Last Blog On The Left

The other day I suffered some kind of mental breakdown because I actually sat down and tried to watch a movie called “Stan Helsing”, which is about some slacker running around in a hockey shirt and bandana and fighting such well known horror movie icons as Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees and shit. That movie turned out to be a big pile of stinkin´, fumin´ shit and to my big surprise Leslie Nielsen has a part in it. For some reason he wears a wig and fake breasts in it. I have no idea why. I feel sorry for Leslie Nielsen. I grew up with the guy as Frank Drebin in “The Naked Gun”-movies and the “Police Squad” TV-series but is this really what it has come to: Nielsen is 83 fucking years old and relegated to playing a transvestite or whatever the hell he´s supposed to be in a movie called “Stan Helsing”, starring the guy who was married to Reba McIntyre´s daughter on her crappy sitcom? Really? My heart bleeds for you, Leslie.

Anyway, this sad sight of Leslie Nielsen made me do two things. The first was to re-watch “Airplane!” just to remind myself how goddamn funny he was once upon a time (“I am serious and don´t call me Shirley”). The second thing was to re-watch “Van Helsing”, starring Hugh Jackman. Yes, I said “re-watch”! I have seen this movie more than once, believe it or not. Bare with me and I´ll try to explain what appeal this movie holds for me, ok?

Some movies are made for one and one reason only: to make you stuff your face with popcorn! “Van Helsing” is such a film. In fact, this movie is basically the celluloid version of popcorn: it doesn´t taste that much but it goes down without you having to chew it too much and every once in a while you get one of those annoying little corn bits stuck between your teeth. That´s “Van Helsing”! I´ll probably get crucified for saying this out loud but I actually enjoy this movie. It´s entertaining in that kind of Saturday morning-serial cartoons used to be when you were a kid. Every time I watch this movie I have to check to see if I´m not still in my pajamas I wore when I was about eight years old. Fortunately that isn´t the case because that would pretty disturbing, to put it mildly.

Now, let´s get one thing out of the way immediately: if you can´t stand CGI, you should avoid this movie. Also, if you´re looking for a “real” horror movie, this is not the movie for you. This is about as much horror as “Dracula-Dead and Loving It”, ok? Or as that fricking “Stan Helsing”-movie, for that matter.

Anyway, Hugh Jackman stars as Van Helsing, who in Stephen Sommers´world works as a monster hunter for the Vatican. Remember that albino fucker in “The Da Vinci Code”? If you cross him with James Bond then we´re sort of close to what Van Helsing is like in this movie.

Van Helsing has a trusty sidekick named Carl (played by David Wenham), travels to Transylvania to battle a whole bunch of monsters, like Dracula and his sultry brides, the Wolfman and Frankenstein.

Now, since this is a movie directed by Stephen Sommers, who´s responsible for “The Mummy”-series and the criminally underrated “Deep Rising”, Van Helsing gets able help from Anna Valerious, who has her own agenda of why she wants to kill these fuckers. The thing is that she´s played by Kate Beckinsale. She´s the girl in the latex suit from the “Underworld”-series and let´s just say that she gets quite a becoming outfit in this one, as well.

And because this is a Stephen Sommers-movies you shouldn´t expect a Hammer-style movie. Like I mentioned, in his world Van Helsing is James Bond, appears to have the same stylist as Keanu Reeves had in “The Matrix” and the Wolfman is an over-sized raging monster who´s about as far from Lon Chaney as I am to giving up drinking, ok?

I am well aware that this is the kind of movie that I should hate. I should despise it with a passion. Yet, for some strange reason, I don´t. I must´ve seen this movie about four or five times but I still can´t quite remember what happens in it. I remember parts from it and that it was entertaining enough. The thing is that I seem to conjure up memories of it actually being better and more fun than it is, so I have to re-watch it every year or so and every time I finish watching it I realize that it´s not a great movie by any means but you know, you could do a hell of a lot worse if you´re stuck with a hangover from the depths of hell on Sunday morning.

I know that that´s not a valid reason for liking a movie and usually I´m not one to say things like “What did you expect? Shakespeare?” after watching a movie like “Transformers”, ok? But I´m willing to go with that argument with this one. I admit that Stephen Sommers should´ve done more with such a great concept movie for a genuine horror movie but instead he turned it into a movie equivalent of an amusement park ride. But hey, at least he´s not Michael Bay, ok? I think it´s obvious that while watching “Van Helsing” or “The Mummy” for that matter, that Sommers do have a genuine love for these kinds of movies. He seem to have a goal with them and that is to create the most entertaining movie he can for that seven year old kid who still watches those cartoons in his pajamas on Saturday morning. I don´t think that that´s the worst goal to have when you´re making a huge blockbuster like this one.

Don´t even ask me what Michael Bay´s goal is because I have no idea. Probably to corrupt the minds of audiences and create kids with attention spans that won´t stretch longer than two seconds.

This is a loud, dumb-as-hell and cheesy movie but tell me this: how can you not like a movie where Van Helsing has a crossbow battle with flying vampire witches just moments after he´s arrived in Transylvania? You can´t. You just can´t…

I promise I will try to discuss something a little more high brow next time, ok? But for now, just check your brain at the door.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Ok, I think we can all agree on the fact that when the first ”Iron Man” was released, we were all pretty surprised. I don´t think anyone expected it to be that much fun except for maybe the guys who actually made the movie. I mean, granted that whoever got the brilliant idea to cast Robert Downey, JR as Tony Stark deserves a raise but when I heard that it was gonna be directed by that guy from “Swingers” and who played Monica´s rich boyfriend on “Friends”, I wasn´t too thrilled. Well, as we all know Jon Favreau turned out to be the perfect choice because “Iron Man” was one of the more enjoyable and entertaining comic book movies of the last ten years! I mean, I appreciate a brooding hero like Batman in “The Dark Knight” as much as the next guy but we can all use a movie like this that is just plain, good old-fashioned fun! So while the first one took us by surprise, the second one has a lot to live up to. And I mean a lot…

So does it succeed? Kind of. This isn´t as much fun as the first one, which kind of surprised me that I felt that way. Usually I´m not that big of a fan when it comes to the first installment in superhero-franchises. I always think that the origin story is the least interesting one. Just look at “Batman Begins” compared to “The Dark Knight”. It´s the same with the first two “Spider Man” movies. Once they get that origin shit out of the way, things usually gets interesting.

Well, I didn´t feel that way with this franchise. However, I have to admit that they´ve done a great job with continuing the story arch from the first movie without it feeling forced or contrived. To be honest, this doesn´t so much feel like a sequel, instead it feels like the same movie as the first one. I love it when sequels start off right where the first one ended and this one does exactly this. And let´s face it: “Iron Man” part I had a great fucking ending! You know, when Tony Stark announced to the world that “I am Iron Man”?

And it´s much to this that “Iron Man” remains interesting. He is one of the few super heroes where the world is aware of his identity and this guy embraces it wholeheartedly. This is how we´re introduced to Stark in the second one, when he appears at the opening of the “Stark Expo”, where makes quite an entrance. Since the first movie, Stark has managed to negotiate a peace between the world´s major super powers and he´s not gonna let anyone forget this. He´s got quite the rock star thing going on and he´s living it up. But you know, like every major rock star Stark also has his own skeletons in the closet but it´s not like he´s got a heroin addiction nor has a penchant for underage girls or anything like that. Instead Stark is dying because of the palladium in the arc reactor he´s got mounted in his chest. Life ain´t easy for a crime fighting multi billionaire, you know? Plus the fact that he´s got a sleazy senator (played by Garry Shandling) after him and wants him to turn over the “Iron Man” suit to the government and an equally slimy weapons manufacturer (played by Sam Rockwell), trying to copy his work.

And as if this wasn´t enough, when Stark is in Monaco, trying to enjoy a quiet day of racing the formula one car that he owns, Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke, sporting more tattoos than Lemmy and with more gold in his mouth than Fort Knox), shows up with a weapon very similar to Stark´s and he makes it pretty clear that he doesn´t intend on using it for the good of mankind.

There´s a lot going on in “Iron Man 2”. Maybe a bit too much to fit it all into a 2 hour popcorn movie? There a couple of storylines that are brushed over too easily and that I would´ve liked to see some more of. For instance, Mickey Rourke is sorely underused in the film. It´s good to see him back on the big screen and hopefully this elevates him even further into the movie stardom stratosphere, to the point where he can make the kind of movies he wants to, but Vanko is by far the most interesting character in the film. He´s had a pretty brutal past where he was raised by an alcoholic father who was deported from the states, partly thanks to Howard Stark, Tony´s father, and this is only hinted at in a couple of scenes and I would´ve definitely liked to have seen this explored some more. I don´t know if Favreau initially shot a longer version of the film because it feels like some characters are introduced, then dropped without ever to appear again.

It´s the same thing with Scarlett Johansson´s Black Widow aka Natasha Romanoff. I don´t know about you, but I´m not that big of a fan when it comes to the “Iron Man” comic book. I always thought it had a boring lead character and it wasn´t particularly exciting. However, I was always a huge fan of the Black Widow character. She kicked ass long before they made that Nicolas Cage-movie with that same name. Unfortunately, she too is sorely underused in the movie. Hell, we only get to see her in full Black Widow-regalia in one scene towards the end, which is way too little. It is a pretty cool scene though, so I´m not gonna whine too much.

