Last Blog On The Left

Ok, a while back I was pretty ecstatic after watching ”Kick-Ass” and seeing Nicolas Cage doing what he does best (which is basically being Nicolas Cage) and I thought that ”Finally, he´s come to his senses and has stopped doing all those roles where he walks around with a weird haircut like he´s in a coma”  but then there were that huge IRS debt that he had to pay so the last couple of years he´s been making movies like an addict on speed. I haven´t yet had the chance to watch “The Sorcerer´s Apprentice” and I´m not entirely certain that I want to, because the things I´ve heard about it haven´t been too promising, but from what I have heard, however, it´s basically Cage being back on autopilot. This caused me to revisit what is, without a doubt, the best performance of Cage´s career so far: “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans”, directed by the one and only Werner Herzhog.

Now, if we were to live in a perfect world Nicolas Cage would from here on out only act in movies directed by Herzhog. This is a match made in heaven and I was pretty impressed the first time around I watched this movie but upon this second viewing, it´s pretty clear that this is the ultimate Cage-performance. Why in the holy hell hasn´t these guys worked together before this? What if there´s other actors and directors that are made for each other this way and we just don´t know about it yet? What if another action star, say Bruce Willis were to team up with, I don´t know… say, Paul Verhoeven for a remake of another Harvey Keitel-starring movie and the result would be frickin’ awesome? Imagine their take on “Smoke”. It could be spectacular, who knows? Hell, this could be the start for a whole string of Keitel-related remakes, done by European directors. Imagine Tom Tykwer´s “City of Industry” or Ole Bornedal´s “The Young Americans”. I think I´m onto something here…

Honestly, can´t we get these two guys to sit down and sign some sort of pact that says that “We, Nicolas Cage and Werner Herzhog, swear that we will from here on out only make movies with each other. I, Werner, shall have no other leads beside Nicolas and I, Nicolas, shall have no other directors besides Werner” How hard can that be? Because this is nothing short of a work of genius, friends. I´m sure that you have all seen it so I´m not gonna bore you with the details of what the movie is about, except that Cage plays a Lieutenant who does some bad things, like taking copious amount of drugs to ease his back pains and partake in illegal gambling that lands him in huge debt.

Cage´s character is caught in a downward spiral of drug abuse and the further down we get, the more unhinged Cage´s character, Lt. McDonogh, becomes. And this is the genius of the picture! It´s as if someone somewhere sat down and said to themselves “Goddamnit, I´m gonna write the ultimate Nicolas Cage-movie!”… and then did just that.

When the movie starts out we meet Cage and one of his fellow officers, played by Val Kilmer, in a flooded jail during Katrina. While freeing a prisoner, Cage injures his back and it´s due to this that the consummations of drugs run rampant throughout the film. Now, first of all it´s nothing short of spectacular to see Cage and Kilmer doing a scene together. Kilmer has had his fair share of a reputation of being difficult, as Cage has, and to bring the two of them together should warrant for some sort of medal of bravery in the movie industry.

But anyway, during these opening scenes Lt. McDonogh is acting pretty “normal” but then that Cage magic kicks in. It doesn´t take long before he´s pulling over a young couple in order to get his hands on their crack-stash and the young girl´s private parts, in one of the only scenes that´s actually a variation on one in the original “Bad Lieutenant”, starring Harvey Keitel. If you´ve seen that one I´m pretty sure that you remember when he pulled over the two young girls, had them simulate oral sex and jerked off, right? You don´t forget that one easily. Herzhog doesn´t take it that far in his movie, which is actually a good thing. As much as I like Cage, I´m not entirely sure that a scene with him masturbating Harvey Keitel-style is something I wanna watch. I´m also very thankful that Herzhog dropped that scene of our dear lieutenant standing naked and crying. And I´m not talking about some half assed sobbing here. If I remember correctly it´s full on baby-like wailing. And it goes on for about five minutes. Smart move, Werner!

Now, I´m all for depravity in motion pictures but if one were to compare the original “Bad Lieutenant” to this one, there´s no question about which one is the better of the two: Herzhog´s take on the material is way above Ferrara´s original and I guess it´s mainly because like a true auteur, Ferrara has his usual obsessions that he keeps exploring in his films and that whole concept of catholic guilt is one of them, which is pretty hard to miss if you´ve seen the original. The thing is that movies that deal with catholic guilt on that level can get a bit tiresome, if you´re not catholic. Well, Herzhog isn´t interested in that at all and as a moviegoer I am very thankful for that.

Instead, it´s like good old Werner decided that he wanted to make the blackest comedy he possibly could. It plays like if the Coen brothers decided to make a black comedy. I´m not talking about the kind of usual kiddie-friendly “black” comedies that they use to churn out, but pitch black stuff. We´re talking oil tower black here, ok? We´re talking a comedy that´s blacker than a coalminers´s asshole, ok?  It´s been quite a while since we used that tired old term “anit-hero” but that´s exactly what Cage is portraying here: a bona fide anti-hero! The great thing is that even though McDonogh does some pretty awful things throughout the film, Cage manages to infuse him with that weird, offbeat charm that he manages to tap into every once in a while. That somnambulant style of acting to seemed to become Cage´s trademark there for the good deal of his career, is gone.

I guess that one of the reasons why I like this one so much is that this is one of those movies that doesn´t have a clear cut good guy-bad guy and therefore lacks that classic dynamic, which you find in almost every cop thriller. Well, Herzhog hasn’t got time for that kind of crap and that´s part of what makes this one so original. It kind of reminded me of a 70´s movie in that regard, in that you don´t have a clearly defined good guy type of hero that is constantly challenging the audience to like him.

There´s so much about this movie that I haven´t even mentioned and I´m not even gonna try except for the fact that the POV-alligator shot is the work of a true genius. Not only does Herzhog manage to work a point of view shot from an alligator´s perspective into a movie but he also has the smarts to put Fairuza Balk in the same scene. An alligator and Fairuza Balk in a Highway patrol uniform… tell me, what more can you ask of life?

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Ok, so Mel Gibson´s apparently lost his marbles. I think we can all agree on that. I don´t who I would recommend he´d see first, a therapist or an exorcist (judging from that heavy breathing on one of those recordings that´s doing the rounds on the internet) but it´s pretty obvious that the guy needs some help. But I´ve been thinking a lot about how will this affect his career? Is it over? Will he be able to direct in the future or has he flushed that part of his career down the drain, as well? And more importantly, how will this affect the way we watch the movies he´s already made from here on out? Will we be able to enjoy the “Lethal Weapon” movies in the future where Gibson plays an unhinged character as Martin Riggs, when he´s clearly pretty unhinged in real life, as well? How about “Mad Max”? Is it possible to enjoy a guy´s movies after you´ve heard him threaten his wife that he´ll “put her in a rose garden, because I´m capable”?

Well, I think you can but it clearly changes things. Which is a goddamn shame because “Edge of Darkness” is a pretty solid thriller and Mel Gibson is back on form as the kind of stoic, resolute character we´re used of seeing him as. Gibson plays Thomas Craven, a single father and a Boston homicide detective. His 24-year-old daughter Emma, his only child, is killed on the front steps of his home. At first it appears that Craven was the intended target but pretty soon he discovers that his daughter was the one they were aiming for…

This basically means that we get to see Mel Gibson do what he does best in movies: threaten guys and beat them up, while gathering information. Hey, remember “Payback”? I´m not sure if you aware of this but it has been scientifically proven that “Payback” is in fact one of the best action movies of the last 20 years. I don´t care which version you watch, the theatrical one (which apparently Gibson took control over, which would explain a prolonged torture scene where the bad guys crushes his feet) or the director´s cut “Straight up”-one, they´re both fantastic!

And even though “Edge of Darkness” is in no way close to rivaling that movie´s in the departments of bad ass-ery and hardboiled-edness, this is still the closest thing Gibson has come to it since then. And that my friends, is a good thing. A very good thing…

You see, this is the kind of action movies they don´t make that many of nowadays. It´s a pretty somber story and surprisingly “slow”-paced. I put “slow” within quotation marks because I myself didn´t find it to be slow but I´m pretty sure that some of you out there will find it that. If you do, I don´t know what to tell you other than that you are clearly wrong.

The director Martin Campbell is one of those guys that I haven´t paid too much attention to, due to the fact that besides directing one of the best Bond movies ever, “Casino Royale”, he´s also the man responsible for such movies as “Vertical Limit” and the unbelievably awful “Zorro”-sequel. But after watching this one, I actually suspect that this guy is one of the best action directors out there today. That scene at the opening of “Casino Royale”, where Bond beat the hell out of a guy in a bathroom was spectacular and there´s a great, little scene like that in this one where Gibson goes to question his daughter´s boyfriend, where he makes use of what´s available to him in the room in order to beat the crap out of the guy.

But still, while watching this one it´s impossible to not think of the fact that this guy, Mel Gibson who once was Martin Riggs to the whole world and whose movies you enjoyed is now the same guy who´s shouting “I need a womaaaaaaan! A real womaaaaaan!” on those tapes. And that makes it pretty hard to enjoy a movie starring him, which sucks pretty hard because I think that this is the best Gibson has been in ages. I don´t know what he´s been up to these last couple of years but it sure as hell has taken its toll on him. Gibson is one of the few actors out there who actually looks his age and all that drunk driving and other mischief clearly shows in the lines of his face. And it´s fantastic! He´s got that gravelly voice now, as well, which every action movie star should have. Gibson looks and sounds fantastic, I think.

But it´s still with a weird sensation of guilt that I watched and enjoyed this movie. Are you supposed to enjoy a movie starring someone who is clearly unwell in the mental department and is heard threatening the life of his girlfriend on tape? Is it possible to separate the art from the artist? I personally don´t think that you can. You can still enjoy the works of someone demented on some sort of level but the fact that this has been created by someone who is clearly in poor mental health, will always be looming over you. And let´s face it, Mel Gibson has used up whatever amount of goodwill he may have possessed in the past. Which is why, if you attempt to recommend this movie to someone you may be exposed to some weird looks and remarks like “Do you mean the one starring Mel Gibson? That insane fucker? Did you actually like that one?” Just be prepared that this may happen. Which is a shame, because like I mentioned earlier this is one of the best action movies I´ve seen in a long time! It reminded me of a 70´s movie in the way that it actually takes its time to tell an exciting and interesting story, instead of just catapulting itself into the next set piece after the other.

