Unemployment Tuesday: Still there

Another Tuesday, still unemployed. Sent my resume out to a bunch of different places over the last week, have so far gotten zero phone calls. Ah well, next week is Thanksgiving. I'm going to eat lots of food and more pie and by the end of November I'm going to weigh 500 lbs. Who needs a job when there's pie?

SPEAKING OF PIE!

I've spent a lot of time in the last week baking it. On Saturday I took part in KCRW's Good Food Pie Contest that was held at the Westfied Topanga Mall. Didn't win but I did get to eat a lot of pie so really, who lost? 

Actually, speaking of winners, I happened to be standing next to the winner of the cream/custard category as we were all waiting to hear the results. Her peanut butter pie looked amazing! She's got some pics up on her blog, they make me wish I could have tried it.

Congrats to all the winners :)

My pie all plated for the judges and stuff

My pie was okay but it was nothing wonderful. I made a Raspberry Marzipan pie which was pretty tasty but due to an unfortunate power outage the night before I never had time to make a test pie. Heh, I'll plan things better if I ever try this again. I did however have a chance to make a few adjustments and redeem myself on Sunday for a potluck I hosted.

Actually, you can see my pie in one of the pictures in the LA Times article about the contest! Okay, it's not even close to being featured but they did take a pic of the table my pie was on. It's the second from the farthest end in the picture of all the pies. That's at least a little bit neat, right?

Pear & Blackberry Marzipan I made for Sunday's dinner. 

Soooo much better than Saturday's effort!

See, I told you, this last week involved a lot of pie.

Otherwise I'm still just focusing on my writing. Got a little behind for Nanowrimo with all the pie baking but after 3k or so words today I'm starting to get caught up. This novel writing in a month thing is intense! It's also taking up most of my words.

Links! (Because I really am out of words now)

Meant to post this bit about Ginger Snaps way back before Halloween. Oh well, it's still an awesome movie which you should watch. Then you can read this. Lots of talk about the horror of female puberty. Mostly about the horror of being a female going through it, but also the damage that our raging hormones can inflict on others. Why do I enjoy these movies so much? Well, actually, I guess that's probably obvious if you've seen them.

Another link probably more Halloween than Thanksgiving related but whatever! Martin Scorsese's Top Eleven Scariest Films. Some obvious choices like The Exorcist or The Shining but also some other pretty great selections.

What else? NASA found water on the moon! Neat!

Entertaining blogging about the spectacle that is Megan Fox, her (fake)boobs, and how this all relates to feminism. One of these days I really will write about what it's like to be a woman in the film industry. Sometimes it's everything you'd think it would be, sometimes it's entirely different. Either way, it's pretty hard to forget about gender and the politics that result from it.

So anyone else think Left For Dead 2 looks pretty rad? I kinda wish I had a way to play it!

Since I haven't had a chance to scan things that need scanning, I haven't really written everything I've planned to write on my trip to Israel. My friend Jen is more proactive than I am! Check out her blog Creative Confectionary and see some great pics of the delicious food we ate.

That's all I've got for this edition of Unemployment Tuesday. Should I keep doing this every week? At least until I find a job? I'm thinking about it! We'll see how many words I have left next Tuesday.

Girl Talk Thursday: HALLOWEEEEEEEEN!

Girl Talk Thursday! Yes, I know it's Friday. My day yesterday allowed no time for the blogging. It was one of those 9 AM to Midnight kind of work days. Which between commute time and whatnot works out to something more like 8:30 AM to around 1 AM. So sorry for you, there was no Halloween-y-ness to be had here yesterday.

With everyone traveling today things are a little slower in the office. I'm literally the only person here. Other than the comical phone answering debacle* of ten minutes ago it's pretty quiet.

*Imagine cubicles on opposite sides of the row. Then imagine me trying to answer the phones in both of them at the same time. PHONEANSWERFAIL.

But yes, HALLOWEEN. Anyone who knows me is probably aware that Halloween is only like one of my favorite holidays ever. I loves the dressing up! Last year was incredibly sad as I was working until around 11 on Halloween night. When I finally arrived at my neighbors party, frazzled and exhausted looking from a stressful work day, my answer to the question "What are you?" was "I'm an over-worked, under-paid assistant. I wish it was a costume."

This year I have BIG costume plans to make up for last year's lack. Not sure if I'm quite ready to reveal them yet as I'm still kind of deciding between two great ideas. I'm excited though. Don't you doubt that.

I tried in vain to find recent costume pictures but I somehow managed to not take any over the last couple of years. Two years ago I was a "Princess Pirate" complete with plastic sword AND tiara. It was awesome. The year before that I was Door from Neil Gaiman's novel Neverwhere. That costume was easily one of my favorites.

I wish I had pictures of either of those. In fact, I think pictures may exist on friends's cameras. If anyone has any, please send them my way? I will love you forever!

I don't have pictures of those but I DO have a couple of pictures from costumes in college. Check these out!

From Stuff

Yeah, I was totally a zombie school girl ala Stacy. You should have seen the looks I got as I walked across campus. Especially from the girls who were dressed as Serious School Girls. What is up with college girls dressing like skanky school girls? Don't get me wrong, I understand the "hotness" of it. I guess. But seriously, tiny plaid skits and bare midriff tops? Can you get more generic for a Halloween costume?

From Stuff

You can't tell me that blood does not rule.

I don't quite remember what the idea for my costume was the next year. It just also involved lots of fake blood. I was apparently big on the covering myself in blood thing. Let's not read to much into this, k?

From Stuff

Actually that year it was a super last minute costume. As in, fifteen minutes before the party. I was incredibly busy with various college things and was running a Zombie Movie Marathon Fundraiser that night. I wasn't going to dress up or go to the party but a couple of my friends convinced me. I pretty much just dumped fake blood over myself in the English building's downstairs bathroom. I sometimes wonder what the janitor must have thought when he went in there the next morning. Not that I left a mess but it was hard to avoid a few blood splatters...

What are some of your Halloween favorites? Any good ideas for costumes this year?

Patton Oswalt on Death Bed

A few years back, before I moved to LA, I was here visiting a friend. We decided we needed a movie night and went to the nearby video store to find a couple of flicks. As we strolled aisles that still offered up VHS selections, we discovered a variety of treasures that at the time were still hard to find on DVD. I don't remember everything we pulled out but it included the likes of Delamorte Dellamore (Cemetery Man). Who wouldn't be excited by the idea of seeings zombies and a naked Rupert Everitt all in the same movie?

At one point during the browsing, my friend let out a cry and snatched a battered case off of the shelf. "I cannot believe they actually have this." It was a movie she had heard of but never had the occasion to see. It was in fact a movie that had never even officially been released until the early 2000's. Not that easiest movie to find and certainly not the type your Blockbusters or your Hollywood Videos normally carry.

What was this hard to find gem? Death Bed: The Bed That Eats.

Go ahead, read that title again. I'm not kidding.

Shot in 1977, finally released on dvd in 2003, Death Bed is one of those weird little movies that becomes a genuine cult phenomenon based solely on it's oddness. It isn't good. It was never marketed or sold as a Cult Film. It was made, pirated copies came into existence, people saw it, and people talked about it. A cycle began. At some point the director became aware that people were talking about his movie on the internet and he decided to go ahead and release the DVD.

That evening in the video store we passed on Death Bed but we did eventually watch it, albeit years later. I came across the DVD in Amoeba and bought it for my friend as a birthday present. Eventually we got together for a Death Bed and Thai food hang out evening.

The movie is spectacularly bad, but mostly it's exactly what you would expect it to be. I won't go so far as to recommend it or not. I leave that choice entirely up to you.

What I will do is share with you this bit from Patton Oswalt's album Werewolves and Lollipops. Oswalt as always is hilarious (you do know Patton Oswalt, right? Please discover him if you haven't all ready!) and I got an extra laugh or two out of it since I have seen the glory that is Death Bed. And since I'm trying to do that writing thing and I see a lot of the absurdity that goes on in the movie industry.

Death Bed: The Bed That Eats. Why can't I come up with a title that good?

* I suppose I should also warn you that Oswalt curses and says possibly NSFW things. Just in case.

Review: Coraline

Coraline is a movie that I have waited years to see. I read the book back in college and I couldn’t wait to see it when it was finally brought to the big screen. Based on the young adult novel of the same name by Neil Gaiman (one of my favorite authors) and brought to the screen by Nightmare Before Christmas’s director Henry Selick, Coraline is a fantasy adventure story that has an appeal for an audience of all ages.

The story opens as 11-year-old Coraline Jones moves into a pretty pink house on a hill with her workaholic parents. Coraline, not Caroline, has one big problem. She’s bored. Her parents ignore her, her neighbors are weird, and the house is full of old leaky windows, boring pictures, and unexciting doors. That is, unexciting except for one. A strange, small, old door has been locked and papered over. Why? What’s behind it? Naturally Coraline must know.

Much to her disappointment, her mother unlocks the door with the big, old key only to reveal a wall of bricks. There’s nothing else there. Or is there?

After night falls Coraline discovers that behind that door lives her Other parents and they don’t ignore her. The old actresses who live downstairs, Miss Spink and Miss Forcible are much more interesting, and Mr. Bobinsky, the man in the attic, has an Amazing Mouse Circus. And best of all, Coraline’s one friend Wybie doesn’t talk. It’s all wonderful, as long as you ignore the ghost children in the closet and the fact that everyone in this Other world has buttons for eyes.

The story of Coraline can be seen a number of different ways. An adventure story for the kids, for that door actually does lead somewhere and that somewhere is a fantastical Other world. Or a horror story for adults; that Other world is a creation of the Other Mother, a monster who feeds on the souls of children. Or for many, it’s stands somewhere in between, bringing forth a medley of emotions including fear, wonder, longing, and excitement.

And Coraline is exciting. From the story to its technical achievements, Henry Selick gives us a film that does not disappoint. Visually it’s stunning, the animation that I’m sure looks great in 2-D looks incredible in 3-D. 3-D is really the way to see this movie. Laika Entertainment has really outdone itself here. The thing about the 3-D in Coraline is not how things jump out at you, it’s not about the gimmick, it’s how the images fall away. The 3-D enhances the film. This world has a real depth and Coraline is the best example I’ve seen so far of the potential of the 3-D technology.

Don’t worry if you’ve missed the 3-D though, Coraline is still worth seeing. Beyond that, the stop-motion animation is still superb. It’s colorful and vibrant. The character’s all look as one might imagine they would while reading the book. It’s clever as well. One of my favorite bits is how, in the Other Mother’s world, the animators reveal that a theater Coraline enters is filled not with people but with little dogs. As Coraline follows the usher, also a dog, to her seat, the camera shows us the back of the chairs. And sticking out between them are dozens of little wagging tails. It’s adorable and the film is filled with many similar moments, just as striking.

The important thing about this film and all of these elements is how they come together to not just give us a faithful adaptation but also a great movie. Sure, there are plenty of changes from Neil Gaiman’s book. For one thing, Coraline’s friend Wybie did not exist in the book. However, by adding him to the movie Selick gives someone for Coraline to play off of. He helps to not only move the plot along but also to develop her character. Where in a novel you can read paragraphs of a character’s inner monologue, you can’t do that in a film. So a character like Wybie is introduced to serve the same function. And he’s a cute character! Honestly I think my only complaint on the adaptation is that the Cat didn’t have more dialogue. He really has all of the best lines in the book. Oh well, I guess we can’t have everything!

A question that a lot of parents seem to have is “Is this movie too scary for my kids?” I think the answer is that it depends on your kids. It wouldn’t have been too scary for me but by the time I was Coraline’s age X-Files was all ready my favorite show. It is rated PG and I think it’s definitely one of those movies where a little judgment on the part of parents is needed. If your kid doesn’t like scary things, don’t take them to see it. The Other Mother is a monster and she can be scary. If your kid can deal with stories of the boogeyman, you’re probably okay. If you’re not sure, there’s a book out there that’s a quick and easy read. Give Neil Gaiman’s novel a chance; it will give you a good idea of how scary the movie is going to be. They’re both on about the same level.

Of course, I say use your judgment in a world where parents take their kids to see Watchmen. If you’re going to take them to that, please, reconsider and give them something a little more age appropriate. Coraline is still in theaters after all.

I really am very pleased by this film. Until I watched it (twice) I was still ambivalent about the idea of 3-D movies. Now I’m very excited. Henry Selick and Laika have done an excellent job in bringing Neil Gaiman’s fabulous story to life. It’s great film that’s definitely worth seeing, at least once.

Coraline features the voice talents of Dakota Fanning as Coraline Jones, Teri Hatcher as Mother/Other Mother, John Hodgman as Father/Other Father, Robert Bailey Jr. as Wybie, and Keith David as Cat.

Thoughts: My Weekend in Film 12/9

Before I say anything about anything, can I mention that yesterday was completely ridiculous? Because it was. Completely. It was busy from (literally) the second I walked into the office. Maybe I'll go into the details later but it included everything from an incredibly stupid mistake by me (try booking a car in the wrong city) to having a bird shit on my head. No kidding. That was awesome.

Okay, enough of that.

The first thing I want to mention (or would this be the second? Whatever...) is that the film that was once called Kids In America (and is now apparently called Young Americans) seems to have finally gotten a release date. KIA was my first gig as an Office PA. We shot out in Phoenix back at the beginning of '07 and for a long time there's been no word on when the film would actually be released. Until now. Now, according to IMDB, Kids In America aka Young Americans will be coming out on January 30, 2009. Of course, this is IMDB and therefore not always 100% reliable. And these things are always subject to change. But it's exciting and maybe it's even a little bit true. I'm not sure I really want to give them money to let me in the theater to watch it, but I am curious. We'll see I suppose.

Onto the weekend.

Friday PM:

We wrapped a little on the late side and by the time I got home I barely felt like dinner, let alone going out anywhere. So J and I parked in front of the TV, grabbed some drinks, and wandered through the oh so interesting programming that occupies the Friday night schedule. Luckily IFC was there to rescue us from the other mediocre options we were presented with.

They were totally showing Reefer Madness.

J and I decided that this crazy guy is awesome.

J has more of a relationship with the flick than I do, having once owned it on VHS. The only time I've seen it has been streaming online (I once watched it over the course of two days during a particularly boring stretch at ANTM). The reefer madness never really entered my life until I was a little older.

Reefer Madness is a riot. It's "scare tactics" really only serve to glorify the use of Marijuana. Those "awful" parties the kids go to look like a blast to me. Dancing, drinking, making out with strangers... what's so bad about that??? I guess there is always the madness, murder, and mayhem that eventually ensues. Eh, whatever!

The transfer on IFC looked not horrible but man oh man did that sound bad. I guess Reefer Madness isn't the kind of fare Criterion is going to pick up and restore anytime soon. Can't say I blame them. It's entertaining, maybe even subversive, and definitely exploitative but yeah. It's Reefer Madness.

And being that it's in the public domain, it's available online for watchin'.

After Reefer Madness I actually attempted to give The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake a chance. Um. Bad call. Not only is it awful (it's really awful) it's just plain, straight boring. After 40 minutes I just could not take anymore of Jessica Biel's stomach. I mean sure, it's a nice stomach, but come on.



And that guy who plays her fiance? So trashy! Why do movies and television always stick the absurdly hot girl with the really gross guy? It's so not fair. I mean, I know it's playing into a male fantasy, letting your regular Joe guys imagine for a second that they could ever have a chance with a girl like that (yeah right). But come on. NO FAIR. Chicks watch these movies too. If you're going to give Jessica's stomach that much screen time, at least give me a comparable set of male abs to stare at too.

TCM 2000 sucks.

*It's also bad beyond her stomach. It's just more of the same, slicked up Hollywood Horror. It has none of the grittiness or raw energy of the original. It looks horrible. It completely fails at building tension. And it's boring. I'm not really sure which offense is worse.

