Last Blog On The Left

Exploitation-flicks ain´t what they used to be… Since Quentin Tarantino delved into the genre with “Kill Bill” vol. 1 & 2 and “Death Proof” all we´ve been hearing is “Grindhouse”-this and “Grindhouse”-that. Don´t get me wrong, I thought that those movies were great fun but you can´t really compare them to the classic exploitation-movies. There´s a kind of synthetic feel to them. It is obvious that those films were made by someone who loves the genre but there´s no real sleaziness, grittiness or depravity to them. Those days are unfortunately over. Think about the 80´s and some of the exploitation-movies that were made back then: “Maniac” (1980), “Chained Heat” (1983), “Vigilante” (1983), “The Exterminator” (1980)… and of course, “Ms. 45” (1981)! Christ, some of those 80´s exploitation are so sleazy and gritty that you think that the DVD tray in your player´s gonna be dripping with piss when you open it. That´s what Tarantino´s trying to emulate and since I was born about 20 years too late and on the other side of the world, the experience of visiting a real grindhouse-theatre is something I missed in life. I can´t tell you how it was, sitting there in the dark, watching a film about women in prisons, while the guy next to you were shooting up heroin and another guy puking in the corner. To be honest, even if I had the opportunity I´m not sure that I would visit it. It sounds kinda nasty, now that I think about it. The thing I´m trying to get at is that those old exploitation movies ARE sleazy and gritty, while Tarantino´s films WANNA BE sleazy. There´s a difference there and no matter how much I love Tarantino´s films, he will never be able to climb the depraved depths of director, say like… Abel Ferrara!

I figured that since last time we spoke I urged you to go out and see a revenge-flick, “Death Sentence” (2007), I might as well continue on that track. “Ms. 45” was released back in 1981 and directed by the fascinating Abel Ferrara and written by his then collaborative partner Nicholas St. John. This was Ferrara´s second feature film (if you don´t count his debut, an 1976 adult film with one of the best titles ever, “9 Lives of a Wet Pussy”) and his follow up to the classic “The Driller Killer” (1979). “Ms. 45” centers on a mute woman, Thana (played by Zoë Lund), gets raped twice coming home from work and decides to take matters into her own hands. She dresses suggestively and roams the streets alone, wreaking vengeance upon anyone who tries to take advantage of her. How´s that for a bad day, huh? Raped twice in one day. You can´t really blame her for going a little crazy with the men in New York City, can you?

Like so many other films in this genre, the story is basically a re-hash of “Death Wish” (1974), this time with a girl in the lead. But that doesn´t matter cuz´ back in 1981, Abel Ferrara was on a roll. I haven´t seen any of the films he´s directed since 1998, mainly because they haven´t been released on DVD anywhere but from what I´ve read about them they´re not supposed to be that hot. This is a goddamn shame, if you ask me. Apparently, he´s working on a prequel to his classic “King of New York” (1990), which at least sounds more interesting than a screwball comedy, set in a Go Go-dancing club, which his last film was. Since Ferrara ended his partnership with Nicholas St. John, his career hasn´t been what it used to be. After all, together they managed to churn out such excellent films as “King of New York” (1990), the extraordinary fucked-up “Bad Lieutenant” (1992) and the very original take on vampirism, “The Addiction” (1995). “Ms. 45” definitely deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as these films. It´s a great vigilante-flick!

This summer I visited New York City, and let me tell you: it wasn´t what I expected! It was much cleaner, there were no hobos lurking behind the garbage cans, I saw no one getting mugged or raped in an alley, no one were waving guns around and I actually managed to the ride the infamous Subway and live to tell about it. My image of New York, that I have managed to create by watching an unhealthy amount of movies during the last 25 years, weren´t exactly accurate. It would have been interesting to visit the city back in the beginning of the 80´s. Abel Ferrara seemed to think it was hell, if you wanna judge it by this movie. It is populated by incredibly creepy men who take every opportunity they can to take advantage of an innocent girl like Thana. In Ferrara´s New York, all men are predators and the only way for a girl to make it is to turn the tables on them and, plain and simple, kill the depraved suckers… That´s fine by me, cuz´ what we get is one of the most interesting exploitation flicks of the 80´s. It´s always fascinating when a director manages to set his film in places that you know you would never visit in real life and that is exactly what Ferrara does here. His camera prowls the backstreets and alleys of New York and back then, that town sure had a seedy underbelly. The apartment buildings were filled with eccentric neighbors and gods beware if you had a boss at work! You can bet your ass that he would try to feel you up in his office. This is what poor Thana has to endure before she starts to use a gun that she kept after she killed one the two rapists. What follows is pretty basic “Death Wish”-formula but Ferrara manages to keep it interesting by his seedy locations, a pretty cool soundtrack and a spectacular performance by Zoë Lund. She should´ve gotten a bigger break. Tragically, she died in 1999 due to a drug-related heart failure so stay off drugs, kids! She seemed to be a lady of quite some talent and it´s sad that she didn´t get to show what she was capable of.

Ferrara is also smart enough to leave the cops out of it. It´s never a good thing when filmmakers try to combine both the story about the vigilante and the cops that are working the case. Neil Jordan did this with “The Brave One” (2007) and the result left me a bit underwhelmed. No Sir, you should follow Ferrara´s example and focus on either one, not both. Films like this should try to keep the story as simple as possible. That´s when they work best and that´s part of why this one works so well. Ferrara doesn´t try to overcomplicate things. That doesn´t mean that this is a “dumb” film, oh no! They storyline is pretty simple but since this is Abel Ferrara & St. John we´re talking about here you can be pretty sure that they manage to work their usual themes of Catholicism and guilt in there. This kick into overdrive in the final scenes, which I won´t spoil for you here…

According to imdb.com, Ferrara is hard at work with “Pericle Il Nero”, the prequel to “King Of New York” and I really hope that this will be a return to form for him. When I say “form” I mean “grim”, “seedy”, “gritty”, “perverted”, “drug abuse” and “guilt-ridden”. Let your demons loose and delve into your obsessions again, Abel! Who the hell needs a screwball comedy about a Go Go bar when you can make a film about a young, drug dealing gangster with no scruples?  I don´t and neither does you, Mr. Ferrarra…

Some might say that this is man´s world we live in, but after watching “Ms. 45” for the tenth time, I have to agree with Neneh Cherry that it is in fact a woman´s world and that´s fine by me…

Until next time: stay ghoul, stay sick & stay in touch, fiends!

Thomas Lovecraft

Guess what, fiends? Today I´m gonna recommend a film to you that isn´t a horror film? “What the hell is going on?”, you might ask yourself. You might say that I´ve grown all soft on you during the summer but that isn´t the case, so quit worrying. The film I wanna urge you to check out, if you haven´t already seen it, definitely has connections to the horror genre. It is directed by James Wan, who kind of kick-started the whole “torture-porn” genre with his debut film “Saw” (2004). It also stars Kevin Bacon, who is one of the most underrated actors of our time. One of his finest roles was in the ghost-classic “Stir of Echoes” (1999), which everyone should see… NOW!

So, “Death Sentence” (2007) isn´t a horror film. What the hell is it then? This is an insanely entertaining addition to one of my favorite subgenres: the vigilante-flick! The vigilante-flick had a bit of resurgence last year when this one was released and Jodie Foster´s more adult take on the genre, “The Brave One” (2007), which isn´t as much fun as this film. Don´t get me wrong, I´m not complaining. I wish that all major Hollywood stars would follow Foster´s example and make at least one vigilante-movie. It should be included on every self-respecting movie star´s CV. Anyhow, if I were to choose between watching either “The Brave One” or “Death Sentence”, I would have to go with “Death Sentence”. “The Brave One” definitely has a lot going for it but it can´t compare to the chase scenes in “Death Sentence”, the amount of blood that is spilled whenever someone gets shot, Kevin Bacon´s extremely tormented expressions and John Goodman´s hilarious turn as an arms dealer.

Let us get one thing straight: “Death Sentence” is not a groundbreaking film. It is exactly what you expect it to be. A vigilante-flick has certain rules that they have to abide, just like any other genre and director Wan & co knows this very well. They seem in love with the genre and its conventions and relishes in the opportunity to play with them. The one thing that isn´t completely expected is the brutality of it. Kevin Bacon portrays Nick Hume, who´s a senior vice president at an insurance company. He leads a good, clean life with a model home, pretty wife and two sons. One night, his oldest son is killed in a gas station robbery and Nick vows to make the guilty pay for their crime. That´s the way these kind of movies go. You know what´s gonna happen. They have been that way since William Lustig did his fantastic take on the genre with “Vigilante” (1983), starring Robert Forster and Fred “The Hammer” Williamson, and they´re gonna stay that way for a long, long time to come.

The thing is that a movie doesn´t have to be groundbreaking to be good! It doesn´t have to break the conventions of its genre to prove a point, as long as the conventions are in capable hands. A good example of this would be James Gray´s cop thriller “We Own The Night” (2007). It is extremely predictable and doesn´t break any new ground whatsoever, but it´s so damn well done and the makers clearly love the genre. That counts for a lot and goes a long way in my book. I´d rather see a predictable film by a director who loves the genre than a film made by someone who hates the genre and then tries to break every rule in the book, just to bring the movie as far as possible from the genre they clearly loathe… Believe it or not, some things should NOT change!

This is the kind of movie that always gets negative reviews when they´re released but you know that you´re gonna like it anyway. It´s just too much fun! The theme of revenge is a very rich one. When you examine it in a film, you have to be very careful not to unleash the wrath of the critics. If you go too far in one direction everyone is gonna accuse you of being pro-vigilante violence. This type of film needs to pay as much attention to the weighty, human drama going on if it´s gonna win over the high brow-critics. Like “Oldboy” (2003), for example. That was a revenge-film that the critics enjoyed and it won all kinds of awards. The reason they liked it so much was because director Chan Wook-Park asked questions like “What does revenge do to a man?”, “does revenge lessen the pain of losing a loved one?” and so on. Wan manages to raise some of these questions. I think it´s safe to say that we know how Wan feels about vigilante-violence when the film is over, but I think you´re missing the point if you pay too much attention to these aspects of the movie. This is a love letter to 70´s cinema and this was the kind of movies they made back then: brutal, bleak, nihilistic and pretty damn entertaining!

Director James Wan unleashes some pretty cool camera moves on you and then we have Kevin Bacon… He is one overlooked actor. When “Mystic River” (2003) was bombarded with awards and Oscars, no one mentioned Kevin Bacon´s assured turn as one of the police officers investigating the crime. He´s the anchor of that movie but he got overlooked by Sean Penn and Tim Robbin´s more flamboyant turns. Kevin Bacon is always reliable and he is at his best when he portrays the kind of everyday-man-average-Joe, he does here. One of the things that´s really cool with him here is that Bacon and Wan really plays up the fact that Nick Hume is not familiar with weapons and violence. He doesn´t know how to handle a gun (like most of us wouldn´t) and this really comes across. One of those little cool touches is that when he decides to shave his hair, he misses a tuft of hair on the back of his head and then it stays that way the rest of the movie. Probably because this is the first time that he has shaved his head and isn´t that good at it. In my opinion, Bacon´s performance is the best thing about “Death Sentence”. If you look at the original vigilante, Mr. Charlie Bronson and Bacon in this movie, they´re two takes on essentially the same role but they´re worlds apart! Bacon brings a vulnerability and sensitivity that Bronson weren´t capable of. Bacon is an actor, I mean a real actor, and getting him for this film was the best thing for it. I´d even go as far as saying that every film benefits from having Kevin Bacon in its cast.