But there are a couple of things that bugged me. For instance, they make a big deal about Mickey Rourke´s pet bird, which is shown briefly in a credit sequence, and he keeps going on about how he wants his bird and all that. When they finally get the bird to him, it´s not the same bird but then it doesn´t seem to matter too much to him. He seems to like this other bird just as much, which I found weird. I´m not sure what the whole deal about this bird was? Was there some kind of plotline where they showed how this bird and Mickey Rourke love each other which were cut out of the film? Are they dating? Have the bird cheated on him, is that why he forgets about it so quickly? It´s just weird…

At another point in the movie, Kate Mara (of “Brokeback Mountain” and “Shooter”-fame) pops up as a solicitor, serving Tony Stark with an impeachment, only to disappear after that one sequence. I think she´s a little bit too well known for a small cameo like this which only makes her appearance distracting, when you realize that this character isn´t gonna show up again. I kept waiting for her to re-appear and use her super special legal-skills to help Tony Stark out of a bind, or something. Didn´t happen.

But this is probably one of the more entertaining action movies you´re gonna see this summer and even though it is fun as hell, it still manages to hint at some of the darkness that Tony Stark has to carry with him. Like his alcohol consumption, for instance. This is shown in a scene that manages to be pretty funny and awkwardly sad at the same time, much thanks to Downey, JR´s performance. I think it´s safe to say that the guy has that mixed up-alcoholic thing down to a tee. I was waiting for a scene where he´s flying around in his “Iron Man” suit, drunk as hell and accidently flies into his neighbor’s house only to pass out in the daughter´s bed and then be picked up by the cops but maybe that was one of the deleted scenes that I mentioned earlier.

I think it would be interesting to watch the two movies back-to-back when this one is released on DVD because I think that it´ll play even better then. I kinda got the feeling that the movie ended pretty abruptly in its current state but maybe it´ll play better when you watch the two movies in one sitting. But then again, what the hell do I know?

All in all, I gotta say that I really liked this one and I´d definitely pay to see a third one, which judging from the post credit-sequence you get in this one, promises to be pretty goddamn great! I do have one major objection and that is that Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is just wrong. And believe me, this is not a racial thing. I thought Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin in “Daredevil” worked just fine but it just feels weird watching Jackson as Fury. Samuel L. Jackson always plays and always will play no other character than Samuel L. Jackson, so to cast him as Nick Fury, head director of S.H.I.E.L.D., is not the brightest move the movie industry has made.

If it were up to me they should´ve let David Hasselhoff, who played Fury in the 1998 TV-movie “Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.”, have another go at the character. But that´s just one guy´s opinion.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Okay, I know I´m late as hell on this one but I figured why not throw my two cents worth in there? Just because I can, you know? I heard a lot of different things about this one beforehand and I wasn´t really sure what to expect but since I am a huge fan of Woody Harrelson, I figured that I was going to expect this one to be good. Turns out that for once in my life I chose the right path. Because this movie is actually a lot of fun and it´s much thanks to the Woody himself! I don´t know about you but I´ve liked the guy ever since I saw him on “Cheers” back when I was a kid. I realize that we live in a world where a goddamn ash cloud terrorizes people and we´re slowly running out of resources and all that and it´s easy to get mixed up in that but I also say this:

No matter how bad things are out there right now, the fact of the matter is that we also live in a world where Woody Harrelson are making movies pretty constantly and that, in my humble opinion, makes up for a lot of bad shit.

The fact that an actor like Harrelson keeps working makes the world just a little bit more beautiful. Think about it: in the last couple of years we´ve gotten “No Country For Old Men”, “The Grand”, “Transsiberian” and “Defendor” to name just a few. All of these movies were blessed with a dose of the wonder that is Woody.

And then we have “Zombieland”. Which you probably already have seen and if you haven´t I recommend you do it before you continue reading because I´m gonna go pretty heavy on the SPOILERS!!!, ok? But since we´re all intelligent people here, I´m gonna assume you´ve seen it but as a reminder, here´s the plot just so we´re on the same page, in case you saw one of the many other movies called “Zombieland” that´s floating around out there:

Jesse Eisenberg plays Columbus, who is basically a big wuss. You know, kind of like the roles Eisenberg usually portrays. Remember “Adventureland”? “The Squid and the Whale”? He´s basically the same whiny guy here.  But the good thing here is that when you’re afraid of being eaten by zombies, fear can keep you alive. He´s formed a set of different rules that he now lives by and it´s thanks to them that he´s managed to stay alive this long. He teams up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), who is an AK-toting, zombie-slaying’ bad ass whose single determination is to get the last Twinkie on earth. As they join forces with Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), who have also found unique ways to survive the zombie mayhem, they will have to determine which is worse: relying on each other or succumbing to the zombies.

Now, I´ve realized that one of the things that have divided the people of this planet is the everlasting discussion about whether you prefer zombies that walk or run. You know, should they stumble around like they do in Romero´s movies or should they run fast as fuck, as they do in “28 Days Later” and the remake of “Dawn of the Dead”? In case you haven´t noticed this is something that the people of the internet feel very strongly about. Many are the conflicts that have been started because of it! I´m not saying that this is a fact but if I remember correctly, running zombies appeared around the same time as those two planes crashed into the World Trade Center. I´m not sure about this, but I´ll just throw it out there and you´ll do what you will with it…

Now, I´m not gonna spoil the surprise for you by saying which kind of zombies you get in this one but I will say that the filmmakers quickly establishes how their zombies behave and it works very well.

In case you hadn´t realized this, this isn´t exactly a “horror” movie. I don´t think you´re gonna sit around biting your nails while you watch this because this is basically a comedy with zombies in it. A “zom-com” or whatever the hell they call it. I guess it might even be a “rom-zom-com” because there is a bit of romance as Eisenberg´s awkward teenage kid falls head over heels for Emma Stone´s character.

And that´s what makes this movie so great: it´s a comedy that´s genuinely entertaining, not only in the gags they stage but the dialogue is particularly entertaining as it makes room for some liberating non-PC jokes, like when one character notes that it´s good to practice your cardio if you´re gonna outrun the zombies, because “fatties go first”. Call me immature, but that kind of thing always gets a smile from me.

The key to why “Zombieland” works so well is because it sports some pretty well written characters that they managed to cast pretty well, too. Eisenberg and Harrelson make for an entertaining duo and they manage to create the kind of character that you just wanna hang out with and listen to whatever the hell they´re talking about. Because, to be honest, the story isn´t all that much. But I´m the kind of guy that is of the firm opinion that plot comes second, just as long as you have some great characters.

You know what, another movie that this one reminded me of is Richard Linklater´s last-day-in-high-school-classic “Dazed and Confuzed”. Just like that one, “Zombieland” is a funny and at the same time heartfelt coming of age-story. In “Dazed and Confuzed” you´re just dropped right into the story and pretty quickly you´re introduced to all the characters and within a second you get a sense of what this and that character´s all about. “Zombieland” works the same way: you´re dropped into the action but instead of a bunch of high school kids being hazed, it´s a bunch of zombies trying to eat our hero alive. In both movies you also kind of just drift along with the characters through the story but you never feel bored or shortchanged, as a viewer. “Zombieland” has a loose feeling to it that I really enjoyed. And yes, at times it´s a pretty touching love story that director Ruben Fleischer manages to tell.

And then there´s that cameo… by that actor… I´m sure you´ve heard about it by now but just to be safe here´s another SPOILER!!! for you persistent freaks out there. You see, a certain comedian, who has appeared in many classic comedies (I think he did one about a bunch of guys who started a company where they performed exorcisms or something) appears in this one as himself and I´m not kidding you when I say that this has got to be one of the most brilliant cameos ever! I don´t know if they wrote this part for this specific actor originally but no one else could´ve done such an insanely great job with it.

I´m just gonna come out and say it now, ok? It´s Bill Murray and as we all know, Bill Murray isn´t human like the rest of us. He´s a demigod as far as comedians go and actors in general, for that matter. And we´ve all heard the stories about him and his erratic behavior, right? Whenever you hear a celebrity talking about him on some talk show, they´re always telling some crazy shit about him pulling some stunt at a party or something like that. Remember when he got arrested in Stockholm for driving a Golf cart down the street, while intoxicated? Bill Murray just doesn´t subscribe to the normal conventions of society and that´s what makes him so brilliant. But the genius of his cameo in this one is that he plays it totally straight and that he appears to be nicest, most hospitable guy on the planet. The thought of that just makes me laugh out loud.

By the way, the best Bill Murray-anecdote I ever heard was some guy who apparently met him in an elevator at a film festival. It was just these two guys and when the doors closed, Bill Murray grabbed the other guy in a headlock and whispered “No one´s ever going to believe you…” and then got off on his floor and said goodbye.

So there you have it! I know it´s that time of the year again when the sun starts to rear its ugly face and the couples that have been in hiding all through the winter starts skipping down the street, hand in hand, and that can be a hard time for some of us. That´s why we need to laugh every now and again, people! And if you ever get that itch, this is the movie to watch, fuckers!

Sorry about that last part where I called you “fuckers”. I didn´t mean it. I meant it affectionately. It´s just that that whole paragraph before where I was rambling about how “we all need to laugh” and that crazy hippie shit felt a bit much and I had to outweigh it by throwing that in there. It won´t happen again.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Ok, here´s a movie that I watched a long time ago but never got around to telling you about but you know what they say: all good things come to those who wait! I don´t know who started that expression but I bet it was a parent who was really tired of their spoiled kid or some shit like that. Cause when you think about it, it´s one of the stupidest expressions there is, really. Anyway, as you might´ve noticed Hollywood has got a hard on for remaking movies these days. It can´t just be me that has taken notice of this phenomena, can it? It´s mostly horror movies that gets the redux-remake-reboot-reimagination-treatment but how´s this for an idea for a remake: how about a Korean remake of Sergio Leone´s western classic “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”? We´ll set in 1940´s Manchuria and we´ll call it “The Good, The Bad and The Weird”? How´s that for an idea, Hollywood? Pretty original, in my humble opinion! That´s what director Ji-Woon Kim (“A Bittersweet Life”, “A Tale of Two Sisters”) thought also, but rest assured that this is not a straight-up remake. Kim has taken the basic framework of the plot and really ran wild with it. What he´s done is that he´s taken the plot of the three bandits searching for the same treasure map, all the while being pursued by the Japanese army and Chinese bandits.

Ok, some of you geniuses out there might´ve figured out that this is a Korean movie (considering I told you that in the first paragraph) and although I appreciate Asian movies as much as the next guy, I still have my problems with them most of the time. For instance: why the hell does it always feel like you can cut out at least half an hour from every Asian movie that you watch? They´re always at least two hours long and that´s one half hour too long and “The Good, The Bad and The Weird” is no exception to the rule, even though this movie is entertaining as hell itself and it has one of the greatest opening scenes I´ve seen in a long, long time! Let´s just say that it involves a steam train and leave it at that, so it won´t be ruined for you. But it´s a bit too long but I´m willing to accept that because this really is one entertaining fucker of a movie! Kim´s camerawork is insane in this movie! The camera defies the rules of gravity constantly and this oughtta make filmmakers like Tarantino crap themselves with envy. I have no idea how Kim came up with these ideas or how he pulled them off but the result is pretty damn spectacular.

To be honest, the best way to describe the feeling that this movie convey is that of those movies you used to watch when you were a kid. Remember the first time you watched “Raiders of the Lost Ark”? How insanely entertaining it was and the fact that the movie´s pace never let up had you cheering out loud? That´s kind of how “The Good, The Bad and The Weird” feels. This is a funny movie and it feels like Kim has tried to create a two hour long tribute to adventure movies in particular and cinema in general.

One thing I do have a problem with, and this is also one of those things that seem to be a general trait in most Asian films are their weird sense of humor. Let´s just say that it´s not the same as mine. They have a weird way of mixing things up with a suspenseful scene but then a character can come stumbling into it and fall on his ass and start farting and burping and shit like that and it´s obviously supposed to be funny as hell! Well, forgive me for not subscribing to that policy of humor. I don´t know why Asian filmmakers insist on having this element of really low brow humor in their movies but what the hell do I know? They say “tomat-o” and we say “tomat-oe” or however the hell that old saying goes. This element is present in “The Good, The Bad and The Weird” but at least it´s not as much featured as in say, a movie like “The Host”, fortunately.

Now, I have to digress here for a moment, ok? Time to discuss one of the weirdest things about this movie. There´s a scene where one character tries to break into a safe, ok? Nothing too weird about that but in a close-up we are shown that this particular safe is of the brand “Franz Jaeger”. Now, unless you are from Sweden or Denmark you may not be too familiar with this name, so let me give you some background: In the 60´s and 70´s there were a very popular Danish franchise called “Olsenbanden” about a gang of bumbling criminals which were extremely popular in Denmark. In every movie they were trying to rob this rich guy and break into his safe, which were of the brand “Franz Jaeger”. This is supposed to be one of the safest safes in the world, according to the movies. So, the years went by and in the 80´s these movies were adapted to a Swedish franchise called “Jönssonligan”, which were extremely popular around the time I grew up. The name of “Franz Jaeger” had been carried over from the original franchise to this one.

“Ok, so it´s a well known safe” you say but that´s not the case. I´ve been doing some research here, my friends (after all, I am a super-serious writer) and have come to the conclusion that there is no safe with that name! It was invented by the creator of “Olsenbanden”, Erik Balling, for the first movie. He took the name from a German still photographer whom he had previously worked with. So that has to mean that someone on the crew of the Korean movie “The Good, The Bad and The Weird” is either a huge “Jönssonligan” or “Olsenbanden”-fan and frankly, I find that weird as hell. I didn´t know that these movies had ever been shown outside of Scandinavia. It´s just such a bizarre thought: the idea of Ji-Woon Kim sitting around his apartment, laughing ass off at Scandinavian crime-comedies…

But enough of that shit but if it turns out you´re a huge “Jönssonligan”-fan, you should probably check out this flick. So should the rest of you, by the way! This is a huge, epic, entertaining, violent film that moves along like the steam train from the movie´s opening scene. There´s some spectacular cinematography in this movie, especially the scenes with the motorcycle chase in the desert. At times it feels like if David Lean had decided to direct an action movie. That´s how big this movie is its scope, ok?

I can guarantee you that a lot of people will complain that there´s no substance to this film and that it´s all style and no heart but honestly, who the hell cares about shit like that when its style is as good looking as this one? This movie is like a mix between Leone´s spaghetti westerns, Indiana Jones, “Lawrence of Arabia” and the Mad Max-movies and if that doesn´t float your fucking boat, I don´t know what the hell we´re gonna do with you…

Say what you will about remakes but this one is definitely proof that not all of them has to be awful. After all, don´t forget that even Sergio Leone himself dabbled in remaking films, with “A Fistful of Dollars” which is based on Kurosawa´s “Yojimbo”, and if a director of Leone´s caliber is prepared to do it then there´s really no reason to dismiss a remake without watching it, right?

So until next time: Take scare & stay ghoul,

Thomas

Tonight, my friends, I am going to ramble about a movie which I absolutely love; it is one of my all time favorite monster movies. No, strike that! It´s one of my all time favorite movies period! I´m talking about “Tremors” starring Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward! Now, where do I begin with this one? Is it possible to list all the great things about this film? I don´t think so but I´m gonna give it a shot for you, my friends.

I´m sure that you´re familiar with the story but in case you´ve been stranded on a desert island with no one to talk to but your favorite basketball, here it is: Trying to escape their dead-end life in the desert town of Perfection, Nevada, Val McKee (Kevin Bacon) and Earl Bassett (Fred Ward) find themselves sidetracked when corpses mysteriously start piling up around them. When Val and Earl have a run-in with some creepy tentacled creatures that have devoured a whole road crew, they retreat back to the town to spread the news.

That´s the set up for you. You got the desert, which is always good for monster movies. Remember “Them”? No people around, which is always good for horror movies. Now, the thing about “Tremors” is that it isn´t an all out horror flick, ok? This is one funny flick and this is of course thanks to an excellent script with fantastic characters and lines but also due to the fact that they managed to find the perfect actor for every single role! I can´t imagine any other actor doing these roles better and I´m talking about even the smallest parts here. Kevin Bacon is Val McKee and Fred Ward is Earl Bassett as much as Michael Gross (Michael J. Fox´s dad from that old show “Family Ties”) is the gun-crazy Burt Gummer and Reba McIntyre is his wife, Heather. I don´t know how the hell they did it but the casting director on this one did a hell of a job. I sure as hell wouldn´t have thought of Michael J. Fox´s goodie two shoes dad as a survival-obsessed, gun-crazy character so congratulations on a job well done, casting director!

But of course, the entire movie relies on the chemistry between Bacon and Ward and let me tell ya, they have got it… in spades! From the first scene you get the sense that these two guys have known each other for their entire lives and worked together for longer that is usually good for your mental health. They fight, bicker and joke around in that way that you know, regular guys do. The fact that they don´t stop kidding around altogether when the horror comes crawling into the movie makes it both more entertaining and in a weird way, more realistic.

“Tremors” is often referred to as a cult classic and I´m not sure why. I don´t know if this was a big success when it was released theatrically but at least it was successful enough to garner three straight-to-video-sequels and a TV show. That´s why I feel that this movie has been neglected long enough, we need to stop talking about this movie as a fucking “cult” classic and hail it as the classic it actually is! This is a close to perfect movie. Let me explain why:

1. It manages to both pay homage to the monster movies of the 50´s and have fun with the genre but never once does it poke fun at the genre! No matter how funny this movie is, it´s all because the characters act the way they do. The monster remains a threat and is pretty fucking scary at times, which brings us to our second point…

2. The monster! Every monster movie needs a good monster and “Tremors” has a great one! These “graboids” as Walter Chang, the convenience store owner (portrayed by the fantastic Victor Wong who I´m sure you recognize as Egg Chen from “Big Trouble in Little China”) calls them, aren´t just these big worms burrowing through the ground. The writers had the good taste to make them just smart enough to be a real threat. For instance, when someone tries to hide inside a car the “graboids” dig under the car, causing it to sink into the earth. There´s aren´t your standard garden worms, either. We´re talking around 30 feet here, ok? And we all know that that is of the utmost significance when it comes to movie monsters: the size! Now, some ladies may tell you that size doesn´t matter and all that but they obviously aren´t horror movie fans. I´ve rambled here earlier about how horror movie villains need to be of a certain stature to be genuinely scary and the same goes for monsters. Imagine if “Jaws” would have starred a small Tiger shark, around 5 feet long? Not nearly as scary, right? You need the size, people!

3. The pace! Now, this movie may not be exactly scary but it´s sure as hell is thrilling and exciting! The director, Ron Underwood, keeps the pace moving the whole time and I dare you to watch this movie and say that it´s boring! The entire third act is like one long chase sequence, where the character has to keep moving without touching the ground. You know, kinda like that game you used to play back in elementary school, if you remember that.

