Friday 30 October 2009

Ramblings and Retrospectives Halloween Special Part 3: A suspiciously shaped bag of personal favourites

Right, now that we've done our woefully brief overview of slasher boogeymen, we thought that, instead of going through genres at a the pace of a knackered snail, we'd tell you about the films we really like. Subgenres be damned, here are our horror favourites....
AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981)
It's arguably the best werewolf film ever made, and also one of the most successful horror comedies. It's John Landis' finest hour, showing that the man who made The Blues Brothers and Animal House knows his scary movies. The film starts with young Americans David Kessler and Jack Goodman roaming the highlands of Scotland. They stumble across The Slaughtered Lamb, a pub full of unwelcoming locals who tell them to "Beware the moon" and "Keep to the Road". Needless to say, they wander onto the moors and are attacked by a savage wolf. Jack is killed, but David wakes up in a London hospital. The good news is that he's being attended to in more ways than one by nurse Alex Price (Jenny Agutter), the bad news is that he's turning into a werewolf

What can we say about American Werewolf in London? It's got the best "awkward silence in a busy pub caused simply by your arrival" moment in cinema history. It's got a fantastic transformation courtesy of effects maestro Rick Baker. The performances from David Naughton and Griffin Dunne are so convincing that you essentially think that they're playing themselves (the commentary on the DVD certainly does little to dissuade you of this). Jenny Agutter is appropriately lovely as Alex, and, surprisingly for an American made film set in England, the English dialogue actually sounds right. The dark comedy contrasts excellently with the genuinely scary scenes (that underground chase scene is still spooky), and the surprisingly effective gore. It's got that invaluable trump card: Brian Glover. Here's the Slaughtered Lamb sequence for your viewing pleasure:

Want a werewolf movie this Halloween? Rent this. Better yet, buy it. Beware the moon, lads.

Go further: The Howling, Ginger Snaps, Dog Soldiers


SUSPIRIA (1977)

Taking a left turn here, Dario Argento's classic mindbending nightmare is perfect for those who want something a little different this Halloween. Suzie Banion arrives at a German dance academy, only to find something terrifying is roaming the school at night. And, basically, that's it. There are some odd plot details, such as Suzie trying to make friends, and a young, dubbed, Udo Kier pops up near the end to explain what you might have figured out already. But, as any Argento fan will tell you, if you're following the plot properly you're just going to get a headache. The plot of Suspiria is a flimsy excuse for the director to indulge in gloriously gory set-pieces, fantastically insane camera work, brightly lit in primary colours and scored with Goblin's metal music. Trying to explain what makes Suspiria so good is difficult. It's a technicolour nightmare, a blood-soaked fairytale. And it's tremendous fun. So, basically, go and watch it.

Go further: Inferno, Profondo Rosso, Tenebrae, Opera



Tenebre trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2oKGaAc3m4



A Tale of Two Sisters (2003)

OK, chances are you've probably seen The Ring, and The Grudge. But A Tale of Two Sisters manages to be a genuinely scary horror even if you're familiar with the "evil lank-haired girl" routine. The film is about two sisters who begin to suspect that their new, attractive stepmother may have killed their mother. It's essentially a haunted house movie, but these bangs and jolts are perfectly done. It's perfectly played by the cast, and is shot and scored with the care and artistry than an award-bait drama would normally be given. It's also more about the chills than the gore, building up suspense slowly and expertly until, inevitably, someone breaks. A Tale of Two Sisters is an excellent twist on the wicked stepmother story, and the sound of fingernails on wood is one that will stay with you for days. Oh, and it was recently loosely remade as The Uninvited, starring David Strathairn and Elizabeth Banks. Reviews were less than favourable, so, as is so often the case, it's best to stick with the original.

Go further: Three Extremes, Infection, Audition

A Tale of Two Sisters trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anF5XiN8QY8

Three Extremes trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-lnf01j7kw

Audition trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhsrsWcEspc

Thursday 29 October 2009

Ramblings and Retrospectives Halloween Special Part 2: Boogeymen continued

Not long to go until Halloween, so I guess we'd better keep this rolling! We left off our boogeymen special with Wes Craven's Nightmare on Elm Street series. Let's face it, the classic slasher villains are Freddy, Jason, and Michael. Chucky is less of a horror film and more of a dark comedy (as evidenced by the gloriously tasteless Seed of Chucky). We're going to be bypassing a lot of the lesser known slasher villains, such as The Dentist, The Miner (from My Bloody Valentine), and so on. So, let's start with a face that's difficult to forget
HELLRAISER (1987)

Plot: American Larry and his daughter Kirsty move with his new English wife, Julia, to London. However, Larry's nasty brother Frank has come back from the dead, in need of some flesh to put on his bones, and cheating Julia agrees to help. Frank's also on the run from a bad bunch of demons called the Cenobites, who are unleashed when Kirsty opens across a puzzle box.

Is it any good?: Yes and no. The film has taken on classic status thanks to the rather memorable appearance of it's villain, and its (deserved) reputation for unpleasant gore. Doug Bradley's good as Pinhead himself, and Andrew Robinson (the killer from Dirty Harry) has fun as Larry. Ashley Lawrence is an underrated horror queen, putting in a solid show here, and in part two. For the budget, the film is very well made. Clive Barker has always been a very talented writer, and he shows here that he's not a bad director either. But for all it's notoriety, it's a film that repulses rather than truly scares. It also takes itself very seriously, which is fine up to a point, but not when some of the story is this silly. For me, it's good, but it's not a classic.

