Last Blog On The Left

Hey, anybody remember 1998? Man, that was some good times, right? Bill Clinton were still president in the States and had  started to explore the many different ways you can use a cigar, the Y2K-bug had just started to worry people and Jesse “The Body” Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota. People were getting jiggy with Will Smith and Bruce Willis made an ass of himself by starring in “Armageddon”. Like I said: good times!

It was in ´98 that I last saw a Todd Solondz movie in a theatre and let me tell ya, since then a lot of things have changed. I remember that at the screening of “Happiness”, at least six or seven people got up and left in the middle of the movie. Someone muttered something about “Is this shit supposed to be funny? Fucking perverts!” and another one gasped in horror when it became apparent to her that Dylan Baker´s character was planning to drug and rape that little kid. People had strong emotions when it came to “Happiness” and so did I: I absolutely loved it! Especially the opening scene with Jon Lovitz where he does his monologue about how Jane Adams is “shit and I´m champagne”. I also remember that when I laughed out loud at Ben Gazzara repeatedly telling the people around him that he doesn´t feel anything, a woman turned around and looked at me as if I had just puked her in the neck.  A lot of people genuinely felt that this was an obscene movie. And this was in Sweden, mind you! Remember, we were the ones who invented sin and lust back in the 60´s. We´re pretty liberal about most things but this fucking Solondz guy, he was pushing it!

But like I said, since then a lot of things have changed and in today´s day and age, I think it´d be pretty hard to find someone who´d be genuinely upset over what goes on in “Life During Wartime”, Solondz “sequel” to “Happiness”. I don´t know if this is a case of Solondz growing older and more mellow or if the audience have become more jaded but what is pretty crystal clear however is the fact that “Life During Wartime” is a very good movie! As a sequel it is somewhat unique: Solondz continues the tradition from his previous movie “Palindromes” and lets a set of different actors play the same characters. Almost every character is a recurring one from “Happiness” but they´re all played by new actors: Ciaran Hinds plays Dylan Baker´s pedophile, Ally Sheedy plays Laura Flynn Boyle´s Helen and Michael K. Williams play Allen, the obscene phone caller played Philip Seymour Hoffman in the first one and so on. I have to say that I had my trepidations about how this would work, but Solondz really pulls it off. Now, I haven´t seen “Happiness” in the last ten years but despite that I have a very clear memory of these characters. I guess that´s a testament to Solondz´s writing and impeccable casting. He managed to create almost iconic characters and the fact that he re-casts them here and gets away with it is no mean feat. Ciaran Hinds takes what is Dylan Baker´s crowning acting achievement (if you don´t count his snorting redneck from “Planes, Trains and Automobiles”) and delivers a magnificent, almost sublime performance. He manages to convey very much without much dialogue and the scene with him confronting his son is emotionally devastating.

Now, some might say that this one doesn´t have the bite and the edge that “Happiness” did and I guess I can agree with that to some degree. This one is more overtly comical and the plotline that deals with Ciaran Hind´s character and his ex-wife Trish (Allison Janney) is the one that contains the broadest comedy. The dinner scene when she invites her new boyfriend (played by Michael Lerner) and his son over is very broad but very hilarious.

Much time are devoted to Trish´s youngest son, Timmy, whose Bar Mitzvah is coming up and in the hands of a lesser director this is the kind of character who could´ve easily become as annoying and meaningless as a dick growing out of your forehead. You know how it is with these kids in movies, right? Nobody likes ´em but Solondz have actually managed to dig up a kid who stays on the right side of not being too disturbing. Naturally, since he is a child actor he has to have three names: Dylan Riley Snyder. Who in Hollywood has stipulated this rule?

If you are familiar with Solondz previous films, you know what you have in store: a darkly funny film, scenes of conversations, filled with some pretty goddamn fantastic dialogue. I think that what Solondz is so great at is that he manages to tread that thin line between funny, excruciatingly tragic and uncomfortable, better than any other filmmaker today. I was a bit disappointed with “Palindromes” but it´s good to see him back in form with this one.

A funny thing happened when I saw this at the Gothenburg International Film Festival the other day. You know, it´s always sort of a hit-or-miss with these festival showings. You can never be sure if the film´s gonna start at all and in this case they ran late. Twenty minutes after it was supposed to have started, the theatre finally darkened. So there I am, in a huge theatre on the opening night of the festival and the music starts. But still no credits. Everyone is completely silent and still (this is a festival crowd, remember? No cell phones here) and then the dialogue starts. Still completely dark. No one says anything and I start turning and looking around. No reaction from the audience. Everyone´s just sitting there, trying to figure out if there´s something wrong with the projection of the movie or if this is an artistic choice on Solondz´s behalf! No one says anything at all because let´s face it: you don´t wanna be the guy who starts shouting “What the fuck? What´s wrong with the picture?” and then it turns out that the movie´s supposed to be that way. “What a schmuck!” You don´t wanna be that guy and be subjected to 800 over-intellectual´s scorning looks just because you were too stupid to notice artistic shit when you saw it. As it turned out, there was something wrong with the projection and the light came back up so everyone started laughing nervously instead: “I thought that there was something wrong, didn´t you? Solondz would never open a film that way…”

But anyway, if you´re a fan of Solondz´s work, you´re definitely gonna like this one. It´s his best since “Happiness” but it´s not like it´s gonna convert anyone with a staunch anti-Solondz point of view. The only thing that I missed about this movie was the lack of the character of Lenny, whom Ben Gazzara played. I thought that he was one of the most interesting and enjoyable in the first one but he´s not included in this one. I would´ve loved to see what another veteran actor would do with that part. Maybe for part three then, huh?

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Before we begin you need to know this about me: I love movies about private dicks! And I´m not talking about penises who keep to themselves but about private detectives, ok? With that out of the way, we can begin. Looks like good old Thomas Jane has done it again: he´s managed to star in a movie that held such high promise but only turns out to be kind of good. I´m talking about “Give ´Em Hell, Malone”, which was released on DVD the other day. I also love the Film Noir genre and “Give ´Em Hell, Malone” is a throwback to that coupled with some pretty serious bloodshed, which includes a bit too much CGI-generated blood, but you can´t have everything, right? At least there is blood, so I can´t complain too much. There´s also some other pretty good actors involved in this one. Except for Jane, we get Ving Rhames as a bad ass villain, Gregory Harrison (who apparently forgot to age since his stint on “Falcon Crest “ in the late 80´s) and Doug Hutchinson. But that´s not all, folks! It´s directed by Russell Mulcahy, who´ve given us such marvelous films as “Razorback”, “Highlander”, “Resurrection” (which is pretty damn underrated, despite the fact that it stars Christophe Lambert, I don´t care what you say) and the third (and best) installment in the “Resident Evil”-franchise. So in a way, this movie has everything a movie in this genre needs going for it. Let´s break it down:

• A cool-as-hell title? Check. Come on, say it out loud: “Give ´Em Hell, Malone!” It rolls pretty nicely on the tongue, doesn´t it. Any movie that has the phrase “Give ´em hell” in it is definitely something I´d wanna watch. Besides, “Malone” is a bad-ass name. Don´t you remember Burt Reynold´s classic “Malone”? If your lead is called Malone, you know he´s gonna be hard-as-nails.
• A lead who´s devoted the latter part of his career to starring in different genre-titles? Check. I mean, look at Jane´s latest movies: “The Tripper”, “The Mist”, “Mutant Chronicles” and “Killshot”. He obviously appreciates this shit.
• An almost frighteningly good looking female lead? Check. We got Elsa Pataky, who we also saw in “Romasanta” and “Snakes on a Plane”.
• A solid character actor in a supporting role? Check. We got Leland Orser who we all know and love from “Seven” where he played the guy who had been forced to strap on that dildo from hell and fuck another guy to death.
• A great tagline for the poster? Check. “Hard to love… Harder to kill”
• An experienced director with a keen eye and flair for all things visual? Check. Russell fucking Mulcahy who directed the first music videos ever!

So you understand why this movie has everything going for it, right? Except it doesn´t quite pan out the way I expected. And I think I know what the problem is: the opening scene. You see, the opening scene is just too goddamn good for its own best. It feels like Mulcahy blew everything he had on this scene that starts with a pretty graphic shootout with Jane explaining in a typical private detective voiceover where it hurts the most to be shot. This scene is nothing short of spectacular! It´s when we start getting into the story that the movie lags a bit. I´m not gonna give too much away but the story isn´t exactly groundbreaking. Malone has to fight a bunch of bad guys, who tries to protect their scheme of visas or Green Card´s that they got going. Secrets a´ plenty and the plot thickens the more Malone uncovers. Basically your ordinary day at the office, if you´re a private detective.

By the way, these private detective guys… Do they exist in real life? Has anyone ever met a real life private detective? I know that I haven´t! I wonder what an ordinary day in their life looks like. Probably pretty boring. I guess that you are probably forced to sit around in a cold car and spy on cheating husbands a lot. I wonder if you are forced to wear a Fedora hat, though? But what if you look corny and stupid in a Fedora hat? Are you allowed to continue practice private detecting by the union then? I bet it´s a great way to meet chicks. I mean, imagine dropping that line when you´re chatting up a girl at some bar and she asks you what you do for a living: “I´m a private detective…” if that doesn´t get you laid, I don´t know what would.

But anyway, what is it about “Give ´Em Hell, Malone” that doesn´t work? Two fords for ya: “Sin City” (as you might understand from watching that poster here above). Unfortunately, it feels like Mulcahy have been ogling Robert Rodriguez´s movie a bit too closely for its own good. I feel that if he would´ve made this more in the classic style of making Film Noirs this would´ve been a lot of better. There are a lot of elements in this movie that would´ve been cool as hell, unless you hadn´t already seen it “Sin City”. The most obvious one is the mostly meaningless character of Mauler (played by Chris Yen). She´s one of those pesky girl-ninjas, who dresses up as a Japanese school girl, only to kill everyone in sight. This would´ve been a great idea, if it hadn´t already been done to death these last couple of years.

Then we have this Doug Hutchinson fella. He can be a pretty solid character actor but I suspect that that takes quite a tight rein from the director. He was absolutely fantastic as Eugene Tooms in “The X-Files”-TV series and was wonderfully obnoxious in “The Green Mile”. But for every “Green Mile”, there´s a “Punisher: War Zone”, where he acted like he was starring in a fucking Looney Tunes movie! Accents ain´t this guy´s thing. He had a small part in “The Burrowers” and he kinda overdid that one as well, but not as much as he does here. In this one he plays Matchstick, who´s your standard type of psychopath who likes to drench his victims in kerosene and light them on fire. And since he´s a psycho, naturally he´s disfigured. I´m telling ya, if this Hutchinson guy doesn´t watch himself, he´s gonna be the new Nicolas Cage! He´s definitely moving into the Nicolas Cage-realm of overacting.

Also, a note to filmmakers: if you´re gonna have a character who lights people on fire every five minutes and if you don´t have the budget to shoot the god damn thing for real, don´t bother! CGI-fire looks pretty shitty still.

But hey, there´s still a couple of good things about this movie. Thomas Jane delivers a solid performance, as always. I´d like to see him portray this kind of detective again. Come to think of it, this Malone character would make for a pretty cool franchise. You just switch out the word “Hell” in the title for every new installment: “Give ´Em Torment, Malone”, “Give ´Em Misery, Malone”, “Give ´Em Nightmares, Malone”… The possibilities are endless! Hell, they could even start making porno-spin off´s: “Give ´Em Cock, Malone”, “Give ´Em Gonorrhea, Malone” and so on… I´m sensing a whole industry here!

Another good thing is the fact that they have cast French Stewart (you know, that squinting guy from “Third Rock From The Sun”) as a sleazy lounge singer called Frankie The Crooner and he´s pretty funny. After seeing this and his excellent turn in “Surveillance”, I am convinced that this guy doesn´t get enough roles. It´s always fun to see comedians play against type so good call on that one, Mulcahy.

I guess this one´s worth devoting an hour and a half for. It´s not great but definitely above average when it comes to straight-to-DVD-private-detective-flicks. Not a particularly big genre these days unfortunately, so it´s good to see Jane & Mulcahy treat this movie with way more respect than it probably deserves.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Ever noticed that the business of robbing graves and selling corpses can be a grim one? Forget Wall Street or advertising, kids, this is where the real backstabbing takes place. So if you´re currently in high school or college and considering dropping out to start your own grave robbing business: don´t do it! Stay in school, kids! And stay off the drugs, as well. That shit will fuck you up. However, if you´ve already made your mind up and have your heart set on being a grave robber despite my warnings, you might as well start in on the drugs, too. Trust me, you´re gonna need it. The world can be a cruel place for a grave robber. Just ask Larry Fessenden.

There are a couple of horror movie directors out there today who are truly interesting, who make movies that really manages to transcend genres, in order to create something extraordinary. Larry Fessenden is one of these directors. He´s made a couple of pretty great flicks, including his take on vampirism “Habit”, the ecological cautionary tale “The Last Winter” and the magnificent “Wendigo”. I really like this guy. He keeps making interesting films within the horror genre, movies that are squarely aimed at an adult audience and that doesn´t treat the audience as retarded ten year old. We need more of that in today´s day and age. The fact that he´s missing one of his front teeth and appears to refuse to have it replaced deserves some credit, as well. But you see, the thing that really makes this Fessenden guy such a cool cat is because he´s founded his own company, Glasseye Pix, and they´re responsible for some pretty cool independent flicks over these last couple of years. They released Ti West´s “Trigger Man” and “The Roost” as well as Douglas Buck´s “Sisters”. Not only that, Fessenden also acts as well! You might remember him as the guy who robbed the convenience store in Jodie Foster´s ode to Charles Bronson “The Brave One” or as the redneck who knocks out Bill Murray in “Broken Flowers”. In other words: Fessenden knows his shit!

And it´s in the form of an actor I wanna talk about him today. You see, he has one of the leads in “I Sell The Dead” and it´s a role tailor made for him. Fessenden plays Willie, who has quite a successful business peddling corpses to the local doctors and scientists. His partner in crime is Arthur Blake (played by Dominic Monaghan). Unfortunately, justice has catched up with them and on the eve of Arthur´s execution, we get to hear his life story as he confesses to Father Francis Duffy (played by Ron Perlman).

The first thing that “I Sell the Dead” has going for it is its title. I mean, just say it out loud: “I… Sell… The… Dead!” It rolls pretty nicely on the tongue, doesn´t it? A movie with a title like that can´t be all bad.

Anyway, guess what: Fessenden´s name continues to be a guarantee for quality. I think he´s proven himself enough now. Let´s face it, horror fans: if Fessenden´s name is attached to it, the movie is worth catching. I´m not saying that this particular one is a masterpiece but writer-director Glenn McQuaid has managed to create a solid, little horror comedy. One of the things that I like about it is that McQuaid seem to know his limitations and doesn´t outstay his welcome. It´s quite an entertaining flick that zips by and clocks in at around 85 minutes. God knows we need more of those today when every god damn director out there seem to think they´re the new James Cameron and seem hell bent on making every movie over two hours long! We need more 80 minutes-movies today! It´s as simple as that and this McQuaid fella seem to have realized that so I reckon he deserves some kudos for that.

He´s also managed to cast the movie perfectly. Fessenden and Monaghan makes for an entertaining screen couple and their banter works pretty well. It´s not like they´re the new Jack Lemmon and Walther Matthau but it works. He´s also got The Tall Man himself, Angus Scrimm as a doctor in there and the fact that he has cast Ron Perlman as Father Duffy is close to genius. To see Ron Perlman in a robe again makes my heart sing. Remember “In The Name of the Rose”, anyone? I always say that if you can get Ron Perlman in your movie, you should! And if you can get Ron Perlman in a robe, you definitely should!

Now, this isn´t the kind of horror movie that´s out to genuinely frighten you, ok? This is McQuaid´s homage to the Hammer movies of the 60´s and it´s pretty impressive how he has managed to capture the feeling and the design of those movies. He didn´t save any money on the studio fog, if you know what I mean. The scenes in the graveyard comes across as a cross between “Sleepy Hollow” and “Re-Animator” and there´s a lot worse movies to be compared to, let me tell ya!

To be honest, it feels like McQuaid has taken certain elements from the movies that he loves and decided to create a movie around them: he´s got the black humor from the scenes in “Re-Animator” when Herbert and Dan are stealing the corpses from the mortuary, the fog drenched graveyards from the Hammer movies and the kind of rowdy tavern scenes that reminds you of “The Slaughtered Lamb”-scene from “An American Werewolf in London”. And I guess that it works. This isn´t the most original movie out there, but it is entertaining, but like so many other horror movies today it lacks that feeling of an original vision.

What McQuaid is doing is that he´s giving us his version of other films. This is beginning to be quite a problem among filmmakers, if you ask me, and especially when it comes to the horror genre. Whenever a new director comes along today, he has grown up with VCR´s, Laserdiscs and DVD´s and Internet and all the technology you can imagine, which means that kids who are into movies today are extremely cine-literate. I mean, they have all the information in the world and every movie ever made available through the internet which basically means that you can send yourself through film school without actually ever attending one. Just think of all the commentary tracks with directors on DVD´s! They´re a goldmine for a budding filmmaker but I think there´s a downside to this, as well. It´s because of this that there´s not that many original filmmakers out there today! They keep making the same movies over and over again or “their” version of another movie. Just ask Tarantino. Someone should set up some ground rules for horror directors so we can get some original work out there.

But you know, I don´t wanna sound like a bitter old man and complain too much about this movie because I really did like it! But sometimes tough love can be good for you, right? I hope that you can forgive me someday, Glenn McQuaid. Hey, I noticed that your first name is Glenn… What´s it like being named “Glenn”? In Sweden there´s this ongoing joke that everyone in Gothenburg (my hometown) are named Glenn but that´s not true. There are other names here as well. However, you do get a few laughs if your name happens to be Glenn for real and you are from Gothenburg. I guess that´s why I´m curious about what it´s like. I don´t know if you´re familiar with Glenn Danzig but he´s pretty cool. You should check him out. Maybe you could start a club or something…

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

What is it with German directors and their perverse, undying patriotism for America? Think about it, for chrissakes: one of the most patriotic and idiotic action movies of the last twenty years has got to be “Air Force One”, starring a resolute-looking Harrison Ford (not a big stretch for him, considering the fact that he has had the same expression on his face ever since he starred in “Blade Runner”) as the President of the United States, and who directed that one? Was it some right-wing, gun-toting, card-carrying NRA member? Hell no, it was Wolfgang Petersen, a goddamn German! And what about this “Terminator”-guy who´s governing California? Admittedly, he´s not German but Austrian and that´s like comparing Brits and Scots for us outsiders so let´s go with the flow here, ok? Arnold is as good as German and he´s a close personal friend of George W. Bush. One would think that when you move to the states from Europe, you would have a different perspective on their politics and not buy the concept of “Land of the free and home of the brave” quite as easy, right? One would think that you would be able to see America for what it is, with its faults as well as the things that makes it great. Well, that sure hasn´t come across in any of Petersen´s American movies, has it?

And then we have this Roland Emmerich fella. He´s German, too. And guess which movies this fucker has directed? We´re talking about “The Patriot”, starring Mel Gibson, and “Independence Day” here! I absolutely hate these movies. I can´t stand “Independence Day” and if there´s one thing that makes me wanna claw out my eyes and slit my wrists, it´s that goddamn scene where Bill Pullman gives his address to the nation where he proclaims that “Today we celebrate Independence Day!” Jesus Christ! Or how about the scene where Will Smith knocks out an alien and quips “Welcome to earth!” Christ, Don´t get me started… There´s just too many shitty things to even mention.

But the weird thing is that just like Petersen, Emmerich is a German director who has made a movie that features the American president as the hero. What the hell is up with that? Why didn´t they make any of these movies while they were still in Germany? I´d love to see an action movie where the German chancellor is a hard hitting hero. I mean, why is it that just the American president can be a hero? How about the president of Poland? Don´t they have any high jacking over there?

But when it comes to this Emmerich guy, I have mixed feelings. Like I said, he´s also responsible for “The Patriot” which is an absolutely dreadful waste of celluloid. I mean, Mel Gibson plays a southern plantation owner during the American Civil War, but he´s one of those nice slave owners, ok? His slaves are more like employees and at one point in the movie, Gibson ends up in some sort of safe haven for black slaves, where they all live in peace and harmony. Were these kinds of villages common during the war? Christ, what a load of crap.

So, Emmerich´s responsible for these two crap fests of movies, but the thing is that when it comes to blowing things up, he is the man! He is one of the world´s foremost directors of huge disaster movies, there´s no denying that. I mean, look at “The Day After Tomorrow”! I kinda liked that one and the scenes where Mother Nature wreaks havoc upon mankind are pretty impressive. And that´s basically the reason why I was a bit curious to check out his latest epic disaster extravaganza, “2012”. That and the fact that it stars John Cusack. I kinda like him, as well.

Now, I didn´t have very high expectations going in. It´s not like this movie is a frontrunner for the Oscars, right? But guess what, it isn´t half bad. It´s kinda fun, actually. And when I say “fun” I mean that in the kind of way that only an American disaster movie with a budget the size of a large country can be: slightly retarded, but entertaining. But like so many disaster movies before it, this one never quite realizes when enough is enough. I mean, it´s close to three fucking hours long and that, my friends, is just too much for even the most jaded viewers out there. There are so many plotlines and characters that you can´t maintain your interest in every one of them. And naturally, the one I found most intriguing and appealing is the one we get to see the least of. I´m talking about the one where George Segal and Blu Mankuma play a couple of old musicians working on a cruise ship. These characters basically serves as a segue for enriching Chiwetel Ejioufour´s character, Adrian Helmsley, who´s a top notch scientist and working for our very brave, kind and noble President of the United States (you didn´t see that one coming, did ya? A brave president! In a movie directed by Roland Emmerich? Holy crap!). By the way, the president is played by Danny Glover and not once does he say, “I´m too old for this shit…”

Anyway, the main story line is the one about a washed up sci-fi author played by John Cusack, his two kids, ex-wife and her new husband. Why is it that they can´t make one single goddamn disaster movie without these annoying, whining kids? Who decided that they have to be in there? “The Towering Inferno” didn´t have any kids in it, did it? As I remember it, instead we got Steve fucking McQueen and Paul goddamn Newman trying to out-man each other, while staring death in the eye. Why can´t we make ´em like that anymore?

And it´s not enough with the kids, either! For those of you out there who´s sober enough to remember the abomination that was “Independence Day”, I have two words for you: the dog! The goddamn dog that escapes the explosion in the tunnel! Why does there always have to be a dog that just barely escapes? We get that in “2012”, as well. I don´t know about you but if I was about to escape, while the ground under my feet were being engulfed by flames and shit, I wouldn´t want a poodle slowing me down, that´s for sure!

As you might´ve figured out, “2012” isn´t the movie you wanna watch if you´re looking for a groundbreaking effort in film. It´s got every cliché you can imagine but the thing is that the movie still kind of zips by and it doesn´t feel like it´s close to three hours. And why is that? It´s because Emmerich knows his shit! I´ll even go so far as to say that the first hour is pretty spectacular. But that brings us to the infamous Emmerich-curse. The man always opens with a great first hour or 45 minutes but then he has trouble maintaining that level of excitement. Think about the opening to “Godzilla”: remember the buildup, when you don´t get to see the creature? Or “The Day After Tomorrow”? Same thing. The man is just too good at these types of scenes, where he shows us small signs and hints at what´s about to come because the rest of the movies never quite lives up to this. Unfortunately, “2012” is no exception because when the movie gets going and we´re in full catastrophe mode, it kinda bogs down.

And just like the movie´s running time, the scenes of buildings collapsing, mountains overflowing with tsunamis and landmarks being torn to shreds becomes a bit too much about two hours into the movie. I mean, the effects are pretty spectacular and I was really impressed by the scene where Cusack escapes with his family from Pasadena while it is sinking into what looks like hell, but when you see an airplane flying sideways through two collapsing skyscrapers for the third time, it´s hard to get too riled up about it, ok? Emmerich just doesn´t know when to hold back and that´s his major fault as a filmmaker, I guess. That and the fact that he has no shame whatsoever about re-using ancient clichés as a means to tug away at your heart strings like a goddamn puppeteer! Roland Emmerich is not a subtle filmmaker, if we put it that way.

But I was kinda surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie. I went in, fully prepared to vehemently dislike it and armed to the teeth with snappy putdowns but it seemed like I had lowered my expectations too much. And I had absolutely no idea that Woody Harrelson was gonna be in it, so that was a pleasant surprise, as well. That can brighten any day. Emmerich´s last movie, “10, 000 B.C.” was fantastically bad, almost so bad that it was entertaining, so this one was a major improvement. But that´s not enough, not only did I not expect to see Woody Harrelson in this one but about forty minutes into the movie a character named Yuri Karpov shows up. He´s this Russian gangster/business man and he´s played by none other than the magnificent Zlatko Buric! You may not recognize his name but he´s the guy who set the screen on fire as Milo in the “Pusher”-trilogy. Emmerich deserves some kind of award for bringing this amazing actor to the great masses! Stephen Frears beat him to it by a couple of years with the excellent “Dirty Pretty Things” but he has a much bigger part in “2012” and I really hope that he gets a lot more parts thanks to this.

And no matter how much of a hack Emmerich may be when it comes to creating believable drama in the scenes that he uses to fill out the void between the scenes with the explosions, he is pretty fantastic at creating these huge scenes of chaos, without them ever getting too confusing. And that, my friends, is a dying art form. I had no problem whatsoever to understand what was going on, where the characters were in relation to the oncoming threat and so on. Imagine if Michael “three-million-cuts-a-second” Bay would be directing this movie? Anyone remember the final fight from “Transformers”? I sure as hell don´t because I couldn´t understand a god damn thing of what was going on. Buildings were destroyed; I got that much but that´s about it. So good for you, Emmerich, that you still have the skill to create an exciting, old fashioned action sequence by using CGI, without going overboard with it! Good job!

One thing that I found kinda funny is the fact that the character of Cusack´s daughter still wets her bed and this is mentioned quite a few times during the movie and I couldn´t for the life of me understand why. First we get to see Amanda Peet (who plays Cusack´s ex-wife) pack down her diapers and explain to him that “Yes, she still wets her bed even though she is 7 or 8 years old” and then we get to see her shop for some more diapers in a supermarket and then the final line of movie is something that has to do with this, as well. What´s up with that, Emmerich? What is it about a 7-year old girl´s bedwetting habits that you find so interesting that you keep returning to it, over and over again? Is this a motif in the movie? That even though the whole world is destroyed, it might cure you from pissing your bed? I´m not sure I fully understood this aspect of the movie.

