Last Blog On The Left

Let´s imagine for a minute that you are pretty well respected film director and that you somehow have managed to secure a budget for your dream project: a bloody viking epic, starring one of your favorite actors, Mads Mikkelsen. What´s the next step? You would probably want to work on your script, if you hadn´t already done that, right? That would be the logical next step. Unless your name happens to be Nicolas Winding Refn. Then you´d just gather up your crew, get poor old Mads into some make up and head on out into the wilderness. Who needs a script? If you´re a talented enough filmmaker, you´ll make it work, right?

Wrong. I´m sorry to say but Nicolas Winding Refn really dropped the ball on this one. He not only dropped it, he misplaced it so bad that it is now forever lost. “Valhalla Rising” will forever be a sad chapter in this talented filmmaker´s career. You should know that I am a huge fan of his and have for years been going around and saying shit like “The only interesting filmmaker in Scandinavia today is Nicolas Winding Refn”. Well, he sure made me eat those words earlier today. I feel almost violated! I can´t for the life of me figure out what he was thinking when he made this film.

If you´re not familiar with the story, Mads Mikkelsen plays One Eye, a mute warrior who´s been held prisoner by the Norse chieftain Barde. Aided by a boy slave, One Eye manages to slay his captor and escapes along with the boy. After this they hook up with a band of Christian Vikings who´s out to conquer the holy land and start up a new Jerusalem. You know how those whacky religious Vikings can be?

Anyway, they join the Vikings on their ship but it is soon engulfed by extremely thick fog. Up until this point I hadn´t given up on the movie. You see, the opening scene is fantastic. It´s the scene you saw in the trailer with Mikkelsen beating the crap out of an opponent lying on a muddy hill. This is what his captors use him for: to fight other warriors for money or other riches. When he´s not fighting, he´s kept on a leash or locked up in a cage. Kind of like a Viking era-cage fighter. Or a Viking era “Danny the Dog”. But you remember how that movie fell apart as soon as Jet Li started to say his lines and you once again realized that he sounds like Dolly Parton about to hit puberty? Well, Winding Refn doesn´t have this problem because Mikkelsen´s character is mute. Hell, it´s almost as if every goddamn character in this movie is mute because they don´t hardly speak at all. They´re Vikings, remember? Grim, tough men who stare at each other and every now and then laugh at each other with contempt. That´s how they rolled back then. So they don´t speak. At all. For an hour and a half. It takes over ten minutes into the movie before the first line is uttered but in the opening this approach works. It kinda gives the movie a Peckinpah-like quality of “A man´s gotta do what a man´s gotta do” but by the time they get on that ship, I was pretty sick of it.

But then the fog rolls in and you know what they say: that´s when the terror begins. Except that in this case it doesn´t. Nothing begins or even happens! But then the Vikings reach land, where they are stalked by an unseen enemy in a series of silent, totally tension-free scenes. Again, nothing happens.

I may be wrong but I think there may be two Nicolas Winding Refn out there, directing movies. The first one is the guy who did the three “Pusher” films: gritty, lean, urban crime dramas with fantastic dialogue and performances. Then we have his twin brother, who seems to be suffering some sort of Kubrick-ian, Malick-ian crisis. This is the guy who directed the deliberately paced “Fear X” and “Bronson”. It is obvious that it is the second Winding Refn who also directed “Valhalla Rising”. Unfortunately. The only similarity to “Pusher” that this movie has is that the violence is quick, graphic and sudden when it occurs and Winding Refn handles these scenes expertly.

I think it´s safe to say that he´s watched Tarkovsky´s “Stalker” more than a couple of times. You remember that one? Stoic men of few words, with the pain of life imprinted in the lines on their faces, walking around in dirty clothes. That sumps up “Valhalla Rising” as well. Maybe he used that in his pitch meeting? But the thing is this: Winding Refn has taken the whole thing with deliberate pacing to a whole new level. You thought that “Stalker” was slow, imagine if Tarkovsky had directed that flick while being on a strict diet of Valium, that´s how slow “Valhalla Rising” is!

I wonder how the hell Mikkelsen got talked into this one. I can understand that he wants to work with his friend the director but he must´ve said yes to this one before he read the script. He must have. That´s the only explanation. Somewhere inside this tedious mass, there´s a decent short film of 10 minutes hidden. Unfortunately, it´s stretched out to 90 excruciating minutes! If you were to run all the scenes of Mikkelsen staring at the clouds, at normal speed instead for the extreme slow motion they are in now, this movie would be about 40 minutes long.

Now, I´m all for movies with stoic, rugged men in the lead and Mikkelsen does a decent job here but you can´t maintain interest in the character because he is given absolutely nothing to work with! Not once do you know what One Eye is thinking or feeling. Hell, even Danny the Dog had some motivation but One Eye is like a blank canvas. That says nothing. At all. But say what you will, he´s quite good at staring, that Mikkelsen fella, there´s no doubt about that.

Visually speaking, this is a great film and it´s obvious that the people behind it are very talented. Winding Refn has a great eye but that just makes this whole awful experience all the more painful: why the hell didn´t he bother to write a script that could match the epic vistas? Maybe that was a selling point in securing Mikkelsen for the gig:

- Mads, we´ve finally got funding for our Viking movie! We start shooting next week.

- But I´m on vacation, Nicolas… I don´t wanna have to learn any new lines now.

- Uh, lines? That´s right… Don´t worry, you won´t have to learn any lines because… your character´s mute! That´s it! He´s mute!

- Okay, send over the script and I´ll take a look at it.

- Uh, script? Okay, I´ll whip something together and mail it to you later today.

I actually had the pleasure of speaking to Winding Refn a couple of years ago at the Gothenburg Film Festival and he was an extremely polite man with a lot of interesting things to say so I feel kind of bad racking down on him this way but honestly, there´s no excusing this! If there ever were a missed opportunity, “Valhalla Rising” is it!

It´s only hours ago since I saw this movie but I already feel nostalgic for a time before it. Let´s hope that Winding Refn ends up in debt again, so he´s forced to make two new “Pusher” movies. Or at least is forced to write a script for the next movie he makes.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Is this what it´s come to? Is this what´s become of the action genre? Jesus Christ, I must be getting old because when I sat down to watch “Gamer” the other night I felt like one of those old guys in “The Muppet Show” who sits on the balcony and whines about everyone and everything because I didn´t understand much of what was going on in what passes as action sequences in “Gamer”. Maybe all those years of heavy drinking have finally taken its toll, huh? Maybe I´ve become slightly retarded? I hope not. But seriously, what the fuck? I remember that this movie got fairly acceptable reviews and a couple of them even called it “enjoyable” and “entertaining”. Did those assholes drop a tab of acid before they sat down to watch it? Because the movie that I tortured myself with sure as shit was neither “enjoyable” nor “entertaining”. It was excruciating, is what it was! I´ll try to explain to you why.

First of all you have to understand that this movie was written and directed by Neveldine/Taylor, the duo that gave us the two “Crank” movies and wrote “Pathology”. If you´ve seen the “Crank” movies, you are aware of the frenetic style they were filmed in and edited, right? Well, this one has ´em beat. I kinda bought it in “Crank”, much thanks to the fact that Jason Statham starred in it and naturally, kicked ass. But let´s face it, no one took that movie seriously. It was one long cartoon and Statham could´ve just as well been playing Bugs Bunny. Hell, he bounced on a car after being dropped from a helicopter in the final scene. It´s not exactly heady stuff we´re talking here.

But the first place where this abomination of a movie goes wrong is when Neveldine/Taylor decided to set this story in the “real” world. What they´ve done is basically lifted the plot from “The Running Man” and mixed it together with computer games (because everybody likes to watch people playing computer games in a movie, right? That´s a great recipe for a thrilling action movie right there). But we´re not talking “World of Warcraft” here, ok? Or “World of Blip” as Dylan Moran calls it. No, we´re talking about this new kind of game where you control an actual human being!

These humans are death row convicts who are given a chance to fight a certain number of battles and if they survive they´re free to go. Stillman (Gerard Butler) is the most successful “slayer” and only has a couple of more rounds to go before he´s released. He´s looking forward to be reunited with his wife Angie (Amber Valletta) and daughter. Angie´s currently working as an actor in a real life version of “Sims”, letting her be controlled by freaks. But you see, the big bad corporation, spearheaded by psychopath Ken Castle (Michael C. Hall) has no intention of letting Tillman survive long enough to be reunited with them.

Basically “The Running Man” all over again, right? And let me tell ya, you´re better off in every way just pulling that DVD out of your shelf and re-watching it instead of this dredge. First of all, I have to say that I feel sorry for Gerard Butler. I think he´s a fairly sympathetic actor that deserves better than this. He has great potential to become a solid action movie star. He´s got that rugged look going on and he looks like he´s been in a bar fight or two and like he downs a bottle of whisky every now and then. He´s not Orlando Bloom, if you get my drift. I was hoping that at least once he would get the opportunity to scream out “Tonight… we game in hell!” or something like that.

But oh no…

Instead he gets to play a character who has the phrase “I am always right here with you” tattooed over his entire lower arm. What the fuck does that mean? I know that the writers thought that they were really clever that he had a phrase tattooed because it´ll play a part in the final act but honestly, “I am always right here with you”? On his entire lower right arm? Who is there with him? His right hand? Is that what he´s trying to communicate to the world? Is that his statement? Because we all know what guys do with their right hand, right? That has to be the only explanation because what kind of an idiot tattoos that on himself? Does he mean that he is right there with his wife? Shouldn´t he have had her lower arm tattooed then? I bet my ass he regrets that tattoo now.

Just like “The Running Man”, “Gamer” has a pretty cool premise that could have made for an interesting action movie but you see, it simply doesn´t! Because these fuckers Neveldine/Taylor obviously snorts three pounds of cocaine every morning before they go to work. At least that´s how this movie is shot: the camera doesn´t stand still for one single second! It tilts, whizzes by, whirls, spins and rolls around like someone is trying to steal it from the film set. I don´t think that there´s a cut lasting longer than a third of a second. It´s like they sat around in the editing room and watched “Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen” and said to each other:

-          Man, that Michael Bay fucker thinks that he can edit a movie to pieces. We´ll show that asshole! We´re gonna make a movie that has so many cuts in it that you´ll have no choice but to down half a bottle of whisky and a bottle of sleeping pills just to sit through it without panicking! That´s what we´ll do! Right, Neveldine?

-          Damn straight, Taylor! Let´s do it! Show that fucker who´s in charge! Now, let´s do another line of coke…

That´s the only explanation. I can´t see any other way how this movie came exist in the form that it does today.

I should have suspected that something was terribly wrong right after the opening sequence where Butler runs around and shoots other “slayers”. I should have just stopped watching it there, because I didn´t understand a single thing of what was going on. What´s the rules of the game? Who is Butler fighting? Where is he in relation to the others? Is he trying to escape or what?

It´s shot in such a way that you can´t tell if Butler is running away or towards a threat. I guess that these Neveldine/Taylor guys grew up on MTV and commercials and that´s why they use this frenetic way of editing their movies but that really makes me worry about the future. Imagine twenty years from now, when the kids who are watching this and Michael Bay´s movies today, when they start directing movies of their own! Christ, they´ll have so many cuts in them that the whole fucking movie will probably be subliminal. It´ll be like that cut with the demon face in “The Exorcist” or like that shot of a bearded Mel Gibson with the natives in the trailer for “Apocalypto”. Imagine a whole movie with that. My soul weeps…

Oh my god!!! Why did I even watch this? Now that I think about it, it´s called “Gamer”, for chrissakes! Why did I even bother? A guy like me, who has hardly ever played a single computer game in his entire life should not watch movies about people playing them! I should´ve known better. Come to think of it, this might be the least appealing title to an action movie ever!

There´s a scene where Butler steals a car (who doesn´t have any gasoline in it but he solves that by downing a quart of vodka only to puke and piss in the tank. That has the car running like gangbusters. Don´t ask) and are being chased by the baddies. For just a moment I was reminded of Paul Anderson´s “Death Race”, a sci-fi action movie I genuinely enjoyed and where you were actually able to tell what the fuck was going on in its action set ups. The next time I hear someone talk shit about Paul Anderson, I´m gonna put a price on their head. It´s guys like these Neveldine/Taylor we should be worrying about! They´re slowly but surely killing our beloved action genre with a million cuts per second! This has to stop! Christ, “Death Race” is a subtle, smart movie compared to this. There´s a sentence I never thought I´d write.

There are just so many unbelievably bad decisions that have been made on the set of this film. For example, whenever Butler and the other “slayers” are being transported from the fights, they are sitting in the back of some giant ass truck but we´re not quite sure because there´s a goddamn strobe-light going the whole time! Why? Do Neveldine/Taylor really think that people will lose interest in the movie if two characters talk to each other for one minute without a lightning department that lights the set as if it´s a goddamn rave party on Ibiza?

At one point in the film, I was actually reminded of John Carpenter, though. You see, Keith David has a small role in it and there´s a music cue that´s pretty similar to the ones Carpenter uses but that just made me even sadder because it got me thinking “Imagine if John Carpenter had directed this. I might´ve been watching a good movie then…”

I could tolerate “Crank” and I sat through “Crank: High Voltage” but this one was just too much. I hereby pledge to never watch another film written and directed by the duo of Neveldine/Taylor. What´s got me really worried is that they´re the ones who´s responsible for the script to the upcoming adaptation of “Jonah Hex”. Thankfully, they´re not directing so there´s still hope. However, if they fuck up the script to that one… No more coke for you, guys!

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

A movie about a guy who realizes he´s gay and then spends a good portion of the film in a very manly environment? No, I did not go to a Heath Ledger-retrospective to watch ”Brokeback Mountain”. Instead I visited the Gothenburg International Film Festival and saw the new Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor-vehicle ”I Love You Philip Morris”. Now, I like Jim Carrey as much as the next guy, alright? Even though his movies are mostly entertaining in a pleasant, non-offensive kind of way, the guy still surprises me every now and then with a genuinely fine performance. His Andy Kaufman in ”The Man on the Moon” was pretty amazing and he managed to bring some depth to that weepy guy he portrayed in ”Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”, there´s no arguing that, right? And that´s how I prefer my Carrey: restrained and low key! When he starts resorting to over-the-top, whacky faces I tend to lose interest. Fortunately, he doesn´t go down that road too often in ”I Love You Philip Morris”. He keeps his car in the right lane of the acting highway in this one.

When I heard that Carrey was going to star in a movie written and directed by the guys who wrote what could be the funniest movie of the last ten years, ”Bad Santa”, I thought ”Finally! Maybe this will bring some edge to his work”. And when I heard that it was supposed to be based on a true story about a guy who, after a near death experience, realizes he’s gay and makes a vow to live his life to the fullest, I was jumping with joy! If there ever were a premise ready to be mined for some politically incorrect humor, this was it. Carrey as a newly ”born” homosexual who lands himself in prison? Count me in.

As it turns out, John Regua and Glenn Ficarra doesn´t take the easy way out. For the first half hour, it´s pretty obvious that this is the guys who wrote Billy Bob Thornton´s many tirades against all things holy in ”Bad Santa”. And I´m gonna level with you, fellas: this first half hour or forty minutes was when I laughed the most.

You see, this is a movie of two halves: it starts out as your ordinary Jim Carrey-movie with the kind of broad comedy you´d expect from it. The scenes of his accident and his realization regarding his sexuality are pretty hilarious and I can guarantee you that these are lines you´ll be hearing quoted back to you at parties for a long time to come. I mean, whenever you go to a party, there´s at least one guy who thinks that the funniest thing in the world is himself spouting a bunch of Jim Carrey-lines. Am I right? How many times haven’t you heard someone say ”It’s okay! I’m a limo driver!”, while he´s looking like he came up with the most brilliant line ever on the spot? Well, rest assured, party-goers! We´ve got some new lines in store for you. Being the nice guy that I am, I’m not gonna ruin them for you here.

Anyway, Carrey realizes that he´s homosexual so he dumps his wife, played by the lovely Leslie Mann who´s pretty much wasted in yet another thankless role, and moves to Florida to live out his pink-hued dreams. But as Carrey´s character puts it: ”Being gay´s expensive”. So, he starts scamming insurance- and credit card companies to keep things going. Eventually, this lands him in prison. This is where he meets Philip Morris, played by Ewan McGregor. And in case you haven´t figured it out yet, Jim Carrey loves him. I didn´t see a scene with them sitting in a tree, tongue-wrestling, but that´s the general idea. Maybe I missed it. Their relationship blossoms in the prison environment and it´s also in these scenes that the filmmakers finds an outlet for their affinity for characters exploding with deliriously filthy dialogue, ”Bad Santa”-style. Unfortunately, this type of comedy takes a side step for a more traditional love story and I´m kinda torn about how I feel about that.

On one hand I was surprised at how genuine Carrey and McGregor´s relationship felt. They really convinced me that these guys love each other and this is much thanks to McGregor´s performance. It´s nowhere near as flamboyant or showy as Carrey´s, who gets to slip in and out of different costumes and take on different identities as he´s scamming his way through the Midwest. However, you can understand why Carrey´s Steve falls for him. He starts out as a standard-formula-type-A-Hollywood-homosexual character but slowly evolves into a character you really feel for. This is all McGregor, because he isn´t given much to work with, to be honest. But he is the emotional epi-centre of the movie and it´s he who sells the emotional scenes, which turns out to be pivotal to this film.

This is a surprisingly tender movie that isn´t afraid to let its characters emotions play out and that kinda caught me off guard. I wasn´t expecting that from the guys who wrote that “You´re not gonna shit right for a week”-line. But they do and they pull it off, so I guess good work on that, guys!

It will be interesting to see what kind of reception this one gets in the states because it is surprisingly frank about its subject and I´m guessing that some scenes will send the Christian rights-movement reeling into another one of their “This sick film must be banned!”-hysterics. Over here in Sweden, it´s everyday stuff for us. What Carrey and McGregor do in the private comfort of their prison cell to each other, people do in the streets over here. The Swedish sin, remember? It´s worse than ever.

I guess what makes this movie pretty good is also what initially put me off: the fact that it balances its humor with some very dark themes and drama. As I´m writing this I realize that I liked this movie more than I thought I would after walking out of the theatre. As it is, it kinda plays out like if James L. Brooks suffered a bout of Tourette´s syndrome. And I mean that in the best possible way.

So even if this may not be another classic, like “Bad Santa”, Ficarra and Requa has a pretty original approach to humor and I really appreciate that. I´m not gonna go into detail because we all know that the highest form of meaninglessness is someone trying to explain why something is funny. So I´m not. But they do use the sound design of the movie and music to get a few laughs and I thought that this was a somewhat fresh approach.

So I guess this a good one. Go see it. And I promise you: at no point does Jim Carrey look deep into Ewan McGregor´s eyes and whisper: “I wish I knew how to quit you” so it´s got that going for it, as well.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Last night I had the pleasure of meeting and listening to Christina Lindberg talk about her career at the Gothenburg International Film Festival. Now, if you grew up in Sweden somewhere around the 80´s and were a boy, you´re bound to know who she is. Hell, if you lived anywhere in the world and were a boy or man, you´re bound to know who she is. She´s one of the most famous nude models we´ve had and she also starred in such classics as “Anita: the shocking account of a young nymphomaniac”, “Journey to Japan”, “Exposed” and “What Schoolgirls Don´t Tell”. Hell, she was even a Penthouse model along with Michael Caine at one point, she told the audience last night! But as we all know, the movie she´s most famous for is the amazing “Thriller – a cruel picture”. That´s why I thought it would be suitable to direct your attention towards this movie once again. If you haven´t seen it, you should! You know, Sweden can produce other things than somber, morose dramas. This definitely kicks Bergman´s ass. So strap yourself in, here we go!

The few of you depraved souls out there who actually take the time to read these rants and recommendations might´ve noticed that I have a soft spot for the revenge genre. The theme of revenge is one of the richest there is when it comes to creating a good story. A lot of questions are automatically raised when dealing with revenge, like “how does it affect a human being?” or “is it really worth it?” Heavy stuff, friends, but you know what? The theme of revenge is also a great basis for creating a kick-ass movie. One of the greatest films in Swedish history deals with this theme. I´m sure that many of you have heard about it already ´cause Tarantino (damn, there goes my promise from a couple of days back!) brought some attention to this film a few years back when he released the two “Kill Bill”-movies. He talked about how he had based Daryl Hannah´s look on the lead in a Swedish film called “Thriller: A Cruel Picture”.

So, you might´ve heard about this one but if you don´t live in Sweden and aren´t a movie obsessed freak like me, there´s no way that you can know exactly how much impact this movie can have on one´s life and how legendary it is in certain circles. That´s why I am here: to give you the lowdown, the hard truth… Pour yourself a drink cause here we go!

Here´s the thing about Swedish movies: until recently there were no genre filmmaking going on, whatsoever! The Swedish film industry is big on drama but we have the giant shadow of Ingmar Bergman hanging over everyone, so there´s not very often we get a good, solid piece of drama-filmmaking, either. However, we do get a lot of bad comedies… A LOT of bad comedies, but no genre movies! You can imagine how frustrating this was for a young boy like myself. To quote Inspector Closeau: “It was hell down there”.

But guess what? Then someone told me about a Swedish film that is actually banned! A Swedish film banned? What the hell? This couldn´t be true, I told myself. Supposedly it was called “Thriller: A Cruel Picture”, but we weren´t sure. No one I knew had ever seen it. There were lots of stories circulating about it. Apparently, someone knew someone who had a cousin who had a boyfriend who spent a year in the states and he had managed to see it and he said that it was the sickest thing he´d ever seen. There were scenes with hardcore porn in it and in one scene the director had used real corpses. Holy shit, was this really something I wanted to see? Hell yeah! When you´re that age, that´s like giving you a dare. No, strike that: it´s like giving you a double-dare! It´s like the movie gods were looking down upon us and mocking and taunting us: “You don´t have the guts to see this one, you sweaty teenage freak! Mouahahahaha!”

Well, I did have the guts to see it. But I had to wait more than ten years until it finally happened.

So, flash forward ten years and a lot of things have changed. I survived puberty, got an education, was engaged for a brief while and then met a much prettier and nicer girl, among other things. All these things pale in comparison to the enormous, fantastic news that reached me one day: Synapse Films was releasing an uncut version of “Thriller” on DVD! Holy Christ! You can imagine the joy that my bruised and battered heart were filled with. At second thought, I don´t think you can. This was it; the holy grail of movies; the one film that I hadn´t managed to get a hold of. Remember, kids, this was before the internet. I know it´s a stretch for your imagination but there were a time when you couldn´t just go online and download every film ever made. A happier time, a time when you actually had to hunt down the movies you really wanted to see. That was almost as big a part of actually watching the damn film. Internet has killed the cult movies. Internet killed obscurity… and apparently, video killed the radiostar, in case you didn´t know that.

Eight times out of ten I´ll admit that I was disappointed but every now and then you´d come upon a real gem in the video store. I´m talking about the straight-to-video, bottom shelf titles that no one recommended to you cause no one had seen them (“Malone” starring Burt Reynolds and “Retroactive” starring James Belushi springs to mind). You actually felt like YOU had discovered that film, that you were the first one who was seeing a film that no one knew existed. THAT thrill, my friends, has sadly disappeared. It´s been years since I felt it ´cause nowadays you know about and hear about every movie ever made all over the world. Like I said, you got the internet and the reviews of the previews, about a year before the damn film is actually released. There´s no mystery to movies nowadays. You know everything about them before they´re ever released and when was the last time you happened upon a movie you had heard nothing about and decided to give it a chance and lo and behold, it then turned out to be great? Well, it was quite a while for me… My heart is bleeding, friends.

But anyway, now you know that I´m a nostalgic, bitter young man but enough about that. Back to “Thriller”. Synapse released it and when I finally got the DVD in my sweaty hand, I was shaking. That day should be declared a national holiday if I had any pull in this country but sadly, I don´t! When you have spent so much time building up an illusion about a film for as long as I did with this one, you´re bound to be disappointed, right? Well, kind of…

During this time I had happily come to grow enormously as a human being and become so much wiser that it was almost frightening. That´s why I realized that no matter how much ass this movie kicks, it was still made back in the 70´s, in Sweden none the less, so how violent could it be? There´s no way in hell that it´ll deliver on my expectations. But a strange thing happened. It delivered on so many levels (but not the violence, I´ll give you that. Happy?) that I was actually surprised at how good this movie really was. Since then, I´ve seen it quite a few times and I think it´s a goddamn masterpiece! It is definitely unlike anything ever produced in this country, before or after, that´s for damn sure.

I just now realize that I haven´t had the common courtesy to let you know what the movie is all about. Here´s a brief summary: Frigga (played by Christina Lindberg, who I am sure most of you out there already are familiar with) is a young woman who was raped by a stranger as a child. Suffering from shock from this incident, she becomes a mute. One day, she misses the bus into town. A seemingly nice gentleman turns out to be a real scumbag and kidnaps her (hey, that´s no way to treat a lady!). The scumbag (brilliantly portrayed by Heinz Hopf) has Frigga hooked on heroine in order for the man to control her. She is forced to work in his brothel. Sweet Lord, if only she hadn´t missed that bus!

No matter how evil and despicable the brothel owners may be, they aren´t above letting their prisoners have a day off. This is Sweden, don´t forget that. The unions were big here in the 70´s. That´s why Frigga gets Mondays off, they know that she will return no matter what. After all, she´s got a heroin-habit to support, right? But you see, Frigga starts spending her days off learning karate. She also learns how to handle a shotgun and drive like a goddamn stunt driver. This is one feisty lady we´re talking about here. Sweet, sweet revenge…

That´s the set up for this very original film. I´ll admit that the film´s pace doesn´t quite hold up by today´s standards but it has so much else going for it that I´m willing to look beyond that and focus on the many genius things about it instead. One of the things that elevate it above many of the other rape-revenge films produced during this period is the way it is shot. Director Bo-Arne Vibenius has a really good eye and he manages to make excellent use of the locations. Especially during the film´s final scenes, when Frigga (or One-Eye, as they call her), all dressed in black with a matching eye-patch and equipped with a shotgun, metes out her revenge in a small harbor. It looks absolutely amazing. The image of Christina Lindberg walking towards the camera in that black leather coat is one that will stay with you for a long, long time.