Saturday Afternoon:



After a lazy morning and moderately productive early afternoon, I finally got into my Friday Night Lights marathon. I watched the first four episodes of season 1 and I love it. It's so good! The show shot in what's very much so Peter Berg's style so it looks incredibly cinematic. Which is to say it looks good. Beyond the visuals though, what really makes the show great, is the story telling and the character treatment. The writing is just brilliant. These people come across as "real"; their relationships, the plot developments, the depiction of life in a small football town, it's all believable. I'm completely hooked.

I hear season 2 isn't as good but after what I've seen of season 1 I will watch all of it and be glad for it.

Sunday:

Another reason why I love TCM (Turner Classic Movies not Texas Chainsaw Massacre): all day Sunday they were doing a Disney movie marathon.

I started with:

Swiss Family Robinson



I adore Swiss Family Robinson. What kid wouldn't love that story of adventure? fighting Pirates, chasing off tigers, wrestling giant snakes, and living in the coolest tree house imaginable. No wonder they all decide to stay on the island. I wouldn't want to leave either!

Followed By:

20,000 Leagues Under The Sea



This movie was always one of my favorites as a kid. Personally, I think it shows my good taste. The stellar cast alone is reason to watch. Kirk Douglas, Petter Lorre, James Mason. Damn that's some casting. Sure the effects look a little cheesy now but I can still appreciate how groundbreaking they were for the time.

Kirk Douglas's little song routine is still one of my favorites ever. I'm not a huge fan of musical things, but I love that song.

Followed By

Old Yeller



Is it weird that I never saw this as a kid?

Followed By

The Parent Trap

Which I didn't actually watch because I had to go grocery shopping and eat and run to the airport to pick-up K.

Followed By

Pollyanna



It's been YEARS since I last saw Pollyanna. I still think the "Glad Game" is silly but I like the movie. I'd still really like to see the silent version starring Mary Pickford.

I'd also really like to see Happy-Go-Lucky. An apparently modern take on the story. It's been getting pretty good reviews and sounds fun.

***

Apologies for the brevity, but it's another busy day in the office. We wrap shooting today so probably needless to say, there's a lot going on. Moving all of the wrap gifts from the office to our cars not being the least of it. But yes, enough slacking for me. Back to work.

***

On the Slate:

I honestly don't really know. Haven't had time to think about it.

Trailers: The Uninvited

I had heard rumors for a while that a remake of 2003's Korean film A Tale Of Two Sisters was happening. And now we've got the trailer.



I'm not generally a fan of these remakes as most of them have been terrible (The Ring is a rare exception). I think there's also been a huge failure in adapting the mostly Asian stories to American cinema (there are occasionally films from other places like the upcoming Quarantine which is a remake of the Spanish language film [Rec]). Something about cultural and historical differences. Imagine that.

Anyway, my point is that I'm very not excited about The Uninvited. If nothing else that trailer looks silly and the title is horrible. The Uninvited? That's really the best they could come up with? They couldn't have called it something more generic? Do you have any idea how many other horror movies there are out there called The Uninvited? I can promise you there are a few.

I do however highly recommend the original Tale of Two Sisters. It's an atmospheric, creepy movie that builds the tension well and pays off in the end. I enjoy it quite a bit.

Thoughts: My Weekend in Film

Normally I use my weekends as catch up time for all of the movie watching I failed to do during the week. However this past weekend was rather lackluster in terms of film. It was just too nice outside to spend my time indoors. I did manage a little movie and television watching though.

Saturday AM:



Before I managed to make it outside, I did spend some time on my couch recovering from Friday night's mischief. A couple hours of Scrubs did help me forget about my slight hangover.

I still really enjoy that show. They manage to create a nice blend of humorous situations and serious topics. It's not just another medical drama (although I am a fan of a couple of other medically themed shows. Like House) but it manages to deliver on the dramatic medical topics.

It's also possibly my favorite thing that Zach Braff has done. Garden State was okay I guess but I like him better in Scrubs. And Dr. Cox makes me happy to no end. He's by far my favorite character.



Unfortunately Comedy Central decided to air the movie Ladies Man after a couple of delightful hours of Scrubs. I don't have much to say about it other than it caused my headache to come back. It was good for one thing: it managed to motivate me to turn off the TV and move from the couch.

Saturday Early PM:



Before I finally left my house for bike riding and beach going, my roommate and I watched the first episode of season 1 of The Tudors. I know, I'm still on season 1. I have the excuse of not having Showtime but I do have Netflix. So The Tudors DVDs are slowly making their way to my living room.

I've so far watched the first two episodes, as well as a smattering of little bits from later in the season. I'm very excited for the series. It has an immensely talented cast, high production values, and it's about an incredibly fascinating period of history. Sex, war, intrigue. It delivers in every way that The Other Boleyn girl failed to. (If you've read my review of that, you know I was extremely disappointing with the awful adaptation of Phillipa Gregory's novel).

We only made it through the first episode. It was a gorgeous day and we do live only a mile from the beach after all. Couldn't spend the entire day in front of my TV!

Saturday PM:



So after all of this beach time and biking, not to mention continued hangover recovery, I definitely did not have the energy for an excessive Saturday night. So instead of too much crazy the roommates and I stuck in the, ah, entertaining Killer Klowns From Outer Space.

How exactly does one describe this movie? For my one roommate who watched it as a kid, she went back to a place of nostalgia and childhood fear. For me, having only seen it in the midst of my horror movie craze, I enjoy the cheese, am vaguely disturbed by horribleness of it, and mostly just laugh. For my other roommate, who had never seen it before, she was mostly just mystified by our giggles and saw it as only one of many bad 80's horror movies.

It's a sort of unique, sort of bizarre, mostly terrible genre film. It subscribes to most of the horror conventions of 80's horror and contains bits that are just down right bad (the hillbilly's accent and dialog any one? Ugh). At the same time... I mean, they wrap people in cotton candy and drain their blood. They shoot popcorn at people and chase people with balloon animals. They kill people with puppet shows. Who thinks of these things??? There are so many elaborate set-ups that I can't help but being reluctantly impressed.

And it's a movie about Killer Clowns! Clowns make you laugh! Lots of people are scared of them! The movie is horrible but it just has so much going for it that I can't help but be entertained.

That being said, I really don't recommend the special features on the DVD. At least not viewed directly after the film. There's only so much a sober brain can take.

If you're so inclined you can see more of the Chiodo brother's, the masterminds of Killer Klowns, at their website here.

Saturday Late PM:



My final viewing of the night, of the weekend in fact, was a late night screening of Disney's Aladdin. It was always one of my favorites as a kid so naturally I own the DVD.

There were a few years, when I was still a part of Disney's target audience, when it seemed like just could not miss. The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King. Each one presented us with stellar animation, engaging characters, songs that I still know the words to. Maybe it's just that I was the right age for them but personally I think it's more than that. I think they're all well crafted animated films that will continue to appeal to kids and parents for a long, long time.

Although, watching Aladdin again after not having seen it in a very long time, I did notice points that were not quite as cute as I remember them being. Aboo can be annoying and Gilbert Godfrey's charm has kind of worn off. (Um, Gilbert Godfrey has charm? Not exactly...)

I still enjoy singing along though. That at least will probably never change.

Sunday:

It was way too nice out yesterday to sit inside at all. And with no hangover, I had nothing to even tempt me to take up residence on the couch. So sorry, no Sunday movie watching to report!

On the slate for this week:

More Tudors for sure. I've got the next two episodes on disc 1. Then I'll send it back to Netflix for more!

Once: It's been on my To See List since I first heard about it and I've finally got it to watch. I'm excited.

There Will Be Blood: Possibly. The DVD came out last Tuesday and I picked it up over the weekend. I'm ready to watch it again. We all ready know that I love PTA. And I like milkshakes.

Other than that? Not sure yet. There are a few things I might try to catch in the theater. Juno comes out on DVD tomorrow. Who knows what will be on TV. Or how much time I'll have. There will be something though, there always is!

Review: The Messengers

It looked promising: A creepy old house, an unsuspecting family, something disturbing in the walls. There were whispers of real life phenomena, there was speculation about what a small child is able to perceive.