Sequels: Part 2 (Hellbound) is a lot of fun. Set in an asylum, it brings back Kirsty and Julia, and turns the action and gore up to eleven. Part 3 (Hell on Earth) is not bad either, giving Pinhead a backstory. They really start to go downhill after Part 4; a muddled affair which goes from 17th Century France, to the present day, to space. Hellraiser 6 briefly brought back Kirsty, but by then they'd ceased to be interesting, and the last (Part 8) starred horror veteran Lance Henriksen
Remake: Dimension has been trying to get a remake going for a while now, but they can't seem to decide on a director. Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury (A L'Interieur) were first up, then Pacal Laugier of Martyrs. They've all left under the creative differences umbrella, but apparently the remake is still in production, and will be in 3-D

CANDYMAN (1992)

Plot: Helen Lyle decides to write about the mysterious murders on the gang-run Cabrini Green council projects. Once there, she stumbles across an urban legend that is all too real

Is it any good?: Yes, very much so. Bernard Rose took Clive Barker's short story and created a horror film with decent social commentary. The housing projects in the film were real locations, Virginia Madsen (playing Helen) was covered in bees, as was Tony Todd (Candyman). The cast is excellent (, as is the Phillip Glass score. The atmosphere reeks of menace, combining upper class fears of the inner city with urban legend (look in the mirror and say his name 5 times...) and the supernatural. Admittedly, everything falls apart somewhat towards the end as Candyman chases Helen all over the city, smashing through windows and spouting Cliver Barker lines. But damn, the first half is scary. It's often overlooked, but it's a modern classic.
Sequels: Part 2 is set in New Orleans and is worth watching for the excellent pre-credits sequence. Part 3 (Day of the Dead) went straight to video and did not inspire any praise

Remake: Not yet, but give it time.....
SCREAM (1996)
Plot: Someone's killing off teens while quizzing them on their knowledge of scary movies. Can Sidney Prescott keep herself alive?

Is it any good?: Yes, and that's part of the shame. Scream is largely to blame for all the imitators, all the lousy self-referential, self-aware horror comedies that followed. But, as is so often the case, the original is the best. Kevin Williamson's script is clever and funny. Wes Craven is on top form, creating suspense, shocks, and throwing in some excellent set-pieces. The cast is great, with Courtney Cox enjoying playing a bitch, Jamie Kennedy as the irritating movie geek, and Neve Campbell as Sydney. There's Nick Cave's Red Right Hand as the credits music and, most importantly, it's one of those rare films that gets the balance right between laughs and scares.


Sequels: Scream 2 is not as good, but it's still a lot of fun. Sending Sidney and Randy (Jamie Kennedy) to film school leads to even more movie references. Scream 3 is a definite step down, losing Williamson, and losing the scares. It's entertaining, but it's pretty much a pointless exercise. It is worth noting that Craven and the cast stuck with the series, and that they're trying to get a 4th film together.


SAW (2004)

Plot: Two guys wake up in a room, manacled to pipes. Another man lies dead in the middle of the room. A tape recorder tells them that one of them must kill the other, and they realise they've been captured by a serial killer named Jigsaw.

Is it any good?: The first Saw is a decent little horror film, although it nicked the creepy puppet trick from Dario Argento's Profondo Rosso. The film works because it's small scale, and the basic idea is a good one. The cast is odd (Danny Glover playing grizzled and mean, Cary Elwes going over the top), but it works. That's where my personal interest in the film ends. It's since become a franchise, spewing forth one sequel each year. It's also responsible for starting the "torture porn" trend, which is very much a mixed blessing. But, on it's own merits, yes, Saw is a good film.

Sequels: Yes, many. Saw 2 was pretty good fun, but by Saw 3 it became glaringly obvious that the film was repeating the same trick over and over again. Saw 6 is out now, if you still care.


Well, that's it for our boogeymen. Join us again for the next Halloween special!

Rantings and Ravings Halloween Special: My (Subjective) Evils


I'm going to be honest - I'm not a huge horror buff. I've always found it difficult to get a foothold into it. There's so many sub genres and so many films of varying quality. This of course is making our themed Halloween week difficult for me. Unlike our resident Jonathan Charles Hatfull, I can't present an informed dissection of the giallo genre, nor can I give a reappraisal of under appreciated gems - I'm barely acquainted with the popular stuff! What I can do however, is write a very personal and very subjective column about the things I've seen done on screen that's terrified me. I'm not going to restrict this discussion to traditional horror films either, but simply anything that's made my skin crawl.

Personally, quite a lot of the horror films I've seen haven't scared me. Sure they may have made me jump and even flinch at times, but when the credits roll, all has been forgotten - they're just movies after all. Unfortunately, it takes a bit more for me to feel uncomfortable. I like horror to disturb me, to shock me, to make me hesitate when turning off the light at night. Seeing a group of pretty, American "high school" kids get torn up at a summer camp just doesn't cut it. For me, the most successful horror introduces the notion that a dark and ancient evil is radiating through its story. This isn't to say I only rate horror when a demon appears, no, I believe it should be far less concrete then that. Implied evil as a concept works best, the more ambiguous the better. Just the sense that our protagonists are encountering something far bigger than themselves, something completely incomprehensible, that is what scares me the most. This is something that is utilised wonderfully in the works of David Lynch, Takashi Miike's Gozu (2003), Paul W.S. Anderson's Event Horizon (1997) and John Carpenter's Cigarette Burns (2005).

One aspect of a movie that can aid this is an extraordinary performance by the actor representing the inconceivable. Consider, for example, the under seen French film Sheitan (2006). Although the film itself is rather jumbled and underdeveloped, Vincent Cassel's turn as the manically grinning Joseph gives what would be a fairly standard and generic film a true sense of rural Gothic. Many people (Bill Hicks included) make jokes about talentless people selling their souls to the Antichrist - so much so that the image itself has lost most of its power. The creepiness surrounding the near unrecognisable Cassel really hammers home how horrifying a concept this truly is. In a different vein, Michael Haneke's Funny Games (1997) is an already disturbing essay on violence and its representation in the media and would have been an intelligent and successful film with a less able cast. Thankfully, Arno Frisch was on hand to make the film that much more bleak. Playing the self-aware Paul, he oozes what can only be described as a sociopathic darkness that permeates through the screen, constantly playing along or toying with the audience. Few things are as shocking as the moment he winks at us, the audience, and it dawns on us that we are part of his vicious, cruel and callous games.

Similarly though, a character doesn't have to be played out as an embodiment of evil to be terrifying. In Fritz Lang's extraordinarily forward thinking M (1931), Peter Lorre's turn as the vile and disgusting Hans Beckert is a tour de force, but what really stands out is how human the character is played. During the first half of the film, he is a cocky, confident killer, almost teasing and daring the police (and everyday people) into action, however, the fear evident on Lorre's face during the finale completely changes our perception of the monster. Where was once a distortion is now simply a broken and pathetic man who preys upon the weak. This theme is also developed in Twin Peaks and its accompanying film Fire Walk With Me (1992). The legend of the Black Lodge acts as our ancient evil, but Ray Wise's performance as its vessel, Leland Palmer is unforgettable. Equal parts psychotic and sympathetic, Wise presents Leland as a man bouncing off the the walls, but who is helpless to stop himself. Even when the man does surface in the monster, he is still confusing to interpret. His teary confession to his daughter ('I thought you always knew it was me.') is uttered, not as Killer Bob, but as Leland himself, making it possibly one of the creepiest moments in the entire saga.

Of course, horror needs more than atmosphere and deep concepts, otherwise the genre would be reduced to epic meditations and debates on the nature of evil. It needs those spine chilling moments that can force us to shudder at the sheer thought of what is being presented to us on screen. A lot of popular films use gore to achieve this, but I don't feel that is enough. The violence needs to be further soaked in a greater meaning. Consider the difference between the series of Friday the 13th films and Funny Games. Despite the previous having a larger body count and far more gallons of blood onscreen, it is Funny Games that truly disturbs.

These moments however don't have to be gory. In fact, I find that they resound better when they are not. My favourite spine chilling moments are usually at the moment of realisation of such films - when it is finally clear that all is not well. David Lynch is a master of such moments. I find it impossible to watch Inland Empire (2006) without shuddering at the scenes that feature this aspect. When Laura Dern finds herself backstage, disturbing a script reading that she took part in a few days previous, I felt that, as Lynchian head fuck moments go, this was quite tame. However, the climax of that scene, with the discovery of the Man in the Green Suit, always gets me. It's not edited in a "jumpy" manner, nor does it sound unsettling when written on paper, but that short sense of seeing something that is not meant to be there disturbs me. I no longer feel like my head is truly comprehending what I'm seeing, that there's something occurring on screen that I could not understand in a million years. I guess in the end, what scares me is the ability of directors to deliberately do that to me. They must feel so powerful when they get it right.

Tuesday 27 October 2009

Ramblings and Retrospectives Halloween Special Part 1: Was that the boogeyman?

Hello again, and welcome to the first instalment of our wonderful Halloween specials. We thought that we'd start things off with the basics. And so, here is our little guide to one of the most important and oft-seen sub-genres, the slasher movie. These are the films you need to see....

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974)

Plot: A van full of teens travelling through Texas find themselves stranded near a farmhouse. They shouldn't have gone inside...


Is it any good?: The first two-thirds of the film are still terrifying. Director Tobe Hooper has never matched his work here, building claustrophobia and tension to the point where you're really not sure if you can take it any more. The heat of the location and the rotten contents of the dilapidated farmhouse seem to seep off the screen. Despite the final third taking a comic turn, Leatherface and his family are still some of the most disturbing characters committed to celluloid.

Sequels: Hooper waited fourteen years before making a largely comedic sequel starring Dennis Hopper, and a third movie followed four years later. The fourth, and last sequel, is of interest purely because it stars a young Matthew McConaughey and Renee Zellweger


Remake: Marcus Nispel directed the surprisingly good remake in 2003. Starring Jessica Biel, Eric Balfour, Jonathan Tucker, and R. Lee Ermey, the film's success is to blame for the tidal wave of remakes that followed. It's not as good as the original, but it's certainly not bad. A lacklustre sequel followed in 2006.

HALLOWEEN (1978)

Plot: As a child, Michael Myers brutally stabbed his sister and her boyfriend to death on Halloween night. Fifteen years later, he has broken out of the asylum and has returned home. Will Dr. Samuel Loomis, Michael's doctor, arrive in time to save Laurie Strode and her friends from the boogeyman?


Is it any good?: While it's generally acknowledged that the slasher genre was born with Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, the first absolute slasher was John Carpenter's seminal horror. Originally titled The Babysitter Murders, it's simple, effecient and brutal. Surprisingly, it's not at all gory. Instead, Carpenter builds a sustained level of threat throughout, helped by his wonderfully creepy score. It still holds up, and it's one of the best horror movies ever. Starring Jamie-Lee Curtis as the prototype for "The last girl", and Donald Pleasance as the softly-spoken Loomis, it's one of those valuable horror films that genuinely scares.

Sequels: Halloween II ditches tension for bigger set-pieces and more gore. It's fun, but pretty disappointing. Halloween III is one of the strangest horror sequels ever, losing the Michael Myers plot for a story about possessed masks. A noble effort that doesn't quite work, it does have one of the best endings of the series, however. Halloween 4 returned to Haddonfield, bringing back Loomis and introducing young Jamie, the latest of Michael's targets. Halloween 5 continued in the same vein, but slightly more routine. Halloween 6 is pretty dreadful, and is notable only for a ridiculous plot twist, an early lead for Paul Rudd, and Donald Pleasance looking very ill indeed. Halloween H20 brought back some of the quality (and Jamie-Lee Curtis), but that good-will was obliterated by the dire Halloween: Resurrection, which finally killed off Laurie but didn't manage to kill Busta Rhymes


Remakes: Rob Zombie remade Halloween, and the result is generally regarded as awful. However, if you're a horror fan you'll love the cameos (Brad Dourif! Danny Trejo! Ken Foree! Udo Kier! Clint Howard!), and Malcolm McDowell has a blast as Dr. Loomis. It works best as a dark comedy, as Zombie fills the first half with every redneck cliché in the book. The remake was followed by a sequel that got an even worse reception.


FRIDAY 13th (1980)

Plot: A group of campers arrive to re-open Camp Crystal Lake years after it was shut down when a young boy drowned. This night, one by one, they are creatively picked off by an unseen assailant. Is it little Jason, risen from the lake to seek his vengeance?

Is it any good?: The short answer is: Yes. The original Friday 13th follows the rules that Halloween laid down, but added gore. With the help of effects maestro Tom Savini, director Sean Cunningham created an inventive, solid little slasher on a shoestring budget. The attractive teens are all killed off in imaginative ways, the acting is pretty impressive, and the twist, if you haven't seen Scream, is actually a bit of a surprise. And yes, that is Kevin Bacon as the camp counsellor in the short shorts. And, like Halloween, the music is excellent.


Sequels: The Friday 13th sequels are perhaps the most reliable sequels in the horror genre, in that they're mostly pretty awful with smatterings of inventive gore thrown around. There are a couple of guilty pleasures hidden amongst the dross. The best is Part 4: The Final Chapter (Hmm....), which stars Corey Feldman and Crispin Glover. New Line bought the rights to the series after Part 8, and slipped in a nod to their Nightmare on Elm Street series in part 9. Jason went off to space in the inappropriately entertaining Jason X (with a cameo from David Cronenberg), before facing off with Freddy Krueger in Freddy vs. Jason.
Remake: The recent Platinum Dunes remake by Marcus Nispel (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake) cannot be reccomended. Making Jason fast is one thing, giving him tunnels all over the camp is another. And the less said about the cast, the better.

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (1984)

Plot: Nancy and her friends start having the same dream about a man in a red and green jumper, a fedora hat, and knives for fingers. When her friend Tina dies horribly in her sleep, Nancy realises that what happens in the dreams, happens for real

Is it any good?: It's certainly one of Wes Craven's finest hours. Parts have dated rather badly, but some of the effects are still fantastic and the air of menace the director creates is fantastic. Robert Englund is perfect as Krueger, and Heather Langenkamp remains one of the best, toughest scream queens. There's some dodgy acting, especially from Ronnee Blakely as Nancy's mum, but John Saxon lends some dramatic weight as her Sheriff dad, and Johnny Depp has his first role as her boyfriend Glenn. A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the best examples of the genre.

Sequels: Part 2 is best-known for its homoerotic overtones (our hero takes a shower while his fetish gear-clad gym teacher watches), but it's got some good moments. Part 3 is the best of the bunch. Written by Frank Darabont, Chuck Russell, and Craven himself, it brings back Langenkamp and Saxon, and stars Patricia Arquette and Laurence Fishburne, it's nasty but fun, and treads the line between comedy and horror better than the later sequels. Parts 4 and 5 are essentially the same movie as Freddy became a one-liner machine, and Part 6 is the worst of the lot (bizarrely starring Iggy Pop as Freddy's dad). Part 7 is often overlooked, and predates Scream by quite some way. Langenkamp plays herself, being talked back into starring into another Freddy movie, while the people around her are haunted and murdered. Written and directed by Craven, it's meaner and cleverer than a lot of other horror movies. Freddy stayed dead until Freddy Vs. Jason, which was only partly saved by Englund's continued enthusiasm.

Remake: Platinum Dunes has a sequel in post-production, starring Watchmen's Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy.

Well, hopefully this gave you something to think about, or at least some rental ideas! Part 2 will look at more recent boogeymen, from Pinhead and the Candyman to Ghostface and Jigsaw. We'll also look at monsters, madmen, and things from outer-space!

The Dokken music video for Nightmare on Elm Street 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvb_PjZFQ4U

Halloween Approaches....


Yes indeed, it's that wonderful time of year again. That time when my love of horror films, from the good to the very, very bad, becomes, albeit briefly, socially acceptable. During the course of this week, we'll be focusing on what you should be watching, reading, and hey, maybe even listening to, in the lead-up to this Saturday night. From 70s classics and Hammer horror all the way up to the latest releases, it'll be a not-exactly-comprehensive guide. There will be some general looks on horror sub-genres, and we'll be shining our low-wattage spotlight on those films that are either so good you can't ignore, or the little ones that have slipped between the cracks. So, get the DVDs out, dust off that Stephen King book, and let's get down to some good, old-fashioned horror. Because, after all, Halloween comes but once a year....
30 Rock's Werewolf Bar Mitzvah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxk_P3PNuZU

Sunday 25 October 2009

Ramblings and Retrospectives: The delights and disappointments of Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere


Neil Gaiman must be feeling pretty good right about now. Henry Selick’s excellent stop-motion animated film of his children’s book Coraline was both a financial and critical success, and has just been released on DVD. His last children’s novel, The Graveyard Book, was a huge success and is about to made into a film directed by Neil Jordan. And there’s always that comfort that comes from having your comic book mentioned whenever there’s a discussion about the greatest graphic novels ever written (The Sandman, of course). Indeed, many of Mr. Gaiman’s works are being mooted as possible films. Although The Sandman has been locked in development hell thanks to terrible scripts and spiralling budgets, there have been rumours of a Death movie shooting soon, that aforementioned Graveyard Book film, and, perhaps most interestingly, a feature film version of Neverwhere.


The history of Neil Gaiman’s Neverwhere is an odd, complicated one. Based on an idea by Gaiman and Lenny Henry, the story first saw the light of day in 1996 as a television series on the BBC. Frustrated by what he saw as the inevitably compromised end result (money and time maliciously conspiring together, as they often do), Gaiman went off and wrote the book, which was released during the series’ run. Finally, there’s the Mike Carey graphic novel based on the book (Carey having written the Lucifer graphic novel series that spun off from The Sandman). Recently, rumours were heard of The Weinstein Company having a Neverwhere film in production. Gaiman has confirmed a script, but anything beyond that is uncertain. So what is it about Neverwhere that warrants this continued attention? What was missing in these previous incarnations that can be somehow fixed by a motion picture? Can a film actually fix any of Neverwhere’s problems?


Of course, the film has been optioned by the notorious Weinstein Company so none of us should hold our breath. The chances are the script will sit on the shelf for as long as it takes for someone to make a Sandman film. But for all Neverwhere’s faults, of which are there are many, there’s something fascinating about it.


For the uninitiated, Neverwhere is the story of Richard Mayhew, a Scot who is living in London working in a job he hates, engaged to a woman he’s not even sure he actually likes. One night on his way to an important dinner he stumbles across a bleeding girl lying on the pavement. Ignoring his fiancee’s protests, Richard helps her, and discovers a world below his feet that he never knew about. The girl, named Door (for reasons that will become obvious), is from London Below, a world that no one in London knows about, that’s as dangerous as it is alluring. It is a twisted version of London above, in which there’s an Earl of Earl’s Court, a kindly gent named Old Bailey, and the Angel Islington. Door is on the run from two psychopaths named Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandermaar, who have murdered her family. Richard agrees to venture into London Below and help Door, and, with the aid of the mysterious Marquis de Carabas and the deadly Hunter, they set off in search of the Angel Islington, who may hold the answers.



Neverwhere is that difficult thing: a fantasy made for adults. If that sounds condescending or snobby, it’s not meant to. It’s a very hard medium to make work, and Mr. Gaiman is one of the most consistently authors of grown-up fantasy. The more fantastical elements are always balanced by the genuinely scary and unsettling, not to mention some surprisingly brutal violence. So while we’re giggling at twee little ideas like people who can talk to rats and pigeons, there’s torture and murder just around the corner. But what works in a book is quite different to what works onscreen. So while the television series often soars, it’s also prone to falling very flat. Much has been made of the failed look of the show. It’s bizarrely lit with bright colours that do nothing to hide its budget limitations. Apparently this was deliberate; the series was shot on video but lit for film, under the assumption that it would be changed later. However, nothing was altered and so the series looks…well, it looks pretty dreadful. And the least said about the distinctly bovine-looking “Beast of London”, the better.


The cast is also a mixed bag. While Laura Fraser is perfect as Door (funny but sad, strong but delicate, etc.), Gary Bakewell is inconsistent as Richard. He does well early on, but struggles as the role begins to demand some emotional range. Bakewell aside, the rest of the cast is generally wonderful. There’s Peep Show’s Paterson Joseph and Elizabeth Marmur as the smooth Marquis and Richard’s ex Jessica respectively, Hammer Horror veteran Freddie Jones as the ancient Earl of Earl’s Court, Black Books’ Tamsin Grieg as the ethereal Lamia, and, of course, The Thick of It’s Peter Capaldi as the Angel Islington (who must be trustworthy, right? He’s an angel!). Hywel Bennett and Clive Russell are also impressively horrible as Croup and Vandermaar.



There’s also the beauty of Gaiman’s scripts. While his novels are certainly excellent, his prose often reads like it’s supposed to be read out loud. A lot of the actors here obviously enjoy chewing on the wittily bizarre dialogue. While the book may be a clearer vision of what Gaiman was trying to achieve on the series, it often feels like a step back. Especially since, as he writes in the introduction to the novel, some of the characters were altered by the actor’s interpretations.
Overall, the series is certainly enjoyable. A bigger budget would certainly have helped, but a lot of the series’ charm rests in the almost-home-made quality it has. Despite some of the more ambitious effects coming off badly, there are a lot of excellent little details that litter the sets. The series has dated rather undeniably badly. While this may be part of the appeal for some (everybody loves a nice, nostalgic series), it does situate the show in the place and time it was made. A film of Neverwhere made now would now doubt look quite different, at least the parts in London Above.


And what of the cast? James MacAvoy has been mooted as the rather obvious choice for Richard Mayhew, but some of the cast were so perfect in the roles that to change them would be…well, it wouldn’t be as good. In my mind, anyway. And this returns us to the problem. Everyone seems to have their own opinion about Neverwhere, and especially about which is their favourite version. I must admit to not having read the comic (I have heard only good things), but I personally prefer the series to the book. This may be because I saw the series first, but I like to think that, despite it’s obvious flaws, the series comes together rather well.

The ideas and themes of Neverwhere are obviously strong to have inspired such commitment to the idea of a different or better version. The idea of an alternate world beneath our feet may not be original, but it is interesting. The characters, especially the villains, and the Marquis, of course, are continually entertaining and scary. But would all the problems be fixed with a higher budget and a bigger, different cast and crew? I suppose we’ll just have to wait for the film.
Neil Gaiman talking about a Neverwhere film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXIKQfQRV3g&feature=related


Introduction of the Marquis clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js7wxoqeVK0




Very odd, very creepy clip from Mirrormask: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz8-7JsFD_g&feature=related



Rantings and Ravings: Is Hollywood Dying?

For a few years now, every time a new comic book franchise is rebooted or a knock off Harry Potter is green lit, I’ve heard people collectively sigh and state that the end of Hollywood is upon us. Ask some people and they’ll tell you the great behemoth is already a still and lifeless corpse and that the workers of Hollywood are tricking everyone into believing is all well - much like a cross between a H.P.Lovecraft story, the Wizard of Oz, and those Castro rumours from a couple of years back.

Is this Hollywood?

It doesn’t take a genius to see that the box office is clogged with what some critics deem unimaginative trash. Currently in the top ten, there are two children’s books, one remake and one re-release. Meh, only 40% of the top ten, I’m sure we can find worse. In fact, consider last July. Over in the States, 70% of the top ten grossing films were remakes, sequels, comic books or musicals based on existing shows. A similar thing occurred in August 2007, where 60% of the top ten fell into this category [1]. So what do we know so far? Well, if I pick the week well enough, I can show you a box office list with a majority of these critically ‘undesired’ films.

So what? Sure these films aren’t original stories, but why does that equate with the death of American cinema? I guess that unlike most of us, Hollywood can suffer two deaths, the demise of quality products and the loss of its financial income. Yes, cinema is one of those odd economics products that classes as art, so unlike most other products they don’t rate themselves only by how much demand there is. For example, despite their huge returns, I don’t think any of us are going to claim that Titanic or the Phantom Menace are perfect films. No, film is an art and therefore should be rated on more than receipts, but noting that Hollywood makes a lot of sequels (and lots of people watch them), does that equate to a creative decline? Well, it doesn’t. Every year, stunning new American films are released by newcomers and old favourites alike. Sure, critics like to put a lot of foreign cinema on their end of year lists, but if you pressed any of them, they’d be forced to admit that the US still makes good films and in an abundant quantity. The difficulty is in getting these films into cinemas and doing them justice in terms of promotion. Seeming these days, the only way to get people to flock to an imaginative film is to slap a Pixar logo on the product credits.

In April 2006, Focus Features released Brick, a neo-noir film set in a Californian High School. This wasn’t a camp parody however; in fact its serious and sombre mood was refreshing in a year dominated by seemingly generic family friendly cinema. Directed by Rian Johnson and starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt (who I maintain will be the great American actor of his time – although that’s another story), its nods toward Hammett, Chandler, Bogart and Mitchum helped it net over $3 million and a Special Jury Prize for Originality of Vision at Sundance [2]. Not bad for a first time director.

Rian began work on his follow up, the Brothers Bloom in March 2007. The budget was a huge increase from Bricks $450,000, estimated at $20 million [3]. The Brothers Bloom has currently grossed less than Brick. Having not seen the film, I cannot comment on its quality, but I can tell you that its journey into cinema was far from helpful. Delay after delay hit the film, not due to usual guilty parties of postproduction or spiralling costs. No, this time it was the fault of the distributor. Summit Entertainment had decided that too many similar films were scheduled for January [4], so it was pushed back until summer. Of course, the entire buzz from its premiere at TIFF the previous December had evaporated and currently the film is waiting for its DVD release in order to maintain some dignity.

This is a prime example of what people worry about when observing Hollywood’s current strategy of remake, rehash and reboot. The Brothers Bloom’s chance to shine was squandered due to a decision based on economic returns. Fine, cinema is a business and Summit need to look after their capital as best the can, but to let a film with such promise, a film that many internet critics rate as one of their favourite of the year, simply slip into cinema quietly and die is a waste.

Economically speaking, noises about the demise of Hollywood really came into force in 2006, with the New York Times going as far to state that it would suffer a fate similar to Detroit [5]. The apparent issues included box office receipts and DVD sales falling significantly, the writers strike, the rise in quality of home entertainment products and stale, bland films filling cinema screens[6]. However, whatever the cause of the downturn, it was obvious that Hollywood needed a good kicking and I believe that the Dark Knight certainly was the jumpstart it needed. Whatever your opinion on the film, for better or worse, it was proof that ‘high grossing’ and ‘critical favourite’ were not mutually exclusive terms, which is sadly what we have become accustomed to.

In the end, this is the chief problem and success of the Hollywood system. Ingmar Bergman famously rejected Hollywood, claiming it to be too obsessed with box office returns [7], unlike the Soviet Cinema of the 30s or the Polish cinema of the 80s. This hinders the success of creative film, but that isn’t to say it kills it. The beautiful thing about great stories is that people will find a way to make them, even at their own expense. Hollywood just doesn’t make it easy. Depending on your opinion, the downside to this is that so many people have so much tied into this leviathan that they won’t let it sink without a fight. Much like the French nobility of the 1700’s, it is a very self-obsessed and self-serving system. Who knows if there is a revolution coming?

[1] http://www.pro.imdb.com/boxoffice/

[2] http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=brick.htm and http://worldfilm.about.com/od/filmfestivals/a/2005sundance.htm

[3] http://www.tinymixtapes.com/The-Brothers-Bloom

[4] http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/12/11/rian-johnsons-the-brothers-bloom-delayed-until-summer/

[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/weekinreview/10gross.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=dc676f56bc9e3354&ex=1278648000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[6] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/13/DDG15DM3CN18.DTL

[7] http://www.filmbug.com/db/34613

Thursday 22 October 2009

Ramblings and Retrospectives: Wonder Boys






WONDER BOYS



You know, it’s easy to hate Michael Douglas. When we think of him, we think of the actor who was the poster boy for terrible early-90s erotic thrillers, getting grotty with Sharon Stone and Demi Moore in Basic Instinct and Disclosure respectively. More recently, we‘ve had to put up with sub-par blockbusters like The Sentinel, and his cameos in weak comedies such as You, Me and Dupree, and Ghosts of Girlfriends Past. If we’re being generous, we might allow him his performances in Wall Street, or Traffic (despite the fact that the film is not as wonderful as it was hailed on its release). But Michael Douglas can surprise you. Every now and again he’ll pop up in films like Falling Down, The Game, or Wonder Boys, and we remember he’s a talented actor, and not just Catherine Zeta Jones’ sex-addicted husband who got an Oscar for producing Once Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

Despite receiving good reviews, Wonder Boys flopped hard on its release in 2000 (hardly surprising given the awful poster campaigns and the tagline "A weekend from hell became the time of his life") and has never really been reappraised. It’s a shame, because the film is an excellent, sophisticated little dramatic comedy that deserves another look. Based on the novel by the Pulitzer Prize winning author Michael Chabon, it’s the story of a very bad weekend for pot-bellied, pot-smoking author/professor Grady Tripp (Douglas). He has still not finished the long-awaited follow-up to his acclaimed, award-winning first novel, The Arsonist’s Daughter, despite the fact that his page count is now in the tens of thousands. His wife has left him on the morning of the first day of the university’s weekend-long literary event, WordFest. His editor Terry Crabtree (Robert Downey Jr.) has flown into town with a tall transvestite in tow. He’s supposed to be there for WordFest but is really trying to sniff out Grady’s second novel. His mistress Sara (Frances McDormand), who happens to be married to Grady’s head of department, Walter, has just discovered that she is pregnant with his child. In a moment of kindness he decides to take unusual student James Leer (Tobey Maguire) under his dubious wing for the weekend. Before long, Grady is saddled with a stoned student who has not only killed Walter’s dog, but has stolen his priceless coat belonging to Marilyn Monroe. Over the course of the weekend, he must shield James, not only from the police, but from Terry’s advances, and decide what to do about Sara, his weed habit, and his ever-growing behemoth of a novel.

If we’re being honest, not a lot actually happens in Wonder Boys. The first night of the story takes up around half of the entire movie. But we are introduced, carefully, to each of the characters and we are allowed to make our own judgements, and a film’s willingness to take its time is a vastly underrated quality. The script is also hilariously funny in a very low-key, deadpan way, setting up wry zingers that seem tailor-made for old hands like McDormand and Downey Jr. At the same time it doesn’t shy away from the humour found in incredibly bizarre situations, such as an attempt to escape from an angry, short man who believes that Grady has stolen his car, or the difficulties of hiding a dog that’s been shot twice in the chest.




Director Curtis Hanson is best known for his work on LA Confidential and 8-Mile and seems like a curious choice for a film like this at first glance. However, he makes the actually rather bold choice of directing the film in the least obtrusive way possible. A less experienced director might have looked at the script and, panicking at the lack of action, thrown in some unnecessary flashy visuals or fiddled with the story’s structure. Hanson lets the scenes flow smoothly along. The excellent production design and locations speak volumes about the characters. Specifically, Grady’s house is a wonderfully lived-in mess covered with books and papers. Meanwhile, Sara and Walter’s home seems to be striving for a classy, literary elite feel. As James points out, standing outside looking in, “It’s colder in there”. It would also be a grievous error to describe Wonder Boys without mentioning the weather. The film is set in Pittsburgh in winter, and the snow and rain permeate the mood and texture of the film. Grady’s house, overflowing with its various odds and ends, is warm and comforting. The real world outside is cold and unwelcoming, and you feel for Grady as he answers the door clad in a comfy-looking pink dressing gown and a woollen hat. The contrast of warmth and cold is added to by the excellent, nostalgic soundtrack, featuring Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Leonard Cohen, John Lennon, and Van Morrison. There is also the small matter of Dylan's "Things Have Changed", written for the movie. Hanson trusts the setting and the cast to draw you into the story and get you interested in their lives. And what a cast it is.
Douglas has never been better used than here. Many will argue that Falling Down is his finest work, but I would beg to differ. In Wonder Boys he convincingly sheds his image and truly inhabits the role: You forget that you’re watching Michael Douglas. As Grady drags himself out his self-contained world into situations where he may have to be decisive and take responsibility, the actor keeps the character believable and, above all, likeable (a rare thing for a character played by Michael Douglas). A pre-Spider-Man Tobey Maguire works very well in the role of the talented but peculiar James Leer, juggling humour and melancholy. Katie Holmes has a smaller role as Grady’s student/tenant who continually tries to be a shoulder to cry on or, preferably, his new lover. It’s not a terribly demanding part but she’s convincing and surprisingly funny. Robert Downey Jr., before rehab, veers between auto-pilot and excellence, but Robert Downey Jr. on autopilot is still far more entertaining to watch to watch than most actors. He also gets an unexpected slapstick moment that works so well that it reminds us that, yes, he played Charlie Chaplin. There’s a nice cameo from Rip Torn as the pompous, but successful, author Q, and geek favourite Alan Tudyk pops up as a janitor interested in Errol Flynn’s sex life. Most underused, however, is the wonderful Frances McDormand. Despite winning an Oscar for Fargo, she’s still one the most underappreciated actresses in Hollywood. She makes the most of her screen-time, however, fashioning Sara into a strong-willed but kind-hearted woman. She clearly wants to be with Grady, but she isn’t going to make the decision for him. It’s a shame the film has such a dreadful, maudlin little coda, but it certainly doesn’t ruin the ninety minutes you’ve spent with the characters.



Wonder Boys takes great delight in satirising the literary world. From Grady’s class’ brutal evaluation of James Leer’s short story that starts the film (“Jesus, what is it with you Catholics?” moans one girl), to the self-importance of Q (Rip Torn), Wonder Boys shows writers to be narcissistic, vain, and often completely clueless. As Q takes the stage at WordFest, he takes a moment to size up the packed auditorium before intoning, with the gravitas of Orson Welles, “I…am a writer”. He receives rapturous applause. Shortly after, his bubble is popped when James drunkenly bursts out laughing. It is important to note, however, that although the film skewers the industry, and the people, it remains reverential of the work they produce, and it admires the commitment that these people have to the written word. Although we’re encouraged to laugh at Q, we are told that he is rich and successful. James may be a very strange young man but Grady and Terry’s admiration of his manuscript, “The Love Parade”, shows that he is also very talented. And there’s Grady himself, who, after ranting about fiction doesn’t mean anything anymore, is told by a heartbroken James that “‘Arsonists’ Daughter’ meant something. It meant something to me.”. Even Q remains impressed by his talent.

Wonder Boys may not be a perfect film, but it’s witty and intelligent in a way that a lot of more recent urbane indie films have tried hard to achieve but failed (Smart People, anyone?). Quirkiness, an interesting cast, and a good soundtrack mean nothing if you can’t connect with the characters, and where other “offbeat” films fail, Wonder Boys succeeds. It may be slow, but it leaves you with the warm glow attained after spending an evening in great company.



Bob Dylan's "Things Have Changed" video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQDeYzUkXOU

Sunday 18 October 2009

Admit One

So, what's this blog about, then? Well, it's about what we like. Films, music, books, comics. Everything, really. The important things. And while we might feature reviews of some new movies and CDs, you're more likely to find us rambling on about early Coen brothers' films, 1970s horror, the genius of Armando Iannucci, Nick Cave's Berlin period, Twin Peaks, Reeves and Mortimer, Stephen King adaptations, the wonders of Tom Waits, Sandman comics, and unfairly cancelled television series. That's not to say we won't talk about exciting new releases. Series like True Blood, 30 Rock, Chuck, and The Thick of It have us excited, as do the upcoming releases of films like Where The Wild Things Are, Thirst, The Road, The Informant!, and Up In The Air. Because these are what we like. And we hope you like them too.