Last Blog On The Left

I am absolutely fascinated with the concept of the literary hoax. I have been ever since 2006 when it was revealed that the shy author JT Leroy was not a man, like he/she had claimed to be, and that the guy who had been claiming to be Leroy at public readings wasn´t even the girl who had written the books. I was absolutely mesmerized by this affair. As it turned out, a woman named Laura Albert had written the books and then struck up a bunch of friendships with respected authors who had become fans of Leroy. She also spoke to many of them on the phone, using a southern drawl, as JT Leroy.

The fact that Albert managed to keep up this whole illusion for over ten years is absolutely fantastic! Many people were furious when they found out but to be honest, I was kinda pleased. First of all, the “autobiographical” books that Leroy wrote are extremely harrowing and although there are many people on this planet who´ve experienced a fate similar to his, it felt good to know that this fragile boy never had been the subject of such abuse and sexual violence that he wrote about. After a while I realized that I found the tale of the Leroy-hoax to be much more interesting than the books themselves. Who the hell really cares if the books aren´t based on facts? Does it make it a lesser book? Does it diminish the author´s accomplishment? I don´t think so. I think it further enhances the author´s accomplishment ´cause after all, isn´t every author´s goal to write a ripping good yarn?

Take for instance the case of James Frey, who wrote an unflinching memoir about his life as an addict and an alcoholic, “A Million Little Pieces”. He went on “Oprah” and told everyone about his messed up life as a junkie and how he´d gotten in trouble with the law on numerous occasions. Hell, the fact that the guy was still sitting there was nothing short of a miracle! Here was a tale to give us all hope, Oprah was crying and Frey´s book was selected for Oprah´s book club. That meant that it went on to sell a gazillion copies and Frey kept appearing on the show. Hell, I remember one time that he went with a camera crew to visit a girl who´d written to the show after seeing him appear there, telling them about how she wanted to kick the drugs and go straight. Frey sat there and held her hand and told that “if I could do it so can you” or something along those lines.

Well, as it turned out Frey never was a criminal junkie-alcoholic addict. Oprah crapped her pants and went ballistic along with everyone else in America. I admit that I enjoyed watching Frey being put on the stand when this went public and the fact that he sat there holding that woman´s hand kinda left a bad taste in my mouth. But you know, that doesn´t change the fact that millions of people saw something in his book that gave them hope and a reason not to give in or give up. Who cares if it´s not the truth per se? I sure as hell don´t.

I don´t know what it is about these two examples that fascinates me so. It may be the fact that when someone finally reveals the real truth, it´s usually makes for an excellent detective story. Or maybe it´s the whole idea of the public and intellectual elite eating up Leroy´s devastating tales of suffering and misery, only to be furious when they turn out not to be true, instead of relieved. Why do people have this need of wallowing in other people´s misery? Is it because we need constant acknowledgement that our lives isn´t so bad after all? The fact that I have to do my laundry after working eight hours at my boring job doesn´t seem so bad after reading how James Frey wakes up covered in shit and blood in an alley or how poor little JT is being raped in the ass at a truck stop while his mother charges the guy who does it, right?

Well, this brings us to today´s movie, “The Night Listener”, based on a novel by Armistead Maupin. And guess what? It´s based on a true story. Albeit a true story about lying, but that´s what makes this movie so creepy and fascinating.

Gabriel Noone (Robin Williams) is a late night radio-host in what looks to be New York. When Gabriel’s lover decides he needs some “space” and moves out, Gabriel descends into a state of depression until a publisher friend (Joe Morton) brings him a manuscript written by 14 year-old Pete Logand (Rory Culkin), a troubled young fan. Pete’s story touches Gabriel deeply.  The boy was severely abused by his parents and is now under the care of his former social worker, Donna Logand (Toni Collette), who´s adopted him. Pete is very ill and he and Donna are keeping a low profile in a small town in Wisconsin to avoid discovery by Pete’s mother. After a while Gabriel develops a long-distance telephone relationship with the boy and Donna. However, soon Gabriel becomes suspicious of Donna and her motives…

Now, let´s be clear about one thing: this is not a horror film, ok? It is however one of the creepiest films I´ve seen in the last couple of years. Unfortunately, it´s very hard to pinpoint exactly what it is that makes this movie so god damn creepy. But since I am such a fantastic guy, I´m gonna give it a try. Just for you, my friends…

The last time Robin Williams ventured into this territory was with the excellent “One Hour Photo” where he played a repressed photo clerk and we can all agree that he was pretty great in that flick. But that was back when we hadn´t seen Williams in those kind of roles before so the shock of realizing that this guy can actually act without screaming one liners all the time was too much for some of us. Now we know that Williams is an accomplished dramatic actor. And he´s never been better than he is in this one. Forget about “Good Fucking Will Hunting”! This is Robin Williams at his best! “Patch Adams” is forgiven, ok? Not once do we see him bursting into one of his trademark smiles or impersonating a black girl.

You might be wondering why in the hell I had that long rant at the beginning about all those literary hoaxes? Well, as it turns out this movie is based on real events that happened the author and screenwriter Armistead Maupin. I´m pretty much gonna give away the rest of movie here so if you haven´t seen it, avert your eyes, ok? SPOILER up ahead!!!

You see, the real life “boy” was called Anthony Godby Johnson and he wrote a book called “A Rock and a Hard Place” and Maupin had contact with him. Well, as it turned out this Johnson didn´t exist and was the creation of caretaker Vicki Johnson. This caretaker person is portrayed by Toni Collette in the movie and let me tell you, she´s pretty scary here. This woman deserves more recognition. She´s one of those actresses that you don´t think about too often but she played that creepy kid´s mom in “The Sixth Sense”. She´s not a typical beauty but she´s skilled as hell! The reason that this woman isn´t more known to the average joe is because she´s too good, if you ask me. She´s a fucking chameleon and in this movie she plays a woman with some serious issues. Let´s say that her grip on reality isn´t what it´s supposed to be. She´s also blind. At least I think she is. That´s not made clear. It´s not really explained and that´s one of the creepiest things about the movie. There´s a scene where Williams is hiding from her in the shadows when she´s walking by and she turns and looks straight at him and then keeps on walking, that nearly made me crap my pants! I mean, what kind of a person pretends to be blind? That´s some creepy shit. Why would you do that?

You see, this is that kind of movie that uses small means to play tricks on your mind. When you watch it, you might think when the credits roll that “What the hell was all the fuss about? That was a boring movie, man…” but I guarantee that within a couple of days, scenes from this flick will be playing on repeat in your perverted skull. Particularly the scenes involving Collette. Her character perfectly embodies that moment when someone who up to certain point´s been acting in a passive aggressive way turns to real aggressive. Scary stuff! She´s pretty amazing in this role. Amazing and disturbing. Kind of like many women I´ve known, come to think of it.

So, there´s no monster in this flick. Not the kind we´re used to, anyway. But I have faith in you, friends, and I hope that you´ll give this one a chance despite the fact that this isn´t a straight up horror flick. I didn´t expect much from this one going in and I never expected that a scene involving someone trying to get a straight answer out of someone could be so god damn creepy, but it is. The scenes between Williams and Collette are very uncomfortable and I think that depends on the fact that we are so seldom caught lying. If you tell a white lie or if you know that a friend of yours is lying, how often do you confront them with that? Not very often. Actually, I did it the other week and it ended kind of awkward. The person just up and left. This is one of the unspoken rules in our society: if someone´s lying, don´t call their bluff because it´ll just be too awkward for both parties. That´s one of the best things about “The Night Listener”! It begs you to not accept everything you are told. Williams´ character does so at first, like so many of us would because who the hell would make up a story like that, right? Well, the sooner you learn that people do lie, the better, I think.

Hey, know what I just noticed? This is the second movie in a matter of weeks that I´ve recommended where the lead character is gay. And I´m not even making a big thing out of it! Christ, I´m an open minded fucker. Just thought I´d let you know that.

Now, before we end this thing I mentioned earlier that I´ve seen all these episodes of “Oprah” with James Frey, right? I just wanna let you know that that´s not a habit of mine, ok? I don´t follow the show or anything. Let´s get that clear here. I consciously sought out those episodes featuring James Frey, ok? That also meant that I had to watch a few minutes of those fucking episodes where Oprah just gives away different shit to her audience. “Here´s a new Blackberry, woooh-oooh!” What the hell is up with those episodes, huh? Who wants to watch that? There´s truly the evidence that Oprah has become too big for her own good! Does she think that constitutes good TV? Well, it doesn´t.

And have you ever seen a man in that audience? No, you haven´t and do you know why? Because he would freak out before the credits was over. Maybe there are a couple of guys there but they´re probably in a fetal position, covering their ears and crying because no man on the surface of this planet would be able to cope with all that screaming. Christ, I have trouble dealing with one lady screaming so “Oprah” would probably ruin me. Honestly, what do they feed these women before the show starts? Meth-amphetamine and Red Bull? The sound level of that show…

Anyway, that´s it for me this time around. See ya next week and smoke ´em if you got ´em!

Thomas

Mario Bava was a master of Italian horror, there´s no doubt about that. Even though he didn´t have quite an illustrious career as say Dario Argento, there´s no denying the fact that the man was some kind of cinematic genius. It has been said countless times and there have been countless books and articles about the man´s work, so I´m not gonna try to come up with anything groundbreaking. I´m too lazy for that so I will just repeat a bunch of stuff that I´ve heard other people say and then try to pass it off as my own ideas. Because you see, Tim Lucas of “Video Watchdog”-fame has probably already said all there is to say about the man. I´m just kidding. I will try to come up with something of my own. Here we go, friends. Grab a quick drink before we start…

Let´s start by stating the obvious. Bava was a visual genius and he made some pretty darn good movies. “Black Sunday” is one of the great classics of the gothic horror genre. Some of his other films, like “A Bay of Blood”, “Kill, Baby Kill!” and “Baron Blood” belongs among the classics of the genre and I think that those movies are fine. I enjoy them but I can´t say that I am a fanatic Bava-fan. I admire him and definitely think that the man was ahead of his times. This becomes brutally apparent when you watch one of the last films that he directed (together with his son Lamberto Bava), “Rabid Dogs” aka “Kidnapped”. This is without a doubt my favorite Bava-film… and it´s not a horror film!

Hey, what´s wrong with this picture, you ask. Nothing, I answer. Just sit back and hear me out: “Rabid Dogs” may not be a horror film, but it certainly is a pretty horrific film at times. This flick firmly plants its feet in the crime-exploitation genre with a certainty that can only be achieved when you have a director working at the top of his game. Italy was famed for its many films in this genre and this is absolutely one of the best I´ve ever seen. It does not resemble any of Bava´s earlier work in any way whatsoever and I find that pretty amazing. The man was known for his stylistic direction and his characters tend to speak in that stilted, theatrical way that they do in old horror movies. You know, Hammer and that kind of stuff: “So we meet again, my dear Count…” No one really talks that way when they meet a real vampire Count named Dracula, do they? That´s just unrealistic.

But anyway, the thing is that Bava cut himself loose from that kind of filmmaking with this film and really let his nihilism and mean streak run wild. Bava was 60 years old when he directed this film and that´s pretty hard to believe when you watch it. Like Tim Lucas says on his commentary track on the DVD: “This is not the film of a 60 year old man, this is the film of a young man”. Indeed it is, Mr. Lucas. You nailed it! Bava directs with a fervor that´s betrays his age and he soaks the film in depravity. That´s why I like it. Cause I´m a bad, bad man…

Lucas also mention that this is the only of Bava´s films that entirely takes place in the real world. It´s a pretty realistic and gritty film. In fact it´s so gritty that you think that your TV screen is gonna be all scratched up and shit when you´re done watching it. They don´t make films like this anymore. That´s why I seek comfort in the bottle, friends…

Here´s the story for you lazy suckers who can´t muster the energy to look it up yourself: A gang of thieves hijack a man’s car after botching their getaway from a robbery. They take a woman prisoner and command the man to drive them to safety. The man must try to cope with the bad situation he is in as well as trying to get help for a sick child that he is caring for.

Now, let it be said that these thieves aren´t the brightest criminals in movie history. I wonder if they planned their heist at all. It´s a miracle that they´ve managed to avoid jail this long, if you ask me. But hey, that´s just my opinion! I am not versed in the ways of a life on the wrong side of the law, but I think that their ways of conducting a robbery and taking hostages leaves a little to be desired for. For instance, one of the criminals, Dottore (played by Maurice Poli), accidentally knifes one of the girls in the throat but hey, he didn´t mean it! Give him a break! And this is only five minutes into the film. How often do you get that in the opening of a movie? One of the guys you are supposed to root for kills a beautiful young woman by accidentally sticking a knife in her throat! Good move, Bava! You know that this isn´t gonna be one of those ordinary heists-gone-wrong-then-the-criminals-kidnapps-someone-while-they´re-on-the-run-movies. You know what I´m talking about, don´t you? That´s an entire subgenre of its own and there´s probably a lot snappier name for it but I think my definition did the trick, too. You know what movies I´m talking about: “Reservoir Dogs”, “Hitchhike” and “Dog Day Afternoon”. One thing that these films have in common (except the obvious thematic they share story-wise) is the sense of dread and doom that infuses every frame of these movies. You know that the end won´t be a happy one and that is what keeps you on the edge of your seat. You know that the majority of the characters are gonna end up dead one way or another, but you´re not quite sure which ones. I mean, after that opening scene, no one is safe. You´re not even sure if the little kid is gonna survive. You´re not even sure if you´re gonna survive yourself. Now, that´s a good movie!

Bava also manages to slip some really, really obscene dialogue in there, too. I´m talking Grade A-offensive stuff here and I don´t mean that “fuck”, “shit” and “motherfucker”- type of dialogue that they got going on in today´s crime movies. No, sir! This is some sick stuff we´re subjected to here. At one point, Dottore asks the girl who they´ve kidnapped (played by Lea Lander) if they should cut off the small boy´s balls so that she can use his “little penis as a necklace?” You don´t get that kind of dialogue on “CSI”, my friends. These characters are very, very depraved.

There´s not that many scenes of on-screen violence but Bava deliberately designs many of the scenes in a way that their sole reason is to make you squirm in your seat. There is one particularly squirm-inducing sequence, after Lander´s character has tried to escape, that manages to be extremely harrowing without a single act of violence. Much of this is thanks to George Eastman´s fantastic performance as Trentadue (which means “Thirty two” and I think you can guess which limb of his body has this length. It´s not his arm). I´m sure that many of you recognize him from such utterly fantastic films as “Hands of Steel” (where the hell is the DVD release of that magnificent film?), “2019: After the Fall of New York” and “1990: The Bronx Warriors”. In other words: the man is god damn legend. Eastman has been in so many insanely cool exploitation movies over the years that it´s hard to remember them all. He even managed to work his way into a Fellini-movie. I can´t remember which one, though and that´s not really important, is it? This is not that kind of a blog. The thing is that Eastman is a pretty intense actor and he definitely is a big factor in why “Rabid Dogs” works so well. Also, he´s pretty damn tall so he can be quite imposing when he wants to. I´m a pretty tall guy myself and I always appreciate it when the bad guys in movies got the height to back up their threats. A short guy isn´t as scary, really. I know that I´ve rambled about this earlier but to illustrate my point, let me give you an example:

I don´t know if anyone out there remembers John McNaughton´s fantastic film “Mad Dog and Glory” starring Robert De Niro and Bill Murray. In a brilliant casting decision, De Niro played a shy cop and Bill Murray played a gangster (instead for the other way around, which would have been the obvious way to go, suckers!). Now, Bill Murray had never ever before this appeared to be a threatening presence in any kind of way in any movie. Yet he manages to actually be kind of scary in a couple of scenes in this one and a lot of this has to do with his height. Bill Murray is a tall guy. I can bet my ass that he can be pretty imposing if he wants to. He sells the scary gangster-vibe that he´s got going in “Mad Dog and Glory” partly because he´s tall! He has the physical power to back up the shit he talks. Imagine if another comic played this part. Say… Martin Short? Who´s gonna be scared of Martin Short? What´s he gonna do: head-butt you in the stomach? Actually, that is kind of a scary thought…

George Eastman also sweats a lot in this film and that can be pretty scary. No one, and I mean no one likes a big, tall guy with a beard that sweats a lot. I know this from experience. People who sweat cannot be trusted. You should avoid them like the plague. I mean, think about it: how often do you see a hero in a movie sweating like a pig? It´s always the no good, rotten to the core-bastard bad guy, isn´t it? It´s a sign of evil, folks! Stop sweating, for chrissakes!

