Last Blog On The Left

Okay, here´s the deal: a while back I took some time out to ramble on this site about my all-time favorite Swedish film, ”Thriller: A Cruel Picture” starring the gorgeous Christina Lindberg. I mentioned that along with Ingmar Bergman´s “The Virgin Spring” it was one of the few additions to the revenge genre that´s ever been produced in this country of ours. Turns out I´m wrong and that I´m pretty lazy because guess what? Just a couple of months back a film called “Leo” was released on DVD here, after a short stint in the theaters. And yes, you guessed right: it´s a revenge-flick!

Isn´t that absolutely amazing? Sometimes the gods look down upon us ignorant humans, smiles and then decides that the good people of Sweden deserves more than just two revenge movies. Every country should have at least a few. So now we have “Leo” as well. It doesn´t star Christina Lindberg, though and that´s a goddamn shame. That would´ve been pretty cool. What the hell were you thinking, Movie Gods? Is it any good then? As a matter of fact, it is. You should know that I had lowered my expectations for this one. It´s directed by a young director named Josef Fares and he´s kind of a big deal here in Sweden. He´s directed three films previous to this one and one of them, “Kopps”, was a huge success. It´s a comedy about a couple of cops on the Swedish countryside that are threatened to lose their jobs because of the low crime rates, so they decide to stage their own crimes in order to keep their jobs. This movie was huge when it was released and it seems to show up on some channel at least once a month here. I guess that everybody loves this film… except me.

Once again I am forced to take a stand for the greater good and speak my mind in order to illuminate certain aspects of the brutal truth. It´s a sensationally un-funny movie that plays out like some sort of retarded farce with a couple of shootouts and stupid characters doing annoying things. I do not like it. I wasn´t that fond of Fares first film, “Jalla! Jalla!”, either. That´s why I didn´t bother to see his third one, “Zozo”. However, I´m not above admitting that Fares is a gifted director, although he wears his MTV-influences a bit too proudly on his sleeves, for my taste. Maybe he isn´t the greatest actor´s director but he´s definitely gifted when it comes to the technical aspects of making a movie. That much I could see. I´m not completely ignorant. At least not when I´m sober…

So, there´s the background for you. Josef Fares is one of the brightest young stars that the Swedish film industry has. His movies gets all kind of awards and he´s hip, young and puts his finger on the pulse of Sweden and all that crap. That´s why I didn´t pay any attention when “Leo” opened. I couldn´t give a flying crap about the guy who made “Kopps” newest film. Well, friends and foes, it doesn´t happen very often so you better pay attention: I admit my mistake. I was wrong. If Mike Ness can sing it, then I sure as hell can say it…

“Leo” is actually one of the better Swedish films I´ve seen in a very long time. Admittedly, the state of the Swedish film industry is worse than comatose so Fares doesn´t have much competition. I think that the middle age for Swedish directors is somewhere around 259 years old, so he´s quite the Young Turk and it definitely shows in “Leo”.

Fares have definitely done his homework when it comes to revenge movies. He has realized that in order to create the most emotional impact, you need to keep the storyline as simple as possibly. It revolves around Leonard (played by Leonard Terfelt), who is turning 30 when the film begins. He and his lovely girlfriend Amanda are leaving his birthday party when they are suddenly attacked by two men. They are both left wounded in an alley. As it turns out, Amanda doesn´t survive and Leo is wrecked by the guilt he feels. It soon turns into an obsession and the concept of revenge starts to seem more and more logical to him. His two best friends, Shahab (played by Shahab Saledi) and Josef (played by Josef Fares himself) tries to dissuade him and offer the help that they can but Leo has made up his mind.

God damn, Leo! If you only would´ve watched some American revenge movies before you turned 30 you would´ve known that you shouldn´t walk around being all happy and holding hands with your girlfriend that loves you sooo much. Things are bound to turn to shit then, aren´t they? Let this be a lesson to you, kids: don´t ever let happiness get the better of you. Stay friends with the darkness and the angst and then you won´t be consumed by depression the way Leo is when the real tragedies starts coming around to greet you. It´s best to stay at an even level between misery and depression. It has worked wonders for me.

As the more attentive readers of you out there might have already noticed, all the main characters have the same names as in reality. What the hell kind of mindfuck is Fares trying to pull on us here? Well, Fares is obviously striving for a level of realism with this film and I think he succeeds with that. Not because of that old, tired trick of letting the characters have the same names as the actors. That has been done to death. Instead, Fares succeeds to create a revenge film that feels genuinely Swedish. He does the right thing when he doesn´t try to emulate American movies too much. The film is shot with a handheld camera in a way that reminds you of all those Danish Dogme-films that were all the rage a couple of years ago. I´m not that big a fan of handheld-shaky camerawork. If the director doesn´t know when to pull back it can be pretty tiring to sit through a film. Fortunately, Fares has some sense when it comes to this aspect of the film and he doesn´t overdo it. Thank you, Josef Fares. You did the right thing and should feel good about yourself.

Another thing that is a great improvement upon Fares previous films is the acting. Leonard Terfeldt carries basically the whole film and I think he does a pretty good job at it. There´s a lot of close- ups in this film. I mean a lot. There´s also quite a few sequences without any dialogue that emphasizes the regret and angst that the characters are feeling. This is where the movie couldn´t have turned belly up and turned into a giant, pile of shit but it doesn´t. Those scenes are the films anchor and what gives it its emotional weight. Fares does a great job of staging these scenes and thanks to the actors and their chemistry, the feeling of watching a documentary comes creeping up on you. The scene at Leo´s work, where he starts to get more and more annoyed with his boss is very uncomfortable.

Naturally, there are a couple of scenes that doesn´t work. You can´t have everything, like I always say. A scene where Leo visits Amanda´s grave is painful to watch, but not in the way that Fares intended. I almost started laughing while watching this scene but had to remind myself that I would be an insensitive creep if I did. Seconds later I burst out laughing. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes… not always, I can be a creep.

There´s also a couple of scenes where Leo visits his shrink that doesn´t ring particularly true. I´ve never visited a shrink and the only contact I´ve had with them is from what I´ve seen in movies but I´m pretty sure that if my girlfriend died and I was feeling guilty about it and I ended up at the guy that is Leo´s shrink, I would get another one. I´m pretty sure that Fares hasn´t had any contact with shrinks either. If he has, then he has brutally failed at depicting them. I hope he doesn´t feel the need to visit one in the future either. That would make for one uncomfortable situation. Imagine Josef Fares walking into a shrink´s office, introducing himself and the shrink asks: “Hmmm… I recognize you… Aren´t you the guy in “Leo”?” This would of course cheer Fares up a bit, since he craves attention like all artists supposedly do and answers: “Yes, as a matter of fact I am. Not only that, I wrote and directed it, too”. Then the shrink remembers the awful scenes and how Fares choose to depict the psychological profession and makes a vow to himself then and there, that he will destroy Fares mind. He will string him along for several years, until he knows everything about him and then use it all against him to destroy his psyche and life! There´s no stopping the embittered psychiatrist! Hell hath no fury like a psychologist scorned! Better stay sane, Josef. Just a tip…

I don´t wanna wrack down on Josef Fares too much. He does a pretty good job of portraying the friend, actually. It´s always dangerous when directors decide to cast themselves in a major role. M. Night Shyamalan in “Lady in the Water” springs to mind. That wasn´t a good decision on Night´s behalf. Fares pulls it off, though. I didn´t walk away disliking the man, if you get my drift. Just don´t quit your day job as a director just yet, Josef.

One of the things that I like about “Leo”, I mentioned earlier. This actually feels like a genuinely Swedish revenge film. Leo doesn´t turn into Charles Bronson and starts a one man war against Stockholm´s criminal elements. Instead, Fares takes his time examining Leo´s regrets and doubts and raises some pretty good questions while doing so. What does it mean to be a man in today´s world, for instance. Or how much are you supposed to there for an old friend? I´m not sure that these questions would have been examined in the same way if this film would´ve been made in Hollywood. At the same time, Fares manages to strike a good balance between the psychological aspect and the actions that drives the story forward to its inevitable conclusion. The film doesn´t outstay its welcome, either, since it´s only about 75 minutes. Another good call, Josef! Tell Colin Nutley to follow your example.

It´s pretty obvious that Fares wants to raise questions instead of answering them. The issue of random violence is a pretty hot potato in Sweden right now and I definitely think that we need more movies like “Leo”. There´s no doubt about how Fares feels about violence and I think that kids definitely needs to see stuff like this. No matter how fun violence can be in movies, it´s no laughing matter when it happens in real life, right? Jesus Christ, how´s that for being serious?

I just want to add one more thing: I still think that it could´ve worked out better for “Leo” if he just would´ve paid attention while watching all those American revenge movies that he has to have seen. For instance, what kind of half-wit decides to unleash his rage in a suburban area, in broad daylight together with three guys wearing skimasks? That´s bound to attract some attention. You could´ve worked out a better plan, Leo. I get the feeling that you were just a little too eager to exact your revenge.