Another reason why “Thriller” has such a reputation is that it exists in different versions. If you see the one called “Thriller: A Cruel Picture” you will without a doubt notice the fact that during the sex scenes there´s inserts of hardcore pornography. If you watch this version and don´t notice these scenes, you might have a bit of a problem. If that´s the case, you might need to lay off the porn for a while. Then you have become very, very jaded, friend. Anyway, these were later added by director Vibenius without the actor´s knowledge. On the different nerd-sites on the internet, where films like this one are discussed, you will often hear disappointment over the fact that it isn´t Christina Lindberg herself in these scenes. I find this pretty strange. I will not argue with the fact that Miss Lindberg is a very pretty lady but these scenes aren´t the least arousing. Hey kids, she´s a prostitute against her will! She´s basically being raped! In other words, Vibenius takes pornographic material and (at least in my eyes) manages to make it look awful and revolting. Pretty artistic, right? But at the same time he gets to show some T&A ´cause after all, this is an exploitation film. So depending on how you wanna tackle this film; if you wanna go the cultural, high-brow, intellectual way like I just did or if you wanna go the usual, sleazy, cheap thrill-seeking way like I usually do, you´ll still get something out of this one either way.

You shouldn´t get your hopes up too much regarding the karate fight-scenes. I think it´s a safe bet to say that Ms. Lindberg isn´t a martial artist, so there´s not that much Bruce Lee-style action going on. Instead, Vibenius opted to shoot these scenes in incredibly slow moving slow motion, which makes for some quite bizarre imagery. There´s almost a feeling of weightlessness during these fights. It´s not what you usually get in this kind of film. I mentioned at the beginning that there was a rumor circulating that a real corpse was used during one scene. The scene I´m talking about is the one where Frigga becomes “One-Eye” and she has her eye cut out. The reason this rumor started is basically like it happened with the infamous “Cannibal Holocaust”-impaling scene. It´s just so well done that a movie with this budget could not afford an effect this good. Apparently, Christina Lindberg admitted in an interview conducted in 2006 that they did use a real corpse for this scene. They filmed it in a hospital and used a suicide-victim. To be honest, I find this pretty hard to believe. I think that maybe Miss Lindberg wants to embellish the myth about this film. If they did use a real corpse then we´re dealing with some pretty sick and twisted individuals here.

After “Thriller”, director Vibenius made another film, “Breaking Point”. I´ve never seen this one but from what I´ve heard there´s supposed to be even more hardcore sex and it´s supposed to be even dirtier and grittier. I don´t know much about it except the fact that it´s about a man who apparently rapes and kills women. If this were to be released on DVD, I would definitely check it out but as it is now, that film holds no allure for me. I think it´s a shame that Vibenius hasn´t made any more films since, though. He obviously knows his way around a camera and I would´ve loved to see him make more films starring Christina Lindberg. Imagine a sequel to “Thriller”! I would love to see that. Imagine the voice-over on the trailer: “They call her One-Eye… and she´s back! And she´s angry!”

As a matter of fact, I had a chance to ask Lindberg about this and she said that Vibenius did speak about the sequel that he had planned but she also said that he did not have the ability to secure the financing. That aspect of the moviemaking business wasn´t his strong suit, which is a goddamn shame! At least we´ll always have Paris, huh?

So there you have it, “Thriller” is one of the few revenge-movies we have here in Sweden. Sure, Ingmar Bergman flirted with the genre with “The Virgin Spring” and although he managed to get a rape scene in there and it got remade as both “Last House on the Left” and the dreadful “Chaos”, I don´t think it qualifies as a worthy installment in the genre. It´s a good film, but hey… it´s definitely no “Thriller”! It´s one of a kind. Just like you are, friend. Don´t forget that. You´re unique!

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Hey, anybody remember 1998? Man, that was some good times, right? Bill Clinton were still president in the States and had  started to explore the many different ways you can use a cigar, the Y2K-bug had just started to worry people and Jesse “The Body” Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota. People were getting jiggy with Will Smith and Bruce Willis made an ass of himself by starring in “Armageddon”. Like I said: good times!

It was in ´98 that I last saw a Todd Solondz movie in a theatre and let me tell ya, since then a lot of things have changed. I remember that at the screening of “Happiness”, at least six or seven people got up and left in the middle of the movie. Someone muttered something about “Is this shit supposed to be funny? Fucking perverts!” and another one gasped in horror when it became apparent to her that Dylan Baker´s character was planning to drug and rape that little kid. People had strong emotions when it came to “Happiness” and so did I: I absolutely loved it! Especially the opening scene with Jon Lovitz where he does his monologue about how Jane Adams is “shit and I´m champagne”. I also remember that when I laughed out loud at Ben Gazzara repeatedly telling the people around him that he doesn´t feel anything, a woman turned around and looked at me as if I had just puked her in the neck.  A lot of people genuinely felt that this was an obscene movie. And this was in Sweden, mind you! Remember, we were the ones who invented sin and lust back in the 60´s. We´re pretty liberal about most things but this fucking Solondz guy, he was pushing it!

But like I said, since then a lot of things have changed and in today´s day and age, I think it´d be pretty hard to find someone who´d be genuinely upset over what goes on in “Life During Wartime”, Solondz “sequel” to “Happiness”. I don´t know if this is a case of Solondz growing older and more mellow or if the audience have become more jaded but what is pretty crystal clear however is the fact that “Life During Wartime” is a very good movie! As a sequel it is somewhat unique: Solondz continues the tradition from his previous movie “Palindromes” and lets a set of different actors play the same characters. Almost every character is a recurring one from “Happiness” but they´re all played by new actors: Ciaran Hinds plays Dylan Baker´s pedophile, Ally Sheedy plays Laura Flynn Boyle´s Helen and Michael K. Williams play Allen, the obscene phone caller played Philip Seymour Hoffman in the first one and so on. I have to say that I had my trepidations about how this would work, but Solondz really pulls it off. Now, I haven´t seen “Happiness” in the last ten years but despite that I have a very clear memory of these characters. I guess that´s a testament to Solondz´s writing and impeccable casting. He managed to create almost iconic characters and the fact that he re-casts them here and gets away with it is no mean feat. Ciaran Hinds takes what is Dylan Baker´s crowning acting achievement (if you don´t count his snorting redneck from “Planes, Trains and Automobiles”) and delivers a magnificent, almost sublime performance. He manages to convey very much without much dialogue and the scene with him confronting his son is emotionally devastating.

Now, some might say that this one doesn´t have the bite and the edge that “Happiness” did and I guess I can agree with that to some degree. This one is more overtly comical and the plotline that deals with Ciaran Hind´s character and his ex-wife Trish (Allison Janney) is the one that contains the broadest comedy. The dinner scene when she invites her new boyfriend (played by Michael Lerner) and his son over is very broad but very hilarious.

Much time are devoted to Trish´s youngest son, Timmy, whose Bar Mitzvah is coming up and in the hands of a lesser director this is the kind of character who could´ve easily become as annoying and meaningless as a dick growing out of your forehead. You know how it is with these kids in movies, right? Nobody likes ´em but Solondz have actually managed to dig up a kid who stays on the right side of not being too disturbing. Naturally, since he is a child actor he has to have three names: Dylan Riley Snyder. Who in Hollywood has stipulated this rule?

If you are familiar with Solondz previous films, you know what you have in store: a darkly funny film, scenes of conversations, filled with some pretty goddamn fantastic dialogue. I think that what Solondz is so great at is that he manages to tread that thin line between funny, excruciatingly tragic and uncomfortable, better than any other filmmaker today. I was a bit disappointed with “Palindromes” but it´s good to see him back in form with this one.

A funny thing happened when I saw this at the Gothenburg International Film Festival the other day. You know, it´s always sort of a hit-or-miss with these festival showings. You can never be sure if the film´s gonna start at all and in this case they ran late. Twenty minutes after it was supposed to have started, the theatre finally darkened. So there I am, in a huge theatre on the opening night of the festival and the music starts. But still no credits. Everyone is completely silent and still (this is a festival crowd, remember? No cell phones here) and then the dialogue starts. Still completely dark. No one says anything and I start turning and looking around. No reaction from the audience. Everyone´s just sitting there, trying to figure out if there´s something wrong with the projection of the movie or if this is an artistic choice on Solondz´s behalf! No one says anything at all because let´s face it: you don´t wanna be the guy who starts shouting “What the fuck? What´s wrong with the picture?” and then it turns out that the movie´s supposed to be that way. “What a schmuck!” You don´t wanna be that guy and be subjected to 800 over-intellectual´s scorning looks just because you were too stupid to notice artistic shit when you saw it. As it turned out, there was something wrong with the projection and the light came back up so everyone started laughing nervously instead: “I thought that there was something wrong, didn´t you? Solondz would never open a film that way…”

But anyway, if you´re a fan of Solondz´s work, you´re definitely gonna like this one. It´s his best since “Happiness” but it´s not like it´s gonna convert anyone with a staunch anti-Solondz point of view. The only thing that I missed about this movie was the lack of the character of Lenny, whom Ben Gazzara played. I thought that he was one of the most interesting and enjoyable in the first one but he´s not included in this one. I would´ve loved to see what another veteran actor would do with that part. Maybe for part three then, huh?