Like I mentioned earlier, the movie comes packed to the rafters with nihilism and grittiness and you can definitely see the influence it has had on the crime thrillers produced during the 90´s. But one thing that really elevates it above so many other crime-exploitation films is the fact that you actually get an insight into how the criminal operates. Bava is smart enough not to try to offer up any kind of explanation on why these men have become this way but you kinda understand how they reason, even though you don´t agree with them. This is something that most crime films fail at and this is why “Rabid Dogs” manages to be so fascinating. These criminals are not heroic in any way. Admit it, almost all movies you watch where there´s a criminal character in the lead, we always know that this guy, deep down in his soul is inherently good, right? In many cases it even turns out that he´s some sort of former cop or military that has gotten discharged, right? Not so in this case. These criminals are deadbeat, down-on-their-luck-guys that are going nowhere fast and the lack of respect for all things decent and good in this world really comes across in every scene. Not many movies have the guts to go this far in their depiction of criminals. This is not one of those films where you walk away thinking that a life of crime might not be such a bad idea after all.

If you´ve seen any of Bava´s films, one of the things that really stands out is his camerawork. Bava was his own cinematographer and let´s just say the fucker knew how to frame a shot, ok? He was responsible for some amazing angles. “Rabid Dogs” might be his best example on this. Almost the entire film takes place inside a small car and Bava really enhances the claustrophobia and the oppressing heat that the characters have to endure. There´s some really interesting angles on display in this one, for you serious movie buffs out there.

Whenever I watch this one, I´m reminded of an old 40´s film called “The Devil Thumbs a Ride” (that has got to be one of the coolest titles ever!) starring Lawrence Tierney (who played Joe Cabot in “Reservoir Dogs” and Elaine´s dad on “Seinfeld”) as ruthless killer Steve Morgan. He thumbs a ride with an innocent, clean-cut guy and decides to make his life a living hell. Kind of like “The Hitcher”, only about 40 years earlier. It´s been many years since I saw this one but I remember it as being really nihilistic and sadistic. “Rabid Dogs” is in many ways the same kind of film. It´s a brutal experience and I am sure that my memory has played its tricks on me when it comes to “The Devil Thumbs a Ride” (I´m sure it´s not nearly as good as I remember. Hell, I even remember my teens as a pleasant time so that goes to show for how reliable my memory is), but I can guarantee you that Bava´s film still holds up.

I definitely think that this is Bava´s masterpiece. It makes me really sad (hey, there´s nothing wrong with showing a little feeling! Never apologize for getting emotional, kids!) when I think about the fact that Bava ran out of money at the end of the production. That´s why his son Lamberto had to complete it and why it wasn´t released until 1997. Bava made an incredible effort to re-invent himself with this film but it didn´t work out in his favor. Instead he got one of the greatest comebacks in cinema history, more than 25 years after his own death. I´m sure that he would have liked that too, as dark and depraved as the old man obviously was…

Man, they really knew how to make movie back in the 70´s. The real know-it-all´s talk about the 70´s as the “golden age of cinema” and you know what, they´re not half wrong. After all, directors like Sam Peckinpah were still alive back then and making fantastic movies like “Straw Dogs”. Actually, if you like Peckinpah´s films you should definitely give “Rabid Dogs” a try. Or if you´re into sick stuff like “Last House on the Left” (shame on you!), then this one is definitely for you. Every self-respecting girl and boy needs a little nihilism and depravity every now and then. It´s good for the soul. Seek this one out and then impress your mundane friends when they start talking about the latest Tarantino-ripoff they just watched. Just don´t show it on a first date or something like that. That might put your sex-life on hold for a while…

Anyway anyhow, that´s it for me. I hope some of you actually do see it. I know that you will thank me later for it. You will say “Thank you Thomas, for telling me about Mario Bava´s masterpiece “Rabid Dogs”! I didn´t know about that one and I would´ve gone through my whole life without seeing it, if it weren´t for you and your excellent taste. Is there anything I can do to repay you or show my gratitude?” and that´s when I´ll lean back, light another cigarette, look deep into your eyes and answer: “Just promise that the next time you have sex… make the girl call you “Thomas” and then we´re even…”

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas (and don´t you forget it, sucker!)

If there´s one subject that filmmakers should be careful when they decide to tackle it, it´s child abuse. If I was a director and decided to make a movie with this element in it, I´d be scared shitless! It´s kinda hard to shrug your shoulders if you fail miserably at it and if someone accuses you of exploiting kids´ misery, you can´t just say “Aw, what the hell, it´s only pedophilia!”, right? I don´t think that that would fly. That´s why a filmmaker who uses this as a plot-function is walking a very thin line. Let´s say that if you´re making a thriller or a horror movie, the goal is then to make that very movie as horrific as you can, right? And what is more horrific than a child being taken advantage of and abused? I can´t think of anything, to be honest.

But that´s why you can´t just use this casually in any movie: you gotta have something on your mind and something that you actually want to communicate to your audience because it´s pretty hard to make a … say, feel good-movie about child abuse. Although, Todd Solondz amazingly enough managed to make a comedy (although one darker than a coal miner´s asshole) which had a pedophile who drugged and raped a small boy in it, with “Happiness”. That´s pretty spectacular, come to think of it. I wonder if that movie would´ve gotten made today? I don´t think so. I remember seeing that in the theatres when it was released and people left halfway through, cursing and muttering. I wonder how the reactions would be in today´s politically correct-infused world that we live in. Todd Solondz would´ve probably ended being chased through the streets and forced to live out the rest of his days in a safe house in the town of Cannes.

But that´s not what I wanted to talk to you about today, friends! I´m not sitting here and saying that we need more comedies about child abuse, hell no! The reason I mention this is that I want you to appreciate how hard it is to make a movie about this subject. It must be insanely difficult. Then, to make a great movie about this subject must be crazy difficult! After all, one of the few directors who´ve managed it is Clint Eastwood with “Mystic River”. And we all know that Clint Eastwood is, after all, the greatest human being who´ve ever walked the face of this planet, ok? It takes someone of his genius and all around awesomeness to pull that off, that´s how hard it is! You got that, fuckers?

But then there´s this other guy, Gregg Araki, and he´s obviously not Clint Eastwood. Yet, he´s managed to make a film that is nothing short of spectacular about this touchy subject. That movie is called “Mysterious Skin” and it was released in 2004.

Brian Lackey (Brady Corbet), a troubled 18 year-old, lives in the stiflingly small town of Hutchinson, Kansas. Plagued by nightmares, Brian believes that he may have been the victim of an alien abduction. Local Neil McCormick (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) however, is the ultimate beautiful outsider. With a loving but promiscuous mother (Elisabeth Shue), Neil is wise beyond his years and curious about his developing sexuality, having found what he perceived to be love from his Little League baseball coach (Bill Sage) at a very early age. Now, ten years later, Neil is a teenage hustler, nonchalant about the dangerous path his life is taking. Neil’s pursuit of love leads him to New York City, while Brian’s voyage of self discovery leads him to Neil – who helps him to unlock the dark secrets of their past.

So you realize that we´re not dealing with sitcom-material here, huh? This is a movie that is so honest that it at times is brutally painful to watch. The first time I saw this movie I was pretty devastated. Make no mistake, this is a film that drains you emotionally. Do you remember when you saw “Irréversible”? That´s the sort of the feeling I´m talking about here!

After my first viewing, I thought to myself “How the hell did they make such a graphic movie with kids playing these parts?” I couldn´t understand it. Well, when I saw it the second time I realized that Araki doesn´t really show us much at all. Well, it´s there on the screen but we don´t see it, if you get my drift. Araki makes use of some movie making magic but it´s thanks to the performances in this flick that it´s such a painful experience to watch it. Once again, old Alfred Hitchcock was right when he babbled about how it´s the things we don´t see that is the most horrific.

Now, I´ve said it before and I´ll keep saying it until this fucker gets an Oscar: Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the best actor of his generation! Man, that kid can act up a storm and this is his best work to date. His portrayal of Neil is nothing short of spectacular. It´s like James Dean in “Rebel Without a Cause” and a young Johnny Depp rolled into one. In fact, I´m not even sure that his fucker is acting in this movie! He is Neil! That´s how god damn believable he is in this role! Not to steal any limelight from Brady Corbet, who also delivers one hell of a performance here but let´s face it: Corbet was in “Funny Games” and “Thirteen” and he always seem to play variations on the same role: the slightly freaky, shy kid. He definitely does it well, but he´s no Joseph Gordon-Levitt! Just watch this one and say, “The Lookout” and you´ll see what I´m talking about.