By the way, an interesting thing is that the Mayan calendar ends December 21^st 2012 and that is when the world will supposedly end, according to the freaks out there. Guess what, people? December 21^st is none other than yours truly´s name day! So if the world will end on this particular day, I can guarantee you that that will be the first time I´ll be celebrating my name day in style! And I´m not talking about cake or anything like that, I´m talking about whiskey, wine, rum and cheap drugs! And you´re all invited!

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Some movies are just too weird to even begin to describe. ”Nothing but Trouble” is one of them but you know what? I will try to do it, even though it might kill me. That´s how far I am willing to go for you! No need to thank me, that´s just the kind of a guy I am. To be honest, I can´t understand why “Nothing but Trouble” doesn´t have a bigger cult following. It stars mostly comedians but make no mistake, this is actually a horror movie! Albeit one that tries to be funny (and sometimes achieves that but at times it falls so hard on its ass that it´s pretty painful to watch) and doesn´t want to genuinely frighten you, but it is a horror movie nonetheless.

This movie was made back in 1991 and it is to date the only film that Dan Aykroyd has both written and directed. Now, I don´t know if you remember 1991 but man, those were some swinging times! For instance, we had just barely survived M.C. Hammer and “U Can´t Touch This” and now the world was finally ready for a white guy named Vanilla Ice to blast onto the scene and revolutionize music and the rap genre, in particular. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were huge! Punk rock was dead! Grunge were sweeping across the world and “Genreation X”-ers were everywhere, moaning about their lives while being so ironic that no one believed anything they said. That´s the kind of world we were living in back then, folks. Oh, and a couple of years before, a guy called Tim Burton had become world famous for directing the first “Batman” movie, starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson as that white painted, funny fucker. I can´t even begin to describe how insanely big “Batman” was back then. I was ten years old when it was released and I was completely obsessed. Still am, to a certain degree. Joel Schumacher and the ass raping that was “Batman & Robin” kinda took the fun out of it for a couple of years back there but Christopher Nolan took care of that.

But anyway, Tim Burton was pretty big and I think it´s safe to say that when Dan Aykroyd sat down to pen the script for “Nothing But Trouble” he had Burton´s sensibilities in mind. Here´s what the movie is about: A financier ([Chevy Chase) meets a spurned lover (Demi Moore) and agrees to take her to a business meeting. On the way there, they run a stop sign in a tiny town called Valkenvania, in the middle of nowhere. They are pulled over and arrested by Officer Dennis (John Candy) and taken to the local court. This is where they meet the rest of his family, including Judge Alvin “J.P.” Valkenheiser (played by Aykroyd himself, under a thick layer of makeup). Things have definitely taken a turn for the worse…

When you watch this movie today, you´re struck by the notion that no matter how you look at it, it´s pretty impressive that Aykroyd got to make this movie at all. I have no idea how he pitched it and I´ve tried to find interviews where he talks about the experience but the only thing I´ve found was one where he said that “Nothing but Trouble” started and ended his career as a director. I don´t have to explain to you that this movie was a huge failure at the box office. I can understand that. It´s just too weird! But then again, that´s why I like it! You have to give credit where credit´s due and in this case Aykroyd definitely took a risk. He could´ve made the movie a lot safer and not quite so out there and I´m pretty certain that it would´ve gone over a lot better with the audiences of 1991.

However, that´s not how old Dan wanted to play. He took a risk. A pretty big one. He decided to make some sort of weird hybrid between Tim Burton´s aesthetics, Lewis Carroll, Roald Dahl mixed with “The Addams Family”. A very twisted fairy tale that seems to be aimed at a young audience but is, in fact, made for an adult audience. And adult fairy tale, if you will. And I´m not talking about “adult”, in that kind of way! It doesn´t turn into a porno halfway through, if that´s what you´re asking.

Now, the reason why this was such a failure at the box office was mainly because this was marketed as a comedy and neither reviewers nor audiences found it particularly funny. I can´t understand why. I mean, you got Chevy Chase in there and he´s pretty good at being Chevy Chase, if you ask me. He has a lot of his usual smart-ass lines that oozes with dry wit. I´m not saying that this is one of those overlooked gems. This movie is a failure and if Aykroyd really did set out to make a genuinely funny film, he definitely failed, there´s no arguing about that. But this is one of those interesting failures, you know? Kinda like “1941” (which Aykroyd also had a part in, come to think of it).

Part of what makes this so interesting to watch is the set design. Aykroyd really pulled out all the stops on those, let me tell ya! They´re pretty impressive, even by today´s standards. You see, the Judge´s house is surrounded by tons of old cars and piles of scrap and it even has a rollercoaster ride called “The Bonestripper” that ends with the passengers going through a bone crusher. Different members of the Judge´s family overlooks different areas of this yard and the town and this scrap yard is supervised by two of his children (or whatever the hell they are), Lil´ Debil and Bobo. They are two bizarre, pretty obnoxious man children who wear diapers, sweat profusely and weighs about 300 kilo each. Naturally, they fall in love with Demi Moore´s character.

And as if that wasn´t bizarre enough, Dan Aykroyd also plays Bobo (unrecognizable under the heavy makeup). I know that Eddie Murphy played about 4 or 5 different parts in “Coming To America” and that was made back in 1988 and I think it´s safe to say that Eddie Murphy pioneered that kind of comedy where the lead actors play all sorts of different characters (that´s all he does nowadays, it seems) but that would make this one a pretty early entry into that particular subgenre of comedy. I mean, it wasn´t until “The Nutty Professor” in 1995 that Murphy really started indulging in that type of casting.

By the way, what the hell is going on with Eddie Murphy? He keeps making these kiddie-comedies and making billions so I guess he ain´t complaining but seriously! Where did it go wrong? I mean, he used to be really funny. He´s still a great actor and I really thought that he deserved that Oscar nomination he got for “Dreamgirls” but he needs to do some R-rated comedies again. I thought that when he did “Bowfinger” with Steve Martin we were gonna se the return of Eddie Murphy (the funny one) but instead we got a bunch of shit, including “The Nutty Professor II: The Klumps” and “Dr. Doolittle 2”! Come on, Eddie… I know you have it in you. What would Richard Pryor say if he saw you now? Think about that.

Anyway, so Dan Aykroyd plays a giant man-like blob of a baby and that´s pretty bizarre. But the most bizarre scene of the entire movie has got to be when a rap group enters the Judge´s hall. Now, I´m about as into rap as a nun is into devil worshipping but I know this particular group. They´re called The Digital Underground and back in the day, they were the shiznit, apparently. At this point in the movie they have been arrested for speeding and are about to get their fine. However, the Judge becomes curious about their various instruments so they rig them up and starts jamming out, with the ancient Judge Valkenheiser playing the Organ. Now, this is weird as it is, but one of the members of this fine rap ensemble is played by none other than Tupac Shakur! He doesn´t have a whole hell of a lot to do but he´s in there, which just adds to the surrealism of the scene.

You know, if this movie would´ve been a bit more gorier, I am pretty certain that it would´ve been a cult favorite today. But that´s not how the cookie crumbled, which makes this a pretty disliked and reviled flick, like it or not! However, I think that it´s a perfectly decent, slightly underrated twisted comedy in the vein of “2000 Maniacs” (or “2001 Maniacs” for you youngsters out there).

There are so many weird touches to this movie. For instance, Dan Aykroyd´s nose keeps changing and every now and then it looks pretty much like a penis. It has to be seen to be believed. Did I mention that Aykroyd isn´t the only one who plays two parts in the movie? John Candy also plays his twin sister, Eldona, who wants to marry Chevy Chase. Weird, weird, stuff…

It´s about time that “Nothing But Trouble” gets recognized for what it is: although a failure, it´s a pretty damn entertaining and weird as fuck one, at that! And that´s a hell of a lot more than I can say for the majority of comedies I´ve seen since this one was released.

I am fairly certain that this is the kind of movie that most of you will hate but I can´t help it: there is something extremely interesting about this kind of failed comedies that I always seem to enjoy. Whenever a comedy gets a low rating, I have to check it out. Don´t ask me what that is all about but I know that I am one of the few people out there who genuinely enjoyed “Freddy Got Fingered” or “1941” as well, for that matter. Comedy done wrong can be just as entertaining in a “car crash”-kind of way as truly funny comedy, wouldn´t you say? I guess it´s the masochist in me speaking again.

I remember a while back that this movie was actually in the top 100 of imdb:s lowest rated movies, which I find extremely hard  to be believe. This movie´s reputation needs to improve. I mean, just watch and be impressed by the sheer madness and weirdness that is on display here!

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

So, it´s a new year and everything and I´m pretty damn sure that some of you out there have given some New Year´s resolutions and I´m also pretty damn sure that most of you  have already broken them. I haven´t given any but I am always striving to become a better man. You know, to be more mature in the way I deal with things and how I look at the world. For instance, some of you out there might be familiar with the fact that I find pregnancies to be deeply uncomfortable. That hasn´t changed. I don’t think it ever will. And as some of you also might´ve noticed, there´s been quite a number of horror movies the last year or two that´s been dealing with the horrors of being pregnant, raising children and all that that entails. Now, I´m not gonna bore with my theories of why I think that this is the case but last night I sat down to watch yet another movie about a killer baby. A while back I wrote about “Grace”, which was a worthy addition to this particular subgenre, but now it was time to check out the remake of Larry Cohen´s fabulous “It´s Alive”, which was supposed to get a theatrical release but ended up getting dumped on DVD a couple of months back.

I knew going in that there was no way in hell that this was going to top the original, which holds a very special place in my heart. Hell, almost all of Larry Cohen´s movies do but particularly the “It´s Alive”-trilogy. It´s a wonderfully deranged trilogy of films that each deals with different aspects of birth deficiencies and how society treats disfigured individuals. But you know, since it is a new year and everything, I figured that I´ll give this one a shot. Everyone deserves a break, right? Even a remake of an old classic.

I don´t wanna ruin the experience for ya but let me put it this way: this one doesn´t hold a candle to the original. I´m not saying that it´s a bad movie! It´s obviously done by competent people and Cohen himself had a finger or two in the writing of the script. It´s just that it feels pretty unoriginal. The charm that the original possessed is gone with the wind, unfortunately.

You all know the story, right? A pregnant couple (played by Bijou Phillips, who amazingly enough not once strips off her clothes and walks around in underwear, and a guy named James Murray) have a somewhat complicated delivery and after a while they realize that their cute little darling has a somewhat voracious appetite. That´s the deal! Pretty much the same thing as when they made the original way back in 1974. The problem with remaking a movie like this is that the original “It´s Alive” is today considered a low budget classic and it is a consider so for a reason, ok? You see, Larry Cohen has this ability (some might call this particular ability “talent”) to infuse his script with great dialogue, humor as well as gore. It´s especially his humor that shines with its absence in this new version! You see, Cohen never pokes fun at the genre but always manages to create humorous situations, based on character rather than on set pieces and shit like that.

I think it´s safe to say that the director of this new version, Josef Rusnak, wasn´t too interested in this. To his credit I have to say that instead of dumbing it down too much and going the easy route, Rusnak keeps it surprisingly serious and moody. The thing is that this doesn´t make the movie particularly entertaining.

I don´t know if you remember this Rusnak guy but he had somewhat of a hit a couple of years back with a movie called “The Thirteenth Floor”, a science fiction flick that dabbled in “Matrix”-territory. Well, I guess that this guy has got talent and whatnot but he insists on making movies that refuses to involve the viewer. “The Thirteenth Floor” was a well made flick and all but it even though it was slick and fairly entertaining, it was one of those films were you just didn´t become interested in the characters and whatever happened to them. And that´s never a good thing when you´re watching a movie. I mean, I couldn´t even remember what the hell “The Thirteenth Floor” really was about an hour after I watched it, but I remember that I kinda liked it. So maybe this guy isn´t that talented after all, huh? I may have jumped the gun on that verdict. ´Cause if you can´t engage your audience, which is sort of a precedent when it comes to making movies, maybe you shouldn´t be making them? Hell, I don´t know but the thing is that this is the biggest problem with the “It´s Alive”-remake: you´re not emotionally invested in this couple that has that monster freak baby! It´s not like in the original where you had god damn Michael Moriarty playing the father.

Which brings to my other main objection towards this piece of film: This guy James Murray ain´t no Michael Moriarty, that´s for god damn sure! Rusnak & Co have for some reason decided that instead of making the movie and focusing on the father´s point of view (like the original did), it would be much more interesting if they made the Mom-character the lead one. Big mistake, guys! By doing this, this movie immediately falls into the coral of every other killer baby movie ever made. Don´t you see? Every one of those movies always focuses on the mother!

But “It´s Alive” didn´t do that, it broke the mold and made the father the lead character and that´s one of the reason why it´s much more interesting than so many other movies. I think it´s kinda like when they remade “Dawn of the Dead” and they decided to remove all the political subtext, the thing that made the original so frickin´ fantastic! I´ll gladly admit that I liked the remake but I thought it was a big mistake to strip away the politics. I just don´t understand why these remakers always has to remove the very essence of these movies? That´s what made them great, for chrissakes!

One thing that Rusnak & co have kept from the original is the amount of bloodshed we get to see onscreen. Just like the original, the blood flows pretty liberally whenever that sharp toothed little fucker rips into one of his victims. So good job on that part of the movie, Rusnak!

But I just can´t help but having this feeling of “Why did they even bother making this?” all throughout the movie. The reason why Larry Cohen is credited on this movie is because he tried to do his own remake for many years and I remember reading interviews with him where he talked about how he wanted to deal with the advancement of genetic engineering in this new version. I think that would have made for a fantastic and interesting subject matter! What if you know that you´re child will be disabled? Are you gonna fix that even you don´t know how it will affect the kid mentally, for example? Or what if it turns out that the kid is gay? Is that something that you would also “fix”? Well, unfortunately Rusnak & co didn´t think that these type of questions would be interesting at all because there´s not a trace of any of this in the final movie, which is a shame. I think that that would at least have validated the remake slightly. As it is now, it´s just one of those “Was that it?”-movies.

But guys, let´s retire the killer baby genre for now, ok? It´s pretty hard to take it seriously in this day and age, ok? If you´re gonna insist on making them at least let Larry Cohen do his take on it or else you´re gonna end up with uninteresting movies like this one.

Well, at least it´s only 84 minutes long. I guess that´s a good thing.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Ok, there´s no arguing any longer: Denmark is officially the best Scandinavian country when it comes to making interesting movies! Hell, they might be the most interesting in all of Europe, for all I know. Not only have they given us Nicolas Winding Refn and Anders Thomas Jensen, but Ole Bornedal as well. Bornedal is one of those filmmakers that usually tend to be overlooked. I mean, he´s made some interesting movies and started his filmmaking career with a bang when he wrote and directed “Nattevagten”, which, on top of being a fine horror movie introduced us to the acting wonder that is Kim Bodnia, as well. However, after this fantastic start, Bornedal´s career took a turn for the worse when he decided to direct the American remake of his debut film, “Nightwatch” starring Ewan McGregor and Nick Nolte. I don´t wanna be too graphic but it kinda sucked ass. Bornedal followed that one with a big budgeted European co-production called “I Am Dina”, which also sucked certain extremities, to be honest. I´m not gonna mention which ones but I am sure you have a dirty enough imagination to figure that one out.

So far all I knew, Bornedal was out of the game. Then he re-appeared a couple of years back with the horror movie aimed at younger audiences, “The Substitute”, which got great reviews at different film festivals. Then he followed that one with “Just Another Love Story”, which also got some pretty good write ups. Unfortunately, I haven´t seen any of these movies but I have seen his latest movie “Fri Os Fra Det Onde” aka “Deliver Us From Evil” and it seems that Bornedal is currently working at the top of his fucking game! This one blows “Nightwatch” not only out of the water, it blows it up on the god damn shore and so far inland that it´s currently wandering around, asking other movies for directions back to the sea, ok? It has no idea where it is, that´s how god damn far out of the water “Deliver us from evil” has blown it!

Lasse Rimmer stars as Johannes, a husband and father who leaves the familiar city with his wife Pernille (Lene Nyström) and their two children (two snot-nosed kids who I don´t have the energy to find out what their names are) in tow, and relocates to the country town where he grew up years prior. Shortly after the family arrives, Johannes’s alcoholic brother Lars (Jens Andersen) accidentally runs over Anna (Lone Lindorff), a local elderly woman – then evilly plants false evidence indicating that a local immigrant, Alain (Bojan Navojec) is guilty. Johannes recognizes his brother’s guilt and thus opts to defend Alain – but little can he foresee the vile disapproval and revenge-fueled mentalities that surface in the townspeople, led by Anna´s husband Ingvar (played by Mogens Pedersen), and which will soon thrust his family members into their own personal hell.

Well, as you might notice, Bornedal has taken a cue from dirty old Sam Peckinpah and his masterpiece “Straw Dogs”. It doesn´t take a degree from a university to figure that one out. But this isn´t just a case of Bornedal ripping off another movie, oh no! This is a truly great film and one of the reasons is because Bornedal isn´t afraid to experiment with a genre that is so inherently American. I mean, this is a typically American story, and it could´ve easily been told within a Wild West setting, with a sheriff riding into his old home town and so on… Bornedal manages to take these almost archetypical characters and firmly place them in a Danish small town and lo and behold: it works like a charm!

This is much thanks to the fact that he´s managed to round up quite an ensemble. There´s not a performance that rings false in this movie! And to be honest, I wasn´t expecting much when I realized that Johannes beautiful wife, Pernille, is played by Lene Nyström. Now, that name may not ring a bell but you see, this girl has a past. Not as an actress but as a singer. Or maybe “singer” is a much too strong word to use when describing her contribution to the pantheon of popular music. Does the line “I´m a Barbie girl, in a Barbie world” mean anything to you? That´s right, we´re talking about Lene from Norwegian pop sensation Aqua! The abomination that was Aqua; how they haunted the charts with their retarded songs about Barbies, lollipops and Doctor Jones. I swear that this band must have been responsible for making an entire continent more stupid in a matter of a couple of weeks. Aqua has left scars so deep in my heart and psyche that John Goodman could take a stroll there without worrying that he would fit in there.

Anyway, the thing is that even Lene from Aqua manages to turn in a perfectly acceptable performance in this movie. That´s how great of an achievement Bornedal has performed here! Granted that she doesn´t have a lot to do but this is her first movie for chissakes so I´m willing to give her a break here. I won´t be sad to hear if she gets more roles after this one.

But if Lene escapes with her honor intact (there´s not much that can hurt it, once you´ve jumped around on a fucking pirate ship, next to bald guy, singing with an helium-induced voice), other actors really gets the opportunity to shine in this movie. I´m talking first and foremost about Lasse Rimmer and Jens Andersen, who plays the two rivaling brothers. I´m not familiar with any of their previous work but after some digging on my part (the kind that only a hard-drinking, Fedora wearing writer are capable of) it turns out that this Rimmer guy have done mostly comedy but he more than proves himself in this one and I´d love to see this guy tackle some more serious roles in the future.

When it comes to the supporting actors, the Danes know their decadence. The supporting cast is filled with scarred and tattooed faces and at times the movie looks like if Fellini had decided to make a movie in Scandinavia and cast it out of a federal prison. Jens Andersen, who plays the hard drinking, jealous brother Lars is suitably sweaty all throughout the movie and manages to be incredibly creepy in a couple of scenes. If you´re from Sweden, this guy is the embodiment of every prejudice we have about Danes: red-ish hair, drinks beer all the time, swears profusely, wears a knitted sweater in the middle of the summer and sweats like a dope fiend. He´s the Dane from hell! I apologize to any Danish readers out there but that´s how it is. That´s the image we have of you.

I don´t think that it´s any secret that Denmark has some pretty serious problem with racism and with the integration of foreign citizens (much like we have in Sweden, as well) and Bornedal deserves an applause for using situations and conflicts that harkens back to such an old and obvious problem as racism. He deserves an even bigger applause for doing so without trying to lecture the viewer or beating us over the head with any “racism is bad”-lectures. Nice going, Bornedal!

So after sitting through the meaningless experiment that is “Anti-Christ” and Lars Von Trier´s reason for venting his latest fears and paranoia’s, it feels good to know that there are still seasoned and experienced Danish directors that still knows how to surprise the audience. It will be very interesting to see where Bornedal goes from here but I sincerely hope that he remains with his feet in the thriller genre. It is one that he has total command and understanding of. There´s a couple of scenes in “Deliver us from evil” where he wrings so much tension out of that they´re almost unbearable in the strain they put on the viewer. Definitely the work of a director who knows what the hell he´s doing…

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

It´s sad but true that sooner or later heroes fall and legends die and for those of you out there still equipped with a functioning heart, you haven´t escaped the fact that the almighty Swayz-dog himself, Patrick Swayze, passed away 2009. That sucks but that´s life for ya, kids! Sometimes it sucker punches you and kicks you in the balls and that, my friends, is why Johnny Castle, Bodi, Dalton or Orin Mane is no longer among us. Whenever Swayze´s name is mentioned, it´s usually in the same breath as some of the more famous movies he starred in; titles such as “Dirty Dancing”, “Road House”, “Point Break” or “Donnie Darko” are more than likely to be mentioned. A title that has been somewhat neglected over the years is the not-so-well known “Next of Kin”, which is somewhat of a shame because this is a pretty good little hillbillies-gone-vigilante-flick that deserves a better reputation than it currently has.

Swayze stars as Truman Gates, just a regular, nice, up-standing country boy who once upon a time left his home and moved to this big town called Chicago in order to become a cop. One of his brothers, Walter (played by the imitable Bill Paxton), works as a trucker. He´s taken a cue from Travis so Walter resides in Chicago, as well. I mean, let´s be honest: if Patrick fucking Swayze was your big brother and he moved, wouldn´t you move as well? Even if you were Bill god damn Paxton and had a part in “Aliens”? Damn straight you would. Anyway, Walter´s truck is hi-jacked by the mob and he ends up biting the bullet.

Truman brings the body home to his family who still lives in the Appalachian. He´s greeted coldly by his brother Briar (played by Liam Neeson), who feels that Truman has deserted the family. Truman vows to find their brother´s killer but the family isn´t that much for police enforcement. You see, there´s such a thing as “honor” and this particular hillbilly family are pretty big on that concept. So guess what? They send Briar into the city to raise some hell.

Now, for all of you out there who´s seen “Taken”, you know that ass-kicking and Liam Neeson goes together like hand in glove. But you see, the mobsters in this movie hadn´t seen that movie, on account of it hadn´t yet been made so they have no idea what they´re up against. So let´s just say that Adam Baldwin and his henchmen are shit out of luck.

I gotta admit that one of the things that elevate this movie from the rest of the usual standard hillbilly-vigilantes-on-the-rampage-fodder is the acting that is on display here. Swayze was a fine leading man, there´s no denying that. He had a way of walking that fine line of being pretty damn bad ass in some scenes but also showing that tender side as a man dedicated to his family. He doesn´t reach levels of “Road House”-awesomeness here (I mean, it´s not like he gets to say “Pain don´t hurt”) but that particular brand of Swayz-dog cool is firmly in place here.

But you know, no matter how great Swayze is, the movie is stolen from under his feet by Liam Neeson. He is easily the most fascinating character and Neeson doesn´t resort to usual hillbilly-clichés in portraying him. Instead he manages to create a pretty well rounded and believable character and the scenes of him walking the streets of Chicago in his shabby clothes makes for some interesting juxtaposition.

It´s this, the way that this movie juxtaposes things, that makes it so interesting! Director John Irvin draws parallels between the mountain clans that Swayze & co comes from and the ways of Italian mob families. You know, that whole “an eye for an eye”-thing wasn´t invented in New Jersey, if you can believe that.

If you think about it, most movies that deals with the theme of vigilantism, they often try to say something about the meaning of family, don´t they? Some of them actually succeeds in saying something, but I can´t think of another movie that portrays the importance of having somewhere to belong and a family to turn to in quite the same way. The scene where Swayze returns home for his brother´s funeral is actually quite moving.

I think it´s pretty impressive how Irvin portrays the hillbillies, as well. He steers clear from the usual “Aw, shucks!”-lines and not once does one of them pull out a banjo and tries to ass rape a bunch of guys canoeing down a river, so good job on that one, Irvin!

It´s actually these scenes that I find the most interesting. They are pretty brief but Irvin manages to create a great sense of this actually being a community that exists in the real world. I was reminded by Peter Weir´s classic “Witness” where Harrison Ford ventured deep into Amish country and I would have loved to see some more emphasis on this but what the hey, you can´t have everything. It´s not like I´m complaining. Not when you get a final showdown between mobsters toting shotguns and hillbilly mountain folks sporting bows and arrows. In a graveyard, none the less! I mean, any movie that has an ending like that has to be pretty fucking great, right?

And that´s pretty much what makes this movie so much fun: Irvin manages to make an enjoyable vigilante-action flick but wrapping it up in some gentle scenes that meditates on the meaning of family, while highlighting a part of rural America that we don´t get to see that often on screen. Pretty impressive, right?

This John Irvin guy actually has a couple of decent flicks on his conscience. He directed one of Schwarzenegger´s earlier flicks, “Raw Deal”, but I don´t remember that much of that one except that Arnold smoked a cigar while driving around a junkyard and shooting guys. However, Irvin also directed the 1997 crime flick “City of Industry” starring Harvey Keitel and “Shiner”, starring Michael Caine as a corrupt boxing promoter. I´m pretty sure that “City of Industry” doesn´t hold up today. It was one of those crime flicks made during the flood of Tarantino-inspired rip off´s but “Shiner” is actually a pretty fine flick that I really recommend. Just like in “Next of Kin”, Irvin manages to take the viewer on an exploration of a world you don´t see too often in movies. In this case it happens to be the underground world of London boxing. It´s a pretty gritty little flick that´s worth checking out.

Now, I´m gonna round things up with a warning to you out there: If you´re gonna buy this movie on DVD (I´m talking to the one guy in the back who still buys his movies on DVD and doesn´t just download them), be sure to not buy the American region 1 edition, ok? It´s not in widescreen and its pan & scan is pretty awful. However, Warner Brothers has for some weird reason published a widescreen edition in Germany, which is pretty decent. I don´t know how the reasoning for not publishing this same edition in the States went but here´s actually something the Germans got right. Don´t think that we´re gonna let you off the hook with that whole Hitler-Nazi-thing just yet, ok? Even though we appreciate the fact that you honor the legacy of our beloved Swayz-dog, that thing you pulled back during World War II was pretty damn shitty. But who knows, some day we might be able to forgive you but that´s gonna take a whole shitload of some pretty awesome DVD-editions, ok? I´m talking a triple disc of Dolph Lundgren´s “The Punisher” and that kind of shit, ok?

Oh, I almost forgot this fun fact for ya: when this movie played theatrically in Sweden, Swayze was still pretty hot from his turn in “Dirty Dancing”, so naturally the distributor decided to cash in on that and that´s why this movie was known as “Dirty Fighting” over here. Genius marketing! I hope that the guy who came up with that title got a raise.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas