g.). Given all of that interest, surely we have a duty to get this blog back in action. Right? Anybody?
Clearly we're bored of the old format, so expect a totally new, totally original new format. Details to follow soon.
If you never got around to deleting us from your rss reader, and that magic '1 new post' icon flashes up like that time you answered the door to find a long dead relative standing there with worm-eaten flesh hanging over some just recognisable bones, say "hi" in the comments section. If we actually know that people give a toss about what we think, we're much more likely to give a toss about telling people what we think.
Hello?
So finally, after some nagging from Meatpopsicle following the latest Star Trek flick (review pending), helped by my being forced to watch MasterChef Australia (2 stars) by the wife and hence I desperately need a distraction, I've rejigged the blog and am attempting to get back into the habit of posting. Note: the writing of this post is now slowing because MasterChef has finished and the very funny Talkin' Bout Your Generation (4 stars) is on.
So what's been happening with Holland vs Woon since the last post? I decided to consult our good friends at Google Analytics for some answers. Amazingly, since my last post on the 12th of February 2007 there has been 427 page views from 398 visitors. Cool! The most popular post has been my rather harsh review of the Nigerian classic End of the Wicked (63 page views, including an amazing 19 on the 10th of November last year... how come?), followed by some other reviews I did of extremely obscure recent British and German genre films (e.g.). Given all of that interest, surely we have a duty to get this blog back in action. Right? Anybody?
Clearly we're bored of the old format, so expect a totally new, totally original new format. Details to follow soon.
If you never got around to deleting us from your rss reader, and that magic '1 new post' icon flashes up like that time you answered the door to find a long dead relative standing there with worm-eaten flesh hanging over some just recognisable bones, say "hi" in the comments section. If we actually know that people give a toss about what we think, we're much more likely to give a toss about telling people what we think.
Hello?
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
How much for your consideration? Best Director
Nominations for best director are often the same as those for best film, for obvious reasons. The same is not necessarily true for the winner though, as the last ten years can confirm...
2005 - Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain ($14M)
2004 - Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby ($30M)
2003 - Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($94M)
2002 - Roman Polanski, The Pianist ($35M)
2001 - Ron Howard, A Beautiful Mind ($60M)
2000 - Steven Soderbergh, Traffic ($48M)
1999 - Sam Mendes, American Beauty ($15M)
1998 - Steven Spielberg, Saving Private Ryan ($70M)
1997 - James Cameron, Titanic ($200M)
1996 - Anthony Minghella, The English Patient ($27M)
Four out of the ten winners here did not also win for best picture, so obviously even though the director 'makes' the movie, the criteria used to decide the two categories differ. How about the budgets involved? Best pictures cost on average $65M, while best directors costs... $59M. It's a little less, but hardly, and a lot more than the average for best actor/actress. As I have repeated ad nauseum, this is basically the average for a studio film (NB: The Pianist and Traffic were 'independently' produced). None of these movies, however, cost less than the magic $10M, and there must be a reason, because coincidences, freak chances and short-term blips on long-term trends never occur, and Ang Lee would not have won if Brokeback Mountain had only cost $9M, do you here!
Maybe good/experienced/popular/whatever directors don't work on cheap movies. Or maybe it actually costs quite a lot of money for the acting, art and production design, lighting, cinematography and editing it takes to make a movie look well directed.
This is not to say that movies made for less than $10M cannot be brilliantly directed (I saw Peter Jackson's Braindead - $3M - on the weekend and it has fantastic direction, but I'm pretty sure he didn't crack an Oscar for it back in 1992) it is simply that what the weirdos in the academy look for in best director nominated films, whatever that might be, is not found in cheap movies.
So how do the 2006 nominees stack up...
Alejandro González Iñárritu, Babel ($25M)
Martin Scorsese, The Departed ($90M)
Clint Eastwood, Letters from Iwo Jima ($15M)
Steven Frears, The Queen ($15M)
Paul Greengrass, United 93 ($15M)
Well for one, it seems that for this category, 15 is the magic number. To back up my thoroughly research argument (no best directors for less than $10M), poor Little Miss Sunshine ($8M and nominated for best picture) gets bumped by the $15M United 93. Closest to the average is The Departed, so maybe it's finally Marty's year. Or maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Something to consider until next time.
2005 - Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain ($14M)
2004 - Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby ($30M)
2003 - Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($94M)
2002 - Roman Polanski, The Pianist ($35M)
2001 - Ron Howard, A Beautiful Mind ($60M)
2000 - Steven Soderbergh, Traffic ($48M)
1999 - Sam Mendes, American Beauty ($15M)
1998 - Steven Spielberg, Saving Private Ryan ($70M)
1997 - James Cameron, Titanic ($200M)
1996 - Anthony Minghella, The English Patient ($27M)
Four out of the ten winners here did not also win for best picture, so obviously even though the director 'makes' the movie, the criteria used to decide the two categories differ. How about the budgets involved? Best pictures cost on average $65M, while best directors costs... $59M. It's a little less, but hardly, and a lot more than the average for best actor/actress. As I have repeated ad nauseum, this is basically the average for a studio film (NB: The Pianist and Traffic were 'independently' produced). None of these movies, however, cost less than the magic $10M, and there must be a reason, because coincidences, freak chances and short-term blips on long-term trends never occur, and Ang Lee would not have won if Brokeback Mountain had only cost $9M, do you here!
Maybe good/experienced/popular/whatever directors don't work on cheap movies. Or maybe it actually costs quite a lot of money for the acting, art and production design, lighting, cinematography and editing it takes to make a movie look well directed.
This is not to say that movies made for less than $10M cannot be brilliantly directed (I saw Peter Jackson's Braindead - $3M - on the weekend and it has fantastic direction, but I'm pretty sure he didn't crack an Oscar for it back in 1992) it is simply that what the weirdos in the academy look for in best director nominated films, whatever that might be, is not found in cheap movies.
So how do the 2006 nominees stack up...
Alejandro González Iñárritu, Babel ($25M)
Martin Scorsese, The Departed ($90M)
Clint Eastwood, Letters from Iwo Jima ($15M)
Steven Frears, The Queen ($15M)
Paul Greengrass, United 93 ($15M)
Well for one, it seems that for this category, 15 is the magic number. To back up my thoroughly research argument (no best directors for less than $10M), poor Little Miss Sunshine ($8M and nominated for best picture) gets bumped by the $15M United 93. Closest to the average is The Departed, so maybe it's finally Marty's year. Or maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Something to consider until next time.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
How much for your consideration? Best Actress
The best actress in a leading role requiring prosthetics, weight gain, playing a real person, ugliness or pretending to be a man goes to...
I suspect that the best actress award generally goes to movies that have below average budgets. Why? Women simply do not get good roles in big budget movies. Fact. Or is it? As I've done for the last few posts, let's have a look at the last ten years of Oscars and see what budgetary trends we can tease out.
2005 - Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line ($28M)
2004 - Hilary Swank, Million Dollar Baby ($30M)
2003 - Charlize Theron, Monster ($8M)
2002 - Nicole Kidman, The Hours ($25M)
2001 - Halle Berry, Monster's Ball ($4M)
2000 - Julia Roberts, Erin Brockovich ($51M)
1999 - Hilary Swank, Boys don't Cry ($2M)
1998 - Gwyneth Paltrow, Shakespeare in Love ($25M)
1997 - Helen Hunt, As Good as it Gets ($50M)
1996 - Frances McDormand, Fargo ($7M)
First of all, four of these movies were made for under the magic $10M mark, and exactly zero were made for more than $100M. Not only that, but exactly zero were made for more than the average cost of a studio movie (about $65M). The average budget was a measly $23M, which Julia Roberts can make herself for a single film. The reason (not why Julia Roberts can make $23M for a single movie, that defies explanation, but why best actress movies are generally so cheap)? Well, for one, four of the movies (Monster, Monster's Ball, Boys don't Cry and Erin Brockovich) had no production input by one of the major studios, and films made by non-major studios by default have lower budgets. For two, see the first paragraph of this post: take this year for example; are they really going to give Audrey Tatou (The Da Vinci Code) an Oscar for being stupid, or Keira Knightly (Pirates of the Caribbean) one for being annoying, or Kate Bosworth (Superman Returns) one for not being as good as Margo Kidder.
And the nominees for 2006 are...
Penélope Cruz, Volver (unknown, say $5M)
Judie Dench, Notes on a Scandal (unknown, say $10M)
Helen Mirren, The Queen ($15M)
Meryl Streep, The Devil Wears Prada ($35M)
Kate Winslet, Little Children ($14M)
Fits the trend nicely, maybe even a little cheaper this year - which makes sense, considering there are no movies with Julia Roberts or Jack Nicholson in to bump up the average. Based on budgetary considerations alone, anyone could win. The first three weren't produced by one of the big six, but that is no help, as explained above, so I'm going to have to throw in the towel. Having said that, surely Judie Dench and Meryl Streep were only nominated because the nominating committee (or however the hell they go about nominations) are just plain lazy, Helen Mirren because she is going to win, Kate Winslet so they can shaft her again and Penélope Cruz as the token 'foreigner', or to piss off Tom Cruise (see also, the first line of this post, i.e. Helen Mirren plays a real person).
I suspect that the best actress award generally goes to movies that have below average budgets. Why? Women simply do not get good roles in big budget movies. Fact. Or is it? As I've done for the last few posts, let's have a look at the last ten years of Oscars and see what budgetary trends we can tease out.
