While I have blogged already regarding Hammer, I have been watching more films from this brilliant b-movie studio.
The Kiss Of The Vampire - Directed by Don Sharp, this is by far the greatest of the films in this grouping. Starts with the obvious cliches, a couple stranded by fate in a village near a castle, invited by strange people while horrified villagers look on. But save a slightly stiff leading man, this one is a stunner. The film starts with a funeral that is interrupted by the dead young woman’s father drunkenly putting a shovel through the heart of his vampire daughter, making people run like hell away. The strange people who turn out to be vampires are fleshed out as an interesting, complicated family who seduce the family for days before kidnapping the wife at a masked ball, having everyone say that the husband came alone. Its full of great atmosphere, the masked sequence and the strange look at a repressed marriage in many ways foreshadowing Eyes Wide Shut. I don’t say that lightly. Both films have odd, intimate atmospheres that get under your skin. This is a brilliant film of odd details, sequence upon sequence of wonderful atmospherics, leading to a conclusion that is brilliant but with a sense of humour (similar to but shot at the same time to the Birds. This is the superior film of the two.) This is the best of the Hammer vampire films, along with The Horror Of Dracula.
Brides Of Dracula & The Curse Of The Werewolf - Two Terrence Fisher gothics, both having flaws narratively made up for by stunning images and sequences. Brides Of Dracula stars peter Cushing, even though he really has a supporting part. Dracula doesn’t appear. Instead a disciple of Dracula is the dreaded vampire. We follow a school mistress, abandoned by her coachman at a village, invited to a nearby castle to stay the night by an old woman. She goes, is seduced by, and frees the woman’s vampire son, who is loose. The school mistress escapes, is found by Cushing’s Van Helsing, is sent out of danger while Cushing hunts the vampire. The vampire follows the school mistress, creates his own vampire disciples as he goes. The film is of two great sequences. The first half hour, of abandonment and going to the castle, up to the freeing of the vampire, is a terrific build, matched by the finale section, of the vampire and his brides focused on the school mistress, being hunted by Van Helsing, leading to a great windmill finale. These are terrific as they a visual sequences where there is story but plotting doesn’t get in the way of visual splendour. The bit inbetween, joining these two great sequences, is solid but has plotting concerns amidst some great mainly silent moments, but needed another pass. The film is still in the top rank, at the level of Dracula Prince Of Darkness. The Curse Of the Werewolf isn’t as solid, has a very clunky, suspense less script, but has amazing sequences and moments, scene by scene, which makes up for an obvious story and lack of momentum. It also has Oliver Reed as a werewolf. The first half hour covers the creation of the werewolf curse, telling the story of an imprisoned beggar, a cruel lord and a mute serving lady, leading to a cursed child without parents, taken in by a kindly academic. This is the best part of the film, is its own little story on life’s cruelties. Then we get into the werewolf section, of the child becoming a man, which is solid but is achingly unoriginal compared to what came before. But the film does always build great moments, and does place a great reason for the worse, not based out of being bitten by someone but more of being the victim of sin, weakness, and cruelty. The end section, where Reed becomes a werewolf (the bit you want to see for the entire film) is top class. Reed makes a great monster, is the best under the make-up.
Frankenstein Must be Destroyed & Evil Of Frankenstein - One of these Frankenstein was directed by Terrence Fisher, the other by legendary cinematographer Freddie Francis. Fisher’s Frankenstein Must be Destroyed is a late entry in the cycle and suffers from the same stop-script weaknesses as the other films mentioned above. The first twenty minutes are slow but eventually the film finds its feet, its theme being of moving a brain from one body to another. There are two distinctive areas in the film. First is the treatment of the monster. This monster looks human, has the brain of an intelligent man and can reason yet finds the world an unworkable place. But he can reason and articulate. it’s a wonderfully moving performance, giving the last third real resonance. The other area of interest is that the real monster is Frankenstein, who blackmails a young couple, essentially ruining their lives throughout the film. He rapes the woman and later kills her brutally, ruins the man professionally, is deserving of his grisly fate. Its very interesting to see a character so unlikable at the centre of a film. On the pulp site the film does have its fare share of insane asylum’s body parts, all the pulpy fun stuff. Francis’ The Evil Of Frankenstein is pulp. The film opens with a little girl witnessing her father’s body being stolen, to be used by Frankenstein, who attacks a man of the cloth within the first five minutes) We have a fairs, hypnotists, a hunchbacked mute woman, a brutally murdered burgermaster. You couldn’t accuse of it of having ideas but it is very enjoyable and atmospheric, and has a creepy, very dead-looking monster at its centre. Its kind of a freak show of a film, which is no bad thing, held together by Cushing.
The Vampire Lovers & The Legend Of The Seven Golden Vampires - These are two insane Roy Ward Baker films (director of A Night To Remember and Scars Of Dracula). The Vampire Lovers is the Hammer going for the lets get cash with a lesbian (but not dyke-looking) vampire, who seduces young women and confuses their fathers. Its stupid, badly scripted, doesn’t have any real pacing nor narrative momentum, made by a director who is not very interested. What it does have is lesbian vampires so all is forgiven. The Legend Of The Seven Golden Vampires is tosh. It doesn’t try to hide that and is oddly lovable for that. Van Helsing goes to China to fight vampires (who can do karate), has his own karate group, ends up in a Seven Samaria plot. Its dumber than Vampire lovers but made with more energy. What the film does have OTT colours, some odd looking zombie vampires, kung fu and a general weirdness. Even Dracula shows up for no real plot reason. Basically, I want a sequel. Its a film, like Tobe Hooper’s Lifeforce, that you can’t help but love in some way.
Night Creatures - A film about ex-pirates becoming smugglers on the English coast, directed by Peter Graham Scott, who I’ve never heard of. This is one of those likable solid films. Its not going to stun anyone with originality, has moments where the plotting could have progressed in a manner that is a tad more inventive but it has Peter Cushing as a pirate disguised as a priest, a fat nutcase whose tongue Cushing tore out and left for dead for raping Cushing’s wife, a troop of soldiers trying to shut down smugglers, a scarecrow who warns smugglers, skeleton soldiers, Michael Ripper in a larger role than normal, and Oliver Reed as the romantic lead, who attempts to marry Cushing’s daughter. So it has lots of good elements that cover the duller parts and is well worth a look.
Non-Hammer Gothic
Fearless Vampire Killers - Roman Polanksi’s Hammer homage is a fun film on its own, and is visually brilliant, but comparing the film to the source of its mockery, Hammer films, shows up the film’s lack of imagination. An old fool and a half-wit assistant arrive in a small village near a castle in winter, to find it under the threat of vampires from the castle. After a few hijacks they travel to the castle, verbally spar with the vampires, escape and accidentally cause the spread of vampirism around the world. The problem with this film is that its got a thirty minute plot with no sub-plots. The good thing about this film is Polanski the director is great at atmosphere so the pace is careful and you don’t really notice, except at the end, where you kind of wonder, is that it? Its never actually scary nor hilarious, even though it always stays amusing. Its one of those decent films where you wish they spent more time being inventive in the script to make a film worthy of its director, as well as creating incidents that would allow Polanski the range to make some proper horror sequences, and give the film some kick. It doesn’t even manage to compete with the solid to best hammer on the odd fairy story feel that they could create. If it weren’t directed by Polanski it would be seen as a good solid effort but seems slight in comparison to Knife In The Water, Repulsion, Rosemary’s Baby and his brilliant early shorts.
The Fall Of The House Of Usher & The Pit And The Pendulum - Two Roger Corman films starring Vincent Price. Best get the worst out of the way first. Some of the acting around Vincent Price is stunningly bad. You get used to it and shut it out, incorporate it into the style. What’s great about these two films, apart from Price, who was born to play romantic, mad, incestuous, nutters with a tragic family past, is the writing and atmosphere. Richard Matheson wrote the scripts and they are very good, with premature burials, strange family pasts that destroy any chance of happiness, doomed romances. They are pacy, stay to be point so that even when you get ahead of the story in places, there’s always something dark and twisted coming in a few minutes. The atmosphere feels doomed, the buildings old, full of ancient chambers, family tombs, torture chambers and crumbling houses. Its terrific and a potent alternative to the Hammer films.
So that’s Hammer and their cousins. This is unlikely to be the last of the old-school horror films covered here as I have that kind of taste.
Friday, 17 April 2009
Friday, 3 April 2009
The Father of Dalton Trebeck
While researching the life of dead movie star Dalton Trebeck, I never felt the need to go into the life of his father, Gustav Trebeck (1901-1957). After all, they never met, the father marrying a nineteen year old who had been released from an insane asylum for imagining she was being stalked, before knocking her up and dying in mysterious circumstances. But the more you look into it, the more fascinating this man becomes.
By the end of world war 2, this contract player of dubious indie studios z-level films, making fifty in all within a decade and a half, mostly thankfully rotted, was in career trouble. He was a frequent co-star of a failing Bela Lugosi, viewed as a fat yet low-rent Clifton Webb, was hitting drug addiction and the blacklist. He was in fact brought to the attention of the McCarthy scum by his attempt to bugger Trotsky in Mexico not long before his death. This got the McCarthy people interested, as did a commendation for his acting ability by Stalin. It wasn't long before Gustav was on the run from the US then forgotten, because is a bad actor really of any interest to anyone.