And then… there was mediocrity.

The marketing campaign for The Messengers had me. I have to admit it. I love ghost stories, I love being creeped out, and when I heard that the Pang brother’s were directing a new film set in a dilapidated farmhouse in the middle of America’s heartland, I was a little excited. I loved, still love, their enormously effective The Eye (the unfortunate remake starring Jessica Alba is currently in theaters). The Eye is great; it’s well directed, well acted, and genuinely scary. Beyond all that though, it has a good story. A good story in a ghost flick? Go figure.

The website and trailer for The Messengers had me going and when it was released, I saw it in the theater, by myself. I was completely prepared to be freaked out. Was I? Well, I guess a little bit at moments but for the most part, not really.

The Messengers is about Roy and Denise and their two children Jess and Ben. After an act of rebellion has nearly fatal consequences for Jess and her little brother, Roy decides to move the family away from urban life. The idea is to take Jess away from the bad influences and to give their family a fresh start. This fresh start is to happen on a run down farm in the middle of South Dakota.

Bright yellow sunflowers clash with dark rotting wood. Peace is interrupted by mayhem. There is something not right in the old house. Jess is the first to suspect but it’s the story of the boy who cried wolf. After everything that’s happened, Jess has no credibility and her parent’s think she is merely seeking attention.

Take a dysfunctional family and throw a couple of mysterious strangers, a few ghosts, and some pissed off crows into the mix… and you get a bit of a mess.

The characters aren’t bad, the acting is okay, the movie looks good, there are a few suspenseful moments, but things just never come together. The cast is not bad with Kristen Stewart, Dylan McDermott, and John Corbett all featured. William B. Davis (The Cigarette Smoking Man in The X-Files) even has a cameo.

I do wonder what it is about Asian horror that just does not work in American films. I hate the idea of remakes but after watching so many of them I’ve come to the conclusion that the remake part is not what makes them bad. I think it’s possibly cultural but I certainly don’t know enough to draw any more conclusions than that.

Whatever the reason is, aesthetics that work so well in The Eye fail to enthrall in The Messengers. What we get in the end is a mediocre ghost story with a couple of scares, mildly likeable characters, and an overly complex ending that really does not work. It’s disappointing but hey, at least it wasn’t another remake. At least the Pang brothers attempted to do something original. They should get credit for trying.

Review: The Mist

Originally posted at Epinions

There's this thing that happens when a Stephen King story is adapted into a film. It doesn't always, always happen. But it usually does. What is it? It's that Stephen King's stories, tales of horror, terror, survival, and human nature, stories that read so well on the page, become, well, bad. Almost every single story to be adapted into a film fails to translate onto the screen. Most Stephen King films look like cheap made for TV crap (which, granted, many of them are).

There are of course the notable exceptions. Among them are Brian De Palma's Carrie, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, Rob Reiner's Stand By Me and Frank Darabont's The Shawshank Redemption. Not only is Shawshank Redemption a great adaptation, it is a great film frequently listed at the top of Best Of... lists. In addition to Shawshank, Darabont has also given us The Green Mile. While not topping Shawshank it to is a great adaptation. So when Darabont decided to give us yet another Stephen King story, The Mist, I'll admit it. I was a little excited.

The Mist is an adaptation of the novella by the same name that appeared first in Dark Forces and then again in the short story collection Skeleton Crew. It's the story of David Drayton and what happens when a mysterious mist envelops his hometown in Main. A violent storm rips through Main, wreaking havoc and destroying property. The following day, as the people take stock of the damage, a strange mist descends upon them from the hills to north. Hills that are home to a military base and the mysterious Arrowhead Project.

David, his young son Billy, and their neighbor Brent Norton make a trip to the supermarket where many others have come to stock up on supplies. While in the market, the mist rolls in. As the outside world disappears from view, the earth shakes and everything seems to stop. In the silence a single man runs through the white. "There's something in the mist!" he screams. Blood pours from his nose. Frightened, the people in the market shut the glass doors against the acrid smelling mist, against whatever else is lurking in it.

What follows is a survival story that has Stephen King's fingerprints all over it. We are introduced to a cast of characters including David, an artist known for his movie posters, Norton, a slick talking lawyer from New York, Ollie Weeks, an unassuming employee of the market, Amanda Dunfrey, the new teacher in town, Irene, Dan Miller, Bud Brown, and finally, Mrs. Carmody.

Played by Thomas Jane (The Punisher), David is the classic King hero. A regular guy, a family guy, a strong guy with a head on his shoulders who manages to stay cool in an extreme circumstance. Amanda (Laurie Holden) is the classic King heroine. She's hot, she's sexual, she doesn't need a man and therefore she's a woman who every man wants. While The Mist is definitely Thomas Jane's movie, Marcia Gay Harden comes within a hair's distance of stealing it from him. As the doom saying, sacrifice preaching Mrs. Carmody, Harden is as frightening as she is passionate. While, again, this is Jane's movie, Harden's performance is close to being the best part of it.

The Mist is different kind of King story than Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. While Stephen King is known for his horror, his supernatural stories, there are variations. Some stories are more tails of humanity that happen to contain a couple of elements of horror. Some stories however are meant to scare. They are stories of monsters, death, of things that go bump in the night, they are tails about things that would make most of us lose our sanity before we could even fully comprehend what we are facing. Shawshank Redemption is story of human nature; The Mist is a story of survival, a story of terror. The thing I was most interested to see was how Darabont would handle this different kind of Stephen King story.

For the most part, he handles it very, very well. The actors, the characters they play, how Darabont goes about shooting a film that spends most of its time in one interior location. All of these things work. What also works are the small details. A character decides to leave the store, to make a run for his truck. David asks him to tie a clothesline around his waist, so they can see how far he gets. At first the rope plays out as it should. Then, it stops. The people in the store wait tensely, their breaths held. Finally, the rope moves again. There is a sigh of relief followed quickly by a cry of terror. The rope flies through David's hands, burning his palms. And then, it not only pulls out faster than any human could pull it, it starts to slide upward. Up and up until it hits the top of the door. It pulls taught and finally, it stops again, falling harmlessly to floor. What that bit shows is not only that something has gotten the man outside, it shows quietly, visually, exactly how unimaginably large whatever the thing hiding in the mist actually is.

Little bits like this work very well. Unfortunately there are other bits that don't reach the same successful level. I think the biggest problem Darabont has in his adaptation is, well, his adaptation. While he has made changes, he has his additions, there is so much that he has taken almost word for word from the story. What works so well on the page does not always work on the screen. There are scenes that seem written by a fan boy, scenes almost comical in how literally they take King's story. I'm all about fidelity in an adaptation but there is a line before it becomes too much. Darabont regrettably crosses that line several times.

In spite of this one fallback, for the most part Darabont succeeds in giving us a gripping story of horror and humanity. And, as in the story, the key to survival becomes a question of where the greatest danger exists. Is it outside with the monsters in the mist? Or is it inside with monsters in our hearts? What I find most interesting about Darabont's adaptation is that where it stays so close to the story for so much of it, in the end it moves so far away. One thing that King is best at is giving us the ambiguous ending. He takes the story so far and then he leaves us. And while in some ways we may want to know if our heroes live or die, in another his endings are very satisfying because they always leave us at just the right moment. They give us enough and what we are left with are ambiguities in our characters' fates that compliment whatever story King is trying to tell.

Darabont takes The Mist one step farther than King does. We see our characters' fates. As a result, I feel like the ambiguity still exists but it serves a different purpose. Where in King's story Mrs. Carmody and her fanaticism are an absolute evil, in Darabont's film I'm not as sure as to what it is the message is supposed to be. The ending Darabont gives us at first was a complete shock and I kind of liked it. Rather than hold back, he punches his audience in the gut, hard. However, after more thought I'm not sure how I feel about it because it colors the rest of the movie. What is Darabont trying to say about David and the others? I know how I want to feel, how I want to interpret things, but the ending of the film doesn't let me go completely the direction I want to go. So in this moment I think I have to say that I prefer King's ending. It's not that it's uncomplicated or easy, it's just that I think it's more successful in having a stance and getting a point across. I don't feel like Darabont ever gets there. I don't feel like he has a clear stance, I don't feel like his message is decided.

