Last Blog On The Left

If I were to guess what kind of a movie this was, judging by its title, I´d go for a really, really crappy comedy starring the Wayans brothers. That´s about as far from the real thing as you can get because man, this is one harsh fucker of a film. If you think you´re in for a plain old “ghetto” movie, you are sorely mistaken. To be frank, this is one of the more brutal but also tender and beautiful films I´ve seen in a long time and it´s all thanks to the brilliance of writer-director Buddy Giovinazzo. He populates his film with characters that if you were to see them in any other movie, they would be the bad guys, the freaks, the ones that the audience are supposed to hate. But Giovinazzo doesn´t roll like that. Instead, that´s the characters that he zooms in on and they´re the ones we get to follow in their daily lives.

I don´t know about you but I live a pretty straight-laced life: I´ve got a job, an education, a girlfriend and an apartment. Like most of us, in this privileged part of the world. And like most of us, I reckon that I have some dreams and hopes for the future. We all do. Even the dope fiends you see sitting at the bus stops every now and then have that. But that´s something that you don´t think about too often but this is exactly what Giovinazzo has done with this movie: he´s asked himself “What are the dreams and hopes of these outcasts? What do the prostitutes´ lives look like when they leave their corner at the end of the day/night?”

Givonazzo builds his movie around a fairly large cast of characters. It sort of plays out like “Short Cuts” with crack-addicts. We get to follow Marybeth (Kerry Washington) who´s a pre-op transsexual working as a prostitute and living with her lover, Benny (Desmond Harrington), a small time burglar. Manny (Victor Rasuk) works two jobs: the late shift in an all night bodega surrounded by young junkies, drug dealers and prostitutes, and as a security guard in a Welfare hotel. At home his wife, Concetta (Shannyn Sossamon), takes care of their sick infant son. Willy, ten years old, lives in the Welfare hotel with his sister, mother (Illeana Douglas) and her violent boyfriend.  Romeo (Evan Ross), an up-and-coming street thug, roams the streets with his gang. Upset over the murder of his younger brother, and feeling partially responsible for not being there during the shooting, he terrorizes anyone who comes in his path.

As you might´ve noticed, this isn´t the feel-good movie of the year, ok? The fact that the opening scene shows us a girl being raped and then urinated on oughtta give you an idea that you´re in for a harsh ride. This is Buddy Giovinazzo serving up a main course of misery, mixed up with brutality, with a side order of tragedy, drug abuse and broken dreams. Those of you out there who remember his debut film, “Combat Shock” shouldn´t be too surprised. What sets this film apart from other “drug”-movies, such as the not-as-satisfying “Spun” is the fact that Giovinazzo hasn´t made this movie to titillate anybody and show them that “this is what life is all about in Cracktown. It can be pretty cool, so come on down”. Unlike many other films in this genre, this isn´t emotional pornography or misery for misery´s sake! Giovinazzo has a mission and that is to show us that even these outcasts of our society have dreams, hopes and that they pretty much want the same thing as we do: love, loyalty and friendship.

Christ, that was deep, huh? Did you get your handkerchief out there?

But that´s what I love about this film: that it shows us what these characters go through when they´re at home, after they´ve spent a day on the street turning tricks. And it´s not that different from our lives, except for pouring a glass of wine, they smoke some crack cocaine. Other than the choice of which drug we choose, it´s basically the same. And this realization is pretty moving at times.

Now, this wouldn´t be very moving at all, if Giovinazzo hadn´t managed to get some pretty great actors for this film. Illeana Douglas is great as the drug addicted mother, who wants to get her kids out of Cracktown but keeps drifting back into her addiction. Evan Ross is absolutely frightening as Romeo but the special gong for great acting has to go to Kerry Washington and Desmond Harrington as the couple, where she´s a pre-op transsexual. This is one of the more touching love stories I´ve seen in quite some time. Harrington does a great portrayal of a guy, who´s not necessarily gay but in love with this man who´s in the process of becoming a woman. The fact that Washington´s character is much more sophisticated and well versed in the ways of the world and very much aware of this, lends another layer of tragedy to the story. But Harrington really does a fantastic job at conveying how much he loves this person and the scene where he declares his love for her is pretty goddamn moving. There´s some fine, fine acting going on here.

I mean, their story alone would´ve made for a great movie but Giovinazzo throws it in there with three other equally as compelling story lines. There´s more going on, character-wise, in fifteen minutes of this film than in that entire fucker Michael Bay´s career. The fact that this movie feels frighteningly realistic only adds to its greatness. It´s obvious that Giovinazzo know these characters and loves them, as well. In any other movie, these characters would be nothing else than some sort of freakish-looking supporting character, but Giovinazzo puts them smack dab in the middle of things and treats them with the sort of dignity and compassion I haven´t seen before. And thanks to the great performances, the fact that most of these characters do pretty horrific things, you never once think of them as “bad guys”. That´s some pretty good writing for ya, I´d say, and this makes Giovinazzo the natural heir to Hubert Selby, JR:s legacy. Like Selby, he writes about tragic fates without it ever getting too sentimental or pitying them. This is kind of like “Last Exit to Brooklyn” for our century.

You know, ever since “Short Cuts” this type of movies with multiple storylines have been pretty popular and a sure-fire way to woo the critics. Robert Altman was the one who pioneered this genre with his masterpiece “Nashville” back in the 70´s and re-vitalized it with “Short Cuts” twenty years later. But since then there hasn´t been that many contributions to the genre that´s worth mentioning, except Paul Thomas Anderson´s masterpiece “Magnolia”. The thing I´m getting at is that I thought that this genre was as good as dead, especially since that awful “Crash” made its way into the Academy Awards with its heavy handed preaching of “We´re all connected” and “Racism is everywhere but we´re all humans”. That was it, I thought. Now, everything we´re gonna see are bad “Crash” rip off´s and I don´t wanna subject myself to that because the original was pretty damn crappy to begin with. That´s why this movie is such a breath of fresh air, it´s a goddamn speed injection into this genre´s arm, with its grittiness and realism. You see, Buddy Giovinazzo has the same message of humanism and empathy that that hack Paul Haggis hammered home with his “Crash”, only he does it in such an infinitely more interesting way. Eat that, Paul Haggis! This is the way you do it… and don´t you forget it. Giovinazzo proves with this movie that he is today´s #1 chronicler of modern society´s outcasts and their broken dreams and hopes. We need more filmmakers like that… And less like Paul Haggis.

Watch it. It´s a good one.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

I´ve been a huge Joan Jett fan since I was a little kid and heard ”I Love Rock´n´Roll” for the first time. There´s just something about her that is very hard to define. She´s got that raspy voice and managed to fuse her punk sensibilities with her love for 50´s music in a perfect mix. So, when you´re kid growing up and listening to Joan Jett, inevitably that´ll lead you to The Runaways, the band she started out in. I´ll admit that I didn´t like them as much as I did her solo stuff back then, because they weren´t quite punk rock enough for me. But I will admit that I was very, very fascinated by them. In a way, they were almost too good to be true. I still say that when it comes to all-female rock bands, there´s no beating The Runaways. Man, it was like someone had picked them from an adult comic strip and brought them to life on a stage. You had Cherie Currie, Joan Jett and Lita Ford, all in the same band! Do you remember that song “School Days”? I always thought that if Josie & The Pussycats (you know that all-girl band from the Archie comics?) existed in real life, had a drug habit and oozed sexuality, this was what they would sound like.

But you know, no matter how fascinating I found The Runaways to be, I never ever thought that someday I would be sitting down to watch a movie about them! A movie starring that girl from the “Twilight” movies as Joan Jett, no less! And that little kid from “Man on Fire” (and the “Twilight” movies, as well) as Cherie Currie! If you would´ve told me that a couple of years back I probably would´ve said “Sure, in an alternate universe” and then I would´ve waited for the dwarves to appear and sing me a song on streets made of candy. But here it is: “The Runaways”, starring Kristen Stewart as Joan Jett, Dakota Fanning as Cherie Currie and Scout Taylor-Compton (Laurie Strode from Rob Zombie´s “Halloween”) as Lita Ford. And you know what? It´s pretty goddamn entertaining!

So this is basically the rise and fall of The Runaways and it´s based on Cherie Currie´s book “Neon Angel”, so what we get here is Currie´s and Jett´s version of what happened. The other members of the band are featured as fleeting presences, at best. Supposedly, there´s a documentary out there called “Edgeplay” that lets the other members have their say but I haven´t seen that one. And to be honest, isn´t it Jett and Currie´s version of how it all went down that we´re interested in? I know I am, at least.

If you´re not familiar with the story about how The Runaways came to be, the band was masterminded by Kim Fowler (played by an amazing Michael Shannon in the movie) who brought the girls together and drilled them in how they were suppose to act, sing, behave on stage and pose. He was the one who found a fifteen year old Cheri Currie in a nightclub and introduced her to Joan Jett and the other girls. “Jail bait rock” he calls the music in the movie and I guess he´s right. You know, while watching this movie I thought it was actually pretty disturbing how young the girls were when they started in the band, considering how sexual Cherie Currie was portrayed in every picture that was taken. Naturally, I didn´t reflect over this when I myself was still in high school but it´s pretty icky today, when I am in my early 30´s.

But anyway, what makes this movie so much fun is the fact that it is surprisingly well acted by everyone involved. Dakota Fanning does a great job of capturing that sex kitten quality that Cherie Currie had and Michael Shannon is, as always, pretty fantastic as Kim Fowler. It´s definitely the most show off-y role of the film but where this part could´ve easily turned into a loud mouthed caricature in the hands of a lesser actor, Shannon manages to keep it on the right side of believable.

But writer-director Floria Sigismondi has an ace up her sleeve and that ace is Kristen Stewart. I think it´s time that I finally face up to the fact that this gal can really act! I know that in the “Twilight” movies she doesn´t do much besides looking sad and pale, while delivering her lines in a twitchy manner, but it´s a whole different deal here. She´s got that Joan Jett swagger down to a tee and if you´ve ever seen any of the old live footage of The Runaways, you can also see that she´s perfected that sloppy way of playing and holding the guitar that Joan Jett had. I´m telling you, it´s pretty goddamn impressive! I read somewhere that Joan Jett was an executive producer or something on the movie and that she stayed on set all throughout filming so that Stewart could hang out with her and observe her. Well, that sure paid off. Man, wouldn´t that be a cool job? To hang out with Joan Jett all day long…

I guess that one could argue with how much of this movie is actually true. Like when Kim Fowley puts the girls through “heckler boot camp” and brings a bunch of kids to their rehearsal space to throw empty cans at them while playing so that they can get used to that when they start playing the clubs. I´m not so sure that Fowley and Jett wrote their biggest hit, “Cherry bomb”, on the spot just so that Cherie could have something to sing for her audition but honestly, it sure makes for a more entertaining movie so I´m all for it. Why let the truth get in the way for a great tale, huh?

But in all sincerity this is actually a pretty fascinating tale. It focuses on Cherie Currie and basically how a young girl like her loses her innocence and Dakota Fanning does a hell of a job of portraying that. The movie opens with her getting her first period and by the end we´ve seen her trying to buy a bottle of booze for breakfast, steal painkillers from her dad and have girl-on-girl sex with Joan Jett, among other things.

When it comes to movies about music, I guess that my favorites is still “Almost Famous” and “High Fidelity” but that´s just because those movies are told from the perspective of a fan, rather than from that of a rock star as “The Runaways” is. That´s why I think it´s easier to identify with those films and why they hold a deeper emotional resonance with me. The one objection I have with “Almost Famous” is that it does get a bit too sappy at times. “The Runaways” doesn´t have this problem. Floria Sigismondi keeps the tone very well balanced, without getting preachy or sentimental.

It´s about time that The Runaways get recognized for what they were: a great band that managed to write great songs, be insanely cool and pave the way for other women in rock. Without The Runaways, no The Go Go´s and no The Donnas, so thanks for that…

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Well, ”better late than never”, right? Isn´t that what they say? Tell that to the IRS and see if they buy that argument. But I´ve finally gotten around to watching Rob Zombie´s follow up to his remake/reboot/restarting of the “Halloween” franchise. I really liked the first one. I thought it was about as good as any “Halloween” movie will ever be, after John Carpenter´s original. I appreciated the fact that Zombie peppered the movie with his white thrash aesthetics and his obscene dialogue. Also, I didn´t think that it felt like a “remake” but a genuine “re-start”. Zombie wasn´t trying to create his version of John Carpenter´s “Halloween” and that´s what made it work. He simply made his version, like he would with any movie. But then a sequel were being made, pretty quickly after the first one was released and I´ve been putting off watching it until now. I can´t tell you why I´ve done this. I love Zombie´s movies but I guess I just had a bad feeling about this one. And in some ways they turned to be right, unfortunately…

This sequel basically picks up right where the first one ended and then we´re treated to one of those “One year later” cards. So now we get to see Laurie Strode (Taylor Scout-Compton) as she is today: punked out with something that resembles dreadlocks and black torn clothes. Basically, your average teenage clothes, if it weren´t for the fact that she has giant scars everywhere. It´s pretty much the same with Annie (Danielle Harris). The two of them are living together with Annie´s dad, Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif). Laurie is trying to cope with the aftermath of the previous Halloween massacre by visiting a psychiatrist (Margot Kidder) and pumping herself full of various prescription drugs.

Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) has written a book chronicling the murders and Michael´s insanity and is doing a publicity tour, promoting it. Even his publicists thinks that the book is in particularly bad taste but that doesn´t stop Loomis from making a stop in Haddonfield for a photo shoot at Michael´s old house. Meanwhile, Michael Myers is making his way over the plains towards Haddonfield. He is guided by the specters of his younger self and his dead mother (Sheri Moon Zombie)…

I think that Zombie´s concept of actually watching how his characters deals with the aftermath of being part of a massacre like the girls were in the first movie, is a great one! But it doesn´t quite work… If it´s due to his lead actress, I´m not sure. Because the main problem with this movie is that in this movie, Laurie Strode is just an unsympathetic, crying, whining teenage girl. It doesn´t matter that she´s been to hell and back, it´s extremely hard to care for her in this incarnation. I had trouble caring about her in the first one because I thought that Scout-Compton was too bland an actress, which left me wishing that Zombie would´ve given the role of Laurie to Danielle Harris instead. The pattern repeats itself here, because if Scout-Compton was too bland in the first one, in this one she is downright annoying and flat out unsympathetic. I´m not sure that that was what Zombie was going for.

Which once again leaves me pining for Danielle Harris and wondering what she would´ve been able to make with the Laurie character? Unfortunately, in this one she´s sort of pushed aside and doesn´t get much to do. And that is what is wrong with this picture: she and Brad Dourif´s character are the only ones who come close to resembling anything sympathetic. Everyone else is a racist redneck, an opportunistic asshole or just stupid.

The other major mistake Zombie makes here is that he turns Dr. Loomis into this fame-hungry pop psychologist, which leaves the door open for Malcolm McDowell to start overacting like a madman. I had a real problem with this. Dr. Loomis is supposed to be the voice of reason, albeit a paranoid, insane voice of reason but still. He is not supposed to be someone who wants to take advantage of what Laurie and the others have been through but that´s unfortunately what happens here. I guess when you got McDowell playing a part it´s easy to take this route because there is something deeply unsympathetic about the guy but I could never ever see Donald Pleasence´s character behave this way.

I think it´s admirable that Zombie plays it straight here and that he actually treats death as something horrifying and scarring, because not many horror movies do that. It´s not like we get to see how the characters in the “Saw” movies cope with their day-to-day life after being trapped in one of Jigsaw´s sew-your-ass-to-your-mouth-traps, right? So kudos for that, Zombie! But this is the first time that a movie directed by Rob Zombie actually feels like it´s directed by someone who wants to be Rob Zombie.

It feels like maybe he wasn´t as inspired this time around so he just figured “I´ll throw a bunch of characters in there who says some pretty nasty thing, have them played by old B-movie veterans who no one except the most hardcore fans will recognize, and have them killed off, while I film it all on a murky film stock”…

I mean, it´s worked the other times he´s directed so why wouldn´t it now? I´m not sure but it doesn´t. I´m not saying that the movie is a failure because as far as sequels go, it´s actually pretty good, but I guess that I was just expecting more. The last time Zombie did a sequel it was with one of the best movies of this decade, “The Devil´s Rejects” but with that one he managed to create something totally new and separate from the original. With this one he sort of rehashes his usual schtick, which is a crying shame.

I gotta say that I´m not too fond of the look of this film, either. In his previous films, Zombie has managed to create sort of a timeless quality but while shooting it pretty slick. This one is much murkier, grainier and it´s kind of hard to actually see what´s going on in some scenes. I guess that the reason for this is because this is a much more ambiguous film than the first one. The whole concept of Michael interacting with the specters of his younger self and his dead mother is an interesting one but unfortunately, Zombie fails somewhat in the execution of it.

I can understand why he wants his wife, Sheri Moon Zombie, to be in all his movies and it hasn´t really bothered me in any of the previous films but in this one it felt really forced. And as much as I like her presence (I thought she did a surprisingly good job in the first “Halloween”), I´m afraid that she isn´t up to the task of playing what is essentially a ghost. Her scenes feel contrived and forced, although they possess a very haunting quality, graphically speaking. Her scenes could´ve easily have been ditched.

Also, I gotta say that I´ve enjoyed Zombie´s dialogue that seem designed to shock you (remember William Forsythe´s rants about skullfucking in the first one?) and there´s less of that in this one. However, when it does appear it kinda feels out of place. I´m talking about (SPOILER!!!) the scene at the beginning with the two coroners who talks about getting it on with one of the corpses they´re transporting. I don´t know, it just felt like it was out of place and that Zombie included it so that he could get some shock value in there.

I´m a little bit worried about Zombie´s career as a director after watching this one. He started out with “House of 1000 Corpses” which was a pretty entertaining throwback to 70´s Grindhouse cinema but he really knocked it out of the park with “The Devil´s Rejects”. When it came to remaking “Halloween”, I think he did a much better job than most directors would but it feels like he has stagnated a bit with this sequel. He´s working with the same tools as before but the movie gets pretty repetitive, after a while. We´re constantly presented to new characters who say nasty things to each other, only for Michael Myers to come barging in and break their neck or stab the hell out of them. I suspect that maybe Zombie didn´t have a shitload of ideas for this sequel.

One thing that is pretty spectacular about the film is Brad Dourif´s performance as Sheriff Garrett. Most of us are used to seeing him as the psychotic, weird character but he really is fantastic here and the scene (SPOILER!!!) where he finds Annie, is pretty painful to watch. Dourif´s sorrow and pain in this sequence is example of acting on a level that you just wouldn´t see in the latest “Final Destination” flick or the new “Saw” sequel.

Man, I can´t believe how mixed feelings I have about this movie. I think the reason why I was feeling sort of disappointed with it is because maybe I´m comparing it too much with “The Devil´s Rejects”, which I´ve come to realize that even if Zombie keeps making movies for another thirty years, he´ll never top that one and the faster I realize that, the sooner I will be able to enjoy his other films more. I guess this is an ok movie, after all. Hell, if you compare it to most of the other “Halloween” sequels, it´s a goddamn masterpiece, no doubt about that! I still like the first one better but I have this gnawing sensation that this one will grow on me. However, I will keep cursing Zombie´s name for not giving the part of Laurie Strode to Danielle Harris…

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

It´s time to make a stand for everything that is good here in our rotten world again, friends. In this case all that happens to be good about our world is spelled John Landis and “Innocent Blood”. When this one was released back in 1992, it was pretty much universally lambasted for being a failure. Critics were disappointed, to say the least. I guess that I could understand them being that this was made by the director who made the werewolf classic “An American Werewolf in London” so when this guy was gonna tackle the vampire genre, everyone was getting a hard on just by the thought of it. Then everyone was all sad and blue when it was released because it didn´t live up to their expectations. Well, boo-fucking-hoo, I say! You see, I was around thirteen when this one was released and thought that it was fantastic. But the thing is that I hadn´t seen this movie since then, until I finally got around to ordering the German DVD (it´s the only one released in widescreen) and sat down to watch it the other night.

It´s always something of a gamble when you´re gonna re-visit one of these childhood favorites. Chances are that you´re gonna agree with everyone that kept calling you stupid as a kid because most of the times those movies you liked turn out to be pretty crappy, so you end up sitting there thinking “Christ, they were right! I must´ve been pretty stupid to like this movie, because this really blows!”

Well, in this case I had the exact opposite experience. This movie was actually better than I remember it being. And do you know why that is? Because John Landis is a genius and his take on vampirism is pretty goddamn funny, that´s why! And gory!

Marie (Anne Parillaud) is a vampire, making her rounds in a wintry Chicago. But she´s not your ordinary kind of vampire. She´s the kind that has a conscience, which means that she tries to limit her throat-sucking to the criminal denizens of her city. Everything´s hunky dory until two problems come up, she is interrupted while feeding on Sal “the shark” Macelli (Robert Loggia) and she begins to develop a relationship with Joe Gennaro (Anthony LaPaglia), the policeman who has been trying to put Sal away. Sal wakes up in the morgue very confused and very thirsty. He goes back to his old haunts and begins to create an organized crime family of vampires while Marie and her policeman lover decide to hunt him down.

Did I mention that Marie also has quite an appetite for sex? That´s right, just like all good vampires she doesn´t only crave blood. Do you hear that, “Twilight”? That´s why it´s such fun to re-visit this movie because it´s a hell of a lot more gorier than I remember it being and in the first five minutes we´ve also been treated to the wonderful sight of Anne Parillaud walking around her bedroom, in her birthday suit! We´re talking full frontal here and tell me, how can you not like a movie that opens this way?

This is one underrated film we´ve got here, friends. We all know the state of vampires these days with young girls fawning over R-Pattz or whatever the hell they call him today, which is why this movie makes me nostalgic for the vampires of yesteryear. Remember when vampires actually did some killing whenever they showed up in a movie? Hey, it sounds crazy, kids, but that´s what they did! In this one they don´t sparkle in the sunlight, oh no, sir! You see, this Marie gal can be pretty vicious when she sets her mind to it and that´s why her attacks are among the highlights of the film. They´re pretty brutal, especially by today´s standards.

And you know what else I love about John Landis´ movies? It´s because they seem designed to be one and one thing only: fun! And this one is no exception. To see Italian gangsters run around, taking big chomps out of each other´s necks is pretty hilarious. Kind of makes me wonder why the hell no one ever came up with the idea of vampire gangsters before this movie. Especially since Robert Loggia seems to be born to play this part. He really lets it rip as the mob boss. The scene where he wakes up at the morgue is particularly funny. He kind of does the same schtick here that he would later hone to perfection on David Lynch´s “Lost Highway”, when he played that gangster boss with a severe case of road rage.

And you know, since this is a John Landis movie we also get the obligatory slew of cameos from different directors and other faces familiar to horror fans. In this one we get Sam Raimi as guy who works at a meat packing plant, Dario Argento as a paramedic, Michael Ritchie as a night watchman, Linnea Quigley as a nurse, Frank Oz as a pathologist and Forrest J. Ackerman as a guy who gets his car stolen. That´s always fun with Landis´ movies: to spot the different cameos. I know, it´s nerdy, but I admit it: I wear my badge of nerdiness with pride.

But except for the cameos, it´s a pretty impressive cast: Chazz Palminteri plays Loggia´s right hand man, Don Rickles plays the mobster´s lawyer, David Proval is in there, as well as Tony Sirico who played Tony Walnuts on “The Sopranos”. It´s kind of fun to see these guys who usually show up in mob movies directed by Scorsese, send up their image in this way.

And you know, since this is a movie from 1992 we´re talking about here, do you know what the best thing about it is? No goddamn CGI! That´s right, folks! None whatsoever. I know that that sounds pretty unbelievable but that´s how they made films back then: just practical effects. This means that when the blood starts to flow, it really flows here. Landis isn´t holding back here. Imagine that they got away with this back then: a vampire comedy with an R rating? Fantastic.

It´s obvious that Landis himself is a fan boy, as well. He shows his dedication to the genre by almost always having some old horror movie showing in the background and constantly paying tribute to other films. That doesn´t mean that he´s afraid to mix it up a bit when it comes to the vampire conventions, though. The vampires in this one doesn´t need a wooden stake through the heart in order to die. Landis shows a couple of times that regular bullets will suffice more than well. They also have a reflection whenever they look in the mirror. Garlic, however, is still a problem for them. We´re also shown in one of the best scenes of the movie that sunlight still pack a punch.

I kinda appreciate this approach to making a vampire movie. I think it makes it more fun if you deviate somewhat from the standard rules and conventions. But like I said, that does not mean that you should turn the vampires in the sobbing emo kids who sparkle when they´re exposed to sunlight, ok?

So let´s just ignore the fact that Anne Parillaud may not be the best actress in the world, ok? At least not when she´s forced to speak her lines in English, which isn´t her native tongue, then she sounds a bit stilted. She was fantastic in “Nikita” but she isn´t the most charismatic vampire in this one but I´ll take her over Bella any day. But let´s ignore that and concentrate on the fact that this may be one of the last truly entertaining vampire films ever produced. So thanks for that, John Landis!

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

I remember watching this movie on opening day back in 1997 and I can´t remember sitting there in the dark of the theatre thinking “Hey, I´m watching what will become a classic here!” I did have that same thought when I watched “Heat” on its opening day but that one wasn´t so hard to figure out. You had Robert De Niro and Al Pacino together for the first time, so that one was bound to become a classic whether it wanted to or not. But if you were to ask me today, which one I´d rather watch between “Heat” or “Cop Land”, I´d definitely go with “Cop Land” any day of the week. It is without a doubt the far superior film, in my book. “Heat” has got that obsessive gun-details going on, where Michael Mann has to show that he has done his research and I´m pretty sick of that these days. It´s a pretty pompous film where its director is fully aware, in every frame of the film, that “I am directing a classic here”. That is not the case with “Cop Land”. It kind of sneaks up on you and it wasn´t until a couple of years later, that I fully appreciated it.

Besides, if you think about it, “Cop Land” is a classic in the sense that this was probably the last time that we got to see Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel deliver some truly great performances. Remember that back in ´97 every other movie those guys starred in had some classic lines in them? What has Harvey Keitel been up to since then, you ask? Well, he´s been in such masterpieces as “National Treasure: Book of secrets”, “Be Cool” and “U-571” (to name the best of the movies on his resume. I´ll admit that these movies holds a certain value, since they are pretty entertaining but the tragic thing is that the Keitel we´re treated to in these flicks is the one that´s going on auto pilot. You can´t exactly compare Keitel´s turn in “Crime Spree” to “Bad Lieutenant”, can you?

It´s the same thing with Robert De Niro. Sure, he was pretty funny in “Meet the Parents”, “Analyze That” and “Stardust” but 1997 was the last time we had the pleasure of watching De Niro really act, both in “Cop Land” and in “Jackie Brown”. Since then it´s all been downhill, unfortunately. I don´t know what the hell happened. It seems that De Niro has been kind of out of it ever since Scorsese decided to make Leonardo Di Caprio his new muse. I remember hearing that De Niro was supposed to play the part that Daniel Day Lewis ended up doing in “Gangs of New York” but because De Niro refused to film in France, because of that whole brothel thing where he got arrested, Scorsese gave it to Lewis instead. If that´s the case, then it´s a crying shame!

You can´t deny the fact that De Niro has managed to create some pretty iconic performances in his career, and most of them has been with Scorsese. But the one he delivers in “Cop Land” isn´t mentioned that often when you speak about the “great De Niro performances” and I can´t for the life of me understand why. It´s a subtle performance of understated grandeur! This is why I´ve always preferred De Niro over Pacino. Imagine him in this role. He would´ve started shouting and screaming before the credits were over.

But De Niro and Keitel isn´t the only ones who delivers truly great performances in this flick. I think it´s pretty safe to say that Sylvester Stallone will never top the one he gives here, as the hearing disabled Sheriff Freddy Heflin, who has had a crush on Annabella Sciorra´s character since his teens. I know that Stallone was pretty damn great in the first “Rocky”-movie but this is his crowning achievement as an actor.

The story goes something like this: Policemen have always been the idols of Freddy Heflin. Due to being slightly deaf, Heflin could never pass the physical to become a police officer himself. However, because of his friendly, amiable nature, he’s managed to get himself elected Sheriff of a small New Jersey county outside of New York City, and he lives in a town where many NYPD cops also live. Mo Tilden (De Niro) is an Internal Affairs investigator for the NYPD, and his investigation of some crooked cops leads him to this small town, and to Sheriff Freddy Heflin. Heflin begins to help Tilden, and discovers that some of his heroes may not as righteous as Heflin would like to believe…

When you watch this movie today, it´s kind of amazing how many great actors director James Mangold managed to assemble for this picture: We not only get De Niro, Keitel, Sciorra and Stallone but also Michael Rapaport, Peter Berg, Janeane Garofalo and a slightly overweight Ray Liotta, who is also at the top of his game in this movie. The scene where he threatens Robert Patrick with a dart arrow in his nose is a classic.

Now, the reason why this is such a fantastic movie, except for the many great performances on display, are two things: the first thing is that it´s basically a western set in modern day society. There´s also a sadness to Stallone´s character that you don´t often see in your average cop movie. His lifelong crush on Liz, who he saved from drowning as a teenager and which is the reason why his lost his hearing on one ear, is extremely moving and involving. You can clearly see that she has feelings for him as well, and she is aware of the fact that if she were to have married him instead, she definitely would´ve been more loved, but he wouldn´t have been able to provide for her the kind of life that her husband Joey (Peter Berg) can. She realizes this too and there´s a melancholia to Stallone and Sciorra´s scenes that are absolutely heartbreaking. It kind of reminds me of something that James Gray would have come up with.

I can´t begin to tell you how great Stallone is in his portrayal of Freddy Heflin. Mangold knows to take advantage of his hangdog looks and he has never looked sadder than here. This is a man who´s gotten his heart chewed out, beaten and stomped on by life and Stallone walks a very fine line between being pathetic and endearing. In the first scene we meet him, he´s drunk as a skunk at the local bar, playing the pinball machine and when he runs out of coins he goes outside to unlock the parking meter to get some more. This is a pretty funny scene but it tells us a lot about this character. He´s playing the pinball machine while the cops he so admires at the other end of the bar are discussing something that he knows he will never be a part of, and it´s pretty clear that even though he´s the sheriff of this town no one takes him seriously.

Anyway, he stumbles outside to unlock the parking meter and drops the coins over the curb and that´s when Ray Liotta gives him the advice to home and sleep it off. There are a couple of scenes where get to see Heflin at home at night, one is after an encounter with Sciorra, and he´s laying on the couch, crying and listening to “Drive all night” and “Stolen car” by Bruce Springsteen and clutching the cover of his “The River” album. Now, I´ve always been especially fond of these types of Springsteen-tracks: the slow ballads about the people who spend their lives in the margins of our society and in these scenes with Stallone alone on his couch, director Mangold manages to touch upon something that very much resembles the kind of sadness one would feel when you realize that there is something very wrong with your life. It didn´t turn out the way you expected it to and when you know the reason why it didn´t, it has to be extra painful. We´ve all felt that at one point or another. Hell, if even a multibillionaire rock star like Bruce Springsteen can conjure up that feeling it´s not that unusual, it´s something that all human beings have in common and this is why Freddy Heflin is such a relatable character: he´s a decent guy who wants to do the right thing and who´s in love with the wrong woman. Who doesn´t like a guy like that?

But other than Stallone´s great performance, “Cop Land” really is a great western, updated to the late 1990´s. It basically comes down to the old “a man´s gotta do what a man´s gotta do”-type of thing and I can´t help it: I´m a sucker for that shit! I know that it´s predictable and some of you might even say that it s cliché-ridden but I say this is classic stuff. Hell, the scenes towards the end with Stallone escorting the prisoner almost borders on near mythic-stuff.

So, if you haven´t seen this one, you should! It´s a cracking thriller with a surprisingly mature streak of sadness running through it, with easily one of the best ensemble casts of the 90´s.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

I always enjoy a good summer-movie-action-extravaganza. Don´t we all? That´s why I dragged my scarred, old body to the theatre the other today so I could catch this summer´s first action blockbuster, “The A-Team”. I didn´t have my hopes set too high but I was expecting a little more than the usual Michael Bay-crap, since it´s Joe Carnahan that was sitting in the director chair on this one. Carnahan was responsible for the fairly enjoyable “Smokin´ Aces” and the fantastic “Narc”, so chances was that this one was actually gonna be pretty good. Other than that, you also got Liam Neeson in the role of Hannibal Smith, Sharlto Copley (the guy from “District 9”) as Murdoch and Bradley Cooper as Face. These three guys´ performances are pretty decent. But the first mistake of “The A-Team” is that they instead of just hiring Mr. T again, is that they brought in this guy, Quinton “Rampage” Jackson, to play B.A. Baracus. I wasn´t familiar with this guy but apparently he´s some sort of mixed martial artist or whatever. I have no idea what “mixed” means. Maybe he´s feeling a bit confused about his choice to compete in martial arts? Is his emotional life in upheaval? Honestly, I have no idea.

But anyway, this guy is no actor, I think we can all agree on that and even though a guy like Liam Neeson isn´t exactly stretching his acting muscles in a movie like this, it´s pretty apparent that he belongs in a different league. But maybe it´s wrong of me to complain about a thing like this ´cuz after all, this is “The A-Team”, not Shakespeare, right? But you know, it wasn´t that long ago that I saw one of those infomercials that Mr. T has done where he´s selling his own grill or whatever the hell it is and the weird thing is that the guy looks exactly like he did 20 years ago! Apparently Mr. T forgot to age during the years he´s been away from the limelight. “I pity the fool who grows old!” They could´ve easily gotten away with giving him the role.

But even if you disregard the fact that Mr. T wasn´t cast in the movie, is it any good? Not really. It is kind of fun but this is a good example of the usual overkill that goes on in today´s action movies. Hell, at one point Neeson´s character even says “Overkill is underrated” but you know what, usually I´m not of the habit of disagreeing with Liam Neeson (not after watching “Taken” and realizing that the guy kicks ass like it´s nobody´s business) but I think I have to, in this case.  “The A-Team” is a bit too much of everything.

The story goes like this: The A-Team, an elite combat unit, is framed for a crime they didn´t commit. This means that they have to clear their names and in order to do this, they have to blow a lot of shit up. That´s all you need to know, really.

Let´s start off with the good things: Sharlto Copley! This guy has got the chops. I think we can agree that he delivered on of last year´s best performances in “District 9” and even though he´s not gonna get any Oscar nominations for his turn as Murdoch, he still manages to nail that insane quality that Dwight Schultz had in the original TV-series.

I guess that Liam Neeson is one of the other things that´s pretty good about this flick. I like the direction this guy´s career has taken in the last couple of years. It started when he made that western with Pierce Brosnan, “Seraphim Falls” and then in his quest to become one of baddest of asses in Hollywood he made the fantastic “Taken” and now this. I could watch a new action movie with him every week. Keep ´em coming, Liam!

But this is by now way a great movie. Unfortunately, halfway through the film director Joe Carnahan seemed to have come up with the not-so-fantastic idea that what he really wanted to make was a Jason Bourne movie, so suddenly we find ourselves in Germany at a train station with lots of surveillance cameras and shit. Very much Jason Bourne, if you get my drift.

I have to say that I had some problem keeping my interest alive throughout its running time. This is partly due to the fact that Carnahan tries to create the most spectacular action sequences, and in order to do that he resorts to the old CGI-way of movie trickery. Not my favorite way of creating an action sequence, but I don´t wanna sound like an old cranky man, so let´s skip that for now. Unfortunately, Carnahan hasn´t calmed down with his insane shaky-camera movements. If you saw his previous flick, “Smokin´ Aces” you know what I´m talking about here. He used the same technique to fantastic effect in the opening scene of “Narc” when Jason Patric is chasing a drug dealer down an alley but in that film it served a purpose. In that one, Carnahan placed us smack in the middle of a foot chase and we were supposed to wonder what the hell was going on. That´s a whole different thing. It´s never a good thing when you start to wonder what´s going on or who´s firing at who. Unfortunately, that´s exactly what happens here.

I know I said I wasn´t gonna go off on another one of these rants but I can´t control myself: honestly, what is it with today´s action directors and CGI? I´m not saying that you should actually put Liam Neeson in a tank and then throw it out of an airplane but honestly, CGI really has killed the action star! Why don´t everyone take a cue from Christopher Nolan and what he achieved with “The Dark Knight”? He managed to create some truly unforgettable action sequences there. Remember that tank flipping over in the middle of the street? You can bet your computer generated ass that that wasn´t CGI.

I also found myself wondering why the hell this movie was called “The A-Team” in the first place because frankly, it doesn´t have much to do with the original TV-series. They could´ve easily just changed the names of the characters and I don´t think that anyone would´ve suspected much of anything. Which begs the question: why the hell do you wanna remake something if you´re gonna change it so much that doesn´t resemble the original in the first place? I can appreciate the fact that Carnahan wanted to make a grittier movie but he still has to work within the realms that the PG-13 rating creates. This basically means that no matter how cool and brutal Carnahan wanted Hannibal and his team to be, they´re never gonna come close to the mayhem he unleashed in “Smokin´ Aces”. So once again: why even bother calling it “The A-Team” at all? Beats me.

But what the hell, all in all this is a pretty enjoyable, stupid action flick and I guess you could do a lot worse this summer. At least Carnahan knows what he´s doing but unfortunately, since we´re all waiting for the wonder that will be “The Expendables” I´m afraid it´s hard to get too excited about this one.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Who out there amongst you doesn´t enjoy a good science fiction/horror flick? Hands up. No one? That´s what I thought. Unfortunately, a movie belonging to that genre doesn´t fall into your lap too often so we´re left to scavenge the past for the few decent entries in this subgenre because it isn´t exactly brimming over with new entries. It´s not like the vampire genre these days. That´s why you have to cherish those moment when a movie shows up, that actually seems to embrace both genres, has a decent budget and a good cast. I mean, how often does that happen these days? Hell, I think I work out more often than that.

That is why when you´re about to pop a movie like “Pandorum” into your DVD player, you´re kind of nervous. I know what most of you out there are thinking: “Wasn´t that the movie that was produced by Paul W.S. Anderson?” and yes, it is. That alone is enough to make most people run away from it in fear but let´s not forget that Anderson wrote and directed the space-horror classic “Event Horizon” and I dare you to find a movie that makes better use of the concept “haunted house in outer space”. “Event Horizon” is a severely underrated film and the trailer I saw for “Pandorum” a couple of months back made me very curious.

The movie starts out with two astronauts who awaken in a hypersleep chamber aboard a seemingly abandoned spacecraft. It´s pitch black, they are disoriented, and the only sound is a low rumble and creak from the belly of the ship. They can’t remember anything: Who are they? What is their mission? With Lt. Payton (Dennis Quaid) staying behind to guide him via radio transmitter, Cpl. Bower (Ben Foster) ventures deep into the ship and begins to uncover a terrifying reality. Slowly the spacecraft’s secrets are revealed…

Now, that´s a great set up for a horror movie in space, right? And at first the mood of the film is both tense and exciting. The scene where Foster wakes up from his hypersleep is pretty realistic, at least I would imagine so since I haven´t had that much firsthand experience from sleeping in a hyper kind of way. I mean, I have found myself in some pretty deep sleeps over the years, especially after I´ve done some drinking and it´s no picnic waking up from those but in my expert opinion I think that has more to do with the drinking than the sleeping. But anyway, it really comes across that this hypersleep-business isn´t a very pleasant experience.

The set up is pretty cool, as well: the two crew members can´t remember who or what they are because of them being in hypersleep for so long. This means that the audience is left there right alongside them, without a clue of what´s going on. Now, since both you and me have probably seen a hell of a lot more sci-fi-horror movies than these two guys, it doesn´t take long for us to figure out what the hell it is that´s going on but for a pretty good amount of the film, they actually manage to string us along and keep the audience in the dark. And when I say that they keep us in the dark, I mean that literally!

You see, this whole business with the darkness is a matter all of its own. I can understand that director Christian Alvart wants to create a certain kind of mood and it is pretty obvious that the guy´s inspiration is the first “Alien” movie and all that, but really… it´s too fucking dark! Hell, most of the time you can´t even see what´s going on. You´re not supposed to have to wear one of those night vision goggles just to keep up with what´s happening on the goddamn screen, are you? At first you kinda buy into it but after about 45 minutes of just flashlights, it gets pretty tiresome. Remember “The X-Files” and how when Mulder and Scully entered a crime scene, all they had were their two flashlights that lit up the place? Hell, it´s like watching two hours of those scenes.

“Pandorum” also takes a cue from Neil Marshall´s “The Descent” in that it does place its leads in a fair number of pretty uncomfortable scenes and the ones where Ben Foster are forced to crawl through tight ventilation shafts and whatever the hell it is, are pretty claustrophobic.

I wanna say that I really liked “Pandorum” and that I recommend it but to be honest, I´m not sure exactly how much I liked it. This movie might just be a case of me being so starved for something, anything at all, to come along in this genre that I´m not sure if I liked the movie for that reason alone. You almost feel a debt of gratitude towards Alvart and Anderson for making this movie and because not that many sci-fi-horror movies are being made these days, you´re willing to accept the fact that it may not actually be that good.

But I´m gonna take the high road here and say that I did like it. I do think that they could´ve been a bit more generous with their editing tools because it does drag on a bit every now and then, and say what you will about “Event Horizon” but at least it wasn´t boring, right?

By the way, since Dennis Quaid is in it, let´s discuss him for a while. I´m pretty fascinated with that guy´s career lately. I´ve always been a fan of his but I´m pretty surprised at the fact that the guy seems to be starring in genre movies exclusively now. That´s a pretty weird turn for his career to take, I think. In the last couple of years the guy has been in “Horsemen” (serial killer), “Legion” (angels running amuck on earth) and “G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra” (toy soldiers blowing shit up). It´s not like I´m complaining, I like the guy and I´d rather see him in action or horror movies than in weepy dramas but I think it´s surprising, considering the fact that during the 90´s we didn´t see him in hardly any genre movies. However, that “Legion” movie was inexcusable. Let´s not force anyone to sit through a pile of dredge like that ever again, ok? You need to get your priorities straight there, Dennis…

But back to “Pandorum”. Despite the fact that you can´t hardly see what the hell is going on in the long corridors of the ship for most of the time, I have to say that director Alvart does a pretty good job of raising the tension along with Foster moving deeper and deeper into the heart of the ship. I also like how they add the threat of mental illness into the mix. We don´t know who is showing signs of Pandorum, which is kinda like a jacked up version of cabin fever, and if there´s something that every movie that´s set in deep space needs, it´s the lurking threat of dementia. So basically, these guys know their genre and they use the conventions to maximize the tension and I think that it works.

Now, since we´re gonna round up this rambling here, there are one last thing that I have to discuss, but if you haven´t seen the damn thing here´s a SPOILER!!!-alert for you. I don´t think that it´ll come as a big surprise for you that the ship is haunted by monsters and we all love that, right? However, what I didn´t expect was that those fuckers from “Ghosts of Mars” and the crawling creeps from “The Descent” parts I & II apparently have gotten together on their spare time and managed to spawn the bastards we see in this one. Every good horror movie that´s gonna feature some sort of a monster or mutant needs a good one and I´m afraid I was a little disappointed in this one. It was just too similar to ones we´ve already seen.

But on the other hand, I did get to see a brand new science fiction-horror flick, so what the hell am I complaining about? Sometimes, that´s all you can ask from life.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

It´s time to set aside our undying love for horror and other things as culturally high brow for a while, friends! While horror may be the favorite one of our movie children we still have to give some attention to the other kids as well. Just think of how attention-craving and unwilling to cooperate they will become when they grow up if we ignore them. That is why, my friends, I want to point your directions today towards an old Spaghetti western called “La Resa dei Conti” but most commonly known as “The Big Gundown”.

I love Spaghetti westerns! I know that there are a great many that are quite crappy but in almost every Spaghetti western I can always find some element that I love. There´s almost always at least one really inspired moment in most of them! And “The Big Gundown” is definitely no exception to this rule. It stars the late, great Lee Van Cleef and next to his roles in Sergio Leone´s “Dollars”-films, this is probably his best role. Next to “Death Rides A Horse”. That one was pretty goddamn great too, come to think of it.

Anywho, this one has a lot of things in common with Leone´s films. Sergio Donati who helped write the scripts for those are a co-writer and Leone´s frequent set designer Carlo Simi´s name show up in the credits, too. And then there´s the music… Apparently it´s written by this dude called Ennio Morricone. I don´t know about him but he seems like a pretty talented guy. The song during the credits is pretty catchy and the orchestral score is pretty cool, too.

All kidding, as we all know Ennio Morricone is one of the greatest composers ever. Whenever someone starts talking about classical composers like Chopin, Beethoven and Mozart and is trying to act all smart on your ass and starts rambling about their music, here´s what you do: start whistling the theme to “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” and then punch them square in the face, ok? That´ll teach them to shut up about musical geniuses for a while.

Sometimes you gotta show ´em who´s in charge, friends. But anyway, back to “The Big Gundown”. It´s a great frickin´ film! You know how there are certain actors that weren´t just born to play cowboys but somehow comes across as real damn cowboys? You know, actors that doesn´t seem to belong in our time, in a weird way. Robert Duvall is one of those guys. Just look at “Lonesome Dove” and the fantastic “Open Range”. That guy is a genuine cowboy. He´s not faking it, I´m telling ya!

Well, Lee Van Cleef was one of those guys. Whenever you watch a film where he´s not in cowboy-gear, it doesn´t seem right. Well, he was in “Escape from New York” but that one was directed by John Carpenter, so naturally he works in that one. But you know, he did a couple of cop-movies in the 80´s and somehow that didn´t seem right. This was a man who was born to star in westerns and that´s really all there is to it. And thanks to Leone, the man had a pretty damn successful career in Europe, starring in a shitload of Spaghetti-westerns and if I´m not mistaken, “The Big Gundown” was the first one he made after “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”. Here´s what the flick´s all about:

Jonathan Corbett (Lee Van Cleef), a famous gunman and bounty hunter, is sent to hunt down a Mexican small-time crook named Cuchillo Sanchez (Tomas Milian), who is accused of the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl. Corbett is an experienced and successful lawman, but Cuchillo is very clever too. On this long hunt Corbett gets to know Cuchillo, and he gradually starts to doubt he´s guilty.

Not a very complicated story, but that´s the case with many of these types of westerns. It´s the way they´re executed that makes them so damn interesting. There were a whole string of Spaghetti westerns that were political in what they were trying to convey to the audience and “The Big Gundown” is no exception.

When you look at Leone´s work some might argue that they were indeed political, especially his last “western” “Duck, You Sucker” aka “A Fistful of Dynamite” starring James Coburn and Rod Steiger. That was a political film but what Leone was trying to say with it was how disillusioned he had become with politics and its machinery. That´s an opinion that I´m sure we´re all familiar with and that´s why I think that while it may not be Leone´s best film, it´s definitely one of his more interesting. Maybe not the first time around you watch it but it is if you take a closer look at it. Director Sergio Sollima hadn´t reached that state of anger or disappointment with this film. He does seem to have his filmmaker heart proudly placed to the left because this, at first glance deceivably simple western story, deals with such topics as prejudice, the working man being exploited for economic purposes and political trickery.

But like the great John Carpenter film “They Live” , which I´ve rambled about here, these layers are not hammered home too hard. It´s there if you wanna look for them and embrace them but if you don´t want to, this movie is just as easily enjoyable as a straight up western flick. Exactly the way I want my politics to be served!

That fucker who directed that flick “Crash” a couple of years back should sit up and take notes. You hear me, Paul Haggis? Don´t try to act like you don´t know what I´m talking about, ok? You hammered home the message so hard that I walked out of the theatre with a concussion and that´s not the way to go about it. Just remember that for future movies, ok? Thanks to “Crash” I haven´t yet dared to watch that “In the Valley of Elah” or whatever the hell it was called despite the fact that it stars one of my favorite actors, Tommy Lee Jones. That´s what you´ve done to me. You should stick to writing Bond movies and boxing films for Clint Eastwood. You see the difference there, Paul Haggis? Clint Eastwood didn´t hammer home his point, ok? Not like you did, with a god damn jackhammer, anyway.

Sorry about going off on a tangent there. I don´t know why I did that. I guess that I dislike “Crash” more than I knew I did.

Anyway, one of the things that Sollima does that I absolutely love about this film is that he has his hero, Corbett, start out as basically Eastwood´s character from the Leone films. He´s sort of a bounty hunter. He does his job and he´s very good at it. He doesn´t stay up at night around the campfire to sing songs or ponder the mysteries of life, ok? He catches the bad guys, brings the fuckers in and then that´s that. That´s how Lee Van Cleef rolls. But you see, when he starts pursuing Milians character, Cuchillo, he´s gradually forced to experience what Cuchillo experiences in terms of social injustice and bigotry. These events play out and Sollima handles it in a really great way. Like I said, he doesn´t hammer home his point and never once does it feel contrived or like he´s taking too much dramatic license.

That´s one of the things that I love about Spaghetti westerns: the twists and turns that the stories usually has. They really took the genre in a whole new direction and realized that they didn´t have to abide by the rules that the Hollywood westerns had to do. That´s why your average Spaghetti western is a hell of a lot more depraved, twisted, sadistic, violent, perverse and unpredictable than John Wayne ever got to be.

Now, don´t get me wrong. I love John Wayne as much as the next guy. I know that he was a fanatic republican and that he basically did a commercial for the Vietnam War with his film “The Green Berets” but I can´t help myself. It´s The Duke we´re talking about here! But no matter how great of a film “The Searchers” may be, it´s still a lot more fun watching basically any given Spaghetti western.

I´m not saying that Sergio Sollima is rivaling Sergio Leone´s cinematic genius with but this is a surprisingly competent film. But then again, not many people can beat Leone when it comes to creating spectacular cinematic landscapes and scenarios. The man was a master at every aspect of moviemaking: editing, sound design and cinematography. Christ, watch “Once Upon A Time In The West” again if you have any doubt. It´s a close to perfect film. That kind of showdowns, staring contests and opera-like displays of violence, you´ll only get in Leone´s films. Technical artistry at its best. That´s why a film like “The Big Gundown” is a bit more down and dirty. The camera shakes more, there´s a lot more zooms and stuff like that.

Another thing that they did really well in these old Spaghetti westerns was that they managed to populate the films with really bizarre, over-the-top characters and that´s something you gotta love. In this one we get a pretty crazy lady who runs a ranch and has a staff of lovesick ranch-hands working for her. Naturally, she doesn´t want anything to do with them but has instead her sights set on Van Cleef.

We also get an Austrian Baron who joins the posse. Where the hell did they find these actors? It´s like you´re watching a Fellini-film, with those faces.

This is a really, really good western. And like I mentioned, it has a pretty amazing score by Morricone. The title song is called “Run, Man, Run!”, which is also the name of another Spaghetti western starring Tomas Milian which was made the following year where he reprises the role Cuchillo. That one´s also pretty good but not in the same league as “The Big Gundown”. Unfortunately, there´s no Region 1 release of this and that sucks pretty hard.

However, the good people of Germany (not a phrase you get to say that often) have taken it upon them to release a DVD of this one and it even has the uncut version. It was truncated when it was released in the States and in that Van Cleef´s character doesn´t go through much of a change at all. The German release looks amazing, though! It is unfortunate that it doesn´t have the English soundtrack ´cause it´s just not the same listening to Van Cleef speaking Italian.

So there you have it… Sometime´s a man gotta do what a man´s gotta do, just like Van Cleef does in this film and what you have to do now is seek this one out and give it a try. I mean come on, who doesn´t love a good western? There´s not enough of them being made today but fortunately the Italians made about a thousand of them during their heyday back in the 60´s so we´re not up shit creek yet…

Until next time,

Thomas

Where does one begin when you attempt to describe “The Brown Bunny” to anyone? It´s pretty hard not to mention the scene where Chloe Sevigny performs fellatio on writer-producer-director-actor-scorer-cinematographer Vincent Gallo. Let´s face it, it´s the reason this movie is known and even though it mostly consist of long sequences of Gallo driving and ends with what is basically a pornographic scene, I really like this film. And when I say that I like it, I don´t mean that I like it in the way that I´ll re-watch it every couple of months, ok? I´ve only seen it twice and I think it´ll be a long, long time before I re-visit it but this is a unique film, make no mistake about that! I don´t think that I´ll ever watch another movie like it again. And it´s all thanks to the mystery that is Vincent Gallo…

Through the 90´s I was familiar with his work as an actor in such films as “Truth or Consequences, NM”, “The Funeral” and “Palookaville” and I found him to be a captivating screen presence. Then in 1998 something happened. He wrote and directed (among other things) “Buffalo ´66”, which is one of the best American films of that decade. Suddenly, Gallo went from being a pretty cool actor to an Orson Welles-like genius. And then he started doing interviews. And let´s just say that he´s been pretty outspoken through the years…

I gladly admit that his image is a big part of why I like the guy. I mean, when you call Roger Ebert, USA´s #1 critic, a “fat pig with the physique of a slave trader” and then put a hex on him, wishing him colon cancer, then you´ve got my attention. I mean, he´s just a fascinating guy. Guys who have the courage to be this outspoken are always fascinating.

Then there´s the fact that he was Johnny Ramone´s best friend and that the two of them bonded over the fact that they are both raving republicans. Or how about the fact that Gallo offers himself as a male escort on his website, for the neat sum of 50.000 US Dollars a night? And for 1.000.000 you can actually buy his sperm but ladies be aware of the fact that “Mr. Gallo maintains the right to refuse sale of his sperm to those of extremely dark complexions. Though a fan of Franco Harris, Derek Jeter, Lenny Kravitz and Lena Horne, Mr. Gallo does not want to be part of that type of integration. In fact, for the next 30 days, he is offering a $50,000 discount to any potential female purchaser who can prove she has naturally blonde hair and blue eyes. Anyone who can prove a direct family link to any of the German soldiers of the mid-century will also receive this discount”…

This is all according to the man´s website.

Make of that what you will, but I find the guy extremely captivating. It´s pretty obvious that Vincent Gallo dances to a different drum and this combined with the fact that he´s responsible for two of the most fascinating American films of the last twenty years, makes it pretty hard not to take an interest in what this guy´s up to. Unfortunately, he hasn´t directed a feature since “The Brown Bunny” but it´s that film that I wanna talk to you about today…

Now, before we begin I´m gonna have to warn you: I will be going into detail of what this movie is about and chances are that you might think I am somewhat of a pretentious asshole after this is all over, so bring out them Clover cigarettes, if you got ´em. You have been warned…

Gallo portrays Bud Clay, a motorcycle racer and he´s just lost a race on the East Coast, and is traveling back to Los Angeles to race again. He makes a series of stops, first at a gas station where he gets a girl named Violet to agree to accompany him to LA, only to ditch her at her home minutes later. He stops by the home of his childhood neighbors, who we learn are the parents of his girlfriend Daisy (Chloe Sevigny), where we learn that Bud and Daisy are no longer together, but not why.

The film follows Bud on his journey west. We see him stop at a picnic area, where he comforts a forlorn woman named Lilly, who´s sitting at a table, by making out with her. He leaves as quickly as he came. In Vegas he circles a block to pick up a young prostitute named Rose, who he feeds a fast food lunch and drops off almost as quickly.

In LA, he comes to the house he shared with Daisy. She isn´t home and the house appears abandoned. Bud leaves her a note to come by his hotel room before he leaves for his race the next day. Daisy gets his note, and arrives at his room…

And it is about this point in the movie where we´re treated to that scene that we´ve all heard so much about. The infamous fellatio scene! But let me tell ya this much: this scene is anything but sexually titillating. I mean, if you ever rented this movie just to get a glimpse of a well known actress giving head in order to get some kicks, you´re shit out of luck. This has to be one of the least sexually exhilarating scenes ever filmed, and it´s exactly that which makes it so powerful.

I admit that this scene isn´t exactly important to the story and it doesn´t change the way I feel about it but I do admit that if that blowjob scene wasn´t in there, I don´t think that I would´ve sat through all those long scenes of Bud driving. There´s Bud driving a motorcycle on a racetrack, Bud driving his van in a neighborhood, Bud driving around downtown… When you watch this movie the first time around, it´s the promise of this now almost legendary scene that keeps you watching.

But what I didn´t expect was that the movie would actually affect me the way that it did. You see, this is quite a disturbing scene and as soon as they´re done (SPOILER!!!), Bud crawls up in a fetal position and starts calling her a whore and crying. We then learn that Daisy was raped at a party a year or so earlier and Bud watched the whole thing but didn´t intervene and that she later died in the aftermath of that evening. Which means that we´ve got a “The Sixth Sense”-type twist on our hands here, only it´s oh so much more unsettling.

Now, this is what makes Vincent Gallo such a unique voice in modern filmmaking: he´s the only director I can think of that puts himself in the situation he does and allows himself to portray this kind of needy, whiny type of man. I know that a lot of you are of the opinion that Gallo has an ego the size of the sun and yes, a fair amount of the movie´s running time consists of close ups of Gallo´s face that seem to hint at the fact that this guy is pretty fond of himself, but I don´t think that is the case. I mean, listen to him when he asks the girl at the convenience store to join him on his trip when he says “please”. There´s a whiny, needy tone to his voice, almost every time he talks, that an actor occupied with ego wouldn´t go within a hundred miles of.

It´s the same with his role in “Buffalo ´66”. If you don´t think that his character in that one is kind of an asshole, I´d be surprised. But that´s what makes “The Brown Bunny” so fascinating, as well.

Gallo has a way of showing male pride when it is at its worst, i.e. wounded. Bud Clay is a man who is caught up in a state of romantic grief and we´ve all either been or met this type of guy at some point in our life. It´s the type of guy that no matter how you look at things, he always manage to make things about himself and how hard things are for him at the moment. For instance, watch the hotel room scene with Chloe Sevigny where we learn that Bud watched her being violated, yet didn´t intervene. Somehow he manages to turn this around on her, so it´s her fault that he had to watch her being murdered and it´s her fault that this haunts him to this day. It´s a pretty ugly picture of the male psyche that Gallo paints for the viewer, but it isn´t all that implausible, I think.

He´s constantly challenging the audience to sympathize with this character and I´m not so sure that I do, but I still think that this is pretty powerful filmmaking. This motorcycle racer character is someone who´s so at odds with himself that those scenes with him driving his car, with close ups of Gallo´s face, just reeks of inner turmoil. It´s like Gallo has managed to combine the two public images of himself in one character: the macho guy and the sad, sensitive, almost baby like poet. I mean, whatever this guy says, it sounds like he´s pleading for his life or for mercy.

When you describe this movie to someone, you kinda get the idea that this guy is the King of the road who´s driving around and picking up women to the left and right, only to top it all off with a blowjob but this movie couldn´t be further from that. The scenes with him “coming on” to these women are extremely sad. When he starts making out with the gal at the rest stop (played by former 70´s super model Cheryl Tiegs), it´s hardly the kind of passionate kissing you see from someone overcome with lust. No, it´s the kind of sad, “lonely” kissing coming from someone who´s just yearning for some physical contact. This search for human interaction culminates when Bud picks up that prostitute and drives around town and then buys her a meal, without hardly speaking to her.

This is a sad, sad film and every scene echoes of broken dreams and disappointment. Especially Cheryl Tiegs´. As I watched the scene with her, I got very curious with her character. How did she end up at this rest stop? The way Gallo shoots her it´s very obvious that this is a woman who´s been though some harsh times in life. It´s like this with almost every supporting character: they enter a scene and then exit and you´re left wondering “what the hell happened to this character earlier” and I think that is a sign of some pretty good filmmaking.

This is such a deliberately paced film that no matter how you look at it, the majority of people who watch movies will be infuriated by it. I just think it´s a shame that this film will forever be remembered for “that” scene and not for heartbreaking piece of storytelling it actually is. I don´t know if it would´ve helped if Gallo had done the fellatio scene the “fake” way, instead of going with the real thing. But anyway, it´s there and there´s not much we can do about it.

But that´s why I´m not gonna recommend this film to you because this is the type of movie you get beat up for recommending to folks. And since 95 percent of the people on this planet seem to think that this is one of the worst films ever, chances are you might be one of them. However… what if you are one of those last 5 percents? It´s worth a shot.

When I first watched it, I was actually one of those naysayers but it grew one me. At first I was like “Ok, it´s official: Vincent Gallo has lost his mind! The genius that was responsible for “Buffalo ´66” is forever gone!” but despite this, I found myself thinking about the movie pretty frequently. I couldn´t let it go and when you find yourself thinking about a particular movie weeks after you´ve seen it, then maybe you should give it another shot, right? “The Brown Bunny” is like a sad, sad song that you can´t get out of your head and you keep humming it, even though you don´t want to.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Sometimes a movie starring Samuel L. Jackson actually can take you by surprise. These last couple of years his roles have basically consisted of Samuel L. Jackson being Samuel L. Jackson, but in different outfits. Hell, in “The Spirit” he managed to wear an impressive number of weird outfits and sideburns and whatnot, but he was still the same old Samuel L. Jackson. You always know what you´re gonna get with him and there´s a comfort in that. I mean, look at Kevin Costner. I like the guy and it´s the same with Sam Jack: no matter how crappy the film may be there´s always a pleasure in watching him chew up the scenery and leave everyone else behind by acting up a storm.

Now, I´m not gonna lie to you: Samuel is still that same Samuel L. Jackson in “Lakeview Terrace”. It wasn´t Jackson´s performance that took me by surprise (because we´ve all seen him do this schtick a million times before), instead it was the fact that I enjoyed this movie a whole lot more than I thought I would. This isn´t a perfect film by any means and I remember that it got pretty shitty reviews when it was released but I think that it has a lot more to offer than what you might suspect from just glancing at the cover.

Chris Mattson (Patrick Wilson) and his Afro-American wife Lisa Mattson (Kerry Washington) moves to a new house, situated on Lakeview Terrace, in a safe neighborhood. Their neighbor is Abel Turner (Jackson), an LAPD Officer who´s also a widower and is now raising his two teenage kids alone, and by a strict regime of rules. Something about the Mattson´s interracial relationship rubs Abel the wrong way and it doesn´t take long before that initial neighborhood bickering turns nasty.

What makes this movie so interesting and what elevates it from just being “another” thriller, is the fact that director Neil LaBute (who´s also responsible for the movie everyone loves to hate and that I just plain love: the remake of “The Wicker Man”) in this film lets the African American be guilty of being the racist, and not the other way around. Normally, Jackson would´ve played Wilson´s part and it´s this switching of the roles that makes it interesting. There´s a great scene where Abel catches his kids spying on his neighbors while they´re having sex in their backyard and he does a great job of conveying how disgusted he is by the fact that this guy is having sex with a black woman and this is what launches him into a campaign of harassment and intimidation, all in order to get them to move out of the neighborhood.

This isn´t exactly groundbreaking stuff, though. We´ve all seen the psychotic cop make life worse for people around him: Richard Gere in “Internal Affairs”, Ray Liotta in “Unlawful Entry” and so on… And say what you will but it´s an effective storytelling device, because who the hell are you gonna call when your neighbor starts harassing you? Ghostbusters? I guess you could, but it won´t do you that much good. That leaves you with the cops but when the same fucker who´s after you knows every guy on the job, knows whose shift it is and everybody owes him a favor or two, things get a bit more complicated.

Combine this with the force of nature that is Samuel L. Jackson and you have yourself one enjoyable movie screen psycho. There´s something about this kind of roles that fits him like a hand in a glove: the masculine, dominating patriarch who always knows best and ain´t afraid to go to most absurd lengths to prove it. There´s always a joy in watching an actor sinking their teeth into a role, especially if it´s a villain, that they really enjoy playing. And this is especially true with Jackson. He´s at his best when he gets to dabble in the arena of the mentally unstable, I think. It´s pretty damn impressive as well that he manages to make a character that basically wears pink Lacoste shirts for the major part of the movie so intimidating. Samuel L. Jackson knows his shit.

Now, I don´t know if there is such a thing as “reverse” racism and if you consider the fact that director LaBute is a white Caucasian male, one might argue that this movie is even more racist because of this, since the movie´s psycho is an African American. I wouldn´t argue that, but it walks a thin line of being politically incorrect and that´s what makes it so fascinating. It deals with themes that we don´t see too often in American movies: that racism isn´t a one way street and the white man´s guilt in today´s society. I don´t think it´s strange that such a thing exists in today´s society because let´s face it, our white forefathers hasn´t exactly been the greatest of guys, many of them. Let´s be honest: many of them were pretty shitty guys. Take that Hitler guy, for example. He was kind of a douche.

But that´s why I don´t think it´s strange that many of us (Caucasians, I mean) actually do feel some sort of guilt for just being who we are. I especially think that´s true for where I live, in Sweden. And to be honest, I think that the movie paints a pretty plausible picture of why the character of Abel Turner would be annoyed by this guy, who sweeps into the neighborhood and buys the kind of house that he has worked double shifts his entire life to afford and on top of that, he´s got an African American wife. I can understand why that would rub the guy the wrong way because I think that every one of us has a bit of a racist in us, unfortunately.

But that´s why it´s so refreshing to see someone turn the tables of what we´re used to see in a movie like this. Like I said earlier, would the movie be equally “racist” by making the villain white? I don´t know the answer to that one but it´s interesting to think about.

Now, in order to fully appreciate this film you can´t compare it to LaBute´s previous films because they´ve been far more scathing, poisonous depictions of American males and their behavior (“The Wicker Man” excluded, of course) so if you set this one beside them, this is a pretty weak effort. However, if you compare this movie to other ones in the same genre, I think this is a pretty strong effort. For those of you who´ve seen LaBute´s previous movies, you know that if there´s one thing that guy does well, it´s creating an uncomfortable mood. Remember “In The Company of Men”, anyone?

However, I have to admit that he has problem carrying the whole film through. It starts off excellent and that whole uncomfortable mood isn´t very obvious at the beginning, but as the film progresses it builds momentum and after a while it´s like you´re watching an episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm”, only with a psychotic cop in the lead instead and played not for laughs but totally serious. But like with so many other thrillers, when the end comes, it isn´t entirely believable…

Then there´s the pretty heavy handed plot device of having brush fires looming at the horizon, only to come closer and closer the longer we get into the story. Now, luckily I´ve done my fair share of reading film theory and shit like that so I was able to decipher this as the metaphor that it is, and just like the racial tension that exists between our characters this goddamn fire is like a ticking bomb! Didn´t see that one coming, did ya?

Honestly, this element of the film along with the pretty stupid ending, is the weakest thing about the film but I don´t think that you should let that discourage you from watching this one. As far as thrillers go, this is a pretty good one.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas