Blog

  • Cine Excess

    Cine Excess

    Cult film fans and cineastes can rejoice, Cine-Excess is back! The 6th annual international festival and conference on global cult film takes place on 24th to 26th May in London at the Odeon Covent Garden and the Italian Cultural Institute.

    The theme of this year’s event is Transnational Excess: The Art and Atrocity of Cult Adaptation, and the highlights include international filmmaker discussions and awards, as well as a three day themed conference and exclusive screenings and UK theatrical premieres of up and coming cult movies.

    Cine-Excess IV focuses on global adaptations of cult narratives, genres, themes and icons across a broad range of media and fiction formats. From pulp novels into pulp horror films and recent big budget blockbuster remakes of marginal midnight movies, to nationally defined interpretations of the pre-established extreme, the cult image remains a fascinating index of adaptation, whose wide array of remakes, renditions and realisations frequently reveals fascinating issues of nation and narrative, as well cultural, regional and historical distinction.

    Now in its sixth year under director Xavier Mendik, Cine Excess brings together global film icons alongside international academics to celebrate cult film. Past guests have included Franco Nero, Ruggero Deodato, Joe Dante, Roger Corman and Dario Argento

    The film programme of events for Cine-Excess VI will be announced shortly. Further details are available from: www.cine-excess.co.uk

  • 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.

  • Faceless (1987) An Eye Popping Review

    Faceless (1987) An Eye Popping Review

    Moving swiftly along toward the latest edition 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…

    Ahh… Jess Franco. When I hear his name I immediately see breasts before my eyes.

    And, his 1987 (excessively 1987,) Eurotrash (excessively Eurotrash,) exercise in bad taste (EXCESSIVELY bad taste) Faceless doesn’t disappoint in the tit department, but it does, unfortunately, do so in numerous other areas…

    Quite sad too, because this could have ended up an all time classic…

    I spose in the end it’s probably Franco’s best and most accessible film, overall… not that that’s saying much.

    The plot, in a nutshell, begins when the beloved (incestuously beloved,) gorgeous-model-sister of a renowned plastic surgeon (played with seedy relish by Helmut Berger) is horrifically disfigured (how does every average Joe get access to such powerful acids in the movie world?) by a disgruntled (and also disfigured) former patient. The surgeon then cares for his (increasingly, delightfully, bitchy) sister in seclusion with the help of his sexy nurse girlfriend; while trying to return her face to it’s former beauty… by, of course, surgically removing the faces of other gorgeous models for transplant purposes.

    Great concept right (John Woo… are you a fan)? Not so hot in the execution department.

    As with most of Franco’s films the pacing is far too sluggish for the subject matter. This thing should move like a nasty, slice n dice tinker toy (I’d give anything for a De Palma, or even Frank Henenlotter, remake) but instead moseys along like a sleazy raft on a lazy river made of blood covered breasts.

    The performances are better than usually found in Franco Flicks (particularly from Berger.) The always enjoyable Telly Savalas is on hand in a slumming (obviously filmed in 1 day) cameo as the father of one of the models Berger is trying to give an extreme facial to. And, Christopher Mitchum turns in a decidedly decent (for him) role as a hard boiled detective trying to find Savalas’s daughter, that more than brings to mind his legendary father Robert Mitchum.

    Chuck in a few (but nowhere near enough) high quality gore scenes; including a cringe worthy eyeball meets syringe attack, a nerve rattling power drill to the face bit and some GRAPHIC, and fairly realistic (love the moving eyeballs) face removal scenes; an evil ex-Nazi doctor who specializes in the field of face transplantary; a humorously annoying, out of place, sappy ballad theme song and an offensively (but hilariously) fem gay couple and, you do get the recipe for a mostly decent, fairly unique slasher film.

    But it could have been so much more and that’s why I’m more displeased with it then I generally would be.

    Had the performances been ramped up to 11 on all fronts, the pace been tightened judiciously, the kill scenes been thrown out at a faster (and higher) rate and had they 100% followed through on the twisted “happy” ending (only implied in the final cut) Faceless could have been a sleaze/exploitation/horror masterpiece of the highest order, up there with Savage Streets, Maniac and Dressed to Kill.

    Alas, it falls a bit more than a scalpel’s edge of perfection. But, I still recommend it as a nice laugh for those who enjoy this sort of thing, and maybe as a bit of a stomach churner for those who don’t.

    6 out of 10 disgusted male prostitute cranial knifings.

     

  • Carrie Is Being Remade… Again

    Carrie Is Being Remade… Again

    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…

    A little while back I went on a rant about remakes, you can read about it here.

    And now, I’m going to rant, at least a little, again.

    My readers should know my feelings for Brian De Palma at this point. Even when the man does plenty wrong, he can do no wrong. His stylistic over the topness is music to my eyes. The soft focus, gelled lens, rose tinted, slow motion, split screen world that his films exist end never cease to thrill and excite me. This sentiment of course holds true for his handling of the first screen adaptation of Carrie in 1976.

    While the film may deviate quite a bit from Stephen King’s source novel, it gets the spirit 100% correct, and aside from a few dated touches (the “whacky” prom clothes buying, sped up montage, anyone) it is a true classic of the genre.

    On the acting front, Sissy Spacek is perfect as the terminally shy, but psychically gifted Carrie White, eliciting sympathy from the character that few other actresses, even of the time, could’ve come close to, as well as making her intense and terrifying. As her mother, the uber-religious Margaret White, Piper Laurie plays to the cheap seats, delivering an electrifying, scenery devouring performance that is the polar opposite, but perfect match for Spacek’s understated turn. They both truly deserved their rare for the genre Oscar Noms, is pretty much what I’m saying here.

    Overall De Palma and crew set out to create a Horror film that plays with a touch of class, amongst it’s lurid shocks, and they succeed amiably. It’s probably the 1st or 2nd best treatment a King Novel has ever been given cinematically, behind or tied perhaps only by Dolores Claiborne, The Shining or Misery. It’s no wonder the film is still talked about and loved the way it is to this day, and why it was one of the most respected and massive horror hits of its time.

    23 Years after the first film we were given it’s exorable sequel, The Rage: Carrie 2. The film is exactly what you’d expect from a late 90’s horror flick from the director of Stripped to Kill. The cast is a bunch of teenage by way of 30, bland, WBish cast offs (aside from the lone original film star to return, Amy Irving, who skews her general awesomeness with a phoned in banality) who blithely emote their way through on camera line readings.

    The plot is a thinly “gothitized” version of the original films (shades of The Craft influence the whole proceeding) in fact I’m willing to bet the movie was an entirely “original” film called ‘The Rage’ that was turned in to a Carrie sequel to bump up the potential profit. The direction is uninteresting, uninterested, and flat. And, the special effects (especially the CGI) are typical for the time period, horrendous. It’s not a movie you watch, it’s a movie you endure.

    3 years after The Rage left its musty stain in theaters (in 2002 mind you, 10 years ago) an official, made for TV remake was foisted upon the Carrie name (seemingly just because so many other King projects have been turned into mostly successful mini-series.)

    Carrie The Mini Series tells the same story as the De Palma version, in practically the same way, aside from the lack of style, and the non-linear framing device of the film, which jumps around the timeline and unfortunately comes from the book, and also adding back in some scenes from the novel that had been excised from the original film due to budget/time constraints.

    The direction from TV veteran (and Star Trek Generations) director David Carson makes Katt Shea’s handling of The Rage seem positively Fellini-esque by comparison; it’s flat, it’s dull, it’s lifeless. The cast is equally without consequence, practically faceless. Naturally, being a mini-series, it is needlessly long. And despite having more elements from the novel incorporated and more time to deal with it, the film seems empty and hollow, lacking even a tenth of the emotional validity of De Palma’s original.

    It’s not as bad as The Rage in terms of sheer awfulness, few things can be, but its excessive mediocrity makes it FEEL a lot worse.

    Now that all that back story is out of the way, we’re up to the soon-to-come new remake of Carrie (to be released in 2013.)

    As mentioned in my remake/rant article, I’m not opposed to remakes, there have been some great ones, the 1988 Version of The Blob, Philip Kaufman’s take on Invasion of the Body Snatchers and John Carpenter’s classic handling of The Thing, to name a few. But there is a trend as of late that churns my stomach to no end…

    Remaking a movie a scant few years after it has already been unsuccessfully remade.

    A recent take on this would be The Hulk. Ang Lee did one in 2003 that made some dough, but was pretty much hated, then they hit the reset button on it 5 years later with The Incredible Hulk (which also made some money, but was kind of given the “meh” reception overall.) Same thing with Invasion of the Body Snatchers; the original from 1956 is a classic, as is the previously mentioned 1978 version, the one from the early 90’s, Body Snatchers? Not so much… Then you have Nicole Kidman’s horrendous version (The Invasion) from 2007, and a forth coming remake of THAT.

    Why?

    I’ll tell you why… I know from personal experience and behind the scenes conversation with NUMEROUS industry big wigs and higher ups that most studios literally do not want anything new. They only want franchises, tested properties and tent pole projects. It’s not suspicion, its fact. No gay characters, no interracial romances, no messages, no sex, no nudity. It’s the Hayes Code all over again. Sure once and a while an indie film that’s of some weight will slip through the cracks, as will the occasional big film of some mild quality from an ‘auteur’ filmmaker (Nolan’s handling of the Batman series, for one.)

    But overall, there truly is a ban on original thinking. And, it’s sad.

    What can be said or done now, in film, that couldn’t have been said or done 5 or even 10 years ago?

    There are a ton of young (and old) screenwriters and filmmakers out there who’d be willing cut off their left arm to deliver an original script (or even an original knock off) for next to nothing. You could do 200 or more original films, or even knock offs, with decent low budgets and a couple “name” actors, for the cost of 1 John Carter. But no one is going to do that. Why? I dunno. Supposed ‘risk.’ (Granted I’d hardly call the 200+ Million Dollar write off known AS John Carter to be a NON-Risk, would you?)

    Chloe Moretz, a plain looking starrer of numerous things of little note has been cast in the title role of Carrie in the new film, it’s being directed by ‘classy’ filmmaker Kimberly Peirce (of Boys Don’t Cry acclaim, and Stop-Loss not so much acclaim) and scripted by a producer/writer who is best known for contributing a lot to Glee; and it sounds, at least from all that, that we’re going to get another exercise in cinematic water treading and banality like we did with A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Stepfather, The Hitcher and Prom Night (to name just a few.)

    I’m angry and I hate it all, but, I won’t bitch and complain anymore, I’ll just leave it at that… Oh and remind everyone of another resent remake/abortion… Tim Burton’s Dark Shadows

     

  • Anchorman 2

    Anchorman 2

    Nothing to say here, other than watch the clip below, from Conan.