Really though, just taking The Mist for what it is, a horror story set in a supermarket with various people fighting for survival, it's a really good time. It kept me entertained, I liked the people I was watching, and overall I really enjoyed it. And there it is. Not the best Stephen King adaptation ever made but still. The Mist is a competent, well done film with a good story. It's a Stephen King movie actually worth your time.

Thoughts: 30 Days of Night

So after a long and stressful week I wanted something fun but quiet to occupy my Friday night. I figured, I'm feeling a little icky, what better to make me feel better than Josh Hartnett and vampires? Right?

Wrong. Now yeah, that was what one might call a MISTAKE.

It sucks when a movie looks so fun and turns out to be so terrible. The trailers for 30 Days still look good to me, even after I've watched it. It's the same as it was with Spiderman 3. The trailers look great, the movie falls way short. At least with 30 Days the craptacularness that was the movie didn't ruin a trilogy. I'm still disappointed by how bad Spiderman 3 turned out to be...

Even cool posters couldn't save Spiderman 3

Anyway. 30 Days of Night. Terrible. But worse. Boring. I mean, really? How do manage to make a movie about vampires unleashing a bloodbath upon an unsuspecting town boring? That's not an easy task. But 30 Days succeeds. I really almost walked out. Several times. And even though i stayed, I kept checking my watch. It just dragged on and on and on.

It's just really bad. The acting is hideous. The characters are dumb. The gore is really, really disappointing. I may not go to a movie like this for the acting or the plot or the writing. But I do go for the gore. And when the gore and even the action fail to live up to potential. Well. You've just got nothing.

Even my love for Josh Hartnett couldn't save this movie for me. He may be pretty to look at but pretty isn't always enough.

Ben Foster is adorable. Although the black teeth are a little gross.

Of course. I must say, Ben Foster is quickly becoming one of my new favorites. For the small role he played, he is entertaining.

I definitely do not recommend 30 Days of Night. What a waste.

The movie may not have been scary but this dude was definitely creepy.

Review: Entrails of a Beautiful Woman

Originally posted at Epinions



If you’ve read some of my earlier reviews (like my horror movie top ten list or my Zombie movie list) then you may know that I’m huge fan of horror and gore and the ridiculous. This usually leads me to titles like the ones you’ll find on those lists, a variety of films from all different countries, all falling under the category of Horror. Gore, blood, violence, death and mayhem. I love it.

Of course, on my search for more gore, on my quest to find that perfect fountain of blood, I’ve unfortunately encountered films that are little too much even for me. For example, I do not like the rape/revenge sub-genre. While I can enjoy something like Takashi Miike’s Ichi the Killer or Visitor Q, I’m completely turned off by Wes Craven’s Last House on the Left.

Which leads me to director Gaira. My first encounter with him came about in a little video store in Atlanta, GA. A friend and I were perusing the foreign horror section, this store had an absurdly impressive selection, and we came across this bizarre looking VHS titled Entrails of a Virgin. Well. Knowing absolutely nothing about Gaira (yes, he goes by one name. His full name is something like Kazuo Komizu) my friend and I decided that Entrails of a Virgin combined with a bottle of Riesling were just what the evening needed.

Not so much. We ended up hitting the fast forward button a lot…

So Entrails of a Virgin was a bit of a bust for us. There were some all right parts but mostly, a little too much with the soft-core porn for our tastes.

Why then did I decide to add Entrails of a Beautiful Woman to my Netflix queue? I have no idea. I guess I never learn.

Entrails of a Beautiful Woman is a sort of sequel to Entrails of a Virgin. There are actually three movies in the series; I believe the third is called Naked Blood (that one I WON’T be watching). The plot doesn’t really follow the plot of the first movie at all. Really they have nothing to do with each other beyond the titles. And the director. And weird monsters who like to do horrible, perverse things to people. And have really disturbing bits of anatomy.

Beautiful Woman begins in a factory where a Yakuza gang is holding a young girl captive. After being gang raped and drugged up, the girl escapes and finds her way to a female doctor. The girl tells the doctor who has attacked her and then swan dives off of the roof. The doctor tracks down the Yakuza members, there’s a bit of revenge, more rape, drugs, and then… a giant gooey monster? And possibly the most disturbing Alien reference I’ve ever seen.

Beautiful Woman is advertised as being about this monster. It’s not really. The monster shows up maybe fifteen minutes before the end of the movie. Up until that happens Beautiful Woman actually does have a real plot. That plot just happens to be an excuse to make a soft-core snuff film.

Why did I forget to hit the fast forward button??

There’s really nothing redeeming about Entrails of a Beautiful Woman. If you like this particular sub-genre you might want to check it out. Or if you’re hugely curious about the gooey entrails monster. Did I mention the monster is also a transforming transvestite? Don’t ask me how that one comes about. It’s really silly.

Beyond that though. I don’t even recommend watching it for the sake of completion. Mostly it’s just long and boring with a mediocre plot and soft-core sex. I know, talking about sex is probably just going to encourage a lot people. Geez, just download some porn. You don’t need to watch this movie.

There’s not even a point in talking about the direction or acting or anything else. That’s not what this movie is about. It’s about putting beautiful women in demeaning situations designed to excite the audience and then throwing in a few gross out moments to make people go “Ew.”

I just have to note here, that when I say go “Ew,” what I mean is this: it had me squeeing rather loudly. Saying things like “Holy S***”, “What the F*…”, “They are not…”, “EEEEEEEWWW”. My roommate and her boyfriend, who were in the other room with the door closed, were very amused.

Those “Ew” moments are effective, I’m forced to admit, but not worth the time it takes to get to them. So if you’re really curious and I can’t discourage you, hit it up on Netflix and keep your remote in hand. I recommend the x8 button at least.

The DVD actually does include an interview with Gaira, which was interesting for about five minutes before I got really bored by his self-congratulatory pretentious monologue. That had nothing to with Entrails of a Beautiful Woman.

At least at that point I had the presence of mind to hit stop.

Bijo no harawata
Entrails of a Beautiful Woman
1986
68 min
Japanese with English Subtitles

Review: The Covenant

Originally posted at Epinions



Okay, I’ll admit it; I wanted to see The Covenant. I knew it was supposed to be terrible and I really wasn’t expecting much. I was looking forward to maybe a few flashy visuals and hopefully a couple of tight abs. Eye Candy. I was also suspecting that The Covenant could be a brilliant execution of camp; it could have been one of those awful films that are just so bad that you have to love them.

Unfortunately for me, my suspicion was wrong. There is absolutely nothing to love about The Covenant. Not even the abs (although they were nice, they just couldn’t make up for the awfulness of the rest of the movie).

The Covenant does have a somewhat fun premise for those of us who love horror and witches and all things dark and scary. Four boys, descendents of four powerful lines of witches, are faced with a fifth descendent, the odd boy out who has been driven mad by abuse of his supernatural power. The oldest of the four must face off against this outsider in order to protect the ones he loves and vanquish the forces of evil, thus restoring balance and order to the universe.

The only name attached to this film that might be recognizable is director Renny Harlin. Harlin has a long list of credits including quite a few recognizable titles: Mindhunters, Driven, Deep Blue Sea, Cliffhanger, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Die Hard 2 (while it was the worst in the series, it’s still a Die Hard move). Unfortunately for him, the longer he makes movies the worse his movies seem to get. The Covenant is just proof of the trend.

The story combines elements that we’ve seen before and a couple of original twists that could have almost been promising. But they weren’t. The film never takes advantage of any of the things that would have made this if not a good then a fun film. In fact, it is so flawed I’m not sure I’ll be able to cover all of the things wrong with it.

But you can bet I’m going to try.

For starters, let’s discuss the story. An interesting premise is just your start when you’re in the process of creating a film. In fact, an interesting premise happens so early in the development game that it should be a crime for a film to make it to theaters with nothing more than its premise to recommend it. In the case of The Covenant, the store never really goes anywhere. There is no interesting development, no exploration of the film’s intriguing back-story. The pacing is so horrible that three quarters of the way through I was left wondering when something was going to start happening. You know what, I don’t actually think it was a pacing problem. The thing is, there wasn’t anything there to be paced.

Moving past the lack of story, we come to the characters and the actors playing them. As far as character development goes, it’s pretty much right there with the story development in that there is none. We’re told all that we are going to be told about these characters as soon as they are introduced. It never goes any farther than that. The actors themselves, who are these kids? I have no idea. My lack of knowledge, it’s for a good reason. Steven Strait, Laura Ramsey, Sebastian Stan, et al; they’re terrible. Every last one of them. Some of the scenes were so abominably acted that I just wanted to cry. Even if the dialogue had been well written (it wasn’t), the delivery would have killed it. As much as I like abs and scantily clad men, nothing could make up for the dull performances.

I’m also not really sure whom this film was meant to appeal to. I guess adolescent boys? Girls? While it’s apparent that every actor in this film was cast for his or her looks, there are too many males in small bathing suits for this to be a boys’ film and absolutely nothing else to make this a girls’ film. The world of The Covenant is a completely male centric universe, the lead female character is nothing more than a pretty face and a hot body, and the conflict is so firmly wedged between two alpha males that no woman in her right mind would ever give a rat’s backside as to what happens.

Come on boys, we all know what this is about, just whip ‘em out already and have done with it. When all that testosterone is out of your system, then you can come talk to us again. Ramsey is lucky her character spends the climax of the film under an enchantment, it saves her from having to bare witness to the lame, macho, homoerotic chest beating that we’re subjected to.

Oh wait, that’s who this movie was made for: adolescent gay males. Those poor boys.

It does make sense though. The “sons of Ipswich”, as the four young men are flippantly referred to as, does sound like it could be the name of a boy band. They do look like a boy band.

Are they a boy band?

In one rare, brief moment of lucidity and self-awareness, the film even makes a joke of itself to that extent.

In the end, I’m still really not sure what this film was going for. I don’t think it knew what it wanted to be and that’s the crux of the problem. Instead of taking advantage of the things it had going for, all the makings of a successful camp film were there, it just floundered around aimlessly and ended up going nowhere.

Even the visuals were tired and boring.

I can’t get myself worked up about this movie in any way, positive or negative. When I finally hit the stop button on my remote the only feeling I was left with was one of indifference. I didn’t care enough to be mad about wasting my time but there was nothing redeeming about this film either.

So all I can say is: skip it. There’s no reason for anything else.

The DVD is fine. Not much to say about it either. There's some commentary, a few trailers. I think that was about it. Not that you would want to spend any of your time on more extra features with this movie anyway. A case of less is more.

Thoughts: Army of Darkness

“You ain’t leading but two things right now, Jack and Shit, and Jack just left town.”

So do I even need to mention that I love this movie? Or that I love Bruce Campbell? Or that when my mom tells me that she has never seen an Evil Dead movie I decide to sit her down immediately and show her Army of Darkness? I actually would have showed her all of them but Army of Darkness was the only I brought to Florida with me.

The movie is fantastic. It’s hilarious and full of slapstick, it’s got great lines, it’s got deadites, and it’s got lots and lots of Bruce Campbell. And a good amount of Bruce Campbell in half of a shirt. I enjoyed that.

What can I even say about the movie other than the fact that it’s great? It’s a cool, cool movie that’s not scary at all. At least I don’t think it is. But I’m not sure anyone could think it was really that scary with Ash being all Ash-like. Klaatu, Barrata, Necktie… cough, cough… There… I said the words…

Now was it just me, or did anyone else notice the ridiculous similarity between the beginning of the graveyard scene with Evil Ash and the part in Return of the King in front of Minis Morgul. Peter Jackson used almost the exact same shots when he does his freaky, dutch angel, zoom in on the statues right before the army comes marching out of the city as Sam Raimi uses right before his Skeleton Army leaves the graveyard to attack Ash and his primitive screwhead buddies. I thought that was nifty.

Man, the charge on my computer is going down fast. I think I’m gonna shut this down now so I can get some sleep. And while I’m sleeping you should go watch Army of Darkness. It’ll be a good time.

Hail to the King baby.

Review: Black Christmas (2006)

x-posted at Epinions



I don’t like remakes. Really, really I don’t. So when I saw that a remake of Bob Clark’s 1974 classic horror film Black Christmas was in the works, I was not happy. However, when I found out Glen Morgan was attached to it I felt a bit of hope. I admit it, I have a long time affection for Morgan and his frequent partner in crime James Wong. You might even go so far as to call it a crush. Ever since I discovered them through some of my favorite X-Files episodes I’ve followed both of their careers. Yes, I even like Final Destination.

While Wong was not involved in this particular film, Morgan did direct and have a role in the writing of the screenplay. As far as it goes, the film is entertaining. Even as a fan I have to admit that Morgan’s films are not necessarily brilliant but they are all competently done and I always find them to be great fun. Black Christmas is no different.

Granted, the remake cannot compare to the original but at least it’s not a complete atrocity (TCM remake anyone?). The story is more or less the same. It’s Christmas Eve and a killer terrorizes a sorority house. Girls begin to disappear and mysterious, threatening phone calls keep being made from their cell phones. Trapped by a snowstorm the girls must fight or die. Mostly, they just die.

Okay, the plot doesn’t sound hugely original and inspiring from that description. What makes it special is really the back-story and how it plays out. Revealed in flashbacks, the story of Billy Lenz is the most interesting part of Black Christmas. Billy is neglected, abused, ignored, and worse. As the boy grows into a man, he takes his revenge. What exactly is Billy’s obsession with Christmas cookies about? The answer is gruesome, I promise.

The biggest problem that this remake had was that it just never goes far enough. We never get enough of a sense of the characters, there is never enough time for the tension to build, it’s never quite as scary as it could be. Sometimes the issue is just misplaced humor that kills the tension a bit too early, sometimes it’s not enough time taken to develop a relationship. With a runtime of only 84 minutes I’m really disappointed that extra time was allowed for the development of, well, everything. The only thing I felt received enough time was the back-story. Perhaps that’s why it was my favorite part.

There is a lot about the movie that I did enjoy. The casting for one thing. That is one hot sorority. A fan of Buffy and Pete & Pete, I always enjoy Michelle Trachtenberg. Andrea Martin (a cast member from the original) is really fun as the housemother. Kristen Cloke (Glen’s wife!) makes an appearance as well. She’s in many of Morgan’s previous works including Final Destination, one of his X-Files episodes, and Space: Above and Beyond. All of the sorority sisters are absurdly attractive, even if they can be somewhat annoying. Like I said, I wouldn’t have minded more character development but at least they were all nice to look at.

I did enjoy the gore in the film. I have no complaints in that regard. Black Christmas is a slasher and it does not disappoint. It’s bloody, it’s clever, and its effects are all well done. The big climactic reveal wasn’t quite as disturbing as it could have been but that has more to do with the cinematography of the scene than any lack in the gore.

The cinematography I was not a huge fan of throughout. There were some really cool moments, some nice composition and several entertaining references to films like Psycho. Unfortunately I found a reoccurring problem to be with the framing. The shots weren’t close enough, they were too close, the angle was wrong, the framing wasn’t dynamic, etc. Several times I was just not satisfied with the image on the screen and it took me out of the film. I think the way it was shot had a lot to do with the lack of tension as well. A lot of times we saw either too much or not enough and, either way, the scary moment lost its effectiveness.

In the end, I was glad that I saw it. It was certainly a lot of fun to watch a Christmas slasher in the theater on Christmas. And while Glen Morgan may not always be great, he is always good. It’s a solid effort with enough going for it to make it worth the watch. If you can’t get your hands on the original, this remake isn’t a waste of time.

Review: White Noise (2005)

Cross-posted at Epinions



The idea is scary. The trailers were scary. Some of the moments in the film are a little scary. Overall though, yeah, not so much with the scary. I was curious to see White Noise since I did think the trailers were intriguing but it ended up being a disappointment. It’s such a shame when a film starts with a decent idea and just fails so completely.

Released in 2005 and directed by Geoffrey Sachs, the film is about architect Jonathan Rivers (Michael Keaton) who loses his wife Anna when she accidentally drowns. Shortly after her death he begins to receive messages from her when listening to “white noise” or static: static on radios, on his answering machine, on televisions. Raymond, a man who has also received messages from Anna, contacts him but at first Jonathan refuses to listen. Jonathan eventually visits Raymond and becomes obsessed with listening for messages from his wife. The plot gets a little complicated from here and basically, without giving away spoilers, Jonathan makes contact with some very nasty, malevolent spirits. He finds that they are up to something sinister and he must stop them before it’s too late and more people die.

Now I have a few problems with this film. One is with the plot. It’s an interesting premise with a lot of potential for a very frightening, suspenseful film. However, the direction that they take it is just silly. It tries to be something like Gothika or What Lies Beneath or even The Sixth Sense (to name some relatively recent examples): a ghost story that goes in a direction you may not expect it to go. In White Noise though, it just doesn’t work. I think it has a lot to do with how they go about revealing what is going on. The pacing is slow and by the time anything really starts to happen I’m already bored.

I think a lot of it has to do with the characters. I found Jonathan to be really annoying. Michael Keaton is trying to play grief stricken and he’s not awful but he’s not great either. Overall I would call his performance bland. It’s frustrating to watch this guy. In your typical horror film, people frequently do pretty dumb things. As the hero of White Noise, Jonathan is no different. He quickly gets in way over his head but he never seems to even realize that fact. He’s willfully oblivious, ignoring all of the warnings he gets, ignoring everything except for the hints of messages from his wife. I spent a large part of the movie being really irritated with how stupid he is.

The relationships in the film aren’t very well developed. We’re told that Jonathan and Anna were in love but I never got much of a feel for it. Jonathan’s relationship with his son is almost non-existent. Again, we’re told that he cares but we’re never given any real evidence. It’s a problem throughout the film, we keep being told things but we’re never shown them, we’re never made to believe.

While the acting doesn’t help with any of that, I think what it really comes down to is Niall Johnson’s script. It’s bad! The character development is dreadful. I never really got a feel for motivations beyond grief over a loved one’s death. Or if there are hints at other motives, they are really weak. I don’t buy the level of obsession in relation to the brief messages that Jonathan receives. And while the plot is developing and Jonathan is coming to conclusions, it feels like a lot of the logic is just too big of a leap based on the information we are given. Beyond that, based on what the rules of the film’s universe are being established as, a lot of what happens just does not make sense. Things happen, there seem to be rules that these things follow, and then all of a sudden those rules are gone and different things start to happen. The way that things work out doesn’t seem to be very plausible.

I also have to say, I hate the special effects. They are so incredibly cheesy. I hate all of the stupid static televisions. The static in general gets to be really grating after a while. I know it’s a movie about hearing things in the static but there had to be better ways to execute the idea.

I did have an idea not to expect too much when I saw the film was rated PG-13. Almost all of the PG-13 horror flicks, especially ones released in the last five years or so, are terrible. Given the subject matter White Noise isn't a film for the young and impressionable but it's not overly vulgar or gorey either. I actually don't think there really is any gore at all. So it's a film that probably won't be found to be offensive.

I waited to see White Noise because I heard it was bad. I ended up catching it on HBO and I’m just grateful that I didn’t pay anything to watch it. I’m glad that my curiosity has finally been satisfied but I really did not need to see this film. I definitely recommend that you avoid it. It’s not scary, it’s nonsensical, and I just plain did not care about anything or anyone in it.

Review: From Dusk Till Dawn

Cross posted at Epinions



Call me crazy but I had to be convinced that George Clooney was hot. What was I thinking, right? Alas, it’s true, for a long time I didn’t believe the hype. Why did I change my mind? Well, I watched Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez’s insane action flick From Dusk Till Dawn. I was convinced in about five minutes.

Before Sin City, before Pulp Fiction, there were a couple of kids on the brink of making it big. Making it Huge in point of fact. Fresh off of their successes with El Mariachi (Rodriguez) and Reservoir Dogs (Tarantino), the two were wandering around that little place known as Hollywood. Friends from working together previously on the film Four Rooms, Tarantino showed Rodriguez his script for From Dusk and Rodriguez wanted to start production the very next day. They didn’t start quite that quickly, but in 1996 Rodriguez did get his wish. The collaboration was history in the making. Now both of those kung fu loving buddies are huge and their names are synonymous with indie cinema (whether or not they’re actually indie is a debate for another day).

From Dusk Till Dawn isn’t meant to be taken seriously. It’s an adrenalin shot. There’s action, explosions, blood, gore, monsters, and murder. After a purposefully slow opening conversation between a Texas Ranger and a liquor store clerk, the bullets start flying and the pace never again slows. This movie is the epitome of a Tarantino or Rodriguez picture. It’s not about art or drama or having any kind of socially redeeming value. It’s about creating fast moving, witty, violent entertainment. It’s all about having fun.

George Clooney is the anti-hero of the film. He plays the murdering bastard Seth Gecko. Along with his brother Ritchie (played by none other than Lord Quentin himself), Seth is making a run for the Mexican border after a daring escape from the law and bank heist. Seth and Ritchie know that they won’t be able to make it past the lawmen on their own so they grab the disillusioned preacher Jacob (Harvey Keitel) and Jacob’s two children Kate (Juliette Lewis) and Scott (Ernest Liu). The five make it into Mexico riding in Jacob’s RV and head to one very hellish club. They are only one night away from freedom but they soon find that making it through that night is going to be harder than they imagined. It’s not just any bar that they’ve walked into; it’s an ancient vampire feeding ground. Needless to say, things get very, very bloody.

The structure of the film is an interesting one. It’s almost like watching two different movies spliced together. The first is a crime flick while the second is a horror/action combo. We don’t even see a vampire until incredibly late in the film. It’s a formula that really, really shouldn’t work. It does though. While the first half of the film tries to play it fairly straight, it’s still pretty over the top and ridiculous. The actors are all putting in their fair share of cheese and the campiness bleeds right into the plausibility of a vampire encounter in some trashy Mexican trucker bar. I buy it.

I really can’t stress enough how silly this movie is. It’s okay though. It doesn’t pretend to be anything that it isn’t. And it has a lot of things going for it. Harvey Keitel for one thing. The man is great. Even when the situation is just completely ludicrous, Keitel plays it straight and his performance is first-rate throughout. Juliette Lewis is also wonderful. She doesn’t play her character nearly as seriously as Keitel’s Jacob but she is one hardcore chick. In the second half of the film there are also a few exciting cameos. The incredibly beautiful Salma Hayak makes an appearance as the lusciously dangerous vampiress Satanico Pandemonium (that’s a name for you). We get Cheech Marin not once, not twice, but THREE times. But my personal favorite appearance: Tom Savini as the trucker known only as “Sex Machine.” Man, does that boy have some weapons on him.

On the flip side, it also has Tarantino in one of the larger roles. He may be able to write, he might even be able to director, but he cannot act. He’s just lucky that in a film filled with ridiculous things, Ritchie is supposed to be the most ridiculous.

The star of the show is Mr. ER himself, George Clooney. Which is no accident. Rodriguez does it on purpose. He frames Clooney so that he’s always above us, always speaking too us, we are forced under his spell. It’s almost violent the way he’s thrust upon the audience. Not that I’m complaining. When he looks down the barrel of that gun, the shiver running down my spine has absolutely nothing to do with fear. Rodriguez gave Clooney the chance to prove that he could be a big time star. Clooney proves it with power. And the neck tattoo certainly doesn’t hurt…

While I wouldn’t call this movie brilliant, it’s not terrible either. It’s pop entertainment. It’s meant to shock, it’s meant to make you laugh, and it’s meant to make you think “Man, that was Mother F***ing Bad A**”. It’s about as far from highbrow as you can get.