Now, it´s time for me to go off on a tangent here, ok? Just bare with me and I guarantee that you will come out unharmed on the other end. I just mentioned the director, a guy called Ron Underwood. “Tremors” was his big break, the first movie released theatrically that he directed and he did one hell of a job at it. After that he did “City Slickers” which was a huge hit. You remember that one, with Billy Crystal playing a big city guy enjoying a weekend living like a cowboy and Jack Palance doing pushups at the Oscars? That´s the one. Then after that, it all went straight to hell for poor old Ron. He directed “Mighty Joe Young” (you know the one with the giant ape that isn´t “King Kong”) and then decided to flush his career away by directing one of the strangest, most ill-conceived movies ever made: “The Adventures of Pluto Nash” starring Eddie Murphy! I don´t know if you´ve seen this one but it´s a strange, strange film. Eddie Murphy runs a nightclub on the moon and is being extorted by gangsters and that´s just the beginning. It´s a truly awful film and let´s just say that Ron Underwood´s career hasn´t fully recovered from this.

The last theatrical movie Ron directed was “In the Mix” starring Usher! That´s the right, that wimpy guy that tries to dance like Michael Jackson. I don´t know if you remember this one but it has managed to reach a staggering 2.1 average on imdb! It´s a sad thing because obviously Ron Underwood is a talented guy when given the right material but instead he´s left with directing TV movies with names such as “Santa Baby” and that kinda shit! What the fuck, Hollywood! That is not ok with me. You need to recognize that this man has got what it takes and give him something worthy of his talent and not leave him with shit like “Holiday in Handcuffs”! At least now poor old Ron is directing pretty high profile shows like “Ugly Betty” so I guess he´s making a living, at least. That´s always some comfort. Thanks for hanging in there. Now back to the reasons why “Tremors” is such a fantastic film:

4. “Jaws”! Yeah, that´s right! This movie is basically a “Jaws”-rip off but set on land and don´t try to tell me that you don´t love “Jaws”-rip offs…? I can honestly say that there are few things that I enjoy as much in life as a good “Jaws”-rip off. Well, that and a night of heavy drinking but that´s a whole other story…

5. Fred Ward is in it. Simple as that, folks! I´m talking Remo Fucking Williams here, ok?

I could go on and on about why this movie is so amazingly good but unless you are some kind of retard or something, you oughtta have gotten my point by now, huh? If you haven´t, you need to switch from whisky to beer, ok? At least while you´re at work.

So there you have it, some of the many reasons why we need to stop referring to “Tremors” as a “cult” classic. This is a bona fide classic, period! We need to get this film on the American Film Institute´s list over their 150 greatest films ever made, ok? I´m counting on you here, friends…

This is without a doubt the one movie I know that has managed to capture the spirit of fun and excitement of 50´s monster movies without going over the top or being too silly about it. I know that “Lake Placid” (who took more than one cue from “Tremors”) came pretty close but this one is infinitely better, ok? So if you haven´t seen this one, you owe it to yourself to do so before the summer´s last sighs are upon us, ok? You won´t regret it.

Until next time: take scare & stay ghoul!

Thomas

Sometimes you come across a movie that you just know that you´re gonna like, no matter how crappy it might turn out to be. “Outlander” is one of those movies. It was shown theatrically here in Sweden and its tagline was “Vikings VS Aliens”. Tell me how you cannot get excited by a tagline like that? If that doesn´t get pulse racing just a little bit I´m afraid you are one cold motherfucker, ok? Think about it, what a brilliant concept: Vikings fighting against aliens! Why the hell didn´t anyone think of this sooner? For those of you who frequent this site, you may remember that I have a soft spot for Viking movies. Hey, I´m the guy who defended “The 13^th Warrior” a couple of weeks back, remember that? If not, click here. And how about that “Pathfinder” flick? That´s right, I liked that one, too. Call me insane, call me twisted but I´ll stand my ground. There´s just something about Viking movies that gets my boat floating.

Not surprisingly, when “Outlander” was shown theatrically over here it was pretty much universally panned by critics. I wonder what would happen to a critic if he decided to give a flick like this the highest grade possible? Would he be completely ostracized by the reviewing-community and would be denied entrance to the press showings of new movies? Would he humiliated by other reviewers in public? What the hell kinda destiny would a reviewer like that face? If it turns out that there indeed is some kinda punishment for praising obvious B-movies like this one, then rest assured that this fucker who writes for the Detroit News named Tom Long would meet this horrible fate. Here´s his quote from the DVD cover: “Honestly: Best. Movie. Ever”

How about that? This Tom Long has got a pair of balls on him, right? I wonder if Roger Ebert had a price put on his head after this statement? After some research on the internet it appears that Tom Long is still working at the Detroit News so at least he hasn´t gotten fired because of this quote, so good for him! In Sweden the newspaper who published this would have been forced to make a public apology.

But anyway, back to the movie at hand. Here´s the story: In 709 DC a spacecraft crashes in the Viking kingdom of Herot, Norway, and the pilot Kainan (played Jesus Christ himself, Jim Caviezel. You know him, the one with the passion, ok?) survives. He finds that the predator, Moorwen, that he was transporting, had escaped. While chasing the alien monster, he finds a village completely destroyed and is arrested by the warrior Wulfric (played by Jack Huston of the Huston family who seem to be taking over Hollywood slowly but surely) who believes that he killed the locals. So, Kainan is brought to Herot as a prisoner…

This a pretty entertaining flick. It´s certainly not the “Best. Movie. Ever” like Tom Long makes it out to be but it´s a solid piece of work that mixes different genres in a cool way. I love it when someone meshes two genres this way and director Howard McCain knows his B-movie stuff. After imdb:ing his ass I learned that he cut his teeth directing TV- and straight to DVD movies for the master himself, Roger Corman. McCain knows exactly which buttons to push to keep the story moving. Naturally, our hero Kainan has to prove himself in battle and so forth. You know, the usual shit that happens in these kinds of films but McCain manages to keep it… maybe not “fresh” but at least entertaining. And one of the reasons for this is the cast that he has managed to wrangle up: Jim Caviezel, Sophia Myles, John Hurt, Jack Huston and the mighty, mighty Ron Perlman. Now, let me tell you this: if you are a director about to make a movie and if you are able to get Ron Perlman in your film then you should get Ron Perlman in your movie ´cause it will definitely benefit from it! I´ll tell ya, there´s not many people who can command the screen in a way that that giant fucker does! No matter how crappy a flick may be, it automatically rises a couple of notches if Ron Perlman enters a scene. And if you can get him to sport a face tattoo like he does in “Outlander” it´s all the better! He´s one mean-looking motherfucker!

From what I understand this movie was financed by those fucking Weinstein brothers which naturally meant that it was released straight to DVD without no commercial backing whatsoever, which is a damn shame. It´s pretty clear that “Outlander” had a pretty substantial budget so I can´t for the life of me understand how those Weinstein-assholes reasons when it comes to which movies they wanna release theatrically. This one has all the makings of becoming a cult-film and they should be able to understand that by now. I mean, they´re no spring chickens, right?

Now, I´m sure that you don´t think that it´s gonna be all wine and rose here now, would it? Of course not! Naturally, “Outlander” has its fair share of shortcomings, kinda like you and me. One of these shortcomings is the fact that the monster, Moorwen, is pretty crappy to be honest. I don´t know what the hell they were thinking when they designed it? It´s pretty hard to get a grip of what it looks like. You know, kinda like in “Cloverfield” and Emmerich´s version of “Godzilla”. You can´t quite make out where the eyes are and if that´s a nose over there or what the hell it is and considering the fact that this is basically a monster movie, that´s a pretty major mistake, wouldn´t you say? And guess what, friends? After further research on imdb, it turns out that the Moorwen is indeed designed by one Patrick Tatopolous, the man responsible for the American “Godzilla”. So what the hell was that fucker thinking?

“Hmmm, I sure got a lot of shit for my Godzilla design back when that was released… But I don´t care, I´m gonna recycle that design for this movie! I don´t care what the nerds think, I like it when you can´t make out a monster´s face! That´s what I´ll do!”

I just hope that he´s gotten it out of his system by now and is able to let it go. Maybe time to start seeing a therapist, I don´t know…

However, one thing that I did like about this Moorwen-monster thing is the fact that it´s actually not that much of a monster. It´s given a pretty cool back story that manages to make both it and Jim Caviezel´s character, Jesus Christ, seem pretty sympathetic. Turns out that Moorwen has been hunted and subjected to genocide by us humans. God damn humans, huh? Can´t trust ´em. However, this Jesus Christ dude actually has a conscience and feels pretty bad for what he´s done, which serves us my favorite kinda hero: the one with a dark past! Tormented and tortured by the wrongdoings, Caviezel sure knows how to convey that sadness and brooding. I guess he picked up a thing or two when Mel Gibson whipped the shit out of him during “The Passion of the Christ”, huh?

But thanks to the back story we also get a glimpse of the Moorwen´s home planet and this sequence is pretty cool. You know, thanks to computers and CGI we can see stuff like that right away now. We don´t have to wait for the film to be a success and for it to turn into a franchise for us to get a glimpse of the monster´s home. Remember that we had to wait all the way until “Alien VS. Predator” for us to get a glimpse of those fuckers´ home planets? None of that waiting around business here! I´d like to see more of this planet, though. Maybe a sequel? How about that, brothers Weinstein? Maybe you could put up the money and let McCain make it so that you have another movie you can keep hostage for a couple of years and then dump it on DVD without telling anyone? Doesn´t that sound like fun?