Seeing as Gibson has ruined his career, this may very well be the last movie we see him starring in and if that´s the case I think he should be pleased with himself. In a way it kind of reminded me of Clint Eastwood´s swan song “Gran Torino” in that it has that somber vibe to it and it´s got kind of a fitting ending, if it does turn out to be Gibson´s last foray into the action genre.

You should definitely check this one out. It´s a keeper and if you don´t like, you need to stop watching those Michael Bay-movies because this is how it´s done…

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

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

I remember when I was a kid and watched ”Jaws: The Revenge” (the fourth one for those of you out there who needs to brush up on your “Jaws”-knowledge) for the first time and how impressed I was. It wasn´t the fact that Oscar winner Sir Michael Caine was in it that impressed me, neither was it the fact that the filmmakers actually managed to talk the studio into making a fourth one, after the disaster that was “Jaws 3-D”. No sir, what impressed me was how smart the shark was! We´re talking Nobel Prize material here!

You see, the shark is so smart that it manages to track down Martin Brody´s son and kill him off at the start of the movie and then when his mother, Ellen Brody (played by Lorraine Gary from the first one), travels to the Caribbean to visit her other son, the shark follows her there! Isn´t that amazing? Who knew that sharks were creatures of such intelligence? Has anyone informed Sir David Attenborough of this? Is he aware of the fact that sharks can take things personal, despite the fact that that old guy told Roy Scheider in the second movie that “Sharks don´t take things personal”? Well, turned out you was wrong, old timer!

Anyway, no matter how baffled I was by this particular shark´s intelligence, that was nothing compared to the first time I sat down to watch “Orca the Killer Whale”, directed by Michael Anderson and starring Richard Harris. Jesus Christ, forget about Lassie or Babe! If there ever were an intelligent mammal, this is it. Let me give you the rundown:

Captain Nolan (Harris), becomes aware of the economical value of capturing an orca whale alive through the lecture of the biologist Rachel Bedford (Charlotte Rampling) and decides to capture one to pay the mortgage of his ship. However, the operation fails and he kills a pregnant female whale and its offspring. The male mate orca seeks revenge against Captain Nolan and his crew, jeopardizing the fishing community of the coastal town.

So, it doesn´t take a college degree to figure out that this is basically the original “Jaws” all over again. And I gotta say that even though I enjoy this film immensely, it isn´t my favorite “Jaws” rip off out there. That award has to go to “Piranha” but that´s a whole other story. One of the reasons that I do enjoy this movie as much as I do is the fact that this whale has this supernatural intelligence. It actually has a concept of vengeance. Which would make this the only vigilante movie in the history of films where the vigilante is a goddamn whale, and that alone is pretty spectacular, friends. That makes this movie one for the history books.

But I can´t say that I blame the poor whale. He´s forced to watch his wife being dragged onboard Richard Harris´ ship and see their unborn child pop out of her stomach, like the cork in a champagne bottle, at that exact point. Talk about bad timing. If that would happen to my wife, I think I´d be pretty upset, as well. So it´s only natural for him to start thinking about how to best get back at the fuckers who are responsible for this.

And let me tell ya, this whale has a pretty elaborate plan up his sleeve: at one point the whale, fueled by anger and vengeance, slams into some pipes that contains flammable oil and then continues to ram a waterfront house, causing a lantern on the table inside to ignite the oil. That´s pretty impressive, even for a whale of his mental capacity! I´m not sure that I could´ve come up with that.

If all this sounds absolutely ludicrous, it´s because it is. But somehow you buy it and it´s because the acting in this movie is well above what is usually on display in this genre. I mean, you got Richard Harris as a grumpy old sailor and Charlotte Rampling as the voice of reason, for chrissakes! That beats Stephen Baldwin in “Shark in Venice” any day of the week, if you ask me.

The great thing about this movie is the fact that it was produced by Dino De Laurentiis, so this movie is basically a low budget Italian “Jaws”-knock off, starring some name actors and shot on location in New Foundland and Labrador, Canada, but with all the attributes of Italian movies. The lip synching is a little better than usually in this one, so thanks for springing the cash for that, Dino. You also get a score by the maestro himself, Ennio Morricone, that borders on being extremely atmospheric at times and incredibly cheesy, as well. The opening sequence where you see the two whales swimming side by side has that eerie female vocalization that the Italians seem to love. I find them pretty creepy.