Now for the DVD. For the price, it’s definitely a worthwhile purchase. I picked it up at Sam’s Club for $8 and change. It’s a Dimension film and it was released as a Dimension DVD. The Collector’s Series edition that they have at Sam’s is a two-disc set filled with juicy features. Rodriguez loves to give it to his fans. Bonus materials include: Feature commentary with Rodriguez and Tarantino, Outtakes, Deleted Scenes, Theatrical Trailers, TV Spots, a couple of featurettes, Music Videos, Cast & Crew bios, and the feature length documentary Full-Tilt Boogie (neat!) about the From Dusk Till Dawn.

Analysis: May

****WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS****

In 2002 Lucky McKee’s independent horror feature May was released. May is a story about a lonely young woman trying to find her place within society. She longs to connect with people around her but because of who she is, how she was raised, and the way society is she is forced to live a life of rejection. McKee has created a complex film that deals with a variety of issues facing society, particularly facing women, including image, identity, sexuality, and violence.

Is May really evil? She is clearly deficient in social skills and is therefore unable to effectively interact with others. May is a character that is easy to relate to. She’s socially awkward, lonely, and curious. She is also adventurous, not afraid of taking risks, and loving. While she seems so shy, something about her is very attractive. Polly sees it immediately and, despite their unconventional first meeting, Adam comes to see it as well. May is sweet and inspires feelings of empathy and love. When the people in her life fail her, she lashes out violently in retaliation. While we are not expected to condone her actions, it’s hard to deny that we aren’t at least a little envious of her ability to strike back at the people who have done her wrong. These actions are a reflection and exaggeration of what we all secretly wish we could do. May is not evil because while in the film she becomes a violent killer, she represents more than violence. She represents how women are expected to behave in society and what a destructive effect this has when these expectations force women to attempt to fit into a role that runs counter to where we feel we belong. May is very honest about who she is and it’s this honesty and failure to accept her prescribed place that causes her to be rejected.

Sexuality plays an interesting role in the film. A large part of the film is about May’s sexual awakening and exploration. It shows her awkwardness, her excitement, and ultimately her flaw. Despite her inexperience she's curious and willing to explore. She has almost no inhibitions. But then her sexual freedom is tied into her weirdness and freakiness. It is also tied in with violence. Sex and violence for May are so closely related that the line blurs and she can't distinguish between the two. Polly is fascinated by the idea but only in a very superficial way, her flirtation with violence has more to do with her flirtation with May than it has to do with an authentic interest. Adam's interest in the two is also different from May's. For her they are one and then same, which we see very early in the scene with the fake knife. With Adam there is a very clear line drawn between the two. He likes violence in his movies but when it comes to reality he can't handle it. He plays with the idea of being weird but is turned off by true weirdness. As he is leaving her, they have a brief exchange. “This is weird” he says, “But you like weird” she says, sounding confused. “Not that weird.” And he leaves.

In addition to May’s sexuality, there is also Polly’s. The relationship between the two women develops not because May is a lesbian, but because she is looking for companionship and she sees no wrong in looking for this with a woman. Polly is also very liberated with her sexuality, and she's a lesbian, but in the end she is also punished for her freedom and inhibitions. It’s not an unfamiliar scenario; frequently female characters “punished” when they choose to follow a course of actions contrary to ones they are expected to follow. Hollows gives a summary of feminist film criticism and through a discussion of such theorists as Molly Haskell, Laura Mulvey, and Mary Anne Doane she follows how the role of women in film has developed. Women in film are images, they have been objects seen through the “male gaze” and forced into submission.

McKee is very aware of these conventions. When dealing with the male gaze for example, McKee places Polly’s girlfriend Ambrosia in it completely. Where Laura Mulvey states that women in films frequently become nothing more than a pair of legs, McKee makes this message literal. When we first see Ambrosia, all we see are her legs. Every subsequent time she appears the first thing we see is her lower half. McKee is making the male gaze extreme and making the viewer aware of it. The interesting twist is that these shots are all from May’s point of view. By creating the male gaze through her eyes he is giving May power. She is the one controlling the situation, the one we relate to, and the one who can fight back. We see this again later when she wields either her scissors or scalpel. In horror movies such weapons are phallic symbols and are usually used against women. In May McKee gives these weapons, and therefore their power, to May. McKee uses the male gaze not to exploit May and objectify her, but to develop her. She herself is placed within the gaze several times, all when she is either with Adam or getting ready to see him. When she is approaching a relationship to him it appears that she is giving up her power but this is not the case. While May is attempting to fit in socially, hence her position within the gaze, she never compromises herself, which is why she never remains in the gaze for very long.

McKee’s use of the male gaze is also appropriate for the subject matter. The film reflects society’s obsession with image and perfection, which in the end is what drives May's actions. She falls in love with the “perfect parts” but can find no “perfect wholes”. In the beginning, she thinks the parts will lead to these perfect wholes. She quickly realizes though that this is not the case so she decides to create her own whole. It's her imperfection that has kept her so lonely and isolated. It's other people's imperfections that hurt her. The physical flaws that she sees come to represent the internal flaws that she experiences. So in her mind if every external part is perfect then the internal ones will be as well. Susan Douglas notes that this obsession with perfection is one that the media has been encouraging for decades through advertising. For her, it has created impossible standards that women try to live up to but can’t. As a result their lives are split, they work constantly to obtain the impossible image and are always miserable with the body they have.

While McKee doesn’t attack the issue of advertising directly, through the opening involving May’s parents he does show where her obsession comes from. May’s mother plays the role of advertiser, pounding in the message that May must be perfect on a daily basis. When May still has not made friends her mother gives her Suzy, the first doll her mother ever made. Suzy must remain in her glass case, May can look but she can’t touch. For May, Suzy comes to be her only friend but she is also a harsh reminder of who May is and how alone and trapped May feels. In a way Suzy represents May’s sanity, when Suzy is destroyed May soon suffers a complete breakdown. However, the moment Suzy breaks is also moment of May’s liberation. She is able to let go of her inhibitions and fight back. In the narrative May is insane but on a deeper level it isn’t insanity, it is strength and power. She is killing people but she is also liberating herself.

Suzy and the other dolls in the film play an important role. May speaks to them and she also uses them. She is like a child, playing with dolls, reenacting situations between herself and Adam so she can learn about sex. She has a male doll with bright red hands that represents Adam with his perfect hands. She teaches herself how to kiss with this doll and another. Whenever May is with her dolls, she is reminiscent of the two little girls playing with Barbie in Barbie Nation. Her obsession with perfection and belief that only perfect people have friends is reminiscent of the little girl stating that to make friends you need to be pretty. Barbies themselves represent perfection and the impossibility of it, issues that this film is centered around.

In her quest to create the perfect friend, May sews together all of the perfect body parts she has collected to create a life sized doll. When the doll is finished, May soon realizes that her doll is not yet perfect. It can’t see. In one of the most grotesque moments of the film, May uses her scissors to cut out her own good eye which she then places on her doll’s head. May then lies down next to the doll and as the shot composition brings together their two faces to make them almost appear as one it is an obvious reference to Ingmar Bergman’s film Persona, which explores the nature of identity. May’s identity is intertwined with that of her doll’s. It represents her insanity, her quest for perfection, it represents her strengths: creativity, resourcefulness, and strength, as well as her weaknesses: narcissism, violence, and obsession. When the eye rolls of off the dolls face it might show the ineffectiveness of her actions, when she is caught at the very least she will be sent to jail, but when the doll raises it’s arm to embrace her, we see that she has been successful in her macabre quest. She has created a perfect thing that will love and accept her for who she is.

In the end May is a sad story about a girl just trying to fit in. Because she fails to conform she is forced to live an incomplete life. She again refuses to accept this and is driven to go a homicidal killing spree. Society has treated her violently and she strikes back with violence. McKee uses this violent story to attack the stereotypes and expectations that women are forced to live with. May is strong enough to fight back and, in her own way, at the end she is a hero.