fdpedro Reviews

Batman Begins (2005)

At last, a Batman film about Batman!

[10/10 · 8 July 2005]

Tim Burton's Batman films were needed at the time, they did help erase the image the 1960s series had left, but he didn't have a clue how to handle the character. Sure, he had the right atmosphere, the right sets, the right costumes, and above all, the right music with Danny Elfman's Bernard Hermannen-inspired score, but Batman remained a tortured, lonely, and uncharismatic figure. Michael Keaton was physically miscast since he couldn't pull off the annoying arrogant playboy type in Bruce Wayne, neither had the necessary physical presence to handle Batman. It sure didn't help that the villains were given more screen-time and had way more charisma. Joel Schumacer took over the series and brought it back to the 1960s camp the Burton film were trying to erase, and while he was more comfortable with the Batman character than the previous director, he didn't have a clue how to handle the atmosphere.

Well, enough with all of this, after Schumacer ruined the series completely, a re-start seemed like the smartest thing to do since none of the previous films really captured the true spirit of the character at all. And here comes Christopher Nolan, director or Memento and the Insomnia remake, to do the Batman movie fans had been waiting for a long time. Screenwriter/director David S. Goyer was in charge of the script, borrowing elements from Miller's Year One, he crafted the quintessential Batman script, avoiding all of the mistakes Sam Hamm and Akira Goldsman committed in the past.

Christian Bale takes over the role played by nearly eight actors in the past, the film opens with a runaway Bruce Wayne starting his ninja training with Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) and his leader Ras Al Ghul (Ken Wantannabe) in the Hymalaias. As this happens, we flashback to twenty years ago, when eight-year old Bruce lost his parents to a thug (not the Joker like the first film) and swore his revenge against criminality. Bruce doesn't become Batman automatically, he nearly considers killing the murderer of his parents later on.

It's moments like Bruce throwing his gun at the sea that make Batman Begins different from nearly every previous big screen Batman representation. We finally have a film about Batman and not the villains. Not that there are no strong villains in this entry at all. Once Bruce's training is over (as he disagrees over Ras' brutal crime fighting tactics, enforcing the rule in the comics that he doesn't kill) he returns to Gotham City, which has been taken over by ruthless mob boss Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) and his main thug Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy) a criminal psychiatrist who is later revealed to be the classic villain The Scarecrow. Murphy doesn't have as much screen time as Jack Nicholson or Danny DeVito, but for once we have a Batman villain that is actually menacing, a villain that doesn't dance to Prince records and doesn't wear puffy shoes and colorful costumes. His specialty of infecting his victims with fear-inducing gas gives room for some pretty nifty hallucination sequences.

Gotham City is not the studio-bound 1940s noir look by Tim Burton, neither the psychotic neon-bathed wonderland from the Joel Schumacer entries. Instead, this is a realistic city, filled with slums (the Narrows) and to an extent inspired by Ridley Scott's futuristic rain-soaked metropolis in Blade Runner, a film Nolan showed to his crew before shooting began.

Many people have criticized the action sequences for their fast editing techniques and the fact that we never see Batman, but that was pretty much the point. Batman is supposed to be a dark figure, we are not supposed to get a good look at him during the confrontations. That is not to say the film's action sequences don't deliver. While it takes its time to build up characters and situations before the rumbling begins, the bat-mobile chase puts the loud theater speakers to the test. The final action set-piece taking place inside a speeding train is better than it sounds, we finally have a good climax in a Batman film for once rather than the Dark Knight destroying the villain's lair.

In terms of acting, few films out there have a cast this good. Christian Bale is by far the definitive live-action Batman ever shown on screen, he perfectly handles the character's split personality from the snobby playboy to the Dark Knight, even the voice changes, not to mention he looks great in the costume. Morgan Freeman and Michael Cane both play good mentors to Bruce, and even knowing Cane doesn't look like the part as much as Michael Gough, he has great chemistry with Bale and we finally see their relationship sparkle. Even actors with small parts like Rutger Hauer, who plays Bruce Wayne's main enemy at Wayne Enterprises, shine. Unfortunately, Katie Holmes is the only weak link here. Script-writer Goyer took a big liberty of creating this new character who means a lot to Bruce (she was his childhood friend) especially for the movie, and while she is more interesting than the previous romantic interests in this franchise (except for Catwoman obviously) she doesn't look very comfortable in the scenes where toughness is required. And last but not least is Gary Oldman's note-by-note perfect role as Lt. Gordon, a hard-working honest cop who, like Batman, fights against corruption. For once we get to see the Batman/Gordon relationship that was never explored in the 1989/1997 film series, maybe afraid it would turn as campy as in the 1960s TV show with the Bat-phone.

Few summer blockbusters work as much as Batman Begins. Never so much fun and energy was felt in a theater since the release of Kill Bill: Volume 1 in 2003. Chris Nolan has not only resurrected a dead franchise from oblivion, but done a film few super-heroes could have the honor of having. The summer of 2005 doesn't get any better than this.

Romance (1999)

Abstinence never seemed so considerable.

[2/10 · 14 April 2005]

It is not very hard to believe "Fat Girl" and "Romance X" were made by the same director, as much as the films differ in quality. The problem is that both films handle different subject matters. And while "Fat Girl" was successful in what it set out to do, "Romance X" fails miserably. This year I re-watched another chick-flick I never thought much of, Bertolucci's "Stealing Beauty", and found myself enjoying it a great deal, so I tried to do the same with "Romance X". It didn't work out, I now hate the film even more.

The film is described as "porn for women", and it already starts with a totally unbelievable premise: School-teacher Marie (Caroline Ducey) has a boyfriend (Sagamore Stévenin) who refuses to sleep with her for no reason whatsoever. He doesn't have any problems with getting an erection, or finding her attractive, he just doesn't want to have sex. What a believable premise! Maybe it was supposed to be unbelievable, maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting. The fact that it never crosses Marie's mind that her boyfriend might be GAY doesn't help it from being existentially funny. But again, maybe it was supposed to be unintentionally funny, maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting.

Marie fails to be a likable character as well, like most in the film. She is about 23, has the body of a 13-year old, the face of a 30-year old, and talks like a repressed, grumpy 75-year old. Every single line of dialogue that comes out of her mouth are mostly complaints on how miserable her sex life is, how much she hates men, and her amazing depressing theories on sex in general. It is not a very far stretch to assume it is Breillat speaking her lines, not Marie. Anyone who watches this film will get the impression that Briellat has never spoken to a human being. The most charismatic character, and actor, of the entire film is Ducey's first affair, a lonely Italian man named Paolo (Rocco Sifreddi) who seems to be the only human being in the film. The problem is that… well… Rocco is not an actor, he is a porn star only cast because of the size of his penis. You know you are in trouble when a "guest porn star" is the film's most interesting personality, because compared to Marie's boyfriend, he is Cary Grant. But again, maybe it was supposed to be unrealistic, maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting.

While it lasts for about 90 minutes, it feels like you are watching a much longer film. There is nothing wrong with films being slow and taking their time, but this one does it for no reason at all. There is a scene where Marie is lead by a man into being tied up for a bondage experience. It last about ten minutes for the man to lead her into his room and pull the ropes around her, only for her to give up. Later in the film, she tries it again, and so we begin to roll our eyes. But again, maybe it was supposed to be slow, maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting.

So you might be thinking that at least if the film is a pretentious, boring mess, well, at least it delivers as a soft-core porno, right? Wrong. This is the most misfire I've ever seen as an erotic film. Although I applaud Caroline Ducey for taking her "extentions" as an actress to the limit during the sex/nudity scenes, but they are anything but arousing. In fact, they are unbelievably boring. Only one involving Rocco Sifreddi is a bit, dare I say, far from tedious, but it would have helped if the actress at least seemed like she was enjoying it. I know this was not supposed to be a film about titties, but what else could one look for when there is nothing else? But again, maybe it was supposed to be non-erotic, maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting.

"Romance X" is one or those films that think they are art-house masterpieces, that they are groundbreaking, and that in the future it will be remembered as a classic. I've seen Lifetime Original Movies that portray strong, independent women in a more successful way than in this film. Maybe this film would have been quite a statement had it been released back in the early 70s, but in 1999 it does feel a bit outdated. Surely a film with such a controversial topic as a woman committing… gasp… adultery would be very shocking. How couldn't it be, a woman who attends…gasp… nightclubs by herself. What will she do next to be outrageous, take a valium? As a side note, the nightclub sequences have to be seen to believe. The music is bad even for Euro-techno standards and it is so low you can hear people's footsteps in the dance floor. But that is only a minor flaw in such a mess of a film. While the cinematography is beautiful and the work with colors (especially red and white) is effective, it doesn't manage to make this worth 90 minutes (which feel like 4 hours) of your life. But again, maybe it was supposed to be an unintentionally funny, unrealistic, slow, and non-erotic. Maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting.

Fat Girl (2001)

Be careful with what you wish for.

[9/10 · 14 April 2005]

Catherine Breillat's "Fat Girl" is another one of those European coming-of-age films where two friends/relatives, one more sexually active than the other, spend a summer vacation in a beach resort. This time, it's two sisters: Fifteen-year old Elena (Roxana Mesquida, who appears to be younger) is the oldest and wishes to loose her virginity with someone she loves. Her younger sister is a innocent and chunky twelve-year old Anais (Anaïs Reboux) who would rather experience sex with a complete stranger. Both of them get their wishes.

Most of the film takes place inside the girls' bedroom, where Elena's slightly older Italian lover Fernando (Libero de Rienzo) hops through the window occasionally at night. The fact that Anais' bed is in the same room doesn't stop them from experiencing sex in front of her, who watches them in curiosity, as well as repugnance.

Similar to the bedroom scenes in Breillat's previous film, the dreadful "Romance X", these are actually some of this film's strongest aspects. They last for quite a while, and they actually feel like one single scene. Unlike other films with strong sexual content, Breillat never switches on the "porno mode", making the scene seem like one single unbroken piece.

Briellat's films are famous for having graphic depictions of sex but "Fat Girl" uses a more subtle approach. While we do see the couple naked, the camera never lingers into the bodies, it is all filmed in one take. And not much of it is shown, Breillat leaves it to our imagination by filming Anais' reaction to it all, and only allowing us to hear the encounter. Alejandro Amenabar used a very similar trick in "Thesis", where sound would allow us to imagine the snuff film's brutal murders.

The two sisters' relationship is a far cry from what one would expect. If you are waiting for constant whining and shouting between them, you will be disappointed. While they do argue, they are for most of the time friendly with each other. Little scenes like the family's visit to a mall, or when they talk in bed together, are what make this film special. In the end, they are best friends and do love each other, despite their differences and arguments.

Many people have criticized Breillat for negative portrayal of men in her films. Lorenzo is indeed a narrow-minded opportunist who is only seeking to take Elena's virginity, but no other character in the film is very positive either except for the title character. Elena is so naïve that at times she could be the protagonist of a Lars Von Trier tragedy, and the mother (Arsinée Khanjian) doesn't really know how to handle the situation near the end. One must give actress Anais Reboux credit for making her character adorable, when many other characters could have failed to cross the "from innocent and cute to annoying" borderline.

Similar to Takashi Miike's "Audition", "Fat Girl" goes from a slow drama to very disturbing horror near the end. Many people have criticized the ending but I am one of the defenders. ***SPOILERS*** It is very hard to believe the events in the conclusion were real. Like Martin Scorsese's "Taxi Driver", I stand by the theory that it all takes place in poor Anais' imagination, nothing but a twisted fantasy on how it would have all come full-cycle. In less than a minute, both girls have their wishes come true. Elena gets both her and her mother killed, just like she said in a road-stop, and Anais looses her virginity to a complete stranger, somehow. I would also like to mention the window-shattering moment has to be one of the most surprising moments in cinema in the last years. It comes out of nowhere, and will make you jump more than any other cheap scare tactic used in many lame horror films these days. ***END OF SPOILERS***

One of the best, and darkest, coming-of-age films you will ever encounter, "Fat Girl" is essential viewing to anyone who likes the genre. Great acting, superb cinematography, and well-handled direction by one of France's most daring filmmakers.

Sideways (2004)

You'll never drink wine the same way again.

[10/10 · 9 March 2005]

Alexander Payne has only four films under his belt, but is already one of the most interesting American directors working today. "Sideways" is his latest film, which got five Academy Award nominations and won in the Best Adapted Screenplay category. Consider that it was the Academy's usual "consolation" award of the year, for those films that stand no chance for the big prizes. And even knowing the "small masterpiece" of 2004 did get a good share of nominations, not even that justifies the Academy's horrible and unforgivable decision of omitting Paul Giamatti as one of the nominees for Best Actor.

"Sideways" opens and closes with a knock on a door. One leads to a funny scene, while the other closes the film in a melancholic, but optimistic tone. Giamatti plays Miles, a depressed middle aged school teacher with a great palate for wine. His best friend is Jack (Thomas Haden Church), a has-been soap opera actor who is going to the altar in a week, with Miles being the man of honor. As a goodbye to being single, Miles and Jack decide to spend the week on a trip across California's wine country. What at first seems like a fun week between buddies turns out to be an important stage in the lives of Miles and Jack as they soon start reflecting about the choices they made in life.

Jack falls for Stephanie (Sandra Oh), a single mom who works in a winery tasting room, and it takes him only a few days to consider calling the wedding off. The fact that Stephanie doesn't know about the engagement doesn't seem to worry him so much. Meanwhile. Miles is getting ready to face his ex-wife, who he hasn't seen in years and apparently still loves, in Jack's wedding. That all complicates when he meets Stephanie's best friend Maya (Virginia Madsen), an oenophile working part-time as a waitress. While the film doesn't make it perfectly clear, and it doesn't need to, Miles does use his interest in wine as an excuse for being an alcoholic. When he learns Maya is taking a class on horticulture, not only is he surprised, but also realizes how he has underestimated her all this time. Madsen's monologue on how her character fell in love with winery is so perfectly delivered you can tell the exact moment Miles falls in love with her.

And while Virginia Madsen's turn as Maya really is a great achievement, deserving all the hype it gets, Paul Giamatti's performance is what really makes the film. The proof of how good the American Splendor star really is here lies on the scene where Miles faces his ex-wife. While attempting to look happy with a fake smile, you can see that deep down in his eyes he is attempting to avoid an uncontrollable desire to weep. Nearly as good is Thomas Hayden Church, who plays a teenager in the body of a forty-year old, a character so likable, yet so immature.

This is not a movie about wine, it's about four characters who happen to like wine. And while it does sound like a "road trip" buddy movie on paper, it is actually much more than that. Don't underestimate the film's comedic traits either, some scenes will bring the entire audience down to complete hysterics. Andrew Payne's best and most mature film to date, "Sideways" is, along with Lars Von Trier's "Dogville" and Michel Gondry's "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", one of the best films of 2004.

Taxi Driver (1976)

"Well, I'm the only one here."

[10/10 · 6 March 2005]

Look for no further proof of what a great actor Robert De Niro is than in Martin Scorcese's "Taxi Driver". De Niro plays Travis Bickle, a racist, mentally unstable, violent, lonely, and scarred Vietnam vet. "All the animals come out at night - whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets," he says while driving his taxi through the dark and dangerous streets of 1970s New York City. But the amazing feat of his performance is that behind all of the character's hateful traits, De Niro is able to make him likable. During the film's brutal climax, we somehow cheer for him.

Travis takes the job as a cab driver and takes all kinds of people in his backseat, from hookers to politicians to men more mentally unstable than he is. The city of New York has barely ever looked so menacing. The alleys are all crowded with punks, gang bangers, teenage prostitutes, XXX movie theaters, all of this accompanied by Bernard Herrmann's jazzy melancholic music score. You can nearly understand why Travis hates the world around him, how he isolates himself in his taxi cab, and why he will eventually take action into his own hands.

But then comes Betsy, (Cybill Sheppard) a political campaign worker who Travis falls in love at first sight one day when she enters her office in a white dress. All of the sudden, Travis starts wanting to "fit in" and attempts to get close to her by working in the campaign office and going out with her on dates. Betsy obviously doesn't love him, but does see him as an interesting character. This all shatters when Travis takes her to see a "dirty" film as it is his idea of a romantic evening (this was the post-"Deep Throat" era, when hardcore porn films got theatrical releases) and Betsy finally sees that beneath his strange charisma, Travis is a troubled man.

Feeling rejected and realizing she is just like the others, Travis goes on a moral outburst of rage. He decides to free New York from its scum by himself, with his own hands. Hee trains with firearms, works out rigorously, and isolates himself from society even more. One day, he kills a black criminal wanting to stop him from robbing a grocery store and the owner lets him go, while taking his anger into the dead body. That is Travis' first experience as a hero, but it doesn't come even close to his major mission: Rescue a 12-year old prostitute named Iris (then "newcomer" Jodie Foster) from her corrupt pimp (Harvey Keitel).

Screenwriter Paul Schrader originally wrote the pimp character as black, and then changed it not wanting the film to expose Travis' racism to a point where the audience despises him. As with most of Schader's work, "Taxi Driver" deals with a dysfunctional hero who wants to stand up against the dark forces surrounding him, but this film is the exception, where De Niro's character becomes the deranged madman he so despises.

The film could be compared to a superhero origin story, since we see the hero from the middle stage of his life as he slowly goes from a common man to someone who wants to make a difference. We never flashback to his true origin though, since we never learn what exactly happened to Travis during Vietnam. I've never seen anyone use this film to compare it with the Columbine High School shootings either, which always amazed me. The two kids who opened fire into their classmates perhaps weren't much different from Travis. They saw high school pretty much the same way Bickle saw New York, wanting to "clean" it from popular cheerleaders and jocks.

"Taxi Driver" indeed is one of the greatest American films ever made, one of the most important films of the 70s, and it deserves every bit of hype as it gets. From Schrader's script to Herrman's music, (his last work as he sadly died the night after the recording) everything works to an outstanding level. However, I usually disagree when people call this Scorcese's finest hour. Although by no means am I stating Scorcese's work was below par, this isn't exactly what one would call a "Scorcese picture". In fact, I would say Paul Schrader deserves more credit for this than Martin usually gets, especially when watching Schader's other films, like his sophomore directorial effort "Hardcore". I would personally prefer "Raging Bull", "Goodfellas", or even Scorcese's criminally underrated effort "After Hours" to this as a "Martin Scorcese film".

***spoilers*** And much has been said about the ending. . I am one of the supporters that the final moments of the film are Travis' dying thoughts. Both Schrader and Scorcese have spoken against this theory. After starting a shootout and killing the pimp and other bordello employers , Travis lies deeply wounded on a chair and the camera pans all the way outside where police cars start piling up. We then learn Travis was seen as a "hero" by the media, and how he is now a finally happy man. He picks up Betsy again, and this time she seems to be more interested on him. We are supposed to believe that not only Travis wasn't arrested, or killed by a bullet in the neck, but also that Betsy would actually want to get back with him again. I also find the shot of Betty seen by Travis' mirror a bit too "dream-like", the way it is lighted and the wind blows her hair like she is a supernatural life form of beauty and sensuality. But interpret it in your own end, it is still a great ending, and it does give the film a sense of closure, since it begins and ends with Travis driving through the dark streets of New York in his yellow taxi.

Thunderball (1965)

"I hope we didn't scare the fishes."

[8/10 · 6 September 2004]

Out of the 20 official entries of the James Bond series (to date) "Thunderball" is often mentioned as 'the underwater one' and for a very good reason. It had big shoes to fill since the previous year's "Goldfinger" became a box-office phenomenon across the world. Although Thunderball was even more successful, there are debates on weather or not it was a better film. In this fan's opinion, it was.

Picking up after the most unusual pre-titles scene featuring MI6 secret agent James Bond meeting his match with a man in drag and escaping in a jet-pack, "Thunderball" features the most generic (and parodied) Bond plot: The international terrorist organization SPECTRE, led by a mysterious unseen cat stroking leader, hijacks two nuclear bombs for a huge extortion plan. James Bond (Sean Connery) is sent to Nassau where Domino Derval (Claudine Auger), the sister of the pilot who appears to be responsible for the theft, resides with her wealthy and older husband Emilio Largo (Adolfo Celi). Bond eventually finds out Largo himself is the eye patch wearing SPECTRE #2 and he is in charge of the nuclear warheads. Will he survive Largo's squad, including lethal assassin Fiona Volpe (Luciana Paluzzi), and a tank of sharks?

"Thunderball" is directed by Terence Young picking up after Guy Hamilton from the previous film. Young, who directed the first two films of the series, is certainly one of the most important filmmakers of the Bond saga. In the hands of some hack, "Thunderball" could have easily been an overlong boring disastrous attempt, but Young fills the screen with the same thrilling charm and glamour that made the first two Bonds so unique. The most cinematic of all Fleming novels, the movie is quite faithful to its source material while adding some welcomed changes (the character of Fiona Volpe for example) an therefore making it a more entertaining movie-going experience.

The action is mostly underwater and that is what usually divides fans of the series since some find them sleep-inducing. The special effects crew was awarded with a Best Special Effects Oscar in 1966 and for a very good reason. The film's extensive use of underwater photography was quite breath-taking for it's time. And the visual effects themselves are quite impressive, especially the explosion featured in the climax which shattered many windows in Nassau. Thunderball is based mostly on thrills than stunts, which is something recent Bond films should start to concentrate on. It is all well orchestrated to one of John Berry's most memorable contributions to the Bond saga. The '007 theme' is used at its best during the action sequences, especially during the climatic fight at Largo's yacht. The theme song, sung by Tom Jones, is one of the most memorable tunes of the series, although I prefer the original unused song "Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang".

Two usual standards of the series, villains and girls, are both filled quite successfully. Adolfo Celi is one of the most parodied villains (eye patch anyone?) but his portrayal of #2 is incredibly fun to watch. He is indeed a one-dimensional character, but a very memorable one. Claudine Auger is one stunning-looking woman and her acting skills are above average for the time. She is one of the most likable Bond girls around and her lack of clothing makes her quite heir apparent to Dr. No's Honey Rider in terms of sexiness. But Luciana Paluzzi steals the show with Fiona Volpe. She is the first Bond girl to stand up to the agent's charms (Pussy eventually gave up) and the psychotic look of rage in her eyes responding to Bond's macho insult is particularly memorable: 'But of course, I forgot your ego, Mr. Bond. James Bond, the one where he has to make love to a woman, and she starts to hear heavenly choirs singing. She repents, and turns to the side of right and virtue... (she steps on Bond's foot)... but not this one!' Volpe stands second only to Xenia Onatopp among the sexy girl villains.

This is the last time we see Connery at his best portraying 007 before he was eventually bored with the in later entries, particularly in "Diamonds are Forever". He indeed shows why he is considered by most fans to be the best among the Bonds. He has amazing screen presence and a suave charm of a sophisticated playboy that just makes every guy want to be him and every girl want to be with him.

One of my personal favourites and certainly on my top five, "Thunderball" is one of the most well rounded Bond adventures to date. Exotic locations, beautiful women, battle sequences, gadgets, suspense, terrific music, and a memorable villain add up to the best of the "popcorn" Bond movies. Terrific entertainment!

The Dreamers (2003)

Cinema, sex, politics, and Bertolucci...

[23 July 2004]

Some people think Bernardo Bertolucci could be placed among Italy's other great directors such as Fellini, Leone, or DeSica. But there are still people out there who never forgave him from LITTLE BUDDHA, or that thought LAST TANGO IN Paris was overrated soft-core porn. His latest film, THE DREAMERS, might be misunderstood as a film about the 1968 student riots in Paris. It's not. Instead, it uses 1968 Paris as a backdrop for the triangular relationship of a naïve American with a pair of incestuous French twins.

Young and innocent Matthew (Michael Pitt) just arrived in Paris from San Diego in order to study the French language, but finds himself attending to the Cinematheque Francais instead. 'Only the French would build a movie theater in a palace,' he states in his narration. As he spends his vacation inside screening room with chain-smoking New Wave pioneers, the student riots start breaking out and he ends up meeting twins Isabelle (Eva Green) and Theo (Louis Garrel), who both are very similar to Matthew except that they are… hmmm… very French. After engaging interesting conversations that range from Nicholas Roeg to rock n' roll, they all start bounding up as friends and the twins invite him over to their apartment for dinner.

Theo and Isabelle's apartment consists of the stereotypical French family: They all smoke like chimneys and mom and dad (Anna Chancellor and Robin Renucci) are poets who love to talk about art and philosophy. When Matthew learns the parents are leaving for a month and that he can stay with the twins in the apartment for all this time, he finds himself in heaven. But things are far from heaven. He soon sees Isabelle and Theo have an unhealthy closure: They bathe together, sleep together, and masturbate in front of each other. Is there something going on or are they just too European?

At first Matthew is disgusted by their behavior, but the sexual tension between him and Isabelle (and to some extent, Theo) soon wins over. This is Bertolucci we're talking about, after all! The apartment eventually becomes one filthy, inhabitable place and the kids can barely survive. They run out of food, money, and are close enough to fall asleep in a bathtub and wake up dipped in menstrual blood. You would expect the story could take a LORD OF THE FLIES approach of turning the twins into psychopath savages, but screenwriter Gilbert Adair (who based the movie upon his novel) gives us a much more interesting story to watch.

These kids are, like many of us, movie buffs and spend their time challenging each other on identifying film references. The punishment for not knowing how the famous assassination scene in SCARFACE turns out to be sexual interplay between the characters. Is that a punishment? The discussions in the apartment cover sex, cinema, music, and politics. So you have the kids discussing who is funnier: Keaton of Chaplin? Who plays the guitar better: Hendrix or Clapton? Is the Vietnam War right? But my favorite is weather or not Maoism is the way to go. Theo describes Maoism as an epic movie with thousands of idealistic thinkers carrying their little red books and revolting. But Matthew adds that it would not be a very engaging epic since everyone carrying the little red book would speak the same dialogue, wear the same clothes, have the same characteristics. They wouldn't be characters, they would be extras. It's in moments like these where the actors really shine. Eva Green in particular is a true charming revelation and it's a shame Fernando Meirelles wasn't able to cast her in THE CONSTANT GARDENER like he wanted to.

Bertolucci isolates the characters from the events happening in the streets as much as he can, keeping the camera (for most of the time) inside the apartment. It's not enough to call the film a Dogma 95 sell-out, but it's really engaging and quite different from what you would expect from the director of THE LAST EMPEROR. The movie is called THE DREAMERS because the kids live inside their little mystical cocoon isolated from life and not doing anything about the problems they discuss. Matthew is the only one who seems to realize how immature it all is and how sick the incestuous relation between Theo and Isabelle makes him feel, unlike the usual 'Europeans are way cooler than Americans' stereotype you would expect from these cultural clash topics. Once the violent revolts start kicking in and the kids' orgy cocoon is shattered by the stone breaking the window, they eventually join the riots. But that is when Matthew finally realizes he will never convince the twins to change their nature.

The film was rated NC-17 in America by the MPAA. So it's okay to show Jesus Christ being slowly killed for two-hours, but a… gasp… a penis is truly outrageous! The NC-17 rating truly killed the film from getting any kind of attention it deserved since Americans still confuse it with pornographic material. We all know that rating systems across the world are different. In America, sex is seen as a more serious taboo than violence while 14 year olds can see this film in Italy and the French gave it a -12 rating. It's not only sex however, the French slasher film HAUTE TENSION was recently given the NC-17 tag also, and for violence. While I know the MPAA will never change their ways, I really think it's time they grew up and decide to create a new rating in-between R and NC-17 showing the this film is intended for adults only. Similar to what they did when RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK came out. America really needs a complete ratings make-over and the MPAA should really think of replacing their team with people who actually know right from wrong. Otherwise, brilliant films like these will keep getting overlooked in the future.

(5/5)

Die Another Day (2002)

"You know, I've missed your sparkling personality."

[23 July 2004]

James Bond only quit the MI6 twice before DIE ANOTHER DIE. The first time was in ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, which I consider to be the best Bond film of all time. The second time was in the underrated LICENSE TO KILL, where Timothy Dalton showed us all Bond's darker side. Now it happens once again in the first Bond film of the millennium. And as a Bond fan, I had high expectations for this after putting THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH an official ranking in my 'Bottom Bond' list.

The opening of DIE ANOTHER DAY might be considered one of the strongest of the entire series: James Bond (Pierce Brosnan) is captured while working undercover in a North Korean military base and is about to be executed. But thanks to those wonderful gadgets of Q-branch, he escapes in what must be considered the coolest hover-chase ever. During the process, he ends up executing Colonel Moon (Will Yun Lee) and is captured and tortured for about a year while Madonna's much-hated title theme plays along the opening credits.

The first act of DIE ANOTHER DAY actually had me thinking I was about to watch the best Bond adventure ever since GOLDENEYE. How wrong was I? After being rescued, Bond is accused by M (Judy Dench) of being a mole. We all know 007 loves to prove his innocence, so he escapes (in a scene so absurd only a Bond film could pull off) and goes looking for Moon's henchman Zao (Rick Yune) in Cuba. The "gringo-scope" vision of Havana where everyone laughs and dances salsa all day long is the usual exotic location that Bond films give us. In the middle of a tropical paradise he meets Jinx (Halle Berry), a mysterious American adventurer who might have a dark secret to hide. We all know from the previews that she is a CIA agent, but Bond doesn't. After finding Zao, we learn his face was deformed ever since Bond blew up a can of diamonds into his face. He looks… cool like a Bond villain should be.

Warning: The second act of DIE ANOTHER DAY is where things start to go bump. Bond actually returns to the MI6 and is sent to investigate Gustav Graves (Toby Stephens), a multi-millionaire who might be hiding something from the British government. How original! Bond and Graves meet and immediately engage in a fencing match. You should enjoy it as much as you can because it is the last good action sequence the movie has to offer. We finally learn two things about the film: One is that Gustav Graves is not only the youngest, but also one of the worst and most forgettable Bond villain of all time. The second is that Bond jumps the shark when Q (John Cleese) presents us with this film's gadgets: One is a ring that is also a vibrator (it might come in handy in some usual Bond occasions…), the other is a car that… get ready for this… turns invisible. We might just call it the Batmobile.

When Bond arrives in Iceland, we drop our jaws with the amazing ice palace Pinewood constructed. It is the best villain hide-out ever since Stromsberg's "sealab" in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. Too bad there isn't enough intrigue going on: Bond keeps seducing the second bond girl Miranda Frost (Rosemund Pike) who is a less-annoying version of the previous film's Elektra King. Gustav Graves' plan is to build a (oh dear…) a satellite made out of diamonds that is also a powerful laser beam! How do the writers come up with such innovations? *cough* DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER *cough* Plot twists start twisting, punch lines keep getting worse (most of them are contributions of Jinx) and the action sequences keep getting lamer and lamer.

Who is to blame for all of this?

My pick is: Christian Wagner. Who is he? He is the editor of DIE ANOTHER DAY, who also worked on some of John Woo's American productions. In the DVD featurette, Wagner confessed he was the first American editor to work in the Bond series and that he felt he needed to bring the fast-paced style of THE MATRIX and Michael Bay to the Bond franchise. Well, thank you Mr. Wagenr for ruining one of my favorite aspects of Bond: The fact that his films didn't look like your average Hollywood blockbuster.

But there are many other people to blame for this mess. I also blame the writers for starting out the film as an entertaining spy thriller and turning it into a video-game by the second act. I blame the writers once again for caring more to homage the previous Bond films rather than making something fresh or interesting out of this series. I blame the special-effects crew for creating some of the most fake-looking CGI of all time. Just look at the plane destruction near the end. There were moments where I was expecting to hold-on to a joystick and begin playing the latest James Bond PS2 shooter. And what was that surfing sequence all about? It was truly one of the worst moments in the Bond franchise… ever.

Halle Berry is indeed a pretty lady and a convincing actress, but she is cursed by the fact that all American bond girls (Tanya Roberts, Jill St. John, Denise Richards) range from mediocre to terrible. She pretends (both actress and character) that she is the female equal to Bond even knowing she keeps getting captured and yelling out punch lines so bad that they turn Bond's into pure comedy gold. Rosamund Pike ends up being the more interesting of the two, but her character is only put in the film because we always need a sexy female villain.

Music-wise, David Arnold's score is charming as he keeps walking on his quest to ever match John Berry. Madonna's main theme is a quite fun techno-beat tune, and by no means as bad as some people make it out to be. Have any of these Madonna-haters ever listened to Lulu's THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN? Or Gladys Knight's LICENSE TO KILL?

DIE ANOTHER DAY is more like your usual summer-blockbuster than a Bond film. >From the CGI bullet newly inserted in the gun-barrel sequence, I knew there was something wrong. I will admit that the film isn't one bit boring, it's well photographed, fast-paced, and for a limited while entertaining. But I'd much rather watch MOONRAKER. At least that one didn't try to be good.

(2/5)

Sex and Lucía (2001)

"Suddenly, you fall in a hole and it goes right back to the middle."

[4 July 2004]

Films like SEX AND LUCIA are the ones that when somebody asks you to describe, you have a hard time trying not to mislead them. Imagine David Lynch telling a story of love, lust, deception, and betrayal in a sun-bathed slow atmosphere and not one dwarf in sight. It might fool you at first into thinking it's just another erotic romance where characters have sex and share their feelings for two hours, but as soon as the first plot turn grabs you, you never let go.

Let's try to describe the plot in a somehow linear structure: We meet a restaurant waitress named Lucia (Paz Vega) who appears to have emotional problems with her depressed boyfriend Lorenzo (Tristian Ulloa). One night she leaves work to find their apartment empty and receives tragic news: He apparently committed suicide by throwing himself in front of a car. Immediately after hearing it, Lucia packs her bags and leaves to a Mediterranean isolated island where Lorenzo apparently had an early sexual experience with a nameless cook. Then we track back in time six years earlier when Lucia and Lorenzo first met. He was a famous writer whom she fell in love when reading his book and stalked him for days until finally confessing her obsession in a restaurant table. What follows are countless scenes where Lorenzo and Lucia interact through sex. We get cheap, gratuitous intercourse like never before in a major motion picture and it is treated quite normally with honest sensual bravery. Of course, you would only understand that from watching the uncut version. Lorenzo is currently writing a second follow-up novel and as his best friend Pepe (Javier Camara) advises: "Put lots of sex in it, people like that!" Now this is where I am completely lost as to how to continue to describe this plot in a linear structure. Well, Lorenzo learns he had a daughter with that cook he met in the island and she is now six years of age and named Luna. While trying to get near her, he starts having an affair with her babysitter (?) Belem (Elena Ayana). This particular sibling has an unhealthy affair with her stepfather who met her mother while working in the porn industry. Lorenzo eventually includes these characters in his novel which keeps being read aloud by Lucia.

Meanwhile back at the island in what appears to be present day (?) Lucia meets a scuba diver named Carlos (Daniel Freire, who also plays Belem's stepfather) and follows him to a nice cozy guest house owned by an excellent cook named Elena (Najwa Nimri). Want a big twist now? It turns out Elena is the lady who Lorenzo had an affair with six years ago and the mother of Luna. It appears that Elena is one highly active internet girl who comforts her loneliness by surfing in the world-wide web. In there she meets an anonymous writer who keeps writing her a story with no narrative rules (sounds familiar, doesn't it?) and that person is actually Lorenzo. Did he survive the suicide attempt? It just keeps getting weirder and more confusing to the point where you can no longer tell if what is being played on screen is reality or the work of Lorenzo's novel.

Director Jaime Medem was also the man behind LOVERS OF THE ARTIC CIRCLE, a 1998 film about an unusual couple composed of complete opposites (named Otto and Ana) so it makes partial sense that he was also behind SEX AND LUCIA. This is a film also about the faith of particular characters and how they all interact to each other by one key point: Lorenzo's writing. When walking out of the film, one is unable to tell weather or not the sun-drenched, paradisiacal island is real or some imaginary plot device where characters go to relax and wash away their sorrows and worries. Is it supposed to make sense? Is there a key as to how to unlock the film's nonsensical linear structure? Unfortunately, this film was not as analyzed and dissected as MULHOLLAND DRIVE, so we might never learn. What is left is not an erotic film., but a beautiful, warm, romantic tale set to Alberto Igleasias' remarkable music score and seen through the cinematography by Kiko de la Rica whose work with digital is truly remarkable where the sunlight-bathed island is so bright to a point where the image looks anemic. I think the regular audience might finish watching a movie like this and at least have an idea about what happened, and I guess that is already worth any explanation.

(5/5)

Phenomena (1985)

"I love you, I love you all..."

[4 July 2004]

Fans of Italian filmmaker Dario Argento don't particularly like him because of his stories, but because of the nightmarish surreal visual style he puts in his films, while others only care about the gore set-pieces. Are Argento's films really style-over-substance? Not really. They are indeed about something. While I am no big fan of his 1982 giallo TENEBRE, I must admit the theme (an artist inspiring the works of a madman) was a rather good move by Argento to strike back at all those people who blame today's violence on entertainment. His 1984 shocker PHENOMENA (cut and re-titled in America as CREEPERS) usually polarizes his fans, some considering it a poor showing of the master's style, while others consider it a brilliant return to the supernatural genre he handled so well in the late seventies.

After a morbid opening sequence set in the Swiss alps, we meet Jennifer Corvino (a then-unknown young actress named Jennifer Connelly) a strange girl who moves from America to a Swiss boarding school for girls after her father, a movie star, leaves to film his next hit movie. She is greeted by a cold headmistress (Daria DiLarazo) and a French chain-smoking roommate (Federica Mastroianni who happens to be Marcelo's niece) who both sum up to a bad first-night impression. During her first sleep-over, Jennifer starts to sleepwalk outside the school building and it somehow leads her to (subconsciously) witness the brutal murder of a schoolgirl.

One would assume that would end a spoiler-free summarization of the film since subconsciously witnessing a murder is already a very interesting premise for a thriller, but it gets even weirder: Jennifer also happens to have a telepathic boundary with insects (!!!) and builds up a friendship with a Scottish professor (Donald Pleasence) who is crippled and has a chimp (!!!) for a nurse. Oh, and later another plot involving a psycho mother who keeps her deformed albino child in the basement for strange reasons.

One wonders what were Franco Ferrini and Dario Argento smoking when writing this film. Not that the weird storyline is a negative aspect, on the contrary. Imagining Argento directing a surreal experience like he did with INFERNO and SUSPIRIA and following this storyline could provide us with good material. Unfortunately, it isn't so. Watching PHENOMENA is a real let-down, one could imagine just how good this movie could have been had Dario tackled it with the same energy he had back in the day.

This was Argento's first attempt at shooting a film in English and it shows. The English dialogue is horrid and the acting suffers from some really inexperienced teenage cast. Yes, while Jennifer Conneley was (and still is) very good looking and talented, her work here is incredibly flat. She fares much better than Federica Mastronianni, who proves talent doesn't run in the family. On a better note, Daria Nicolodi gives one hell of a show as the psychotic teacher, her over-the-top performance is great fun. The late great Donald Pleasence plays… Donald Pleasence. Like one would expect, he is great.

This was Argento's second collaboration with cinematographer Romano Albani after INFERNO. While Albani did an excellent job mirroring the colorful structures of SUSPIRIA in the 1980 sequel, his work in PHENOMENA is average at best. There is an overly 'bright' look in the film that might have worked in TENEBRE, but it just doesn't work here. The night scenes are filled with this weird artificial light, the sets are bleak and unimaginative, and the colors are really weak and anemic. If you are expecting the LSD-induced visual compositions of SUSPIRIA and INFERNO, you are in for a big disappointment. The film does looks good and atmospheric during the daylight scenes set in the Swiss alps, which are little in quantity. Those looking for those great camera movements that became trademark Argento, there is only one little awesome tracking shot involving an abandoned house leading up to a severed hand.

One would imagine a 1985 film involving insects would have terrible looking effects for today's standards, but surprisingly, it turns out to be the film's most impressive aspect. Sergio Stivaletti's work avoids the then inexistent CGI and gives us a wonderful freak show. The work with thousands and thousands of insects is plausible, one wonders how they got the little fellows to obey the strange orders. The optical effects are also impressive, one involving a swarm of flies surrounding a school had me wondering how it was made. It turn out the crew dripped coffee into a water tank and shot it against an interactive background. Creative, huh? And the mechanical gore effects are overly impressive. The same can't be said for the murders…

Argento is known for having gore set-pieces in his films, but the ones in PHENOMENA lack the overall punch he usually gives. There are some effective little touches (the pool of maggots, the broken finger, the scissor through the hand) but the overall murders seem weak compared to Argento's previous film TENEBRE. The chase scenes are average at best. Take the opening murder for example, it has a great set-up (the intro is filled with suspense) but the final delivery involves a head crashing through a window (in terrible slow-motion) and somehow being decapitated. To this day I wonder how the victim lost her head since it is obvious the glass didn't cause her much damage during the crash.

The music is a mess. That's the best way to put it. There are over 36 different composers, so the results are incredibly mixed. The works of Goblin, Claudio Simonetti, and Bill Wyman are incredibly well-done and atmospheric. Wyman has the best track here with the opening theme. The same cannot be same about the countless heavy metal bands who contributed their songs to the chase scenes. The only one that you might have heard of is Iron Maiden, whose song here is 'Flash of the Blade' and it is used during some really out-of-place moments.

Watching PHENOMENA feels like being trapped in a labyrinth designed by a crazy child. It is weird and surreal, but at the same time badly tacked and disposable.

(2/5)

The Stendhal Syndrome (1996)

"The paintings, they're coming alive!"

[10/10 · 26 June 2004]

No matter how successful they were at the Italian box-office, Dario Argento's films were always savaged by critics who always described his work as style over substance. After attempting to make it big in the American industry with disappointing endeavors like the mediocre 1993 thriller TRAUMA, he decided to go back home where he had always been accepted, at least commercially. The truth is that it's hard to imagine 1996's THE STENDHAL SYNDROME set anywhere else other than Italy. This is a country where art is everywhere: In the architecture, in the ideologies, even in the air you breathe. The accidental impalement of a Anthony Franciosa's character with a sculpture in TENEBRE (1982) could be seen as foreshadowing of Argento's concept of using art as a weapon.

Beautiful and young police detective Anna Manni (Asia Argento) is tracking down a serial rapist that has been making deadly strikes across Italy. In the very first shot of the film, she walks down the heat-stricken crowded streets of Florence and what follows is a 10-minute sequence without any dialogue where Anna's cat-and-mouse trail leads her to the Uffizi Museum. As she stares at the artistic accomplishments, we can hear strange sounds coming from her head, the heat suddenly makes her dizzy, and she faints while hallucinating to 'dive' into a painting. When she wakes up, she has apparently lost her memory and starts to wander around the streets with an amnesic sight. She soon meets a friendly man named Alfredo (Thomas Kretschmann) who affirms Anna's condition seems familiar to him and that he experienced it too when he was younger. Unable to pay a lot of attention, the silent Anna ignores him and goes back to her hotel in order to remember who she really is. After experiencing more hallucinations, Anna swallows a bunch of sleeping pills (the camera follows them into her esophagus) and calms down until the strange man from before enters her room. In a chilling flashback, Anna suddenly remembers why the man looked so familiar. But it's too late…

What starts is one long nightmare where the rapist abducts Anna, rapes her, beats her, and forces her to watch him kill. As he shoots a woman in the face (again, the camera follows the bullet in slow-motion from cheek to cheek) Anna makes her quick escape until she is finally rescued by the police. It looks like Anna has fully recovered her memory, but not without a few side-effects: She is no longer attracted to her boyfriend (Marco Leonardi) or to any kind of sexual experience whatsoever. Sex is now something disgusting and repulsive to her. She stars eating chocolate compulsively and starts having masochist desired involving sharp objects. After staring in a mirror shortly after her rescue, the scarred woman picks up a pair of medical scissors and cuts her hair short. It is one beautiful psychological moment where the casualties of rape reveal both mental and physical. Her psychiatrist (Paolo Bonacceli) diagnoses her with the Stendhal Syndrome. This real-life mental condition dates all the way back to the 19th century where the French writer Stendhal ( a.k.a Marie-Henri Beyle) experienced similar symptoms in 1817. These symptoms include sweating, hallucination, and personality changes caused by a big impression left after staring at a remarkable work of art.

What makes Dario Argento's THE STENDHAL SYNDROME so unique is that it has something that few recent horror films have: An original concept. Inspired by Grazialla Magharinni's study of the syndrome, Argento and screenwriter Franco Ferrini come up with one bleak, brutal, dark, and disturbing storyline involving the casualties of rape and sexual repression. It reminds me of Roman Polanski's own horror work in the 60s, particularly REPULSION. The film polarized Dario's fans: Some praised it as a return to form, while others (like one of Argento's biggest admirers: Alan Jones) maligned it as a silly misfire. It is somehow understandable as it is different from anything the director had ever done to that point. But what the film's bashes fail to see is that STENDHAL SYNDROME is indeed Argento's most disturbing and perhaps, most mature film. For the first time in years, Argento allows the story to engage the audience's attention and not just the visual style.

That is not to say the film lacks style, famed cinematographer and Fellini collaborator Giuseppe Rotunno gives the film a washed out, dark look that makes it appear to be made around the 1970s. The work with colors is superb but again, it is something you would expect from a visually impressive director as Argento. Unfortunately, the film's visual style can only be appreciated in the Italian DVD, since other home-video releases tend to use one horrible-looking and blurry copy of the print that lacks any kind of sharp detail and nearly ruins the look of the film. The music is the work of legendary film composer Ennio Monrricone and this might be his best horror collaboration ever. The main theme consists of a haunting lullaby ('la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la') repeated over and over again. which increases the atmosphere and tension of the scenes greatly. It's nearly impossible to not remember the music after watching the film, it will stay in your head for hours. The special FX-work is credited to usual Argento collaborator Sergio Stivaletti. While the film's CGI work tends to look dated, the scenes themselves are visually stunning to watch at first. Unfortunately, the fake-looking CG models become highly apparent during repeated viewings.

STENDHAL SYNDROME should be applauded as one of Argento's best works to date and currently his last great film. It is a breath of fresh air after the awful TRAUMA and one big false hope before the director became possessed by the devil and directed that beyond-awful PHANTOM OF THE OPERA adaptation. This is one disturbing psychological horror piece that would make Polanski himself proud.

(4.5/5)

The Last Supper (1995)

"I say we bury the cracker and have dessert."

[26 June 2004]

It's hard to review politically-themed movies without bringing out your political ideology. So here we go: Like the characters in this film, I am a liberal. THE LAST SUPPER deals with five idealistic left-wing college students who are also roommates. Their names? Jude (Cameron Diaz), Marc (Jonathan Penner), Luke (Courtney B. Vance), Paulie (Annabelle Girsh), and Pete (Ron Eldard). Get it? Jude, Marc, Luke, Paulie, and Pete? Last Supper?

Well, with these elements of symbolism aside, here is the concept of the film: A bunch of liberals inviting conservatives for communal dinners and killing them after the slightest disagreement! How many people here can honestly say they never thought of that? When the film opens, four of the friends are waiting for the last one (Pete) to arrive during a dark, stormy night. Meanwhile, they religiously watch a conservative political figure (Ron Perlman) on television like they usually do. When Pete finally arrives, he invites Zack (Bill Paxton) the trucker that gave him a ride to dinner. But during the feast, a political discussion starts burning up. Zack is a right-wing extremist who fought on Desert Storm ("Was that even a war? I always thought it was a Republican propaganda.") and thinks Hitler was right about many things. When the discussion turns into a series of puns exchanged between Luke and Zack, a violent struggle ensues with Zack eventually being stabbed in the back. Soon, the friends start reacting to the murder on their different ways. Paulie is in hysterics, Luke keeps his calm cold-blooded figure, and Jude remains sarcastic. ("People disappear all the time." "Especially in Iowa, we probably just saved him from an alien abduction.")

After covering up the body, the five apostles decide to repeat the process. Luke has an interesting concept: If you could go back in time and kill Hitler when he was a frustrated student, would you do it? And so begins the body count: Their guests usually consist of the kind of pathetic people one left-winger usually hates. One of them is a homophobe priest (Charles Durning) who affirms homosexuality is the disease and AIDS is the cure. Can you really blame these people for wanting to poison the fellow? This scene is incredibly well done, from the first-rate dialogue exchange from the students to Charles Durning's perfectly timed acting. Annabelle Girsh's hilarious death sentence just has to be seen. ("I think it's time for dessert.")

As the group continues to "make the world a better place," their victims start to become less and less threatening from a date rapist (Mark Harmon) to a spoiled teenager (Bryn Erin) who sues her school because they are making sexual education mandatory. Unfortunately, none of these scenes end up having the same dramatic (and comic) impact as the first two because they are unbelievably brief, leaving the audience gasping for more. The film soon endures the machine gun-editing technique of putting up about 30 scenes in six minutes set to a carefully-selected pop tune in order to sell the soundtrack.

There is a subplot involving the disappearance of a young girl who is being searched by the local police department headed by Sheriff Stanley (Nora Durnn) which look like they belong to a different and more serious movie. This is actually unusual since you would expect the goofier moments to come from an ex-SNL cast member. Or should you? The answer as to why these scenes are even in there comes much later on in the film. Frankly, Nora Durnn's scenes (Not counting the ones where she actually interacts with the students) could have all used some cuts.

Character interaction could cause another serious pet-peeve to audiences who relate to the people on-screen. The only character who seriously remains constant throughout the entire picture is Luke, while the others all seem to switch personalities. In one scene, Paulie is extremely against the killings while Judy is totally for it. But later on (In one of the film's funniest sequences) the actresses seem to switch roles. A hysterical Judy ends up screaming out that they shouldn't be killing people while Paulie coldly replies: "They are not people, they are people who hate!" The Pete character is seriously undeveloped while Marc is hardly any better.

The film does eventually pick up with the very last victim they choose, which I won't spoil. Not counting the suspenseful showdown, nothing really happens during the last 15 minutes but dialogue exchange in the dinner table bringing up usual liberal vs. conservative topics, and there is where the movie truly shines like it did with the beginning. It's a shame it had to end, really. Conservatives bashed this film as the ultimate proof that liberals run Hollywood, not realizing the film does defend them to one extent. It doesn't matter how "fun" the characters' concept seems to be, it's still sick and it goes against one of the major freedoms that liberals should be defending: The freedom of speech.

Out of the film's then-unknown lead actors, the only one that really made it to be a star is obviously Cameron Diaz. But no matter how underdeveloped the characterization is, all the actors are able to keep us entertaining. Courtney B. Vance and Ron Perlman seem to own the film during the last moments. As for the dinner-guests, they end up being more well-known cameos. Aside from Durning, Harmon, and Paxton, get ready to see Jason Alexander having a (short) blast as an anti-environmentalist businessman.

THE LAST SUPPER is still one strong freedom of speech defense argument well-directed by Stacey Tile who heads up an interesting young cast and a well-done premise. Had the film remained in the dinner table more often, it could have been easily one of my favorite black comedies. Now… wouldn't this be interesting as an actual thriller?

(3.5/5)

Cemetery Man (1994)

"At a certain point in your life, you start to realize you know more dead people than living."

[9 June 2004]

Michele Soavi's DELLAMORTE DELLAMORE is not to be confused for a zombie splatter flick, it is actually a strong character study in form of a black comedy. Of course, the words 'Italian horror' and 'character study' are not the kind of stuff you read in the same review. That is what makes this intriguing little film, along with Argento's psychological thriller STENDHAL SYNDROME, one of the last great horror films to come out of Italy. DELLAMORTE DELLAMORE was even given a theatrical release in Uncle Sam's land circa 1996 under the name CEMETERY MAN and it did quite well thanks to Rupert Everett's star power.

We know this is going to be something special from the very first scene: After the camera zooms out of a skull (very cool effect) we are inside a small room while a young man answers a phone call. Then someone knocks on his door and when he opens it… tcham! A rotten zombie enters the room. The audience is surprised, but the man isn't as he grabs a gun and calmly shoots the thing in the head. He returns to the phone like it was some bizarre daily routine as the camera reveals he lives right by a cemetery. Roll titles.

We then learn, through a continuous narration, that the man happens to be Francesco Dellamorte (Rupert Everett) a caretaker of a local cemetery of a small Italian town. Dellamorte is one lonely and unhappy man: The entire town makes fun of him for being apparently impotent and having a miserable sex life. Every night, with the help of his mute nerdy assistant Gnaghi (Francois Hadji-Lazaro) he is forced to dispose of the living dead who return from their graves seven days after their burial. This is a major factor of the film that is left unexplained as we are left to assume the zombies exist thanks to an unknown plague. It doesn't even matter anyways, this is the whole set-up of the movie and instead of having a linear plot, Gianni Romoli's sharp script (based on an Italian comic book series) is a string of semi-unconnected events that shape the film as an episodic piece. In fact, one could somehow consider DELLAMORTE DELLAMORE as an anthology film linked together by the characters.

Throughout the film's duration, Francesco falls in love with many nameless women (all of them are played by the same actress: Anna Falchi) and these affairs usually end in bad consequences. The first woman is recently widowed nymph who is apparently turned on by ossuaries. When her jealous husband comes back to the grave and kills her, Dellamorte is left shocked and hopeless. But fortunately for him she is buried in that exact cemetery and not even death can split them apart. Then he ends up falling to the mayor's secretary who happens to have a strange phobia that forces Dellamorte to give up his manhood for love. Will he do it? And finally there is a strange college girl who ends up being too easy. What is her secret? These affairs end up driving Dellamorte insane until the point where he becomes a serial murderer and gets back at all the town folks that originally made fun of him. But is Dellamorte really committing the murders? Or is it someone else? Are those women real or a product of his imagination? Is his insanity getting out of hand?

CEMETERY MAN is so unusual for an Italian horror film, a genre that has been fairly stereotyped over the years as hot-blooded women being chased by schizophrenic, knife-wielding, black-gloved killers. It actually has interesting dialogue, sharp plot, and strong character development. Not only that, but it is filled with black humor that actually works. One of the (many) comedic subplots involves Dellamorte's mute assistant Gnaghi falling in love with the mayor's daughter named Velantina (Fabiana Formica) who is later decapitated at a road accident. Guess to whom Valentine's (talking) zombified head hooks up? The Valentina/Gnaghi subplot is actually a very sweet and funny touch in the film and you actually feel sorry at the tragic outcome. The ridiculous idea of a talking head reminded me of Dario Argento's terrible attempt that same year in TRAUMA where the Italian maestro used it in a serious tone. It all gets more bizarre when Mayor Scanerotti (Stefanio Mascearelli) uses his daughter's death as political propaganda, proving that politicians don't have a soul indeed. During the beginning of the film I thought Detective Straniero's (Mickey Knox) failure at suspecting there was something wrong with Dellamorte was a plot hole when later I realized it was actually being played for laughs. And I laughed. Is CEMETERY MAN parodying the usual narrative problems with Italian horror?

The entire movie is revolved around Rupert Everett who is given a lot to do here from the narration to the actual on-screen performance. It is a shame that Everett's performance in this is never mentioned when people talk about his work. In fact, his horrendous role along with Madonna in 1999's NEXT BEST THING gets more recognition. I would go as far as saying Francesco Dellamorte is the strongest role I ever saw Everett play. He nails the character's offbeat sense of humor from the very first scene and seems to play the whole thing dead serious, making us somehow laugh anyway. This is a performance that proves that we can always take an actor's performances seriously, no matter what his/her real-life sexual preference is.

Michele Soavi was one of the most enigmatic horror directors to come out of Italy. Being a strong protégé of Dario Argento early on his career, the young gifted director completed many music videos as well as some documentaries and assistant-director credits before making his directorial debut in 1987's STAGFRIGHT. With the international success of that film, Soavi soon became hot stuff and was said being the next carrier of the torch that was originally passed from Mario Bava to Argento, but sadly it wasn't so. After directing four acclaimed films (with CEMETERY MAN being the last) Soavi retired and isolated himself from the movie-making business never to be heard from the international public again. Sad really, one can only imagine what his career would have been like if he kept directing because Cemetery MAN is so well-crafted. Soavi breathes style into the picture that mirrors the work of Mario Bava, Sam Raimi, Tim Burton, Peter Jackson, and others. He is even inspired by Orson Welles at some point and I won't tell you where…

The special fx-work was made by Argento regular Sergio Stivaletti (PHENOMENA, SLEEPLESS) and it is one of the most puzzling aspects of the film. For most of the time, the gore looks horribly fake. But one can only guess that was the intention. The zombies look and act so exaggerated and the gore looks so forced and corny one can't help but laugh at it. And were all those visible 'invisible' wires intentional? I am guessing it was just the VHS transfer I watched the film with.

Few films manage to be as haunting, imaginative, weird, and even as darkly funny as CEMETERY MAN. If you ignore some weak dubbing (the one problem the Italian horror industry will apparently never get rid of) you will have one great time. From the eyebrow-raising introduction to the enigmatic conclusion, it will be frustrating to know that Michele Soavi wasn't able to save the Italian horror industry from being taken over by Asian horror as the major alternative from Hollywood slasher flicks and now the industry is far from the 70s glory it once had, with Dario Argento managing to come out with a few minor hits over the years.

(5/5)

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

"Forgive them, Father. They do not know what they do."

[30 May 2004]

Unless you've been living under a rock over the past months, Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is causing much controversy due to the accusations of it being anti-Semitic. I was aware of Mel Gibson's desire to film a brutal epic depicting the last hours of Jesus ever since last year when it was being shot. The first question I had was: What's the point? I mean, don't we have more-than-enough Sunday morning movies about the death of Jesus? And aren't they all terrible postcard images already?

Gibson's film already begins with Jesus (James Caviezel) in the Garden of Olives where he prays after sitting the Last Supper and he must resist the temptations of Satan (Rosalinda Calentano). Meanwhile Judas (Luca Lionello) betrays Jesus for silver, causing his eventual arrest within the walls of Jerusalem where the leaders of the Pharisees confront him with accusations of blasphemy and death. After Judas hangs himself, the movie starts following Christ as he is whipped, beaten, mutilated, crushed, and crucified to death in front of his mother (Maia Morgensen who is Jewish herself) and his disciples.

I am not spoiling anything for you (if you didn't know the faith of Christ already, then go watch movies at your level, like AGENT CODY BANKS 2: DESTINATION LONDON) but the real thing is watching Jesus' horrific torture. What benefits THE PASSION is Gibson's obsession with reality. The entire film is shot in Aramaic, and the set/costume design is very accurate. It is all captured by Caleb Deschanel's stunning cinematography and choreographed to John Debney's music score. However, this `it really happened' approach also gives one the film's biggest flaws: The arrogance of Mel Gibson convincing ignorant people that it really happened this way. I mean, every single character in the film is white, and any historian will tell you the chances of this being true are equal to the chances of real weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Sure we were all raised believing Jesus looks like the lead singer of CREED, but this is ridiculous. And while the language origins claim to be accurate, then why are the Roman solders speaking Aramaic as well?

The main point of THE PASSION is to show us the pain Jesus had to go through while just being `crucified'. Gibson rubs the gore on our faces like some Italian splatter because it is one of the few aspects the movie has going for. And why? I was raised a Catholic, and even knowing I don't follow any particular religion, every Christian should already know that Jesus' interior pain was stronger than the exterior one. Gibson seems to know that, and the torture scenes are all cut together with short clips that I like to call: `The Best Moments of Christ' or `Jesus' Greatest Hits'. These include the Last Supper, the pardon of Mary Magdalene, (Monica Belucci who looks unrecognizable) and others. The problem is that the clips are all way too short for us to care. The violence becomes so extreme at one point that it simply doesn't shock us anymore. And after the 112th shot of Jesus covered in blood falling to the ground in slow-motion, it all starts to become tiring. The only powerful moment in this sequence is when Mary compares Jesus‘ continuous tripping to when he was a young child. And even so, my feelings went more towards Mary and not to her son.

Gibson has proven to be a competent director, and the film is still technically superb. The lightening, music, costumes, etc… are all perfect. And the acting is impressive too. Of course it all benefits to the fact that it is spoken in Aramaic, but Jim Casievel's performance is a demanding one both physically and dramatically. Morgensen's turn as the mother should be awarded, the audience can truly feel her pain through the entire movie. Even knowing her character's presence doesn't have a lot of meaning, (in the movie of course) Belucci's Mary Magdalane is also impressing. She gets billed second to Caviezel since they are both the only famous actors in the movie. (BTW, what is her obsession with controversial films anyway? Wasn't her 10 minute beyond-brutal rape scene in IRREVERSIBLE enough already?)

As for the film being anti-Semitic, it could be if the person watching it is a total idiot. Even knowing the film initially portraits the Jews as cruel and evil, they soon start to become shocked at what they see. They eventually seem to feel sorry for Jesus. And some of them go as far as to help him carry the cross or to bring him water. And don't we all know that Jesus died for us all and pardoned those that crucified him? I mean, blaming recent Jews for the death of Christ is like blaming recent Germans for the holocaust. Jews didn't kill Christ, humanity did. This whole controversy not only benefited the film economically (A subtitled film successful in America? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!) but it is reminiscent of Martin Scorsese's LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, which portrayed Jesus as a more human figure.

Pointless and controversial for a barely credible point, Mel Gibson's THE PASSION should be embraced as a powerful moving film, which I agree it is. But every time I watch the 1915 silent film classic BIRTH OF A NATION, it disgusts me. Not because it is a `bad' movie, but it portrays the KKK as heroes and the slaves as monsters. Any impressive movie that claims that is, to me, hard to review. So is THE PASSION. I still think THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST remains a superior and much powerful film. You can't beat Willam Dafoe, can you?

(3.5/5)

Lord of the Flies (1963)

"Kill the beast, cut his throat, spill his blood!"

[14 February 2004]

When William Golding's classic parable was originally published in 1954, critics gave outstanding reviews for a debut novel. The book was not only a first-rate adventure story, but a parable of our times. While back in 1954 kids killing each other took some strong believing, today you can see Golding's prediction being chillingly accurate. Nine years later, stage director Peter Brook would direct the film version that generated many mixed reviews. Some called it unprofessional and rushed, while others praised it as a classic. When the terrible American remake was released in 1990, many looked back at this version as a classic, and rightly so.

Brook's film opens with a very creepy montage consisting of pictures of a British boarding school intercut with planes flying over London with a haunting school chorus playing in the background. We learn that the world has been caught in a nuclear war and all the kids in the school were evacuated on planes. One plane crashes into the sea during a thunderstorm. The only survivors are kids ranging from six to twelve years old. Knowing they are trapped on a deserted island, they decide to re-start civilization.

The leader is Ralph (James Aubrey), one of the oldest kids who calls on assemblies with a conch. His buddy is Piggy (Hugh Edwards), a fat nerdy kid with glasses who is ignored by the other children even knowing he is the most mature. The bully is Jack (Tom Chaplin), a trouble chorus leader who quickly evolves to a Nero-like totalitarian leader and begins to lead the boys into savagery. The neutreal Christ-like figure is quiet Simon (Tom Gaman) who fails to fit in with others. The kids eventually split up to two tribes after many disagreements, one tribe consists of savage hunters led by Jack, while the other tribe led by Ralph is worried about being rescued.

Like the book, Peter Brook's THE LORD OF THE FLIES is a parable of the world under different political views. Piggy and the conch represent order and are both eventually ignored. Ralph represents a democracy while Jack represents a totalitarian form of leadership. Simon represents Christianity, although he is also ignored for most of the time. The kids undergo many conflicts, most ending in tragic results.

Today, Golding's novel is a subject in many school discussions, and some people today criticize it for being unrealistic and irrational. But after all, it is a parable. In real life, it is obvious the kids wouldn't last for very long.

Not believing professional child actors would deliver acting strong enough to portray such characters, Brook decided to cast non-actors that lived close to the island of shooting. This benefits the film greatly since Brook coaches great performances out of the kids (were some of them really acting?) and the fact that the actors are all unknown adds to the realism (This technique could be compared to the recent CITY OF GOD.) But the film's secondary performances are not as good. The kids usually take long pauses in between their lines, and for most of the time they seem to be reading them. Poorly reading them, in fact. To make things worse, the movie was dubbed on post-production due to the low-budget. This makes some of the scenes awkward, mute, and out of synch. May I also add the scenes are edited abruptly, making the whole thing seem rushed. It's sad that the film had to be cut to 90 minutes, considering an extra 30 minutes of footage would improve it. This process slows down the film, making it sometimes boring and tiresome.

This, by no means, is a bad movie. Brooks direction and Tom Hallimans cinematography put the 1990 remake to shame. The island locations (Puerto Rico) look dark and menacing in B&W, the kind of atmosphere the remake lacked. Brook is able to compose beautiful sad visuals. ***SPOILERS*** These include the kinetic editing during the hunt for Ralph, Simon's dead body floating in the water arranged by the sad school chorus (depressing moment), Piggy's tragic demise that puts the 1990s remake laughable mirrored scene to shame, and the very scary feast that occurs at night followed by the dance. That scene, consisting of quick images, scary close-ups on the savages painted faces, and disturbing screaming is very strong even for today's standards. Brook is also wise on deciding to omit the Lord of the Flies scene and only suggesting it. He does a batter job at it than Harry Hook did in the remake. Imagine the pain of actually filming that scene. ***END OF SPOILERS***

While the out-of-synch audio, some poor acting, and slow pacing might keep this movie away from the recent generation, it is still an underrated classic on its own right. It is disturbing, haunting, and visually wonderful. It really deserves to be seen twice to be really appreciated. Strongly recommended for those that never read the book and an essential preference over the remake.

(4/5)

Superman II (1980)

"Oh, God!" "Zod!"

[16 November 2003]

SUPERMAN II is perhaps the biggest "if only" movies ever made. Before I go on, you need to learn some history about the Superman films: They were both shot simultaneously by Richard Donner. When Superman II was 80% complete, Donner focused on pat I in order to release it by December 1978. After the rather successful US run, the British producers decided to fire Donner and get the more obedient director Richard Lester to replace him and finish the film. The main reason was that the producers wanted a more campy film a-la 60s Batman, while Donner believed in a more serious tone. Angry by the decision, both Gene Hackman and John Williams left. Fortunately, Donner completed most of Hackman's footage while the studio owned the rights to John Williams' score. So a body double was hired to complete the production posing as Hackman while a voice impersonator dubbed the final bits. British composer Ken Thorne re-worked Williams' score for the original film. Lester completed the film and re-shot most of Donner's footage with some changes in order to get the full credit as a director.

This is why SUPERMAN II fails to be as magical as the original. This is one rushed badly-edited mess that somehow is still good. There are two existing versions of the film: The Donner version and the Lester version. The Donner version was never completed, but can be read on screenplay around the internet. The Lester version is the finished product. And indeed, the unfinished Donner material is much better. But first, lets look at this sequel as a stand-alone film:

The three villains from the beginning of the first film (Terence Stamp, Sarah Douglas, and Jack O'Halloran) escape from the prison thanks to an H-Bomb thrown into outer space by Superman (Christopher Reeve) during a terrorist threat in Paris. Following their leader, Zod, they soon come to Earth and start to spread their own message of doom from Texas to Washington DC. Meanwhile, Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) finally finds out Clark's little secret and they are both having a romantic weekend at the Fortress of Solitude. In order to have sexual relations with Lois, Clark is forced to give up his powers, and as soon as he and Lois go back to Metropolis, they learn about Zod's escape. With no more powers, Clark must figure out a way to fight Zod and free the world once and for all.

SUPERMAN II takes a brave step from the family-friendly original to a darker and more serious tone. This is what makes it a good sequel. It doesn't re-tell what the original told, instead, it takes it further. It also turns the tables: The original's humorous enemy (Gene Hackman) is now reduced to a lame sidekick to General Zod. This is very similar change of pace to the recent X-MEN 2. The problem with Richard Lester's SUPERMAN II is that the pacing is way too fast, and Lester's footage seems somehow rushed and poorly done. Take the big fight at the end, for example. The fight itself is well done, but the poor campy humor that surrounds it dates the film horribly. One would wonder how lame SUPERMAN II would have been if Lester had directed it completely (you can have an idea by submitting yourself to the comedy horror that is SUPERMAN III). Richard Donner wanted to take the series to a more serious direction while the producers didn't. The failure of SUPERMAN III at the box-office proved that. Donner's original fight sequence (as read in screenplay) was poor in humor, but rich in excitement and emotions. It was also Superman, not Zod, that learned the joy of Coca-Cola. Not that Lester's fight is poorly done. Are you kidding? It is perhaps the greatest superhero battle of all history, and on TV, it seems more exciting than seeing two CGI puppets hitting each other at the Manhattan bridge (*cough* SPIDERMAN *cough*).

The rushed production is somehow obvious after you learn the backstory behind the film: Watch Lex Luthor sometimes talk while he is not facing the camera and can only be seen from a far angle. Notice how Marlon Brando from the original film didn't return because of a high salary (he is replaced with Susannah York). Notice how the special FX work is not done with the same care as the original. Notice how the cardboard US spaceship at the moon scene looks like it came from a high-school play. And notice how Margot Kidder loses weight and goes from attractive and colorful (Donner footage) to skinny, pale, and anorexic (Lester footage). ***SPOILERS*** The worst of the edits is the terrible hack-job at the climatic scene in the Fortress of Solitude. Not only did the re-write include a senseless illusion/trick cat and mouse game, but the way it is edited, it seems like both Lois and Superman kill the villains in cold blood and leave Lex Luthor to die from starvation. Is this SUPERMAN or BLADE? Superman doesn't kill this way (neither does Batman, a thing Tim Burton didn't get in his own adaptations) making the moment very cruel and in bad taste. In the actual Donner screenplay, the villains and Lex Luthor are taken away by the military and Superman destroys the Fortress of Solitude. ***END OF SPOILERS***

The actors themselves are just as good ,if not better, than the original, which is what saves SUPERMAN II from being a disaster. Both Reeve and Kidder still have the wonderful chemistry that they had in the original, while other roles like Hackman's Luthor are given more to do. It is quite amusing seeing Luthor being reduced to an idiot by the alien trio.

As for Donner's version, which I had the joy of reading, is incredibly superior: All the camp from the fight scene is removed, all the silly new superpowers are gone (no kiss!), the Paris opening is absent, Lois tricks Clark into revealing his identity, the dialogue was sharper, and the villains are freed by the missile Superman threw into outer space during the climax of the original film (connecting both movies better). Jor-El's (Marlon Brando) scenes are indeed the highlight, including the best scene of the entire Superman quadriology that was cut in Lester's version (Jor-El sacrificing his powers to Kal-El). The only flaw is that the scientifically incorrect "Earth goes backwards" trick from the original is used again. It was one of the biggest flaws the original committed: If Superman can go back in time, then what is the excitement in watching SUPERMAN sequels if you know that if something really bad happens (Lois dying one again, for example) he will just turn the damn planet around again?

The way I have just described SUPERMAN II makes it seem like it is a terrible movie. As a stand-alone film, it is far from it. The magic from the original IS here after all, it is just rushed. Don't go expecting the best sequel of all time like most people try to put it. You will enjoy this film even more if you excuse some of the poor effects and the whole background story. And you will witness the greatest super-hero battles of all time, which is the only moment Lester handles perfectly. But if you want to experience this sequel like you really should, read the Donner screenplay and see the dark, mature film with much better non-campy humor and no plot holes and bad editing. That is the film you should experience. That is the true SUPERMAN II.

(3.5/5)

Suspiria (1977)

"The only thing more terrifying than the last 12 minutes of this film are the first 92."

[11 November 2003]

Horror films were banned in Italy until the 1950s with the release of Hammer's DRACULA. Until then, the closest thing the Italian audience had seen to terrifying was Walt Disney's SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS. Directors like Mario Bava and Dario Argento saw SNOW WHITE and were inspired by it during their own ventures into terror. Bur Argento never came close to showing his love for SNOW WHITE more than in 1977 with the release of SUSPIRIA. When seen today, it's no wonder that SUSPIRIA remains one of the two Argento titles to have a successful theatrical run in North America (his debut BIRD WITH A CRYSTAL PLUMAGE grossed to the #1 spot).

Suzie Bannion (Jessica Harper from PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE) is a young American ballerina who arrives in Germany to join a famous ballet school. The same dark stormy night she arrives, a mysterious girl (Eva Axen) is murdered (in one of the most shocking murder scenes ever shot) and many other strange events start happening at the academy. What is going on?

This is the question that Suzie, her friend Sarah, (Stefania Casadini) and the audience will be left asking during the 98 minutes of SUSPIRIA (notice the mathematical mistake at the tagline) and like most of Italian horror, it lacks a logic narrative. We know there is something weird involving witchcraft in this school and we know Joan Bennet is behind it (when Joan Bennet runs your school, you know there is something wrong) but a logical explanation is never given, for the better. The film's tagline is referring to the first 15 minutes, which indeed are horrifying as hell. The image of the hanged blood-soaked Eva Axen remained in the mind Wes Craven, who would pay tribute to it in the opening of SCREAM, (1996) but he didn't come even close.

This is one visual masterpiece that uses the story as a backseat to the breathtaking cinematography by Luciano Trovoli, (MURDER BY NUMBERS)the haunting musical score by Goblin, (DAWN OF THE DEAD) and the dark nightmarish situations from Dario Argento. SUSPIRIA is indeed one of the better photographed films from the 20th century. This is one of those rare occasions that you could choose a random shot and hang it in a museum. Before shooting the movie, Trovolini and Argento carefully studied SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS in order to give SUSPIRIA a fairy tale atmosphere. Jessica Harper's large eyes and skin make her one heir apparent to Snow White herself. Either the the dance academy's red hallways, or the dark blue shadows attic, or the futuristic daylight scene with amazing architecture (early shades of Argento's TENEBRE). Trovoli's camera is always up to interesting moves, like the tracking shot of Alida Valli's feet as she walks to a crate.

Argento and his wife Daria Nicolodi (who was supposed to play Suzy before Harper snatched the role) scripted SUSPIRIA based on Thomas De Quincey's drug induced essay Suspiria de Profundis as well real life events that happened to Nicolodi's grandmother. The great Udo Kier goes further with that on his important scene in the film: "I believe that bad luck doesn't come from broken mirrors, but from broken minds". The script of SUSPIRIA is far from bad, but it is hardly remarkable and the artificial sounding dubbing limit the actors to express themselves visually like the silent film era (Harper, with her expressive Bette Davis eyes, is the true standout). But the technical elements like music, cinematography, and direction make SUSPIRIA the dark fairy tale that SNOW WHITE: A TALE OF TERROR (1997) should have been. From the once upon a time narration to the explosive finale, it could be easily translated to a children's storybook. A Halloween storybook that is.

(4.5/5)

The Exorcist (1973)

"You are going to die up there..."

[11 November 2003]

This is not a review of the 1973 version, but a contrast of the two existing versions. THE EXORCIST was completed in 1973 as a 140 minute film, and the studio asked director William Friedklin (THE GUARDIAN) to make it a two-hour affair. In 1998, the film was released on DVD as a 25th Anniversary Edition and it featured most of the deleted material. One was the spiderwalk scene, then there was the dialogue between Karras and Merin at the stairs, and then the alternative ending. In 2000, the film was re-released on theaters as "The Version You've Never Seen" featuring 12 minutes of extra footage and digitally restored picture and sound. I will list and analyze the major changes to one version and the other, and explain why I still prefer the original cut.

-First, let me start with the major difference: This is the best THE EXORCIST has ever looked or sounded. The new transfer blows the 1998 one out of the water. The film looks like it was made yesterday. The new sound is well done and superior in every level and the recent (and improved) extra sound effects are welcome. THE EXORCIST broke new ground in sound recording when it was originally released, and the legacy is kept on.

-The first big change is right before the opening credits. It is a rather effective tracking shot of the house the film takes place and then it follows to the rainy streets. What follows is a still shot of the church. This was done in order to make a beginning difference from the 1973 version to the new one, and to prevent the unfamiliar audience to think the entire movie will take place in Northern Iraq. This is a small, harmless change.

-There are CGI-inserted subliminal images all over the movie. Most of them are shadow interplays or quick flashes of Reagan's deformed face in the shadows and they are followed by creepy music cues making their existence noticeable. There are more digitally enhanced changes: The first is a quick morph in Reagan's face when she looks up to the doctor while being hypnotized. Then, the morph of Karras' possessed face in the ending is improved from a quick cut to an actual on-screen morph. Damien also sees his dead mother's reflection on the window. Overall, these digitally inserted additions are well done but unnecessary.

-Some moments of the original are cut. One of them is the F word. Again, harmless changes.

-Now the first big change: The inclusion of the first visit to the doctor. This is when Chris takes Reagan for a check-up because she has been acting weird these days, and the doctor prescribes her the then-unknown Ritalin. The scene with Chris and the doctor at the office is effective and necessary in order to understand later parts of the movie ("the doctor said...") but Linda Blair's individual moments in during check-up are badly acted and should have been quickly trimmed.

-The second is the famous "spiderwalk" scene. It takes place right after Chris learns Burke is dead. Now, this is not the real scene. Instead, the original material is played on fast forward and a new take of blood coming from Reagan's mouth was inserted. Fade to black. The original scene had Reagan turn around, move her tongue, and attack Sharon. Director William Friedklin wanted to cut this scene and it was a wise move. The scene feels gratuitous, out-of-place, and it was too early. It really breaks the downbeat feel of the scenes around it. I still have no idea why William allowed it to be here *cough* money *cough* and the new Friday the 13th-like "shock music" is terrible.

-Karras now listens to an old tape of Reagan as she talks to her father. This is one touching new addition, because it shows how Karras is starting to feel sorry and connect to the girl. It is one welcomed change.

-The dialogue between Merrin and Karras at the stairs is not really necessary but it doesn't hurt the film either. In fact, it is a rather well-written scene.

-The new ending is, indeed, stupid. Sorry for such an immature take on it, but it is. Screenwriter Blatty defends this ending saying that it was necessary for the audience to feel that the goodness was restored. Friedklin prefers the old ending because he wanted THE EXORCIST to be an open-ended movie where it would be left for the audience to take their own conclusions and he didn't feel it was necessary to explain it. I agree with Friedklin, the original noir-like ending featuring Dyer looking down the Hitchcock steps and then walking away while Tubular Bells played was simply perfect. The new extension of it establishing a new friendship between Dyer and Kinderman feels forced. And why did Friedklin allow it back again?

Overall, the original version is still the one to watch for. While it looks and sounds better, the new version is nothing but a cash-in. The spiderwalk and the new ending are drastic changes, and not for the better. The 1998 DVD contained most of these deleted scenes, a then-restored transfer (while it's not as good as this one, it is far from terrible) and excellent extra features to close it up. Still, the film itself is a masterpiece that will live on as one of the scariest movies ever made. Case closed, and I am tired of all these recent re-edits of modern classics.

House of 1000 Corpses (2003)

"If somebody needs to be killed, you kill him, that's the way."

[8 November 2003]

Rocker Rob Zombie's love for horror and macabre is nothing but old news, so seeing him directing a heavy horror film was always an interesting idea. However, his 2000 film debut HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES (how could you go wrong with such a cool title?) was dropped by Universal for being too graphic and intense, then picked by MGM only to be dropped, and finally found it's home in LION GATES trough a 2003 limited release. After three years of being mentioned as one of the most disturbing movies ever made, HOUSE was surrounded by so much hype that after seeing it, I came to a very angry conclusion: This movie shouldn't have been held back because of how "intense" it was, it should have been dropped for how banal it is.

One of HOUSE's many inspirations come from the cinema of Tobe Hooper, while the most obvious answer could be TEXAS CHAINSAW, it resembles more Hooper's THE FUNHOUSE. The rather colorful beginning is going on the right tracks as Zombie assembles a lot horror movie set-up cliches: Jerry, (Chris Hardwick) Denise, (Erin Wills) Bill, (Rainn Wilson) and Mary (Jennifer Jostin) are four friends (it's always four friends isn't it?) exploring roadside attractions on Halloween night. Fascinated by an attraction based on the grisly murders of Dr. Satan, a rather fun ride hosted by Sid Haig, (who turns out to be the best thing on the movie) the idiots... I mean, friends decide to search for the place where the real-life Dr. Satan was hanged. Instead, they find one weird family who takes Halloween way too seriously.

The first moments of HOUSE were promising: The humor worked, the family was rather creepy, the overall spooky carnival atmosphere worked even better than THE FUNHOUSE, and if you excused the flashy MTV editing, you were in for an interesting flick. However, as soon as the victims are abducted, (in a very tame suspenseful scene) HOUSE goes downhill faster than the great Tobe Hooper himself. Instead of focusing on the four friends and creating suspense from their attempts of escaping, Zombie decides to focus on the "cool" killers. Some of them are mute and creepy, some of them are amusing, (like ex-scream queen Karen Black and newcomer Sheri Moon) and some of them are so repetitive and over the top that they go from funny to over-the-top annoying. (Bill Moseley in particular.)

The rest of HOUSE is nothing but how the killers slowly torture the victims that we no longer care about and it all accumulates into a good-looking Alice in Horrorland climax. It sounds like fun, but it isn't. The whole thing is edited like a music video, with fast cuts, kinetic editing, grainy reels, etc... that are just silly attempts in making the movie look artsy. It isn't. The scenes where the killers talk about themselves on camera is so cliched and unnecessary that I even wondered why they were there. There are so many psychotic characters that you will soon loose the count. The spooky Halloween look is gone too, so what we are left with is one ugly, ugly, ugly looking film that, I dare say, disturbed me, not by how intense it was, but to how geeky it was. Yes, this is nothing but a geek-show, with Rob Zombie moving his camera a-la MTV screaming "look what an artsy talented director I am" trying to show us "old school" horror when the only thing old school about it are the "we were once cult movie stars" actors.

I will admit, Zombie is able to create suspense in one moment: The brilliant scene where the cops arrive. The slow-motion suspense dominated with a Quentin Tarantino-like music cue and the very effective silent pause. It's a shame not all of the movie followed that pattern. The climax, that resembles even more THE FUNHOUSE than any other moment, has the heroine trapped in this fantasy ghoulish world. It is visually impressive, but we are never able to feel any suspense. The scene where the girl gets chased by a masked killer who looks like Hammerman from CLOCK TOWER 3 is hurt by the annoying inclusion of alternative footage. Rob Zombie watched RUN LOLA, RUN too many times for my liking.

The calm down final scene with "the traumatized girl who went trough hell" rising into daylight is again stolen from THE FUNHOUSE, but I will admit it is done better. The surprise shock ending isn't, closing the film with the ultra-cheesy "The End" title card. That concludes what I think: This is nothing but a movie that wants to be an artsy tribute to old-school horror and a breath of fresh air after the much-hated SCREAM clones, but turns out to be a huge mess. Sorry Mr. Zombie, I never thought I was going to say this in my lifetime, but I'll stick to I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER, thank you very much.

PS: This is still preferable to the 2003 TCM remake.

(1/5)

Black Sabbath (1963)

"Mommie... mommie... I'm cold!"

[5 November 2003]

Done in a time when most foreign films would still get major US theatrical releases, I TRE VOLTI DELLA PAURA suffered from the usual "Americanization" process of editing. Directed by Mario Bava and starring legend Boris Karloff, ...PAURA was released by AIP in a re-edited cut version re-titled BLACK SABBATH. Yes, it did inspire the name of Ozzy Ozbourne's band. Unfortunately, wanting to cash in Bava's previous hit, (BLACK SUNDAY) AIP ruined the film by all costs, while it still remains effective on either version, the original European version is the one to watch (it was recently released on DVD by Image Entertainment.)

The film is basically three tales of terror: In the first tale, set on modern day, an attractive woman (Michelle Mercier from SHOOT THE PIANO PLAYER) is terrorized by a midnight caller with murderous a behavior. In the second tale, an 1800s Russian count (Mark Damon from HOUSE OF USHER) travels along the countryside until he finds a weird isolated family whose oldest member (legendary Karloff) just returned from vampire-hunting weekend acting very... strangely if you know what I mean. The third and final tale (also the best) is set in the early 1900s, where a nurse (Jacqueline Pierroux) steals a ring from a corpse and gets one of those famous stormy night revenges.

The Italian title for this film translates to THREE FACES OF FEAR, and it pretty much describes the whole thing: Three different stories with different themes. The first story is an kinky suspenseful giallo (Italian thriller) that perhaps started the urban legend that inspired WHEN A STRANGER CALLS, BLACK CHRISTMAS, SCREAM, and so on... The second tale is a take on Universal horror classics (which Bava was known to love) with a variation of the vampire legend, also the only time Karloff ever played a vampire. The last tale is one creepy variation of Poe's THE TELL-TALE HEART, that still stands up after all these years with truly scary elements. You will never hear a drop of water the same way again...

Director Bava was one of Italy's most underrated filmmakers, a true genius that managed to make his films look more expensive than they actually were. BLACK SABBATH is no exception. Wanting to mirror the colorful AIP Poe adaptations of the time (TALES OF TERROR, USHER...) Bava created an excellent study guide of shooting a horror film in color, a guide that many Italian filmmakers followed. All three stories have unique colorful looks on them and Bava is able to create a wondefully creepy atmosphere out of them.

AIP never showed any respect for Bava's work, so the movie was rearranged completely. New introductions for each story was made since the US producers thought the Italian ones lacked the TWILIGHT ZONE feel. The stories were re-ordered so that the strongest story would be the first. The original subtle score by Roberto Nicolosi was replaced for a more cliched one by Les Baxter. And perhaps the most insulting change was the entire re-write of the telephone segment. Because AIP wanted a supernatural flick for the kids, it was re-written as a ghost story (a very human-like ghost by the way) and the lesbian sub-plot was removed through silly editing and dialogue changes. Not surprisingly, little amounts of gore were also cut.

Because of that, finding the definitive version of this classic has many flaws: One is that you will be missing Boris Karloff's original voice. Then, I have to admit the US version was preserved better. Not only is the English dub quite good (AIP re-dubbed these films because we all know how lazy the original English dubbing from the Italian industry was) but the transfer looks much better too. Image's recent DVD release contains the superior original version, but the European print looks quite beat up and the US version looks actually better on AMC TV showings. It is still preferable over the AIP hack-job.

After 40 years, BLACK SABBATH holds up pretty well. Although some of the acting and set-ups are quite dated, you have to forgive the era this was done. The first segment that pre-dates SCREAM by many years will surprise you with it's twists and turns and Michele Mercier is simply gorgeous. The second is one stylish and creepy vampire story with one truly scary moment involving a vampire child ("Mommie... I'm cold.) And indeed, the last tale is one fast-paced scary thrill-ride. The lightening, the music, the cats, the sounds, the atmosphere, everything was perfect. It is one short film that can still easily scare the modern audience. You won't forget that face for a while...

(4.5/5)

Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown (1988)

"Ask her who the hell is Ivan!" "Who the hell is Ivan?"

[4 November 2003]

There are some movies that, no matter how good the translation, are just impossible for a particular audience to get. This is why I think most of the American audience wasn't be able to get into WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN. After directing the rather weak and disappointing drama/thriller LAW OF DESIRE, Spanish director Pedro Almodovar returned to screens in his full glory with this wonderful Academy Award-nominated screwball comedy.

Pepa (Almodovar regular Carmen Maura) works as an actress for TV commercials and dubbing of foreign films. Her lover Ivan (Fernando Guillen), who shares the same job, decides to leave her one day for unknown reasons, leading Pepa to assume he left with his wife Lucia (Julieta Serrano), who was recently released from the mental hospital. But after a while, Pepa realizes Lucia thinks the exact opposite, and that Ivan left for an unknown third woman. While on her quest to find this third woman, Pepa has to deal with her nervous friend Candela (Maria Barranco) who recently found out her boyfriend is a wanted terrorist and Carlos, (Antonio Banderas) Ivan's son whose annoying fiancé ends up getting accidentally knocked off by a rather lethal gazpacho.

Going any further with this film's plot would be unfair since most of the humor is delivered from it's many twists and turns. Almodovar was able to write a script so sharp with so many colorful characters and situations that the entire thing goes down with pure laughter. But is everyone laughing?

That brings me to the answer as to why many people didn't find this funny at all. If you don't speak or understand Spanish, (or some other language that comes from Latin) you won't be able to get this film as much as others. There is a reason why so many American comedians are never able to make it overseas: Humor is simply not international. The rumored but thankfully never completed American remake of this would have never worked. The performances for example: To people who understand the language, you can tell when the characters are being ironic, sarcastic, goofy, or serious. I don't think you can do that very well when English is your first language. So the users that have been complaining about "flat" performances might be already explained.

Almodovar has been accused of being a feminist, and this movie might be the main reason. I don't quite agree with that because WOMEN doesn't really leave strong message. If it does, I know few people who would actually care for it because this movie is hilarious. Every single character in these 90 minutes of absurdity gets well-balanced and get enough amount of time to shine: The MAMBO TAXI driver for example, turns out to be one of the funniest elements. The scenes all by themselves are already OK, but the frequency that they happen make them somehow even funnier. And the first-rate acting gets a big plus in my book. Everyone here is perfect (including a very scary way Almodovar coaches a good performance out of Antonio Banderas) with the true stand-out being Carmen Maura as over-the-top neurotic Pepa. It is a shame this was Maura's last collaboration with Almodovar.

But WOMAN's style is also not to be ignored: Most of the movie is set inside Pepa's apartment, which is put to good use. It is an amazing then-futuristic-looking retro set that with it's sitcom-like camp and artificial looking painted backgrounds becomes almost a character itself. Cinematographer Jose Luis Alcaine's camera is always up to interesting moves: There is the tracking shot of Pepa's feet as she walks in circles waiting for her call, or the reflection take from the answering machine. The work with colors is equally stunning, with the main colors being yellow and blue, and Pepa's red dress "over coloring" the environments around her for most of the time. You could freeze frame almost every interior shot of WOMEN... and stare at it for a while.

I can't really recommend this movie enough, as much as hard it is to review comedies. Reviewing a comedy is a tough call since it depends on weather you found the material funny or not. I have seen this over ten times and I always laugh at certain moments which I don't want to spoil. Let's just say the Jehovah's testimony and the TV commercial are the parts that always get me. I certainly did enjoy WOMEN... more than any other comedy I have ever seen.

(5/5)

Black Christmas (1974)

"If this movie doesn't make your skin crawl... then it's on too tight!"

[10/10 · 3 November 2003]

Released and ignored in 1973, "Black Christmas" became a forgotten classic. The Canadian shocker was eventually re-released as "Silent Night, Evil Sight" in order to avoid confusion with the blaxploitation films of the time, but it bombed once again. In the early 80s, it was broadcast on cable as "Stranger in the House" in order to snatch up some rantings. Right when the movie seemed dead, NBC decided to cancel a prime-time airing of it because it was deemed "too scary" for network television. This was all film-buffs needed to go back and discover the wonderful "cool movie that you never heard of" that is "Black Christmas".

Before I go on, here it goes: "Black Christmas" is one of the scariest (and finest) horror films ever made. Major credit must go to director Bob Clark (who went on to direct the epic "Citizen Kane" remake and because of legal reasons had to change it's title to "Porky's") who like John Carpenter in "Halloween", is able to create a current and simplistic creepy atmosphere. "Black Christmas" is indeed very similar to "Halloween": Both movies are themed with a particular time of year, both movies feature a killer with breathing problems who loves POV shots, and both movies have a long and slow build-up that makes the audience care for the characters that are about to get slashed. The difference is that "Black Christmas" does it much better, in fact, I think it is a superior film.

The movie begins with a shaky POV shot of a stranger who decides to sneak inside a sorority house in order to get some fresh meat. That's it! Plain and simple. There is no "your father killed my cousin's cat" motive, the killer wants to kill because he simply wants to. Isn't it much scarier like that? No motive at all?

The cast is not your usual teen slasher stereotypes: There is the not-so-virginal sweet leading lady Jess (Olivia Hussey) who is having trouble because she wants to have an abortion. Her boyfriend Peter (Keir Duella) eventually disagrees. In the sorority house there are many other odd characters, including chain-smoking, foul-mouthed, heavy-drinking Barb (ironically played by Margot Kidder) who steals the show with the much-needed humor. Unlike the countless other slashers out there, "Black Christmas" takes time for the audience to get used to these characters and actually care for them. Unlike in "Halloween", the entire top-notch cast in "Black Christmas" give excellent performances. Olivia Hussey is perfect as not-so-innocent Jess, Keir Duella is scary and misleading as her deranged boyfriend. And of course, Margot Kidder steals the show with an excellent and amusing take playing herself. Also noticeable is cult star John Saxon as Lt. Fuller who many years later started showing his personal love for "Black Christmas" on interviews.

The well-balanced doses of drama and comedy connects the audience to the characters on screen so strongly that they sometimes we forget it is a horror movie. And when something scary eventually happens, it comes as a total shock. Bob Clark eventually became famous for his comedies, and you can sense his upbeat sense of humor though the entire film. Recent movie audiences lost their patience, so movies like that can't be made anymore. And there is a good reason "Black Christmas" is currently labeled as a comedy at the IMDb, it is really funny. So many memorable quotes here: "These broads could hump the Leaning Tower of Pisa if they could get to top of it!" or "I'm a drunk? Here we have the queen of vodka herself!" and of course, the whole Fellatio address.

But isn't this a horror film? It really lives up to it's tagline. To begin with, the killer is not a silent invincible maniac on a Santa Claus costume. Instead, he is never seen. Most of his moments come from POV shots and dark takes. He is confined to the sorority house's attic for most of the time. How is that scary? Sound comes to play. The killer calls the sorority girls though the phone many times (early shades of "Scream" and "When a Stranger Calls") and uses some of the most disturbing voices you will ever hear. He imitates pigs squeaking, perverted dirty talk, animal noises, screaming, heavy breathing, and many other weird sounds. Does it work? Of course. This guy makes Norman Bates look like Richard Simmons.

These disturbing elements are all put together though the brilliant cinematography by Reg Morris, who is able to capture the silent Christmas atmosphere perfectly with the wonderful use of silent snow-covered streets and decoration. Let's face it, Christmas is a bit creepy, isn't it? It certainly will be after watching this flick. The piano score by Carl Zittrer is simplistic and effective as well. The repetitive use of Christmas carols also add up to the tension.

Ignored over the years and unknown outside the cult horror fans, this is an underrated classic that deserves much more attention that it ever got. Everything is perfect in this Canadian chiller: The atmosphere, the music, the overall spooky look, and one of the scariest villains in history. No gore (although the killings are so disturbingly shot they don't really need any) no sex, no nudity, just plain old-fashioned horror. This is "Black Christmas": Snow-covered silent streets, creepy Christmas carols, spooky use of lightening and color, scary atmosphere and the overall look of the plastic bag suffocated victim in a rocking chair staring from the attic window. Trust me, you will never go to your attic the same way again.

"Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the house, a creature was staring..."

The Eye (2002)

"What if the reflection you see is not really yours?"

[2 November 2003]

Ever since movies like EVIL DEAD TRAP and RING, the cult and underground horror fans' eyes moved from Europe to Asia. The Asian Horror (capital letters deserved) hit of 2002 was the Hong Kong production THE EYE. Tom Cruise's production company purchased rights to it as soon as it was released for obvious reasons: THE EYE was one thrilling ride. I was never so scared ever since I watched FRIDAY THE 13th PART 6 as a kid (Not a good start, right?)

A nice way to describe this supernatural thriller is RING meets THE SIXTH SENSE meets BODY PARTS meets THE MOTHMAN PROPHECIES meets GHOST. Angelica Lee gives an excellent performance as Mun, a young woman who was tragically blinded at the age of two. Mun eventually gets a cornea transplant from an unknown donator from Thailand. While seeing an entire new world, Mun soon starts seeing things she is not supposed to. "I see dead people" strikes again. With the help of her doctor (Lawrence Chou), Mun starts investigating the origin of her new pair of fresh eyeballs.

The storyline of THE EYE is old as dust. People getting cursed body transplants has been done to death. It is only a simple back-seat for creepy images and jump-out-of-your-seat moments. The first hour of the eye grabbed me from the imaginative DAREDEVIL-like opening titles to some of the scariest heart attack-inducing scenes I have ever witnessed. Even knowing they all depend on sudden bursts of orchestra in order to get really effective (RING remake comes to mind) they all succeed extremely well. And this is coming from a huge horror fan who was able to sit though many classics without flinching.

After the first hour however, THE EYE soon goes back to familiar territory and one can't help to remember RING while watching it. Both movies feature a female character who gets somehow cursed (tape in RING, eye in EYE) and with the help of male side-kick, travels to a creepy isolated town to find out this story about this girl with weird powers that the town despised. It all builds up to a climax that failed to impress me on both horror and drama elements since I had seen it all before. However, one good similarity THE EYE and RING share is the secondary surprise climax. While it borrows from THE MOTHMAN PROPHECIES, the surprise scene is energetic and chilling at it's best. It still doesn't top the TV scene from RING, but this is not a RING vs EYE topic.

I don't really mind that THE EYE borrows from many films. What I do mind is that no attempts are made for us to ignore that. At one moment, Mun realizes her doctor isn't taking her seriously and asks: "How can you help me if you don't believe me?" That would have been an effective line had not already been pronounced by Haley Joel Osement in THE SIXTH SENSE. And a serious car accident scary scene reminded me of GHOST so much that I couldn't take it without laughing.

The energetic direction by the Pang Brothers allows some fast-pacing and excellent cinematography. The shaky camera and lack of color tricks have been done to death over the years, but it sure works. The overall gray and depressive mood of the film is sure felt and they sure know how to scare the audience. The Orange Music material is aggressive at best from the heavy main theme to the shock scenes, but during the dramatic moments it becomes cheesy and silly like it belongs to a Lifetime TV movie. What was that techno during the picture-taking scene? Maybe it is my Western ignorance and maybe that music might be considered good in the East.

The fx-work that meets the eye (no pun intended) is a mixed bag. The ghost-involved CGI is handled well and with care. What becomes embarrassingly laughable are the effects used in the secondary climax. The tracking shot inside the engine and the slow-motion explosion look like they came from a video-game. But the scene itself is effective enough already, so it doesn't hurt that much.

Unlike RING, THE EYE is not really in need for an American remake. The movie looks and sounds slick enough to have been produced by a major Hollywood studio. But it is Hollywood's assumption that English- speaking moviegoers can't read subtitles (maybe they are right) will not stop them from remaking foreign hits in the future. While there are elements in THE EYE that would sure help an improvement, it doesn't really need a remake. It is one scary thrill-ride that you might enjoy.

(3.5/5)

City of the Living Dead (1980)

"What the dickens is this?"

[2 November 2003]

There are two kinds of people in this world: People who like this movie, and people who don't. You can strongly add me to the don't list. Directed by the godfather of gore Lucio Fulci, GATES OF HELL was the director's follow-up to ZOMBIE and his last film before his true gore masterpiece THE BEYOND. It was also his first to star the beautiful Catriona MacColl who would later star in two other films.

Before you read this attack review, you might want to know the circumstances I watched this film: Instead of picking up the transfered Anchor Bay DVD, I decided to get ahold though the 1997 VHS release. Big mistake, because the VHS version is a joke! It looked like it was transfered inside the real gates of hell. There was so much print damage I sometimes couldn't tell what was going on. Add in grain and washed out colors: This is the worst-looking print I have ever seen. So I can't really judge this film very fairly. The cinematography by Sergio Stalvatti was totally ruined.

The movie follows reporter (Christopher George) who teams up with a previously buried alive psychic (MacColl) to find out the truth behind a series of freak events that are happening in the small town of Dunwich which was built in the "ruins of Salem." Where do I begin? The plot is very familiar for Italian Horror fans since most of these movies feature a reporter teaming up with another character. Then comes the obvious plot holes that any fan of the genre might be used to. I won't even waste hours of my life listing them, but don't we all know there is no such thing as the ruins of Salem?

The so-called plot of GATES OF HELL is only a backseat so director Fulci can throw us some shocking and sometimes scary images. The problem is not even the horror scenes work. Well, when it comes to gore, this movie is filled with it: A woman pukes her intestines, a man (Michelle Soavi by the way!) gets his brain ripped from his head, another guy gets a drill though the head, the usual.

One can imagine what GATES OF HELL "could" have been. John Carpenter's THE FOG is a similar movie: It also deals with this small town that gets attacked by ghosts, zombies and freakish events. But THE FOG kept us interested somehow thanks to the wonderfully creepy setting. As for the setting of GATES OF HELL, Fulci doesn't even clear up where it is set. Sometimes it looks like an American small town a-la HALLOWEEN's Haddonfield. Other times, it is a dust-filled western location. Other times it looks like a planet from the STAT TREK series.

Speaking of STAR TREK, there are the special fx-work that is sometimes simply horrible. Now, the zombies themselves look creepy like they always do in Fulci fashion. The gore is well done as well. But the "supernatural" effects are something that one would laugh about. The zombies can teleport themselves from location to location and the effects used for it look like they came straight from the original OUTER LIMITS TV series. I couldn't really believe my eyes when zombies started appearing out of thin air. There is also the fireball at the beginning of the film which I won't even describe.

The horror imagery is trully embarassing. There are bleeding walls taken from THE AMITYVILLE HORROR, the swarm of maggots, and the sudden cracks in the walls. I will give director Fulci credit for sometimes creating atmosphere. The scene where a zombie's face can be seen under the stairs was actually creepy. And lets talk about the maggot scene: We all know how much Lucio Fulci loves maggots, right? Well, the maggot scene is unexpected, much like the 1977 classic SUSPIRIA. The difference is that SUSPIRIA's scene made sense. In GATES OF HELL, it happens to a bunch of characters and right after it ends, they all go back to normal and don't even talk about it. What is this? SOUTH PARK? Judging from the scene where a character tries to seduce an plastic pleasure-inducing doll, it is SOUTH PARK...

And then there is the climax. It takes forever... Most of it is just the remaining characters walking through this crypt and seeing some creepy stuff here or there. The only exciting thing that happened was the shift of a main character a-la PSYCHO. I imagine one day Lucio Fulci went to see 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and said to himself: "One day, I will do a horror movie like this!"

I am surprised how MST3K didn't spoof this on their missed show, the acting and dialogue are some of the worse I have aver seen. Of course, the dubbing doesn't make it any easier. The music by Fabio Frizzi sounds exactly like ZOMBIE except that it is 100 times more boring. The pacing makes ZOMBIE seem like an action-packed epic.

Oh please, for the love of god, don't see this piece of trash! OK, maybe I am being a little bit too hard on GATES OF HELL. Some people out there actually like it and told me it gets better on repeated viewings. Well, if I ever get the chance (and pacience) I will try to get ahold of the cleaned-up Anchor Bay DVD. Until there, here is my current opinion on this film: If Ed Wood was alive in the 80s, his work would look something like GATES OF HELL.

Conclusion: Recommended for gore-hounds and for one of the two remaining Fulci fans who haven't seen this already. There are a few good moments here and there (like the buried alive moment) but it is not worth the way of horrible in-between scenes.

(0/5)

Zombie (1979)

"The boat can leave now... tell the crew."

[2 November 2003]

In 1978, George A. Romero's epic sequel DAWN OF THE DEAD was released in Italy as ZOMBI. It was a major hit and soon the Italian film industry decided to cash in. Director Lucio Fulci, who at the time was famous for his early 70s giallos, was brought in to direct the spin-off ZOMBI 2 (aka ZOMBIE.) As an unnoficial sequel of a sequel (confused?) ZOMBIE has been dissed over the years as a DAWN OF THE DEAD rip-off, even knowing the early draft was finished before the release of Romero's zombie masterpiece.

Most of Italian Horror (capital letters deserved) is not about plot or acting, instead it goes straight to the shock department. ZOMBIE is no different. The plot deals with Anne Bowles (Tisa "I have a very famous look-alike sister" Farrow from MANHATTAN) who with the help of journalist Peter West (Ian McCulloch from SURVIVORS) tries to find her father who disappeared while performing experiments in some unknown island by the Caribbean. I don't need to go any further...

The acting in ZOMBIE (with the possible exception of Richard Johnson) is ruined by the quite lazy dubbing. The actors all try their best at their physical performance. Except for Tisa Farrow who stares at thin air for most of the time giving a very robotic and emotion-less performance. What matters is that a group of characters are trapped in this unknown island and there are voodoo-cursed zombies after them. Sounds like fun? Well, it isn't as fun as it could have been.

The real stars of ZOMBIE are the zombies themselves. These are the most effective-looking zombies of cinematographic history. I am not talking about "powder in the face" extras, these are rotten, maggot-infested, flesh-eating creatures. Kudos to makeup-FX creator Gianetto DeRossi for them. Just as terrifying are the gore effects. As always, director Fulci likes to zoom in the bloody wounds, giving DeRossi's effects many chances of shining.

Unfortunately, ZOMBIE somehow never really flows very good with the exception of a few scenes. Compared to similar movies such as the gore-less but scarier SHOCK WAVES, it becomes quite a bore. It never realizes the audience doesn't care about the characters, so it slows down for dialogue, dialogue, and dialogue. Poor dialogue. Some scenes could have been easily cut. The slow-pacing doesn't really help the film. And you also get a lot of scenes where characters do stuff only horror movie characters could. For example, in one scene, a zombie s-l-o-w-l-y emerges from the ground and a character just stares at it paralyzed by fear so he/she can give the zombie a chance of biting his/her defenseless neck.

The music by Fabio Frizzi echoes the work of Goblin/Libra from the 70s. There are some effective uses of synthesizer here and there that actually worked. What doesn't work is that the main theme gets repeated over and over again until it soon gets on your nerves. The repetitive use of music is another negative factor. The claustrophobic and explosive climax has the main theme repeated once again, slowing it down as well.

Lucio Fulci's (THE BEYOND) direction is one of the advantages. As slow as the movie is, his isolating atmosphere is always there. The climax in which the characters get trapped inside the hospital trying to stop the huge army of starving zombies outside is creepy at best. The shock moments are worth the wait of the boring scenes in-between. There are many highlight moments: One being the scene where Olga Karlatos (KOEMA) gets attacked by the flesh-eaters who are trying to break trough a door. That scene is incredibly effective, especially the final gore fx-shot which I won't spoil. Another triumph is the underwater battle of shark vs topless woman vs zombie. It is so absurd and unexpected. But the creepy final shot of the film is the stand-out for me. The recent New York black-out mirrors it perfectly. Fulci sure knows how to end his films in a down-beat way.

ZOMBIE is by no means a DAWN OF THE DEAD rip-off, although it was marketed this way. The only similarity the movies share are zombies. Instead, I would see ZOMBIE as a tribute to the voodoo-driven "living dead" films of the 40s. It is a fun gore epic hurt by the slow pacing. Had the pacing been improved, it could have been a favorite B-movie of mine. However, it isn't. And they had a big chance of giving a gory demise to Tisa Farrow's annoying character, and they let it go just like that. Shame on them...

(3/5)