You know, the more I think about this movie I realize that I really, really like it! Screw that, this is a great movie! I mean, when was the last time you say down to watch a Viking-sci-fi-monster-movie? That alone makes this one a must-see! I´m not saying that this is “Lawrence of Arabia”, ok? Although, one of the things that it does have in common with “Lawrence of Arabia” is the fact that it is pretty long and could benefit from being shorted ten or twenty minutes but that´s all minor quibbles, ok? This is a solid, entertaining movie that you need to check out!

I am sure that if you just reach deep within the confines of your battered and bruised soul, you will be able to locate that little kid that you once were. You know, the one who got overly excited with every new monster movie that was being released? You know the one I´m talking about, right? This film is perfect for that kid. That´s why you owe it to yourself to watch this one! You´re gonna have a blast. Trust me on this one.

To illustrate my point, in case I haven´t convinced you yet, I´ll let you know how “Outlander” solves the problem of the leads not speaking the same language. Do you remember when I rambled on about “The 13^th Warrior” a couple of weeks back? And do you remember how Antonio Banderas´ character learns a new language just by listening to people speak during the course of a night? Well, “Outlander” has a more hands-on-approach to this problem. Caviezel´s character has a futuristic device that go into one of his eyes and learns him Norwegian in about 30 seconds or so. This isn´t entirely pleasant so Caviezel throws up and exclaims a growling “Fuck!” You get it? His first words in Norwegian are “Fuck!” How can you not love a movie that has a scene like this? It´s great stuff…

That´s all for me! Stay ghoul!

Thomas

In the last couple of weeks I´ve gotten some requests from a couple of readers (which means someone is reading and enjoying the shit I put on this page) about writing about certain movies and as you´ve might have noticed, I try to do everything in my power to be of service. That´s why we´re gonna talk about “The Day After Tomorrow” today. So this one´s for you, Hasse! Enjoy and don´t worry, Andy, I am gonna come around to “The Postman”. I promise… Anyway, one thing I find fascinating is that when certain European filmmakers leave their countries to go west and find the fame and fortune in Hollywood, they seem to abandon every last drop of the sensibility that made their previous films so successful. I mean, think about it: Wolfgang Petersen did “Das Boot” which is a fantastic, brilliant and very much so European film, right? That fucker managed to direct “Air Force One”, one of the most ultra-American movies ever made. And what about John Woo (yeah, yeah, I know he´s not European so pipe down), the director of such masterpieces as “A Bullet in the Head” and “Hard Boiled”! He got to make “Paycheck”! This brings us to the director whose film I wanted to discuss with you today: Roland Emmerich! To be honest, I haven´t seen any of the films he made in Germany but I´ve heard pretty bad things about them. The point I wanna make is that he´s European, right? So he oughtta have a European perspective on things, wouldn´t he? So how the hell can it be that this guy directs and writes “Independence Day”, one of the worst films from the last twenty years? Christ, just the thought of Will Smith punching that alien in the face and saying “Welcome to earth” makes me wanna hurt someone. Preferably Will fucking Smith.

God, I hate that film! I first saw it when it was released theatrically and people actually cheered when that scene came on! I couldn´t believe my eyes. I was 17 years old and at the height of my “love it or hate it”-period and I wanted to stand up and leave the theatre but my friends were too cheap. I´ve tried to watch the film since but I can´t get past that scene. I turned it off when I got to that point in the film and that was just 2 years ago. It´s a shitty, shitty film. And don´t get me started on that fucking speech that Bill Pullman does at the end of the film, ok? And the fact that they hi-jack the aliens spaceship with a goddamn laptop? I mean, what the fuck!?! Christ, I gotta calm down…

I worked myself into a state there. Sorry about that. But the thing is that Emmerich oughtta know better. Why the hell does he want to make these kind of films when he´s European? Shouldn´t he, considering that he´s from Europe, have an outsider´s perspective on things and be able to see through the bullshit about the “land of hope and dreams” and all that? Apparently not! I don´t know what kind of upbringing he had but he is from Germany after all and maybe they don´t have the best idea about democracy, either. I seem to remember a small event called World War II…

And what about that “The Patriot”-movie he did with Mel Gibson? Where Gibson had all these slaves but they weren´t really his slaves, they were more like employees and friends! I mean, what the H-E-L-L?

But you know, this isn´t gonna be me ranting about politics ´cause who the hell wants that? I can enjoy certain Emmerich-movies as much as the next guy. Hell, I even prefer “Godzilla” over the two I just mentioned. It might be insanely stupid (Godzilla hides on Manhattan, for chrissakes!) but at least there´s no fucked up politics in that one and a lot of shit is destroyed and I like that. It rains a lot, too and I like that, as well. But you know, every now and then, the fucker gets it right and one of those times is “The Day After Tomorrow”.

This is a disaster movie and I´m not talking about “Oh my god, we´re all out of milk just when I was about to have my cereal, what a disaster!” No sir, no that kinda disaster. I´m talking about the whole world going straight to hell! This is probably one of the greatest concepts ever for a movie of this type. Here´s what it´s about: Global warming causes worldwide disasters and basically leads to a new ice age. Climatologist Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) tries to rescue his son Sam (Donnie Darko aka Jake Gyllenhaal) who is stuck in New York. The New York Public library, to be exact. Jack has to travel from Washington D.C. to New York to save his life. And you know, when I say “travel” it´s not like he´s gonna catch the next flight or bus or anything like that. We´re talking old school here: snowmobiles and walking so you know, he´s in for a pretty rough ride…

What´s so great about this concept is that unlike many other disaster movies, this one has a truly relevant disaster looming over our heroes. In this day and age the concept doesn´t feel that far-fetched, to be honest. I bet that this is another of those movies that Al Gore loves the shit out of (like I thought that “Waterworld” was, a couple of weeks back). Emmerich presents a disaster so powerful that it´s not even a possibility for our heroes to try and stop it, it´s happening right now, so instead he focuses on the heroes´ struggle for re-uniting and surviving and I think that´s a smart way to go. That way, he manages to avoid the usual clichés. You know how the trailers usually goes for these kinds of movies: “One man… against the forces of nature… struggling to save his family… and the world… in a land before time… where one cop could make a difference…”

Sorry, got carried away there. But you know how the story goes, right? It´s not up to Dennis Quaid or Donnie Darko for that matter, to save the world so thanks to that alone, this movie is a hell of a lot better than that fucking “Independence Day”. It´s not that bombastic and there´s no damn Bill Pullman-speeches so thank you very much for that, Mr. Emmerich! Like I said, instead he focuses on Quaid trying to save his son and the blossoming love story between Donnie Darko and this girl played by Emmy Rossum. This love story is surprisingly well handled and subtle. You wouldn´t imagine that from the guy who shot the “Today we celebrate Independence Day!”- scene. There´s no “I love you, Donnie Darko! I´ve loved you since the first time I laid eyes on you!”- outbursts of glorious emotions which is a very good thing, in my opinion.

If there´s one thing that Emmerich is good at, it´s the kinda scenes that every disaster movie has to have a couple of: the build-up scenes! You know what I´m talking about: the scenes where we get to see different people doing different things in different cities, who start to notice that something is out of the ordinary. For instance, one guy could be reading the paper and suddenly he hears a noise so he pulls up the curtains and notices it´s raining big chunks of ice from the sky. That kinda thing! Emmerich´s gotta be the master of these kinds of scenes. This movie´s first half hour has some pretty great ones. The thing is that usually in disaster movies, the buildup is always the best part but in this one Emmerich actually manages to keep the momentum going after they´re over and we´re well into full blown disaster territory. Do you remember that scene in “Independence Day” when they blew up the White House? Of course you do, the fucking thing was on the poster! Hey, side note: isn´t that weird that when that movie was released people were all excited and shit about seeing the President´s house blown to smithereens? Imagine how people would react now, after 9-11 and Bin Laden? It´s funny how things can change in a couple of years, huh? For instance, I used to have a life once. Imagine that.

Anyway, that scene was one of the money shots in that movie: Emmerich taking a landmark that everybody knows and blowing it up! He kinda does the same thing in this one with New York. He doesn´t blow it up but he uses the Statue of Liberty and Empire State Building in some pretty cool ways. At one point there´s a Russian tanker floating down fifth avenue and I gotta say, even though this movie is 5 years old now it has some pretty cool CGI-effects. I know that I´ve been whining about CGI here earlier but this is the kind of movie that could not be done without it.

But you know, don´t think that I´m gonna sit here and just sing Emmerich´s praises, oh no! I still have my beef with this fucker and I´m gonna tell you what it is. I´ve noticed a pattern in his movies that worries me, to say the least. Hear me out on this one, ok?

Let´s just say that I´m very uncertain where Emmerich stands politically, ok? He can be quite schizophrenic as a filmmaker. In “Independence Day”, the president was one of the heroes but in “The Day After Tomorrow” the president is obviously modeled after George W and is unable to make a decision on his own and generally doesn´t seem to know what he´s doing, ok? So that´s all good but then we have the worrying tendency that Emmerich, in his movies, from time to time indulges in certain racial stereotypes.

Take “Godzilla” for example: Jean Reno´s character (who is French, of course) seem to be more worried about him having the right kind of coffee than Godzilla laying New York to waste. You know, that´s how those Frenchies are. Decadent fuckers! At the beginning of “The Day after Tomorrow” there´s a cleaning guy who happens to be Latino. Naturally he sports a gold tooth and listens to Mariachi music on his headset. Then we have the movie Emmerich made after this one, “10, 000 B.C.” where our hero is the only one in the whole movie with blue eyes and close-to-blond hair. The one with the blue eyes is naturally the one who has tell the dark skinned fools what they have to do all the time, no matter how obvious things are:

“We can´t stay here, the mammoths will eat us!”

“Huh?”

“RUN!”