I don´t know when I´ll watch this film again. It´ll probably be a while. It´s not a pleasant film. In fact, Dragomir Mrsic, who plays one of the two criminals who attacks Leo and his girlfriend, is frighteningly realistic. However, I do think that you should check this one out. It´s a good film. Definitely the best Swedish revenge films you´ll see this year. Seek it out if you can…

That´s it for this time, fiends! I don´t know about you but I´m off from work this week, so I plan to get a lot movies watched this week. I´ll keep you posted. See ya soon and until then: take scare & stay sick!

Thomas

Stuart Gordon is one of my favorite directors. He´s made some damn fine films. “Re-Animator”, anyone? Or “From Beyond”, which I like, even more? We have to thank a director who has featured Barbara Crampton naked in more than one movie, right? Thank you, Stuart. You made puberty a little easier, at least for me. Gordon´s career can be divided into three different categories. We have the horror movies, which consist of the ones I just mentioned and more recent ones like “Dagon”. Then we have the science fiction movies, like “Fortress” and “Robot Jox”. They´re entertaining in a stupid kind of way, especially the former one. Then we have the more recent films that doesn´t belong to any of these genres but are more grounded in reality. I´m talking about the reality that you and I inhabit. Well, to be honest I hope that Gordon´s reality is a bit harsher than yours. Cause if it ain´t, then you have my deepest sympathies cause then you must be living one hell of a life. In the last couple of years, Gordon´s switched from all out horror to making films that seem to fit into the thriller genre but not quite. In this stage of his career, we find films like “King of the Ants”, “Edmond” (one of my personal favorites) and the latest one, “Stuck”.

Nowadays, at this stage in his career, Stuart Gordon seems to be on a personal crusade and his gospel is that “Life in the city is cruel, man! It will devour you, chew you up and then spit you out, sucker!” Pretty rough stuff for you country folks out there. “King of the Ants” was about a minimum wage-earning bike messenger who gets tangled up in a conspiracy to murder a guy. He also gets brutalized, used and abused by a couple of not so friendly-minded gangsters. Damn those gangsters, man! They always gotta ruin it for everyone else. It is definitely not about some guy turning into an ant after suffering through a nuclear accident and then avenging the guys who´ve done him wrong. That´s what I thought the movie would be about when I first heard about it but Stuart pulled a fast one on me.

I do think that it won´t be too long before that particular film will be popping up on the Sci-Fi Channel, starring Casper Van Dien and Billy Drago. Hey, CEO´s over at Sci-Fi! I got a concept for you. Feel free to use my stuff. Gordon´s ant king is a different beast altogether. It´s extremely brutal and a long section of the film shows how Sean (played by Chris McKenna) is beaten within an inch of his life by none other than Vernon Wells, who played the Mohawk-sporting, homosexual biker Wez in “Mad Max 2” and George Wendt, who you might recognize as Norm on “Cheers”.

Now, how´s that for a dynamic duo? You know, I always suspected that there was something weird with this Norm-guy. I mean, they did like 415 seasons of “Cheers” and Norm was in every one of them and in every episode he sits at that damn bar. I think it´s safe to say that Norm visits the bar every day, right? But at no time do you see him drunk? Doesn´t he notice that Sam Malone is serving watered down beer? What the hell is his problem? Or is Norm such a raging alcoholic that no matter how much he drinks, it´s never enough? Do you understand what I mean when I say that that I always suspected this guy? Well, turns out that I was right cause in “King of the Ants”, Norm is a pretty creepy guy and the scene where he tears into Sean is pretty hard to sit through. In fact, at one time I had to stand up but to be fair that had more to do with the fact that it turned out I was sitting on the remote control. Anyway, it´s a pretty good film. Not for the squeamish but I know that that doesn´t include you sick fiends, right?

After this one, Gordon dived into the masculine and sometimes poetic world of David Mamet with “Edmond”. I´m not gonna go into this one too much because this is a fantastic film and I have aspirations to do an entry solely about this film in the near future. But check it out, friends! It´s a great film, sort of a “Falling Down” but more realistic, brutal and squirm-inducing. Definitely not a pleasant film but a really good one. Watch it tonight! That´s an order. I will quiz you later on it.

That brings us up to date. Gordon´s latest film is called “Stuck”. First of all I just wanna say that Gordon deserves a lot of credit for the fact that he´s managed to keep his career alive, even through the horror drought in the middle of the 90´s. Everyone were making self-referential, ironic, postmodern, tongue-in-cheek horror but not Stuart Gordon. No Sir, he stuck to his guns and did not fall into the trap of making funny horror films with teenagers in the lead. Not only that, Gordon has continued to keep delivering interesting films unlike many of his peers in the horror field. It also seems that he´s grown more angry and ferocious with age. It doesn´t feel like his three latest films were directed by a man in his sixties. It feels like a young, angry man is making these films. His career has definitely moved into another phase and I really like it. These latest films are small, nasty, twisted thrillers. This reminds me of how Cronenberg has been exploring the crime genre with his Viggo Mortensen-starring films. Come to think of it, Gordon and Cronenberg has a lot in common. They have both made some of their most interesting films in the last couple of years. Sure, their horror masterpieces form the 80´s and 90´s are in a league of their own but to be honest, I think that I will be watching “Eastern Promises” again before I sit down to watch “The Fly” one more time.

What I wanna say is that these two grand masters of horror haven´t gotten boring in their choices of directing. Gordon has proved that he still knows how to make balls-to-the-wall-horror with his two installments in the “Masters of Horror”-series (his “The Black Cat” was definitely one of the highlights of the entire time the show was on the air).

What I love about Gordon´s recent films is that at heart he is still a horror film director that knows the ins and outs of the genre like the back of his hand and while he has steered away from the genre a bit, he´s still managed to keep his horror-sensibilities. He still knows what it is that makes life scary and what we are afraid of. I´m not talking about some Lovecraftian monster here (like he used in the excellent “Dagon”). No, I´m talking about those times when you pass a stranger on an empty street late at night; the fears that you develop when living in a big city. I think that those fears are pretty universal, whether it´s New York, Tokyo or Gothenburg you´re living in. These fears are a big part of Gordon´s recent films and it´s fascinating to see how he exploits them to great effect. This brings us back to “Stuck”. Here´s what it´s about:

Tom Bardo (played by Stephen Rea) is going through a difficult time lately, since he lost his job and became homeless. His life literally turns into a living hell when a young nurse, Brandi (played by Mena Suvari), under the influence of drugs and alcohol, hits him with her car. She panics and, out of fear the consequences of this event will unbalance her perfectly stable life, the girl drives home and leaves Tom to perish in the garage; his body still stuck halfway through the windshield.

That´s not a good way to spend a day: stuck in someone´s windshield! Not if you ask me. In fact, it´s a pretty lousy way! But it´s definitely a great time to spend watching this because “Stuck “ is a good film. A very good film, in fact! However, it is not a great film, like “Edmond” is a great film. It´s not a perfect film but let´s face it folks: not many films are. I guy I used to know, when asked if a film he´d seen was any good, always answered “Well, it´s not gonna go down in history…” and my reply was always “But not many films do, do they?” If you´re only gonna watch films that will go down in history, you´re not gonna be able to got the movies very often. Anyway, he was pretty weird and that was a side note. I don´t know why I told you that. I apologize. I´m off that tangent now.

Back to “Stuck”. There are a couple of things that casts a black cloud over the crimson sky that is this film and the biggest cloud on this otherwise clear sky is Mena Suvari! Like I mentioned, Stephen Rea is a very competent actor and his hangdog features invites to sympathize and root for him the second we see him being kicked out of his apartment. Ah, who am I trying to kid? Stephen Rea is a fantastic fuckin´ actor! Look at his work with Neil Jordan: “Company of Wolves”, “The Crying Game” and “Interview With The Vampire” and you´ll understand why Gordon would want him in his film. What I don´t understand is what in the world made him think that Mena “the square girl form American Pie” Suvari would hold her own against an actor of this caliber?

What the hell, did Gordon lose some kinda bet with Suvari? I´m just gonna tell myself that Suvari has some kinda hold on poor Stuart and forced him to give her this role. That´s the only explanation I´ll accept. Do you hear me out there, Stuart? What the hell were you thinking? Christ, in “Edmond” you cast Julia Stiles. Why couldn´t you´ve gone with her this time around, too? She managed to wrap her tongues around Mamet´s sometimes pretty intricate lines so I´m fairly certain that she would pull this one off, too. I´m telling you that she would´ve made “Stuck” a fantastic film! Suvari is the only thing that stands between “Stuck” being a very good film and frickin´ great film! Are you listening to me, Stuart? I don´t know how many DVD editions of “Re-Animator” I´ve bought over the years so I think you owe this much. I will not be ignored.

I bet that right about now you´re asking yourself “What the hell does this freak have against Mena Suvari? The girl in the “American Pie” movie? I thought she was kinda sweet…” Well, you are wrong, friend! Suvari is just one of those actors that annoy me. When I look at her all I can think about is that she´s a spitting image of E.T., the horrible friendly alien that kept bugging a bunch of kids about taking him to the nearest payphone or whatever the hell his deal was all about. So, #1: She looks like an alien but she can´t help that so I´m not gonna hold that against her too much. She was born that way, you know. If not she should probably get a refund from her plastic surgeon.

That brings us to #2 and it´s definitely a thing that she can help and should definitely be held accountable for! You see, in this film Mena Suvari has one of the most awful hairstyles known to mankind: that´s right, I´m talking about cornrows. Let´s be honest for a while here, people. No white folks should ever attempt to wear their hair this way. This is one of the lamest attempts at looking cool in the history of bad hairdo´s. Bad, bad decision, Stuart!

One can´t help but speculate in the reasons why Gordon went with this decision. I have a theory: maybe the hairdresser on the film, Linda Flynn is her name I´ve found out after imdb-ing her ass, finds Suvari as annoying as I do? Think about it, it all adds up. Maybe this Linda Flynn-character figured that “If I give her cornrows I´ll just get someone to braid her hair and then I don´t have to spend an hour and a half with her every morning! That´s a great idea, Linda! We´ll fix her hair now and then we don´t have to speak with her for the rest of the shoot. Hooray for me! Now I just have to convince Stuart and then Suvari will be out of my hair, mouahahahahaha! …” A little hairdresser humor at the end there for your reading pleasure, friends. Well, apparently this evil hairdresser-mastermind´s plan worked so now I have to endure an hour and a half of Suvaris awful hair. It´s a cruel world out there, kids, and don´t you forget it.

So, there you have it basically. “Stuck” is a very good film that is ruined by Suvari´s performance and hairstyle. Oh, if only, if only Mr. Gordon would´ve given the role to Julia Stiles or someone of her talent instead. Did anyone of you out there see the “Day of the Dead”-remake? If you haven´t, you should check it out. I guarantee that you´ll be laughing your ass off. Suvari plays the least convincing soldier that I´ve ever seen on screen. The American military can´t be happy with this one. Did you not see that one, Mr. Gordon? Anyway, I still have faith in you and I am absolutely certain that you will continue to make great films. Imdb lists your next film as “House of Re-Animator” and I hope that it works out for you. I promise that I´ll be there, whatever your next film might be. Maybe see if you can work Barbara Crampton in there, too. That would really make the latent teenager in me happy. And if this “House of Re-Animator” doesn´t work out, I´d love to see you take on a straight up crime film. Take a cue from Cronenberg, Stuart! Maybe you could make sort of a “Boyz´n the hood”-type of film and Suvari can keep her cornrows and she can play a ghetto-gangsta chick? Just a thought. Hell, she could play a black girl. I´ll bet my ass that she´ll be more convincing in that role than she was in “Day of the Dead”. But then again, what the hell do I know? I´m just a simple country boy.

So there you have it, fiends. If you haven´t checked out Stuart Gordon´s latest films, it´s about bloody time. Start with “King of the Ants”, segue into “Edmond” (more on that one in the near future) and top it off with “Stuck”. Okay, we got a deal? You know I´ll quiz you on them later so no cheating, saying that “Yeah, I watched them” and then I find out that you´ve been watching the latest episode of “Grey´s Anatomy” or some shit like that. That won´t fly with me…

I just realize that this is the most profanity-filled entry I´ve written here so far and I wanna apologize for that. I´ve used the word “ass” at several occasions and we wanna keep it family friendly and set a good example for the kids, so my sincerest apologizes. But what can I say? Mena Suvari and her cornrows stirred up some pretty strong emotions. I´m sorry if I sounded too riled up earlier. As is fittingly, the weekend is looming over us and I hope that you have a fantastic one. I have next week off from work so I promise I´ll try to spend it the best way I can: watching lots of films of suspicious nature. I also try to cram a night of excessive drinking in there somewhere, too.

Until next time: take scare & stay ghoul, fiends!

Thomas

American director Michael Ritchie died in 2001. I don´t know how old he was or why he died but my guess is that he died of the infamous “old man-syndrome”. I´m no doctor or anything but the man was pretty old. That´s how I came to that conclusion. Now, let´s get down to business: I know that you youngsters out there may think that I´m trying to pull a fast one on you but the sad truth is that you´re not gonna stay young forever. So cherish these times, kids. Stay out drinking all night cause it´s only gonna become harder and harder for you as the years go by. One day you will wake up on a Sunday morning and the only sound you will hear is that of your own kidneys, screaming in panic as they´re hiding behind your spleen. That´s what you have to look forward to, kids. You will wake up and jump out of the bed, thinking nothing is out of the ordinary but for every year that passes, you will feel the hangovers start getting a tighter grip on you. That grip is not gonna let up. You will be in its command. The only solution I know is to not stop drinking. But I don´t recommend that one. It might become a problem in your social life and might lead to certain work-related incidents that you want no part of. There will come a day when your hangovers, that used to last for an afternoon, starts seeping into the day after that, forcing you to stay hung over for up 40-50 hours on end. You will learn the ways of simple mathematics: drunk one night, hung over for 2 days. Drunk 2 nights in a row: hung over for 4 days. You´re gonna have to start doubling the amount of time you spent being drunk and then you´ll know how long those hangovers will haunt you.

Anyway, enough with the words of wisdom-crap. I don´t think that Michael Ritchie was much of a drinker. I don´t think that was why he died. I´m sure that you´ve seen some of his films. For instance, he directed the both “Fletch”-movies and if you grew up somewhere in the vicinity of the 80´s, you couldn´t have avoided them. I think they´re pretty funny. Those were made back when Chevy Chase was still funny. Then for some reason he stopped. I have no idea why. Maybe he got tired of being a star and making lots of money.

I digress but the thing I´m trying to get at with all this nonsensical rambling is that by looking at “Fletch”, you would never guess that the same guy directed the film that I´m gonna recommend to you today, the 1972 film “Prime Cut”. This is truly one of those kinda movies that they don´t make nowadays. It´s a bizarre film starring one of the hardest men in the history of celluloid: Lee Marvin.

Now, he was a drinker! That´s why I was babbling about that at the beginning. Marvin was famous for it. Well, that and the fact that he made a bunch of really cool movies but rumor has it that he could drink entire villages dry. He drank like God owed him a favor and he was trying to collect on it every damn night. The thing is that the kind of life Marvin led took its toll on his looks, which came in handy for the type of roles he would go on to play. He was not a particularly good-looking guy, in the classic sense. His hair turned grey when he was fairly young and due to his drinking he had lines in his face the size of Death Valley. Not like these pretty boys we have running around the studios in Hollywood making movies nowadays. Except for Michael Madsen, there´s not that many of those old-school tough guys around today and I think that sucks. So let this be a lesson to you, kids: if you wanna grow up to play the hard men in movies, you better start downing those bottles of Bourbon and Whisky. You think Lee Marvin got that gravelly voice by sitting home, watching TV and drinking tea with his family? Of course not! He raised more hell than our entire generation is capable of. That´s why he was so insanely cool.

You know, when watching a movie with Lee Marvin, you notice that this guy isn´t acting very much. He just is. It all seems so effortless and he acts the way he does because he´s seen it all, he´s been everywhere and he´s done it all. He can´t be impressed, so why bother? Lee Marvin served in the Second World War and at one point he said that he learned to act in the marines, when he tried to act unafraid during combat. Now that´s what I call an education in acting! In other words: Lee Marvin was a badass. Possibly, the baddest of all asses. I mean that in the best way possible, even though it seems like a weird thing to say as a compliment.

Now, back to “Prime Cut”. Lee Marvin plays a Chicago mob enforcer who is sent to Kansas City to settle a debt with a cattle rancher who not only grinds his enemies into sausage, but sells women as sex slaves. You heard me right! The cattle rancher grinds his enemies into sausage! Not only that, this obviously very disturbed cattle rancher is named Mary Ann and is played by Gene Hackman. While Marvin is at it, he also decides to free one of Mary Ann´s slaves, a young girl named Poppy. It only adds to the bizarre vibe of the film that Poppy is played by a young Sissy Spacek and in the first scene we see her in, she´s totally nude. “Full frontal” for you connoisseurs out there. After this, it´s pretty obvious that Marvin and Hackman ain´t gonna get along so he sends his hit men after Marvin. I guess they didn´t bother to check him out cause if they had, they would have noticed that he´s clearly Lee goddamn Marvin, so you know who´s gonna walk out of there alive. Another weird touch is that Hackman´s henchmen are all these blond, weirdly homoerotic guys. Or maybe it´s just me who´s weird? Maybe I´m reading too much into it? Hmmm… I have to think about that one for a while…

Okay, enough of this contemplating. I´ve come to conclusion that I am not weird but perfectly normal, so let´s get on with the movie at hand. “Prime Cut” is one of those really weird films that only could´ve been made during the 70´s. Marvin moves through the film like an unstoppable force, much like he did in the classic “Point Blank” and drops one-liners to his left and right. Once again, he portrays the ultimate professional and he does that pretty damn well. Hackman´s character is one of the weirdest villains ever to grace the silver screen. Now, if you didn´t get what I said earlier, I´ll say it again: His name is Mary Ann. He sells young girls as sex slaves. And grinds people into sausage. Sausages that he sells to the locals. And eats, himself. He likes it, too. Oh, the sweet taste of weirdness.

I can´t begin to tell you how much I love this film. It´s a fantastically underrated film that seems to be pretty much forgotten nowadays. I find this extremely strange. I can´t for the life of me see how anyone could forget this film after seeing it. This is one of those great films where every character is extremely odd. The villains are so extremely depraved and sleazy that Marvin has no choice but to gun the bastards down. There are several scenes where Hackman´s insane character and his demented brother, named “Weenie”, declare their love for “Eating guts!” I love it when the hero is a hired killer that doesn´t give a damn about anything and in any other movie he would obviously be the bad guy, but here he´s the hero, basically because the bad guys are so extremely evil and sleazy that he seems like a nice guy in comparison.

But to be perfectly honest, I´m not sure if our main man Marvin is a bit on the sleazy side, too. Okay, he saves Spacek from a life of prostitution and misery and I gotta give him that that´s a pretty nice thing to do for a young girl who has her whole life ahead of her. Nice work, Mr. Marvin. Take a cue from Lee there, guys. But after this noble action he takes her shopping because you see, when he saved her she was being sold off at a livestock-auction so she wasn´t wearing any clothes. So, the nice thing to do for a girl in that situation would be to dress her, right? Marvin does that BUT he buys her a “classy” dress which is almost completely see-through, which means that her breasts are right there for everyone to see. I was born in 1979 so I don´t have that much memory of the trends of fashion that were going on during the 70´s so this might´ve been a completely normal thing to wear. If so, I´m sorry I wasn´t born earlier. Although I´m pretty sure it would´ve made me pretty uncomfortable at times. Imagining going to the school-cafeteria and the old ladies working there were wearing a dress like that. I would not have liked that, friends!

But anyway, after this Marvin takes Spacek to dinner. He has to feed her too, since he´s such a nice guy, right? That´s when the real weirdness begins. I´m not completely sure what´s going on in this scene. Marvin was 47 when he did this film but he looks older. I thought he was at least 55 and Spacek was around 22 and you may call me conservative in this day and age, but I think that´s quite an age-difference. It´s obvious that during the dinner scene, Spacek is coming on to Marvin and I can understand that in some way. After all, he did save her. It´s not strange to imagine that she would be infatuated with him but I´m not sure what Marvin´s getting at in this scene. At first I thought that he saved her because it´s one of those “the daughter that he never had”-type of deals but what kind of weird guy buys the daughter he never had a see-through dress when he takes her out to dinner so that both you and everyone else can sit there while she´s flashing her boobs? I´m not sure about this, Mr. Marvin. I think you may be a bit of a perv in this one. I mean, the age difference is just too much. I don´t think that that would be the best foundation to build a relationship on, Mr. Marvin. I mean, what would the two of you talk about? You wouldn´t have anything in common. I don´t know, it´s a pretty bizarre scene in a bizarre film and this is the only scene that made me the tiniest bit uncomfortable.

It´s hard to describe the feeling I got while watching this scene but I´ll give it a try: have you ever been in the situation where you´re at a party or at a bar and talking to someone who´s being very nice to you? Of course you have, unless you´re a complete recluse and socially handicapped in some way. Now, being the polite guy that you are, you´re being nice back to her. However, suddenly it dawns on you: the woman is flirting with you but you´re in no way interested in her! What you thought was just good-old fashioned politeness turns out to be aggressive flirting on her part and the fact that you were being nice back, means that she thinks that you were responding to her advances. How the hell are you gonna get out of this? That´s the kinda feeling I got while watching this scene. Unpleasant stuff but you don´t stop going to parties after experiencing this, do you? That´s why you shouldn´t let this one scene scare you away from watching this film. Cause let´s not forget that this was the 70´s and times were much more liberal then. Let´s not let this dubious scene cast a shadow of unpleasantness over this wonderful film.

One of the things that I love about this film is the way that Ritchie decided to shoot it. It´s all filmed in broad daylight in that gritty, realistic 70´s style but it´s filled with so many surrealistic touches. For instance, there´s a bizarre chase sequence on a beautiful corn field involving a harvesting machine. It´s pretty original, to say the least.

Then we have the odd scene where Mary Ann and his brother Weenie starts to play grab-ass in a kitchen. This goes on for several minutes and if you don´t enjoy watching Gene Hackman trying to grab another man´s balls, then you oughtta have your head examined, you lunatic! For me, watching a multiple Oscar-nominated actor of this caliber, reaching for another man´s scrotum is the highest form of entertainment, ever. By the way, Gregory Walcott who plays Weenie and gets his balls (or his wiener, maybe?) grabbed here, had a role in Ed Wood´s “Plan 9 From Outer Space”. How´s that for pedigree?

It´s hard to imagine Hackman starring in a film of this sort today. Whenever you hear the infamous “Grindhouse”-words in reviews and articles of such sort, this is the kind of weirdness they´re referring to. Apparently, a lot of critics were offended by this film when it was released. They found it vulgar and obscene and all sorts of things. I can guarantee that you, my jaded friend, won´t find it vulgar and obscene because you have seen so much more perverse things on your TV-screen (don´t try to deny it) and if you compare it to many of the films that are being released today, maybe “Prime Cut” is kinda tame. But you know what? I still think that you should check it out because there´s a strangeness and a weird vibe to it that I haven´t seen in many movies. When Robert Rodriguez made his movie version of “Sin City”, I think that this was along the lines of what they were going for. I don´t think that they managed it completely but they took a really good stab at it. They didn´t knock it out of the park, like Ritchie did, but they came close. That´s why you should see this one! It´s a weird, wonderful, cool little film of the sort that no one has the guts (haha, pun intended) to make anymore. It kinda makes me wish that someone would take a stab at remaking this one. I mean, Mel Gibson remade “Point Blank” and that resulted in “Payback” which was a pretty damn good film, so why not try this one? On the other hand, there´s no way in hell they would be able to top this one. It´s definitely one of a kind. Just like you are, my friend: unique! Don´t you ever forget that…

Until next time, lay off the hot dogs and take scare, fiends!

Thomas

A couple of days ago I got the new 3 Disc Super Deluxe Unrated Director´s Cut Limited Edition of Rob Zombie´s “Halloween”. I bought the first one but I´m a bit of a freak so I grabbed the bull by the horns and realized that I had to double-dip on this one ´cause you see, if there´s one thing that that Zombie guy knows, it´s how to make awesome DVD editions. So, out with the old and in with the new! If you don´t believe me, this edition has a commentary track by the Zombie himself AND a 4 and a half hour long “Making of”! That might be a bit of an overkill but at least you can´t accuse the guy for trying to rip off his fans. And you see, that´s a big part of why I love Rob Zombie and his films: for all intents and purposes, the guy seems like a genuine fan himself.

When this was released there was a lot of talk about Zombie ruining the mystique that surrounds the character of Michael Myers and the general consensus on the various nerd sites on the internet seems to be that Rob Zombie´s take on “Halloween” sucks pretty hard. I don´t know how to put this except: they are WRONG! That´s why I am here tonight: to set things straight, fiends, cause we all know that that is not the case. Rob Zombie´s “Halloween” is in fact the best thing that has happened to the franchise in a pretty long time! If you don´t agree with this, I´m sorry that I have to be the one to break this to you but you might in fact be out of your god damn mind!

Here´s what I think about Rob Zombie: the man fronted a pretty crappy band, then made a couple of record under his own name (his real name is Zombie, right?) that could´ve been so much better if he didn´t insist on drowning the songs in that industrial techno-crap. Then he decided that he wanted to direct and off he went and came back with an homage to 70´s horror flicks, “House of 100 Corpses”. It was pretty good. Not fantastic but definitely entertaining, mainly because of the great choice of actors in it, like Sid Haig, Bill Moseley and Karen Black.

Then something weird happened. Mr. Zombie decided to make a sequel. We know what will happen then, right? As a rule, part two is not as good as the first one. But you see, this rule didn´t apply to Zombie´s take on the second installment in the saga of the Firefly family. “The Devil´s Rejects” kicked “House of 1000 Corpses” ass in all ways imaginable! In fact, it has kicked almost every other film made during this century´s ass! It´s a bona fide masterpiece and a classic within its genre. I don´t know about you, but I sure as hell didn´t see that one coming.