Finding himself in London, and failing to get himself any work, even in theatre, he went into the quota quickies, always leeching onto any new black-listed actor or director than came his way (Joseph Losey kicked him in the nuts more than once, also threatening to knife him). He always hoped these people would show loyalty to a fellow lefty but all saw him as a fake. Not even Orson Welles would hire him as an extra.
With every insult he returned to the quota quickies, working as back-up to many a staple of two-days film runs backed by American studios trying to get their product into British cinemas. Working from a Yorkshire studio mostly, he supported the tawdry comedy of the Dalry Sisters (later convicted of cannibalism, their victims young newlyweds), Mick McDick (an old man who liked very short women off-stage, which somehow, due to his manner, made people feel uncomfortable), more often than not in some rambling thriller/horrors where he would be the sex-addicted killer. His most notable credit during this time was a never released film version of James Bond, made in 1953. He played M with a very Russian accent, and as a flaming homosexual. Bond was also played in a very camp way, by alcoholic forties acting legend Michael Deer, who looking down upon playing "such an appalling scallywag". The fights were laughable, the dialogue worse. It was written by Warwick Jehane the second (Grandfather of Dalton Trebeck's future master director, also on the blacklist, before returning to American television, after all that nonsense subsided.)
So he stayed in Yorkshire for a few years, on these terrible films, his girth expanding by the film, alcoholism and rumours of bisexuality out of control, before finally giving up altogether and not bothering to learn lines. In the modern era this is called doing a Brando but in that time it was called who cares, who will see this film. His acting improved a lot during this era, when he was just making things up and ignoring the story. Apparently the studios here were haunted, had aliens, had many suicides, but this might simply have been viewed as a respectable way out of a failing career.
His final role was that of a fat Dracula in a quite terrible, amazingly tacky low-budget rip-off of Christopher Lee's Hammer film. This was his only film in colour, he at one point vomiting blood on a young virgin. Gustav died halfway through the film, replaced by a dwarf-like actor. It was set in the modern-day, a bald fat Dracula hitting on hookers in Soho, slashing them to death at times also, a la Tod Slaughter. While some writers say its may have influenced Peeping Tom, can anyone really imagine Michael Powell watching a dubious Gustav Trebeck vehicle (assuming he knew who Gustav Trebeck actually was) named Dracula's Soho Virgin Bride. I think not.
As you can see, this was a man forgotten in his own time. Dalton never talked about this man, never acknowledged this man's staggering failures. Its sad but true.
By the end of world war 2, this contract player of dubious indie studios z-level films, making fifty in all within a decade and a half, mostly thankfully rotted, was in career trouble. He was a frequent co-star of a failing Bela Lugosi, viewed as a fat yet low-rent Clifton Webb, was hitting drug addiction and the blacklist. He was in fact brought to the attention of the McCarthy scum by his attempt to bugger Trotsky in Mexico not long before his death. This got the McCarthy people interested, as did a commendation for his acting ability by Stalin. It wasn't long before Gustav was on the run from the US then forgotten, because is a bad actor really of any interest to anyone.
Finding himself in London, and failing to get himself any work, even in theatre, he went into the quota quickies, always leeching onto any new black-listed actor or director than came his way (Joseph Losey kicked him in the nuts more than once, also threatening to knife him). He always hoped these people would show loyalty to a fellow lefty but all saw him as a fake. Not even Orson Welles would hire him as an extra.
With every insult he returned to the quota quickies, working as back-up to many a staple of two-days film runs backed by American studios trying to get their product into British cinemas. Working from a Yorkshire studio mostly, he supported the tawdry comedy of the Dalry Sisters (later convicted of cannibalism, their victims young newlyweds), Mick McDick (an old man who liked very short women off-stage, which somehow, due to his manner, made people feel uncomfortable), more often than not in some rambling thriller/horrors where he would be the sex-addicted killer. His most notable credit during this time was a never released film version of James Bond, made in 1953. He played M with a very Russian accent, and as a flaming homosexual. Bond was also played in a very camp way, by alcoholic forties acting legend Michael Deer, who looking down upon playing "such an appalling scallywag". The fights were laughable, the dialogue worse. It was written by Warwick Jehane the second (Grandfather of Dalton Trebeck's future master director, also on the blacklist, before returning to American television, after all that nonsense subsided.)
So he stayed in Yorkshire for a few years, on these terrible films, his girth expanding by the film, alcoholism and rumours of bisexuality out of control, before finally giving up altogether and not bothering to learn lines. In the modern era this is called doing a Brando but in that time it was called who cares, who will see this film. His acting improved a lot during this era, when he was just making things up and ignoring the story. Apparently the studios here were haunted, had aliens, had many suicides, but this might simply have been viewed as a respectable way out of a failing career.
His final role was that of a fat Dracula in a quite terrible, amazingly tacky low-budget rip-off of Christopher Lee's Hammer film. This was his only film in colour, he at one point vomiting blood on a young virgin. Gustav died halfway through the film, replaced by a dwarf-like actor. It was set in the modern-day, a bald fat Dracula hitting on hookers in Soho, slashing them to death at times also, a la Tod Slaughter. While some writers say its may have influenced Peeping Tom, can anyone really imagine Michael Powell watching a dubious Gustav Trebeck vehicle (assuming he knew who Gustav Trebeck actually was) named Dracula's Soho Virgin Bride. I think not.
As you can see, this was a man forgotten in his own time. Dalton never talked about this man, never acknowledged this man's staggering failures. Its sad but true.
Sunday, 22 March 2009
Battlestar Galactica Finale
This will be brief for the moment. I've just seen it and there's that kind of relief that a lot came together with some disappointments (the end essentially remakes The Matrix Revolutions with more character and less wonderful weirdness). So its a odd one. Its sort of like the conclusion for Homicide and The Wire for me. Lots of wonderful moments and character beats finally coming together but with a little overt sentimentality and some missed elements which felt important in the run of the shows.
There were lost moments. There's one nasty moment that I feel went too far because it hadn't been built up enough and lacked proper dramatic resolution (Tyrol kills Tory for the murder of his wife while saving his son, a situation on which he was partially responsible for, as well as being very responsible for the mess they found themselves in the finale, which also destroys a fragile truce, causing more deaths). Now the act was shocking and nasty, powerful, and hopefully a longer released cut will fill in some blanks, but there's so little afterthought, so little balance that its resolved as the bitch is dead. As the situation was more complicated, you wanted more, especially as they had built up Tyrol's disenchantment with everyone and Tory's falling into the background, trying to hide from the past, throughout the second half of the season. You kind of feel that you got all the build-up, then horrible violence and no dramatic pay-off. It also means that the image of a man killing a woman and then walking away is distasteful and leaves a lingering bad taste after the finale. The Adama-Roslin finale has the opposite problem, feeling too long and self-indulgent, getting and repeating points so often that it grates by the time you're meant to feel emotion.
There's a lot of good stuff. Baltar finally comes together, shows some guts and loyalty, creating a truce by showing his madness and talking common sense. He faces his worst fear (basically its settling down with someone who knows him), the character arc really working, a more traditional ending likely seeing him dead. Lee also worked well, someone who saw the mess around himself and realised that everything had moved too fast, that everyone was damaged, out of control, to have realistic expectations (over-coming his main flaw in his own life). The Kara reveal was good, nicely unforced and mysterious, a figure disappearing, not really revealing much. Its nice not to be told too much.
The finale, the jump 150,000 years later worked okay but was a little forced. Am still not quite sure what to think of it but will probably blog on it again after a few days.
There were lost moments. There's one nasty moment that I feel went too far because it hadn't been built up enough and lacked proper dramatic resolution (Tyrol kills Tory for the murder of his wife while saving his son, a situation on which he was partially responsible for, as well as being very responsible for the mess they found themselves in the finale, which also destroys a fragile truce, causing more deaths). Now the act was shocking and nasty, powerful, and hopefully a longer released cut will fill in some blanks, but there's so little afterthought, so little balance that its resolved as the bitch is dead. As the situation was more complicated, you wanted more, especially as they had built up Tyrol's disenchantment with everyone and Tory's falling into the background, trying to hide from the past, throughout the second half of the season. You kind of feel that you got all the build-up, then horrible violence and no dramatic pay-off. It also means that the image of a man killing a woman and then walking away is distasteful and leaves a lingering bad taste after the finale. The Adama-Roslin finale has the opposite problem, feeling too long and self-indulgent, getting and repeating points so often that it grates by the time you're meant to feel emotion.
There's a lot of good stuff. Baltar finally comes together, shows some guts and loyalty, creating a truce by showing his madness and talking common sense. He faces his worst fear (basically its settling down with someone who knows him), the character arc really working, a more traditional ending likely seeing him dead. Lee also worked well, someone who saw the mess around himself and realised that everything had moved too fast, that everyone was damaged, out of control, to have realistic expectations (over-coming his main flaw in his own life). The Kara reveal was good, nicely unforced and mysterious, a figure disappearing, not really revealing much. Its nice not to be told too much.
The finale, the jump 150,000 years later worked okay but was a little forced. Am still not quite sure what to think of it but will probably blog on it again after a few days.