By the end of this fabulous flick, things take on an almost mythological vibe. You see, the whale actually lures Harris and his ship to the goddamn North Pole, where it among other things pushes a frickin´ ice berg into the boat! One might wonder how Harris would walk into a trap like that but this is all foreshadowed by a fantastic scene where Rampling goes on about what lethal and deadly killers whales are, while humans are “retarded” in comparison. Tell me about it…

Hey, did I mention that Bo Derek is in the movie? Well, she is. And I mean that as a good thing.

Even though I buy that a whale could do all these things that I´ve mentioned here, I find this movie to be somewhat lacking in scientific proof. In one scene Rampling (who, by the way, is a stunning screen presence here) delivers a lecture to a bunch of budding marine biologists and there she mentions that whales actually have bigger brains than humans. No shit, Sherlock! For pulling all that crap on Harris their brains would make Albert Einstein question his own intelligence, for chrissakes!

However, she does make one interesting claim. She plays a recording of whales communicating with each other and says that “this recording contains four million pieces of information. The bible contains two million” What the hell kind of pieces of information is she talking about? How does one measure the pieces of information in the Bible? Is this some sort of scientific measuring system that I am unfamiliar with? The movie kinda lost me there for a moment…

But man, this is a fantastic movie! Just to prove how fantastic it is, it was written by Sergio Donati and Luciano Vincenzoni, the two guys that helped Sergio Leone to co-write “For a Few Dollars More”, that´s how great is. I don´t care what kind of crap you churn out later in your career, if you had anything to do with that movie being made, you´re A-ok in my book forever.

Listen, let´s not beat around the bush any longer: do yourself a frickin´ favor and check this one out if you haven´t seen it already and if you have, you damn well need to watch it again.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

So, here´s a movie about a dead girl but it´s not your typical ghost movie. It´s also about a teenage girl but it´s not a coming-of-age film, either. Peter Jackson´s “The Lovely Bones” is kind of hard to define, actually. And I guess that´s what makes is worth watching. But let me just say this: if I hadn´t read the novel that it´s based on, I wouldn´t think that this movie is half as good as it is. If that sounds strange to you, let me explain: like so many other schmucks out there, I heard about Alice Sebold´s novel “The Lovely Bones” when it was published and became a bestseller. It got rave reviews and for a while everyone was talking about it, so I figured “what the hey” and picked it up. I did not like it. I thought that Sebold was a fairly good writer but there were a number of things concerning the novel that I had a problem with. I won´t go into them here because that´ll probably ruin the movie for you but let´s just say that Sebold made a couple of narrative choices that I didn´t agree with.

So what we have here is a movie, directed by a filmmaker I really like, based on a novel that I didn´t like, written by an author I thought was pretty good. That can´t be particularly good, can it? As it turns out, it can. Surprisingly enough. It´s obvious to anyone that Peter Jackson has matured quite a bit as a filmmaker since his “Bad Taste” and “Braindead”-days. I´m not sure that that is an altogether good thing, though. I wasn´t too fond of the “Lord of the Rings”-movies, no matter how spectacular and grandiose those movies may be and they definitely made me miss the days of Grandma eating a bowl of her own ear. The good thing about “The Lord of the Rings”-trilogy was that they did give Jackson the power to pursue whichever projects he wanted, which in turn gave us “King Kong”, which I did think was a spectacular film. He also produced the fantastic “District 9”, which I´m pretty sure he wouldn´t have been able to do unless he hadn´t done those hobbit-flicks. So thank you for that, Frodo and Bilbo and whatever the hell your names are.

But when I say that he´s matured as a filmmaker, I don´t mean technically, because it´s pretty obvious to anyone that ever since Jackson directed “Bad Taste” back in ´87 or whenever the hell it was, he´s been a filmmaker at the top of his technical game. The difference is that nowadays he´s not afraid to tackle more heartfelt and emotional issues in his films. And if there´s one thing that “The Lovely Bones” has, it´s emotions. In abundance.

You see, this is the story of Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan), a 14-year-old girl who lives in suburban Pennsylvania with her family: her older sister, little brother and parents (played by Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz). Now, being a teenage girl can´t be all easy with your emotions running wild and the nervousness of your first kiss and all that. The teens can be a rough phase in one´s life but to complicate things even further, Susie is murdered by her neighbor down the street, Mr. Harvey (played by Stanley Tucci). Don´t you hate it when that happens? Your own puberty doesn´t seem so bad now, does it? So, the rest of the story is told from Susie´s perspective, which basically means from Heaven, showing the lives of the people around her and how they have changed all while attempting to get someone to find her lost body.

I admit that this doesn´t sound like the greatest movie ever done but Jackson gets away with surprisingly much with this film. Some things are disgustingly saccharine-coated but for most of the time he manages to keep a pretty tight rein on the many bursts of emotion. But there are a couple of things that doesn´t work. One of them is Susan Sarandon.