I guess that it´s thanks to Gregg Araki that every actor in this movie delivers such great performances, which is actually kind of weird if you look at his earlier movie. I mean, even if you think that “The Doom Generation”, “Nowhere” and “Splendor” were entertaining and great, they were not particularly well-acted. Those movies suffered from a pretty severe case of “The Nicolas Cage”-syndrome, which basically means that you overact until the point that even an amateur theatre company would give you the can, ok? I don´t know how he did it, but Araki managed to get every single aspect of this movie right. This is definitely his masterpiece. This is his “Walk Among Us”, his “Magnolia”, his “The Thing”, his “Rocket to Russia” and so on… You get the idea. To give you an idea of exactly how well-acted it is let´s put it like this: Michelle Trachtenberg, that girl from “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Euro Trip”? Even she´s pretty damn good in this flick. That´s right, even a fucking actress from that god awful “Buffy”-show does a great job in this movie. How do you like them apples?

The sad thing about this movie is that, after watching it, I said to myself: “Finally! Gregg Araki has left his whining days of his neon-lit, nihilistic L.A.-movies behind and graduated to become a filmmaker to be reckoned with!” Well, I didn´t actually say that out loud. That would be pretty weird, wouldn´t it? Me, sitting at home, having a conversation with myself about the level of quality in Gregg Araki´s works. Well, stranger things have happened now that I think about it.

But anyway, I was expecting great things from him after this one but then he decides to make a movie called “Smiley Face” starring Anna Faris, the girl from the “Scary Movies”-flicks. That sounds promising, doesn´t it? She plays a girl who´s stoned on acid the entire film. Did I mention that it´s a comedy? Well, it is. It´s supposed to be pretty funny according to the critics but you know what, if there´s one thing I don´t wanna watch, it´s a movie about a girl, running around high as a kite on acid, doing stupid things in a stupid movie. I don´t think I´m gonna check that one out. I´m very disappointed in you, Gregg! But fortunately, I have the solution: “Mysterious Skin” was based on a novel, but Araki wrote the script. That´s how he should make his movies in the future cause let´s face it: his own scripts doesn´t cut it. “Splendor” was pretty embarrassing, to be honest. But when he has a template to work from, he´s obviously capable of great, great things! That´s the direction your career should take, ok Gregg? Are we clear on that? Good! Strictly adaptations from here on out.

Before we end this rambling, allow to me to do so on a more serious note. The fact of the matter is that this is an important movie. Unfortunately, things like this occurs in the real world and I think that Araki shows an incredible amount of courage for depicting the different ways a pedophilic relationship affects different persons. The guy who plays the perpetrator is an actor named Bill Sage and he´s a bit of an American independent cinema-veteran, having played roles in several of Hal Hartley´s movies, and his part in “Mysterious Skin” is a tricky one. We don´t get an explanation for why the coach does the things he does but Araki portrays him in a way that we normally don´t see in films of this nature. This guy isn´t a predator and to me, that is a whole lot more realistic than a guy sneaking around the neighborhood in a trench coat and offering candy to kids. Let´s face it, to trick people and kids into these things, it´s gotta be a whole lot easier if you don´t come across as an obvious perv the minute you lay eyes on them, right? It´s not like Araki´s trying to justify this guy´s behavior and although I am no expert on the subject, I would guess that this approach is pretty realistic. But then again, what the hell do I know…?

Anyway, I think that you owe it to yourself to check this one out. It´s one of the best and most powerful movies of this decade and even though it´s a hard watch, you´re damn fool to miss out on this one. Next time I promise we´ll look closer at a movie of more lighthearted nature, ok? After all, we´re here to have fun, right? Talk to ya soon. Oh, and if a stranger tries to give you some candy, don´t accept it!

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Every once in a while you´re pleasantly surprised in life. Granted that it doesn´t happen very often but the other night it happened when I sat down to watch a flick called “While She Was Out”. I didn´t know the first thing about it except that it was produced by Guillermo Del Toro and that it starred Kim Basinger. Del Toro´s name in the credits alone is sort of a seal of approval, considering the fact that he hasn´t made a bad picture yet (I´ve blocked out the memory of the dreadful “Hellboy II: The Crap-Colored Army”), so I figured “What the hey, I´ll give it a chance!” Ok, I´ll be honest with you and admit that the promise of Kim Basinger in a decent role held some allure to me, as well. You see, I am of the age that I grew up when she was at the top of her career. She was Vicki Vale in the first “Batman”, for chrissakes! You realize what that does to a young impressionable boy? Hell, I even named my dog after that character. But the thing is that ever since she got an Oscar for her turn in “L.A. Confidential” she´s been tragically under-used in Hollywood. I think she´s acting better than ever and she still looks great, so what the hell are they thinking over there? Give this woman some more roles. I thought she did a fine job in “Cellular” a couple of years back, as well. Man, that was one entertaining flick! The fact that it starred Jason Statham as the bad guy makes it worth watching. In this one however, she´s terrorized by Lukas Haas. Here´s how it goes:

Della Myers is an upper-class housewife that lives in a private condominium in the suburbs with her twin children and her abusive husband Kenneth (played with relish by Craig Shaffer). It´s Christmas and she´s out of wrapping paper so she drives to the local mall but there´s not any parking spaces available. She gets in an argument with four punks – led by Chuckie (Lukas Haas). The argument gets out of hand and she ends up escaping into a nearby forest, chased by the gang.

This is the sort of simple premise I love in a thriller. You know, it kinda reminds of a Larry Cohen-movie: contained setting, taking place during one single night, lots of chases. I love movies where the lead is an ordinary guy/girl who ends up having to fight back. I guess it´s my love for vigilante movies that´s creeping up to the surface again.

This is definitely an entertaining flick but I have to warn you: it has its fair share of logic gaps. For instance, when she enters the mall there´s hardly any parking spaces available but after exiting, it seems pretty desolate which is convenient because that darn gang is about to start harassing her. Then we have the times when she´s being chased through the woods and she for no reason stops, sit downs and takes out a picture her kids have made for her and sits and looks at it. I´d say that that´s pretty stupid but you know, a mother´s love and all that. At one point Della even turns back and creep up on the gang to see what they´re up to. Not a particularly good idea either, if you ask me. But you know, screw that! This movie is too much fun to get hung up on that shit.

Now one of the most spectacular things about this movie is that it is an action-thriller and it is in fact directed by a woman! And that woman is not Kathryn Bigelow! Her name is Susan Montford and this is her debut as a director. She was one of the producers to the hilarious “Shoot ´Em Up” from a couple of years back but this is the only one she´s directed so far but I think she does a pretty decent job of it. She´s a solid director and I´d love to see more from her in the future. She definitely shows some flair when it comes to more violent scenes. She doesn´t hold back on the blood and for that, my friends, she deserves an applause. We need more movies like this one: fast-paced (only 82 minutes, for crying out loud), entertaining and violent. What more do you want? Some nudity, maybe.

Now, I´m not saying that this is a perfect movie. Some of the dialogue is horrendously bad and some of the scenes feel out of place. For example, when Kim Basinger breaks down, standing in the middle of a stream, looking towards the sky and crying “Where are you, God? Where are you?”, I wasn´t jumping with joy. That´s pretty over the top but luckily, the movie is also filled with small touches that you don´t see too often nowadays, especially in a movie with a female protagonist! For instance, when Della´s car won´t start, she´s not completely befuddled but she actually knows what to do and breaks out the proper tools. In another scene, right after the “Oh God”-scene, she actually takes a piss! And the filmmakers doesn´t make a big deal out of it. She just pulls down her pants and does it. I´m not sure I´ve seen that before in a movie like this. The good thing about the bad scenes I mentioned is that Basinger is luckily such a great actress that she manages to sell them so they don´t get excruciatingly bad. Her Della-character is a great one, actually: a female lead who doesn´t back down when she´s cornered. I like that!

They guys who portray the gang members are pretty good, too. Especially Lukas Haas. You might remember him form “Brick” a couple of years back where he did a great job playing the criminal mastermind, Pin. He´s not a criminal mastermind in this one, though. Let´s get one thing straight: this bunch of criminals ain´t the sharpest knives in the box but I don´t particularly have a problem with that. It´s not like they´re cat burglars or safe crackers, anyway. I guess that it could be pretty realistic considering that they appear to be a couple of deadbeats. One thing that is pretty weird though is that they are the kind of gang that you only see in movies. One member is a Caucasian, another one´s African American, one guy´s Asian and another Latino. These ethnically mixed gangs seem pretty common in the states. I´ve never seen a gang with such diversity among their members though but then again, it´s not like I hang out with that many gangbangers. But I´m kinda curious where these ethnically mixed gangs meet up? What if there´s some kind of government agency that promotes affirmative action and recruits all these different guys to different gangs? I´d love to be a fly on the wall in that office.

- So, do you have any gang experience?

- Sure, I´ve been a member of the Vatos Locos for 7 years but I´m looking to diversify. It was getting pretty boring, to be honest.

- Well, there´s not much at the moment but I think we can hook you up with this white guy and a former Yakuza member who´s trying to get something going downtown. They´re looking for someone with a Mexican heritage.

- Sounds great! I´m their man!

- Perfect! Fill out these papers and then you´ll be eligible for our special ethnic gangbanger-bonus…

But you know what? A funny touch is when a member of Chuckie´s gang says “Let´s go, niggers!” and Lukas Haas answers, out of breath because he´s just been slammed with a monkey wrench in the stomach, that “Don´t use the N-word! It´s not representative!” How about that? A career criminal with a sense of what´s politically correct out of respect of his gang members! You don´t see that every day.

Another thing I´ve wondered is what the hell kind of cell phones are people buying nowadays? Judging from how it is in the movies, they don´t seem to have much of a battery in ´em. Man, these fucking cell phones have become quite the obstacle for filmmakers today, haven´t them? You gotta get rid of them somehow or else the movie would be over pretty quickly so it´s always the same thing with the low battery, right? Now, if I were a character in a movie and I noticed that I was running low on battery, I would turn around and go home and charge that fucker right away cause you know that a cell phone with low battery is dead give-away that something awful is about to happen. It´s the same thing if you go to meet your family somewhere and the come running toward you, waving and laughing, you can bet your ass that they´re either gonna get run over or blown up. Especially if you´re a cop. If I was a cop in the movies and I was going to meet my family, I would sneak up on them or something. I would definitely not meet them full on and let the kids come running towards me. That´s just stupid, man! Suicide is what it is.

Anyway, this one is worth checking out. You can watch worse things than Kim Basinger going Charles Bronson on a couple of guy´s asses. Like Charles Bronson going Kim Basinger on a couple of guy´s asses. That would be pretty scary.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

One thing that has always fascinated me is the subject of cryptozoology, which directly translated means “the study of hidden animals”. I´m not talking about Waldo or gophers or other animals that likes to hide but about the stuff of legends, ok? The Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, that´s the kind of shit we´re dealing with here! And if there´s one thing I love, it´s movies that deals with these legends. I still haven´t given up hope that these creatures exists, or at least some kind of variation on them. Hell, it wasn´t that long ago that a Japanese guy managed to capture the elusive giant octopus on film, so there´s still hope, right? And if there´s one thing that I really, really love it´s movies that deals with the legends of these creatures! Cause let´s be honest here, what kind of sad world would we be living in here if we´ve already explored everything! There´s nothing left to discover, nothing left to our imagination! Hell, it´d be like every day was Monday morning, for chrissakes and I don´t want that.

There´s been a couple of entertaining movies that deals with these urban legends and mythological creatures. The best of the bunch, in my humble opinion, has gotta be “The Mothman Prophecies” (which I rambled about a while back here). It´s a creepy, scary movie with a great turn by Richard Gere that deals with a (supposedly) true story. At least I hope that it´s true.

Then there´s this other movie that really scared the shit out of me when I was a kid. I´m talking about Charles B. Pierce´s “The Legend of Boggy Creek”. This was a movie made back in the early 70´s and shot as a documentary, about this creature that roamed a swamp somewhere in Louisiana or Arkansas, I can´t remember which. It´s basically Sasquatch we´re dealing with here and this is the mother of all these documentary-like horror movies we´ve seen in recent years, starting with “The Blair Witch Project” and ending with “Cloverfield”, ok? This is the fucking mothership, the one that started it all and I´m certain that this movie scared the crap out of its fair share of kids back in the 80´s. I was terrified of it and thought it was a really eerie, atmospheric movie and I deliberately haven´t watched it since I was about 13 years old. I am absolutely certain that if I were to watch it today, I would be sorely disappointed. There is no way that this movie is gonna live up to the image I have of it in my mind, so why bother, right? I´ve had my heart broken enough times without adding childhood memories of horror movies to the mix.

Now, when I say that I´m sure that I wasn´t the only kid who sat around someone´s basement and was terrified of this movie is because the other day I watched “The Wild Man of the Navidad”, which was written and directed by Duane Graves and Justin Meeks, whom I guess are roughly my age and let me tell ya, they´ve seen that movie more than once! This movie is one long love letter to 70´s drive in horror like “Boggy Creek” and “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. It´s probably shot on DV but it looks grainy as hell, just like those old shot-on-16mm-movies did and the movie is overpopulated with colorful characters who I guess are locals from where they shot the movie. You can´t find this kind of faces in Hollywood: toothless, wrinkled, ravaged and beaten! These old fuckers are the real deal and that´s why I love this movie!

When it comes to the script department, the movie unfortunately leaves a bit to be desired. Here´s a quick rundown of the story for you fuckers: It´s allegedly based on the real-life journals of Dale S. Rogers, a man who, in the 1970s, lived along the banks of the Navidad River in Sublime, Texas – the same area where the original legend of the Wild Man of the Navidad surfaced back in the late 1800s. The film follows Dale (co-writer and director Justin Meeks), his wheelchair-bound wife Jean (Stacy Meeks), and her oft-shirtless, lazy-eyed caretaker Mario (Alex Garcia). Though their ranch sits on vast acres prime for paying hunters, Dale has resisted opening up the land because of the strange, Bigfoot like creatures supposedly inhabiting it. But after the prodding of some of the rifle-loving townsfolk and the loss of his welding job, Dale gives in and opens the gate to his compound. That´s basically when all hell starts breaking loose…

Now, when I say that I “love” this movie, you gotta take that with a pretty generous pinch of salt, ok? This is not a horrific masterpiece, like say Rob Zombie´s “The Devil´s Rejects”, even though those two movies have more than one thing in common: they are both made by directors heavily influenced by the aesthetics of gritty 70´s horror movies, both takes place in Texas and both movies are filled with pretty perverse characters. I mean, take this Mario fella. He´s pretty depraved, to be honest. The first time we see him onscreen he´s standing in the couple´s bedroom, pants down to his feet and sniffing Jean´s panties. I don´t know about you but where I come from, that kind of behavior is frowned upon. Another thing that they have in common is that both films make use of spectacularly filthy dialogue. This is the kind of dialogue you can´t make up! You have got to be around these kind of people to be able to write it and I am sure that the duo of Meeks/Graves are very familiar with the kind of people they show us in their movie.

Now, I´ll be honest with you: Meeks/Graves has got nothing on Rob Zombie when it comes to the quality of filmmaking. Arguably, they didn´t have Zombie´s budget or talented cast at their disposal but the movie also has some very serious flaws when it comes to how the film´s “scary” scenes are shot and edited. Did you notice how I put the word “scary” in between quotation marks? That´s something that a supremely talented write like myself like to do when he wants irony to come across in our writing. You see, I´m using irony because these scenes aren´t particularly scary at all and that breaks my heart. I really wanted this movie to invoke the feelings I had when I was a kid and watched shows like “Unsolved Mysteries” and shit.

Hey man, remember that show “Unsolved Mysteries” with Robert Stack? Man, that was a creepy show! I don´t know what it was that made it so creepy. Was it the music or Robert Stack´s voice-over for every vignette? I found the fact that it never, never offered up any solution whatsoever to be deeply disturbing as a kid. Hell, one time I even seriously contemplated staying the night at a friend´s house because I was too scared to ride my bike home in the dark.

Sorry for going off on a tangent there but that´s the feeling I was hoping for! I don´t know where it went wrong in the making of this movie. It has so many things going for it. Check this out: one of the producers is Kim fucking Henkel who co-wrote and produced the original “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and if there ever was some kind of horror movie-pedigree, this guy has it! As we all know, the original “Chainsaw” is one of the great masterpieces in the canon of horror movies, right? But it´s also easy to forget that Kim Henkel is the same guy who wrote and directed “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning” (part 4 for you who are easily confused out there), so it´s pretty obvious that this guy is in no way a genius, ok? Unfortunately, it seems that it´s the Kim Henkel that wrote and produced the fourth “Chainsaw” that seems to have gotten most input during the making of this movie. If the Kim Henkel who was part of the making of the first one, I am absolutely certain that this movie would have been a friggin´ masterpiece. By the way, Henkel has a weird cameo in “The Wild Man of the Navidad” as a bar patron with a wooden leg that is absolutely meaningless. It´s kinda funny now that I think about it, actually. I don´t think he says anything. He just sits there, reading a paper when another guy throws a knife into his wooden leg and then that´s it.

Anyway, the influence of the original “Chainsaw” is extremely obvious in the sound design of “The Wild Man of the Navidad”. It´s full of feedback, screeches and sonic unpleasantness but somehow it doesn´t achieve the same effect that it did when good old Leatherface started wielding his saw. I think that this movie is one that would´ve benefited from a traditional musical score. Now it just makes the scenes when the Wild Man appears feel flat and brutally un-scary. And remember how “Chainsaw” managed to be scary despite the fact that it (for the most part) took place in the blazing Texas sun? Well, this one has a couple of crucial scenes when the Wild Man is lurking around in the daytime and they don´t work. The scenes that take place during the night at least manage to be somewhat scary. Sorry to say it, but you should´ve opted for night shoots only, guys. I admire what they try to do but it doesn´t work the way they want to, unfortunately. Say what you will but these guys are no Tobe Hooper. Well, they´re definitely better than the latter day Tobe Hooper, who directed the dreadful “Mortuary” so don´t be too sorry, boys! I still have faith in you.

Despite all these flaws, I still like this movie! It´s steeped in its love for 70´s movies so how can I not like it? However, this brings me to a concern that I have regarding many of today´s horror directors, including someone as obviously talented as Robert Zombie. No matter how much I love 70´s horror movies and their gritty style and no matter how much I appreciate movies that nods toward them, it also bores me a bit. What I´m wondering is where are all the truly original directors today? It seems that there are a bunch load of directors who are great filmmakers but they all suffer from the Tarantino-syndrome, which basically means that you have talent oozing out of your ass but all you´re doing is versions of other people´s movies!

I mean think about it: when was the last time you saw a truly original horror movie; one that really blew your mind and knocked your socks off and raped you from behind or however that saying goes? It´s been a while, hasn´t it? The one that immediately springs to mind was the French “Inside” but other than that, I can´t think of any in particular and that´s a bit sad, to be honest. We´re living in a time where remakes of old horror movies are the ones that rakes in the most dough and thus, investors are afraid to invest in new talent.

Now, don´t get me wrong. I am well aware of the fact that many filmmakers copy/steal/pays homage or whatever the hell you wanna call it to other filmmakers. I mean, two of my all time favorite directors, John Carpenter and Brian DePalma, have been accused over and over again for robbing the works of Howard Hawks and Alfred Hitchcock, respectively. The thing is that these guys managed to put their own creative stamp all over their films and unfortunately I don´t see that too much nowadays. The young directors working today need to find their own voice and own demons and then infuse their movies with that, instead of just copying someone else´s voice and demons. It doesn´t work that way.

But anyway, back to “The Wild Man of the Navidad”. Despite its lack of originality, I still think you should check it out. It´s an old school horror flick with its heart in the right place and also on its sleeve and that´s always commendable. Another reason for you to check it out is that they drink a hell of a lot of moonshine in this flick. It´s easily the movie the most moonshine I´ve seen consumed in a movie since that old “White Lightning” movie starring Burt Reynolds and that´s saying quite a lot.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Here´s a movie that I´ve had lying on my shelf for over a year now, without getting around to watching it. I remember I bought this one solely based on the fact that it´s directed (actually co-directed) by Adam Green, whose debut feature was “Hatchet”. I wasn´t too fond of that one but it did show a lot of potential in Green as a director, just as long as he gets a good script. Well, the script to “Spiral” is a hell of a lot more well-written, let me tell ya that much! “Hatchet” was one of those sort of spoofs on the slasher genre that I´m not sure what you´re supposed to think about them. Most of them are not funny enough to be considered to be comedies and they´re not nearly scary enough to be horror movies so they end up in this sort of no man´s land of genres: they don´t make you laugh and they don´t make you scared. If you´re lucky, they´re at least entertaining, which I felt that “Hatchet” was. But I don´t consider it to be a “real” horror film. Now, “Spiral” is a whole different matter…

Mason (Joel David Moore, who was also in “Hatchet” and has co-written and co-directed this one) works as a telemarketer and is what we, in laymen´s terms, would call “a freak”. He is somewhat of a recluse and basically his only friendship is that with his boss, Berkeley (Zachary Levi). One day Mason is approached by a co-worker, Amber (Amber Tamblyn), during lunch hour which Mason spends outside, sketching. Amber is the kind of girl you only see in movies, whimsical and pretty. The two of them strike up a friendship and Mason begins to sketch his new friend’s portrait, but feelings from the past starts to emerge and haunt Mason.

The reason I liked this one much better than “Hatchet” is that this is in no way played for laughs. This is one gloomy fucker of a movie. I´m not sure where they shot this film but it seems to rain a hell of a lot wherever they are, which fits the mood of the film perfectly.

I can´t begin to describe how surprised I was, after watching this one. Sure, while watching “Hatchet” it was pretty obvious that Adam Green was a director who is technically competent but there was nothing that would let on that he was capable of a movie like this. Maybe it´s thanks to Joel Moore that the movie is as good as it is. After all, the fucker co-wrote it as well. This marks such as drastic change in tone and pace that anyone looking for a new “Hatchet” is gonna end up sorely disappointed. This is a much more grown up film and I´ve read a lot of reviews about this one where they compare it to the works of good old Alfred Hitchcock. I guess they´re kinda right about that. It does have that element of alienation and obsession that old Alfred always used to dabble with.

The directing duo of Moore and Green also manages to keep the viewer guessing if what they´re watching is in fact the reality or if it´s all just part of Mason´s delusions, something which reminded me of poor old Norman Bates in “Psycho” who, as you might remember, spent his days hanging out with his dead, mummified mom. Or James Stewart in “Vertigo”, for that matter, who seemed to harbor some kind latent urge to indulge in necrophilia. Well, you get the idea, don´t you? If you´re into Hitchcock, you´re probably gonna get a kick out of this flick.

One thing that this movie does pretty well is capture the pre-conceived notion I have of what it ´s like to work in an office. I´ll admit that I´ve never worked in an office and hopefully I never will. I have this idea that if I were to subject myself to the constant boredom of being part of an office, my psyche would either go utterly insane or die a slow, decaying death along with my soul. It´s not that I look down on people that have these jobs, ok? It´s just that I know that I´d never be able to stand it, ok? The scenes that take place in the office with Mason´s co-workers are pretty much how I imagine it is in real life. Kinda like a horrific version of “Office Space”. But then again, what the hell do I know… Maybe it´s a fucking utopia to work in an office, filled with laughter and good humored banter around the coffee machine and not at all like in this flick. I guess I´ll never know.

While watching the film, I´ll admit that I had a huge problem with Amber Tamblyn, the actress. I don´t know if you remember it but she was in this series called “Joan of Arcadia” a couple of years back, where she played the daughter of Joe Mantegna and Mary Steenburgen. In that series, she walked around having an ongoing conversation with God and for some weird reason that I can´t remember now, I saw a couple of episodes of this fucking show and I absolutely hated it! More than that, I hated Amber Tamblyn´s character! I couldn´t stand her and naturally this fucking show always aired on Sunday afternoon, when you´re hung over as hell and there´s nothing else on the tube so what do you do? You watch the damn thing! For some reason, I didn´t flip the channel and kept on watching just to what moronic thing this idiot girl was gonna say next. Kinda like when you see car that´s crashed into something, right? It´s impossible to look the other way.

Anyway, walking into this film I did not have a particular fondness for Amber Tamblyn and realizing that she was gonna play the love interest, I thought “This is gonna suck so much. Who the hell falls in love with her? Is it a fucking sci-fi movie, or what?” But you know what, every now and then life catches you by surprise and about 40 minutes or so my feelings of disgust were gone and I found myself actually finding her quite likable. You know, kind of cute, to be honest. How´s that for a change? I guess that´s a testament to this girl´s talent. I mean, she has to be a pretty good actress to convert a diehard-skeptic like myself. But then I found myself struggling with the next problem: why is it in movies that cute girls like her always fall for the freakiest guys with less social competence than Adolf Hitler? At least in this movie they manage to make it more and more believable, the longer the film goes on.

But honestly, what kinda girl would approach this stuttering, sweaty, Rain Man-like guy? If I looked and acted that way, I´d be kinda worried if a girl approached me. I would´ve wondered what the hell was wrong with her. It´s like Groucho Marx once said: “I´m not interested in being a member of club that wants me as a member”

That´s always the main problem with movies that have a protagonist who´s as fucked up as this Mason guy is, isn´t it? It´s hard for the viewer to identify with him! At least for me, being a guy. Somehow I didn´t experience the same problem when I watched Lucky McKee´s fantastic “May”, where the fucked up and socially inept lead character is a girl. I wonder what the hell that says about me as a man? I´m not even gonna try and analyze that one. I have to leave something for my future psychological evaluators, right?

I guess that´s it, fuckers. Give this one a chance (forget about peace, who needs it anyway?) cause it´s an original film and that´s what we like around here at the Last blog on the left.

Until next time: stay ghoul!

Thomas

So, it´s time for some Swedish shit again. You see, today´s movie is directed by Jonas Åkerlund. I don´t know if you´re familiar with his work. Apparently he´s signed some kind of lifetime-deal directing Madonna´s videos. His only other feature to his credit is the epileptically edited junkie drama “Spun”. I don´t know if you remember that one but it was released back in 2002 and was centered around a couple of tweekers, Jason Schwartzman, Brittany Murphy and John Leguizamo among others. I remember this one as being fairly entertaining, mainly thanks to Mickey Rourke´s fantastic turn as The Cook and Rob Halford´s cameo as the manager of a porn store, but also pretty hard to sit through. Now, since that movie is about a couple of junkies who´s into speed, it´s a pretty filthy movie. They don´t wash, they sweat like hell and they don´t clean their apartments. You know, the usual junkie shit. Some scenes were pretty disgusting, if I remember correctly. But the real reason why I had problem watching this movie in one sitting is because that Åkerlund decided to take his music video visuals to a whole new level. I don´t think there´s one single edit that lasts longer than one second in this fucking movie. It actually holds a place in The Guiness Book of World Records as the movie with the most edits and that´s not a good thing, in my humble opinion.

For those of you who happen to frequent this site, you´re familiar with the fact that I am not a big fact of this hyperactive style of editing, right? That´s why I sat down to watch “Horsemen” with a sense of trepidation: was Åkerlund gonna try this style of editing on a serial killer flick now? Well, people, I am happy to report that Åkerlund rose to the occasion and left the fucker who edited his last movie locked in a closet somewhere. You can´t even tell that it´s the same director! Åkerlund has instead decided to shoot this one like a present day Don Siegel movie, with vast cityscapes, a washed out color scheme and lots of 70´s hairstyles. And let me tell ya, I love it! I told you earlier that this one´s a serial killer flick and on paper it looks like pretty standard stuff. Here´s the story:

Aidan Breslin (Dennis Quaid) is your typical police detective: bitter, widowed with two sons that he spends way too little time with. While investigating a series of murders of rare violence, he discovers a terrifying link between himself and the suspects in a chain of murders that seem to be based on the Biblical prophecies concerning the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: War, Famine, Pestilence, and Death.

Now, surprisingly enough detective Breslin doesn´t seem to have a drinking problem. How about that? He has to be the first widowed cop with estranged kids in movie history that doesn´t drink himself into a stupor at the end of every scene. Well, that just goes to show that “Horsemen”, while acknowledging most of the usual serial killer conventions, also does its fair share of breaking them. For example, this movie does quite a bit of flirting with the torture-subgenre and the killer does make use of some pretty elaborate contraptions but not at all like in those goddamn “Saw”-movies. We´re not talking about Jigsaw sewing some key into someone´s asshole so that they have to gnaw their way through their stomach to be set free, not that kinda shit! However, there are a couple of scenes with skin being pierced but Åkerlund does take the high route and doesn´t revel in it with any drawn out close ups.

Now, I know what you´re thinking: “What the hell is up with Thomas Lovecraft? Has he gone soft on our asses?” That is not the case, people. However, I am deadly tired of horror movies showing explicit torture scenes just for the gore´s sake, ok? Think about it: when the first “Saw” was released I thought it was pretty great! And why did I think that? Because it had a clever script to back it up, that´s why! When the second one rolled around, there were a whole lot more guts´n´gore but the script was pretty shitty. What´s the point in watching a character you don´t care about being tortured for hours on end? Who gives a damn about that? Well, Åkerlund avoids this pitfall by filming these scenes with close ups and it´s a hell of a lot more effective than “Saw IX”.

Speaking of close ups, the scenes with Dennis Quaid interrogating suspects are peppered with close ups of his face and man, does he have a great face! I´ve always liked his work and I´m happy to see that he gets to do some big blockbusters these days. I think that Hollywood hasn´t made proper use of him cause when you think about it there´s not much that this guy can´t play: comedy, horror, drama, he works as a cop, as a psycho, as a family man and he´s got that old fashioned sense of being a movie star. Kinda like Kevin Costner, come to think of it. Hey, remember when the two of them did “Wyatt Earp” and Dennis Quaid played Doc Holliday? Man, was he great in that one! Well, the thing I´m driving at is that Dennis Quaid´s face keeps getting more interesting the older he gets, ok? He´s got that Dolph Lundgren-thing going on, ok? Give him another ten years and he can do the roles Lee Marvin would´ve gotten if he were still alive.

Now, I´m not sure in which city this movie is supposed to take place but they´re about to watch a Red Wings-game in one scene so I guess that it´s somewhere around Detroit. Åkerlund shoots the city in a great way. It takes place during winter and you really get a sense of how cold it is. It´s a harsh case Breslin´s working on and it´s a fucking harsh city, as well. That´s how it comes across.

Now, I mentioned that there are a couple of 70´s hairdo´s in this one and that´s always a good thing, if you ask me. The 50´s and the 70´s are the only decades that got it right, fashion-wise. Quaid´s character wears this leather coat that just reeks of 70´s cop movies and his partner Stingray (talk about 70´s cop show-like name), played by Clifton Collins, JR., has a fantastic haircut and moustache. He looks like he´s been lifted straight out of “Streets of San Francisco”. And how about that name, “Stingray”? Man, I love it!

But it´s not only when it comes to the clothes that this one reminds you of a 70´s cop movie. Like I mentioned, Åkerlund shoots the movie like one as well and it looks great. This makes this a pretty somber story, shot in bleak colors but what the heck, that´s exactly the kinda of cop movies that I like! The movie clocks in at 90 minutes and that fact alone is worth applauding. Åkerlund could´ve easily stretched this one out to the 2 hour-mark but apparently his and the producers good sense prevailed, which means that the movie doesn´t outstay its welcome.

Now, I´m not saying that this is a groundbreaking movie in any way but it shows a lot of promise on Åkerlund´s behalf. The final twist may not be the most original but the fact is that on its way towards the conclusion, “Horsemen” actually offers up quite a few twists that raises this a notch or two above your usual serial killer-fare. I´m not saying that this is “Seven”-quality we´re talking here, but it does draw on David Fincher´s classic movie for inspiration and manages to stay relatively unpredictable throughout. So good work on that, Jonas Åkerlund!

One thing I always wonder about when I watch movies like this one is whenever a detective goes to investigate the scene of a crime, it´s mostly done at night, right? So what do they do, do they turn on the lights? No, they pull out their flashlight and start roaming around the apartment or wherever the hell it is that they are at the moment. Remember “The X-Files”? Christ, did they have any electricity in that show? I know that it looks cool when the flashlight flickers across a dark room and everything but sometimes it has to be better for them to just flick the switch.

“Horsemen” is not a perfect movie, by any means, and there are a couple of gaps in its script but all in all it´s a pretty entertaining serial-killer flick. Hell, I guess that it even has something to say about parenthood, if you´re that kind of viewer. Maybe they could market this one as ´”Parenthood” meets “Seven”´? Maybe they could get a quote from Dr. Phil to slap on the DVD cover.

Anyway, you could do a hell of a lot worse than this one. Don´t forget that that fucking Ulli Lommel is still out there churning out his insanely awful “based-on-a-true-story”-serial-killer-straight-to-DVD-flicks, and let´s face it: no matter what you think about Jonas Åkerlund, he´s no fucking Ulli Lommel!

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Hey, anyone noticed how there´s been one hell of a lot of horror movies that´s been centered around either kids or teenagers recently? Well, the other day I discussed this recent string of kid-related horror flicks with a friend and I realized that I´m pretty bored with all these kiddie-horror flicks. It´s been done, ok?  So when I sat down to watch a horror movie last night I consciously chose a flick that had no children in it. At least that´s what I thought! Guess what one of the scary elements of David S. Goyer´s “The Unborn” is? A freakin´ kid! That´s right, you can´t escape them. They´re everywhere! I obviously didn´t look too closely at the poster here to the left. However, I liked this flick a hell of a lot more than I liked “Joshua” or “The Children”. Like I said, the kid is just one element of this movie, it´s not the main thing. Here´s what it´s about:

Casey Beldon (Odette Yustman) is just your typical, all-American girl: beautiful, enrolled at college and haunted by dreams of a weird-ass dog and an evil kid. After experiencing horrific visions, Casey starts investigating her family history. This leads her to Sofi Kozma (Jane Alexander), who shares a connection to Casey´s dead mother. It appears that Casey is being haunted and the only way out is, of course, an exorcism. Casey turns to Rabbi Sendak (Gary Oldman) for help…

Now, I don´t know about you but if I were to have an exorcism, I´d sure as hell would want Gary Oldman on my side. He´s one of those actors that has a natural authority that makes you believe whatever weird kind of shit he´s spouting. I´d be pretty worried if it turned out that I was possessed and Gary Oldman shows up, playing the devil or some shit like that. He´s definitely a guy you want in your corner in an exorcism.

So, Oldman is in this flick and that´s a good thing. Are there any more good things about it? Well, if you were to believe the reviews it received when it was released this would be one of the worst horror movies in a long time. Well, they´re wrong and that´s why I am here: to tell you that they are, in fact, wrong! I didn´t expect much from this one when I sat down to watch it and I was pleasantly surprised. I´m not saying that this is the new “Exorcist” or anything like that but it´s definitely not without its merits.

Now, you can´t discuss a movie that centers around an exorcism, without mentioning the big daddy of all exorcism-movies, William Friedkin´s masterpiece “The Exorcist”, can ya? Naturally, there are a couple of things in this movie that´s lifted straight from Friedkin´s movie. You remember that spider walk that Regan does in the director´s cut? There´s a variation on that in here too, which is pretty cool. There´s no way that this movie is gonna measure up to Friedkin´s seminal work but I still feel that this is a decent effort.

One of the things I really like about this one is that the movie grounds itself and the “possession” in Jewish mysticism. This is what separates it from other possession-movies. I don´t think that I´ve seen a horror movie about Kabbalah before, so at least you have to give David Goyer that.

Now, let´s talk about this David Goyer fella a bit. I´m not so sure that this guy should be directing. He´s written (or co-written) some amazing scripts through the years: the “Blade”-trilogy, “Batman Begins”, “The Dark Knight” and “Dark City”. He also directed the third installment in the “Blade” franchise and that one is without a doubt the weakest but those other scripts I mentioned all turned out to be amazing films. When Goyer decides to take the reign himself on a movie, it often turns out pretty mediocre like with “The Invisible” or “ZigZag”. “The Unborn” is his best effort to date, in my opinion. It´s still pretty devoid of his trademark one-liners that´s peppered throughout the “Blade” movies and I can´t figure that out. Maybe the guy just isn´t the best director in the world? I mean, look at “The Dark Knight”! I wonder how it would´ve turned out if Goyer had directed that one.

Another thing I really liked about it was the fact that this Odette Yustman-girl´s character (who by the way really needs to gain some weight) isn´t your typical stupid-teenager-who-can´t-figure-out-what´s-going-on. Unlike so many other horror flicks, she actually takes matters into her own hands and is instrumental in driving the story forward which makes for a pleasant change. She may not be the brightest girl on the block, but at least not supernaturally stupid, like so many of your typical horror flick female characters.

One touch that I really liked is when they´re getting ready for the exorcism and Gary Oldman and Idris Elba wants Casey to sign some legal documents that states that she´s doing this of her own free will. How about that one, Max Von Sydow? Where the hell did you keep those documents? You could get yourself in one hell of a bind if you don´t start getting those signatures, Max! Think about it: it´s America, right? People sue each other to left and right there. I´m just watching your back, Max! Ok? Us Swedes gotta stick together.

This may not be a groundbreaking piece of horror fiction but at least it treats its character with respect and I kinda like that. It does fall into many of the pitfalls of the genre, like with the flashback-scenes. However, it manages to use these familiar scenarios to full effect so I can´t complain too much. Sometimes it doesn´t work as well. Like the scenes with the scary kid that keeps showing up in Casey´s dreams.

Honestly, let´s discuss this a bit further. I´m gonna digress a bit here, ok? What the hell is up with today´s horror movie directors and their fear of kids? There have been so many movies recently where kids have been the focal point of terror and horror. I´ve mentioned this earlier but I think it´s worth taking a closer look at. I guess this wave of kiddie-horror started back in 2006 when they made that remake of “The Omen”. Hey, remember that one by the way? I thought the scariest thing about that one was the fact that Mia Farrow had performed such an amount of surgery on her face that I couldn´t tell where she ended and the Botox began.

But lately, there have been Tom Shankland´s “The Children”, which was too painful to sit through. It´s a well made flick and all but the sheer volume of all those kids screaming and crying made wanna press the fast forward button constantly. We´ve also been able to enjoy “Joshua”, starring Sam Rockwell but I´m not sure if we can call that a horror movie at all because that was like an episode of a daytime soap opera. We´ve also seen kids and teenagers going berserk in “Them”, “Eden Lake” and “The Strangers”. Then we have the upcoming “Dorothy Mills” and “Orphan”. Unfortunately I haven´t seen any of these but I hear good things about the latter one.

So what is it about this recent string of kids-related horror? I have a theory: this is the baby boom-generation backfiring! These filmmakers were probably young themselves during the 80´s, right? They probably grew up with parents that were obsessed with having kids. You remember how it was right? Back in the 80´s everybody had to have at least 3 or 4 kids and if you didn´t have that many, your family weren´t considered to be complete. Well, these kids that grew up with parents in this state of mind are old enough to make movies nowadays and judging from recent horror movies, children are their greatest fear. You know how they say that horror movies reflect the times we´re living in, right? Look at the bleak horror flicks form the 70´s like “Last House on the Left” and think about how America´s innocence just had been raped, with Vietnam and Watergate and whatnot. This is all old news to you but lately we´ve been having this subgenre called “torture porn”, with movies like “Hostel” and “Saw”. Well, with the “Hostel”-movies it´s not hard to see what they´re really about: American teenagers going abroad, only to get mutilated and killed. Does that remind you of a certain war in a certain Arab country that America was involved in? That was America´s greatest fear a couple of years ago but now it seems that kids are all the rage. Hell, not only Americans are afraid of them! Most of the movies I´ve mentioned are European, for chrissakes, so I guess we´re just as terrified of kids on both sides of the Atlantic. Good to know that there´s something we can agree on.

However, if you look at the movies I´ve mentioned here, it really is pretty apparent that the thing society fears most today are our children. Sad but true, but I call it as I see it, friends.

Anyway, I went off on a tangent there. Sorry ´bout that. After letting me invade your mind with my ramblings, you owe it to yourself to relax with an hour and a half of non-demanding exorcism-fun! At least you´ll watch a Jewish horror flick and how often can you say that about a movie? Unfortunately, Woody Allen doesn´t show up. I wonder how the movie would´ve turned out if he were to play Gary Oldman´s part…? Or if Madonna were to play the old lady who gives all the background information about Jewish mysticism and all that kabbalah shit? Man, that would be one weird movie…

Oh, well… One can always dream. Until next time: take scare!

Thomas