As you might have noticed, I´m a sucker for genre films, not just horror. Not only that, my favorite decade when it comes to filmmaking is the 70´s. Before we go any further, we need to agree on the fact that the “vigilante”-movie is a valid genre. I think that it is, and the father of all vigilante-movies is without a doubt Michael Winner´s “Death Wish” (1974), starring Charles Bronson. “Death Wish” is based on a book by a man named Brian Garfield. Apparently, he wasn´t that pleased with the adaptation of his book (how the hell anyone could be unhappy with “Death Wish” is a mystery that rivals that of the Bermuda triangle), so as a reaction to that film he wrote a sequel, which “Death Sentence” is based on. The thing that James Wan really does well in this film is that he manages to evoke that gritty urban style of 70´s thrillers. Did I mention that he´s very liberal with the use of squibs when he films his violence? I know that you´re not supposed to get this excited when watching a film about an upper-middle class, white American male who decides to take the law into his own hands and wreak havoc on those less fortunate in our society. It´s not politically correct but I don´t care. It was a long time since movie violence was this much fun and exhilarating. Don´t get me wrong, Wan also manages to cram in some genuinely haunting moments into the movie (he makes really good use of the soundtrack), but this is basically a male fantasy-throwback to the likes of “Dirty Harry “ (1971)and “Death Wish”. In other words, a damn fine action movie packed with solid performances. Hell, in one scene Kevin Bacon shoots a bad guy in the leg and half his leg comes off! You didn´t see that in “Death Wish”… or “Death Wish 2” (1982)… or “Death Wish 3” (1985) either, come to think of it… You also didn´t get to see Kelly Preston who plays Bacon´s wife in this one. If you´re a child of the eighties, then you might remember “Secret Admirer” (1985) and then I´m sure that you remember her. She always gets a lot of shit, whenever she´s in a movie but I think she does a pretty good job in this one. All around, the cast is pretty good. Garret Hedlund is great as Goodman´s psycho son. I first noticed him in John Singleton´s urban western “Four Brothers” (2005), where he wore the same kind of clothes but weren´t a snarling, raving psycho-killer. He´s a lot more fun in this one. I mentioned that every movie benefits from having Bacon it the cast and the same goes for John Goodman. I wish that they would create a new Oscar-award for the most amount of sweat in a movie and give it to John Goodman. “And the Oscar for most prolific sweating in a motion picture goes to… John Goodman!” That´s definitely what the Oscars need…

So here´s what you need to do: ignore all the internet-haters and what the critics said about this movie. Their main concern with the movie was that at first it condemns violence and then it portrays it in a cool and stylish way. It does, but so did Clint Eastwood´s “Unforgiven” (1992) and no one complained about that. It is cool, stylish and exciting but I´m gonna tell you a secret: since watching this movie, I haven´t killed one single gang member. Cause that would be wrong, kids…

They say that revenge is a dish best served cold, but I definitely prefer mine with some Bacon, fiends!

Until next time: stay ghoul & stay in touch!

Thomas Lovecraft

When it comes to killer crocodile movies, the genre has been in a bit of a dry spell lately. Not since “Alligator” (1980) have we seen a bona-fide classic emerge. I mean, what have we been served these last couple of years? “Krocodylus” (2000)? Sucked. “Crocodile” (2000)? Horrible. “Primeval” (2007)? A mess of a movie. “Black Water” (2007)? At least it was a worthy addition to the genre, but it was still somewhat of a disappointment. Well, ladies and ghouls, the dry spell is over. Greg McLean has stirred some life into this subgenre and it is not disappointing.

 When McClean burst onto the horror movie scene back in 2005 with his debut film “Wolf Creek”, it was apparent that this was man of talent. He managed to create one of the most memorable movie psychos of recent year with the character of Mick Taylor (magnificently portrayed by John Jarratt). When McLean then announced that his follow-up feature would be about a giant killer crocodile in the Australian outback, I nearly wet my pants with excitement. If there´s one thing I love, it´s giant monster movies and if there´s one thing I love even more, it´s giant seamonster-movies!

Unfortunately, it would take quite a while for “Rogue” (2007) to arrive due to the fact that it was produced by the Weinstein brothers and their Dimension-outfit and we all know that they have an annoying habit of postponing their movies´ release dates. Luckily, “Rogue” is now released on American DVD  and McLean further cements his position as a horror filmmaker to watch in the future.

I have to admit that my expectations for “Rogue” were extremely high. This is one of those movies that I pretty much watched the same day I got the DVD. Now, that doesn´t happen very often but with “Rogue” I couldn´t wait. So what did I think about it? It is a very good horror movie. Much of this is thanks to the fact that McLean, just as he did in “Wolf Creek”, plays it straight and does not opt for any cheap laughs or any “wink-wink”-moments to “Jaws” (although there are a couple of lines that does pay homage to the classic film). McLean sets out to tell a story that genuinely wants to scare us and for that he deserves all the respect in the world. He also manages to populate his films with some really great character actors (including an unrecognizable John Jarratt) to manages to avoid the stereotypes, usually found in these kind of movies. As a matter of fact, it´s pretty impressive how McLean manages to avoid the clichés of this genre cause when you look at the plot, it doesn´t seem like anything special. Here´s the basic plot: Pete (played by Michael Vartan) is an American travel writer reporting on Australia´s Northern Territory. While taking a river cruise he finds himself stuck with a collection of interesting characters, including Kate (Radha Mitchell), the local tour guide. Suddenly, their boat is rammed by something from below, the tour is thrown into disarray and they become stranded on a tiny mud island. As night falls and the tide starts to rise, the group slowly realizes they are being stalked by a huge saltwater crocodile…

Like all good monster movies, McLean is more interested in what happens between the individuals stranded on the mud island than in the monster itself. That doesn´t mean that the monster is ignored, it gets plenty of screen time and it looks absolutely amazing, but every horror filmmaker worth his salt knows that the real monsters are the ones within us, right? After all, George A. Romero has made a career out of this and Frank Darabont excellently examined this in “The Mist” (2007). One of the things that makes “Rogue” one of the best creature-features in a long, long time is the fact that McLean keeps it simple and the story contained. We get one plotline, there´s no cross-cutting back and forth between different storylines. He also manages to establish the crocodile as a relentless killing machine. Like all great monsters, McLean doesn´t waste time trying to establish a character or personality in its beasts. Think about “Jaws” (1975) or Michael Myers. What made them so scary was the fact that they didn´t have any personality, that all they wanted was to kill and it goes for McLean´s killer-croc, as well.  Another thing that McLean does to rack up the tension another notch is the fact that our protagonists are trapped on a mud island that is pretty near land, but just far enough for the crocodile to get them. This contributes to the suspense immensely. Their salvation is so near but yet very, very far away.If there is one thing that I was disappointed with, it was the fact that for a killer-croc-movie that proudly exclaims “Unrated” on the DVD cover, there isn´t a whole lot of gore in “Rogue”. I guess this is all part of McLean´s plan to play it realistic and I guess that if we were to get a bloodbath in the first half hour, it wouldn´t be as scary as it actually is. Hell, McLean even manages to keep the final confrontation, when one of the characters goes one-on-one with the crocodile, realistic. That´s quite a feat, if you ask me…

So far McLean has sunk his teeth into the backwoods-psycho-and the nature-strikes-back-subgenres and I can´t wait to see which one he will tackle next. McLean has a flair for keeping it realistic and gritty and he wears his 70´s-influences on his sleeve, which makes me hope that he´ll someday tackle the demonic possession-subgenre. It would be very interesting to see what he could accomplish within that. The main thing is that he keeps making films cause he´s definitely one of the most interesting directors working in the horror genre today.

Stay ghoul & take scare,

Thomas Lovecraft 

Here´s the deal: Darren Lynn Bousman, director of the ”Saw”-sequels recently did an interview with MTV News. The reporter asked Bousman what project he most wanted to do next. Bousman, bless his heart then answered: “Leprechaun!” I couldn´t believe my eyes but that´s exactly what he said and what a magnificent idea it is! So far there have been six “Leprechaun” movies, including  “Leprechaun In Space” (1997), “Leprechaun In The Hood” (2000) and “Leprechaun- Back 2 Tha Hood” (2003) and they could really use a man of Bousman´s talent to infuse the series with some new blood. Here´s what Bousman told MTV why he wants to do to “Leprechaun”:

“I would do ‘Leprechaun’ in a second. If Lionsgate is listening, give me ‘Leprechaun… It’s just one of those fun popcorn movies. I would love to bring back the fun popcorn movie – extreme violence, extreme absurdity – but make it fun, [My version] wouldn’t be horror.”

That´s all fine with me, cause honestly speaking… Is anyone out there really scared of the Leprechaun as played by Warwick Davis? You don´t watch a “Leprechaun”-movie for the chills and thrills, you watch it for the gore, nudity and absurd kills, right? And we all know that Bousman can get creative with the death-scenes, don´t we? The next question then, what would Bousman do with the series and where would he set it?

“Back to the old west! You send him in a time machine and transport him to the old west. There are gold rushes. There are gunfights. It’s awesome! I have the whole thing already worked out.”

This could be one of the greatest popcorn-movies ever made! Has someone bothered to tell Lionsgate that they might be sitting on next year´s best movie?

See you soon, stay ghoul & take scare….

Thomas

I´ve barely recovered from the awesome experience that is New York City. During my stint there I managed to shed a tear at the Joey Ramone Place, lean against the famous lamppost, where the Ramones shot many classic photos, outside the former CBGB´S. I managed to get drunk as a skunk at Dick Manitoba´s (from the old school punkrockers The Dictators) bar, walk up the stairs to the New York Public Library, where they shot the opening to “Ghostbusters” (1984) and I tried to sell my ass at 53 rd & 3 rd. That didn´t fully pan out the way I planned…

Anyway, what better way to spend your jetlagged-fuelled days than watching lots and lots of movies? I managed to plow through a whole pile of them and I´ll be telling you all about them. For instance, last night I watched the notorious Uwe Boll´s fantasy-epic-extravaganza “In The Name Of The King – A Dungeon Siege Tale” (2007). Unlike most bloggers and internet-talkbackers, I am not filled to the brim with hate and disgust when someone mentions Dr. Boll´s name. Actually, I have a pretty good relationship with this fascinating man. I and a couple of friends of mine have made it a point to get together and watch his movies whenever a new one is released. I am serious when say this. I even own a German-imported unrated edition of “Alone In The Dark” (2005). This is serious stuff, people! I have no illusions about Uwe Boll being a good filmmaker in any sense of the word but the thing is that he have entertained me more than most directors ever will, and that´s why I have a weak spot for him.

When I was younger I had an obsession with really bad movies. I can´t tell you how many times I´ve seen the films of Ed Wood Jr, especially “Plan 9 From Outer Space” (1959). There´s just something about watching a movie where you know the effects aren´t gonna be any good and the rules of logic goes out the window within the first couple of minutes. That´s exactly what happens in Boll´s movies and that´s why they´re so much fun. I admit that there can be long stretches of exposition and awful dialogue in his movies but that´s why you have to watch them with a friend. You can´t sit down to watch a Boll-movie alone. That´s the behavior of a madman… Like I said, most of the time the dialogue is excruciatingly bad but every now and then you come upon a nugget of gold. For example, in “BloodRayne” (2005), a character utters this immortal line: “Life is like a penis. When it´s soft, you can´t beat it and when it´s hard, you get screwed”. It may not be Tarantino but that´s pretty damn funny in a surreal, insane kind of way. It gets so much more bizarre by the fact that the movie takes place in the wild west (but obviously filmed in Romania or some other European country).

To fully understand the mad genius of Uwe Boll you need to know a few things about him. He has no formal film education whatsoever. Some of you may find this very believable but this man has find a way to 2-5 films per year since 2003, without any backing from a studio. He produces, directs and sometimes writes these movies independently, which means that Boll has the final word on everything. That is why you get the impression that anything goes in his movies. It seems that Boll reasons like Ed Wood used to do in this regard, a gap of logic, the size of Death Canyon, in the movie´s story doesn´t seem to bother him. I can see him sitting in the editing suite, concluding with a German accent that no one will notice. For example, in “In The Name Of The King” there´s a scene where a battle takes place in the forest between the knights and the Krugs (Boll´s version of Orchs). Suddenly, a group of black-clad Ninjas appear. You get no explanation why. None. Whatsoever. I say, fantastic! No matter what you may think about him, it is pretty impressive that he has managed to release so many films, without the backing of any studio. There is one other thing that I love about him and that is the fact that in June 2006 he challenged his critics to “put up or shut up”. His production company issued a press release stating that Boll would challenge his 5 harshest critics each to a 10 round boxing match. To be eligible, the critic must have written two extremely negative reviews of Boll, in print or on the Web, in 2005. What they didn´t mention was that Boll has a history of boxing and beat the shit out of the critics. Hilarious!It seems to me that this is what a lot of directors would like to do with critics, right? I mean, who wouldn´t want to beat the shit out of someone who berates your work over and over again. The thing is that the Boll-meister goes through with the plan and actually does it. You can´t dislike a guy like that. You HAVE to see the comedy in that.  

As we speak, Uwe Boll has 4 films in various stages of production and I don´t know about you, but I will be seeing every one of them. Boll is a name that guarantees bad quality in the technical aspects of filmmaking but when it comes to being entertained… Boll is the man!

  Talk to you soon. Take scare!