Saturday, 21 March 2009
Watchmen The Film: What A Horrible Mess
As a fan of Alan Moore's Watchmen, the real Watchmen, this Zack Snyder film is an obscenity. Gratuitous violence, an ending that both ignores the book and changes itself into something dumb and horrifically anti-climatic (the film ends with twenty minutes of, is that it? That's the stupid moment you've been building towards). The actors are at best miscast, at worst woeful (take a bow the guy playing Rorschach for all those horrific and misplaced line-readings). The camera moves all over the place but forgets to actually frame and cut to suggest subtext, nor to place actors in frame that gives the film drive and feeling. Action scenes extend themselves far longer that what Moore suggests, and are in love with blood. The music is just awful, plastered on every few minutes loudly, with no reason.
Above are the base problems with the film. For narrative problems we have simple bases not covered. The world is not set up coherently. If I hadn't read Watchmen I wouldn't have had a clue what was going on a lot of the time. The film spends a lot of time showing the characters in different time zones yet never establishes character nor emotional context. The point repeatedly made in the comic book is that these loony superheroes are at base an expression of various absurd forms of cultural immaturity made manifest in different time periods in American history, suggesting bizarre dreams of of an immature American culture that in the forties gave us noir, in the fifties the cold war, the sixties Vietnam, the seventies distaste and civil revolt, in the eighties all-powerful American expansion policies. Moore takes these feelings to the extreme by showing his characters, setting them up carefully in context, in carefully separated and chaptered segments of the story, have stories within stories (such as the Black Freighter) that introduces the fiction of this Watchmen world, which gives atmosphere, character and subtle plot details as well as to suggest how the fiction influences and creates absurdities in the minds of those reading it. Within the main narrative itself you have these stories flashing back and forward, always compact within themselves to suggest what the characters are feeling, with much clearer suggestion of the emotions in the fictional world of the characters and the real world we live in that has been given one last fantastical push by Moore into various myopic absurdity. (All the Watchmen characters are myopic, thus who watches the watchmen)
The film doesn't get that. The idea of stories within stories is dropped, the social ideas in the books are placed up and made to look stupid, not having the wonderful sense of humour and of the absurd that Moore gave them, where the joke is any type of self-appointed ambitious leader is a total nut in one way or another, now lets look at them. The Vietnam sections in the film are absurd, make you think what, while in the book its handled with a lot more humour, of immature wish fulfillment and brutality, not as a plot point. There are civil disputes in the seventies that are brutal yet suggestive of something worse, make narrative points while in the film are crude and have no punch, make you wonder is that it. There's no sense of humour to the right-wing fascism shown throughout in the story while its all over Moore's comic.
Another example of the lack of humour is the film tries to make a character called the Nite-Owl sexy and dangerous, this a character who intentionally always looked silly in the comic. They try to make his characters actions exciting where in the comic there is a wonderful grace to the moments where he flies his ship and does things because it looks goofy. That's one of the main points where the film kept losing me. The mocking tone on the world and what these characters think of themselves, as well as their subtle brutality, is not there, is instead replaced by scenes that go on forever and make a fan of the book bored. Watchmen is a pretty boring film based on something that is clear and self-contained.
I could go on about what the film gets wrong, such as a truly awful sex scene (worse than anything in Showgirls) replacing a wonderful moment in Moore's original, a dull prison scenes, the lack of stillness in the story (the comic had a wonderful sense of framing to suggest emotion amongst what should be pulp absurdity). But the film is just a mess. The only reason its not the worst Moore adaptation is because The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen exist. But the theatrical cut is a very weak, ignorant film in dire need of a good director and writer. It hasn't raised the level of the genre (and who cares about that, these movies are meant to be imaginative and a little pulpy). All its done is make the source look stupid. I think Alan Moore has had enough of that already. I just hope they leave the poor guy alone and stop adapting him.
Above are the base problems with the film. For narrative problems we have simple bases not covered. The world is not set up coherently. If I hadn't read Watchmen I wouldn't have had a clue what was going on a lot of the time. The film spends a lot of time showing the characters in different time zones yet never establishes character nor emotional context. The point repeatedly made in the comic book is that these loony superheroes are at base an expression of various absurd forms of cultural immaturity made manifest in different time periods in American history, suggesting bizarre dreams of of an immature American culture that in the forties gave us noir, in the fifties the cold war, the sixties Vietnam, the seventies distaste and civil revolt, in the eighties all-powerful American expansion policies. Moore takes these feelings to the extreme by showing his characters, setting them up carefully in context, in carefully separated and chaptered segments of the story, have stories within stories (such as the Black Freighter) that introduces the fiction of this Watchmen world, which gives atmosphere, character and subtle plot details as well as to suggest how the fiction influences and creates absurdities in the minds of those reading it. Within the main narrative itself you have these stories flashing back and forward, always compact within themselves to suggest what the characters are feeling, with much clearer suggestion of the emotions in the fictional world of the characters and the real world we live in that has been given one last fantastical push by Moore into various myopic absurdity. (All the Watchmen characters are myopic, thus who watches the watchmen)
The film doesn't get that. The idea of stories within stories is dropped, the social ideas in the books are placed up and made to look stupid, not having the wonderful sense of humour and of the absurd that Moore gave them, where the joke is any type of self-appointed ambitious leader is a total nut in one way or another, now lets look at them. The Vietnam sections in the film are absurd, make you think what, while in the book its handled with a lot more humour, of immature wish fulfillment and brutality, not as a plot point. There are civil disputes in the seventies that are brutal yet suggestive of something worse, make narrative points while in the film are crude and have no punch, make you wonder is that it. There's no sense of humour to the right-wing fascism shown throughout in the story while its all over Moore's comic.
Another example of the lack of humour is the film tries to make a character called the Nite-Owl sexy and dangerous, this a character who intentionally always looked silly in the comic. They try to make his characters actions exciting where in the comic there is a wonderful grace to the moments where he flies his ship and does things because it looks goofy. That's one of the main points where the film kept losing me. The mocking tone on the world and what these characters think of themselves, as well as their subtle brutality, is not there, is instead replaced by scenes that go on forever and make a fan of the book bored. Watchmen is a pretty boring film based on something that is clear and self-contained.
I could go on about what the film gets wrong, such as a truly awful sex scene (worse than anything in Showgirls) replacing a wonderful moment in Moore's original, a dull prison scenes, the lack of stillness in the story (the comic had a wonderful sense of framing to suggest emotion amongst what should be pulp absurdity). But the film is just a mess. The only reason its not the worst Moore adaptation is because The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen exist. But the theatrical cut is a very weak, ignorant film in dire need of a good director and writer. It hasn't raised the level of the genre (and who cares about that, these movies are meant to be imaginative and a little pulpy). All its done is make the source look stupid. I think Alan Moore has had enough of that already. I just hope they leave the poor guy alone and stop adapting him.
Saturday, 14 March 2009
A Nightmare And Other Horrors.
I have been watching the Nightmare On Elm Street films. So I'll give a brief look at them.
Essentially the best of the bunch are the Wes Craven films. A Nightmare On Elm Street is a taut little b-movie. While its no Halloween, it does have a load of energy, even after years of being ripped-off and sequelized. What's really good about it is that it takes its premise seriously. There's no jokes, people being brutally murdered, there always a proper atmosphere of unease through-out, which is something that's lacking in most horror films. The dream idea still feels pretty fresh when rewatching as its played honestly so you do follow the story and atmosphere. Plus they have a focus central protagonist that actually thinks her way through the situation, which really keeps you involved in the narrative. Also Freddy is a seriously under-played nutcase in this one. He's out to kill for his own reasons, is pissed off and revenge-driven. He's always in darkness, his tricks always having a nasty edge to them. That's very refreshing in a horror film.
Wes Craven's New Nightmare for me is the creepiest of the films. Its all about madness, the fear of someone thinking that they are slowly losing their mind, that they will hurt family members as they go crazy. Which is a very scary idea that the film keep jabbing at, getting terrific moments as a woman keeps thinking her child may become dangerous or mad, inherited from her. What's great about this is that the madness spreads and no-one is safe, no-one sure what to do or how to react to mental illness. Which is something that horror should do more often, tying up a metaphor from real life within a film narrative. There is also a good idea of how horror movies cage fears that flow below society within their movies, allowing people a way to escape from the fears darker than a horror movie can show.
Now to the rest. The other films are not at all serious nor are scary. But some are loads of fun. And other aren't. They lack the intent to tie the narrative to the characters, nor to have the pace be something that can be oppressive, that can add to the horror.
Number 2, Freddy's Revenge is the gay-subtext one. Unfortunately that's the only vaguely interesting thing about it. It takes the first film and ignores everything that works in it. This one goes for demonic possession rather than dreams so has a kid possessed by Freddy killing people (the most thorough of these seem to be naked men or good looking guys lying in their own beds, which is helping with the gay sub-text. The guy also runs way from kissing his own girlfriend to got watch a man sleeping). There's also a pool party where teens get killed, which is generic slasher movie territory. Its not bad really, scene to scene but there's nothing to really focus on (even the gay subtext gets boring). And its not in any way scary, the sense of mounting possession never truly worked out to induce fear as they simply go for kills and weird meandering scenes that annoy and make you lose interest. There's no big scary idea to get under your skin and the film continues to ignore momentum and build.
Number 3 and 4 are much better. These are the fun sequels. They aren't remotely scary but Freddy is an actual threat and you can follow the sequences coherently, even though they add up to absolutely nothing in narrative terms. And they have soon to be famous writers and actors slumming. Part 3 was written by Craven and Frank Darobant (from Shawshank Redemption) and takes the idea of people learning to fight Freddy in their dreams. The leading lady from the first film is back, and, as is the way of things, is written stupidly. In this film, all adults are stupid, the kids utterly moronic. Essentially, you're wanting Freddy to kill them all horribly. Which he does (he's reliable in that way). Patricia Arquette and Laurence Fishburne show up and its not their finest hours but they are professional. Craig Wasson from Body Double is in it and is horribly wet yet doesn't die. So all this talent and no real story. What is amazing by now is how they really struggle with story. I watched Dracula movies by Hammer a few months ago, and while they are not all great, they do make a good attempt at story. But these nightmare films stalled at number 2 in story and only got a good one at number 7. And these are the better of the eighties slasher films for story.
Number 4 is a Renny Harlin film and is probably the funnest of the non-Craven movies. It also has the least interest in story. The first third kills off everyone from the previous film (thus killing any story development possibilities). The next third kills off anyone remotely interesting. The final third has heroine versus Freddy. And that's it. Thankfully its all very energetic. Five minutes after the film you won't remember the plot but people are trapped on dreams in interesting ways and the film does have the sense of a director having a bit of fun. It was written by the guy who wrote LA Confidential. Never has a writer with respect has had a script that he should disown instantly as this. This has wall to wall bad writing. Now we should mention the director Renny Harlin, for this is his best film. While Harlin has made two other decent films (Cliffhanger and The Long Kiss Goodnight), one guilty pleasure (Driven, which is just awful yet somehow I can't help but love it in a way that I can't understand), a Die Hard sequel (worst Die Hard film, whose title is awful yet the best thing about it- Die Hard 2: Die Harder, what he hell does that mean?) And then there's the dreck. Of those I have seen there's Cutthroat Island (an abomination) Deep Blue Sea (mutant sharks no less) and Exorcist: The Beginning (where do I start. Agreeing to remake a good unreleased film with a terrible, unwatchable, dire, insulting, hacky etc etc... film). This man also made Ford Fairlane (with Andrew Dice Clay), a horror movie called The Covenant (which has disappeared from existence) and a Christan Slater/Val Kilmer direct to DVD serial killer hunter movie whose title I can't recall. If you want a definition of what not to do with your career, Renny's your man. It's kind of a miracle that this one worked, when on average he has managed to make a fool out of himself consistently. But if you're making A Nightmare On Elm Street 4, its not a good sign for your taste.
The series really went to hell when Renny Harlin left. Number 5, directed by Stephen Hopkins (who's had a mixed career, some duds but did make the delightfully pulpy Predator 2 and the first season of 24). This one has a script that's woeful, that over-explains everything. Hopkins does a pretty good job of it mostly (there's a few music video inspired moments of what the fuck that someone should have said, please don't) but the film doesn't work at all, is incoherent in the extreme. Yet it does have some nice bits.
Unfortunately its the first one where Freddy is in no way threatening. Robert Englund had been keeping this series going a long time by keeping Freddy somehow a threat despite some inane one-liners and images, still making Freddy work despite some watering down. he has really kept it afloat but here he had no support, was now simply a jokey monster. Its now you can sense the boredom creeping in.
Now we have the nadir. Number 6, Freddy's Dead. This one is unwatchable. Its hard to tell what's worse, the writing or directing. (Both were done by New Line executives. It's a case of hire professionals please). The plot lurches forward without anything interesting happening, story lines started, thrown away without coherence, back-story explained without any interest. Its so dull that whenever anything happens, you're trying to think of a reason to care, with every fight played for laughs. This is the Robocop 3 of the series, a film so bad you can't quite believe it. Freddy is lit brightly the entire time so has no chance of being scary. Englund looks bored through-out, has nothing to work with. Yaphet Kotto is in it, and must have really needed the money. He's professional but must have known what a dog it is. Luckily he moved on to Homicide after this. And the series moved onto New Nightmare, a sudden return to form.
Finally we have Freddy V Jason. Its not very good, isn't scary, is stupid, has idiot characters. But it is fun and energetic. Its the kind of film that's hard to say anything about as it does what you would suggest, nothing more.
So there we go. the Nightmrae series before the inevitable awful remake.
Essentially the best of the bunch are the Wes Craven films. A Nightmare On Elm Street is a taut little b-movie. While its no Halloween, it does have a load of energy, even after years of being ripped-off and sequelized. What's really good about it is that it takes its premise seriously. There's no jokes, people being brutally murdered, there always a proper atmosphere of unease through-out, which is something that's lacking in most horror films. The dream idea still feels pretty fresh when rewatching as its played honestly so you do follow the story and atmosphere. Plus they have a focus central protagonist that actually thinks her way through the situation, which really keeps you involved in the narrative. Also Freddy is a seriously under-played nutcase in this one. He's out to kill for his own reasons, is pissed off and revenge-driven. He's always in darkness, his tricks always having a nasty edge to them. That's very refreshing in a horror film.
Wes Craven's New Nightmare for me is the creepiest of the films. Its all about madness, the fear of someone thinking that they are slowly losing their mind, that they will hurt family members as they go crazy. Which is a very scary idea that the film keep jabbing at, getting terrific moments as a woman keeps thinking her child may become dangerous or mad, inherited from her. What's great about this is that the madness spreads and no-one is safe, no-one sure what to do or how to react to mental illness. Which is something that horror should do more often, tying up a metaphor from real life within a film narrative. There is also a good idea of how horror movies cage fears that flow below society within their movies, allowing people a way to escape from the fears darker than a horror movie can show.
Now to the rest. The other films are not at all serious nor are scary. But some are loads of fun. And other aren't. They lack the intent to tie the narrative to the characters, nor to have the pace be something that can be oppressive, that can add to the horror.
Number 2, Freddy's Revenge is the gay-subtext one. Unfortunately that's the only vaguely interesting thing about it. It takes the first film and ignores everything that works in it. This one goes for demonic possession rather than dreams so has a kid possessed by Freddy killing people (the most thorough of these seem to be naked men or good looking guys lying in their own beds, which is helping with the gay sub-text. The guy also runs way from kissing his own girlfriend to got watch a man sleeping). There's also a pool party where teens get killed, which is generic slasher movie territory. Its not bad really, scene to scene but there's nothing to really focus on (even the gay subtext gets boring). And its not in any way scary, the sense of mounting possession never truly worked out to induce fear as they simply go for kills and weird meandering scenes that annoy and make you lose interest. There's no big scary idea to get under your skin and the film continues to ignore momentum and build.
Number 3 and 4 are much better. These are the fun sequels. They aren't remotely scary but Freddy is an actual threat and you can follow the sequences coherently, even though they add up to absolutely nothing in narrative terms. And they have soon to be famous writers and actors slumming. Part 3 was written by Craven and Frank Darobant (from Shawshank Redemption) and takes the idea of people learning to fight Freddy in their dreams. The leading lady from the first film is back, and, as is the way of things, is written stupidly. In this film, all adults are stupid, the kids utterly moronic. Essentially, you're wanting Freddy to kill them all horribly. Which he does (he's reliable in that way). Patricia Arquette and Laurence Fishburne show up and its not their finest hours but they are professional. Craig Wasson from Body Double is in it and is horribly wet yet doesn't die. So all this talent and no real story. What is amazing by now is how they really struggle with story. I watched Dracula movies by Hammer a few months ago, and while they are not all great, they do make a good attempt at story. But these nightmare films stalled at number 2 in story and only got a good one at number 7. And these are the better of the eighties slasher films for story.
Number 4 is a Renny Harlin film and is probably the funnest of the non-Craven movies. It also has the least interest in story. The first third kills off everyone from the previous film (thus killing any story development possibilities). The next third kills off anyone remotely interesting. The final third has heroine versus Freddy. And that's it. Thankfully its all very energetic. Five minutes after the film you won't remember the plot but people are trapped on dreams in interesting ways and the film does have the sense of a director having a bit of fun. It was written by the guy who wrote LA Confidential. Never has a writer with respect has had a script that he should disown instantly as this. This has wall to wall bad writing. Now we should mention the director Renny Harlin, for this is his best film. While Harlin has made two other decent films (Cliffhanger and The Long Kiss Goodnight), one guilty pleasure (Driven, which is just awful yet somehow I can't help but love it in a way that I can't understand), a Die Hard sequel (worst Die Hard film, whose title is awful yet the best thing about it- Die Hard 2: Die Harder, what he hell does that mean?) And then there's the dreck. Of those I have seen there's Cutthroat Island (an abomination) Deep Blue Sea (mutant sharks no less) and Exorcist: The Beginning (where do I start. Agreeing to remake a good unreleased film with a terrible, unwatchable, dire, insulting, hacky etc etc... film). This man also made Ford Fairlane (with Andrew Dice Clay), a horror movie called The Covenant (which has disappeared from existence) and a Christan Slater/Val Kilmer direct to DVD serial killer hunter movie whose title I can't recall. If you want a definition of what not to do with your career, Renny's your man. It's kind of a miracle that this one worked, when on average he has managed to make a fool out of himself consistently. But if you're making A Nightmare On Elm Street 4, its not a good sign for your taste.
The series really went to hell when Renny Harlin left. Number 5, directed by Stephen Hopkins (who's had a mixed career, some duds but did make the delightfully pulpy Predator 2 and the first season of 24). This one has a script that's woeful, that over-explains everything. Hopkins does a pretty good job of it mostly (there's a few music video inspired moments of what the fuck that someone should have said, please don't) but the film doesn't work at all, is incoherent in the extreme. Yet it does have some nice bits.
Unfortunately its the first one where Freddy is in no way threatening. Robert Englund had been keeping this series going a long time by keeping Freddy somehow a threat despite some inane one-liners and images, still making Freddy work despite some watering down. he has really kept it afloat but here he had no support, was now simply a jokey monster. Its now you can sense the boredom creeping in.
Now we have the nadir. Number 6, Freddy's Dead. This one is unwatchable. Its hard to tell what's worse, the writing or directing. (Both were done by New Line executives. It's a case of hire professionals please). The plot lurches forward without anything interesting happening, story lines started, thrown away without coherence, back-story explained without any interest. Its so dull that whenever anything happens, you're trying to think of a reason to care, with every fight played for laughs. This is the Robocop 3 of the series, a film so bad you can't quite believe it. Freddy is lit brightly the entire time so has no chance of being scary. Englund looks bored through-out, has nothing to work with. Yaphet Kotto is in it, and must have really needed the money. He's professional but must have known what a dog it is. Luckily he moved on to Homicide after this. And the series moved onto New Nightmare, a sudden return to form.
Finally we have Freddy V Jason. Its not very good, isn't scary, is stupid, has idiot characters. But it is fun and energetic. Its the kind of film that's hard to say anything about as it does what you would suggest, nothing more.
So there we go. the Nightmrae series before the inevitable awful remake.
Monday, 2 March 2009
What If Horror Remakes Showed Imagination?
I think we've all seen the posters and trailers for the glut of recent horror movies. As someone who likes a good horror film I'm kinda appalled. 1960's & 70's horrors were cheap, nasty, full of ideas.
Now while the producers might want to keep the base focus of the story they were buying, changing up lots of background details can keep the story as original as it can be. Maybe expand the story in odd directions that could be useful in creating interest.
So here's a few suggestions how a few horror franchises could have proceeded if done at a certain time in history.
Friday The 13th- Let's says you change the setting of the murders to Nazi Germany. Jason is the "mentally challenged" son of a woman who was enjoying herself a little too much during the 1920's party era, who's baby-sitters, young accountants by day, were too busy cross-dressing and shooting heroin to pay attention, so he falls out of a window into a local river, apparently drowns. Jason's mother goes mad, becomes a cross-dressing razor slasher during the rise of the Nazi's, gets caught and killed by her own upper middle class peers, who are all heading towards the power, which is Nazi-ism. During the Nazi regime, while Poland is being invaded, Jason comes back from the grave, starts taking out those who killed him and his mother in brutal ways, as well as their families, these middle class people now rich, apparently isolated, snobbish, not wanting to hear of their youthful failings. Some of the youth are becoming soldiers for the cause but won't make it to the front line, are brutally murdered by a machete-wielding, brain-dead zombie Jason, who after massacring many a Nazi and more importantly, those who fund the invasions, heads towards Poland. The sequels will just write themselves.
A Nightmare On Elm Street - Little Freddy Krueger gets systematically sexually abused as a young soldier in world war 1 bunker. Even by Hitler. Was an idealistic young man who joined under-age and got horror upon horror thrown at him. Leaves the army after the war, tries to become an artist, gets burnt alive by a jealous Hitler, who can't sell one painting. As the expressionistic film stylisation finds its feet Freddy infects the dreams of the youth, as they watch the films, he tries to interest them into sex then murder at the moment that people are not expecting it. As a series of sex crimes infects down-town Berlin, no-one is sure where to turn. Through dreams, Freddy lures innocent young virgins of both sexes into opium dens and decadent night clubs, into nightmare situations, then even inspires more murder of leaves them to their consciences. Freddy is defeated by the rise of Nazi-ism, that abhors this decadence. Thus many of the places are closed and Freddy is left with only a few slash murders a week. Defeated once more by Hitler.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre- The US based franchise stays at home. At the rise of the depression, a mom and pop operation starts to expands, by cheerfully killing the poor that wander through in a desperate search for jobs, eating them yet also passing free human meat onto other poor and needy in the neighbourhoods. It's broken down as such. Local people are safe, their kids can play in the street without worry. Outsiders are meat. Eventually the kids in the neighbourhood get the idea and start killing entire travelling families to suck up to mom and pop. Mom and pop are happy with that arrangement. They like the power but stay modest. The kids grow up to be preppy, patriotic, interested in oil and god. That is the early story. In World War 2, many a young idealistic young man is asked to sign up and the preppies have made a pledge to go fight in Europe. Mom and pop disagree. Not their fight. Even though the depression is over times are tough so the preppies set up an elaborate series of games, trapping happy families travelling through area, putting them through a series of sick, torturous tests, many family members not surviving and becoming the meat, simply to distract Mom and Pop. As the games go on, the preppies disappear one by one, until none are left, all having gone to sign up for war, to be heroes. All their children gone, mom and pop are angry, brutally murder the survivors, are left to wait for the survivors of the war, their town empty.
So these are three simple ideas anyway, how you could simply change the settings, keep the bases of each story but have a new feel. Of course, would never happen in imagination impaired Hollywood.
Now while the producers might want to keep the base focus of the story they were buying, changing up lots of background details can keep the story as original as it can be. Maybe expand the story in odd directions that could be useful in creating interest.
So here's a few suggestions how a few horror franchises could have proceeded if done at a certain time in history.
Friday The 13th- Let's says you change the setting of the murders to Nazi Germany. Jason is the "mentally challenged" son of a woman who was enjoying herself a little too much during the 1920's party era, who's baby-sitters, young accountants by day, were too busy cross-dressing and shooting heroin to pay attention, so he falls out of a window into a local river, apparently drowns. Jason's mother goes mad, becomes a cross-dressing razor slasher during the rise of the Nazi's, gets caught and killed by her own upper middle class peers, who are all heading towards the power, which is Nazi-ism. During the Nazi regime, while Poland is being invaded, Jason comes back from the grave, starts taking out those who killed him and his mother in brutal ways, as well as their families, these middle class people now rich, apparently isolated, snobbish, not wanting to hear of their youthful failings. Some of the youth are becoming soldiers for the cause but won't make it to the front line, are brutally murdered by a machete-wielding, brain-dead zombie Jason, who after massacring many a Nazi and more importantly, those who fund the invasions, heads towards Poland. The sequels will just write themselves.
A Nightmare On Elm Street - Little Freddy Krueger gets systematically sexually abused as a young soldier in world war 1 bunker. Even by Hitler. Was an idealistic young man who joined under-age and got horror upon horror thrown at him. Leaves the army after the war, tries to become an artist, gets burnt alive by a jealous Hitler, who can't sell one painting. As the expressionistic film stylisation finds its feet Freddy infects the dreams of the youth, as they watch the films, he tries to interest them into sex then murder at the moment that people are not expecting it. As a series of sex crimes infects down-town Berlin, no-one is sure where to turn. Through dreams, Freddy lures innocent young virgins of both sexes into opium dens and decadent night clubs, into nightmare situations, then even inspires more murder of leaves them to their consciences. Freddy is defeated by the rise of Nazi-ism, that abhors this decadence. Thus many of the places are closed and Freddy is left with only a few slash murders a week. Defeated once more by Hitler.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre- The US based franchise stays at home. At the rise of the depression, a mom and pop operation starts to expands, by cheerfully killing the poor that wander through in a desperate search for jobs, eating them yet also passing free human meat onto other poor and needy in the neighbourhoods. It's broken down as such. Local people are safe, their kids can play in the street without worry. Outsiders are meat. Eventually the kids in the neighbourhood get the idea and start killing entire travelling families to suck up to mom and pop. Mom and pop are happy with that arrangement. They like the power but stay modest. The kids grow up to be preppy, patriotic, interested in oil and god. That is the early story. In World War 2, many a young idealistic young man is asked to sign up and the preppies have made a pledge to go fight in Europe. Mom and pop disagree. Not their fight. Even though the depression is over times are tough so the preppies set up an elaborate series of games, trapping happy families travelling through area, putting them through a series of sick, torturous tests, many family members not surviving and becoming the meat, simply to distract Mom and Pop. As the games go on, the preppies disappear one by one, until none are left, all having gone to sign up for war, to be heroes. All their children gone, mom and pop are angry, brutally murder the survivors, are left to wait for the survivors of the war, their town empty.
So these are three simple ideas anyway, how you could simply change the settings, keep the bases of each story but have a new feel. Of course, would never happen in imagination impaired Hollywood.
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Battlestar Galactica Season 4.5 - It's almost over.
This is a brief posting as the season is only halfway through and I'm waiting for the end to write anything on the show but this show is really storming towards its finale. Save one minor episode (A Disquiet That Follows The Soul) which was more quiet than bad (but could have lost a few minutes and had a bit more focus from the mid-point onwards to be honest), this show is storming towards its finale, with great atmosphere and both human and story moments (best human moment, Starbuck finding her own dead body, best story moment, Zarek massacring the entire civilian government, as one review said, someone show this to Obama). You also do get a sense of it going somewhere specific at great urgency, that no-one is safe and anything can happen, as people are getting knocked off every week, especially the characters who would normally be safe on any normal show. So many shows hove slowly collapsed towards a conclusion (I never made it to the end of The Soprano's and The Wire final season had an epilogue feel) so its good to see a show with five or six episodes left still feeling vital.
In just over a month it'll be all over. Which is horrible news, even though I want to see how it all ends.
In just over a month it'll be all over. Which is horrible news, even though I want to see how it all ends.
Sublime to Ridiculous - Homicide Season 6 and V: The Series
During this credit crunch, where some of us lack jobs, you can use the free time to, if you're like me, try and write a novel, make an obscure film, and watch entire seasons of TV shows.
Let's start with the near great. Homicide Season 6 is the last great Season of Homicide. It was followed by an enjoyable yet patchy season 7, which I'll write about at another time. This was the drug war season, an escalating tale of revenge getting out of control following the questionable shooting of drug kingpin Luther Mahoney. Its about people compromising themselves to survive, the theme seeming to be about how people survive in hell.
In this season there were three new characters. Every year Homicide gains and loses characters. In the later years there was a large turn-around, not always for the best, as the characters became more like traditional TV characters and less like the confused strange types of the early seasons. This season was the transitional on that. What's angering in the progressive weakness of these changes is that is that the characters on Homicide were always the best part, more intriguing than plots. The Wire may be many great things but it's nowhere as complicated in character as Homicide at its best yet this is the season where Homicide started to lose its way. Three new characters were introduced, none of them quite working out, all looking a tad white-washed compared to the more established types. It was a writing problem mostly, writing becoming more broad-stroke and less specific to character failings and moments of honesty, arguments starting to state judgements and not as part of a character neuroses. The best new character was Ballard, a female cop from Seattle who was interestingly off but was never really developed beyond that slight oddness. That was frustrating as the character seemed to be very fresh at the start of the run. Gheraty was a older cop seen to be a coward and was stuck to type. He was enjoyable but not really necessary (unlike the Polito or Beatty characters from earlier seasons). Falsone was the most troubling character. He wasn't as annoying as some writers suggested at the time of airing but was meant to be the voice of justice, someone who knows that something is wrong within the unit, which doesn't work as the character is very unsubtle and never seems to grasp what is going on beyond the basics. Which might be the idea but its done gratingly and without an interesting tie to the main drama.
Luckily the wide canvass has enough passion to make up for this and has enough old-school characters to make up for the flaws. The situation set-up, of the drug war, created partially by actions by Detectives Kellerman and Lewis, is of a sin that destroys all around it, is powerful and is left to linger for an entire season before it explodes, in a police office shooting and all-out drug war that sees many police dead and careers ruined. It is wonderful. It allows you to see characters in detail, under pressure, sometimes not seemingly reacting but giving subtle indications of doubt, guilt, yearning for some kind of redemption or release. But they never get it. Kellerman is paranoid and cynical, tragically forced to be the opposite of what he once was a a man, almost begging to be caught out of his sin due to guilt which he can't acknowledge save cynicism that would have appalled his earlier self (whistling happy birthday to a corpse is the best one, in an episode where every Kellerman line is misanthropic genius). His actions indirectly lead to the shoot-out, as do Lewis', who uses police information, while on suspension, to spark a drug war. Kellerman is forced to resign, Lewis allowed to stay, even though Lewis' crimes following the original shooting, are actually far more extreme and troubling. Lewis' avoidance of responsibility and distance from his actions becomes one of the more haunting aspects of the story.
The other cops caught up in this mess is Pembleton, once the great, all-knowing judgemental super-cop who is slowly developing unwanted emotions on his cases, who is forced, in one of the show's all-time great scenes, to ruin Kellerman and get the confession, then watch the confession be covered up, have Lewis get away with all he's done, ruining Pembleton's faith in his job. What's terrific about this character arc is that Pembleton's pride is ruinous and unrealistic, is what destroys him, yet has noble aspects. Also oddly noble is the decision to hide the crime, the questionable shooting of a psychopathic drug dealer and killer in a truly messy set-up, as its a mess where nothing can be gained from more trauma's revealed. Revealing the crime would be destructive to the city and thus is necessary. It's a fascinating problem. During the final moments in this season, you find yourself on both Pembleton's and Kellerman's side. Its a tragic ruination of two complicated men.
The show never got better than this. They were other good episodes (such as Kellerman PI, which shows Kellerman out of the police, surviving) that were wonderful but the momentum was lost after this season. Essentially the firebrand characters were gone, leaving the calmer types, like Bayliss and Lewis, who came alive against the extreme characters like Pembleton and Kellerman (characters who could start a problem in an empty room). There was a lack of propulsion afterwards that no plot could really fill. The show never really had the spark to cause unwarranted trouble after this, which was the unpredictable life of the show. It was a show about the irrational under the supposedly rational investigations.
Now to the silly. V: The Series. Oh what a guilty pleasure. So many stupid plot actions (catching a killer by fingerprints when they are actually lizards in human masks and body coverings, Lizard brother of dead character recognised while human masked and then told you look like your brother, I wish I were making this up), insane alien rituals, an ability to kill off or write out any character played by someone with talent while keeping the uninteresting around. This is a show that writes out Michael Ironside, who keeps the first half of the season afloat, and keeps around Marc Singer (a man of a thousand strange moves during action scenes). This is a show that can be campier than Adam West's Batman when dealing with the psycho aliens, who wear human disguises even in private yet the entire world knows they are lizards. Everything they do with the aliens kill off any possible threat, as aliens are always easily defeated, are moronic at best. This is a show that changes what it is every two weeks, have people written in and out with bewildering speed, a show that has the crazy clone episode (a signifier of doom for any show) early in its first and only season. Yes, it's kind of depressing in how bad a lot of it is, especially as the mini-series aimed so high, yet is a lot of stupid, stupid fun. And the dialogue, oh the dialogue. I can't remember any of it but its all bad. Yes I watched all of them. (Link to Homicide is that Homicide fell only slightly, this is how bad it could have been)
So there we go. I am planning to write more another Homicide season, as well as The Wire. have promised that before but will try and actually do it this time.
Let's start with the near great. Homicide Season 6 is the last great Season of Homicide. It was followed by an enjoyable yet patchy season 7, which I'll write about at another time. This was the drug war season, an escalating tale of revenge getting out of control following the questionable shooting of drug kingpin Luther Mahoney. Its about people compromising themselves to survive, the theme seeming to be about how people survive in hell.
In this season there were three new characters. Every year Homicide gains and loses characters. In the later years there was a large turn-around, not always for the best, as the characters became more like traditional TV characters and less like the confused strange types of the early seasons. This season was the transitional on that. What's angering in the progressive weakness of these changes is that is that the characters on Homicide were always the best part, more intriguing than plots. The Wire may be many great things but it's nowhere as complicated in character as Homicide at its best yet this is the season where Homicide started to lose its way. Three new characters were introduced, none of them quite working out, all looking a tad white-washed compared to the more established types. It was a writing problem mostly, writing becoming more broad-stroke and less specific to character failings and moments of honesty, arguments starting to state judgements and not as part of a character neuroses. The best new character was Ballard, a female cop from Seattle who was interestingly off but was never really developed beyond that slight oddness. That was frustrating as the character seemed to be very fresh at the start of the run. Gheraty was a older cop seen to be a coward and was stuck to type. He was enjoyable but not really necessary (unlike the Polito or Beatty characters from earlier seasons). Falsone was the most troubling character. He wasn't as annoying as some writers suggested at the time of airing but was meant to be the voice of justice, someone who knows that something is wrong within the unit, which doesn't work as the character is very unsubtle and never seems to grasp what is going on beyond the basics. Which might be the idea but its done gratingly and without an interesting tie to the main drama.
Luckily the wide canvass has enough passion to make up for this and has enough old-school characters to make up for the flaws. The situation set-up, of the drug war, created partially by actions by Detectives Kellerman and Lewis, is of a sin that destroys all around it, is powerful and is left to linger for an entire season before it explodes, in a police office shooting and all-out drug war that sees many police dead and careers ruined. It is wonderful. It allows you to see characters in detail, under pressure, sometimes not seemingly reacting but giving subtle indications of doubt, guilt, yearning for some kind of redemption or release. But they never get it. Kellerman is paranoid and cynical, tragically forced to be the opposite of what he once was a a man, almost begging to be caught out of his sin due to guilt which he can't acknowledge save cynicism that would have appalled his earlier self (whistling happy birthday to a corpse is the best one, in an episode where every Kellerman line is misanthropic genius). His actions indirectly lead to the shoot-out, as do Lewis', who uses police information, while on suspension, to spark a drug war. Kellerman is forced to resign, Lewis allowed to stay, even though Lewis' crimes following the original shooting, are actually far more extreme and troubling. Lewis' avoidance of responsibility and distance from his actions becomes one of the more haunting aspects of the story.
The other cops caught up in this mess is Pembleton, once the great, all-knowing judgemental super-cop who is slowly developing unwanted emotions on his cases, who is forced, in one of the show's all-time great scenes, to ruin Kellerman and get the confession, then watch the confession be covered up, have Lewis get away with all he's done, ruining Pembleton's faith in his job. What's terrific about this character arc is that Pembleton's pride is ruinous and unrealistic, is what destroys him, yet has noble aspects. Also oddly noble is the decision to hide the crime, the questionable shooting of a psychopathic drug dealer and killer in a truly messy set-up, as its a mess where nothing can be gained from more trauma's revealed. Revealing the crime would be destructive to the city and thus is necessary. It's a fascinating problem. During the final moments in this season, you find yourself on both Pembleton's and Kellerman's side. Its a tragic ruination of two complicated men.
The show never got better than this. They were other good episodes (such as Kellerman PI, which shows Kellerman out of the police, surviving) that were wonderful but the momentum was lost after this season. Essentially the firebrand characters were gone, leaving the calmer types, like Bayliss and Lewis, who came alive against the extreme characters like Pembleton and Kellerman (characters who could start a problem in an empty room). There was a lack of propulsion afterwards that no plot could really fill. The show never really had the spark to cause unwarranted trouble after this, which was the unpredictable life of the show. It was a show about the irrational under the supposedly rational investigations.
Now to the silly. V: The Series. Oh what a guilty pleasure. So many stupid plot actions (catching a killer by fingerprints when they are actually lizards in human masks and body coverings, Lizard brother of dead character recognised while human masked and then told you look like your brother, I wish I were making this up), insane alien rituals, an ability to kill off or write out any character played by someone with talent while keeping the uninteresting around. This is a show that writes out Michael Ironside, who keeps the first half of the season afloat, and keeps around Marc Singer (a man of a thousand strange moves during action scenes). This is a show that can be campier than Adam West's Batman when dealing with the psycho aliens, who wear human disguises even in private yet the entire world knows they are lizards. Everything they do with the aliens kill off any possible threat, as aliens are always easily defeated, are moronic at best. This is a show that changes what it is every two weeks, have people written in and out with bewildering speed, a show that has the crazy clone episode (a signifier of doom for any show) early in its first and only season. Yes, it's kind of depressing in how bad a lot of it is, especially as the mini-series aimed so high, yet is a lot of stupid, stupid fun. And the dialogue, oh the dialogue. I can't remember any of it but its all bad. Yes I watched all of them. (Link to Homicide is that Homicide fell only slightly, this is how bad it could have been)
So there we go. I am planning to write more another Homicide season, as well as The Wire. have promised that before but will try and actually do it this time.
Monday, 9 February 2009
Hammer Horrors
I've been buying up some Hammer Films recently, in a Dracula set and the Ultimate Hammer box set (yet doesn't have Vampire Circus. Shameful.) I have my eye on another box set by the way, then I should have most of the films that I want.
So below is a brief run-down of the films seen, informing if they are worth a watch. Not all are.
Blood From The Mummies Tomb - A stunner of its type. A Hammer & Mummy movie must means something good on the prowl and this delivers. The plot is odd but the script by Chris Wicking is loads of fun. It concerns re-incarnation, a man sacrificing his own daughter to an ancient evil and objects that come alive to kill. That may make it sound bad but its the way its done that really works. It has a great villain spouting lines such as "The meek shan't inherit the earth, they wouldn't know what to do with it." The director of this film died during the making of it. Its a cynical, nasty movie.
Demons Of The Mind - Its a late-era film that has more than a hint of incest. Another script by Chris Wicking, this time taking on the idea of family madness, inherited misogyny in people and culture, the rich preying on the poor, as well as the evolution of treating mental illness. Its also has some great murder scenes in a rose garden. It's one terrific film that sneaked by hammer as they didn't pay attention that more or less attacks most of the conventions of their other films.
The Devil Rides Out - Early era Hammer, based on a Dennis Wheatley novel. An under-seen top-level entry by Terrence Fisher, which has Christopher Lee as the good guy and has some creepy astral projection sequences (I know how that sounds but its done very well). Its one of those films where the plots not very good but the atmosphere is so terrific that you don't care.
Horror Of Dracula - I wrote about this on best of year. In short, its amazing, has stunning colour schemes, suggested sexuality and pacing, as well as a great final chase. One of the great screen Dracula's.
Dracula Prince Of Darkness - Needs no introduction- Best Dracula movie in lots of ways. Dracula is brought to life due to the blood of a traveller and preys on his friends and family, stalking them even to a church. Is cut to the bone in narrative, has amazing anamorphic atmosphere, and just keeps going a fairy story gone wrong fashion.
Dracula Has Risen From The Grave - Another film I wrote about before about on best list. This is slower than earlier films and does mark the point where the Dracula films went from being great to interesting but has some terrific moments and well worth a viewing, even though there are slow spots.
Taste The Blood Of Dracula - The best of the later sequels, although the end is rubbish. Dracula is reborn due to the actions of three bored, rich hypocrites, Dracula stalking them through their children. Its a full-on attack on Victorian repression and mores, and has sympathetic victims to make the suspense horror work.
Scars Of Dracula - In lots of ways its kinda stupid but I like this one, mainly for the production design, which has many blood reds and light blues. Its got great atmosphere and many nice moments, that makes up for the fact that its not really any good at a story level, or that the leading men are woeful.
Dracula AD 1972 - The worst of the bunch. Just dull, awful film with black masses yet no pace. A film about youth made by people in their fifties, its a film with no atmosphere or tension, and has the dullest deaths you could ever find in a vampire film.
The Satanic Rites Of Dracula - The final Dracula film is a surprising return to form. Its not a great film but is a solid b-movie with some nasty moments with Dracula preying on the weak and stupid, as well as his apocalyptic designs for humanity. Has a great final section and a wonderful final death scene for Lee's Dracula.
Frankenstein Created Woman - Peter Cushing as Frankenstein experimenting on women. Where do I start watching? Its actually fun but start and stops in pace and interest throughout. I don't have much to say on this as it a b-movie Frankenstein film. There isn't enough atmosphere nor incident to really get it going but it is enjoyable.
The Horror of Frankenstein - A rare non-Peter Cushing Frankenstein. Ralph Bates takes over. Its really bloody, funny and vicious. I love it. Its got a bad rep but is in need of re-evaluation.
The Plague Of The Zombies - Top-notch zombie flick which has a great reputation. Its one of those films that any zombie fan will love and a film fan should find a lot through its atmosphere and subtle build-up. Anyone who doesn't like this film ought to be shot. Its a simple statement, isn't it.
The Reptile - From the same team from Plague Of The Zombies, another great film. Same rule as above applies. Its a must see and saying what its about would only put you off.
One Million Years B.C. - This one is really stupid. Not exactly a surprise from the title but it has Raquel Welch as a prehistoric bimbo, getting pawed at by ugly brutes. This film has dinosaurs (a combination of Ray Harryhausen monsters at best and animals blown up to look huge at worst), cavemen and essentially 2001-like apes all in same time period. The film is awfully slow to get going, only really works during the action but does have some great photography, shot on Spanish deserts, which frankly belongs in a proper film, not this one. Best bit is cavemen verses a giant turtle, who eventually goes for a swim (might have just been going for a walk and wondering why these scruffs are attacking him.)
Prehistoric Women - It's about a tribe of beautiful blonde women enslaved by their brunette queen in a hidden paradise. Ah, the delights of prehistoric women. Man goes into jungle, man trapped by many black men, man transported into a world dominated by women in lioncloth due to the magic of the white rhino. Man is fought over by many a slut. White women scared of masked black man. White women chain their own men into manual labour and no sex. Women dominated by a crazy bitch. The entire film is a checklist of stupid ideas, basic racism (the big scare, white women approach by masked black men). Its both deeply awful and truly wonderful. The first ten minutes are stunningly awful, then the women show up and you don't care. You're trapped by the madness of this thing, by the inescapable fact that the leading man is stupefyingly awful in ways not usually seen even in Western cinema but that's not where your attention is. It's with the women. Even Steven Berkoff shows up at the end. You must see this film. Its a catalogue of the bad and wayward. In the world of Obama as president this film cries out for a remake.
Quatermass And The Pit - Great version of an even better 3 hour TV show. Loads of fun, even the now bad effects. Can't say anything beyond its a must-see film.
Rasputin The Mad Monk -Christopher Lee is Rasputin, a drinking, whoring man of god, who can bend all to his will, even the Russian royalty (you know, before that embarrassing revolution). Its great, especially when they keep trying to kill Lee and he won't stay dead. Lee is great, being the dangerous life of the party rather than a shadow figure.
Now we are on to the weak films.
She & Vengeance Of She - Pretty dull, unintentionally hilarious films. The first one has a budget, the second has not. Both are watchable but most notable moment is in the first film, where Peter Cushing and Bernard Cribbins dance with belly dancers in post-World War 1 Palestine.
To The Devil A Daughter - A weak but odd late hammer film. Its not as bad as reputation suggests but is a guilty pleasure due to a story that can't be saved by any stylisation or script (which are actually competent), an ending that doesn't make much sense, and in Richard Widmark, a terrible, terrible leading man. Christopher Lee shows up and lends it a bit of class.
The Witches - Joan Fontaine as a woman going mad in an English village. Now this should work. It has a decent cast, a solid script by Nigel Kneale but truly terrible, dull direction that never suggests any terror until late in the day. Hammer made great b-movies with dodgy plots such as Blood From The Mummies Tomb (where, let's remember, the director actually died) but this one gets killed by the direction when it should have been one of their best. There's a middle-aged lesbian subtext between Fontaine and the villainess which really helps keep the film going at times.
The Viking Queen - Worst film I have ever seen. Worse even than an Ed Wood film. Ancient Britain's versus Romans, Romans led by an American. Terrible, terrible script, tedious direction and acting that's beyond atrocious and enters a new realm in itself. Its one of those films that are difficult to properly describe in their awfulness. Not even Uwe Boll bad covers it. Best worst line of dialogue "I understand your problems, Nigel."
Fear Of The Night - Kind of a weak film. Not offensive but not really very good. The first half is best, as there is a build-up of unease that could go into the territory of is she mad or not but once the plot kicks in (a rip-off of Les Diabolique) it gets a bit dull with fun asides. This is the kind of film where the duff elements run the good stuff for you. Yet the film is a good candidate for a remake as there are elements and settings that could be made unique, if explanations are made to be less obvious.
Straight On Til Morning & The Nanny I haven't watched and may be some time to get to them as they are lesser hammer. But I'll see them eventually.
That's about it. The Hammer films I'm still dying to see/own are Curse Of The Werewolf with Ollie Reed (as the werewolf), Brides Of Dracula (apparently an amazing film, rarely shown, Peter Cushing hunting down female vampires, what can I say), Vampire Circus (title says it all, except its terrific fun, way better than it should be) and of course Legends Of The Seven Golden Vampires (vampires and 70's kung fu. Okay I can't defend that one)
So below is a brief run-down of the films seen, informing if they are worth a watch. Not all are.
Blood From The Mummies Tomb - A stunner of its type. A Hammer & Mummy movie must means something good on the prowl and this delivers. The plot is odd but the script by Chris Wicking is loads of fun. It concerns re-incarnation, a man sacrificing his own daughter to an ancient evil and objects that come alive to kill. That may make it sound bad but its the way its done that really works. It has a great villain spouting lines such as "The meek shan't inherit the earth, they wouldn't know what to do with it." The director of this film died during the making of it. Its a cynical, nasty movie.
Demons Of The Mind - Its a late-era film that has more than a hint of incest. Another script by Chris Wicking, this time taking on the idea of family madness, inherited misogyny in people and culture, the rich preying on the poor, as well as the evolution of treating mental illness. Its also has some great murder scenes in a rose garden. It's one terrific film that sneaked by hammer as they didn't pay attention that more or less attacks most of the conventions of their other films.
The Devil Rides Out - Early era Hammer, based on a Dennis Wheatley novel. An under-seen top-level entry by Terrence Fisher, which has Christopher Lee as the good guy and has some creepy astral projection sequences (I know how that sounds but its done very well). Its one of those films where the plots not very good but the atmosphere is so terrific that you don't care.
Horror Of Dracula - I wrote about this on best of year. In short, its amazing, has stunning colour schemes, suggested sexuality and pacing, as well as a great final chase. One of the great screen Dracula's.
Dracula Prince Of Darkness - Needs no introduction- Best Dracula movie in lots of ways. Dracula is brought to life due to the blood of a traveller and preys on his friends and family, stalking them even to a church. Is cut to the bone in narrative, has amazing anamorphic atmosphere, and just keeps going a fairy story gone wrong fashion.
Dracula Has Risen From The Grave - Another film I wrote about before about on best list. This is slower than earlier films and does mark the point where the Dracula films went from being great to interesting but has some terrific moments and well worth a viewing, even though there are slow spots.
Taste The Blood Of Dracula - The best of the later sequels, although the end is rubbish. Dracula is reborn due to the actions of three bored, rich hypocrites, Dracula stalking them through their children. Its a full-on attack on Victorian repression and mores, and has sympathetic victims to make the suspense horror work.
Scars Of Dracula - In lots of ways its kinda stupid but I like this one, mainly for the production design, which has many blood reds and light blues. Its got great atmosphere and many nice moments, that makes up for the fact that its not really any good at a story level, or that the leading men are woeful.
Dracula AD 1972 - The worst of the bunch. Just dull, awful film with black masses yet no pace. A film about youth made by people in their fifties, its a film with no atmosphere or tension, and has the dullest deaths you could ever find in a vampire film.
The Satanic Rites Of Dracula - The final Dracula film is a surprising return to form. Its not a great film but is a solid b-movie with some nasty moments with Dracula preying on the weak and stupid, as well as his apocalyptic designs for humanity. Has a great final section and a wonderful final death scene for Lee's Dracula.
Frankenstein Created Woman - Peter Cushing as Frankenstein experimenting on women. Where do I start watching? Its actually fun but start and stops in pace and interest throughout. I don't have much to say on this as it a b-movie Frankenstein film. There isn't enough atmosphere nor incident to really get it going but it is enjoyable.
The Horror of Frankenstein - A rare non-Peter Cushing Frankenstein. Ralph Bates takes over. Its really bloody, funny and vicious. I love it. Its got a bad rep but is in need of re-evaluation.
The Plague Of The Zombies - Top-notch zombie flick which has a great reputation. Its one of those films that any zombie fan will love and a film fan should find a lot through its atmosphere and subtle build-up. Anyone who doesn't like this film ought to be shot. Its a simple statement, isn't it.
The Reptile - From the same team from Plague Of The Zombies, another great film. Same rule as above applies. Its a must see and saying what its about would only put you off.
One Million Years B.C. - This one is really stupid. Not exactly a surprise from the title but it has Raquel Welch as a prehistoric bimbo, getting pawed at by ugly brutes. This film has dinosaurs (a combination of Ray Harryhausen monsters at best and animals blown up to look huge at worst), cavemen and essentially 2001-like apes all in same time period. The film is awfully slow to get going, only really works during the action but does have some great photography, shot on Spanish deserts, which frankly belongs in a proper film, not this one. Best bit is cavemen verses a giant turtle, who eventually goes for a swim (might have just been going for a walk and wondering why these scruffs are attacking him.)
Prehistoric Women - It's about a tribe of beautiful blonde women enslaved by their brunette queen in a hidden paradise. Ah, the delights of prehistoric women. Man goes into jungle, man trapped by many black men, man transported into a world dominated by women in lioncloth due to the magic of the white rhino. Man is fought over by many a slut. White women scared of masked black man. White women chain their own men into manual labour and no sex. Women dominated by a crazy bitch. The entire film is a checklist of stupid ideas, basic racism (the big scare, white women approach by masked black men). Its both deeply awful and truly wonderful. The first ten minutes are stunningly awful, then the women show up and you don't care. You're trapped by the madness of this thing, by the inescapable fact that the leading man is stupefyingly awful in ways not usually seen even in Western cinema but that's not where your attention is. It's with the women. Even Steven Berkoff shows up at the end. You must see this film. Its a catalogue of the bad and wayward. In the world of Obama as president this film cries out for a remake.
Quatermass And The Pit - Great version of an even better 3 hour TV show. Loads of fun, even the now bad effects. Can't say anything beyond its a must-see film.
Rasputin The Mad Monk -Christopher Lee is Rasputin, a drinking, whoring man of god, who can bend all to his will, even the Russian royalty (you know, before that embarrassing revolution). Its great, especially when they keep trying to kill Lee and he won't stay dead. Lee is great, being the dangerous life of the party rather than a shadow figure.
Now we are on to the weak films.
She & Vengeance Of She - Pretty dull, unintentionally hilarious films. The first one has a budget, the second has not. Both are watchable but most notable moment is in the first film, where Peter Cushing and Bernard Cribbins dance with belly dancers in post-World War 1 Palestine.
To The Devil A Daughter - A weak but odd late hammer film. Its not as bad as reputation suggests but is a guilty pleasure due to a story that can't be saved by any stylisation or script (which are actually competent), an ending that doesn't make much sense, and in Richard Widmark, a terrible, terrible leading man. Christopher Lee shows up and lends it a bit of class.
The Witches - Joan Fontaine as a woman going mad in an English village. Now this should work. It has a decent cast, a solid script by Nigel Kneale but truly terrible, dull direction that never suggests any terror until late in the day. Hammer made great b-movies with dodgy plots such as Blood From The Mummies Tomb (where, let's remember, the director actually died) but this one gets killed by the direction when it should have been one of their best. There's a middle-aged lesbian subtext between Fontaine and the villainess which really helps keep the film going at times.
The Viking Queen - Worst film I have ever seen. Worse even than an Ed Wood film. Ancient Britain's versus Romans, Romans led by an American. Terrible, terrible script, tedious direction and acting that's beyond atrocious and enters a new realm in itself. Its one of those films that are difficult to properly describe in their awfulness. Not even Uwe Boll bad covers it. Best worst line of dialogue "I understand your problems, Nigel."
Fear Of The Night - Kind of a weak film. Not offensive but not really very good. The first half is best, as there is a build-up of unease that could go into the territory of is she mad or not but once the plot kicks in (a rip-off of Les Diabolique) it gets a bit dull with fun asides. This is the kind of film where the duff elements run the good stuff for you. Yet the film is a good candidate for a remake as there are elements and settings that could be made unique, if explanations are made to be less obvious.
Straight On Til Morning & The Nanny I haven't watched and may be some time to get to them as they are lesser hammer. But I'll see them eventually.
That's about it. The Hammer films I'm still dying to see/own are Curse Of The Werewolf with Ollie Reed (as the werewolf), Brides Of Dracula (apparently an amazing film, rarely shown, Peter Cushing hunting down female vampires, what can I say), Vampire Circus (title says it all, except its terrific fun, way better than it should be) and of course Legends Of The Seven Golden Vampires (vampires and 70's kung fu. Okay I can't defend that one)
Coming Soon...
Am still alive. Have been putting together my film again, after a full system crash. That and some other family situation have taken up a lot of my time.
Have also been watching lots of Hammer films and Homicide Season 6. So expect write-ups on them soon.
Have also been watching lots of Hammer films and Homicide Season 6. So expect write-ups on them soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)