That was why I was pleasantly surprised that Zombie was gonna direct a “redux” or “remake” or “re-imagination” or whatever the hell they call it nowadays of John Carpenter´s classic “Halloween”. Who´s better suited for this job? Surely not some young dude who cut his teeth directing MTV-commercials that only hyperactive kids on speed can understand what´s going on in them? Zombie managed to capture the spirit of 70´s horror cinema perfectly in his two previous films. At least that´s what I thought so I figured “Zombie is definitely the right man for this job! It´s gonna be awesome!” but then everyone started complaining like a bunch of school kids on their way to the cafeteria, expecting pancakes only to find out that they only serve soup. “Rob Zombie´s not the right man for this, he can´t do that, he´s a hack, he only rips off his favorite movies and no other director in history has ever done that so I think we should stone him to death etc etc…” Deal with it! Zombie has managed to make a career for himself in both music and film. And he´s married to Sheri Moon! I don´t know about you but he seems to be living a pretty good life. I wouldn´t mind walking a mile or two in his shoes. Once again, the prophecy of being ripped to pieces after first being celebrated comes true. The rage of the fanboys was unleashed upon poor Rob Zombie.

What I wonder is if anyone of these whiners ever did see “Halloween: Resurrection”? How anyone then can complain about a man of Zombie´s obvious talent taking on the franchise, is beyond me and what´s left of my limited intellect after all these years of unhealthy living and heavy drinking. But then again, what the hell do I know? I may be crazy but I prefer watching “The Devil´s Rejects” a thousand times before sitting through the last “Halloween” again, where a bunch of crappy actors ran around in an abandoned house while being filmed by a reality TV-producer, played by none other than Tyra Banks! If you don´t get what´s wrong with this picture, read that previous sentence again. I´ll wait for you while you do that. Done? Good. Pour yourself another drink and we´ll continue. That´s right: Tyra Banks! After that unholy mess of a movie, how the hell can you be unhappy with the choice of letting Rob Zombie take on Michael Myers? Did these people even see the last couple of “Halloween”-films where Michael ran around, caught up in some kind of druid-conspiracy? Jesus Christ, Rob Zombie is the best thing to happen to “Halloween” since John Carpenter left the franchise.

I don´t know about you but these last couple of years there have been quite a few “reduxes” that I thought was pretty good. You can´t deny that “Batman Begins” was the best Batman-film since Tim Burton´s “Batman Returns”. Or what about “Casino Royale”? That´s one of the better action films of recent years. So, I think it´s safe to say that we don´t have to crap our pants in fear when they announce that they´re gonna “re-start” a franchise. Hell, I even enjoyed the new “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. It doesn´t hold a candle to the original but it was a fun, twisted film and I liked it. Sue me. However, Michael Myers has a different following that old Leatherface. They are a bit more enthusiastic and verbal, if we put it that way.

Now, I have to admit that I can get pretty pissed off when I watch a sequel and the filmmakers decide that they have to reveal everything about the villain; the backstory, what kind of underwear they wear, what cereals they eat… It does take away from the mystery, in many cases. “Candyman” is an excellent example of that. Part 2 was a solid film but they revealed way too much about Mr. Candyman himself (strangely enough, not what kind of candy he likes. That would have been interesting to know). So sure, I´ll admit that Zombie´s “Halloween” definitely takes away the mystery of what it is that makes Michael Myers tick but let´s face it: we´ve had eight films with the William Shatner-masked guy, how long can we keep that illusion going, especially after the abomination that was “Resurrection”? When you listen to these people complain about how Zombie ruined Myers it´s like there´s no way ever that a film can be scary if you know the character´s background and I don´t buy that. I think that Zombie pulled it off excellently! He doesn´t keep it as mysterious as Carpenter did but instead he grounds it in reality in a way that I think is pretty believable and once again this is much due to the choice of actors that Zombie has managed to round up. Before we get on with the actors, I just wanna go on record and say Thank you, Mr. Zombie for resisting the urge to naming your film “Hall9ween”, like it was first rumored. I know that I´ve been ranting about this annoying habit of inserting numbers into movie titles here before, so I won´t bore you with that any further but thank you, Mr. Zombie. You´re a good guy.

So, the actors, then… Just like with “The Devil´s Rejects”, Zombie managed to assemble one hell of a cast. How´s this for a lineup: Malcolm McDowell (“A Clockwork Orange” among many, many other films), Brad Dourif (“Child´s Play”), Danny Trejo (take your pick), Udo Kier (living legend), Clint Howard (“Rock´n´Roll High School”), Tom Towles (“Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer”), Ken Foree (“Dawn of the Dead”) William Forsythe (“Out For Justice”) and Danielle Harris (“The Last Boy Scout”)… pheew! That´s quite a cast! If that doesn´t get your fanboy-heart pumping then you´re a lost cause, friend. I think it´s a safe bet to say that Zombie had the best ensemble cast of 2007.

However, I seem to remember there being quite a fuss about Malcolm McDowell replacing Donald Pleasence in the role of Dr. Loomis. It seemed that a lot of people still wanted Pleasance to play the role since he was the original actor and created the character but as far as I know, Donald Pleasence seem to be suffering from a slight case of being dead for many years and that may be what´s preventing him for accepting any roles nowadays. I´m no doctor or anything but I think this may have something to do with it. I´ll look into it. I know that McDowell has done his fair share of crappy films but given the right material, the man is a pretty incredible actor. He´s got that English accent so you´re bound to listen to whatever the hell he´s saying. It sounds sincere. Hell, he could be quoting Britney Spears-lyrics and get away with it. He´s also got that quality that´s so hard to define. You never know if he´s playing a good guy or a bad guy and that´s what makes him so much fun to watch. Now, add Udo Kier to the mix and I´m just a happy, happy guy.

William Forsythe, who plays Michael Myers stepdad, is as always incredible in this film. He´s one of my favorite actors when it comes to playing villains. He did a lot of those roles back in the late 80´s, early 90´s (“Out For Justice”, “Stone Cold”, “Firestorm” to name a few) and this man was put on this earth to say Rob Zombie´s lines! It´s an absolute joy to watch him as white-trash-drunken-stepdad-with-a-broken-leg Ronnie White in this one. One of my favorite lines in the movie is when he yells at Sheri Moon Zombie: “Bitch, I will crawl over there and I will skull fuck the shit out of you!” Zombie definitely has a talent for this kind of vulgar dialogue and I love it! I hope that he puts William Forsythe in every film he ever makes. If he doesn´t, I think that I may have to hire someone to skull fuck him! If a director has the opportunity to put William Forsythe in his movie then he´s a damn fool if he doesn´t.

Zombie also has a talent for making movies that feel sort of timeless. He´s clever enough not to include things that dates the movie at 2006. It could literally take place anytime between 1977 and 2006. Just like “The Devil´s Rejects “, it reminds of the Grindhouse films of yesteryear but it´s married to the technology of modern films in a wonderful way. This does not mean that Zombie includes CGI-effects, thankfully. He has the good taste to steer away from that, thank God!

Another thing that I really like about his approach is the fact that he doesn´t go for any inventive kills in this one. If you think about it, ever horror film nowadays has that, right? That´s getting kinda old now and how the hell are you gonna top those “Final Destination”-films and the traps in “Saw”? You might as well not even try. That´s what Zombie does in this one and it´s all the better for it. This definitely adds to the reality. People are killed with baseball bats and knives and some of the scenes are pretty harrowing. I think that the scene with Laurie Strode´s parents (played by none other than E.T´s mom, Dee Wallace) is especially harrowing. It doesn´t equal the motel scene in “The Devil´s Rejects” when it comes to sheer intensity but it´s definitely not easy to sit through. Let´s face it, this also adds to the realism of the piece. How scary is it when someone gets their head chopped off with a toaster or some other far-fetched household appliance? Not very, I say. That doesn´t mean that I don´t enjoy a good beheading with a kitchen blender or any other kitchen utensils as much as the next guy but I just think it´s scarier when Michael Myers goes after someone with those big knives or the baseball bat that he uses at the beginning.

Tyler Mane plays Myers in this one and I think he does a great job. Thank you, Mr. Zombie for agreeing with me on the fact that a villain is much scarier when it´s a big guy portraying ´em. I´ve been rambling about that here before and let´s face it: Myers is much scarier in this one than in the many of the previous installments. It feels like this huge monster of a man (Mane also played Sabretooth in “X-Men” so you know that he´s a big guy!) really is unstoppable, like Michael Myers is supposed to be.

I also like the fact that Zombie keeps the legacy of “white trash”-cinema alive. “White trash”-cinema is not a legitimate term or anything like that, it´s just something that I like to use when I try to sound intelligent (not sure if it works, though. Constantly referring to white trash may not be the best way to reach intellectual acclaim but as you all know I´m a bit of a rebel so who gives a damn?) but you know what kind of movies I´m talking about, right? “The Devil´s Rejects” was definitely a white trash-film and “Black Snake Moan” was another recent one that springs to mind. Basically, it´s the movies where at least a couple of characters act and talk like they live in trailer park in the American south. It also helps if the dialogue is kinda obscene and sexually frank. If you see the film in a theatre at least one third of the audience has to be offended and repulsed by either the characters or dialogue. That is “white trash” cinema, friends! William Forsythe and Sheri Moon Zombie (who´s character is a stripper. If that isn´t white trash, I don´t know what is) represents this element in “Halloween” and it´s definitely with these characters that Zombie has the most fun with. We definitely need more “White trash”-cinema, if you ask me. Every movie is improved if it has a character in a wifebeater, guzzling beer while spouting obscenities. Think about it… You know I´m right! I don´t know what this says about me as a person but I don´t care. It´s just too much fun watching William Forsythe behaving like one of those guys that always seem to get in a fistfight on “The Jerry Springer Show”. I mean come on! Who doesn´t enjoy that? I bet that´s why his legs are in a cast. It´s never explained why in the movie but I think I just solved it. He probably fooled around with someone´s wife that also turned out to be his aunt and then got invited on “The Jerry Springer Show” and then got his ass kicked by her Grizzly-hunting husband. Good work, Thomas….

