dav07dan02 Reviews

Zeitgeist (2007 Video)

will help one think about the truth of our government and religion, whatever that truth may be

[5/10 · 25 March 2008]

DIRECTOR, Peter Joseph

I have never thought that intolerance or extremism of any kind to be healthy. This documentary film is without a doubt aimed at the far right conservatives and to promote libertarian causes.

I do believe that whatever a person's beliefs, one should have an open mind. For example, if a Christian knows about the beliefs of Jews, Muslims etc. and still believes that Christianity is the true religion, they will at least have some credibility when defending their beliefs. This goes for ALL religious beliefs. I also believe that ALL forms of extremism to be dangerous. This includes ultra liberals as well as conservatives. I personally do not acknowledge the difference between ultra conservatives or liberals. Both are closed minded extremists. This documentary brings out some very interesting points about the origins of the bible and Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and our government. However, one needs to watch this with the understanding that the film maker is using the film as a vehicle to promote his own views.

The film is divided into three sections. The first segment is about religion, the second 911 conspiracy and the third the Federal Reserve Bank. The first section is trying to discredit the authenticity of the bible and the existence of Jesus Christ. It makes the claim that Jesus Christ never actually existed but was a mystical figure. It states that much of the bible as well as its central figures are based on the Precession of the Equinoxes (a period of about 25000 years) and an astrological age (a period of approx 2100 years). The 12 apostles represents the 12 constellations of the zodiac. This theory states that Christ represented the beginning of the age of Pices, the age we are still currently in. The end of times is interpreted to be the end of the age of the Pices and the beginning of the new age, the age of Aquarius. The film also gives reference to many other central figures in the bible. It tells how the story of the birth and life of Moses is identical to the story of King Sargon which evidently predates the story of Moses.

The second part of the film discuses 911 and the possibility of a conspiracy. They claim that 6 of the hijackers are still alive. They mention the possibility that the steal support columns on the WTC were cut prior to the buildings being hit. This is backed up by interviews with some structural engineers. They mention the close association between the Bush and Bin Laden families. It is mentioned that George Bush had a Carlyle group meeting with Shafig Bin Laden (a relative of Osama) only shortly before the 911 incident.

The third segment of the film talks about the Federal Reserve Bank (the central bank of the U.S government). They talk about the origin of the central bank, how it evolved and how it controls our economy today. The film states that the Federal Reserve is a predominately private organization. The central bank loans money to the U.S. Government with interest charged on each dollar loaned. Thus, the U.S. Government is forever in debt to the central bank. They mention John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan's involvement with the central bank and how they have profited from it. They link the Federal Reserve System with all the major wars of the 20th century. They also mention the IRS and its unconstitutional practices. They also discuss the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security and how the government is using 'terrorism' as an excuse for the Homeland Security department to violate our civil rights.

I don't believe everything this films claims, but it has made me want to do more research on the Federal Reserve Bank and the Homeland Security Department as well as this 911 conspiracy theory.

White Zombie (1932)

fighting for madge

[7/10 · 16 January 2008]

Director: Victor Halperin, Script: Garnet Weston, Cast: Bela Lugosi (Legendre), Madge Bellamy, (Madeleine), John Harron (Neil Parker), Robert Frazer (Charles Beaumont), Joseph Cawthorn (Dr. Bruner).

This 1932 classic is considered to be the first zombie film. A young couple go to Hatti to get married at the estate of Charles Beaumont, a wealthy plantation owner that Madeleine met on a boat trip. Beaumont, however, wants Madeleine for himself so he turns to the "zombie maker" Legendre (Lugosi) for help. Madeline ups and dies the day of her wedding to Neil. Legendre and Beaumont exhume the body of Madge. Legendre gives Beaumont a potion that guess what------makes her a zombie! Beaumont realizes that he does not like the new "zombiefied" Madeline and wants her back the way she used to be.

This is quite an amazing little film. Although well known among fans of the genre, it was never a film that generated a mainstream audience in its day. It was a low budget independent film made my the Halperin brothers. In spite of its low budget, it rivaled many big studio films of the day such as the Universal monster movies and was much-much better made than other independent films of this time (which were rather rare)such as Maniac. The double exposure and other camera effects seem rather advanced for its time. Even though it is shoot in a back lot, the whole Haitian voodoo zombie theme gives it a genuine creepy atmosphere.

I have always thought of Lugosi as a good character actor. I like his work in several of the Universal monster movies (he played the lead part in the English version of Dracula,character parts in all others) but I have never cared for him as a lead actor. White Zombie is the big exception. His persona and accent is perfect for this role. Madge Bellamy did great in her role as well. She was rather attractive and I believe a fairly sought after actress of the day. The movies one weak point was its romantic subplot but that was common for the time. This really is one of the best horror films of the 1930's. It paved the way for many other zombie films to follow right up to Romero's 1968 classic Night of the Living Dead.

The Mummy's Curse (1944)

tana leaves revives the mummy once again!

[5/10 · 30 December 2006]

Director: Leslie Goodwins, Script: Leon Abrams, Dwight V.Babcock, Cast: Lon Chaney Jr. (Kharis), Dennis Moore (Dr. James Halsey), Virginia Christine (Princess Anaka), Addison Richards (Pat Walsh), Kay Harding (Betty Walsh), Peter Coe (Dr. Ilzor Zandaab)

This was the fourth and final mummy movie from universal. The original Mummy film came out in 1932 around the same time as Dracula and Frankenstein right during Universal's heyday. The first sequel was made in 1940 and all the rest were made between 1940 and 1944. Other then the fact that it is about a mummy, the sequels have no resemblance to that original film. The mummy doesn't even have the same name. The four sequels do,more or less,run in a continuum.

The story takes place 25 years after the first film in the bayous of Louisiana. Kharis,the mummy, and the mummified Princess Ananka went down in this swamp as we know from the previous film. This film has one exception to the otherwise continuous flow from the previous three films. In the prior film, they went down in a swamp in Massachussetts. Somehow they end up in a swamp in Louisiana! We have men with too different motives here. Mr. Walsh, the head of an excavation company that is draining the swamp and the archaeologist,Dr. Halsey, who wants to use this opportunity to recover the mommy from the swamp. Mister Walsh does not believe in the 'curse of the mummy' mumbo jumbo and doesn't want Dr. Halsey and his crew to interfere with his work.

Meanwhile, little does Dr. Halsey know that his assistant,Dr. Ilzor Zandaab, is actually a high priest who revives the mummy with tana leaves. In the process, Princes Ananka also rises from the mud of the swamp. This is actually a rather impressive scene! The curse is lifted from her and she once again becomes a normal women. She does not know where she is or what had happened to her. The mummy kharis goes after her and kills anybody that gets in his way. Dr. Halsey defeats the high priest and falls in love with Mr. Walsh's niece who works as his secretary.

The first mummy film was a classic right up there with Frankenstein, and Dracula(I personally like it better than Dracula). The sequels are not a classic like the original but they really were not meant to be. They were 'b' films. That being said, they are still enjoyable to watch. If one takes it literally, it is hard to believe that this took place 25 years after the previous film. If one follows the chronology of the four films, they would be in the 1990's. Probably not too convincing.

Black Christmas (2006)

clark institution

[6/10 · 29 December 2006]

Director/Script:Glen Morgan (Based on the 1974 screenplay by Roy More), Cast: Katie Cassidy (Kelli), Michelle Trachtenberg (Melisa), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Heather), Lacey Chabert (Dana), Kristen Cloke (Leigh), Andrea Martin (Ms. Mac), Crystal Lowe (Lauren), Oliver Hudson (Kyle), Kathleen Kole (Eve).

I think that people's opinion of this movie is going to be largely divided. There will be many young people (who perhaps are not familiar with the original film) that think it is absolutely great and of course many fans of the original that will think it 'sucks'. When I review a remake, I try to do so with and open mind and not always compare it with the original film. I am certainly guilty of this! One thing many fans of the original can agree on regardless of their opinion of this film is that it will certainly bring a lot of attention to the obscure original. Then again, us horror fanatics (like myself!) get a little possessive of our movies. We don't want them to appeal to the masses. So who knows.

This is the second remake attempt by director Glen Morgan. The other was Willard. I thought Willard was a good film, perhaps better than the original.His second remake attempt was of course,Black Christmas. It is a totally different script and with just a couple of exceptions has different characters. The similarities are of course the title, the concept of the sorority house, and the 'Billy' and 'Agnus' characters. In the first film, we never really get to know who the killer is. Who 'Billy' was is left a mystery. I think this is what made the first film such a classic. Much of the first half of this film is devoted to telling the story of 'Billy' and 'Agnus'. We are told about Billy's background and what led him to kill. We also find out who Agnus is.

As it turns out, the sorority house was Billy's childhood home and a lot of bad things happened to him there! Most of the murder and mayhem occurs during the second half of the film. Morgan uses a lot of fast passed action to move the film along which builds to a climatic ending. The first film was much more plot and character driven whereas this uses more visuals. Also, we see a lot more graphic violence in this one. Eye balls gouged out (and eaten!), severed heads etc. I actually find the over the top gore to be rather tongue-and cheek.

Being a huge fan of the original, I had long anticipated seeing this film. Overall all, I was not disappointed. I appreciate the fact that they did not just rehash the original script. I think they did a good job telling the story of Billy. The films biggest weakness was the lack of character development and personality in the characters. I find this a problem in many of today's films. All the actors seems the same! You will not see anybody with the class of Oliva Hussey, the sarcastic wit of Margot Kidder or cool like John Saxon. Although I was glad to see Andria Martin from the original in this film, I wish they would have given her a different part. I kind off wish they would have made her character more like the house mother in the original. She is a comedian as well as an actress. I think they made her too serious. See for yourself if he did justice to Bob Clark's original. I knew I wouldn't be able to do this review without comparing it to the original!

The Wicker Man (1973)

along with The Exorcist and Don't Look Now, one of the great films if 1973

[30 September 2006]

Director: Robin Hardy, Script: Anthony Shaffer, Cast: Edward Woodward (Sergeant Howie), Christopher Lee (Lord Summerile), Britt Ekland (Willow)

Sergent Howie is sent to a remote island off the cost of the highlands of Scottland to investigate the disappearance of a young girl. He soon discovers that the people of the island are not being up front with him as to her whereabouts including the girl's mother. He starts to see strange behaviors and customs of these people. He is to discover that they practice an ancient form of a Celtic pagan witchcraft led by the Lord Summerile and his own fate is at stake.

This is a very stylish and erotic horror, thriller, art house film. This movie and Don't Look Now from the same year are two films that I have heard a lot about and finally had a chance to see and I was not at all disappointed. The scenery of the Scottish countryside is stunning as well as the Celtic music score. The cinematography and music as well as the acting make this a classic. It looks as if this is yet another classic horror film that has been remade. I have yet to see the remake but for me this is an unremakable film. The style, culture, music and overall 'feel' of this film in my opinion cannot be matched. I highly recommend this film as well as Don't Look Now which is another UK produced film (shot in Italy) from the same year. Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee of course are pros and Britt Ekland is stunning.

Voice of the Moon (1990)

shows some interesting footage

[30 September 2006]

Director: Richard Stanley

Voice of the Moon is one of a series of documentaries made by South African Richard Stanley. It comes more or less as an extra with two other documentaries in the Dust Devil DVD set. It was made in the late 80's during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan showing the struggles of the people in this war torn country. We are shown the reaction of the people after the defeat of the Soviets. The Taliban was formed during this time and Stanley shows footage of them. This documentary lacks a narration. Consequently, I didn't always know for sure what was going on. What one is seeing is behind the scenes footage of the land and its people set to a beautiful music score.

Destination Moon (1950)

1950's golden age of sci-fi started here

[8/10 · 12 July 2006]

Director: Irving Pichel, Novel: Robert Heinlein, Script: Alford Van Ronkel, James O'Hanlon. Cast: John Archer (Jim Barnes), Warner Anderson (Dr. Charles Cargraves), Tom Powers (General Thayer), Dick Wesson (Joe Sweeney).

This was really the film that started the sci-fi craze of the 1950's. This film was marketed and produced by George Pal who was one of the biggest names in sci-fi then. This movie was a high budget film with state of the art special effects for the time. At the beginning of the movie, we are shown a rocket being tested in the desert. Well, this test fails because the rocket crashes. Dr. Cargraves is determined to create a ship that can actually make it to the moon. The federal government,NASA and the like, will not finance the project so they turn to the private sector. They try to get millionaire industrialists to finance the project. In order to do this, Dr. Cargraves had to convince them that they can actually create a rocket that can make it to the moon. I get a kick out of the part where a film with Woody Woodpecker is shown to the business men in order to easily explain the physics behind making a rocket.

I really enjoy this movie. It has no complicated back story or any romantic fluff that was so prominent in films of this time. Very to the point! You will anticipate what it will be like on the moon as you journey with these gentleman. It almost feels as if you are part of the journey. When they finally make it to the moon, we are introduced to a rather impressive depiction of the moon. While, for the time anyway. This predates the moon landing by 19 years! I guess we have since learned that the moon doesn't quite look like that. Oh well, I am still impressed. Credit goes to Chesney Bonestell for the art work.

After they have landed and are ready to return, they discover that they may not have enough fuel to make it back to earth. One of them may have to stay behind. There was another film from the same year called Rocketship X-M that I have not yet seen. Although Destination Moon was the first to be produced, Rocketship was made in a hurry with a much lower budget and made it to theaters first. But it was still Destination Moon that took sc-fi by the storm followed by Gerge Pal's When Worlds Collide which I plan on reviewing next. This film was made in full Technicolor. Sit back,relax and enjoy the ride!

The Exorcist III (1990)

I cannot say enough about this exceptional movie. A must for any horror collection!

[10/10 · 25 May 2006]

Director/Script(From his novel Legion): William Peter Blatty, Cast: George C. Scott (William Kinderman), Ed Flanders (Father Joseph K. Dyer), Nancy Fish (Nurse Allerton), Jason Miller (Patient X aka. Father Damien Karras), Brad Dourif (Gemini Killer/James Venamun), Scott Wilson (Dr. Temple), Nicol Williamson (Father Paul Morning)

This is the 1990 film adaption of Blatty's novel Legion. Ignoring the lousy 'Exorcist 2' this film takes place fifteen years after the events of the first film. This is the true sequel to The Exorcist. Three of the characters from the first film are also in this one. Detective Kinderman (played by Lee Cobb in the original now played by George C Scott), Father Dyer (Played by Rev. William O. Malley in the original now played by Ed Flanders), and Father Damien Karras (Jason Miller).

At the end of the original film, Father Karras 'dies' by either jumping or being forced out the window and down the stars after assisting with the exorcism of Reagan. As it turns out, he didn't actually die. During what should have been his death, his body becomes possessed by the spirit of the Gemini Killer as a way for Satan to seek torment on Father Karras for performing the exorcism on Reagan. This movie starts out with Dective Kinderman meting Father Dyer on the 15th anniversary of Father Karras's death(He is presumed dead) for a showing of It's a Wonderful Life. Kinderman is investigating a series of deaths that horrifically resemble the work of the Gemini Killer who had been executed fifteen years earlier. The victims are decapitated and their heads replaced with one from a statue of Christ. Sometimes entire organs are removed and replaced with religious artifacts such as rosaries. What is troubling is that the murders are being executed in ways only the Gemini Killer would have known. Dective Kinderman is eventually to discover that is old friend Father Karras is in a psychiatric ward and appearers to be possessed by the Genini Killer.

This film represents one of those rare cases where a sequel is equal or even better than the original film. The problem with so many sequels especially with horror movies is that it is hard to create the same kind of atmosphere the second time around. This is not at all the case here. Blatty was able to create the same gloomy atmosphere. Like the original, this movie is filmed in the Georgetown section of Washington, DC. The characterization is also excellent in this film. As good as in the first. I like George C. Scott and Lee Cobb about equally well as Detectve Kinderman. This movie is more plot driven and less special effects driven than the original. The first film relied too much on sensationalism at times to get it point across. This film is an 'intellictual' horror film. One had to follow the story to be scared by it. But what an effect it has! Especially if you believe in heaven and hell, good and evil. I sure do.

William Peter Blatty wanted this film to be called Legion after his novel and this film was to have no exorcisms in it. Unfortunately, the studio made him include an exorcism and call the film 'The Exorcist 3' to cash in on the Exorcist name. The exorcism at the end of the film was a weak point in the film and I will tell you why. To do an exorcism once again uses it too casually. In reality, the Catholic church really performs exorcisms. Few priests are even qualified to do it. Exorcism are only performed under extremely rare circumstances and they have to be approved by at least the bishop. A priest cannot routinely perform an exorcism. That aside, it just added unnecessary sensationalism to the film. Otherwise this is a great film and one of my all time favorite horror films. This is a truly underrated work. I am really hoping for a special edition directors cut of this to come out.

The Ten Commandments (1923)

a great silent spectacle

[9/10 · 12 May 2006]

Director: Cecil B. Demille, Script: Jeaine Macpherson, Cast: Theodore Roberts (Moses), Charles de Rochfort (Rameses), Estelle Taylor (Miriam,sister of Moses), Julia Faye (wife of pharaoh), James Neill (Aaron), Edythe Chapman (Mrs. Martha Mc Tavish), Richard Dix (John,son), Rod La Rosque (Dan,son), Nita Naldi (Sally Lung,Eurasian)

Most people today have probably never seen this film. It is now available on the 50th anniversary set with the 1956 version. The 1956 version was an amazing movie but in many ways I prefer this one, Cecil B Demille's 1923 original. Many people will be surprised upon first viewing of this film. Demille uses a different approach thin in his 1956 remake. This film has two parts. The first part is set during the time of the exodus in the old testament. The Hebrew nation is enslaved by the Egyptians under the ruthless rule of the pharaoh Rameses. Moses as the chosen leader of the Jews frees his people from the Egyptians. God gives him the power to inflict plagues upon the Egyptians. He then leads his people on the great exodus across the desert to the Red Sea. God gives him the power to part the sea so the Jewish people can cross. Phaorah orders his army to go after the Jews across the parted Red Sea but God had the sea 'return to normal' so the army drowns.

Make no mistake, this film was a major production in its day and very high budget for its time. Demille uses very elaborate sets for this production. The exterior wall of the great Egyptian city is just like the one used in the 1956 version. Many extras were used in the making of this film. During the great exodus, there appears to be people for as far as the eye can see. You can see this great line of people spread out across the desert. Camels were seen during the exodus but as it turns out, camels were not in the middle east during that time period. The parting of the Red Sea in the 1956 version was considered an amazing special effect for its time. I was very curious as to how they would be able to pull this off in 1923! I was quite amazed!! The special effects used for the parting of the sea is just as good as the 56 perhaps better. One thing I really like about the special effects of this film is the wall of fire that Moses creates to keep the Egyptian army at bay. In the 56 version animation was used for the fire. In this version real fire was used using a double exposure technique that I thought was more impressive. Mr Demille was very loyal to his actors. He would use many of the same actors in a number of his films. The women who plays the part of pharaoh's wife and the boy that played his son are both involved in the 56 version as well as the film editor.

The film switches gears totally for the second half. We are now in modern times. It starts with a mother reading passages from the book of Exodus to her two sons. All the drama from the first half was simply her reading being acted out. The rest of the film is a morality tale between two sons. The mother and one son are deeply religious while the other son is a nonbeliever. He makes fun of his brother's silly beliefs so the mother kicks him out of the house for being a heathen. The believing son lives a modest life while the unbelieving son becomes very wealthy. He even gets the women they both like! He becomes a wealthy contractor employing his brother as a worker. However, the unbelieving brother's life will be filed with misfortune eventually leading to his death. The twist in the second half of the film makes for a interesting viewing experience. I like the contrast between ancient and modern times. Katherine Orrison in her commentary states that the modern sequence will probably seem more dated to the average viewer. I tend to agree. It is interesting to see how people lived and dressed during those times. The modern sequence is filmed mostly on location in San Francisco. It is cool to see how San Fran looked back then. The generation gap between the mother and her sons is very evident. This was the roaring 20's! Katherine Orrison gives an insightful commentary on both films but see seems to have a special fondness for this one. I can understand why.

The Ballad of Cable Hogue (1970)

don't overlook this wonderful film!

[9/10 · 1 April 2006]

Director: Sam Peckinpah, Script: John Crawford, Edmund Penney, Cast: Jason Roberts (Cable Hogue), Stella Stevens (Hildy), David Warner (Rev. Josua Douglas Sloan)

I don't know. For some reason this movie seems to be all but forgotten. Maybee because it came between The Wild Bunch and Pat Garrett and Bily the Kid. I actually like it better than Pat Garrett and it is just as good as the Wild Bunch in its own way. Jason Robards in his greatest performance plays Cable Hogue. Poor old cable gets double crossed by his comrades. They rob him and leave him for dead in the desert. Well not only does old Cable survive but he finds water in the desert that not only helps him survive but also makes him rich! He turns this land into a stopping point for stagecoach travelers. In the nearby town, he meets Hidy(Stella Stevens), the town hooker and they become lovers. One day a couple of travelers stop by for a drink. Guess who?! Like in most Peckinpah movies the western frontier is being replaced by modern civilization. He realizes his days are through when one day a strange stagecoach comes to his place. This stagecoach can move by itself!

I just love Jason Roberts in this. This film is different from any other I have seen from Penkinpah. It was released after the Wild Bunch and just before Straw Dogs and what a different film it is! This film is very funny! I love the scene with the reverend trying to 'councel' a young women when she thinks her husband is dead. It is one of many funny moments. Unlike his other films of this time, this one has very little violence but it does have nudity. Even when he is not showing the beautiful Miss Stevens in the nude he is focusing on her chest. One sees this in several scenes. Well physical attributes aside she was great in this as well. She is actually treated better then most of the females in his films! Peckinpah had so many good westerns that it is hard to say what his best one is. I really enjoy this movie. I might add that I sold my Scream collection box set to get the Sam Pechinpah collection. I actually like the Scream movies but I do not regret the trade! Get the Sam Peckinpah collection as soon as you can!

Ride the High Country (1962)

Randolph Scott and Joel McCrea are excellent in this!

[9/10 · 1 April 2006]

Director: Sam Peckinpah, Script: NB Stone Jr. Cast: Randolph Scott (Gill Westrum), Joel McCrea (Steve Judd), Mariette Hartley (Elsa Knudsen), Ron Starr(Heck Longtree)

Many of Sam Peckinpah's westerns involve aging outlaws, cowboys or lawmen living in the late period west trying to deal with the disappearing frontier. In this early Peckinpah movie, the aging lawmen are Joel McCrea and Randolph Scott. Randolph Scott plays the part of Steve Judd. Judd is hired to guard gold that is to be shipped from the nearby mine. He hires his old friend Gill Westrum and a young kid by the name of Heck(Ron Starr) to help him. Gill and Huck have other ideas. They want to steal the gold! Along the way, they meet a young women who Heck takes to right away. Trying to liberate herself from her strict and fundamentalist father, she gets involved with Bill Hammond. He is the leader of the Hammond brothers who work the mine. He is bad company. Gill, Steve and Huck save her from the abuse of Billy Hammond.

This film is part of the Sam Pechinpah collection box set that Warner released a few months back.(It can be purchased separately,but I highly recommend the box set.) People that are very familiar with western film in particular and the work of Peckinpah in general, probably already know how good this movie is. If you only know Peckinpah for The Wild Bunch, I highly recommend that you buy this DVD. This is a great film. One thing that sets it apart from many of his other films is the scenery. Most if his westerns are filmed in the southwestern U.S. or Mexico with wide open and barren desert landscapes. This movie was filmed in California's Sierra Nevadas at Inyo National Forest. Consequently, the scenery is beautiful.

Randolph Scott and Joel McCrea are legendary actors. This film is considered by many to be among their finest. I was very impressed by their performances. Gill turns against Steve when he tries to steal the gold but by films end they join forces along with Heck to do battle against the Hammond boys. This movie features a very early performance from Mariette Hartley. Although much younger, many will recognize her from the Polaroid and Celistial Seasonings Tea commercials. Peckinpah regulars LQ Jones and Warren Oats are also in this as two of the Hammond Brothers. This movie does have some violence but nothing compared to The wild Bunch. I believe this is Peckinpah's second feature film. It was released in 1962. You can see how his films changed with the times when one compares this with his works from the late sixties and seventies. This is one of my favourite Peckinpah films. Highly recommended!

The Shining (1997)

if your familiar with kubrick's, try this one!

[9/10 · 21 February 2006]

Director: Mick Garris, Script/Novel: Stephen King, Cast: Steven Weber (Jack Torrance), Rebecca De Mornay (Wendy Torrance), Courtland Mead (Danny Torrance), Melvin Van Peebles (Dick Hallorann)

It is well known that Stanley Kubrick made a film adaption of this novel in 1980. That version has grown to be a classic and is the one that most people claim to prefer. I am going to to the inevitable and ---yes!--compare Kings to Kubricks like hundreds of people have already done. By doing so hopefully I will also be able to give a lot of incite into Kink's 1997 T.V. version.

Stephen King has claimed not to like Kubrick's version because he felt that it deviated to much from his novel. He felt that Kubrick did not focus on the family dynamics enough among other things. I bought both versions of The Shinning recently and have just finished viewing both. I had never seen the mini series and it had been many years since I have seen the 1080 version. After finely watching Kings version, I can see why he wanted to have it remade. Although their is some things about Kubrick's version that I like which I will get to latter, I actually prefer King's version and I will give many reasons why.

1) King's version gives a much better account on the relationship of all the family members. His version gives us a back story on Jack Torrence and his past problems with alcoholism so we can understand the conflict within him. He is constantly fighting his desire to have a drink and is able to overcome his temptation. The hotel finally gets the best of him. He goes into the hotel's lounge to find a bottle of whisky on the bar with the message 'complements of the management' in a hotel that had no liquor in stock! In Kubrick's version, we are given the impression that Jack Nicholson's Jack Torrence was an alcoholic but we never see him fighting the temptation to drink. He does so at the first opportunity! It didn't seem like he was being tempted at all.

2) A huge plus for King's version is the way he had us perceive Jack. He is just an average guy like all of us. At the beginning of the film, he is shown as being a normal family man who loves his wife and son very much. Weras Nicholson is a nut bag from the beginning! As a result, the haunting effects of the hotel have a much greater effect on Weber's Jack than Nicholson's. In the King version, we see a very strong bond between Jack and his son and a genuine love for his wife in spite of past abuses due to alcoholism. We never see this with Nicholson in Kubrick's version. He is aloof and pretty much an ass the whole time. In King's version we see Jack Torrance trying desperately to fight the overpowering effects of the hotel. As a result, we see him go from normal to insane to normal again throughout the movie. Toward the end of the movie, when he is about to kill his son, in a brief moment of normalcy, he yells at him to run. We never see this with Nicholson.

3) Another thing I preferred about Kink's version is the performances. Lets start with Jack Nicholson. I like Nicholson very much as an actor. He is known for his 'tongue and cheek', off beat performances. Just check out One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. A great performance! But that acting style doesn't work in this kind of movie. His performance through most of the movie is over the top and 'very high camp'! Shelley Duvall's performance was rather week as well. Rebecca De Mornay was a much stronger women. She was an equal to her husband. Granted this was due to the difference in times between the two film and the direction. Danny Lloyd played the part of little Danny Torrance in Kubrick's film. He did OK but he really didn't have a whole lot of lines. Courtland Mead's character was much more complex. He was older than Danny Lloyd so he was able to give a more mature performance. Scatman Crothers---the best performer in the movie---bar none! So what if he would often forget his lines. He was great in this. Melvin Van Peebles was good also but he's not Scatman!

4) I actually like the set design in both films. Stanley Kubrick is well known for his set designs and he did excel in this department. However, I also feel that Mick Garris and the production designer,Craig Stearns, also did fantastic. Accourding to the commentary, about half of the film was on location at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado. It as a beautiful hotel and this film captures its grandeur very well. What I didn't like about Kubrick's is I felt that the doors and hallways looked too modern. The doors, hallways and decor in King's has that turn of the century look.

5) Their is a few things about Kubrick's that I like. I love the scenery at the beginning as they are driving to the hotel. That was filmed on the going to the sun highway at Glacier National Park. Stanley Kubrick was willing to send a second unit to these locations to gets these beautiful shots. In fact, only a small part of his movie was filmed in Colorado. The out door shots of the hotel in the Kubrick film was the Timberline Loge at Mt. Hood, Oregon. I like the wintertime and blizzard shots better in Kubrick's. Garris was never able to achieve the dark and dreary shots. It always seemed too sunny.

I hope I was able to give some insight about the two films. If you have only seen the Kubrick version, I recommend that you buy or rent this one and see for yourself which one you prefer.

Hostel (2005)

hostel

[7/10 · 31 January 2006]

Director/Script: Eli Roth, Cast: Jay Hernadez (Paxton), Derek Richardson (Josh), Eythor Gudjonsson (Oli), Barbara Nedeljakova (Natalya), Jana Kaderabkova (Svetlana), Jan Vlasak (dutch businessman)

When I went to see this movie, I honestly did not think I was going to be able to make it through. The characters are so unlikeable and arrogant its no wonder half the world hates us Americans. They were such a bunch of loudmouthed jerks, I was hopping they would all get cut up. However, watching the film to the end, I can see why the director choose to depict the characters that way. The horror in this film really sets off in the second half when they end up at the torture chamber in that hell hole of a village in Slovakia. Really the only jerk in the movie was the Paxton character. However, one develops respect for him by the end of the film and are actually glad that he survives. When his friends start to disappear, Oli being the first, we can see that he truly does care for his friends. When he finally escapes from that dreadful place of torture, he is able to find a car that by chance has the keys still in the ignition! He could easily have left but he risks his life and getting tortured again by those sadistic freaks to save that Japanese girl when he hears her screaming knowing she is getting tortured.

By having this film start out as a typical teen sex movie and gradually regress into extreme horror, these people are not so arrogant anymore but fearful beyond anyones imagination. It is probably well known by now that Eli Roth was inspired to make this film based on a Thai web site that advertised the torture of humans for a price that was shown to him by Quentin Tarantino. The web site was probably a hoax but who knows, maybe their is such a place in this world. Their is certainly enough sick f**ks in this world to support such a place! Roth did a very outstanding job of making the events in this film seem real. I must admit that I felt rather unsettled after leaving the cinema. This is without a doubt a more intense horror than is normally shown in theaters. When this comes out in its uncut form on DVD it might be an NC-17. I thought the theatrical version was close. The character of Natalya was quite the evil bitch! Barbara Nedeljakova did a great job portraying her. I agree with another commenter that described her as the ultimate femme fatal! It will be interesting to see if see gets cast in other films.

The Virgin Spring (1960)

the virgin spring

[9/10 · 30 January 2006]

Director: Igmar Bergman, Script: Ulla Isaksson, Cast: Max Von Sydow (Tore), Birgitta Valberg (Mareta), Gunnel Lindblom (Ingeri), Brigitta Pettersson (Karin), Axel Duberg (herdsman), Tor Isedal(mute herdsman), Ove Porath (boy)

Midieval tale about a wealthy Sweedish family. They send their privileged and rather spoiled daughter on a journey to the church to deliver candles as an offering for the virgin mother. Her less fortunate pregnant step sister is asked to go along. While on their journey, the step sister develops a fear of the forest and also complains of being sick. Karin,the privileged daughter, has her stay with a hermit in the forest while she continues the journey alone. Along the way she runs into a three goatherds,two man and a young boy who are brothers. They complain of being hungry due to their long journey so out of kindness, she offers to picnic with them in which she shares her bread with them. The two man proceed to rape her and then kill her while the young boy watches helpless. Her step sister had left the cabin where she was staying and witnessed the whole thing but did nothing to help Karin. By chance, the three brothers turn up at Karin's parents farm. The herdsman tries to sell Karin's valuable garments that they had removed from her to her mother. This leads the father to take revenge on the herdsman.

This is a film I would strongly recommend to anyone especially lovers of classic cinema. The only other Bergman film I have seen is The Seventh Seal which is also outstanding. This film was extremely troubling to me not only because of the brutal act but also because Karin did not deserve this. We have a young innocent naive girl whose trust was betrayed. In this film we see the dynamics of these two sisters. Karin was privileged and spoiled by her parents especially her mother. Her father is more stern but she is still able to break him down with her charm. The step sister is of a much lower stature. She works as a servant and farm hand while Karin doesn't have to do any work. As a result, the step sister has a strong resentment toward Karin. Unlike the Cinderella storey, Karin is very kind to Ingeri, her step sister. She is also very concerned for her as a result of her being pregnant. When she comes across the herdsman, being from the wealthy upper class, she could have easily blown them off but instead she spends time with them and offers them her food only to get violated and murdered in return. In actuality, seeing three men(while two men and a boy) in the forest should have caused her to run away.

As an example of her gullibility, right before she is about to be raped, the men say things like "what white hands you have" and she replies buy saying something to the likes of "because a princess never has to work" then they proceed by saying "What a lovely neck you have" while sitting very close to her. She than says something to the likes of (I am going to be way off here!) "how else can a lovely princes wear her bracelets". She then goes on to tell them about their farm and her well to do life. She is not saying all this in a stuck up way trying to brag. Again she is a very naive girl who has lived like a princes. She expects the men to share her enthusiasm! The step sister did not do anything possibly out of resentment to her step sister or it could have been out of fear. When the herdsman arrive at Karin's parents farm and her father finds out what they have done to Karin, he kills them including the boy. This is another very tragic part of the movie. Like Karin, the boy was also innocent. He had nothing to do with the rape and murder of Karin. One could argue that he could have stopped his brothers instead of just watching. In reality, their is absolutely nothing he could have done. His older brothers are grown men while he is just a small boy. As a matter of fact, they physically abuse him. Not only is the boy a victim like Karin but he is also an outcast like Ingeri, the step sister. He is treated bad by his brothers and Ingeri is treated bad by her family although not by Karin. After Tore,the father, kills the two man and goes after the boy, he runs to Mareta, the mother, for protection. She tries to protect him from Tore but is unable to do so and the father proceeds to kill him.

Tore immediately feels remorse for what he had done. The parents and farm hands go to find Karin's body led by Ingeri. When Mareta lifts Karins body from the ground, a spring arises from the site. Tore vows to God to build a church there.

Miracle on 34th Street (1947)

reminds me of Christmas long past

[8/10 · 23 January 2006]

Director/Script: George Seaton, Story: Valentine Davies, Cast: Maureen O'Hara, John Payne, Edmund Gwenn, Natalie Wood, Gene Lockhart, William Frawley

While this may not be the classic that 'It's a Wonderful Life' is, this warm hearted holiday film is a classic in its own right and I prefer it to its more famous cousin. This great fantasy film takes me back to what seems like a simpler time. Doris Walker (Maureen O'Hara)one of the managers at the giant Macy's department store on 34th St. in NYC, hires a man by the name of Kris Kringle to be Santa Claus for Macy's parade after he reports to her that their 'Santa' is drunk! As the story unfolds, we discover that Mr. Kringle claims to be the real Santa. However, Doris is a very modern and sensible women and she does not believe in the likes of Santa Klaus. Her little daughter,Susan(Natalie Wood) is very influenced by dear mom so she does not believe in Santa either. The villain in this story is Macy's so called company psychiatrist. When made do do a psych eval, Mr. Kringle upstages the psychiatrist. Out of anger the psychiatrist has Mr. Kringle institutionalized. Doris's neighbour who happens to be an attorney, comes to his rescue and not only gets him out of the institution but by the films end he is able to prove to the court that Mr. Kringle is indeed the real Santa.

Miricle on 34th St. and It's a Wonderful Life came out at about the same time (1946 and 1947). Here we have two holiday classics from the same time period but in many ways they are complete opposites. It's a Wonderful Life was a very typical film for its time whereas Miricle was way ahead of its time. In many ways, with the exception of the clothing styles and black and white photography, it could have been made in the 1970's. Maureen O'Hara plays a very practical, intelligent and independent professional women who is also a single mom. The dad is not around and not even mentioned in the film. This was very uncommon for 1947! It's a Wonderful Life dealt with more traditional family mores which could be why it is more known.

I like the performances of all the actors in this film. Maureen O'Hara was a great actress of the time. We get a chance to see Natlie Wood as a cute child actress before she became a big star. She did very well. Edmund Gween plays a great Santa. He is my favourite live film Santa. What I especially like about this film above all other things is the sense of mystery that Seaton and Davies were able to convey. All the 'evidence' that proves Mr Kringle is the real Santa is circumstantial. They really leave it up to us to decide. Never do we see anything supernatural associated with him like you do in most Christmas stories. We never see any reindeer, sleigh, elves etc. The scene in the courtroom where Fred(John Payne) is finally able to prove he is the real Santa is hilarious. Much funnier and more convincing that in the 1994 John Hughes remake which is incidentally a much more conservative film.

A Christmas Carol (1984 TV Movie)

my favourite

[9/10 · 11 January 2006]

Director: Clive Donner, Novel: Charles Dickens, Script: Roger O Hirson, Cast: George C. Scott (Ebenezar Scrooge), David Warner (Bob Cratchit), Susannah York (Mrs. Cratchit), Roger Rees (Fred), Frank Finlay (Marleys ghost), Angela Pleasence (Ghost of Christmas past), Edward Woodward (ghost of Christmas present)

Of the three versions of A Christmas Carol that I have seen(1938,1951,1984), this one and the Alister Sims 1951 version are very similar. Probably due to the fact that Clive Donner, the director of this film, was the film editor for the 1951 film. Many of the lines from this film are the exact same as the 1951 version. The biggest difference lies in the actors and the set design. I think Clive Donner took out things he didn't like from the 1951 film and he added some material as well. As a result, I think this is the best adaption of all the versions I have seen. Slightly better than the 1938 version. This movie plays like a true horror film in some scenes. One example is when Scrooge is walking back to his house alone on the dark and foggy streets of London, a ghost carriage with the ghost of Jacob Marley goes riding by. Also, the music score adds to the creepy effects as well.

As is the case with most of his movies, George C. Scott gives an outstanding performance. He is a great Scrooge. This is actually one of my favourite performances by him. All of the characters perform well. The costumes are very authentic looking period attire as is the set design. This movie was filmed on location in England. The ghost of Christmas past was a male ghost in the 1951 version. For this film, the ghost was a women just like in the 1938 film. The ghost of Christmas past was played by Angela Pleasence(Donald Pleasence's daughter). She definitely was not as pretty as Ann Rutherford from the 1938 version. She sort of looked like a 80's pop star out of the Human League! But she did do a good job. The ghost of Christmas present, played by Lionel Braham, was a lot like the ghost from the 1938. A Santa like figure. I think he gave a much more powerful performance than the ghost from the 1951 version and maybe the 1938 version as well. This is a great holiday film that has grown over the years to become a classic in its own right. This is the favourite version for a lot of people of all ages.

A Christmas Carol (1938)

made in 1938 and still a family classic!

[9/10 · 11 January 2006]

Director: Edwin L Marin, Novel: Charles Dickens, Script: Hugo Butler, Cast: Reginald Owen (Ebenezer Scrooge), Gene Lockhart (Bob Cratchit), Kathleen Lockhart (Mrs Cratchit), Terry Kilburn (Tiny Tim), Barry Mackay (Fred), Ann Rutherford (Spirit of Christmas Present), Lionel Braham (Spirit of Christmas Present), Leo G. Carroll (Jacob Marley)

Their has been so many versions of this classic Dickens tale filmed that it is hard to keep track of them all. Other than the George C. Scott version , I couldn't really remember which of the old ones I liked. I certainly have seen them all but I didn't really remember the difference between them. For the holiday season this last year(2005), I decided to buy the 3 major versions(1938,1951,1982)to compare. This 1938 version is probably my second favourite version after the 1984 George C. Scott version. I would probably like this one as well as the 1984 if it was longer. It is only about 70 min. long so it is somewhat underdeveloped.

No doubt Lional Barrymore would have made a great scrooge but Reginald Owen does a great job as well. All the characters play their parts well. The Cratchit's were a real married couple and I believe one of the children is their daughter as well. Many people criticize Terry Kilburn(Tiny Tim) for his acting. I thought he was o.k. I do think he was too old and too healthy looking for the part but that's not really his fault. Barry Mackay played a very outspoken Fred. The ghosts in this version are among the best. Lionel Braham is a very jovial ghost with a Santa Claus look. The ghosts of Christmas present in all the other film versions have all resembled him. Ann Rutherford is with out a doubt the prettiest and most glamorous of all the ghosts of Christmas past.

With just about a 70 minute running time, the film is rushed in a few places. They could have developed the Christmas past segment further. In spite of its short length, this film does have some scenes not found in any other version. One good scene exclusive to this version is where Bob Cratchit is throwing snowballs with some boys. When a man comes around the corner, out of fun Mr. Cratchit throws a snowball at him. This unsuspecting man turns out to be Scrooge! The set design is one of the best attributes about this film. Although not filmed on location like the 1951 version, which is an English film, or the 1984 version, MGM did a great job of capturing the essence of a small English village. Very well done especially for its time. Lastly, I thought this film had powerful acting that was not matched in the 1951 version. One example is in the Christmas present segment when the ghost uses Scrooge's words against him by saying something to the likes of "and rid the world of the surplus population!" in regards to the fact that Tiny Tim may die. The ghost says that exact same thing in the 1951 version but not to near the same effect. I felt the same way about Reginald Owen as scrooge vs. Alister Sims. The only other Scrooge that is as good as Reginald Owen is George C. Scott.

There was many earlier silent versions of this film most of which are lost. I believe a version from 1910 is available. Their was another sound version filmed in 1935. The fact that the movie was filmed again only three years later must say something about that film!

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (1964 TV Movie)

the one we all remember from childhood.

[10/10 · 4 January 2006]

Directors: Kizo Nagashima, Larry Roemer; Story: Robert May; Script: Romeo Muller; Producers: Jules Bass, Arthur Rankin

Rudolph is more then a Christmas special, it is a holiday tradition. I always look forward to the special time during the Christmas season when I can watch this. This beloved special is one of the few things that brings back my childhood. Most children today enjoy watching this as much as their parents did when they were little. On the DVD's introduction, producer Arthur Rankin states that Rudolph the Red Nosed Raindeer has been reportedly viewed by over a billion people worldwide. It is perhaps second only to The Wizzard of Oz as being the most viewed programme of all time.

Rudolph is the first of a line of Christmas specials that were produced by Rankin and Bass and written by Romeo Muller. Some of the others are: The Little Drummer Boy (1968), Frosty the Snowman (1969),and Santa Claus is Coming to Town (1970) as well as Here Comes Peter Cottontail (1971) and Puff, The Magic Dragon (1978). It is hard to imagine all these classic specials being the creation of one man. Mr. Muller is Mr. Christmas!

The origins of Rudolph the Red Nosed Raindeer stem from the song written by Johnny Marks back in the 1930's or 1940's. A Max Fleischer cartoon short was made in 1948 with Robert May creating its story. However, the Rankin and Bass Christmas special is based on the Johnny Marks song but other than that, it is all the creation of Romeo Muller. Hermey the elf, Sam the snowman, Yukon Cornelius, Claurice, the head elf are all Muller's creations. Even Rudolph's personality is created by Muller. In the 1948 cartoon Rudolph does not talk.

I have always liked Burl Ives as both a singer and an actor. His part as Sam the Snowman is my favourite by him. All the people behind the scenes doing the voices were all talented. They used stop motion animation with moving puppets just like they did with King Kong. Rudolph is a timeless classic that bring me back to the simpler time of childhood every time I watch it. I hope my small children will enjoy it to.

A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965 TV Movie)

the classic charlie brown

[10/10 · 3 January 2006]

Director: Bill Melendez, Script: Charles M. Schultz

This is my second favorite of all the classic Christmas specials. The first being Rudolph the Red-Nosed Raindeer. According to IMDb, this is the first televised adaption of the peanuts comics. All of the principal voices were recited by children. One thing about this special that I have always liked is the fact that it is one of the few Christmas specials that tells the real meaning of Christmas. It has many funny moments but it addresses some serious issues such as the over commercialization of Christmas and what Christmas is all about as explained by Linus in the school auditorium. Remember, this was made in 1965. When it comes to the commercialization of Christmas, I wonder what old Charley Brown would feel today! This cartoon special is remembered and well loved by us 'old people'in our 30's and 40's and it is enjoyed by our children today as well. This special also features one of my favourite Christmas songs.

The Invisible Man (1933)

the great invisible man

[4 December 2005]

Director: James Whale, Novel: H.G. Wells, Script: R.C. Sheriff, Cast: Claude Rains (The Invisible One, Jack Griffen), Gloira Stuart (Flora Cranley), William Harrigan (Dr. Arthur Kemp), Henry Travers (Dr. Cranley), Una O'Connor (Jenny Hill-innkeeper's wife), Forrester Harvey (Herbert hall-innkeeper)

The Invisible Man is one of Universal's best 'monster' films of the 1930's and is among James Whale's best work. Dr Griffen is being incarcerated for a crime he did not commit. Dr. Arthur Kemp accused him of killing a wealthy owner of a coal mine(his name slips me at the moment) so he can gain control of his fortune, he must have been a partner in the company. Anyhow, Dr. Griffen had devised a formula to make himself invisible. This allows him to escape from jail and get revenge on Dr. Kemp, his former associate. There is one catch, the formula makes him go crazy. This leaves for some interesting and often humorous results.

I find some of the old films rather amazing. When a film from this era is watched, one must view it in the context in which it was made. When people first saw this on the big screen back in 1933 they must have been amazed. Perhaps primitive by today's standard, the special effects are still pretty neat. This film has it all, elements if suspense, horror and Whale's trademark humour. Claude Rains was an excellent casting choice for the part of the invisible one. He had the perfect voice for the part. In the first remake, The Invisible Man Returns, Vincent Price plays the invisible man. His performance is good but again he just doesn't have the right voice nor is he mean enough! James Whale often casts Una O'Connor in his movies. People familiar with the Universal horror pictures will know her from the Frankenstein movies. She ads the humour elements to this movie. Many people will recognize Henry Travers (Dr Cranley) as the guardian angel from Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life. Also, we have a much younger Gloria Stuart, she played the old lady in the beginning of Titanic. This is a great old horror and sci-fi film.

Son of Frankenstein (1939)

third film in the Frankenstein series is a top quality production and is almost as good as the first two

[8/10 · 4 December 2005]

Director: Rowland V. Lee, Novel: Mary Shelley, Script: Wyllis Cooper, Cast: Basil Rathbone (Baron Von Frankenstein), Boris Karloff (Monster), Bela Lugosi (Ygor), Lionel Atwill (Insp. Krogh), Josephine Hutchinson (Elsa Von Frankenstein), Donnie Dunagan (Peter Von Frankenstein), Lawrence Grant(Burgermaster), Lionel Belmore (Emil Lang)

This is Universal's third installment in the Frankenstein franchise. Unlike some of the other Universal monster sequels such as The Mummy or Invisible Man, the Frankenstein films continued to be fairly big production and this is a rather well made film. The lead character in this movie is Dr. Frankenstein's son Baron. Dr. Frankenstein long ago left the estate but it is still owned by the Frankenstein family and had been taken care of by the family servants. Baron with his wife and son come to the village to lay claim on the estate but they are met with hostility by the local people because of the havoc brought on the place by his father's infamous creation. Baron comes across Ygor (the local shepherd who survived a hanging by the authorities) who shows Baron that the monster is very much alive but comatose. Like his father, Baron is also a scientist and Ygor talks him into reviving the monster. Baron does so hoping he can 'rehabilite' the monster and clear the family name. Things go bad when Igor uses the monster to attack members of the jury responsible for his conviction.

Rowland V. Lee, the film's director did a fantastic job especially when one considers that he was filling the shoes of James Whale, not an easy feat! I liked the set design on this film. The grandiosity of the estate reminds me of Citizen Kane. The monster was once again brilliantly played by Boris Karloff, a role he would play in the first three of the five original Universal films. He returned for the last film, House of Frankenstein, but he played a mad scientist not the monster. I have never been a fan of Beli Lugosi as a lead actor (White Zombie is the one exception) but he is perfect for the part of Ygor whom he also played in the next film, Ghost of Frankenstein. The underrated Lionel Atwill is also here as the Inspector. This is a top rated entry in the Frankenstein series. The last two films (which I will eventually review) are not up to par with the first three but are still enjoyable.

Dogville (2003)

gives us a grim outlook on humanity

[9/10 · 9 November 2005]

Director/Script: Lars Von Trier, Cast: Nicole Kidman (Grace), Paul Bettany(Tom Edison), Lauren Bacall (Ma Ginger), Jeremy Davis (Bill Hensen), Chloe Sevigny (Liz Hensen), Ben Gazzara (Jack Mckay), Blair Brown (Mrs. Henson), Patricia Clarkson (Vera), Philip Baker Hall (Tom Edison Sr.), Harriet Andersson (Gloria), Siobhan Fallon (Martha), Zeljko Ivanek (Ben), Cleo King (Oliva), Bill Raymond (Mr. Henson), Stellan Skarsgard (Chuck), Shauna Shim (June), John Hurt (Narrator)

This very unique and controversial film is a study of human characters. The main character in this film is Gloria. She runs away from her gangster lord father because she does not like the injustices she had seen him inflict on people. Finally free, she ends up at a small village in the Colorado Rockies called 'Dogville'. She is taken in by these seemly hospitable, friendly country folk. They agree to a trial stay of two weeks with the understanding that she will perform simple chores for the town folk in exchange for her stay. What we are shown as time goes on is that these people are no better than her father's gangsters. The injustice they inflict on her is just as bad as the injustices her father had inflicted on people. The townspeople do not know about her secret past. They are going to pay for their injustices.

This film is not like any other I have seen. It is not a motion picture but a filmed stage play. As such, it is very plot driven. The powerful performances of the actors makes up for the lack of scenery. It is a film that forces you to use your imagination much like reading a novel. I was thinking about this film for a long time after I saw it. Many people perceive this as an Anti- American film. Lars Von Trier is a Danish film maker and I have heard that he holds anti-American views. The setting for this story is the depression era of the 1930's. As the credits roll at the film's end, actual depression era photographs are shown while the Bowie song 'Young Americans' plays. I actually think the setting of this film is irrelevant. What happened in this town could have happened anywhere in the world. I think what Von Trier was trying to show is that most people are s**t and not to be trusted. The fact that just about everyone in the town exploits her is evidence of this. He does not portray humanity in a very positive light.

I thought the performances in this film was top rate. It took a little bit of watching to get used to this style of film making but after a while you get so into the acting that it doesn't matter that the movie is filmed on a stage with simple sets. I actually think it worked in the films favor. This was a very dark film with some shocking moments. It is amazing how Von Trier and all the performers where able to pull it off without all the fancy production. I think Nicole Kidman gives one of her best performances here. Lauren Bacall, a seasoned actress who was very striking in her time, plays Ma Ginger. Other notable actors in this film were Ben Gazzara and Chloe Sevigny. Every actor was outstanding.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)

portrait of an insane mind!!

[9/10 · 1 November 2005]

Director: John McNaughton, Script: Richard Fire; McNaughton, Cast: Michael Rooker(Henry), Tracy Arnold(Becky), Tom Towles(Otis)

Henry: portrait of a serial killer, based on the exploits of an actual serial killer,could be the most realistic and brutal film ever made about a serial killer. This movie is quite different from other films about serial killers such as Se7en(a great film in its own right)and the more recent Saw. The previously mentioned films and most others that I have seen about serial killers are usually told from a victim or victim's family's point of view or they are about police detectives trying to track down the killer as in Se7en. Henry is taken from the killer's point of view with no cops ever to be seen. It is as if he is able to commit these grizzly crimes without any retribution whats so ever. Although the vast majority of the killings are done off screen, many of the victims' bodies are shown in very graphic detail.

Michael Rooker plays Henry. He just got released from prison for killing his mother(he reveals his reason for doing so to Becky a little later)and is staying with fellow inmate Otis and his sister Becky. There is a scene in this movie where Henry and Otis pick up a couple of hookers after drinking in a bar. Henry starts to get very rough with the girl while having sex. The hooker in the front seat with Otis tries to help her and at that point, Henry snaps her neck. Otis is shocked at first but then he starts to get a thrill out of killing just like Henry and becomes just like him although always subservient to him. The other principle character in this film is Becky. She was sexually abused by her father and Otis as well. The only jobs she seems to be able to find is a stripper. She does not know about Henry and Otis's killing sprees. She starts to develop feelings for Henry and she is the one person that Henry is able to open up to. By the end of the film, Otis and Becky both end up dead and Henry gets away.

This is a film that has quite a reputation. You hear a lot about it on internet web sites such a IMDb and others and is almost always on people's most disturbing film's lists. If you see it you will know why. This is a different kind of horror. It is not a teen slasher film or a monster movie(although one could argue that Henry is indeed a monster!) for here the 'monster' is a real person. This is a very disturbing and realistic portrayal of the exploits of a brutal rapist and murderer. The realism is to the point where it almost seems as if the film makers are flaunting it. The DVD that I rented was a two disc set. It had a documentary on the real killer. This included interviews with law officers involved in his eventual arrest down in Texas and a prison interview with the killer himself.

Audition (1999)

romance and horror

[8/10 · 31 October 2005]

Director: Takashi Miike, Novel: Ryu Murakami, Script: Daisuke Tengan Cast: Ryo Ishibashi, Eihi Shiina, Tetsu Sawaki, Jun Kunimura

This is the first(and only so far) film I have seen by Takashi Miike. I have heard about many of his films: Visitor Q , Ichi the killer and the like as well as this. Needless to say, when I came across this at our local video store I rented it with much anticipation. This film is about a widowed film maker whose 17 year old son encourages him to date again. One night, over drinks at a bar, his co-worker(a fellow film producer) comes up with the idea of doing a faked 'audition' for a girl to play a part in a upcoming movie. The character they are looking for will be based on what kind of traits he wants in a women. After going through a series of auditions, he is immediately drawn to this particular girl. However, his co-worker senses something very wrong about her and advises him to choose someone else but he does not follow this advise.

This was a very effective film. Miike does a good job of allowing for character development. This film starts off almost as a romantic love story. At the beginning of this film, we know very little about this girl or her background. As we proceed through the film we come to realize that this girl is a very unstable character. Through various dream sequences, we start to learn more about this girl's past. How she was abused by her step-father, and uncle etc. This all leads us to the horror that is to be revealed by the end of the film. This girl tortures this poor guy in some pretty nasty ways: acupuncture, dismemberment of the foot etc. His son comes in to witness all this. What I really liked about this film was the contrast between the subtle romantic like beginning and the horror that is revealed at the end. Before I saw this film, the only other Japanese films I had seen are the Grudge and the Ringu both of which are exceptional as well. I would not say Audition is scary per se. It is more of a drama/thriller than an all out scare fest. When she starts to torture him it gets a little uncomfortable but really not that bad compared to what's out there today.

The Invisible Woman (1940)

very amusing

[6/10 · 19 October 2005]

Director: A. Edward Sutherland, Story: Curt Siodmak, Joe May, Cast: Virginia Bruce (Kitty), John Barrymore (Prof. Gibbs), John Howard (Richard Russell), Charles Ruggles (George), Oskar Homolka ('Blackie'), Charles Lane (Mr.Growley)

For this third installment in the Invisible Man series,Universal decided to do a comedy with a little twist. This time the invisible man is a women! Otherwise this film had no relation to the previous two. Not a horror but a rather lightweight,amusing little film.

John Barrymore plays a simple minded professor who has just created an 'invisible machine'. Rich playboy Richard Russell is financing the professor's 'research' so the professor has to convince him that he can actually make people invisible. Of course he thinks he is crazy! All the professor needs is a human volunteer so he puts an add in the paper. Lovely model 'kitty',played by Virginia Bruce, wants to teach her mean boss,Mr Growley, a little lesion so she answers the add. Things get a little more complicated when a group of thugs hiding out in Mexico see the add. Blackie ,the leader, sends his nitwit sidekicks to try to get the machine. I enjoyed this film and got quite a few laughs watching it. It is available on the Universal Legacy Series Invisible Man film set.