“Huh?”

That´s basically how some of the dialogue goes in “10,000 B.C.”! I´ve already mentioned the worrying fact that Mel Gibson´s character in “The Patriot” is a southerner who keeps slaves but they´re not really his slaves and all that shit and if you put all this together, along with the fact that Emmerich is German (and yes, I myself have some preconceived notions about Germans), I gotta wonder what kind of political views does this man possess?

I don´t think I´m reading too much into this. Hell, at one point in “The Patriot” Gibson comes across a small village which functions as a safe haven for black people! Hmm, maybe black people didn´t have it that rough during the civil war, after all. Is that what you´re trying to tell us, Mr. Emmerich?

Also, there´s a scene in “The Day After Tomorrow” where Donnie Darko & co need to start a fire in the New York Public Library to keep warm and what do you think they use to fuel the fire? Book, of course! Hmmm, the burning of books… Nazi-Germany, anyone?

But you know, I´m willing to let this go for now because in “The Day After Tomorrow”, he basically says that George W. Bush is an idiot. This isn´t the Jon Stewart show, for chrissakes! I´m not gonna whine about a filmmaker´s political views, even if he is German.

So, even though we are dealing with a disaster movie by Roland Emmerich, the result in this case is far from disastrous. It´s pretty damn entertaining in a way that only big budget movies like this one can be. Emmerich does a pretty good job at intercutting between the many characters. There´s always a lot of characters in these films. The only disaster movie that breaks this rule (that I can think of anyway) is “Cloverfield”. Fortunately, Emmerich has chosen to populate his film with some pretty good actors. Ian Holm aka Bilbo Baggins is in it. The scenes between Dennis Quaid and Bilbo Baggins are especially good. I wish he had a bigger role. He´s the kind of actor that can make you believe anything so when he tells you that the world is going to hell in a hand basket you have no choice but to believe him. The scene where he tells Quaid to “Save as many as you can!” over the phone is one of the best ones in the film. However, the computer animated wolves that show up when Donnie Darko is onboard that Russian tanker are not that great actors. In my opinion, they should´ve been replaced with someone who´s not quite as computer animated. I think those scenes would benefit from that enormously.

So, Emmerich proved with this one that he can make maybe not a great film but at least one that doesn´t make you wanna cause him harm and I really, really hope that his upcoming “2012” falls into this category. The trailer that´s been released is great and John Cusack is in it so I´m crossing my fingers.

So if you ever find yourself in a state of hung over-itis, this film is a pretty good choice if you haven´t seen it. I recommend it so you should check it out ´cause as you know, my word is law around these parts of town.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Listen up! One of my favorite directors is John McTiernan. Back in the day he made some pretty fantastic movies. His first film, “Nomads”, is a weird, fucked up little film starring Perce Brosnan as an anthropologist searching for an ancient tribe living in modern day L.A. After that one he made one of the all time action movie greats, “Predator”! He followed that up with directing probably the greatest action movie of all time, “Die Hard”. You see what I´m saying here? This guy had it going on… in spades! After that roll he still made some interesting films, like “The Hunt for the Red October”, “Last Action Hero” (which is a film that was way ahead of its time) and “Die Hard: With a Vengeance”. About this time McTiernan´s career started slowly burying itself. “Last Action Hero” was a flop but he bounced back to form somewhat with “The Thomas Crown Affair” (which I personally think is pretty boring) but then, he really hit rock bottom…

In 2002 he directed “Rollerball”, a remake of a film that is quite boring to be honest. The remake, where they decided to replace James Caan with Chris Klein (That´s right, the wuzzy jock from the first “American Pie”-movie!), is one of those films that is so bad that it becomes entertaining in all its surreal weirdness. McTiernan probably realized himself that this was one big pile of stinking movie-shit so he quickly released “Basic”, starring John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson. That´s right, the two fuckers from “Pulp Fiction”, together again! Man, did folks get their hopes up for this movie. Unfortunately, those hopes were crushed and stomped on like a teenager that´s being stood up on prom night´s heart. It was brutally obvious while watching that film that McTiernan still is a gifted visual artist but the script sucked donkey balls. After that, it all went to hell for McTiernan and he was sentenced to prison for hiring a weird private investigator to tap his ex-wife´s phone or some shit like that but apparently he´s out now and according to imdb he´s got three movies in different stages of production, so here´s hoping it´s not over for him yet.

But the movie I wanted to talk to you about today is a film that he released before it all went pear shaped for him, with “Basic” and that shit. It´s called “The 13^th Warrior” and it was absolutely blown to pieces by the critics when it was released back in 1999. But you know, that´s why I´m here: to make you re-evaluate these films that you thought you didn´t like! Let me help you in this mission of saving this dismissed film from obscurity!

Here´s what it´s about: Antonio Banderas plays an Arabic diplomat named Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan Ibn Al Abbas Ibn Rashid Ibn Hamad (which I am going to refer to as Ibn from here on out or else this post is going to be a mile long) who, after falling for the wrong woman, is banished from his country. Damn them women, huh? Anyway, he stumbles upon a group of Vikings, which he soon befriends. No conflicts here. One day a young boy, a messenger from the North, comes to the Vikings to ask for help. In their home country many people die because of “an evil whose name should not be pronounced“. They consult an oracle who tells them that they should send 13 warriors, but that one of them shouldn’t be a Viking. Ibn doesn´t believe that these mythical creatures from the forests really exist, so naturally he joins them, like any sane man would.

Now, I´m not saying that this is a great film but it is a hell of a lot more entertaining than you would believe by reading the reviews it got. There are however a number of things that you need to be aware of it you are going to enjoy this flick. Are you ready? Strap yourself in. We´ll break it down for you. Those things are:

1. If you thought that, for example, “Pathfinder” was a shitty film, then don´t bother with this one, ok? In “Pathfinder” it was Vikings meets Indians and in this one it´s Vikings meets Arabs, ok? So, if you thought that was a childish, stupid and boring film, fuck off! If not, “The 13^th Warrior” might just be something for you.

2. If you´re looking for a realistic film, you´re shit out of luck, ok? If you on the other hand are able to come to terms with the fact that Antonio Banderas learns another language during the course of what appears to be one single night, just by listening to others speak, then this film might just have a thing or two to offer you.

3. If you have something against sweaty men with long hair and beards, bearing names such as Hrothgar and Buliwyf, don´t bother with this one. This is one hairy movie, if you know what I mean.

If these things fit you, then you might actually be able to enjoy this movie. Now, I admit that I am a bit of a sucker for this genre. One of my favorite films as a kid was the fantastically entertaining “The Vikings” starring Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis. I was absolutely fascinated with that movie and especially the way that the Vikings apparently drank beer. You know what I´m talking about, right? In those old movies they didn´t drink their beer (or mead or whatever they call it), they gargled it! I always found that fascinating. I mean, most of the beer ended up on the floor or on their clothes. How much beer did those vikings buy for a night of drinking and debauchery? It would appear that they weren´t very economical, wasting fine beer that way. But you know, my love for the Viking genre has never really faded, like so many other things in life, and that´s why I have a weak spot for films like this one.

The story in this one is actually a lot of fun. It´s sort of a cross between “Beowulf” and “The Seven Samurais” and at times it even manages to be quite suspenseful. The scenes where Banderas and his longhaired Viking friends are sneaking around the monster´s lair are pretty tense. It´s in scenes like this that McTiernan shines. That fucker knows how to light and stage a scene! The battle scenes are pretty impressive, as well. The best thing about them is the fact that McTiernan doesn´t skimp out on the blood. When someone gets stabbed, it´s pretty graphic so thank you very much for that, Mr. McTiernan. ´Cause let´s be honest, who the hell wants to watch a Viking movie, based on a novel called “Eaters of the Dead”, rated PG-13? The only one I can think of is Tipper Gore, that dirty whore. I sure as hell don´t!

But you know, there´s also one thing that struck me as pretty weird when I re-watched this one recently. Banderas is a pretty passive character in the film. If you think about it he´s just more along for the ride and doesn´t drive the story forward in any way. He´s basically the one who´s begging everybody to “think about what you´re doing, for the sake of Allah!” As a matter of fact, the hero of the story should be the character of Bulywuf, played by this fella named Vladimir Kulich. This makes the connection to Beowulf even clearer! It´s pretty obvious that Michael Chrichton, who wrote the novel and apparently started out as director but decide to jump ship when McTiernan stepped in, was very inspired by the tale of Beowulf & Grendel. To be honest, I can´t see any good reason why they didn´t make Belywuf the main character in the film. Maybe Banderas was already attached so they had to make the arab the lead character, I don´t know. This movie is basically re-told from an outsider´s perspective and where “Beowulf” was basically a two hour long film instructing you about the dangers of going to bed with the computer animated version of Angelina Jolie, we don´t get that non-sex propaganda here! Hell, at one time I thought that the computer animated version of the Jonas Brothers were gonna show up in “Bewoulf” and start singing about loving you forever and ever with their pink rings and what not. Fortunately, they didn´t. But in this one, the vikings do get to shag. Antonio too, if I´m not mistaken. Which is a good thing, folks! Imagine those Vikings with their temper if they weren´t allowed to blow some steam off every now and then? Things could get really ugly…

Then there´s another thing which I, as a Swede, enjoy very much about this film and that is the fact that the cast has a couple of Swedish names in it. For instance, Swedish icon Sven Wollter plays the part of King Hrothgar (the same part that Anthony Hopkin´s computer animated doppelganger played in “Beowulf”) and Maria Bonnevie plays Olga. Wollter does his usual schtick of grumbling and muttering while looking like he´s wondering what the hell is going on. It´s fun for a change to see him do this in English, surrounded by Vikings. I´m surprised that Wollter didn´t get any more international offers. I think he´d make a great Bond villain, for instance. The fact that he plays a king is somewhat funny for us swedes since Wollter is famous for his political views, which I guess could be considered to the left of the left, if you know what I mean.

There´s another couple of familiar faces in the film. For instance, the legendary Sven-Ole Thorsen shows up. He´s been in everything from the “Conan”-movies to “Mallrats” to “Gladiator”. He´s one of those faces that you recognize immediately but can´t quite place him. Oh, and in the opening scenes Omar Sharif, Dr. Zhivago himself, shows up. So, quite an eclectic cast in this one.

So there you have it! This is not a fantastic film but it sure as hell is a lot of fun. I wish that they would make more movies of this type. I´m really looking forward to Nicolas Winding Refn´s take on the genre in his upcoming “Valhalla Rising”, starring Mads Mikkelsen. If there´s any justice in the world that one is a huge success and it will kickstart a whole new wave of Vikings-engaging-in-bloody-battles-movies. That´s what the world needs now! It´s not love, like Burt Bacharach once claimed, it´s fucking Viking-movies with lots of blood and gore. Next week I promise I´m gonna check out “Outlander”, which I have laying on the shelf. It bears the fantastic tagline “Vikings VS. Aliens”! How awesome does that sound? I can´t wait to watch it.

Until then: take scare, friends…

Thomas

Today we´re not gonna be waxing deep and philosophical about the meaning of certain films and their subtexts, ok? Today I just wanna talk to you about this movie that I watched the other day that´s really quite underrated, in my humble opinion. The general opinion about this film is that it´s some kind of a turkey or disaster worthy of The Razzies, but honestly… This is a really entertaining flick! I am, of course, talking about “Waterworld”. The other day I finally got around to seeing the Extended Edition that is out on DVD and it still holds up. There seem to be this idea about this film being a huge flop, which according to my scrutinizing eye, isn´t true. The movie had a budget of 175 million dollars but still managed to bring in over 275 dollars at the box office. That´s pretty good work. So what we have here is a film that is much better than its reputation lets on.

I´m sure that you´re all familiar with the story of this one but in case you´ve spent the last 20 years being locked up in some Austrian freak´s basement or something here´s a short summary: The polar ice caps have melted, and the earth is covered by water. The remaining people travel the seas, in search of survival. Several different societies exist. The Mariner (Kevin Costner) falls from his customary and solitary existence into having to care for a woman, Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and a young girl, Enola (Tina Majorino) while being pursued by the evil forces of the Deacon (Dennis Hopper).

So, what we have here is one of those ecological sci-fi-movies, right? Kinda like “Soylent Green” and “Silent Running”. I bet that Al Gore loves the shit out of this film. I´m surprised he doesn´t mention this one more often in his speeches. But then again, maybe if you wanna be taken seriously you shouldn´t run around babbling about a sci-fi movie starring Kevin Costner.

Now, I have a confession to make: I like Kevin Costner! Maybe he´s not the most versatile actor around but he´s got that old fashioned charisma thing going on, kinda like John Wayne or Gary Cooper. You know what I mean? Those guys always played the same role, basically themselves, right? That´s pretty much what Costner does, too. He´s got a certain persona that he returns to and I know that a lot of people think he´s stiff and boring and whatnot, but who the hell cares what they think. He´s done some pretty good films in his day, let´s not forget that: “Dances With Wolves”, “Silverado”, “Thirteen Days”, “JFK”, “Open Range” and “Mr. Brooks”, to name a few.

Costner actually strays somewhat from his persona in that he isn´t the usual righteous type. For the first hour and half he´s actually quite an unsympathetic character. He doesn´t care much for the little girl and at one point he tosses her into the water. Now that may be ok for you to do with your kids as a prank but this little girl can´t swim and considering the fact that they are out on the open sea, I´d say that Costner may be lacking in knowing how to best treat a child. But that´s just my opinion. Oh, and at one point he holds both Helen and Enola down and cuts off their hair. That is also something I wouldn´t recommend you trying on your loved ones. I can almost guarantee that it´ll end in a lot of shouting and tears. You know how women are. One little cut here and there and all hell breaks loose. So don´t go trying that at home, kids!

But Kevin Costner isn´t the only reason why I like “Waterworld”! This was probably the last big budget blockbuster to be produced before CGI invaded Hollywood and took control of every aspect of moviemaking. I mean, look at his fucking film! It´s an epic! Shot on water, none the less! Nowadays they´d just plant themselves in one of those big tanks and then animate the background. But not here! They really went out on the open sea for this fucker. That´s pretty impressive! Everything in this movie is huge! I´m talking about the sets, the sweeping camera movements across the horizons to the fight scenes, which are actually pretty spectacular!

You know, this film is most common described as “Mad Max on water” and that´s not an inaccurate description. It is a variation on the post-apocalyptic genre but like I mentioned earlier, there hasn´t been a world war or anything like that. Let´s just say that the fashion sense seem to be the same as in the Mad Max-movies… What is it about these people living in these post-apocalyptic worlds and their weird taste in clothes? When exactly does everyone turn into those guys that´s dancing at the Blue Oyster Bar in the “Police Academy” movies? What is it about surviving a disaster that makes you say “Fuck those goddamn jeans, man! I always hated Levi´s! From now on I´m going all leather, man!” This is something I have a hard time buying in these films. They´re always taking place in the desert too (well, except for this one, that is) so it can´t be the most comfortable thing they´re wearing. Who the hell wants to wear leather when the sun is blazing down on you? Well, I guess that´s just the way people will reason in the future. Beats the hell out of me…

But back to the actors! Costner is in pretty good company here because the villains is played by a clean-shaven, one-eyed, chain-smoking, shouting Dennis Hopper and that, ladies and gentlemen, is never a bad thing. If there´s anyone who can get away with playing over-the-top-villains like this one, it´s Dennis freakin´ Hopper! The scenes with him berating his henchmen are pretty amusing. As a matter of fact, one of his pilots is played by a then little-known Jack Black so there´s a little bonus on the side for ya. Then we have Helen and Enola´s friend, Gregor the inventor and scientist or whatever the hell he is. He´s played by Michael Jeter, who has since unfortunately passed which is a god damn shame. He was one of the better character actors and delivered some very fine performances in movies such as “The Green Mile”, “Open Range” and the severely underrated “Welcome to Collinwood”.

But I´m not gonna be draggin on for too long about this one. Hell, it´s not even a horror film! But one of the reasons why I like this film is because after many, many years of research I have come to the conclusion that this is one of the best films ever to watch when you´re suffering from an acute case of hangover! Believe me, I have devoted many man-hours to the studying of this phenomenon and there are a number of reasons why this film works so extremely well when you´re suffering from what the ancient Greeks used to call “hungover as a skunk”. Let´s break it down:

1. The movie takes place on water, which means it´s a very bright-looking film and that´s always good when you´re hung over. You don´t wanna be watching “Seven” or some other movie that´s drenched in darkness, right? What you need in this condition is a movie that´ll pick you up from the shadows.

2. The filmmakers wisely avoid a love story between Costner and Tripplehorn´s characters cause let´s be honest here: who the hell wants to watch some weepy, cliché-ridden love story when you´re riding the wave of hung over?

3. The film´s protagonist is pretty bad ass. This is absolutely essential when you´re suffering from hang over-itis. You don´t wanna be watching a hero that´s kind of wimpy, right? You want the hero to behave in the way that you thought you behaved the night before. This is of course in no way near the truth of the matter, but that´s what you wanna have yourself believing when you´re hung over.

4. It´s a pretty straight-forward old fashioned film. It moves from point A to point B without over-complicating things. It unfolds in the way you expect it to unfold, which is definitely preferable than being stuck in front of a David Lynch-film on a Sunday which reeks of hung over.

5. Big action scenes! You don´t wanna be watching some sort of chamber-drama when you´re suffering the repercussions of the night before. It is very important that you get your dose of chase-sequences and explosions.

So there you have it: five reasons why “Waterworld” is one of the greatest movies to watch when your old friend Mr. Hung Over haunts your body and mind. Take it from one who´s an authority on the subject.

Some of you out there might be wondering if there were any major changes to the extended edition I watched and I noticed many but nothing major, unfortunately. I am fairly sure that Jack Black got another scene that isn´t in the theatrical release. One thing I did like was the fact that when (SPOILER!!!) they do reach Dryland at the end, Helen and Enola is standing at the top of the cliff waving goodbye to Costner (´cause he can´t stay cause you know… he´s a man!), they notice a placque in the ground and it turns out that they are standing at what´s left of Mount Everest. I thought that was pretty cool. However, I did notice that when they arrive that Dryland looks a lot like that fucking island from the “Jurassic Park”-movies so they might be in for some pretty unpleasant surprises… but by then Costner is long gone!

One more thing! There´s something I´ve always been wondering about when it comes to this film: why the hell is everyone so fucking dirty? After all, there´s nothing but water around them and yet, these fuckers are so lazy that they can´t get around to taking a bath? It´s not like it´s a stretch for them! Just take one more step to the right and you´re in the god damn water! Christ… some people, you know? They just don´t realize the importance of personal hygiene.

That´s it for now… Stay ghoul, fuckers!

Thomas

Apparently Guy Ritchie is making some kind of mega budget Sherlock Holmes film now, starring Robert Downey, JR and Jude Law. I´m sure that that will be a very entertaining flick but I can tell you this much: It´s not gonna beat “Murder by Decree”, starring Christopher Plummer as Sherlock Holmes and James Mason as Dr. Watson. You know why? ´Cause it´s fricking amazing, that´s why! A couple of years back, Johnny Depp starred in a film about the Jack the Ripper-case called “From Hell”, remember that one? That was a very good film, at least in my humble opinion. But if you imagine that film, made in the 70´s and instead of having Inspector Abberline (which was the name of Depp´s character) as the lead character, you´d instead have Sherlock Holmes, then the end result would look something like this forgotten classic!

This one was directed by Bob Clark, the guy behind “Deathdream”, “Black Christmas” and “Porky´s”. Now, there´s no nudity in this film so don´t go expecting a full-frontal extravaganza like the shower scenes from “Porky´s”, ok? This film is on a whole ´nother level.

The story is basically the same as in “From Hell”: Sherlock Holmes is drawn into the case of Jack the Ripper who is killing prostitutes in London’s East End. Assisted by Dr. Watson, and using information provided by a renowned psychic, Robert Lees (a bug-eyed Donald Sutherland), Holmes finds that the murders may have its roots in a Royal indiscretion and that a cover-up is being managed by politicians at the highest level, all of whom happen to be Masons. Homes races to save the life of Annie Crook (Geneviéve Bujold) who has been forcibly incarcerated in an insane asylum and that of her friend Mary Kelly (Susan Clark), in whom she has entrusted her secret.

Pretty much identical to “From Hell”, right? But why wasn´t there any mention of this one when that film was released back in 2001? Beats me! I remember talking about this film back at the time but this is a pretty much forgotten film. I remember seeing this on TV and it scared the shit out of me. I´ll admit that it doesn´t exactly scare me witless when I watch it nowadays but it does a pretty good job.

No matter how much I enjoyed “From Hell”, there is one thing that makes this the superior film: the fog! I don´t know how they did it back then but the fog in those old Hammer films and this one always looked amazing! Nowadays they´d probably just CGI the fucking fog all over place and be over and done with it. Well, there´s nothing like that old thick fog that Dracula used to run around inside, I´ll tell you that much. It´s the same here in the scenes from Whitechapel, when Jack is roaming the streets.

There´s not a lot of violence in this one. If I remember correctly there´s one single scene and by today´s standards it´s pretty tame. It´s nothing to get you riled up over. This film doesn´t have any elaborate traps strapped to people´s mouths that´ll cut their head in two if they fail to dig out the key from their own asshole within 30 seconds. Nothing like that at all. But what it does have is a fantastic score and when I re-watched this one a couple of months back, I was struck by the fact it´s still possible to scare someone the old-fashioned way: by creating a great atmosphere and score! I´m telling ya, the scenes with Jack´s carriage coming down the street in slow motion, through the fog, still gets me. And since director Clark isn´t exactly a new hand at creating suspense, he brings back that old trick that he basically created with “Black Christmas”: the POV-shot from the murderer´s angle. And it works like a charm!

When I was a kid, I was a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes. I read the stories like I was obsessed and I followed the TV show, starring Jeremy Brett, religiously. I loved that show and I thought that Brett was amazing as Holmes. Despite this and the place that the TV show holds in my heart, I have to say that Christopher Plummer is the best Holmes to grace the silver screen yet. Unlike almost any other actor that has portrayed him, he downplays him. He doesn´t sneer and he doesn´t shout out his solutions like a meth-addicted maniac (although Holmes is addicted to cocaine in the books, but that´s another story). He´s a pretty down to earth-fella in Plummer´s guise, which also makes him one of the more sympathetic Holmes I´ve seen.

James Mason was another favorite of mine when I was a kid, thanks to my unhealthy obsession with “20,000 Leagues under the Sea”, where he played Captain Nemo. He makes for a perfect Watson here, as well. One thing I´ve always been bothered with when it comes to Sherlock Holmes-movies is the fact that Watson is mostly portrayed as a bumbling fool. That´s not how I imagine him and that´s not how Mason plays him. I think that Mason would´ve been incapable of ever portraying a bumbling fool. Everything the man says sounds like Shakespeare, and in this film Mason is pretty much Holmes´ equal. Mason´s Watson isn´t afraid to resort to fisticuffs to get some answers out of someone. I hope that Ritchie remembers this while shooting the new take on Holmes & Watson. Bring on the violence! Just watch the final fight in this film. That´s the way I want my Holmes.

Another thing I´ve always felt that has been bothering me is the fact that when most actors portray Holmes they tend to play him like some kinda aloof, distant fella that doesn´t seem to have anything but contempt for other people. Plummer avoids this, wisely. This may be the only Holmes I´ve seen that seem to genuinely care for the victims. Just watch the scenes with Plummer and Bujold & Clarke. Those two ladies are a hell of a lot more believable as prostitutes than Heather Graham ever was in “From Hell”.

I have to digress here, sorry about that but what the hell were the Hughes brothers thinking when they cast Heather Graham in that role? Which one of the brothers got to decide that? The one that did should have to give up his casting-decisions on their next film, as a penalty. I´m not saying that she´s a bad actress, although she did fall into the much-feared “bad accent-trap” that all actors should try to avoid. Her English accent was pretty damn awful. But that´s not the worst. The worst thing about casting her was the fact that all the other ladies that played the prostitutes looked pretty realistic. I can imagine that that was how a prostitute in London looked back in the day: bad hair, dirty clothes, bad teeth and not particularly attractive.

Let´s face it, these ladies didn´t get into the world´s oldest profession because of their stunning good looks, ok? So all the other ladies look pretty down-on-their-luck, ok? And in strolls Mary Kelley, as played by Heather Graham, with dark red, flowing hair and pale skin and big blue eyes. Unless she decided to start working the streets just the night before, she´s done a helluva job keeping herself fit. Hell, she should be charging the other girls for tips on managing your personal hygiene. But the weird thing is that she doesn´t seem to have that many more customers than the other prostitutes? What the hell is up with that? What kind of weird people were walking the streets of London back then? I can assure you that if I was that kinda man that thought that it´s ok to purchase sex (I guarantee you that I am not), I would´ve taken my business to Heather Graham, ok? Hell, Johnny Depp is one good looking fucker and even he falls in love with her, for chrissakes! That´s gotta tell you something, right? We´re not talking about a toothless old lady here. She´s quite the looker. It´s also weird that she seems to be on such good terms with the other prostitutes. Why aren´t they jealous of her? Cause she doesn´t get that many more customers, right? What the hell was up with prostitution back then? The uglier you were, the more customers you got?

I bet you never thought about that, did ya? That´s alright, you can thank me later.

But back to “Murder by Decree” again. Sorry about my rambling there. So like I said, Geneviéve Bujold is a much more suitable actress in a role of this kind that Heather Graham. I wouldn´t go so far as to say that a love story develops between her and Holmes but there´s definitely emotions. Holmes feels compassion for her and that whole aspect of the story is quite moving, believe it or not.

When Holmes starts unraveling the mystery that is Jack the Ripper he of course discovers that this conspiracy reaches higher in England´s aristocracy than they would´ve ever suspected. But you see, director Clark actually manages to exploit this in a way that the Hughes brothers didn´t. The story becomes as much about corruption versus decency as it is about Jack the Ripper killing prostitutes and that´s one of the things that makes this film so great! You gotta try to stay decent and do the right thing, kids! At the end Holmes does a speech that could´ve easily been awkward but Plummer makes it work and when the film ends, you walk away from it with a feeling of social pathos. Now, that´s quite a feat for a god damn Sherlock Holmes movie about Jack the Ripper! The fact that the real crime is that we do not care about the poor and weak in our society is pretty heavy stuff. Well done, filmmakers!

I hope to hell that Downey, JR allows his Holmes to have this kind of conscience and be as outraged as Plummer ´s take on him, is. The thing I like about Plummer here is that he has just the right amount of brooding, while acting. He´s that kinda actor, that you can see that he´s always thinking. There´s a lot going on and it works very well for this character.

And speaking about that Christopher Plummer guy, is he the oldest actor ever who´ve made a comeback? Think about it: at the end of the 90´s no one cared about him or knew if he was alive or if he was mummified or whatever. The only roles he got was in a bunch of TV movies and crappy straight-to-DVD-horror movies. Then he got a role in Michael Mann´s “Insider” and things started to look brighter. In 2003 he did “Cold Creek Manor” which was fairly high profile and I remember watching it (it sucked!) and thinking “By the hammer of Thor, that´s Christopher Plummer! In a beard and looking all ragged!” (Yes, it sounds like that when I think). After that film the old dude has been in just about every film produced: Oliver Stone´s “Alexander”, Terence Malick´s “The New World”, “National Treasure”, “Syriana” and Spike Lee´s “Inside Man”. That´s pretty well done for an eighty year old guy! I bet I´ll be wearing a diaper when I´m his age. But he decides to make a comeback and be in high budget movies to the left and right, instead. Pretty impressive, Christopher. But then again, when you get old you start relying on your kids more and more, right? And do you know who Christopher Plummer´s daughter is? I´ll tell ya: Amanda fucking Plummer! Honey bunny from the opening scene of “Pulp Fiction“! I think she seems pretty weird, to say the least so I can´t blame porr old Christopher for refusing to grow old. That´s probably why he keeps working like a madman. He´s probably scared to death of spending time with her.

But I guess that´s about it. So if you´re in for some studio-produced fog, cobblestones that run red with the blood of prostitutes and lots of men with moustaches and higly impresive sideburns smoking pipes, you should definitely check this one out! It´s a pretty damn good flick.

Take scare,

Thomas