So, what are some of the film´s weaknesses then? As always, I try to keep up the illusion of a serious, intellectual film appreciating guy so I will try to come up with something that I don´t like, even if it´s a tough job. I think that Zombie made one big mistake while casting the film. He cast Scout Taylor-Compton in the role of Laurie Strode and Danielle Harris in the role of her best friend, Annie Brackett. Anyone who´s seen the film can testify to the fact that this is obviously a big mistake. Those two girls should´ve switched roles. Danielle Harris should´ve played Laurie Strode and that´s all there is to it. “Halloween” fans have been awaiting her return to the franchise ever since she played Jamie Lloyd in “Halloween” 4 & 5 and it was well worth the wait. This is definitely one of the best young actresses working in horror today. It´s too bad that she doesn´t get that many good roles. For those of you out there, unfamiliar with her work, she´s also Bruce Willis´ daughter in “The Last Boy Scout”. You know, the little girl who drew the “Satan Claus”-picture. It´s a shame that she´s been stuck in the no man´s land of straight-to-DVD-horror. I hope that she gets more roles worthy of her talent after this. So, bad call there, Mr. Zombie. But you are forgiven ´cause after all, the fact that you did cast her at all is pretty cool. I guess that you can´t have everything.

So, it´s time to round off this little rant we got going here. I think that you should check this one out, if you haven´t already. You owe it to yourself. In case you didn´t get at all what I´ve been babbling about here above, here´s the short version: Rob Zombie rocks and his take on “Halloween” is the best thing to happen to the franchise in a very long time. I hope they make a sequel in the same style. Since it´s a school night I´m gonna let you go now. Walk straight home and don´t talk to any weird guys wearing white masks.

Oh, one more thing… Did I mention that Sybil Danning has a cameo? I didn´t? Well, she does and that´s pretty damn awesome. She played Stirba, the werewolf bitch in “The Howling 2: Your Sister is a Werewolf” and has been absent from the silver screen for way too long. Thanks for bringing her back, Mr. Zombie. You made the teenager in me very, very happy. He hasn´t been doing that good lately. He´s been in a bit of flunk but you took care of that. He´s fine now. Thanks to you, Mr. Zombie! he sends his best and would also like to add that if you could make that feature version of “Werewolf Women of the SS“-trailer you did for “Grindhouse“ he´d be extremely happy…

See ya in a couple of days and until then: take scare, stay sick & stay in touch, fiends!

Thomas

The other day I discussed ”28 Weeks Later” with a friend of mine. We came to the conclusion that if they´re gonna make another sequel, the director to that one is gonna have one hell of an act to follow. I wouldn´t want that job. Or maybe I would. Hmmm, that´s a tricky one… Anyway, I thought that the first one was pretty good but it had that damn shakycamerawork that I´m not too fond of but it was pretty good. Not fantastic and I remember that I was pretty pissed off when it was released because Danny Boyle and Alex Garland kept running their mouths in every damn paper that “these aren´t zombies, they are infected!”… That´s right, friends! This is what gets me going. Things like these are what I get worked up about! The fact that people are needlessly starving and dying holds no importance to me and are not relevant in any way but when some damn director tries to talk his way out of the fact that he´s basically making a George A. Romero-zombie movie… Well, that really ticks me off. Cause, let´s face it, Danny Boyle: you weren´t kidding anyone with that film. It´s not like anyone walked out of the theatre going:  “Man, what a great film!” and then his friend says “Yeah, I know! And how about those zombies? Man, they could really run. I´ve never seen that before in a zombie film“. The first guy then replies“What do you mean “zombies”? Which ones are you talking about? Are you referring to the ´infected´? ´Cause you know, they were infected with rage. They weren´t zombies. No Sir-e, not zombies, at all! I think you misunderstood that“. The other guy is forced into a state of contemplation and finally says “You know, you are absolutely right, Bob! I don´t know what I was thinking. I´m a little embarrassed now. I´ve really made a fool of myself. I think I need to be punished, sweet Master. My life is in your hands. Do what you must…”

Let´s face the facts, people: that conversation didn´t occur anywhere in the world. Maybe the last part but not the part before that. I am pretty damn sure of that. Anyhow, it´s time to move on but I´m warning you, Danny Boyle! You need to lay off the “No zombies”-crap in the future or else I´m gonna get angry. Don´t make me angry. You wouldn´t like me when I´m angry…

So then the sequel came out and it was even better. It was directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, a Spanish fellow who previously directed “Intacto” which, if you haven´t seen, you should definitely seek out. It´s a great film and it stars one of the greatest Swedes who´ve ever lived: Max Von Sydow! Max rules. Just ask Linda Blair. He saved her from the Devil, you know. And he´s Swedish! But this Fresnadillo guy really knocked “28 Weeks Later”, which if we´re gonna play by the rules should be a much inferior film, out of the damn park. Hell, he even knocked it out of the city wherever that park where everyone is playing some sort of game is located. That´s how good I thought it was. When it comes to sequels, it´s definitely one of the better of recent years. I wouldn´t go as far as saying that it´s on par with “Blade II” but it´s pretty damn close. And that´s saying a lot cause we all know that “Blade” and especially part II is a work of outstanding genius.

Anyway, so there we were, talking about how a third “28 Whatever Later” would be a pretty damn difficult film to make. The expectations are obviously gonna be extremely high. Which director would be good for the job? Our conversation didn´t last long enough for us to come up with any candidates because there were beers that had to be drunk and songs that had to be heard. But guess what? Then another friend (yep, I have two) asked me if I had seen this English horror film called “The Cottage”. “Yep, I have and it´s frickin´ great!” was my snappy reply. So I started thinking about the guy who directed “The Cottage” and I was wondering what he would do next. I was wondering if it would be something within the horror genre. And you are not gonna believe this, friends, but then something really spooky happened… It seems that the movie gods up there in the celluloid sky had heard my prayers because yesterday it was announced who the director of “28 Months Later” is gonna be and let me tell ya, I´m extremely happy about Danny Boyle & Co´s decision. They have decided to go with a fellow named Paul Andrew Williams, the director of… you guessed it, genius: “The Cottage”!

“Who the hell is this guy?” you ask. Let me enlighten you: this guy is definitely the most interesting British director working today. He´s directed two films and they´re both fantastic: “London to Brighton” and “The Cottage”. The first one is a brutal, gritty-as-hell crime film and the second one is a hilarious, bloody, horror-comedy. This guy has got it. In spades. He´s proved that he´s a great writer-director and he does the kind of films that I really enjoy, stories that take place in a limited timeframe and deals with pretty basic, simple premises. The fact that he also managed to make a British crime film without succumbing to that great enemy of the modern film: the dreaded shakycam that claimed such brave victims as the previously mentioned “28 Days Later”. This Williams guy is definitely one to keep an eye on.

That´s why I´m trying to get you to check out “The Cottage”, friends! Here´s what´s it about: In a remote part of the countryside, a bungled kidnapping turns into a living nightmare for four central characters when they cross paths with a psychopathic farmer and all hell breaks loose. Now, I don´t know about you but I think that every film that you can describe in one sentence (albeit a very long one) and end it with the phrase “… then all hell breaks loose” is a good film! That´s what we need more of in today´s films. Think about how many films that would have been improved if they would have gone that route. Imagine a film like, say… “Pretty Woman”! I have a hard time sitting through a movie like that but what if you had asked someone what it was about and they answered “It´s about this guy who pays a prostitute to pose as his girlfriend but she´s having a hard time fitting in with the crowd he´s hanging with and then all hell breaks loose…”. Now, that´s a movie I would like to see!

One of the best things about “The Cottage” is the actors that Williamson managed to round up for this very entertaining romp. Andy Serkis plays one of the kidnappers, David, and he´s the mastermind of this not-so-greatly-planned kidnapping. I don´t know if you´re familiar with this guy but apparently he was in a couple of movies that “Bad Taste”-director Peter Jackson made about some sort of aristocratic presence and a ring of some sort. I´m not sure. And according to imdb he did one more film with Jackson where he played a monkey of some sort. Maybe it´s something along the likes Clint Eastwood´s “Every Which Way But Loose”, where Clint drove around with an ape and got in a lot of fights. That would be pretty cool, wouldn´t it? Andy Serkis in a monkey suit, driving around the British countryside and beating people up. I´d definitely watch that one, too. Anyhow, David´s brother, Peter, is played by the hilarious Reece Shearsmith who´s a part of BBC´s “League of Gentlemen”-ensemble. If you haven´t seen this TV-series you are a damn fool! A damn fool, Sir! It´s one of the most bizarre, twisted things ever created for television. And it´s hilarious! That´s all I´m gonna say. Check it out! It´s an order. Sooner or later, you will see it and then I can guarantee that you will say to yourself: “Damn, why didn´t I listen to my good friend Thomas Lovecraft when he recommended this to me all those years back? I should´ve listened to him. That fucker was right, this show is awesome!” I´m just trying to save you some time here. Just watch the damn show, will ya?

So, Serkis and Shearsmith is definitely a fun pair to watch on the screen. They don´t look the least bit alike but you kinda buy them as brothers anyway. Shearsmith annoys the hell out of Serkis with all his little quirks and the fact that he keeps calling his wife over and over again and you can see Serkis boiling with anger, but he buys it cause after all, he´s his brother. That´s the way it works, right? I have two older brothers and they can really bug the hell out of me but in the end you always buy it. You still care for each other and this really comes across in “The Cottage”. Serkis and Shearsmith invest their characters with a lot more depth and compassion than we´re used to in a film of this sort and genre.

But Serkis and Shearsmith aren´t the only good actors in this one, oh no! Now, if my name was Paul Andrew Williams and I were about to direct a film called “The Cottage” I would be looking for a girl to play the kidnapping-victim, right? Suppose that this was the case, and then imagine the look on my face after Jennifer Ellison had walked into my casting-session. I can only imagine that Williams were jumping with joy after seeing her the first time. I´m not talking “Oh my God, I´m so happy!” but running-around-the-neighborhood-in-your-underwear-crazy-with-joy! Like that scary lady in “Sound of Music” that thought that the hills came alive with the sound of music, that´s how happy I would´ve been!

The thing is that when you´re about to make a horror film, the actresses needs to live up to certain… criteria’s, right? I don´t wanna spell it out and insult your intelligence but let´s face it: “horrorhound” equals “horndog”. So let´s just say that Miss Ellison is very well equipped. Very well equipped. The script also calls for her to swear like a newly paid sailor on leave in the filthiest harbor in Scotland, and she pulls it off! This girl needs to be in more horror films! It would be a disservice to horror fans all over the world if she doesn´t get the chance to make more films in the genre. Apparently, she got her breakthrough on a British soap called “Brookside”. I don´t watch that kinda shit but I am pretty sure that she didn´t get to swear up a storm and headbutt guys in that. This is a very funny film. It definitely reminded me of “Shaun of the Dead” in the way that it is very funny but it still takes the horror seriously. It doesn´t turn into a Monty Python-sketch and I am very grateful for that. It´s pretty bloody at times and the scenes out at the cottage and at the farmhouse near the end reminded me of a Norman J. Warren-film and that, my friends, is not a bad thing. Norman J. Warren is definitely one of the greatest directors that England has spawned and he made some pretty remarkable films back in the day. It kinda reminded me of his film “Prey” in the way that it is a pretty roughly made film, shot in the English country side, that turns on you after a while and you don´t know exactly what to expect.

I have to admire Williams for what he´s doing. He seems intent on making films within pretty separate genres and he deserves credit for it. In “London to Brighton” he showed nothing of the obvious talent for comedy that is on display in “The Cottage”. I have to admit, the Chinese hitmen are among the funnier things I´ve seen on screen in a long time. He also seems to be one hell of an actor´s director. I have no idea how he managed to get the performance he did out of young Georgia Groome in “London to Brighton”, but it´s pretty amazing. Another one of the things that I really liked about “The Cottage” was, like I mentioned, Serkis and Shersmith´s relationship but also the fact that when the film starts this relationship is obvious from scene one. We know that they are brothers and there´s no setup, we are thrown into all the bickering and arguing that these brother´s everyday-life consist of. Great stuff!

It´s getting late and I know that it´s a school night, kids, so I´m gonna let you off the hook for now. So what have we learned tonight (I like to think that you learn something, however trivial it may be, by taking the time to read my ramblings)? We have learned that Paul Andrew Williams is exactly the kind of filmmaker that we need more of today: a writer-director that´s not afraid to work in different genres. His first film was an ultra-realistic crime film that was pretty hard to sit through at times and the second one was a pitch black horror comedy filled with gore. And then there´s the third one. It´s a safe bet to say that “28 Months Later” won´t be filled with the kind of comedy that he gave us in “The Cottage”. I´m looking forward to seeing what his take on this franchise will be.

You know what, one last thing. Come to think of it this kinda reminds me of Richard Donner. He´s an extremely talented filmmaker that effortlessly jumps from genre to genre and he hasn´t gotten nearly the recognition that he deserves. If anyone deserves the Academy Award for Lifetime Achievement, it´s this guy! He was one of those guys that got me really interested in movies in the first place. Just look at his resume: “The Omen” (horror, as if you didn´t know that), “Superman” (some kind of superhero film, I´m not sure), “Ladyhawke” (fantasy), “The Goonies” (adventure), “Scrooged” (comedy), “Lethal Weapon” (action), “Maverick” (western) and “Conspiracy Theory” (Thriller). If those movies doesn´t float your boat you were either born too soon, too late or too stupid. Take your pick. If Williams is striving for a career like Donner´s, he´s gotten one hell of a good start. Role models are always good to have in life. Don´t forget that, kids!

So there you have it, folks. You got some homework to do until we speak the next time: You need to check out “The Cottage”, if you haven´t already seen it. There´s something for you to do this weekend. You need to set up goals in life and I think that particular goal is something that you will be able to achieve. “Do it! Do it now!”, like Anhuldt Schwarzenegger would say. I wanna hear what you think about it.

Until then: stay ghoul, stay sick & stay in touch!

Thomas

The other day I sat down with a friend to watch Steven Seagal´s latest straight-to-DVD-opus “Kill Switch” (you heard me right, Steven Seagal!). We decided that before we threw ourselves headfirst into the awesome world of Steven, we needed a dose of horror. I´m not sure if we got it or not. I know we got something. You see, we decided to check out this new DVD-release called “Pathology”. It´s one of those films that I bet the filmmakers describe with the old tired tirade: “You know, it´s not really a horror film… It´s more of a psychological thriller. A really twisted psychological thriller and sure, it has its fair amount of guts and gore, but it´s absolutely not a horror film!”

You know that song and dance, don’t you? Directors and producers that doesn´t have the guts to admit that they´re really making a horror film, in fear of alienating the audiences that claim that they “don´t like horror movies” but for some reason get their kicks from a twisted, dark psychological thriller with violence and sex? What the hell is up with that? Do these people even exist? People who watch a movie and draw some kind of invisible line in the sand between psychological thriller and horror? I´m not entirely sure where you separate the two genres. I think that they kinda walk hand in hand, don´t they? Take, for argument´s sake, a movie like “The Shining”. I think that it´s definitely a horror movie. It´s one of the best within the genre ever but I know a lot of people who say that they don´t like horror movies but they really like “The Shining”. Why? Cause it´s a damn good movie, that´s why! I hate it when filmmakers try to distance their films from the horror genre. Wimps! But now it´s time to get back to “Pathology”. As you geniuses out there might have figured out, this film takes place in the world of hospitals and doctors. There´s something you should know about me: I HATE TV-series about hospitals! I can´t stand them. I´m not that fond of movies that takes place in that world, either, but I dare you to find one TV-show that is set in a hospital that´s worth spending one minute of your life watching. It can´t be done. “Grey´s Anatomy”? A show about whining, unsympathetic doctors and nurses that spend an entire season doing nothing but cry, cry, cry. Somebody get these damn doctors a place on “Dr. Phil”, already. What about “E.R.”? Ah, you mean the show that never ends? It blows, too. But then we have “House”: a show where the episodes are so similar that you can´t tell them apart and the lead character is such a whining, bitter asshole that it would take all of five minutes to punch him in the mouth if you ever were committed to that damn hospital. A show like that´s exactly what we need, right? Wrong! “General Hospital”? Yeah, right… I´m not even gonna go there. But what about “Scrubs” then? Yeah, a comedy show that´s not even remotely funny. What a brilliant, groundbreaking idea! Somebody shake the hands of the morons that came up with that idea. You see, it can´t be done! You can see why my expectations weren´t that high when we flipped “Pathology” into the DVD tray.

But you know what? I kinda enjoyed it, despite my deep-rooted hate for the hospital genre and all that it entails. It´s not perfect, pretty goddamn far from it, to be honest, but it´s pretty fun. There´s some bizarre touches to it that made me enjoy it more than I would watching Noah Wylie run around the ER room, all misty-eyed. Here´s what it´s all about: Harvard Medical School graduate Dr. Ted Grey (played by Milo Ventimiglia and in this one his character even shares the name with that goddamn “Grey´s Anatomy” series. When I noticed this I feared that we were gonna be in for a bumpy ride) arrives at one of the nation’s most prestigious Pathology programs and is quickly noticed by the program’s privileged and elite band of pathology interns who invite him into their crowd. It is also here, where he is introduced to Dr. Jake Gallo (played by Michael Weston who I just looked up on imdb and it turns out that this guy has had guest roles on both “ER”, “Scrubs” AND “House”. What´s this guy´s problem?), who brings him to a secluded wing, where he and four other indulge in their after-hours, extra-curricular activities… finding ways to commit the perfect murder!

So, we´ve established that I hate hospital shows. We can all agree on that. I loathe them with all of my bruised heart. But then the filmmakers pulled a fast one on me. They mix in a subgenre that I´m pretty fond of: you know the one where the lead character is drawn into a world he didn´t knew existed, filled with perverted pleasures and temptations. You know, kind of like Donna Tartt´s book “The Secret History”. I like that and I like watching the lead character fall for all the temptations that they are exposed to. Unfortunately, “Pathology” kinda screws that up. The fall from grace that Ventimiglia experience here aren´t totally believable. Here´s the deal:

Ted Grey is an extremely talented medical student. I´m talking off-the-charts-talented! This guy is the best thing to happen the science of pathology since they invented the scalpel, for all I know. Not only that, the guy has a girlfriend. You´d figured as much, right? But you see, his girlfriend is none other than Alyssa Milano. That´s right, Alyssa Milano from that show about the witches starring Brenda from “Beverly Hills 90210” and that other girl who used to sleep with Marilyn Manson. In case you didn´t know this, that girl is quite a looker. And Dr. Grey is dating her. And she´s extremely rich! In one scene, her dad guarantees Ted a job in Washington DC that´s supposed to be the best job in the whole world. This guy has obviously won the jackpot. His set-up is just too sweet and that´s why it´s not that likely that he would start to fall for his classmate, Juliette (played by Lauren Lee Smith). She´s definitely a pretty girl and all that, but come on! The guy has Alyssa Milano at home and she obviously adores him and has loads of money. I don´t buy it. I don´t buy it at all.

Juliette is obviously a girl with some issues. She lies a lot and that´s not a good thing. I mean, that´s a turn-off, but that´s just me speaking. One of the more interesting scenes in the movie is when it´s time for Juliette to murder someone. She convinces Ted to go along with her and it isn´t just some random dude she wants to kill, either. It´s her dad. She tells Ted about how her dad raped her when she was a kid. That´s a pretty awful thing for anyone to live through, so Ted feels sorry for her and being the nice guy that he is says “Sure thing, I´ll help you kill the old perv!”, just like any decent guy would, right? He tags along with her and they go to the old man´s trailer (a pretty rundown, disgusting place) and talks to the dad for a while, offers him some weed and it´s pretty clear that he´s a sleazeball. He puts his hand on Juliette´s lap and there´s no doubt that they´ve had sexual relations. So, after they´ve smoked the weed, they kill the old dude (or “Fat Bastard” as he´s credited as) and this makes Ted so incredibly horny that he rips Juliette´s clothes off and has pretty rough sex with her there, on the floor in front of the Fat Bastard´s corpse. But since Juliette´s such a lying, conniving, mean girl, it is later revealed that Fat Bastard was not her father! Holy crap, Ted was just dealt a pretty lousy hand in the game of life.

I definitely think that the filmmakers missed an opportunity here. It´s pretty obvious that Juliette has had sex with the guy, so what the hell is their relationship? Why the hell would Juliette jump into bed with this freak? Did I mention that Fat Bastard is played by Larry Drake? I didn´t? Sorry about that. Fat Bastard is played by Larry Drake. There you go. You know who I´m talking about, right? Drake played the retarded guy on “L.A. Law”, the bad guy in Sam Raimi´s “Darkman” and the lead in the deeply underrated “Dr. Giggles” (now there was a missed opportunity for a great franchise). Fat Bastard is clearly one of the more interesting characters in the movie but they kill him off immediately. I mean, he´s called “Fat Bastard”. If that´s not interesting, I don´t know what is. Imagine when the guy introduces himself: “Hello, how you doin´? Bastard, Fat Bastard. That´s right, that´s my real name. I know, it´s pretty unusual. It´s an old family name. Please, call me “Fat”. “Mr. Bastard” was my father´s name. That´s alright…” Bad call, filmmakers!

There´s another character in this film that doesn´t get as much space as I would´ve liked. I´m talking about Ted´s teacher, Dr. Quentin Morris, played by John De Lancie. For those of you out there who hasn´t gone totally nerd-like and claim to never have seen an episode of any “Star Trek” show, De Lancie´s the guys that used to play Q on the “Star Trek: Next Generation” show. He´s done a bunch of other things, but I´ve never seen him in anything else but as it turns out here, he´s a pretty solid actor and manages to be pretty sympathetic and weird at the same time. In one scene, he sits down with Ted and expresses his concern for him since it´s obvious that he´s using drugs. He tells Ted that “God knows I´ve done my share”.

So, Dr. Morris probably did some experimenting of his own while in med school but that´s not the thing that I find the most interesting. The character of Dr. Morris is friends with Alyssa Milano´s rich dad (they probably went to school together and freebased formaldehyde while kidnapping corpses), so when Milano sees him at a party she runs up to him and throws her arms around him. He obviously has known her since she was a little girl, right? Morris then looks at her and says “You´re looking very… sexual tonight”. I don´t know about you, but I think that´s a pretty creepy thing to say to one of your best friends daughters whom you´ve know her whole life. She, on the other hand, just laughs about it and acts like nothing just happened! While her boyfriend is standing right there beside her! What kind of people acts this way? Ted doesn´t even seem to think that this is odd. “Oh, those wacky, crazy, rich, depraved, inbred people”, right? I think that I would´ve at least confronted her about what the hell was going on if her dad´s friends were openly coming on to her. I´m pretty sure about that but now that I think about it, Ted and me don´t have that much in common. To him this is probably not even the least bit strange. After all, he´s not opposed to having rough sex on a dirty floor in front of the Fat Bastard that he´s just helped kill. I´m definitely more conservative than this.

“Pathology” is written by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor (or “Neveldine & Taylor” as the credits say) and they´re the guys responsible for the Jason Statham-starring “Crank” and if you´ve seen that film, you know that these guys like to turn things up to eleven. I can see what they were trying to do with “Pathology”. They were probably trying to create a dark, twisted thriller that explores the perversions of the human psyche and how far we can be pushed. That´s probably what they were going for and in the hands of another director, this might´ve been that kind of film but as it is now, this film plays out like an episode of “Grey´s Anatomy” with added sex scenes and gore. That´s all good for an hour and half but it´s not gonna leave any lasting impression on you, that´s for sure.

But after seeing this one and “Crank”, I have to wonder about those guys experiences with girls. If you´ve seen “Crank”, you know what scenes I´m talking about, right? I´m talking about the one where Jason Statham decides to have sex with Amy Smart in the middle of the street and basically starts raping her. Not a nice thing to do, but you know what? She ends up enjoying it. Like all girls do, eventually. Don´t think so, kids. And what about the few female characters in “Pathology”? We have Milano´s character who´s obviously a saint who adores and loves her boyfriend and supports him in whatever he does. Then we have Juliette, who´s a crazy, promiscuous, volatile bitch. I don´t know, guys. I think you need to get out more and meet more girls. I think it will do wonders for your future script-writing assignments. It´s obvious that your working relationship isn´t that healthy. Why else would you wanna be credited as “Neveldine & Taylor”, without your first names, like you live in some sort of symbiosis? Maybe you should sign up at one of those internet-dating services, I don´t know, but try to get out of the house a little more often.

I don´t wanna write the film off completely. It´s was pretty entertaining but I felt that it could have been so much more. But you know what? Shit happens and I guess I´m just gonna have to get over it. Lucky for me, we watched a Steven Seagal-flick after this one. Now, that´s what I call top-of-the-line-filmmaking.

That´s it for me. Have a great week and see ya soon. Until then: take scare & stay ghoul!

Thomas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After “Thriller”, director Vibenius made another film, “Breaking Point”. I´ve never seen this one but from what I´ve heard there´s supposed to be even more hardcore sex and it´s supposed to be even dirtier and grittier. I don´t know much about it except the fact that it´s about a man who apparently rapes and kills women. If this were to be released on DVD, I would definitely check it out but as it is now, that film holds no allure for me. I think it´s a shame that Vibenius hasn´t made any more films since, though. He obviously knows his way around a camera and I would´ve loved to see him make more films starring Christina Lindberg. Imagine a sequel to “Thriller”! I would love to see that. Imagine the voice-over on the trailer: “They call her One-Eye… and she´s back! And she´s angry!” Why the hell didn´t anyone think of that? I´m sure that Vibenius has, but the man seems to have a bit of a problem when it comes to collaborating with people. Apparently, Synapse was supposed to release “Breaking Point” as well but they had a falling out over some financial issues.

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

Now it´s time to dive headfirst into the weekend and all the trials and tribulations that that entails. Hope you have a great one!

See ya next week!

Thomas