Now, I like Susan Sarandon as much as the next guy. There´s no denying that she´s a great actress and I like the fact that she´s a woman who has managed to age with grace and managed to find significant roles. She hasn´t succumbed to the plastic surgeon´s siren-like call out there in Hollywood, which means that she still looks like a human being. This helps enormously when you´re gonna portray a human being in a movie. However, her character in this one is pretty superfluous. She plays Susie´s booze-guzzling, glamorous, world weary grandmother. To be honest, I didn´t remember this character at all from the novel but apparently she´s in there, as well. However, in the movie she basically serves as the comic relief and that sits pretty ill at ease with the rest of the movie. There´s a montage halfway through that shows her trying to take of the typical “mom”-duties around the house, such as cleaning, washing and cooking, which seems like it belongs in another film. I thought I´d fallen asleep in the theatre and somehow accidently ended up at a retrospective showing of “Mrs. Doubtfire”. That´s how badly it fits!

Along with the scene of Wahlberg going out into the cornfield where Susie was abducted to investigate things and ends up getting assaulted by a quarterback, it´s easily the worst of the movie. This potentially suspense-filled sequence is ruined by the 70´s style guitar-masturbating that´s taking place on the soundtrack. I don´t know what the hell Jackson was thinking here but it sounds like if Captain Beefheart drank too much cheap booze and stumbled out into an alley and threw up and then that vomit took some guitar lessons and then laid down the track that is playing over this scene. It´s pretty awful to say the least and ruined what could´ve been a great moment in the movie.

Then there´s the voiceover… I don´t see how they could´ve done the movie without it but at times, it´s a bit too “New Age”-y for me and that brought me out of the film, unfortunately. But this is exactly the same problem I had with the novel: there were just too much of everything: emotions, the horror of a child being murdered, the parent´s grief and so on. No matter how horrible these things may be, Sebold didn´t quite knew how to pull her punches and after a while it got to be quite tiresome. Fortunately, Jackson has realized this and toned some of these elements down but it´s still a bit much for a stoic guy like myself.

But there are quite a number of things that do work, as well. Wahlberg is one of them. This is one of his good performances. Man, that guy has to be one of the least consistent actors in the history of movies. One minute he´s acting up a storm in “The Departed” and the next he´s wandering around looking like he just got a colonoscopy performed by André the Giant in “Max Payne”! I don´t get it. But he´s pretty good here. He´s also one of those actors that looks pretty cool in 70´s style fashion. I´d keep those sideburns if I were him.

I also liked Stanley Tucci´s portrayal of Mr. Harvey, the killer. In some scenes he´s walking a fine line between the usual twitchy clichés that actors who portray serial killers usually revel in, but I think that he manages to stay on the right side of “over the top”. It´s good to see him back on the big screen, as well. He´s not used enough these days.

So I guess that this puts this movie in category of movies that are actually better than their literary precursors. This is a pretty exclusive club and its only other members that I can think of at this moment are Clint Eastwood´s adaptation of “The Bridges of Madison County” and Paul Thomas Anderson´s “There Will Be Blood”.

If you and your date for the evening ever wanna check out a surprisingly sweet movie that contains a young girl being brutally murdered, this is it. I like the direction Peter Jackson´s career has taken but I would love even more to see him go back to his roots with a down and dirty horror movie, like Sam Raimi did the other year with “Drag Me To Hell”. That would truly be something to behold!

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

When I was a kid and someone would ask me “What do you wanna be when you grow up?” I would answer all kinds of crazy shit. One day I wanted to be a baker, the other a cartoonist and so on. I guess I didn´t know back then. But if someone was to ask me today what I wanna be when I grow old, I know the answer: a vigilante! Clint Eastwood did it in “Gran Torino” and now Michael Caine has done it in “Harry Brown”. And let me tell ya, even though it´s not quite as fantastic as Clint showing those Korean kids who´s in charge this one is still pretty damn good!

It´s been quite a few years since I last visited Great Britain but the general opinion, whenever you talk with someone from there, seem to be that the country´s slowly but surely turning to shit. I guess that they´re finally reaping what that old bastard Margaret Thatcher sowed back in the day. If you were to look at British films from the last ten years or so, there has been a great deal of them that deals with the subject matter of young kids who´s out of control, especially in the horror genre. Judging from that genre´s output, I´d be afraid to visit the grocery store in broad daylight, for chrissakes!

“Harry Brown” is no exception in its portrayal of British youth gone wild. Michael Caine plays the titular retired ex-marine who loses his wife to illness. One of Harry´s few pleasures in life is to have a drink and a game of chess at his local pub with his friend Leonard. When Leonard reacts to the increasing violence on the estate by confronting the gang responsible, he is brutally murdered. Harry is informed by the police of this incident and it hurts him terribly, telling the police that they are powerless to do anything about it. Slowly and almost imperceptibly, Harry snaps and decides that he is going to sort it out the old fashioned way.

It warms my heart to see that geriatric vigilantes have gotten such a revival this last year. I hope that this, along with “Gran Torino” spawns a flood of rip off´s and imitations. Imagine if there would´ve been a whole wave of vigilante flicks, starring old actors, kinda like the Italian Spaghetti western wave back in the 60´s and 70´s. That would be something.

But anyway, no matter how much fun “Death Wish part I-V” may be, this is a much better movie. It´s grittier, more realistic and much better acted. It´s a great addition to the “Urban-life-is-hell”-genre because make no mistake, this is one bleak fucker of a film. In this flick, London is a city of sleazy characters and moral decay. There´s violence, narcotics, young girls being drugged, raped and filmed. No wonder old Harry decides to fight back-

The thing is that when Harry Brown decides to actually do something, the transition from being a chess playing pensioner to a hell bent vigilante is actually pretty believable. That´s right, this movie actually manages to get what so many other vigilante flicks get wrong: the lead character´s transition. Let´s face it: did anyone actually believe Charles Bronson´s transformation in “Death Wish”? Well, at least in part one he felt some remorse but by part III, it only took a guy scaring a couple of pigeons and then Charlie was in full fledged vigilante-mode. His character didn´t resemble the Paul Kersey from part I particularly much. But Michael Caine is, as some of you out there might´ve noticed, a pretty good actor. I think he´s gonna make it big one of these days. You just wait and see.

Caine manages to create a bad ass-character, who is in no way invincible. Harry Brown is no youngster and he faints after he chases after one guy, he´s out of breath and things like that. And even when it is apparent that Harry Brown is gonna do something about the situation and he starts fighting back, he remains the same character. I think this is a testament to Caine´s abilities as an actor. If this doesn´t get him at least some nominations, then there really is something wrong with Britain.

The other performances in “Harry Brown” are pretty decent as well, but this is a typical case of the type of movie where none of the actors are “bad” per se but they´re so far behind the lead, that they can´t help but blending into the background. Emily Mortimer isn´t given particularly much to do as a police officer but she doesn´t make an ass of herself, either. Charlie Creed-Miles as her partner also delivers and Liam Cunningham is always a reliable guy.

However, this kid Ben Drew, who plays the leader of the gang who killed Harry´s friend, is fantastically obnoxious and menacing. I´m betting this kid is gonna get a lot of parts. There´s another character named Stretch, who´s your friendly neighborhood drug pusher who also sells guns and rapes young girls, and he´s played by none other than Sean Harris. Now, you may not recognize that name but he´s the guy who played Craig the Creep in Christopher Smith´s extraordinary subway-horror “Creep” a couple of years back. He was fantastic in that role, despite the fact that he was buried under make up and he is just as frightening in this one. The scene where he shoots up heroin is particularly scary. Let´s just say that he holds his own against Michael Caine.

But back to Sir Michael Caine. He´s pretty spectacular in this movie. Hell, I´d even go as far as to say that this might be his best performance ever. He´s that good! If he hadn´t that thing going with Christopher Nolan as Alfred in the “Batman” movies, I think it´d be a good idea to retire after this one. It´d be a cool note to end on.

Impressively enough, this is directed by a first time director. This is his first feature film, anyway. Apparently he did an Oscar nominated short a couple of years back but I haven´t seen that one. But based on this, this guy Daniel Barber is definitely one to watch. He starts the movie pretty slowly and then gradually turns the screws on the viewer and also manages to capture the insanity of a riot in its final scenes. Now, it´s not like I´ve been in that many riots through the years but I did happen to find myself in one in my youth and although I was pretty intoxicated at the time, it was a weird and pretty uncomfortable experience. So good work on that, Daniel Barber!

Check this one out. It´s definitely a keeper.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

What if I were to tell you that the other night I watched a fantastic film about a man and dog, what would you say? “Beethoven 2”? Sorry, not that one. “Turner & Hooch”? Not that one either. “K-9”? Not even that one. As you can see, movie history is filled with some pretty shitty movies about men and their dogs. “Red” is not one of them. Because if you didn´t notice it, I was being ironic there. The movies I just mentioned are pretty awful but this “Red”-movie is pretty goddamn great. As a matter of fact, “Red” is the best Jack Ketchum-adaptation to date. I know that a lot of you out there really liked “The Girl Next Door” and I guess that was pretty harrowing flick made by competent people, but this one has it beat. This is a much more satisfying experience, with much better performances in it.

You see, the lead in “Red” is inhabited by a certain Brian Cox… and Brian Cox may be one of the better actors around today. He´s the guy with the pockmarked face who played Stryker in the “X-Men” movies and who was the original Hannibal Lecter in “Manhunter”. This guy can act up a storm! In this one he portrays Avery. He´s kind of a recluse who spends his day at his hardware store and fishing, with his dog Red. You know what they say about dogs and how they´re man´s best friend? In this case it´s true. Red really is Avery´s best friend and he´s had him for 14 years. However, one day while fishing, three teenage punks kill his dog for no reason and Avery sets out for justice and redemption within whatever means possible, legal or otherwise. He starts by visiting the kids´ dad, played by Tom Sizemore.

Now, you know as well as I do that whenever Tom Sizemore shows up in a movie, it´s bad news. Either for the characters or for us, the audience, considering the choices he´s made lately. In this case it´s good for us, because he actually acts in this one. It´s not so good for poor old Avery, basically cause a character played by Tom Sizemore will always turn out to be an asshole. I guess he didn´t watch “Strange Days”.

Hey, speaking of man´s best friend, ever heard that one about two guys who´s stuck in the aftermath of an avalanche and all of a sudden they see a big ass St. Bernhard coming strolling towards them, complete with a barrel of brandy around his neck and everything? “Look, it´s man´s best friend!” says one guy and the other one replies: “Yeah, and a fucking dog, as well…”

Anyway, Tom Sizemore is up to his usual old mischief so naturally I expected that Brian Cox was gonna go all vigilante on his and his sons asses. Well, at least that´s what I was hoping for. And since “Red” is one of the few Jack Ketchum novels I haven´t read, I didn´t know what to expect. Well, I can report that Brian Cox does not turn into Charlie Bronson but you know what: I really liked the movie anyway!

This is a movie of small gestures and the tension builds very nicely. Now, the weird thing is that this movie had two directors. At first Lucky McKee started out at the helm and then this Norwegian fella named Tryggve Allister Diesen (whom I´ve never heard of) took over the reign. I guess that McKee had some falling out with some producer due to the old classic “artistic differences” or something like that. Now, I am a huge McKee fan! I think that his debut movie “May” is one of the better horror movies of the last ten years, so I was sad to hear that he quit the movie. “This won´t end nicely”, I thought. But lo and behold, it did!

This does not feel like a movie that was compromised in any way and even though I can´t say that I see McKee´s imprint anywhere, it´s still a goddamn good movie. I can´t believe that the guy who wrote this is the same guy who gave us “The Grudge”-remake. You see, this is a pretty nuanced screenplay and it´s a joy to see Brian Cox sink his teeth into a leading man role, for once. This is one of those movies where the lead is the silent, righteous, strong type and then suddenly we get a scene where he does this monologue where he tells someone all about his past and his demons. You know, kinda like Quint´s “U.S.S. Minneapolis”-speech in “Jaws”, only without the sharks. Cox is pretty fantastic in this scene.

No matter how you look at it, this is a great film! I know that we all love vigilante movies and some of you might be disappointed that this one doesn´t go “all in” in that regard, but there´s so much else to cherish in this movie. I love watching an old dude taking the law into his own hands as much as the next guy, and I´ll be the first one to admit that “Gran Torino” is one of the better movies of recent years, this is a much more believable film, with much more grounded performances.

I like the fact that there seem to have been some kind of inflation in Jack Ketchum-adaptations lately. The guy´s works lend themselves to the movie medium extremely well since he always works with basic, stripped-down plotlines like this one but let´s be honest here: not all of the adaptations have been good. “The Off Spring” was pretty horrible, “The Girl Next Door” was ok but suffered from some weak acting and “The Lost” was pretty good and easily the best looking movie of the bunch. But like I said, “Red” has ´em beat! You owe it to yourself to check this one out. It doesn´t matter if you´re into horror movies, vigilante movies or thrillers. This is the kind of movie that transcends genres, people.

I´m just hoping that the fact that McKee left this movie midway through doesn´t make it harder for him to get future projects off the ground. I mean, it´s been a while now and it´s about time we got a new Lucky McKee-movie to enjoy! “The Woods” was released in 2006 and let´s face it: we´re not getting any younger here, so get cracking, Lucky!

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

I wonder what the filmmaker´s aspirations were thinking when they set out to make this one? Did they really wanted to make a thriller that wasn´t particularly thrilling? Or how about a horror movie that didn´t have any horrific elements in it? And why the hell do you wanna hire Kate Beckinsale and have her strip down to her underwear in the opening scenes, but no nudity? That´s just cruel, man. But the thing is that this sums up the movie pretty good: “Whiteout” is a perfect example of “middle-of-the-road”-filmmaking. This is mediocrity in its finest (or worst) form: neither too bad to be upsetting or too good to be captivating. It just is. Kind of like when the titular whiteout occurs, it´s hard to know exactly what is going on because it´s just too uninteresting. But here´s what I managed to figure out:

U.S. Marshal Carrie Stetko (Kate Beckinsale) is the only one assigned to Antarctica and must investigate a murder there within three days, before the Antarctic winter begins. She crosses paths with a U.N. operative (Gabriel Macht), also investigating the murder, and gets help from the stationed local doctor Fury (played by Tom Skerritt).

Not exactly groundbreaking stuff. Nor icebreaking either, for that matter. This is a painfully predictable movie that keeps lumbering along until the familiar conclusion, complete with a twist that everyone sees coming a mile away, arrives. Not only that, they even managed to fill the movie with particularly bland actors. Some of them have such a lack of personalities that they blend in with the Antarctic ice, for chrissakes! Don´t get me wrong, I like Kate Beckinsale as much as the next guy, but let´s face it: she´s not that great of an actress. I think it´s cool that she isn´t afraid to delve into genre stuff, like the “Underworld”-movies, as well as some heavyweight drama stuff like “Snow Angels”. That way everybody´s happy: the critics and the fanboys! If you look at her that way, she´s a goddamn spreader of goodwill! She could be the one factor that makes both bitter critics and horny geeks around the globe take each other´s hands and sing “We shall overcome”! In this regard she´s kind of like the female version of Thomas Jane. He isn´t afraid to take the lead in something like “Give ´Em Hell, Malone”, as well as pop up in something as culturally highbrow as Terence Malick´s “The Thin Red Line”. Hell, the two of them should get together and make a baby. Imagine that: a genetically superior being, who would dominate every genre: horror, sci-fi and drama! Christ, that kid could be the ruler of the free world.

But anyway, this Beckinsale gal isn´t that good. Neither is this Gabriel Macht fella who isn´t having much luck with his career. I kinda feel bad for him. First he got the lead in what everybody thought was going to be a huge hit: Frank Miller´s insane so-bad-that-it´s-good “The Spirit” and now he gets to star in this one. He keeps picking the duds. I bet that both of these movies looked good on paper and he must´ve been extremely happy when he got those roles but imagine the look on this poor guy´s face when he´d seen “The Spirit” for the first time? I would definitely feel more sorry for him unless it wasn´t for the fact that he isn´t a particularly good actor, either. He played The Spirit as if he was a horny drunk stumbling around without a fucking clue what was going on and it´s not like he leaves an impression in this one either.

That leaves poor old Tom Skerritt, who still has it going on. It´s a shame this guy doesn´t get more roles because he has this genuine warmth and charisma that makes you like and care for him instantly. He does a pretty decent job as the father-figure-like doctor here but it´s not like has very much to work with. In all fairness, neither does Beckinsale or Macht but at least Skerritt takes the script and runs with it a bit. But I´m not surprised. After all, we´re talking Dallas from the first “Alien” here!

I bet that the producers thought that they´d gotten a real coup when they landed Dominic Sena to direct their movie and if this were ten years ago from now, maybe they had. You see, back in 2000 Dominic Sena was one of those hot music video directors that everyone wanted to work with and his first feature was “Gone in Sixty Seconds”, which was a huge hit. Don´t ask me why. I think that people maybe flocked to the theatres to check out what has to be some of the worst hairstyles in movie history: Nicolas Cage with blonde hair and Angelina Jolie in dreads! Talk about a bad hair day. Actually, “Bad hair year” is more like it.

But anyway, I guess that “Gone in Sixty Dreadlocks” was a slick action movie, which Sena then followed up with “Swordfish”, starring John Travolta in an awful frosted haircut (hey Dominic, I´m sensing a pattern here!), which was also a hit. But then nothing happened. Sena directed a TV movie, which I haven´t seen, but except for that he hasn´t made a movie in nine years, which is a pretty long time if you ask me. I don´t know if that has anything to do with the fact that this one isn´t as slick or commercial-like in its look. Maybe it´s a budgetary issue, what the hell do I know, but you can´t tell that this one was directed by Sena in any way whatsoever. So I guess you bummed out on that one, producers!

But I shouldn´t put too much blame on Sena when it comes to how uninteresting this movie is. I´m guessing that the script was intended to be a low budget thriller but then Beckinsale got attached and then everyone thought “Holy shit, we can release this theatrically! That girl in the Spandex suit from the “”Underworld” rocks! Everybody loves her so this´ll be a huge hit!”

But you see, even if you polish a turd, it will remain a turd. I think. I haven´t actually polished someone´s fecal remains but I´m guessing that it will remain in its shit-like shape. That´s why this movie screams out “low budget B-movie-thriller conventions up ahead!” at every junction it approaches. I mean, you have the obligatory character that has to take every chance and explain the obvious out loud so that no one misunderstands what has happened. I mean, is it possible that the guy with a knife in his back has been… I don´t know, murdered? In case someone doesn´t understand this, we better have a character spell this out.

But where the movie really misses what could have been a great element, story-wise, is when (SPOILER-ALERT!!!) Beckinsale has to venture out into the cold and contracts gangrene. Two of her fingers have to come off. Chop, chop, just like that! That´s the coolest thing about the movie but the filmmakers doesn´t seem to realize this. I mean, imagine if David Cronenberg would´ve directed this: then we wouldn´t have been dealing with a couple of lousy fingers, then Beckinsale would have been forced to amputate her whole arm and then she´d get tangled up in a weird S&M-like sexual relationship with Skerritt, who´s about 30 years her senior, or something like that. That´s the kind of movie I´d like to watch!

Sadly, the writer and director were of another opinion so they completely fumble the ball when it comes to this sequence and the effect it could´ve had on the entire movie. It could´ve added a weird psychosexual element to it, but instead we get to watch Beckinsale cry when she realizes she has to be amputated. And that´s about it. After that she seem pretty alright.

Anyway, there have been a number of films in recent years that have dealt with the concept of the Antarctic winter and I´m sad to say that they were all superior to this one. “30 Days of Night” was a great take on vampirism and the Swedish flick “Frostbite” was also a hell of a lot more entertaining than this one. But then again, both those movies had vampires in them. Maybe Beckinsale should have that written into her contract: a vampire clausal! I bet that this movie would have been a lot more fun if it turned out that it was vampires that were doing the killing. Amputated vampires, maybe…

But oh no… nobody ever listens to me.

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