2005 - Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line ($28M)
2004 - Hilary Swank, Million Dollar Baby ($30M)
2003 - Charlize Theron, Monster ($8M)
2002 - Nicole Kidman, The Hours ($25M)
2001 - Halle Berry, Monster's Ball ($4M)
2000 - Julia Roberts, Erin Brockovich ($51M)
1999 - Hilary Swank, Boys don't Cry ($2M)
1998 - Gwyneth Paltrow, Shakespeare in Love ($25M)
1997 - Helen Hunt, As Good as it Gets ($50M)
1996 - Frances McDormand, Fargo ($7M)
First of all, four of these movies were made for under the magic $10M mark, and exactly zero were made for more than $100M. Not only that, but exactly zero were made for more than the average cost of a studio movie (about $65M). The average budget was a measly $23M, which Julia Roberts can make herself for a single film. The reason (not why Julia Roberts can make $23M for a single movie, that defies explanation, but why best actress movies are generally so cheap)? Well, for one, four of the movies (Monster, Monster's Ball, Boys don't Cry and Erin Brockovich) had no production input by one of the major studios, and films made by non-major studios by default have lower budgets. For two, see the first paragraph of this post: take this year for example; are they really going to give Audrey Tatou (The Da Vinci Code) an Oscar for being stupid, or Keira Knightly (Pirates of the Caribbean) one for being annoying, or Kate Bosworth (Superman Returns) one for not being as good as Margo Kidder.
And the nominees for 2006 are...
Penélope Cruz, Volver (unknown, say $5M)
Judie Dench, Notes on a Scandal (unknown, say $10M)
Helen Mirren, The Queen ($15M)
Meryl Streep, The Devil Wears Prada ($35M)
Kate Winslet, Little Children ($14M)
Fits the trend nicely, maybe even a little cheaper this year - which makes sense, considering there are no movies with Julia Roberts or Jack Nicholson in to bump up the average. Based on budgetary considerations alone, anyone could win. The first three weren't produced by one of the big six, but that is no help, as explained above, so I'm going to have to throw in the towel. Having said that, surely Judie Dench and Meryl Streep were only nominated because the nominating committee (or however the hell they go about nominations) are just plain lazy, Helen Mirren because she is going to win, Kate Winslet so they can shaft her again and Penélope Cruz as the token 'foreigner', or to piss off Tom Cruise (see also, the first line of this post, i.e. Helen Mirren plays a real person).
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
How much for your consideration? Best Actor
Continuing my series of poorly researched and misguided rants on the budgets of movies that win Oscars...
It is well known that famous actors will often lower their fees in order to star in a low budget, important, Oscar-worthy film. Why is this? Does this imply that big-budget movies are somehow not Oscar-worthy, or is this a fallacy, and budget is irrelevant to the chances of Oscar glory in the best actor category?
For the last 10 years, the winners of the best actor Oscar have been:
2005 - Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote ($7M)
2004 - Jamie Foxx, Ray ($40M)
2003 - Sean Penn, Mystic River ($30M)
2002 - Adrien Brody, The Pianist ($35M)
2001 - Denzel Washington, Training Day ($45M)
2000 - Russell Crowe, Gladiator ($103)
1999 - Kevin Spacey, American Beauty ($15M)
1998 - Roberto Benigni, Life is Beautiful (unknown, say $5M)
1997 - Jack Nicholson, As Good as it Gets ($50M)
1996 - Geoffrey Rush, Shine ($5.5M)
One movie on this list cracks the $100M barrier while three were made for less than $10M (I'm guessing about Life is Beautiful based on it being Italian, first time director, unknown actors etc. If anyone would like to correct me, please do so).
The average winning movie cost $35.6M. This is almost half the cost of the average Hollywood studio movie (about $65M). It just goes to show you can't buy a good performance. Not only that, but Ray, The Pianist, Life is Beautiful and Shine were not even produced by one of the big six studios. So maybe it's true, low budget is better for the best-actor category. There are a couple of reasons why this might be so. The obvious one is that big budget movies are mostly based around action and special effects, with acting and dialogue taking a back seat. The other is that the Academy recognises acting in important or controversial movie, and often these movies are not going to make very much money, and therefore will not be provided with a massive budget.
So the nominees this time around are:
Leonardo DiCaprio, Blood Diamond ($100M)
Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson ($700,000)
Peter O'Toole, Venus (unknown, say $5M)
Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happyness ($55M)
Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland ($6M)
Based on the last ten years, the winner could be any of these, although Ryan Gosling might struggle with Half Nelson's tiny budget. Will Smith and Forest Whitaker split the long term average between them, so flip a coin. Or better yet, roll a 5-sided dice (if one exists).
It is well known that famous actors will often lower their fees in order to star in a low budget, important, Oscar-worthy film. Why is this? Does this imply that big-budget movies are somehow not Oscar-worthy, or is this a fallacy, and budget is irrelevant to the chances of Oscar glory in the best actor category?
For the last 10 years, the winners of the best actor Oscar have been:
2005 - Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote ($7M)
2004 - Jamie Foxx, Ray ($40M)
2003 - Sean Penn, Mystic River ($30M)
2002 - Adrien Brody, The Pianist ($35M)
2001 - Denzel Washington, Training Day ($45M)
2000 - Russell Crowe, Gladiator ($103)
1999 - Kevin Spacey, American Beauty ($15M)
1998 - Roberto Benigni, Life is Beautiful (unknown, say $5M)
1997 - Jack Nicholson, As Good as it Gets ($50M)
1996 - Geoffrey Rush, Shine ($5.5M)
One movie on this list cracks the $100M barrier while three were made for less than $10M (I'm guessing about Life is Beautiful based on it being Italian, first time director, unknown actors etc. If anyone would like to correct me, please do so).
The average winning movie cost $35.6M. This is almost half the cost of the average Hollywood studio movie (about $65M). It just goes to show you can't buy a good performance. Not only that, but Ray, The Pianist, Life is Beautiful and Shine were not even produced by one of the big six studios. So maybe it's true, low budget is better for the best-actor category. There are a couple of reasons why this might be so. The obvious one is that big budget movies are mostly based around action and special effects, with acting and dialogue taking a back seat. The other is that the Academy recognises acting in important or controversial movie, and often these movies are not going to make very much money, and therefore will not be provided with a massive budget.
So the nominees this time around are:
Leonardo DiCaprio, Blood Diamond ($100M)
Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson ($700,000)
Peter O'Toole, Venus (unknown, say $5M)
Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happyness ($55M)
Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland ($6M)
Based on the last ten years, the winner could be any of these, although Ryan Gosling might struggle with Half Nelson's tiny budget. Will Smith and Forest Whitaker split the long term average between them, so flip a coin. Or better yet, roll a 5-sided dice (if one exists).
Monday, January 29, 2007
How much for your consideration? Best Picture
Let's review the best picture Academy Award winners over the last ten years, and the production budget that got them there.
2005 - Crash ($6.5M)
2004 - Million Dollar Baby ($30M)
2003 - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($94M)
2002 - Chicago ($45M)
2001 - A Beautiful Mind ($60M)
2000 - Gladiator ($103M)
1999 - American Beauty ($15M)
1998 - Shakespeare in Love ($25M)
1997 - Titanic ($200M)
1996 - The English Patient ($27M)
So, one movie makes it in under $10M, and two crack the $100M mark. The rest are in what I like to call the 'mediocre' range.
The average winning movie cost $65M. Let's just compare that to the average cost of a Hollywood studio movie; you guessed it, about $65M. So what does this tell us. Well, on average, any studio movie has as much chance of winning Best Picture as any other, regardless of budget. This doesn't mean that any movie has an equal chance of winning, of course, just any "studio movie". The only movie on the list not produced by one of the big six studios is Crash, which was "independently produced" and then distributed by Lions Gate.
So it appears that any studio film has an equal chance of winning the best picture award - based on budget alone, although presumably making a good film will give you a slightly higher chance. Occasionally, an independent film might sneak through too. Based purely on the numbers over the last ten years, my vote for this year therefore goes to Babel; at $25M the closest to the average of the five movies nominated this year - $30.6M. Having said that, you'd have to be an idiot to bet against Clint Eastwood (Letters from Iwo Jima); the Academy loves that guy! Well, he was born only 1 year after the first Academy Award ceremony, and at 77 is probably the same age as the average Academy member
Now I haven't even mentioned the marketing that goes into getting nominations and votes for the Oscars, which is obscene (millions of dollars - they probably spent a lot more with the "for your consideration" campaign for Crash than they did making the bloody movie). But I'll leave that for another rant.
Let the most average win.
2005 - Crash ($6.5M)
2004 - Million Dollar Baby ($30M)
2003 - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($94M)
2002 - Chicago ($45M)
2001 - A Beautiful Mind ($60M)
2000 - Gladiator ($103M)
1999 - American Beauty ($15M)
1998 - Shakespeare in Love ($25M)
1997 - Titanic ($200M)
1996 - The English Patient ($27M)
So, one movie makes it in under $10M, and two crack the $100M mark. The rest are in what I like to call the 'mediocre' range.
The average winning movie cost $65M. Let's just compare that to the average cost of a Hollywood studio movie; you guessed it, about $65M. So what does this tell us. Well, on average, any studio movie has as much chance of winning Best Picture as any other, regardless of budget. This doesn't mean that any movie has an equal chance of winning, of course, just any "studio movie". The only movie on the list not produced by one of the big six studios is Crash, which was "independently produced" and then distributed by Lions Gate.
So it appears that any studio film has an equal chance of winning the best picture award - based on budget alone, although presumably making a good film will give you a slightly higher chance. Occasionally, an independent film might sneak through too. Based purely on the numbers over the last ten years, my vote for this year therefore goes to Babel; at $25M the closest to the average of the five movies nominated this year - $30.6M. Having said that, you'd have to be an idiot to bet against Clint Eastwood (Letters from Iwo Jima); the Academy loves that guy! Well, he was born only 1 year after the first Academy Award ceremony, and at 77 is probably the same age as the average Academy member
Now I haven't even mentioned the marketing that goes into getting nominations and votes for the Oscars, which is obscene (millions of dollars - they probably spent a lot more with the "for your consideration" campaign for Crash than they did making the bloody movie). But I'll leave that for another rant.
Let the most average win.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
How much for your consideration?
I just checked out the nominees for the upcoming Oscars and I thought it might be interesting to see what it costs to make it an Oscar worthy movie.
And the nominees for best picture are:
Babel - $25M
The Departed - $90M
Letters from Iwo Jima - $15M
Little Miss Sunshine - $8M
The Queen - $15M
Other movies with more than three nominations:
Apocalypto - $40M
Blood Diamond - $100M
Children of Men - $72M
Dreamgirls - $70M
Little Children - $14M
Notes on a Scandal - N/A
Pan's Labyrinth - $19M
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - $225M
So, for $225M you can buy four nominations (Pirates 2: art direction, sound editing, sound mixing, special effects) or for $8M you can earn four nominations (Little Miss Sunshine: supporting actor, supporting actress, movie, original screenplay).
Now, these are production budgets, i.e. not including marketing and distribution costs. It would be even more interesting to see what the studios actually spend specifically on spruiking for an Oscar. More to follow...
And the nominees for best picture are:
Babel - $25M
The Departed - $90M
Letters from Iwo Jima - $15M
Little Miss Sunshine - $8M
The Queen - $15M
Other movies with more than three nominations:
Apocalypto - $40M
Blood Diamond - $100M
Children of Men - $72M
Dreamgirls - $70M
Little Children - $14M
Notes on a Scandal - N/A
Pan's Labyrinth - $19M
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - $225M
So, for $225M you can buy four nominations (Pirates 2: art direction, sound editing, sound mixing, special effects) or for $8M you can earn four nominations (Little Miss Sunshine: supporting actor, supporting actress, movie, original screenplay).
Now, these are production budgets, i.e. not including marketing and distribution costs. It would be even more interesting to see what the studios actually spend specifically on spruiking for an Oscar. More to follow...
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Drowning in the bloodbath
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The Silencer
Director: Steve Lawson, Siman Wyndam
Starring: Glenn Salvage, Maye Choo, Jim Clossick, Steve Lawson
Production Budget: ~US$5,000
Running Time: 75 min
Released: 2006
Glenn Salvage plays Michael Eastmann, a policeman who is framed during a botched drugs bust, shot and then left for dead (not to be mistaken by Left for Dead, another movie starring Salvage, where he isn't - left for dead that is). Horribly injured but not dead, he is rehabilitated and then sets out for vengeance. The only problem is he can no longer talk, and his spine is so badly damaged that a hard knock will paralyse him for life (OK, that's two problems). His wife (Choo) grows distant and his former colleagues shun him, but he can still kick arse.
Director Steve Lawson and star Glenn Salvage were both involved in Left for Dead, which was an overlong mess. The Silencer is the exact opposite, a short, neat action movie. The action scenes are great, including a great moment in an underpass where a bunch of thugs hassling a lady meet their worst, silent, motorcycle helmeted, leather clad nightmare. The story is pretty clichèd (although it flows well), but that's not the point, this is a movie about revenge, and it is served up with quality. This movie was made for virtually nothing (Lawson describes it as the cost of a family holiday). All indoor scenes were set in Lawson's house, where one room was continually remodelled for different scenes, and the cast was kept nice and small and mostly volunteered their services. And good for them too. Everyone looks good in this; Salvage has real presence and just a hint of charisma, the martial arts and stunts are awesome, and the directors show that they can really direct.
When they can make a $5,000 movie look like a $500,000 movie, imagine what they could do with $500,000. I am curious, and hopefully The Silencer will get the film-makers noticed by some people with some cash. So pay attention, all right!
$$$
Starring: Glenn Salvage, Maye Choo, Jim Clossick, Steve Lawson
Production Budget: ~US$5,000
Running Time: 75 min
Released: 2006
Glenn Salvage plays Michael Eastmann, a policeman who is framed during a botched drugs bust, shot and then left for dead (not to be mistaken by Left for Dead, another movie starring Salvage, where he isn't - left for dead that is). Horribly injured but not dead, he is rehabilitated and then sets out for vengeance. The only problem is he can no longer talk, and his spine is so badly damaged that a hard knock will paralyse him for life (OK, that's two problems). His wife (Choo) grows distant and his former colleagues shun him, but he can still kick arse.
Director Steve Lawson and star Glenn Salvage were both involved in Left for Dead, which was an overlong mess. The Silencer is the exact opposite, a short, neat action movie. The action scenes are great, including a great moment in an underpass where a bunch of thugs hassling a lady meet their worst, silent, motorcycle helmeted, leather clad nightmare. The story is pretty clichèd (although it flows well), but that's not the point, this is a movie about revenge, and it is served up with quality. This movie was made for virtually nothing (Lawson describes it as the cost of a family holiday). All indoor scenes were set in Lawson's house, where one room was continually remodelled for different scenes, and the cast was kept nice and small and mostly volunteered their services. And good for them too. Everyone looks good in this; Salvage has real presence and just a hint of charisma, the martial arts and stunts are awesome, and the directors show that they can really direct.
"The difference between pornography and erotica is lighting." - Gloria LeonardOne of the most obvious things that shows up a low budget movie is the lighting. The other martial arts movies I saw at Bloodbath, Left for Dead, and Intergalactic Combat were both notable for their bad lighting. The lighting in The Silencer is so much better, with light streeming through windows and a subtle glow on characters faces. Good lighting is one of those things that's difficult to describe, but obvious when you see it. This was $5,000 very well spent. If Left for Dead was martial arts porn, then this is martial arts erotica.
When they can make a $5,000 movie look like a $500,000 movie, imagine what they could do with $500,000. I am curious, and hopefully The Silencer will get the film-makers noticed by some people with some cash. So pay attention, all right!
$$$
Monday, January 08, 2007
Room 36
Director: Jim Groom
Starring: Paul Herzberg, Portia Booroff, Frank Scantori, Nicola Branson
Production Budget: ~US$300,000 (guesstimate)
Running Time: 90 min
Released: 2005
Set mostly in a seedy London hotel, the Midlothian, Room 36 is a tale of mistaken identity, although in this case it is the identity of the room that causes the confusion. In room 36, an obese salesman (Scantori) awaits a prostitute (Branson), while next door, in room 38 a hit-man (Herzberg) has arranged a meeting with a young, female MP (Booroff). All it takes is one chipped room number and things go horribly wrong.
Groom's only other movie was 1991s The Revenge of Billy the Kid which centred around the mutant child of a farmer and his goat (get it, Billy the Kid). I haven't seen it but am intrigued, and who wouldn't be?
I urge you to seek out this film, so then in another 11 years we might get to see what Groom comes up with next.
$$$$
Starring: Paul Herzberg, Portia Booroff, Frank Scantori, Nicola Branson
Production Budget: ~US$300,000 (guesstimate)
Running Time: 90 min
Released: 2005
Set mostly in a seedy London hotel, the Midlothian, Room 36 is a tale of mistaken identity, although in this case it is the identity of the room that causes the confusion. In room 36, an obese salesman (Scantori) awaits a prostitute (Branson), while next door, in room 38 a hit-man (Herzberg) has arranged a meeting with a young, female MP (Booroff). All it takes is one chipped room number and things go horribly wrong.
"It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men in a train. One man says, 'What's that package up there in the baggage rack?' And the other answers, 'Oh that's a McGuffin.' The first one asks 'What's a McGuffin?' 'Well' the other man says, 'It's an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands.' The first man says, 'But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands,' and the other one answers 'Well, then that's no McGuffin!' So you see, a McGuffin is nothing at all." - Alfred Hitchcock.This film took 11 years to make, due to one disaster after another, including death, fire and Kodak's decision to stop producing the film they were using half way through filming. Yet the director persisted, and it was well worth the effort. The grainy black and white looks fantastic, giving it very much the feel of a film noir or early Hitchcock. It even has a classic Hitchcockian McGuffin, in the microfilm the MP is supposed to be delivering to the man who turns out to be a hit-man. Yet it is also very funny, at times almost to the point of slapstick. The acting is excellent, not even considering the budget, and the 10 year commitment many of them made to it with little or no pay.
Groom's only other movie was 1991s The Revenge of Billy the Kid which centred around the mutant child of a farmer and his goat (get it, Billy the Kid). I haven't seen it but am intrigued, and who wouldn't be?
I urge you to seek out this film, so then in another 11 years we might get to see what Groom comes up with next.
$$$$
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$$$
Friday, December 15, 2006
Albert Fish
Director: John Borowski
Starring: Oto Brezinn, Derek Hall, Cooney Horvath, Garrett Shriver
Production Budget: Dunno - pretty small
Running Time: 86 min
Released: 2007 - I traveled through time to see it.
This documentary is reminiscent of the types of American 'true crime story' or 'real life detective' shows you get on television. A deep-voiced narrator describes how a criminal was brought to justice, interspersed with recreations of the crimes and interviews with key figures and experts. The only thing that could really distinguish Albert Fish from the hundreds of these shows you get on the Discovery Channel is the criminal himself - Albert Fish, painter, gentleman and child-eater.
While Albert Fish was a deviant of the highest order, into such philias as coprophilia, urophilia and paedophilia, his most noteworthy act - and the subject of a fair chunk of the movie - was the letter he sent to the parents of Grace Budd, a ten year old girl he had abducted and, well, if you really want to know you can read the letter.
So, not overly original, but a well made documentary about an interesting topic, or, if you will, a decrepit piece of filth about a total sicko.
Starring: Oto Brezinn, Derek Hall, Cooney Horvath, Garrett Shriver
Production Budget: Dunno - pretty small
Running Time: 86 min
Released: 2007 - I traveled through time to see it.
This documentary is reminiscent of the types of American 'true crime story' or 'real life detective' shows you get on television. A deep-voiced narrator describes how a criminal was brought to justice, interspersed with recreations of the crimes and interviews with key figures and experts. The only thing that could really distinguish Albert Fish from the hundreds of these shows you get on the Discovery Channel is the criminal himself - Albert Fish, painter, gentleman and child-eater.
While Albert Fish was a deviant of the highest order, into such philias as coprophilia, urophilia and paedophilia, his most noteworthy act - and the subject of a fair chunk of the movie - was the letter he sent to the parents of Grace Budd, a ten year old girl he had abducted and, well, if you really want to know you can read the letter.
"On Sunday June the 3, 1928 I called on you at 406 W 15 St. Brought you pot cheese—strawberries. We had lunch. Grace sat in my lap and kissed me. I made up my mind to eat her." - Albert FishThe most interesting interviewee in this documentary is Joe Coleman, the man who owns the original Albert Fish letter, and is kind of a fan of Fish. Hilariously, he got the letter by going to the police records office and asking for a copy, and the clerk accidentally gave him the original, which he obviously kept. I'm thinking of doing the same with the Mona Lisa at the Louvre.
So, not overly original, but a well made documentary about an interesting topic, or, if you will, a decrepit piece of filth about a total sicko.
"Is that all you've got" - Allegedly said by Albert Fish after the first jolt of electricity failed to kill him. Also said by Marv in Sin City.$$$
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Intergalactic Combat
Director: Ray Brady 
Starring: Gordon Alexander, Elizabeth Tan
Production Budget: ~US$200,000
Running Time: 90 min
Released: 2006
By the same director as Boy Meets Girl but a very different movie, Intergalactic Combat is a movie that sounded great, but disappointed. It has an interesting, if rather juvenile premise. The Earth is invited to submit a team of warriors to an unarmed combat tournament against teams from other planets, with the losing planet destroyed, or something. However, not only do we not get see this intergalactic battle, we don't even get to see the world championships, just the selection trials for the UK team. Like the previously reviewed Dark Intruder, this is actually a T.V. pilot, although not funded by any T.V. station. The plan is for the first season of the series to feature the UK team travelling the world battling against other countries, with the second season concentrating on the interplanetary battle.
The CGI work is pretty basic and the dialogue is terrible, but after all, this is a dumb action film, and the action scenes are pretty well done. I'm not a huge fan of martial arts, unless it is being done by Jacky Chan, but Brady has obviously gotten a pretty decent bunch of fighters together, and the premise works to show off their skills. The characters are interesting enough (big black guy, former world champ coming out of retirement, oriental guy, young girl who learned to fight to get away from bully's, twin's; one good, one bad - that sort of thing) that kids could probably get into it. If made into a series, it would require a much bigger budget (Brady admitted as much at the screening), especially if they intend on having humans battling against CG aliens, which they do.
The main thing that bothered me about this movie was the following quote, taken from the IMDB summary, and featured in the Bloodbath programme.
$1/2
Starring: Gordon Alexander, Elizabeth Tan
Production Budget: ~US$200,000
Running Time: 90 min
Released: 2006
By the same director as Boy Meets Girl but a very different movie, Intergalactic Combat is a movie that sounded great, but disappointed. It has an interesting, if rather juvenile premise. The Earth is invited to submit a team of warriors to an unarmed combat tournament against teams from other planets, with the losing planet destroyed, or something. However, not only do we not get see this intergalactic battle, we don't even get to see the world championships, just the selection trials for the UK team. Like the previously reviewed Dark Intruder, this is actually a T.V. pilot, although not funded by any T.V. station. The plan is for the first season of the series to feature the UK team travelling the world battling against other countries, with the second season concentrating on the interplanetary battle.
The CGI work is pretty basic and the dialogue is terrible, but after all, this is a dumb action film, and the action scenes are pretty well done. I'm not a huge fan of martial arts, unless it is being done by Jacky Chan, but Brady has obviously gotten a pretty decent bunch of fighters together, and the premise works to show off their skills. The characters are interesting enough (big black guy, former world champ coming out of retirement, oriental guy, young girl who learned to fight to get away from bully's, twin's; one good, one bad - that sort of thing) that kids could probably get into it. If made into a series, it would require a much bigger budget (Brady admitted as much at the screening), especially if they intend on having humans battling against CG aliens, which they do.
The main thing that bothered me about this movie was the following quote, taken from the IMDB summary, and featured in the Bloodbath programme.
"An action movie shot in real time that plays out like a shoot-em-up video game. Stunning camera work, complex and always moving. An un-relentless action film that will attract, through word of mouth, all those hooked on gaming on their PC's and drag them back into the cinema auditoriums." - bRAdYI suppose there is nothing wrong with the director writing his own plot summary, and talking up his "stunning camera work", and the "un-relentless action", however, the phrase "plays out like a shoot-em-up video game" is just plain misleading. As any geek knows, shoot 'em up video games involve a single character or - more commonly - spaceship moving through various levels shooting things up. Intergalactic Combat's real time element involves cutting from character to character as they have battles with a variety of adversaries in different set locations. This is somewhat reminiscent of versus fighting games like Street Fighter II, but certainly bears no resemblance to any shoot 'em up. You need to get your terminology right, Ray! People (like me and the Comic Book Guy) are very particular about this kind of thing. I can assure you, no-one ever recovers from a "Worst. Episode. Ever" put-down, so don't risk it.
"There is no emoticon for what I am feeling!"As a low-budget pilot for a children's television show in the vain of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, this works. As something I would ever want to see again in a million years, it doesn't.
$1/2
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."
$$$
Monday, December 04, 2006
Left for Dead
Director: Ross Boyask
Starring: Glenn Salvage, Andy Prior, Adam Chapman
Production Budget: Small, self funded.
Running Time: 105 min
Released: 2004
I enjoyed this movie for the first 20 min, up until the time the DVD screening at Bloodbath crashed. It featured a long and inventive battle scene set outdoors in an industrial area in a fictional UK city; loads of Kung Fu, an assortment of weapons, and splatterings of blood. Once the projectionist sorted out the problems and the rest of the movie screened, I was in for a disappointment. The next 80 minutes feature about 5 minutes of unoriginal storyline (mobster thug decides to retire, boss won't let him, sends other thugs to kill him, they fail, and thug sets about enacting revenge) and the rest wall-to-wall martial arts fighting.
This movie is basically a porn movie with martial arts replacing sex. It has bad lighting, bad acting, but will work for those looking for some cheap thrills, in the form of people beating the crap out of each other.
$$
Starring: Glenn Salvage, Andy Prior, Adam Chapman
Production Budget: Small, self funded.
Running Time: 105 min
Released: 2004
I enjoyed this movie for the first 20 min, up until the time the DVD screening at Bloodbath crashed. It featured a long and inventive battle scene set outdoors in an industrial area in a fictional UK city; loads of Kung Fu, an assortment of weapons, and splatterings of blood. Once the projectionist sorted out the problems and the rest of the movie screened, I was in for a disappointment. The next 80 minutes feature about 5 minutes of unoriginal storyline (mobster thug decides to retire, boss won't let him, sends other thugs to kill him, they fail, and thug sets about enacting revenge) and the rest wall-to-wall martial arts fighting.
"It becomes quickly apparent that the film's main remit is to screen as many fight sequences as humanly possible, but one can have too much of a good thing and ultimately sometimes less is more" - Bloodbath programme notes.This may work as a CV padding exercise for the director and performers to show off as many of their skills as possible, but as a movie, I found it pretty boring. Practically the whole thing was just people fighting. While the fight scenes are well choreographed, the overall production values are uninspiring. The Silencer, which was shown the following night, features the same lead (Salvage), and many of the same performers and elements as Left for Dead, and is so much better, thanks to a better story, better production and better direction - my review of this should be up in the next week or so.
This movie is basically a porn movie with martial arts replacing sex. It has bad lighting, bad acting, but will work for those looking for some cheap thrills, in the form of people beating the crap out of each other.
$$
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Boy Meets Girl
Director: Ray Brady
Starring: Tim Poole, Danielle Sanderson, Margo Steinberg
Production Budget: under US$100,000
Running Time: 93 min
Boy meets girl, girl drugs boy, girl tortures boy - repeatedly, for 80 minutes. That's about it.
Boy Meets Girl is remarkably similar to 2006's Hard Candy. In fact, in many ways they are almost identical. A man is drugged, then tied up, and a battle of wills ensues with his captor. The main difference is the motivation of the female character. In Hard Candy, the girl is motivated by revenge against paedophiles, while in Boy Meets Girl, the motivation is pretty much non-existent. She's just a cruel, cruel person.
Oddly, about 20 minutes in, the female character (Steinberg) is rather inexplicably replaced with a completely different woman (Sanderson). It turns out that part way through filming, Brady decided that Steinberg wasn't working out, and replaced her, and rather than re-film the start, he worked this into the script. It's a bit awkward, but understandable given that he was just starting film school and had a very limited budget to work with.
This is an ultra low budget, psychological thriller, with convincing performances. It's uncomfortable to watch, but you will enjoy this if you take pleasure in watching other people take pleasure in the pain of others (which I guess would make you a metasadist). That doesn't make you a bad person, mind.
$$$
*Marquis de Sade, sadism, spades, get it?
Starring: Tim Poole, Danielle Sanderson, Margo Steinberg
Production Budget: under US$100,000
Running Time: 93 min
Boy meets girl, girl drugs boy, girl tortures boy - repeatedly, for 80 minutes. That's about it.
"Sadism: a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others" - Merrian Webster Online.This was banned for 8 years in Britain, yet has no sex, no nudity, and very little blood. Ray Brady has admitted that he set out to make a censor baiting film. He researched the main reasons movies had been banned in the previous few years, then added those elements together to create this movie. It seems the censors weren't especially worried by the obvious things above, it was sustained sadism that got them hot under the collar, and Boy Meets Girl has this in spades (or, in rhyming slang, Marquis de Sades*). Sadism, depravity, torture, microwaved hands... it's all there. When the main character is tied to a dentists chair in his underwear for 9/10ths of the movie, you can be sure this is not going to be a romantic comedy.
Boy Meets Girl is remarkably similar to 2006's Hard Candy. In fact, in many ways they are almost identical. A man is drugged, then tied up, and a battle of wills ensues with his captor. The main difference is the motivation of the female character. In Hard Candy, the girl is motivated by revenge against paedophiles, while in Boy Meets Girl, the motivation is pretty much non-existent. She's just a cruel, cruel person.
Oddly, about 20 minutes in, the female character (Steinberg) is rather inexplicably replaced with a completely different woman (Sanderson). It turns out that part way through filming, Brady decided that Steinberg wasn't working out, and replaced her, and rather than re-film the start, he worked this into the script. It's a bit awkward, but understandable given that he was just starting film school and had a very limited budget to work with.
This is an ultra low budget, psychological thriller, with convincing performances. It's uncomfortable to watch, but you will enjoy this if you take pleasure in watching other people take pleasure in the pain of others (which I guess would make you a metasadist). That doesn't make you a bad person, mind.
$$$
*Marquis de Sade, sadism, spades, get it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