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Before we begin you need to know this about me: I love movies about private dicks! And I´m not talking about penises who keep to themselves but about private detectives, ok? With that out of the way, we can begin. Looks like good old Thomas Jane has done it again: he´s managed to star in a movie that held such high promise but only turns out to be kind of good. I´m talking about “Give ´Em Hell, Malone”, which was released on DVD the other day. I also love the Film Noir genre and “Give ´Em Hell, Malone” is a throwback to that coupled with some pretty serious bloodshed, which includes a bit too much CGI-generated blood, but you can´t have everything, right? At least there is blood, so I can´t complain too much. There´s also some other pretty good actors involved in this one. Except for Jane, we get Ving Rhames as a bad ass villain, Gregory Harrison (who apparently forgot to age since his stint on “Falcon Crest “ in the late 80´s) and Doug Hutchinson. But that´s not all, folks! It´s directed by Russell Mulcahy, who´ve given us such marvelous films as “Razorback”, “Highlander”, “Resurrection” (which is pretty damn underrated, despite the fact that it stars Christophe Lambert, I don´t care what you say) and the third (and best) installment in the “Resident Evil”-franchise. So in a way, this movie has everything a movie in this genre needs going for it. Let´s break it down:

• A cool-as-hell title? Check. Come on, say it out loud: “Give ´Em Hell, Malone!” It rolls pretty nicely on the tongue, doesn´t it. Any movie that has the phrase “Give ´em hell” in it is definitely something I´d wanna watch. Besides, “Malone” is a bad-ass name. Don´t you remember Burt Reynold´s classic “Malone”? If your lead is called Malone, you know he´s gonna be hard-as-nails.
• A lead who´s devoted the latter part of his career to starring in different genre-titles? Check. I mean, look at Jane´s latest movies: “The Tripper”, “The Mist”, “Mutant Chronicles” and “Killshot”. He obviously appreciates this shit.
• An almost frighteningly good looking female lead? Check. We got Elsa Pataky, who we also saw in “Romasanta” and “Snakes on a Plane”.
• A solid character actor in a supporting role? Check. We got Leland Orser who we all know and love from “Seven” where he played the guy who had been forced to strap on that dildo from hell and fuck another guy to death.
• A great tagline for the poster? Check. “Hard to love… Harder to kill”
• An experienced director with a keen eye and flair for all things visual? Check. Russell fucking Mulcahy who directed the first music videos ever!

So you understand why this movie has everything going for it, right? Except it doesn´t quite pan out the way I expected. And I think I know what the problem is: the opening scene. You see, the opening scene is just too goddamn good for its own best. It feels like Mulcahy blew everything he had on this scene that starts with a pretty graphic shootout with Jane explaining in a typical private detective voiceover where it hurts the most to be shot. This scene is nothing short of spectacular! It´s when we start getting into the story that the movie lags a bit. I´m not gonna give too much away but the story isn´t exactly groundbreaking. Malone has to fight a bunch of bad guys, who tries to protect their scheme of visas or Green Card´s that they got going. Secrets a´ plenty and the plot thickens the more Malone uncovers. Basically your ordinary day at the office, if you´re a private detective.

By the way, these private detective guys… Do they exist in real life? Has anyone ever met a real life private detective? I know that I haven´t! I wonder what an ordinary day in their life looks like. Probably pretty boring. I guess that you are probably forced to sit around in a cold car and spy on cheating husbands a lot. I wonder if you are forced to wear a Fedora hat, though? But what if you look corny and stupid in a Fedora hat? Are you allowed to continue practice private detecting by the union then? I bet it´s a great way to meet chicks. I mean, imagine dropping that line when you´re chatting up a girl at some bar and she asks you what you do for a living: “I´m a private detective…” if that doesn´t get you laid, I don´t know what would.

But anyway, what is it about “Give ´Em Hell, Malone” that doesn´t work? Two fords for ya: “Sin City” (as you might understand from watching that poster here above). Unfortunately, it feels like Mulcahy have been ogling Robert Rodriguez´s movie a bit too closely for its own good. I feel that if he would´ve made this more in the classic style of making Film Noirs this would´ve been a lot of better. There are a lot of elements in this movie that would´ve been cool as hell, unless you hadn´t already seen it “Sin City”. The most obvious one is the mostly meaningless character of Mauler (played by Chris Yen). She´s one of those pesky girl-ninjas, who dresses up as a Japanese school girl, only to kill everyone in sight. This would´ve been a great idea, if it hadn´t already been done to death these last couple of years.

Then we have this Doug Hutchinson fella. He can be a pretty solid character actor but I suspect that that takes quite a tight rein from the director. He was absolutely fantastic as Eugene Tooms in “The X-Files”-TV series and was wonderfully obnoxious in “The Green Mile”. But for every “Green Mile”, there´s a “Punisher: War Zone”, where he acted like he was starring in a fucking Looney Tunes movie! Accents ain´t this guy´s thing. He had a small part in “The Burrowers” and he kinda overdid that one as well, but not as much as he does here. In this one he plays Matchstick, who´s your standard type of psychopath who likes to drench his victims in kerosene and light them on fire. And since he´s a psycho, naturally he´s disfigured. I´m telling ya, if this Hutchinson guy doesn´t watch himself, he´s gonna be the new Nicolas Cage! He´s definitely moving into the Nicolas Cage-realm of overacting.

Also, a note to filmmakers: if you´re gonna have a character who lights people on fire every five minutes and if you don´t have the budget to shoot the god damn thing for real, don´t bother! CGI-fire looks pretty shitty still.

But hey, there´s still a couple of good things about this movie. Thomas Jane delivers a solid performance, as always. I´d like to see him portray this kind of detective again. Come to think of it, this Malone character would make for a pretty cool franchise. You just switch out the word “Hell” in the title for every new installment: “Give ´Em Torment, Malone”, “Give ´Em Misery, Malone”, “Give ´Em Nightmares, Malone”… The possibilities are endless! Hell, they could even start making porno-spin off´s: “Give ´Em Cock, Malone”, “Give ´Em Gonorrhea, Malone” and so on… I´m sensing a whole industry here!

Another good thing is the fact that they have cast French Stewart (you know, that squinting guy from “Third Rock From The Sun”) as a sleazy lounge singer called Frankie The Crooner and he´s pretty funny. After seeing this and his excellent turn in “Surveillance”, I am convinced that this guy doesn´t get enough roles. It´s always fun to see comedians play against type so good call on that one, Mulcahy.

I guess this one´s worth devoting an hour and a half for. It´s not great but definitely above average when it comes to straight-to-DVD-private-detective-flicks. Not a particularly big genre these days unfortunately, so it´s good to see Jane & Mulcahy treat this movie with way more respect than it probably deserves.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Ever noticed that the business of robbing graves and selling corpses can be a grim one? Forget Wall Street or advertising, kids, this is where the real backstabbing takes place. So if you´re currently in high school or college and considering dropping out to start your own grave robbing business: don´t do it! Stay in school, kids! And stay off the drugs, as well. That shit will fuck you up. However, if you´ve already made your mind up and have your heart set on being a grave robber despite my warnings, you might as well start in on the drugs, too. Trust me, you´re gonna need it. The world can be a cruel place for a grave robber. Just ask Larry Fessenden.

There are a couple of horror movie directors out there today who are truly interesting, who make movies that really manages to transcend genres, in order to create something extraordinary. Larry Fessenden is one of these directors. He´s made a couple of pretty great flicks, including his take on vampirism “Habit”, the ecological cautionary tale “The Last Winter” and the magnificent “Wendigo”. I really like this guy. He keeps making interesting films within the horror genre, movies that are squarely aimed at an adult audience and that doesn´t treat the audience as retarded ten year old. We need more of that in today´s day and age. The fact that he´s missing one of his front teeth and appears to refuse to have it replaced deserves some credit, as well. But you see, the thing that really makes this Fessenden guy such a cool cat is because he´s founded his own company, Glasseye Pix, and they´re responsible for some pretty cool independent flicks over these last couple of years. They released Ti West´s “Trigger Man” and “The Roost” as well as Douglas Buck´s “Sisters”. Not only that, Fessenden also acts as well! You might remember him as the guy who robbed the convenience store in Jodie Foster´s ode to Charles Bronson “The Brave One” or as the redneck who knocks out Bill Murray in “Broken Flowers”. In other words: Fessenden knows his shit!

And it´s in the form of an actor I wanna talk about him today. You see, he has one of the leads in “I Sell The Dead” and it´s a role tailor made for him. Fessenden plays Willie, who has quite a successful business peddling corpses to the local doctors and scientists. His partner in crime is Arthur Blake (played by Dominic Monaghan). Unfortunately, justice has catched up with them and on the eve of Arthur´s execution, we get to hear his life story as he confesses to Father Francis Duffy (played by Ron Perlman).

The first thing that “I Sell the Dead” has going for it is its title. I mean, just say it out loud: “I… Sell… The… Dead!” It rolls pretty nicely on the tongue, doesn´t it? A movie with a title like that can´t be all bad.

Anyway, guess what: Fessenden´s name continues to be a guarantee for quality. I think he´s proven himself enough now. Let´s face it, horror fans: if Fessenden´s name is attached to it, the movie is worth catching. I´m not saying that this particular one is a masterpiece but writer-director Glenn McQuaid has managed to create a solid, little horror comedy. One of the things that I like about it is that McQuaid seem to know his limitations and doesn´t outstay his welcome. It´s quite an entertaining flick that zips by and clocks in at around 85 minutes. God knows we need more of those today when every god damn director out there seem to think they´re the new James Cameron and seem hell bent on making every movie over two hours long! We need more 80 minutes-movies today! It´s as simple as that and this McQuaid fella seem to have realized that so I reckon he deserves some kudos for that.

He´s also managed to cast the movie perfectly. Fessenden and Monaghan makes for an entertaining screen couple and their banter works pretty well. It´s not like they´re the new Jack Lemmon and Walther Matthau but it works. He´s also got The Tall Man himself, Angus Scrimm as a doctor in there and the fact that he has cast Ron Perlman as Father Duffy is close to genius. To see Ron Perlman in a robe again makes my heart sing. Remember “In The Name of the Rose”, anyone? I always say that if you can get Ron Perlman in your movie, you should! And if you can get Ron Perlman in a robe, you definitely should!

Now, this isn´t the kind of horror movie that´s out to genuinely frighten you, ok? This is McQuaid´s homage to the Hammer movies of the 60´s and it´s pretty impressive how he has managed to capture the feeling and the design of those movies. He didn´t save any money on the studio fog, if you know what I mean. The scenes in the graveyard comes across as a cross between “Sleepy Hollow” and “Re-Animator” and there´s a lot worse movies to be compared to, let me tell ya!

To be honest, it feels like McQuaid has taken certain elements from the movies that he loves and decided to create a movie around them: he´s got the black humor from the scenes in “Re-Animator” when Herbert and Dan are stealing the corpses from the mortuary, the fog drenched graveyards from the Hammer movies and the kind of rowdy tavern scenes that reminds you of “The Slaughtered Lamb”-scene from “An American Werewolf in London”. And I guess that it works. This isn´t the most original movie out there, but it is entertaining, but like so many other horror movies today it lacks that feeling of an original vision.

What McQuaid is doing is that he´s giving us his version of other films. This is beginning to be quite a problem among filmmakers, if you ask me, and especially when it comes to the horror genre. Whenever a new director comes along today, he has grown up with VCR´s, Laserdiscs and DVD´s and Internet and all the technology you can imagine, which means that kids who are into movies today are extremely cine-literate. I mean, they have all the information in the world and every movie ever made available through the internet which basically means that you can send yourself through film school without actually ever attending one. Just think of all the commentary tracks with directors on DVD´s! They´re a goldmine for a budding filmmaker but I think there´s a downside to this, as well. It´s because of this that there´s not that many original filmmakers out there today! They keep making the same movies over and over again or “their” version of another movie. Just ask Tarantino. Someone should set up some ground rules for horror directors so we can get some original work out there.

But you know, I don´t wanna sound like a bitter old man and complain too much about this movie because I really did like it! But sometimes tough love can be good for you, right? I hope that you can forgive me someday, Glenn McQuaid. Hey, I noticed that your first name is Glenn… What´s it like being named “Glenn”? In Sweden there´s this ongoing joke that everyone in Gothenburg (my hometown) are named Glenn but that´s not true. There are other names here as well. However, you do get a few laughs if your name happens to be Glenn for real and you are from Gothenburg. I guess that´s why I´m curious about what it´s like. I don´t know if you´re familiar with Glenn Danzig but he´s pretty cool. You should check him out. Maybe you could start a club or something…

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

What is it with German directors and their perverse, undying patriotism for America? Think about it, for chrissakes: one of the most patriotic and idiotic action movies of the last twenty years has got to be “Air Force One”, starring a resolute-looking Harrison Ford (not a big stretch for him, considering the fact that he has had the same expression on his face ever since he starred in “Blade Runner”) as the President of the United States, and who directed that one? Was it some right-wing, gun-toting, card-carrying NRA member? Hell no, it was Wolfgang Petersen, a goddamn German! And what about this “Terminator”-guy who´s governing California? Admittedly, he´s not German but Austrian and that´s like comparing Brits and Scots for us outsiders so let´s go with the flow here, ok? Arnold is as good as German and he´s a close personal friend of George W. Bush. One would think that when you move to the states from Europe, you would have a different perspective on their politics and not buy the concept of “Land of the free and home of the brave” quite as easy, right? One would think that you would be able to see America for what it is, with its faults as well as the things that makes it great. Well, that sure hasn´t come across in any of Petersen´s American movies, has it?

And then we have this Roland Emmerich fella. He´s German, too. And guess which movies this fucker has directed? We´re talking about “The Patriot”, starring Mel Gibson, and “Independence Day” here! I absolutely hate these movies. I can´t stand “Independence Day” and if there´s one thing that makes me wanna claw out my eyes and slit my wrists, it´s that goddamn scene where Bill Pullman gives his address to the nation where he proclaims that “Today we celebrate Independence Day!” Jesus Christ! Or how about the scene where Will Smith knocks out an alien and quips “Welcome to earth!” Christ, Don´t get me started… There´s just too many shitty things to even mention.

But the weird thing is that just like Petersen, Emmerich is a German director who has made a movie that features the American president as the hero. What the hell is up with that? Why didn´t they make any of these movies while they were still in Germany? I´d love to see an action movie where the German chancellor is a hard hitting hero. I mean, why is it that just the American president can be a hero? How about the president of Poland? Don´t they have any high jacking over there?

But when it comes to this Emmerich guy, I have mixed feelings. Like I said, he´s also responsible for “The Patriot” which is an absolutely dreadful waste of celluloid. I mean, Mel Gibson plays a southern plantation owner during the American Civil War, but he´s one of those nice slave owners, ok? His slaves are more like employees and at one point in the movie, Gibson ends up in some sort of safe haven for black slaves, where they all live in peace and harmony. Were these kinds of villages common during the war? Christ, what a load of crap.

So, Emmerich´s responsible for these two crap fests of movies, but the thing is that when it comes to blowing things up, he is the man! He is one of the world´s foremost directors of huge disaster movies, there´s no denying that. I mean, look at “The Day After Tomorrow”! I kinda liked that one and the scenes where Mother Nature wreaks havoc upon mankind are pretty impressive. And that´s basically the reason why I was a bit curious to check out his latest epic disaster extravaganza, “2012”. That and the fact that it stars John Cusack. I kinda like him, as well.

Now, I didn´t have very high expectations going in. It´s not like this movie is a frontrunner for the Oscars, right? But guess what, it isn´t half bad. It´s kinda fun, actually. And when I say “fun” I mean that in the kind of way that only an American disaster movie with a budget the size of a large country can be: slightly retarded, but entertaining. But like so many disaster movies before it, this one never quite realizes when enough is enough. I mean, it´s close to three fucking hours long and that, my friends, is just too much for even the most jaded viewers out there. There are so many plotlines and characters that you can´t maintain your interest in every one of them. And naturally, the one I found most intriguing and appealing is the one we get to see the least of. I´m talking about the one where George Segal and Blu Mankuma play a couple of old musicians working on a cruise ship. These characters basically serves as a segue for enriching Chiwetel Ejioufour´s character, Adrian Helmsley, who´s a top notch scientist and working for our very brave, kind and noble President of the United States (you didn´t see that one coming, did ya? A brave president! In a movie directed by Roland Emmerich? Holy crap!). By the way, the president is played by Danny Glover and not once does he say, “I´m too old for this shit…”

Anyway, the main story line is the one about a washed up sci-fi author played by John Cusack, his two kids, ex-wife and her new husband. Why is it that they can´t make one single goddamn disaster movie without these annoying, whining kids? Who decided that they have to be in there? “The Towering Inferno” didn´t have any kids in it, did it? As I remember it, instead we got Steve fucking McQueen and Paul goddamn Newman trying to out-man each other, while staring death in the eye. Why can´t we make ´em like that anymore?

And it´s not enough with the kids, either! For those of you out there who´s sober enough to remember the abomination that was “Independence Day”, I have two words for you: the dog! The goddamn dog that escapes the explosion in the tunnel! Why does there always have to be a dog that just barely escapes? We get that in “2012”, as well. I don´t know about you but if I was about to escape, while the ground under my feet were being engulfed by flames and shit, I wouldn´t want a poodle slowing me down, that´s for sure!

As you might´ve figured out, “2012” isn´t the movie you wanna watch if you´re looking for a groundbreaking effort in film. It´s got every cliché you can imagine but the thing is that the movie still kind of zips by and it doesn´t feel like it´s close to three hours. And why is that? It´s because Emmerich knows his shit! I´ll even go so far as to say that the first hour is pretty spectacular. But that brings us to the infamous Emmerich-curse. The man always opens with a great first hour or 45 minutes but then he has trouble maintaining that level of excitement. Think about the opening to “Godzilla”: remember the buildup, when you don´t get to see the creature? Or “The Day After Tomorrow”? Same thing. The man is just too good at these types of scenes, where he shows us small signs and hints at what´s about to come because the rest of the movies never quite lives up to this. Unfortunately, “2012” is no exception because when the movie gets going and we´re in full catastrophe mode, it kinda bogs down.

And just like the movie´s running time, the scenes of buildings collapsing, mountains overflowing with tsunamis and landmarks being torn to shreds becomes a bit too much about two hours into the movie. I mean, the effects are pretty spectacular and I was really impressed by the scene where Cusack escapes with his family from Pasadena while it is sinking into what looks like hell, but when you see an airplane flying sideways through two collapsing skyscrapers for the third time, it´s hard to get too riled up about it, ok? Emmerich just doesn´t know when to hold back and that´s his major fault as a filmmaker, I guess. That and the fact that he has no shame whatsoever about re-using ancient clichés as a means to tug away at your heart strings like a goddamn puppeteer! Roland Emmerich is not a subtle filmmaker, if we put it that way.

But I was kinda surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie. I went in, fully prepared to vehemently dislike it and armed to the teeth with snappy putdowns but it seemed like I had lowered my expectations too much. And I had absolutely no idea that Woody Harrelson was gonna be in it, so that was a pleasant surprise, as well. That can brighten any day. Emmerich´s last movie, “10, 000 B.C.” was fantastically bad, almost so bad that it was entertaining, so this one was a major improvement. But that´s not enough, not only did I not expect to see Woody Harrelson in this one but about forty minutes into the movie a character named Yuri Karpov shows up. He´s this Russian gangster/business man and he´s played by none other than the magnificent Zlatko Buric! You may not recognize his name but he´s the guy who set the screen on fire as Milo in the “Pusher”-trilogy. Emmerich deserves some kind of award for bringing this amazing actor to the great masses! Stephen Frears beat him to it by a couple of years with the excellent “Dirty Pretty Things” but he has a much bigger part in “2012” and I really hope that he gets a lot more parts thanks to this.

And no matter how much of a hack Emmerich may be when it comes to creating believable drama in the scenes that he uses to fill out the void between the scenes with the explosions, he is pretty fantastic at creating these huge scenes of chaos, without them ever getting too confusing. And that, my friends, is a dying art form. I had no problem whatsoever to understand what was going on, where the characters were in relation to the oncoming threat and so on. Imagine if Michael “three-million-cuts-a-second” Bay would be directing this movie? Anyone remember the final fight from “Transformers”? I sure as hell don´t because I couldn´t understand a god damn thing of what was going on. Buildings were destroyed; I got that much but that´s about it. So good for you, Emmerich, that you still have the skill to create an exciting, old fashioned action sequence by using CGI, without going overboard with it! Good job!

One thing that I found kinda funny is the fact that the character of Cusack´s daughter still wets her bed and this is mentioned quite a few times during the movie and I couldn´t for the life of me understand why. First we get to see Amanda Peet (who plays Cusack´s ex-wife) pack down her diapers and explain to him that “Yes, she still wets her bed even though she is 7 or 8 years old” and then we get to see her shop for some more diapers in a supermarket and then the final line of movie is something that has to do with this, as well. What´s up with that, Emmerich? What is it about a 7-year old girl´s bedwetting habits that you find so interesting that you keep returning to it, over and over again? Is this a motif in the movie? That even though the whole world is destroyed, it might cure you from pissing your bed? I´m not sure I fully understood this aspect of the movie.

By the way, an interesting thing is that the Mayan calendar ends December 21^st 2012 and that is when the world will supposedly end, according to the freaks out there. Guess what, people? December 21^st is none other than yours truly´s name day! So if the world will end on this particular day, I can guarantee you that that will be the first time I´ll be celebrating my name day in style! And I´m not talking about cake or anything like that, I´m talking about whiskey, wine, rum and cheap drugs! And you´re all invited!

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Some movies are just too weird to even begin to describe. ”Nothing but Trouble” is one of them but you know what? I will try to do it, even though it might kill me. That´s how far I am willing to go for you! No need to thank me, that´s just the kind of a guy I am. To be honest, I can´t understand why “Nothing but Trouble” doesn´t have a bigger cult following. It stars mostly comedians but make no mistake, this is actually a horror movie! Albeit one that tries to be funny (and sometimes achieves that but at times it falls so hard on its ass that it´s pretty painful to watch) and doesn´t want to genuinely frighten you, but it is a horror movie nonetheless.

This movie was made back in 1991 and it is to date the only film that Dan Aykroyd has both written and directed. Now, I don´t know if you remember 1991 but man, those were some swinging times! For instance, we had just barely survived M.C. Hammer and “U Can´t Touch This” and now the world was finally ready for a white guy named Vanilla Ice to blast onto the scene and revolutionize music and the rap genre, in particular. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were huge! Punk rock was dead! Grunge were sweeping across the world and “Genreation X”-ers were everywhere, moaning about their lives while being so ironic that no one believed anything they said. That´s the kind of world we were living in back then, folks. Oh, and a couple of years before, a guy called Tim Burton had become world famous for directing the first “Batman” movie, starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson as that white painted, funny fucker. I can´t even begin to describe how insanely big “Batman” was back then. I was ten years old when it was released and I was completely obsessed. Still am, to a certain degree. Joel Schumacher and the ass raping that was “Batman & Robin” kinda took the fun out of it for a couple of years back there but Christopher Nolan took care of that.

But anyway, Tim Burton was pretty big and I think it´s safe to say that when Dan Aykroyd sat down to pen the script for “Nothing But Trouble” he had Burton´s sensibilities in mind. Here´s what the movie is about: A financier ([Chevy Chase) meets a spurned lover (Demi Moore) and agrees to take her to a business meeting. On the way there, they run a stop sign in a tiny town called Valkenvania, in the middle of nowhere. They are pulled over and arrested by Officer Dennis (John Candy) and taken to the local court. This is where they meet the rest of his family, including Judge Alvin “J.P.” Valkenheiser (played by Aykroyd himself, under a thick layer of makeup). Things have definitely taken a turn for the worse…

When you watch this movie today, you´re struck by the notion that no matter how you look at it, it´s pretty impressive that Aykroyd got to make this movie at all. I have no idea how he pitched it and I´ve tried to find interviews where he talks about the experience but the only thing I´ve found was one where he said that “Nothing but Trouble” started and ended his career as a director. I don´t have to explain to you that this movie was a huge failure at the box office. I can understand that. It´s just too weird! But then again, that´s why I like it! You have to give credit where credit´s due and in this case Aykroyd definitely took a risk. He could´ve made the movie a lot safer and not quite so out there and I´m pretty certain that it would´ve gone over a lot better with the audiences of 1991.

However, that´s not how old Dan wanted to play. He took a risk. A pretty big one. He decided to make some sort of weird hybrid between Tim Burton´s aesthetics, Lewis Carroll, Roald Dahl mixed with “The Addams Family”. A very twisted fairy tale that seems to be aimed at a young audience but is, in fact, made for an adult audience. And adult fairy tale, if you will. And I´m not talking about “adult”, in that kind of way! It doesn´t turn into a porno halfway through, if that´s what you´re asking.

Now, the reason why this was such a failure at the box office was mainly because this was marketed as a comedy and neither reviewers nor audiences found it particularly funny. I can´t understand why. I mean, you got Chevy Chase in there and he´s pretty good at being Chevy Chase, if you ask me. He has a lot of his usual smart-ass lines that oozes with dry wit. I´m not saying that this is one of those overlooked gems. This movie is a failure and if Aykroyd really did set out to make a genuinely funny film, he definitely failed, there´s no arguing about that. But this is one of those interesting failures, you know? Kinda like “1941” (which Aykroyd also had a part in, come to think of it).

Part of what makes this so interesting to watch is the set design. Aykroyd really pulled out all the stops on those, let me tell ya! They´re pretty impressive, even by today´s standards. You see, the Judge´s house is surrounded by tons of old cars and piles of scrap and it even has a rollercoaster ride called “The Bonestripper” that ends with the passengers going through a bone crusher. Different members of the Judge´s family overlooks different areas of this yard and the town and this scrap yard is supervised by two of his children (or whatever the hell they are), Lil´ Debil and Bobo. They are two bizarre, pretty obnoxious man children who wear diapers, sweat profusely and weighs about 300 kilo each. Naturally, they fall in love with Demi Moore´s character.

And as if that wasn´t bizarre enough, Dan Aykroyd also plays Bobo (unrecognizable under the heavy makeup). I know that Eddie Murphy played about 4 or 5 different parts in “Coming To America” and that was made back in 1988 and I think it´s safe to say that Eddie Murphy pioneered that kind of comedy where the lead actors play all sorts of different characters (that´s all he does nowadays, it seems) but that would make this one a pretty early entry into that particular subgenre of comedy. I mean, it wasn´t until “The Nutty Professor” in 1995 that Murphy really started indulging in that type of casting.

By the way, what the hell is going on with Eddie Murphy? He keeps making these kiddie-comedies and making billions so I guess he ain´t complaining but seriously! Where did it go wrong? I mean, he used to be really funny. He´s still a great actor and I really thought that he deserved that Oscar nomination he got for “Dreamgirls” but he needs to do some R-rated comedies again. I thought that when he did “Bowfinger” with Steve Martin we were gonna se the return of Eddie Murphy (the funny one) but instead we got a bunch of shit, including “The Nutty Professor II: The Klumps” and “Dr. Doolittle 2”! Come on, Eddie… I know you have it in you. What would Richard Pryor say if he saw you now? Think about that.

Anyway, so Dan Aykroyd plays a giant man-like blob of a baby and that´s pretty bizarre. But the most bizarre scene of the entire movie has got to be when a rap group enters the Judge´s hall. Now, I´m about as into rap as a nun is into devil worshipping but I know this particular group. They´re called The Digital Underground and back in the day, they were the shiznit, apparently. At this point in the movie they have been arrested for speeding and are about to get their fine. However, the Judge becomes curious about their various instruments so they rig them up and starts jamming out, with the ancient Judge Valkenheiser playing the Organ. Now, this is weird as it is, but one of the members of this fine rap ensemble is played by none other than Tupac Shakur! He doesn´t have a whole hell of a lot to do but he´s in there, which just adds to the surrealism of the scene.

You know, if this movie would´ve been a bit more gorier, I am pretty certain that it would´ve been a cult favorite today. But that´s not how the cookie crumbled, which makes this a pretty disliked and reviled flick, like it or not! However, I think that it´s a perfectly decent, slightly underrated twisted comedy in the vein of “2000 Maniacs” (or “2001 Maniacs” for you youngsters out there).

There are so many weird touches to this movie. For instance, Dan Aykroyd´s nose keeps changing and every now and then it looks pretty much like a penis. It has to be seen to be believed. Did I mention that Aykroyd isn´t the only one who plays two parts in the movie? John Candy also plays his twin sister, Eldona, who wants to marry Chevy Chase. Weird, weird, stuff…

It´s about time that “Nothing But Trouble” gets recognized for what it is: although a failure, it´s a pretty damn entertaining and weird as fuck one, at that! And that´s a hell of a lot more than I can say for the majority of comedies I´ve seen since this one was released.

I am fairly certain that this is the kind of movie that most of you will hate but I can´t help it: there is something extremely interesting about this kind of failed comedies that I always seem to enjoy. Whenever a comedy gets a low rating, I have to check it out. Don´t ask me what that is all about but I know that I am one of the few people out there who genuinely enjoyed “Freddy Got Fingered” or “1941” as well, for that matter. Comedy done wrong can be just as entertaining in a “car crash”-kind of way as truly funny comedy, wouldn´t you say? I guess it´s the masochist in me speaking again.

I remember a while back that this movie was actually in the top 100 of imdb:s lowest rated movies, which I find extremely hard  to be believe. This movie´s reputation needs to improve. I mean, just watch and be impressed by the sheer madness and weirdness that is on display here!

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

So, it´s a new year and everything and I´m pretty damn sure that some of you out there have given some New Year´s resolutions and I´m also pretty damn sure that most of you  have already broken them. I haven´t given any but I am always striving to become a better man. You know, to be more mature in the way I deal with things and how I look at the world. For instance, some of you out there might be familiar with the fact that I find pregnancies to be deeply uncomfortable. That hasn´t changed. I don’t think it ever will. And as some of you also might´ve noticed, there´s been quite a number of horror movies the last year or two that´s been dealing with the horrors of being pregnant, raising children and all that that entails. Now, I´m not gonna bore with my theories of why I think that this is the case but last night I sat down to watch yet another movie about a killer baby. A while back I wrote about “Grace”, which was a worthy addition to this particular subgenre, but now it was time to check out the remake of Larry Cohen´s fabulous “It´s Alive”, which was supposed to get a theatrical release but ended up getting dumped on DVD a couple of months back.

I knew going in that there was no way in hell that this was going to top the original, which holds a very special place in my heart. Hell, almost all of Larry Cohen´s movies do but particularly the “It´s Alive”-trilogy. It´s a wonderfully deranged trilogy of films that each deals with different aspects of birth deficiencies and how society treats disfigured individuals. But you know, since it is a new year and everything, I figured that I´ll give this one a shot. Everyone deserves a break, right? Even a remake of an old classic.

I don´t wanna ruin the experience for ya but let me put it this way: this one doesn´t hold a candle to the original. I´m not saying that it´s a bad movie! It´s obviously done by competent people and Cohen himself had a finger or two in the writing of the script. It´s just that it feels pretty unoriginal. The charm that the original possessed is gone with the wind, unfortunately.

You all know the story, right? A pregnant couple (played by Bijou Phillips, who amazingly enough not once strips off her clothes and walks around in underwear, and a guy named James Murray) have a somewhat complicated delivery and after a while they realize that their cute little darling has a somewhat voracious appetite. That´s the deal! Pretty much the same thing as when they made the original way back in 1974. The problem with remaking a movie like this is that the original “It´s Alive” is today considered a low budget classic and it is a consider so for a reason, ok? You see, Larry Cohen has this ability (some might call this particular ability “talent”) to infuse his script with great dialogue, humor as well as gore. It´s especially his humor that shines with its absence in this new version! You see, Cohen never pokes fun at the genre but always manages to create humorous situations, based on character rather than on set pieces and shit like that.

I think it´s safe to say that the director of this new version, Josef Rusnak, wasn´t too interested in this. To his credit I have to say that instead of dumbing it down too much and going the easy route, Rusnak keeps it surprisingly serious and moody. The thing is that this doesn´t make the movie particularly entertaining.

I don´t know if you remember this Rusnak guy but he had somewhat of a hit a couple of years back with a movie called “The Thirteenth Floor”, a science fiction flick that dabbled in “Matrix”-territory. Well, I guess that this guy has got talent and whatnot but he insists on making movies that refuses to involve the viewer. “The Thirteenth Floor” was a well made flick and all but it even though it was slick and fairly entertaining, it was one of those films were you just didn´t become interested in the characters and whatever happened to them. And that´s never a good thing when you´re watching a movie. I mean, I couldn´t even remember what the hell “The Thirteenth Floor” really was about an hour after I watched it, but I remember that I kinda liked it. So maybe this guy isn´t that talented after all, huh? I may have jumped the gun on that verdict. ´Cause if you can´t engage your audience, which is sort of a precedent when it comes to making movies, maybe you shouldn´t be making them? Hell, I don´t know but the thing is that this is the biggest problem with the “It´s Alive”-remake: you´re not emotionally invested in this couple that has that monster freak baby! It´s not like in the original where you had god damn Michael Moriarty playing the father.

Which brings to my other main objection towards this piece of film: This guy James Murray ain´t no Michael Moriarty, that´s for god damn sure! Rusnak & Co have for some reason decided that instead of making the movie and focusing on the father´s point of view (like the original did), it would be much more interesting if they made the Mom-character the lead one. Big mistake, guys! By doing this, this movie immediately falls into the coral of every other killer baby movie ever made. Don´t you see? Every one of those movies always focuses on the mother!

But “It´s Alive” didn´t do that, it broke the mold and made the father the lead character and that´s one of the reason why it´s much more interesting than so many other movies. I think it´s kinda like when they remade “Dawn of the Dead” and they decided to remove all the political subtext, the thing that made the original so frickin´ fantastic! I´ll gladly admit that I liked the remake but I thought it was a big mistake to strip away the politics. I just don´t understand why these remakers always has to remove the very essence of these movies? That´s what made them great, for chrissakes!

One thing that Rusnak & co have kept from the original is the amount of bloodshed we get to see onscreen. Just like the original, the blood flows pretty liberally whenever that sharp toothed little fucker rips into one of his victims. So good job on that part of the movie, Rusnak!

But I just can´t help but having this feeling of “Why did they even bother making this?” all throughout the movie. The reason why Larry Cohen is credited on this movie is because he tried to do his own remake for many years and I remember reading interviews with him where he talked about how he wanted to deal with the advancement of genetic engineering in this new version. I think that would have made for a fantastic and interesting subject matter! What if you know that you´re child will be disabled? Are you gonna fix that even you don´t know how it will affect the kid mentally, for example? Or what if it turns out that the kid is gay? Is that something that you would also “fix”? Well, unfortunately Rusnak & co didn´t think that these type of questions would be interesting at all because there´s not a trace of any of this in the final movie, which is a shame. I think that that would at least have validated the remake slightly. As it is now, it´s just one of those “Was that it?”-movies.

But guys, let´s retire the killer baby genre for now, ok? It´s pretty hard to take it seriously in this day and age, ok? If you´re gonna insist on making them at least let Larry Cohen do his take on it or else you´re gonna end up with uninteresting movies like this one.

Well, at least it´s only 84 minutes long. I guess that´s a good thing.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas