film reviews, interviews, features | BRWC

Author: BRWC

  • The Morning After – Short

    The Morning After – Short

    It’s not an infrequent occurrence, waking up next to someone and not really knowing who they are, or what happened the night before. The Morning After, a short film by Bruno Collins, is about just that as Harry wakes up to find an unexpected someone in bed with him.

    A clever and succinct story, The Morning After features an attractive cast in a story of sex, desire and confusion – both of who you are and who you want. The short is well shot with a high level of production, giving it a very cinematic feel, which combined with great acting make it a very enjoyable use of 15 minutes.

    As the synopsis says:

    The morning after a drunken night out, Harry’s (Joshua Berg) world is turned upside down when as he awakens to discover a naked man, Thom (Luke Striffler), in his bed. Stunned and confused, he tries to make sense of his repressed desires. In an attempt to re-assert his heterosexuality he revisits an old lover, Lucy (Juliet Lundholm), but finds little comfort from the encounter. Harry is left to make a decision: to follow his set path and return to his doting girlfriend Jess (Jane Alice), or attempt to understand his own wants and desires…

    Coming tomorrow we have an interview with Writer and Director Bruno Collins, for now check out The Morning After below.

    For more info check out: themorningaftermovie.co.uk

  • DVD Review: Yamada – Way Of The Samurai

    DVD Review: Yamada – Way Of The Samurai

    As most movies seem to be, Yamada: Way of the Samurai is loosely based on a true story – that of the titular Yamada Nagamasa – a Japanese adventurer who travelled to the Kingdom of Ayothaya (modern day Thailand) and eventually settled there as a governor.

    Clearly the colourful life of a Japanese adventurer wasn’t quite interesting enough for filmmaker Nopporn Waitin, and so our Yamada (Seigi Ozeki) is a young samurai fighting for the Thai military, who finds himself the unwitting witness of a nefarious plan to seize power from Thai royalty. Like so many films of this ilk, the man behind the plot (a Japanese officer) has a seemingly unending supply of disposable henchmen to dispatch. It’ll come as no surprise that this will be important later.

    Yamada’s knowledge of the plot finds him beaten and bloodied by a band of ninjas, who are fought off at the last minute by a group of mustachioed Ayothyan fighters. He awakens sometime later in their village, and the rest of the film starts to slide into predictability.

    Naturally, Yamada’s recuperation involves him slowly understanding and adapting to the Ayothyan way of life. One of it’s most important aspects is its martial art – a form of Muay Thai boxing. Much of the film concerns itself with the samurai learning this new discipline, intermixed with crisp, golden shots of Thai scenery. There’s so many panning shots of Buddha statues and ruined temples that you’d be forgiven for thinking you were watching an advert created by the Thailand tourist board.

    This thought is quickly washed away once the beatings start. The boxing style of the Ayothyan fighters is brutal to say the least – all kinetic, sharp elbows and stinging blows. The sparring scenes are well constructed, however they suffer from poor sound design – practically every hit sounds identical.

    As Yamada earns the trust of the fighters, particularly forming a bond with their leader, it’s easy to see where this is all going. His loyalties turned, our hero ends up fighting the very people he used to be employed by. Sadly, this is where the film lets itself down. We are promised earlier on that if Yamada can combine his skills as a ronin with that of Thai boxing, he’ll become the ultimate warrior. After the best part of an hour of montage scenes of him training sans Katana, when Yamada finally gets into battle he becomes just another samurai. Dispatching his new enemies in sprays of iffy CGI blood, he seems to forget most of what he’s learned, save for the odd elbow to the jaw.

    While the martial artists populating the film (many of them real-life MMA fighters) acquit themselves well, you can’t help but feel that it doesn’t quite live up to the colourful life of the real Yamada Nagamasa. Unless you have a particular interest in the fighting styles on show here, this may well feel like just another martial arts film.

  • 11 Questions With John Carpenter (Bonus Edition!)

    11 Questions With John Carpenter (Bonus Edition!)

    Here we are, the big day!

    Master of Nonsense Damien Sage meets Master of Everything John Carpenter!

    As my readers probably have gleamed by this point, I love John Carpenter. He is a flawless cinema craftsman, especially of the Horror Genre. He has written and directed several classic genre films, including, 1978’s Halloween, 1980’s The Fog, 1981’s Escape from New York, 1982’s The Thing, and 1994’s In the Mouth of Madness, to name just a few. Even his “failures” are successes in my book. Everything he’s been intimately involved with is a pleasure to watch.

    That being said… I think I either actually went, or just came across as, a little hard on him. I definitely didn’t mean to. But, I was so excited to have gotten this interview, and there was just so much I wanted to know that I went a little overboard, I think… I hope this wasn’t the case… But, see for yourself I spose.

    No frills.

    Some fluff.

    Little functionality.

    11 Questions, and 11 Questions Only (except this time.)

    This interview took place on February 28th 2012 between myself and Mr. Carpenter directly.

    As per the format of ’11 Questions’ I submitted my questions cold and let the interviewee do the answering. Any “conversational awkwardness” is because of this and is unintentional.

    (The interview has not been edited in any way (for grammar, spelling or otherwise) to make either of us look better.)

    Enjoy!

    DS– Dark Star, released in 1974, was your first theatrical film. It’s a delirious parody of the sci-fi genre, particularly the Kubrickian brand of science fiction. Shot for a mere $60,000 it’s an equal parts witty and crass tour-de-force showcase of your “man of many hats” filmmaking talents. The film (co-written by Dan O’Bannon) also ended up being something of a ‘test run’ for what became 1979’s Alien. Did you ever feel any resentment over having a creation you so notoriously slaved over co-opted in that way with little recognition on your part?

    JC– Not really. Dan O’Bannon was a close friend and we worked on DARK STAR for 4 years. We parted ways after the movie. In 1976 he told me he was writing an IT THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE (monster in a spaceship) variation. I read his script some time later. It was close to DARK STAR in many ways, but really not similar in tone or vision. I understand Walter Hill (executive producer of ALIEN) rewrote O’Bannon’s script in a weekend.

    DS– Still thinking in the extreme low budget range; I’ve often felt, as a filmmaker (in the no budget world) myself, that, despite the overall limitations having little money to work with provides it causes one to be more genuinely creative and inventive. I’ve never written or conceived of a film myself that would even come close requiring the 100-250 Million Dollar budgets that get thrown around so often these days, and I would never want to. I think that there is such a thing as too much money. It stifles the imagination in my opinion. Induces cinematic lethargy if you will. You seem to be the ultimate proponent of this ideal (unwittingly or not) as almost all of your films, starting with Dark Star and continuing to this day, have never had the budget you’ve necessarily wanted (or deserved.) How much of a help has this been, and how much of a hindrance?

    JC– A low budget movie is a challenge. A director has to be decisive, clever and inventive. Some say more creative. I don’t know about that; it’s nice to have a few bucks. I’ve had as much as 50 million for a movie. Didn’t make it any easier. A realistic budget is probably the best.

    DS– In 1976 you once again pulled double (triple, quadruple…) duties on the making of Assault on Precinct 13. The movie is a moody, stylish, intense urban western by way of exploitation films and, one of the best of it’s type from the 70’s. I’ve always loved the taut pace, but loose feel it has (almost like it was improvised as you made it.) It’s the first of your films to be shot in Panavision 2:35 and it features the birth of the more wry sense of humor that would punctuate your future works. Despite working with another staggeringly low budget on the project ($100,000) you did have complete creative control. Is the finished project ultimately everything you wanted it to be?

    JC– Yes, I had complete creative control. Looking at it now, it feels too slow. A kind way of putting might be ‘leisurely tempo’ or ‘stately pace’. I’m happy enough with the movie.

    DS– Between Assault and Halloween you wrote the screenplay for 1978’s quasi-giallo, The Eyes of Laura Mars. I personally would have loved (still would love) to see you direct a true Dario Argento/Mario Bava-esque, ultra lurid Giallo style thriller (Halloween not withstanding.) And, while the finished product is still a respectable film (I love the performances from Faye Dunaway and Tommy Lee Jones and a lot of the supposedly “risque” photo shoots) I can’t help but imagine what it would have been like under your watch (and with Barbra Streisand in the lead role!) How is the final film different from the script you wrote and what would you have done differently had you gotten to direct it?

    JC– In my version Laura Mars was a crime photographer. Also, I think Irvin Kerschner failed at making the visual style of the visions compelling. Finally, if you could see through someone else’s eyes you would be essentially blind to your own surroundings. You’d experience vertigo, lose your balance, etc.

    DS– Your next film as a director was of course, Halloween. The film is a true classic of the horror genre and a master class of creating terror and suspense on a low budget. So much has been asked and written about the film (I myself did a dissertation on the series as a whole) I kind of hate to beat that dead horse myself. So, I figure I’ll take a slightly different route and ask about Donald Pleasance. I’ve long been a fan of his work. His brand of classy “scenery chewing” has given me endless hours of delight in my life and you got to work with him on several films… Was he as much of a hoot to work with as he was to watch and were there any projects you would have liked to make with him that you didn’t get to?

    JC– Donald Pleasance was a close friend. Amazingly funny, kind and enormously talented. Plus he was an RAF fighter pilot in World War 2.

    DS– You, by proxy Halloween, are pretty much credited with creating/popularizing the modern incarnation of the “jump scare” or “cheap scare” as you called it at the time. ie. Where an object/thing/monster/person/spring loaded cat jolts up into the fore or background of the frame, often accompanied by a musical cue or sound effect sting. You always make it work excessively well, but I despise the technique (even though I’ve fallen prey to using it myself) in almost every other of the countless number of horror films it has been used in. Do you have any regrets on kick starting the trend and do you have any advice to people on wielding it properly if they must use it at all?

    JC– I didn’t invent the jump-scare. Val Lewton invented it in the 1940’s. It was called “the Lewton bus”. Check out THE LEOPARD MAN ( I think). Or maybe THE CAT PEOPLE. Secondly, usel it wisely or not at all if your images and situations are strong enough.

    DS– You later contributed to the scripts and production of 1981’s Halloween II and 1982’s III: Season of the Witch (both of which I personally hold in high regard, along with Halloween 4, not so much after that), much to your apparent chagrin. Was money ultimately the supreme motivating factor in your involvement with those films or was it an effort to have some sort of hold on your most successful (at that time) creation, and do you have any regrets with helping to make those sequels now?

    JC– I couldn’t stop the HALLOWEEN sequels from being made so I decided to collect a few coins writing the script  for H2 and the music for H2 & 3.

    DS– 1980 saw your next directorial effort, The Fog. In it you re-teamed with Halloween’s star Jamie Lee Curtis and your wife at the time, the always alluring Adrienne Barbeau, to craft an old fashioned ghost story. I love the movie, it has a very “Hammer Horror” sort of feel, but it has always felt somewhat hurried or incomplete to me, almost like you were tired when you made it. Was this the case? Sort of making the film “just because” as it were or was it outside forces (the low budget again, working with your wife AND ex-girlfriend [Producer Debra Hill] at the same time, rushed time frame, etc) that ultimately caused your first somewhat uneven work?

    JC– I agree THE FOG is uneven. The problem is the script was underwritten.

    DS– The expansive, post apocalyptic action film, Escape from New York came next, in 1981. Despite a slightly slower pace than you were known for at the time, it was a return to top form after The Fog. Inspired by the Death Wish “city as a sick jungle” mentality you wrote the script much earlier in your career but nobody wanted to touch it then (due to it’s extreme violence and, for the time, weirdness.) When you finally got to make the film you once again had to shoot on a minimal budget, but still had total creative control, allowing you to cast Kurt Russell in the lead role, Snake Plissken (much to the dismay of producers who wanted a more established star.) If you could, would you go back and change anything about Escape from New York “George Lucas style” or is it the film you ultimately wanted it to be?

    JC– No. I wouldn’t change ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK.

    DS– 1982 brought about my personal favorite of your films, The Thing (your remake of Howard Hawk’s seminal sci-fi/horror classic The Thing from Another World.) Working with the backing of a major studio for the first time you again teamed up with Kurt Russell and a cadre of the “Carpenter Regulars” and shipped off to Alaska to craft the film. The movie is a pitch perfect example of on screen terror in my opinion (in fact whenever I want to scare friends who have never seen it, but wish to be really frightened by something, I break out my laserdisc of the movie and watch them squirm.) In it you have the subtle, suspenseful, offscreen or just off frame sort of scares you were known for at the time and some of the most visceral, Lovecraftian, special effects/gore sequences (from the wonderful Rob Bottin) ever to grace an R-Rated film (in my opinion they’ve never been topped) in addition to a superbly well acted and written horror/thriller. What was it like moving to the “big leagues” on this film and was there anything they ultimately didn’t let you do that you really wanted to with the film?

    JC– THE THING had a good budget. It was difficult to make (locations, special effects). I also struggled with the implications of the story. My editor Todd Ramsay gave me good advice: embrace the darkness.

    DS-Despite it’s later (highly positive) critical re-assessment, The Thing was something of a “flop” at the time of it’s release (aside from being released the same weekend as ET I can’t see what people DIDN’T see in the film then that warranted such hatred.) How did the unfortunate fate of the film effect you on a personal level?

    JC– THE THING was hated by a majority of critics and fans. Cinefantastique magazine asked at the time, “Is this the most hated movie of all time”. If THE THING had been successful, my career would have been different. I believe the movie was hated because it was too strong for 1982’s audience.

    DS– Also, The Thing recently received it’s own (mediocre) remake/prequel. Aside from budgetary/fee reasons, why not go with your far more interesting sounding proposed sequel following the two survivors of the original film immediately after it’s events? And, is there any chance now, after the failure of the prequel, your continuation might ever see the light of day?

    JC– My guess is that no more sequels to THE THING will be made.

    DS– After a mixed Stephen King adaptation, 1983’s Christine, you avoided horror for several years. Working on sci-fi/action scripts for The Philadelphia Experiment and Black Moon Rising, directing the (terrific) fantasy/romance film Starman (with Jeff Bridges) and directing my second favorite of your films, 1986’s Big Trouble in Little China. Once again you have Kurt Russell in the lead (channeling his inner Bruce Campbell) as bumbling “hero” Jack Burton, for a strange and hilarious action/comedy/kung-fu/fantasy hybrid that never ceases to tickle me pink. Was this period of time and this film in particular a conscious decision on your part to veer out of horror territory, or were they merely the projects that just happened your way?

    JC– CHRISTINE, STARMAN and BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA were all projects that came my way. I felt comfortable directing these movies; they are either horror, science-fiction or fantasy.

    DS– On that note, with Dark Star, Assault on Precinct 13, Escape from New York, Starman, Big Trouble in Little China and later Memoirs of an Invisible Man, you have shown that you are more than adept (quite skilled in fact) at creating film works outside of the horror genre (especially when compared to your contemporaries Wes Craven, Brian De Palma, Dario Argento, etc.) And, despite subsequent acclaim from critics and “the audience” at large a lot of your non-horror films have found in the ensuing years since their initial creation, most of them, especially the more light hearted ones, were considered failures at the time of their release. How did/does this make you feel, or do you relish your “master of horror” label without resentment?

    JC– I embrace Master of Horror. I love horror movies, I love making horror movies. Many people forget about STARMAN or MEMOIRS OF AN INVISIBLE MAN. That’s fine. The audience likes what it likes. I’m both happy and disappointed with every movie I’ve made.

    DS– In 1987 you released the second part of your “apocalypse trilogy” Prince of Darkness (The Thing was the first and later In the Mouth of Madness was the concluding chapter.) The film has always terrified me in a way I can’t quite explain, particularly the cryptic “message” and ambiguous ending. However, I’ve always felt like there was something missing from the film, something you weren’t able to add or do at the time; is this the case, or is Prince of Darkness the film you intended it to be from the start?

    JC– If you felt creeped out, uneasy after watching PRINCE OF DARKNESS then there’s nothing more that I would want to add.

    DS– 1988 saw the release of They Live. Yet another of your films somewhat maligned at the time of it’s creation, but later reevaluated and beloved. The plot, involving the discovery that aliens have been numbing, hypnotizing and controlling the masses via subliminal “right wing” propaganda hidden in advertising and watering down the media (and essentially reality itself) was quite prophetic (especially considering the depressing state of politics and the entertainment industry today.) And, star Roddy Piper’s infamous ad lib “I’ve come here to kick ass and chew bubblegum… and I’m all out of bubblegum.” has become a “household phrase” amongst the “cultish” set. How do you feel about society, politics, the media and the industry, today, have your worse fears (expressed in the film at least) been confirmed, surpassed or unmet in your opinion?

    JC– The ethos of the 80’s never ended. Even the recent financial crisis didn’t stop it. If anything, things are worse. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a capitalist. I’ve made a great living directing movies. But unrestrained capitalism is a very destructive thing. Look at the rising poverty rate these days. This is, in fact, an ancient tale about the state of humanity told and retold. THEY LIVE is, in fact, a documentary.

    DS– My third favorite of your films, and a truly unsung masterpiece of modern horror, In the Mouth of Madness came in 1994. The film about a missing horror novelist and the increasingly terrifying events surrounding his disappearance, starring Sam Neill, is your ultimate homage to the works of HP Lovecraft (and in fact the only time anyone has ever done cinematic justice to his works, aside from perhaps Stuart Gordon, even though it is indirect.) I’ve never loved Lovecraft’s actual, direct writing abilities, but have long admired his ability to craft utterly terrifying ideas and concepts outside of their time and beyond the boundaries of reality as we know it. Recently, due in part to my own and my friends admiration of Lovecraftian horror (and the fascinating scientific and metaphysical ramifications presented within his works and unexplored by most filmmakers,) I have been slowly working on an adaptation of Lovecraft’s The Shadow Over Innsmouth (with a dash of several other  of his stories thrown in.) If you could do a direct adaptation of one of Lovecraft’s works what would it be and why, also, why have you never mounted it?

    JC– Good luck on SHADOW OVER INNSMOUTH. Dunno about slopping, flopping fish people though. I wish Guillermo del Toro had been able to make AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS. I love many Lovecraft tales; THE DUNWICH HORROR, THE RATS IN THE WALLS, and especially THE OUTSIDER. I would love to make THE COLOUR OUT OF SPACE, but it won’t happen.

    DS– Quite a few of your films (and too many others not related to you) have been remade in recent years, notably Assault on Precinct 13, The Fog and Halloween. Unlike your masterful remake of Howard Hawks’ The Thing from Another World, most modern “re-imaginings” are thoroughly lacking in the latter part of that most bandied about term. Have you watched any of the remakes of your films (even those you were somewhat attached to,) if so, what are your opinions of them and the current fad of repeated revisiting, on the whole?

    JC– I enjoyed the remake of ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13. The others… no comment.

    DS– 1995’s Village of the Damned, 1998’s Vampires, 2001’s Ghosts of Mars and your most recent effort, 2010’s The Ward, have met with mostly tepid receptions from audiences and critics alike and featured relatively little of the true “Carpenter Magic” in my opinion. Have you tired of the horror genre, filmmaking in general, or have the various production woes, budgetary restraints and studio meddling that have famously hounded your projects just taken it’s toll on you as an artist?

    JC– I don’t know.

    DS– Once Upon a Time in the West is my all time favorite film. There’s something about the movie that stirs every part of me, both as just a guy watching the picture and as an artist. You’ve long stated that one of your ultimate dreams would be to make a Western and I’d love to see you do one. Particularly of the ‘Spaghetti’ variety. You’re one of the most accomplished visual stylists of cinema, and your repeated “pseudo-westerns” (Assault on Precinct 13, Big Trouble in Little China, Vampires…) have more than shown that you could craft an excessively unique take on the genre, given the chance. Is creating a true “John Carpenter Western” the final frontier for you? If so (despite them being a tough sell) why haven’t you done one yet and/or do you have the perfect script already waiting around for the opportunity to present itself?

    JC– I’m working on a Gothic western. We’ll see if it gets made.

    I just want to end this with a great big Cthulhu tentacle hug thanks for John Carpenter. And, once again, REALLY hope I didn’t make him mad. I did come across a little fannish (in the bad way.) But, I am a big fan, so… yeah.

    Also, wanted to interject that I meant to put in an “erroneously credited with creating the modern equivalent of the jump scare” back up there in that related question. But, that’s what I get for getting over zealous at times. Haha.

    Overall though I hope everyone enjoyed this one, I know I did, despite my various minor faux pas.

    And, along these same lines, next month’s interview is going to be with the former Mrs. John Carpenter, Genre Queen and all around brilliant actress, Adrienne Barbeau! (I promise, in advance, her interview is a DELIGHT.)

    And, Coming Soon you all should be hearing from renowned character actress Lin Shaye, Elvira Mistress of the Dark herself Cassandra Petersen, the legendary Sybil Danning (who is going to be supplying your truly with some exclusive news,) Academy Award Winner Lee Grant, and many more!

    Until then, look forward to new reviews, comedy articles, and production information on my next feature films “SOMETHING” and “Crime Against Nature!”

    PS. Anytime any of you get the chance to take a listen to some of John Carpenter’s DVD commentary tracks (particularly when teamed up with Kurt Russell) please do so. They’re informative and hoot worthy.

  • DVDs From Sledge: Part I: Deadly Blessing

    DVDs From Sledge: Part I: Deadly Blessing

    Tomorrow is the big day for my next ’11 Questions with…’ This time it’s going to be a bonus sized edition with legendary filmmaker John Carpenter on Monday April 2nd 2012! In the mean time check this out…

    I feel as if I of all people should have an April Fool’s day post.

    It just seems wrong that I shouldn’t, or don’t. But… this is the case.

    So instead, this fool with just post on April Fool’s day and everyone will have to live with the heartbreaking fact that nothing more humorously out of the norm or shocking will belch forth from me… today at least. Anyroadup…

    When it comes to the sort of thing I do here, or any sort of film related activity in general I’m a bit of a “lone wolf” (to make myself sound a bit cooler than I am.)

    If someone directs, demands or even asks slightly forcibly (but still politely) for me to do something chances are it will get done slowly. Don’t know why. I don’t MEAN to be a dick, but it happens, for better or worse. I like to do this stuff my way, at my pace… Anywho, it especially happens when the proprietor of this site, Alton, or Sledge to you all, specifically wishes for me to work on something. He’s the Martin to my Lewis, the Abbott to my Costello, the French to my Saunders, if you will. I just feel, deep in the pit of my soul, that there should be some conflict there and so it is (even if it is very mild, unknown on his part and slightly intentional on mine.)

    Anyways, on this subject, sire Sledge sent me a batch of screener DVD’s a while back (a good while back I might add,) all or most up my alley (Frankenhooker will be nice to revisit,) for to be reviewed in some way shape or form.

    So, after much procrastination and posting of much more pressing (the Clone a Penis thing for instance) articles, here is the first of THOSE demanded of me by the affor-mentioned Alton Sledgeworth the 14th, esq, OBGYN.

    Wes Craven’s bit of semi-OK, halfway decent, horror mediocrity from 1981, Deadly Blessing (as presented gloriously by Cult Release Superstars, Arrow Films.)

    Plot wise the film is a bit of a mess.

    Part slasher film, part supernatural horror, with a novel for the time Amish setting (Hittite if we must be specific,) some brief, out of the blue transgendered romance, curses, people who aren’t incubuses, people who ARE incubuses and a whole lot of confusion.

    Starts off with this couple, they live on an isolated farm, husband used to be a Hittite, but not anymore. He gets killed by his tractor. The locales think the wife is an incubus because her harloting, feminine wiles caused said tractor to run over hubby. A couple of her girlfriends visit from the big city to chillax her out (one of them played by Sharon Stone, in her film debut.) Ernest Borgnine shows up, chewing the scenery like a madman, as the crazed leader of the locales, he wants to buy the farm (not die, literally purchase the farm of wife and dead husband) she refuses to sell. More people die, including genre stalwart Michael Berryman, wife has nightmares, a shirt rips open revealing some non-boobies on a lady… There’s a lot going on and it’s all kind of random and nonsensical. Anyways, turns out wife wasn’t an incubus and some local crazies were doin the killin’s. Everything is OK! Then a real incubus shows up and drags wifey down to hell. The end.

    If it sounds like I’m hating on the movie, I’m not meaning to. It’s OK. Decent kill scenes. There’s a nice bit (shot exactly like the reveal of Fred Krueger’s glove in the bathtub, Wes, did we get lazy?) involving a snake and a vaginal area, a real spider gets plonked into Sharon’s mouth, a few good stabbings, and of course the most terrifying thing of all, Ernest Borgnine’s eyebrows, are all there and they work just fine, or at least serviceably.

    As always with Wes Craven the film is gorgeously shot, making excellent work of the wide open spaces and desolate locale. And, there is a tid bit of reasonable suspense milked from the shadowy barn stalkings and such. The acting, aside from (the always wonderful) Borgnine playing to the cheap seats, and Berryman giving one of his typical grunt-hiss-is-he-or-isnt-he-retarded performances is decent, if leaning toward the side of bland. And the script puts forth some decent ideas, even if none of them are followed through on or resolved in the slightest. It IS a film to watch for fans of the genre, but newbies might wanna look for something a bit more thrilling and less convoluted.

    It’s different though. I’ll give it that much. Very different.

    The DVD from Arrow Films has been meticulously crafted, as are all their releases. The picture is crisp, the sound is dynamic, to be cliche, Deadly Blessing probably hasn’t looked this good since it’s release 31 years ago. As is the norm for Arrow Films you get some choice with your packaging, both excellent (better than the original poster art in fact.) Special features for a film of this non-loved nature are usually rare and nothing more than a trailer, but Arrow went all out, and has proven their mantle as the new (and possibly superior) AnchorBay and brought us a decent selection.

    First, a brief (optional) introduction from Michael Berryman. It’s succinct and to the point.

    Next there’s Craven Images, a longish, informative interview, again with star Michael Berryman, of this film, and Craven’s original The Hills Have Eyes (among MANY other genre entries, my personal favorite being Ruggero Deodato’s 1985 Gut Munching Actioner Cut and Run.) The interview was a bit of a revelation for me as I had never really heard Berryman speak, out of character before. He’s quite intelligent (has two degrees) and well spoken, nothing like the lumbering, barely human psychopaths he usually plays. The interview starts off well, lapses into mild bitchery on his part, but becomes a bit dull toward the end. Still, good stuff.

    Then we get Deadly Desires, an interview with the screenwriter of the film Glenn M. Benest. He’s not as fun to listen to as Berryman, and once again the piece goes on a bit too long, but he provides a lot of insight into the film and how it became the bit of a muddled mess it became (behind the scenes interfering will kill a picture every time, huh?) Benest is a TAD deluded over the “cult status” of the movie, but overall, is also a good listen for fans of this sort of thing.

    On hand as well of course is the de rigor Original Theatrical Trailer, cleaned up and sparkly (still kind of over long, dull and spoilery as they often were at the time.) And, a couple cheeky Easter Eggs I’ll leave you to discover for yourself.

    That’s it folks!

    The movie may not be cool enough to “build a barn from your bones” as one of the more over the top (read: fabulous) taglines suggests so luridly, but the DVD certainly isn’t bare bones for an obscure release such as this. Arrow Films continues it’s tradition of grand special editions, for movies that generally wouldn’t get such treatment and I couldn’t be happier for it!

    FILM:
    5 out of 10 Carton’s of Blood Milk!

    DVD:
    9 out of 10 Glistening bits of lovely, hand painted poster art!

  • MEGA MADONNA MELTDOWN!

    MEGA MADONNA MELTDOWN!

    Be on the look out for the latest episode of ’11 Questions with…’ This time it’s going to be a bonus sized edition with legendary filmmaker John Carpenter on Monday April 2nd 2012! In the mean time, there’s this…

    I am not the hugest fan of Madonna.

    Like, I enjoy a lot of her “classic” music works alright (the pre-Ray of Light days) particularly most of everything off her first and second albums. But really I get more enjoyment from her cinematic abortions… well ONE of her cinematic abortions anyways, namely the 1993 Basic Instinct coat tail rider Body of Evidence. But aside from my unhealthy love for that ‘film’ (and believe me, it is unhealthy) I find her, especially as a person, to be quite annoying and tired.

    Back in the day, 900 years ago, about 200 years after her birth, she may have indeed been the awesome, original, pop progeny she is so often and past tensely referred to as (VERY much past tensely.) And, certainly, without her Lady Gaga wouldn’t exist (or have any corpses to mine her musical wares from so liberally) but these days, and really I’d say every day since about two months AFTER Ray of Light‘s release way back in 1999, she’s become more (and more and more) of an insane old cat lady, airing her hamster meat and tinfoil stuffed pies out on the windowsill for the world to be nauseated by and fearful of. And, I think it goes without saying, by hamster meat and tinfoil stuffed pies I of course mean her vagina.

    On that note, this notion has never been more prescient and well represented than on her latest desperate (futile) gasp at relevancy, er… album, MDNA. But, before we get to that rotten old chestnut (once again… her vagina,) I did promise a MEGA MADONNA MELTDOWN in the title bar and that is what I shall provide; by diving into a Shanghai Surprise and examining our Body of Evidence.

    Back at the dawn of mankind as we know it today, at the height of Madonna’s popularity as a singer, somewhere around 1984, Madonna decided she could also be an actress (anyone who has seen the horrifically awful celluloid stone carving A Certain Sacrifice made during her pre-fame, college days could have told her that this wasn’t a wise decision and saved us a whole lot of heartbreak) and wound up, essentially playing herself in the movie Vision Quest.

    Vision Quest was critically acclaimed, and a minor hit at the box office, and it would seem that some of that notice rubbed off on Madonna, unwittingly opening the pandoras box that is her film career. Her next part in Desperately Seeking Susan only reinforced her utterly false acting abilities, when again essentially playing herself, the movie in which she starred (but had little real impact on) was critically acclaimed and financially successful.

    Despite the cinema successes, Madonna perhaps subconsciously realized her limitations (read: no abilities) as an actress she married actual thespian (and future Oscar winner/as big an annoyance as Madonna for other reasons) Sean Penn in 1985 and then promptly dragged him (kicking and screaming, with her pussy) into the first true target of this article… 1986’s (somehow pre-emptive Romancing the Stone rip-off, yes that can happen) Shanghai Surprise (which has a SPECIAL EDITION DVD, which I own.)

    All joking aside for a moment, Shanghai Surprise is ACTUALLY an Indiana Jones cash-in (much like 1983’s High Road to China, or 1985’s Allan Quatermain and King Solomon’s Mines.)

    Now, back to where we were… Of course Shanghai Surprise is an utterly terrible Indiana Jones knock off, in which Madonna has vastly overestimated her already vastly overestimated (read: entirely overestimated) acting talents and cast herself as a virginal, Julie Andrewsesque, nun/missionary (who teams up with a rougish, very decent, Sean Penn, to find a whole piss ton of missing opium that she can use to aide all of the patients in the free hospital she works at, leading to much madcap misadventure along the way.)

    I really only include the movie in this article because it is one of those things that is so terrible it needs to be watched (like Murdercycle, Shark Attack 3 or Mansquito.) There are moments in the film where Madonna’s acting is so wholly misguided and improperly motivated that it literally can rip convulsive laughter from the pit of your soul. The movie would actually be a pretty decent test run for what would become Romancing the Stone, if not for Madonna sucking the life out of every scene she is in (which of course, her being Madonna, is nearly all of them.)

    Each line delivery is SO stilted, and each facial expression she belches forth vacillates violently between vacant non-expression to children’s school play over the topness; there is nothing good about her in the film, other than that she is SO absolutely bad.

    Needless to say, Shanghai Surprise rightfully failed in every way once it was released (which doesn’t explain the Special Edition DVD, but Cutting Class has one too, so… whatever.) Madonna finally got the critical crucifixion on the cinematic front she so desperately deserved and it seemed at least for a moment that she might throw in the old acting towel and go back to doing what she does best (things with her vagina.)

    But no, she geared up again and unleashed a staggering array of awful across numerous films, including Who’s That Girl, Bloodhounds of Broadway and Dick Tracy (to name a few.) Then came 1993… and her two greatest contributions to film… Dangerous Game (in which she gives her sole BRILLIANT performance. And I’m being deadly serious here. She’s wonderful, but the rest of the film is nearly unwatchable.) And, Body of Evidence.

    I LOVE Body of Evidence. Love it. Love everything about it. If there were Body of Evidence conventions I would be the first person there, in costume, posters in hand, ready to be signed.

    It is still a terrible movie, but the best kind of terrible movie. An A-List, star studded, big budgeted, filmic nightmare of epic proportions.

    The entire concept of the film is a true story based around Madonna’s vagina and it’s completely factual ability to screw people to death. It bounces back and forth between over wrought courtroom scenes and even more over wrought (and ridiculous) sexual interludes, replete with as much graphic (and disgusting) nudity as you could possibly want (aside from Julianne Moore, who is ALWAYS smoking hot.)

    Once again, Madonna has overestimated her abilities and is not playing herself, or a reasonable facsimile of herself (aside from the murderous genitals), instead she (woefully, stiltedly, misguidedly) plays a (non) character named Rebecca Carlson (some sort of rich, self made painter or something, who lives on a massive implausible house that sits on stilts inches above the water, with perpetually unlocked doors and opened windows, who’s dangerously backlit by hundreds of ever present candles see through curtains forever billow in the heated night air, that could never exist anywhere but a movie.) However, unlike her other films, the makers of Body of Evidence decided to distract the audience from her omnipresent badness by surrounding Madonna with a cadre of typically excellent thespians, who embarrass themselves completely and utterly here.

    First there is Willem Dafoe, who plays her reluctant lawyer/reluctant lover, Frank Dulaney, as if he is about to vomit from this misdecision every time he delivers a line or has to fuck Madonna on a pile of broken glass (don’t ask.) Then we have Joe Mantegna playing his part as a total hammy lark, to the cheap seats, as the DA prosecuting the ridiculous murder case that the film is based around. Poor Anne Archer (looking frumpy and haggard) is about too, barely able to push herself through her useless role as Madonna’s primary antagonist. And the legendary Frank Langella is even dragged into the mess, bringing a touch of visibly annoyed class to his tiny tiny part as one of Madonna’s ex lovers. Only the previously mentioned Julianne Moore comes across as she should, delivering the only good performance in the film, as Dafoe’s wife.

    Special mention also goes to the production designers on the film who bathe every inch of the movie (no matter how awkward and impossibly placed) with smoky, backlit, venetian blind and ceiling fan shadows. And, of final note, Madonna’s improvised masturbation scene (or Nightmare Fuel as it is known between myself and my friends) is the stuff that Lovecraft wrote about causing the destruction of Men’s minds from even a momentary viewing.

    Anywho, despite it’s obvious awesomeness, Body of Evidence tanked at the box office and with critics, and that with the one two punch of Dangerous Game pretty much (thankfully) ended Madonna’s film career (aside from some ensemble parts and the musical Evita in 1996.)

    She still had music going on though, and that brings us to the present…

    As I kind of implied at the start of this novella, Ray of Light was Madonna’s last good album. Music was atonal and underwritten. American Life is a nightmarish audiophonic shotgun blast to the face that should be locked away for all eternity along side the Ark of the Covenant in Area 54. Confessions on a Dance Floor was… actually pretty OK, if only for the fact that Madonna gave in and went back to her early 80’s discotheque roots for a moment. And, her most recent album before today’s subject, Hard Candy, was a nauseating display of Madonna (‘s vagina) trying her best, but failing miserably to do so, to grasp a hold of the current music scene and ride it dry. (The accompanying music video for the album’s one hit single 4 Minutes, featuring Justin Timberlake, stands along side the Body of Evidence masturbation scene as the most garishly stomach churning display of Madonna’s physical being. Seriously… her arms… her crotch… her face *shudder*)

    And, skidding over the edge and in to the rocky death trap below of the same subject, there is today’s final subject, MDNA, Madonna’s newest album.

    I won’t be doing my usual song-by-song review, as I honestly can’t bring myself to listen to each song all the way through (aside from the terrible, but catchy, lead single Give Me All Your Luvin,) I’ve only been able to stomach the first minute and a half of each, instead it’ll just be an album spanning bashing.

    MDNA is as if Madonna has paid no attention to the lessons she should have learned from the release of her last four albums and combined all of their worst aspects into one barely cohesive musical hell spawn. As with Music, each song is woefully UNDER written, lyrically vapid (Britney’s Blackout features more depth, and is genuinely a good dance album) and atonal (seriously, Madonna’s voice sounds like the dying breath of a cancer patient being teasingly plugged and unplugged from life support.) As with Hard Candy each track is OVER produced to the Nth degree, causing every song to blend together into a toneless cacophony of computerized beats and bleeps. As with Confessions on a Dance Floor Madonna is once again TRYING to go back to what we like her to do best, club songs, but unlike Confessions her reliance on much currently better guest stars just makes you realize even more how woefully useless she is now. And, lastly, as with American Life, the album is utter garbage; BETTER than American Life, but still complete trash.

    The lone standout of mild listen-to-ability is Give Me All Your Luvin, but for all the wrong reasons. Madonna (especially in the video) just comes across as a granny trying to be hip and hot and failing in every way. It’s a musical train wreck. Nicki Minaj’s rapid fire, typically foam mouthed, guest spot is energetic and funny, and FUN, basically everything the song (and album) needs more of but gets none of and she steals the show, unfortunately for Madonna, as expected.

    Throw in the towel Madge, you’re done. Retire. Live a life of quiet luxury banging dudes 40 years younger than you somewhere on the French Riviera. Quit directing films at the start. And never threaten us with anything even remotely like that Casablanca remake you threw around for a while.

    Also, whatever you keep doing to your face, please stop. You look like a sentient blob of half cooked, overly expanded bread dough in a bad wig and one piece.

    Shanghai Surprise, 2 out of 10, neon colored, eye sore, neckties.

    Body of Evidence, 10 out of 10, candle wax and champagne covered nipples.

    MDNA, 1 out of 10, broken hips and cough drops.