-
"Although the senator insisted that he was not intoxicated, he could not explain his nudity..."
2002-02-02 00:19:52
Ralph Dibney and Eels O'Brian.
Man.
Maybe the ONLY people who could make Batman's present crew even more motley. To be honest, it took me a couple of minutes to figure out who Ralph Dibney was, but Eels O'Brian is probably one of the most recognizable DC characters ever, despite his almost complete absence from comics for, what, ten years? I was thinking about this before, and it struck me that Eels was Jim Carey before there even was a Jim Carey. Yet even with that particular millstone hung about his neck, he's still terribly amusing. It's also entirely appropriate that he ended up at Arkham. Considering his personality, there's no where else he really belonged, and it was the only direction he could have been heading in Frank Miller's darkened world.
The preceeding message specially coded to prevent anyone who hasn't already read the second DK2 comic from knowing what's going on. Those are the actual names of the characters, but I rest assured that NO ONE remembers that particular pair by their non-superhero names.
To be honest, I don't think the second comic was as good as the first. It contained something that I always take to be a big warning sign of approaching mediocrity: The full page panel. The comic has three 2-PAGE SPREADS of single panels, and a couple of SEQUENCES of single-page panels for the Superman X Wonder Woman scenes. One other warning sign: the presentation of "ludicrous assertions": Namely "Five YEARS INSIDE ARKHAM?" I'd have to do the calculations, but I'm pretty sure that just wouldn't work, even WITH all the hostagess. In general, this issue felt a little spread-out, like it was stretched to fit the length of the book, and it may have been, considering how long it was pushed back. In that respect, I think Bowler has a point or two, although the particulars of the plot direction will have to wait until the third book. (And I was a little disappointed with Lara. Where's A-Ko?) Nevertheless, a lot still happens as far as major plot points, although more and more I'm looking for the character introductions. Miller has this wonderful ability to bring us up to speed with his versions of the characters through only a sentence or two on a carefully framed figure, as with Barry's appearance, or keep us from knowing much of anything by the same methods, as in the case of the Rorschack-like "Question." It's definitely the best part of the books thus far.
KZ: Yeah, I thought you'd noticed that already, or I would have pointed it out. I'm kinda curious about tracking down some old issues of "The Question" but I have a feeling the lengths necessicary will discourage me.
EK: Good luck at Ushicon! Tell all the staff we here at AWA feel for them and hope for the best!
Everyone: Fan categories. We all know they exist. So are you one of the Good ones
(http://www.animejump.com/cgi-bin/go.cgi?go=editorial/14typesofgood)
or one of the Bad ones?
(http://www.animejump.com/cgi-bin/go.cgi?go=editorial/d-meter/dmeter-old19) (Yeah, yeah, I know a lot of people fall outside these distinctions....com'on. It's all in fun.)
Greyduck: Yeah, busy's one word for it. I was at work until 5:30 AM yesterday. Bleh.
THE LONG DELAYED REVIEW: For those couple of ya'll that have been pinging my Journal even when there wasn't a new entry (rising my hit number up to 15....in BINARY! Man I'm a geek.) sorry for the delay. Work's been bearing down on me.
The other two-movie DVD I got for christmas was a double-feature of Vincent Price. The first of the two films was "House on Haunted Hill" an old William Castle film from 1958 that was recently remade. Originally, I planned to review both in one shot, but I think we all know that would stretch on a bit long :) so I'll just stick with the old one for now.
William Castle, for those of you who don't know, was a true horror flick fan. He was a low-budget filmmaker of nearly 60 films from the late 40s all the way through 1974. He's the source of that tradition of outrageous and rather campy promotional hype for horror films that carries on (to one degree or another) to this very day. The taglines for this movie show this tendancy: "Acclaimed The Super-Shocker Of The Century!" "First Film With the Amazing New Wonder EMERGO: The Thrills Fly Right Into The Audience!" The EMERGO was typical of his films, employing rigged concealed skeletons that would swoop out over the audience at key points. The movie "Matinee" starring John Goodman was loosely based on him. With the exception of "Rosemary's Baby" (which he produced), "House on Haunted Hill" is probably the most famous of his movies, and it's completely obvious why:
Vincent Price. Price did a number of films with Castle (Mr. Sardonicus, etc.) but he really shines in this one. Some people have trouble understanding why Price was such a "great horror/suspense actor." After all, you rarely saw him jump out of the shadows or come after someone with a knife. Not terribly physically imposing either. (This kind of mentality might point out that he wouldn't stand a chance in a fight with Jason.) Instead, Price has the most magnificent voice for these films, especially here. Here he has the voice of barely restrained hatred. The low growl of scathing sarcasm from someone who has the time to wait and plan, who has long-held debts to repay, and whose attentions you would never want directed towards you. An analogous, but different example would be Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter. Unlike in a lot of his films (Price got dragged into a lot of films with complete crap actors) this one actually pairs him with an excellent actress, Carol Ohmart, that is very nearly his equal in all respects. (Ohmart wasn't in much of anything else, but anyone who stars in a film called "Spider Baby" aka "The Liver Eaters" aka "Cannibal Orgy" aka "The Maddest Story Ever Told" certianly earned her stripes in my book.) The two carry this film as a rich husband and wife (Fredrick and Annabell Loren) both bitterly and vindictively hateful of one another, but tied together by greed and jealousy. Their scenes together are really great as they both seethe at one another through a paper-thin veil of civility. One of their scenes is likely to be pulled from the vault every time Price is mentioned on TV, so you've probably seen it before.
Incidentally, having been born in 1911, Price was nearly fifty when he made this film. Saying he aged gracefully would be putting it mildly. He could'a given Dick Clark a run for his money in the "strangely ageless" category. (Dick Clark, we all know, is one of the immortals, whereas Price died in '93.)
The two, in the classic "rich crazys with too much money" fashion, hold a party in an abandoned haunted house and invite five apparently random individuals to the party, promising $10,000 to anyone who stays the night (hey, it WAS 1958). Things get a little complicated when it turns out everyone is locked in early, ghostly happenings begin tormenting one of the guests, and Price hands out party favors in the form of handguns. Throughout the film, it's apparent that SOMETHING is going on, but WHAT exactly keeps getting muddled up. Essentially, this is a classic haunted house story (perhaps TOO classic) with a twist (or three).
Despite Price's and Ohmart's performances, however, the bones of this film show through. (Eeeewww.) The film tries too hard to be THE haunted house film. The house itself is just plain weird, made up of sets with no apparent spatial relationship to one another (including a "vat of sulfuric acid" room...someone should really put a railing on that...), and an exterior that looks like a cross between an Aztec pyramid and a cubist Hollywood sign. Upping the ante, we've got SEVEN! ghosts in the house, dripping walls, dismembered haunters, and some of the guests are so sterotyped it hurts. Lance Schroder is a test pilot as American as apple pie, Nora Manning belts out more screams than any ghost can bear, and Watson Prichart (Elisha Cook Jr.) is perhaps the rarest of horror movie sterotypes; "the man who knows he's in a horror film." He meanders as a drunken tour (de force) guide around the house, pointing out this or that gruesome detail and suddenly pulling out murder weapons of the previous occupants to show everybody. "We found parts of the bodies all over the house...in places you wouldn't think!" Yeah, he's fun, but the lines sorta destroy any believeability the rest of the actors built up. Now, the acting isn't really "bad" like other films I've reviewed, and it doesn't damn this film to the "B-vault" at all, but the skill of Price and Ohmart, and better sections of the other actors, just get blown to hell by silly occurrences and plot holes in other parts.
Come, let us learn from this film. Situation A: While unpacking your belongings, you find a severed head in your suitcase, and then go downstairs for the party. How long do you wait before mentioning it to anyone? DO NOT: Wait longer than four minutes, as the head is likely to wander off before anyone else gets a chance to see it. Situation B: Your earstwhile companion that you just met tonight has gone missing from her room. While looking for her, you find a severed head (not hers) hanging in the closet. DO NOT: Continue looking for her and shouting out her name while carrying the head around the house. ESPECIALLY WHEN SHE IS ARMED. NOTHING GOOD can come from this. Also, DO NOT forget where you left the severed head. If you leave it on the living room table and don't tell anyone, others are likely to come in and comment about the stain. If you leave the head and come back later to find it gone, you are likely to comment on it. (HEY! I left a head here!) Either way, you're going to comment on the severed head. This is just natural. So where the hell did the severed head in this film go? Stupid plot hole.
In short, this is a very good film for all the parts with Price or Ohmart, who are at their very best, but the film tries to develop all seven characters, tell a fairly convoluted and intricate story, AND introduce all the traditional horrors of a haunted house in only 75 minutes. Just too much. In the end, the film shows it's low-budget heritage in key moments of telegraphed overacting, plot holes, and one or two hilarious stereotypes. Almost good enough to make it on my "Classic Horror Film" list, but not quite.
Next time: The remake? Something else? My online thesauraus crashes? Who knows? - "Run! It's the Cleaners!" 2002-01-28 14:00:16 Man, I take a few days break from updating and my writing skillz just go to hell. Please do me the courtesy of ignoring the run-on sentences and misplaced sentence fragments. Gahhhh.
-
"I'll save you, Nell!!!"
2002-01-27 18:28:33
N-E-G-L-E-C-T
Find out what it means to me...
Gahh. I really want to update this on a more regular basis, but events continue to conspire in preventing me. I was gonna update last night, but the site was down and I didn't feel like trying to compose in a wordprocesser and then sorting out all the line returns once pasting it in here.
Lousy weekend. A newly-graduated student from down our lab wing threw a party at his place yesterday, and as he will be leaving entirely very soon, I couldn't really NOT go. Unfortunately Saturday nights are the regular game night for our little group, and I had to cancel the game at the last possible moment (seeing as how I was running the game) which has probably pissed them off at me. The timing was just perfect so that I couldn't really consider the possibility of ending early or starting late either. Just had to cancel wholescale. (About half the attendees were from the building, the other half from his wife's work.)
I normally really hate parties/mixers/generic social functions. It's always filled with people who only vaugely know me and are already engaged in a conversation with a little cluster of people I don't know, effectively preventing my participation. If I arrive too early, there's the wander-around-and-fiddle -with-things-until-others-show-up that usually lasts an interminably long time, or I could arrive late, when everyone has already begun the conversations that will carry them to the end of the night. It just all strikes me as so terribly pointless. Wandering around either trying to be or following after the life of the party on the odd chance that something clever will be said or an event will transpire that will make the occasion worth having attended. Then there's the pathetic individuals who end up standing to one side, staring blankly in pairs with the people they arrived with, wondering desperately whether it would be impolite to leave yet, but knowing that they really don't have anything better to be doing. If you're driven there by someone else, your schedule is dictated entirely by the person who drove, but if you drive yourself, then you either can't drink (preventing you from loosening up enough to enjoy anything) or have to wait an additional four hours to be certian you're under the legal limit. Parties with friends, where you know the partiers personally I don't really count as parties. Those are more like a get-together-and-get-drunk occasions where you don't have to worry about the social implications of having to crash on the couch, even if you don't plan to, and you can carry on conversations of geekdom that would bore even the most pocket-protected without worrying about the impression you're making on your friend's friends. I'm convinced that the reason most of the parties our wing throws end up in a dance club is so that people can still be "at the party" without having to think of clever things to say or tolerate the witticisms of others. God I hate parties. I don't know, maybe I'm just missing the "party" gene.
Anyway, Friday was a somewhat similar disaster. To start with, I ran an experiment from about 9:30 thursday night until 9:30 friday morning, and thus crashed for most of the rest of the day. Unfortunately, I had to get up since a girl from the lab talked me into going to see "A Beautiful Mind" on friday night. She has no car, so I thought nothing of it. In addition, we invited along a URS (undergrad research assistant) student as well. Well, he shows up at the theater with a lady-friend, one who did a whole lot of smiling and very little speaking (I'm pretty sure that her english wasn't very good). All of a sudden, this was looking a lot like a double-date, which was rather awquard for me, as I had no interest in the girl in question whatsoever. (Oh the drama.) Well, we got to the theater just in time for "A Beautiful Mind" to sell out (20 min beforehand too!) and went to another theater to find ourselves 25 min too late. So, instead, we went to see "Kung-Pow, Enter the Fist" which we figured would be a rough equivalent. :-) This was literally the ONLY other thing playing that we wouldn't have to wait an hour and a half for.
Guess what I'm going to review!
Kung-Pow: Enter the Fist.
This is a dumb movie. That doesn't mean it's a BAD movie, but it ain't a film to bring your entire brain to. The problem with reviewing comedies is the inherent difficulty in talking about the jokes without telling them. For those of you out there worried that I might ruin the humor of the film for you (?) just take this summary and read no further: This movie is a funny send-up of old samurai and martial arts epics. There's a bit of a tendancy to stick with some running gags too long, but it is funny enough to warrant at least a rental if you are really into martial arts movies enough to know all the cliches.
Now, for the rest of you. The big central joke of this film is that it's already been done. The movie is about 65% an old movie called "The Savage Killers" which I, for one, had never heard of. Through the miracle of video editing, Steve Oedekerk is inserted into the film in the role of the original hero, "The Chosen One" who strives to hunt down the evil martial arts master that killed his parents and burned down his house. Aided by a faithful dog, numerous small rodents, and an alien that lives in his tongue (I'm not making this up) he trains hard, long, and wide, facing stupid minions, spiky iron hands, and a tiny net.
Essentially, this show is what MST3K would have done if they had had an enormous budget ORIGINALLY. Imagine this: A bunch of writers and producers get really drunk while watching the original film and write their own home-brew MST3K script. Then they run afoul of a really good studio of photoshop editors.
Unfortunately, the change in format (from commenting from the crowd to actual insertion and scene replacement) is the source for the biggest problem with the film. The genius of MST3K is that the commentary doesn't actually affect the film. It trundles along on its own path and we throw verbal tomatoes at it from our track, affecting perception of the film, but not story points. Thus the protagonist can be re-voiced from the audience at one point as screamingly effeminate, but in the very next scene can be re-voiced to belt out "I'm HANS CHRISTIAN ANDERSON!!" In this film, one of the big jokes is that, when we hear the imposing bad guy speak for the first time, he's been re-dubbed in a whiny nasal voice. This is funny. For about 15 minutes. But he has to keep the voice for the rest of the film, and the joke drags throughout the remaining 1 3/4 hours. More than anything else, this film resembles the skits in MST3K where they re-do scenes from the film in their own interpretation.
An additional comparison to make is that the humor in both MST3K and KP is really off-the-wall and absurd. Insanely random things happen throughout the film, and they are funny initially. However, again, MST3K isn't restricted to sticking with the same joke. They can entirely forget a previous joke and go off in another direction. KP has to keep track of all the jokes and keep them going lest the film entirely disintegrate. At one point, in a Public Relations attempt, the villan changes his name from something stupidly evil to "Betty." This is funny. The first time you hear it. But it just isn't funny for the rest of the film and it gets added to the pile of running jokes as they accumulate. Similarly, the revalation of "The chosen one's sign" is funny and weird, but has to keep cropping up and be accounted for later in a significantly less funny scene.
The film also has its share of jokes that just fall flat. I'll tell you this now, so you'll be better off than I was when I saw it. The female lead in the film has the voice of MISS PIGGY. This is not nearly as obvious as it's supposed to be (or I'm an idiot), and she does a lot of "Weeoowowwwooo"ing that I just couldn't figure out. I didn't realize who she was supposed to be until AFTER I LEFT THE THEATER.
The film IS funny. I laughed on and off for the whole thing. However, the first 15-20 minutes are easily the best of the film. Other portions got really lame or repetitive. (Wimp-Lo was especially annoying, and the gay humor got really predictable.) If you don't like those, WALK OUT because it won't get any better. The martial arts jokes are probably the best as the hero takes on armies armed only with rodents and fly-wires (although the ads show you all the best bits of the cow fight, ruining that bit entirely), but anime fans will likely get a kick out of the "bad dubbing" jokes ("Oh we are ventriloquists, ventriloquists, ventriloquists") and kung-fu flick fans will appreciate the "bad editing" jokes as well. ("I am a great magician....your shirt is RED!") My favorite bit was a CG appearance by Simba. ("THIS IS CNN").
In summary: Funny DUMB humor aimed squarely at a movie-going subset (kung-fu flick afficondios) so small that everyone else will either hate it or be left in the dust. Really helps if you've seen "The Savage Killers."
Some responses can be summarized thusly; the girl who wanted to see "A Beautiful Mind" complained that my laughing kept her from getting any sleep. Fortunately, she blames the URS student, as he was the first one to suggest it.
Oh! There are "outtakes" during the credits. A couple are pretty good...
Next time: If all goes well, a "Before and After" review on a recently remade "Pricey" film. -
"They're suicide bombers. They hate living conditions..."
2002-01-23 20:09:30
Tried to write this up yesterday but only got halfway through. Had a presentation for work to prepare, and ended up working on it until 2 in the morning. Personal record. Usually takes longer. (I hate I hate I hate presentations!)
Also lost my little note-sheet, so I think I'm missing a few direct replies I wanted to make, but I can't for the life of me remember who they were for. Sorry all.
Couple quick notes:
amizadi: Gotcha! Thanks for passing the evil on. The friend who e-mailed it to me got me good as well.
Greyduck: Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll keep posting here until it starts to annoy someone. A lot of my interested friends are here, and making them trek elsewhere might be a bit inconsiderate. Anyway, setting up a journal system takes time, and I really only have the spare time at the moment to do this, work on the AMV rules for AWA, and attend one anime club. Any more time has to go to my next AMV first (which hasn't even gotten past the "well...here's all the tapes..." stage yet.)
KZ: Further proof I'm not insane! Buried in a rather odd political theorist's rant is a short (creator's) history of "The Question" and the remark that he has been revived in DK2. Turns out that the character goes back further than I suspected.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/harris7.html
OK, I'm about to make some enemies. I'm gonna try to seperated spoilers in a labled section,into two sections, but I might slip up, so be warned.
Before I get started, I need to say that I did not hate this movie, all signs to the contrary. I did enjoy the film, but had I known that it was not actually a French/horror/historical fiction piece, but an american political conspiriacy-theorist action-adventure film, I would have enjoyed it much more. I also probably wouldn't have gone to see it in the first place.
"The Brotherhood of the Wolf" is a French film. As such it is IN FRENCH. Fortunately I really don't have to worry about anyone here having a problem with following subtitles, but when I went to see it, the couple next to me got up and left after 15 minutes when they realized that the funny noises the actors were making weren't going away any time soon. The plot of the film is based on actual events that occurred in and around Gevaudan from 1764 to 1767. An enormous beast of unknown nature began attacking and killing local women and children. It was clever enough to avoid capture and run from firearms. Descriptions varied from a strange beast with enormous spikes upon its back to a wolf-like creature the size of a cow. Although exact attribution is difficult to manage due to the scattered manner of record-keeping (and the celebrity involved after-the-fact with inflating the numbers) it has been estimated that the beast killed more than 100 people. There is no debate that the beast actually existed, although what exactly it was is unknown. At the time, talk of daemons and werewolves was bandied about rather seriously. Eventually, the beast was believed killed when a hunt ran down a deformed wolf-like creature and the killings stopped. Most consider the creature not big enough to have been the beast, though.
A somewhat extensive summary of the events surrounding it can be found here: http://members.tripod.co.uk/BrockisD/
"The Brotherhood of the Wolf" takes the historical events surrounding the Beast of Gevaudan and constructs a rather intricate "what if" story within it, much like the comic (or possibly the movie...haven't seen it) "From Hell" did with Jack the Ripper. We follow the king's naturalist (and taxidermist) as he arrives in Gevaudan and begins investigating the Beast. He has been sent to preserve the beast for the king to see once it is dead, so he has no real requirement to aid in the hunt. However, he has brought with him a traveling companion. An Iroquois native to whom he has pledged friendship from their time in New France. As they stay, the naturalist becomes infatuated with the daughter of the local aristocracy, runs afoul of her one-armed brother, spends an inordinate amount of time in the local Bordello, and ends up pulled into a deep conspiracy against the king of France.
As I said before, this is a French-made film. However, it feels very American in plot construction, especially near the end. On the French end, acting mannerisms throughout are very French (as one would expect) and the more casual attitude toward nudity and on-screen sex is very (nicely) present. The story is in no real hurry and tells the story at a leisurely, detailed pace (making the film a little over 2.5 hours long). Perhaps the most remarkably non-american plot element is the fact that, although our hero, (the taxidermist) Grégoire de Fronsac, is intensly courting the daughter of the local aristocrat, and at the end of the film declares his love for her, he spends most of his time schtupping the most expensive whore in the local Bordello.
Please note that I'm not complaining. Hell, this is a French film. I was expecting (hoping for) it. The actress opposite him in these scenes (Monica Bellucci) is certianly easy on the eyes and spends about 40% of her on-screen time either entirely naked or having sex with Grégoire, or both. In a rather predictable turn, she later turns out to be exceedingly important to the plot, convienently removing herself from the equation, and leaving the hero with his damsel in distress. As is to be expected, there are also a couple of "arty moments" scattered throughout the film, and, for some reason, there is a "prophetic dream sequence" immediately after sex in which she drives a ceremonial dagger through both of his ass cheeks. (At least, I think she did. Hell, I was watching HER...) I don't even want to START thinking about what that was supposed to mean.
So why am I saying that this is an American film? Of course, I mean this only figuratively, but still, why? Well, I should have been clued in from the second scene...but I'm willing to grant some leeway in the use of quarterstaffs. Just about every area of earth has developed about the same manner of fighting with a quarterstaff (or bo stick), since it's basically just a big, straight stick and the ways you can fuck someone up with it is fairly self-evident after a few dozen fights. Grégoire does this in the standard "man with no name comes to the aid of innocent peasents beset by a mob" scene, and he spends about five minutes fucking up eight or nine frenchmen with the working end of a stick (ie. both ends and the middle) in Matrix-time. Oh, did I forget to mention that? Yeah, the fight is done in a sort of quasi-Matrix bullet-time. Time apparently warps rather erratically in France (must've left it on the radiator), though, as the bullet-time cuts in and out rapidly for maximum-cool effect. Slow-motion strike to midsection throws opponent three feet into an aerial sommersault, time moves doubletime to get to next crack to the head/throw on back strike in slow-motion. (This is also done to wonderful effect during the attacks of the beast as its victims are battered about and eaten in similar slow...slow....fastfastfastslow...slow...stillframe...fast manner) I, not being a true connisour of the appropriate films, figured it was just an arty touch to the show. Well, THEY USE IT OFTEN ENOUGH! In addition, it's used at every attack of the Beast. Also, it's used during a horseride through the woods. Next it's used to demonstrate that, yes, the Iroquois knows how to fight as well. I was getting suspicious around this time. I know nothing of the fighting techniques of the Iroquois, but it looked a little...off to me. The thing is, the Indian fights half a dozen other skilled fighters in an impromptu match...and they're really skilled. REALLY skilled. Like backflips and windmill kicks skilled. Now I know that there is a traditional French kickboxing marshal art called "savat" (http://www.mawn.net/his_savate.htm) but I am pretty sure that it doesn't involve flying kicks or the use of rather contrived 2-bladed handle-less pushdaggers that break the fingers of their users if they don't go straight in.
Yup. It's a martial arts film.
Don't believe me? Let's fast-forward to the final fight scene wherein the evil badguy (not saying who it is exactly, but there is a final badguy) faces off against our hero who has been incensed by the murder of his compainion and the rape of his beloved. (Sounding familiar yet? Does it help if I tell you that the rape was incredibly preverted for reasons I can't tell you right now? I was half expecting him to lick his sword.) To battle the hero's dual fencing daggers (who the hell fights with two Templar daggers? You're supposed to have a sword in there!) the bad guy whips out a VIDEO TOASTER! A weapon so utterly ridiculous it had to be COMPUTER ANIMATED! You remember Ivy from Soul Caliber? You remember her sword? Yeah, one of those, only made out of bone or ivory. The weapon SMASHES THROUGH STONE COLUMNS and drives our hero through the SUPPORTS OF AN ANCIENT CASTLE. In addition, for some reason, our hero feels that he has to twirl his daggers in his hand every time he swings them. Later, there is a death by bladed fan. Sigh. You know, I'm getting really sick of hop-saki flavor getting injected into everything in THIS culture. I don't need that particular transplanted bit of culture coming to me from other countries as well.
And this, essentially, is the problem I have with the film. When I walk out of a film about a giant ravenous monster decemating the French countryside, I should not be talking about the FIGHT SCENES. I should be talking about the MONSTER. It should tell you something that our characters are in five major fight scenes, and the monster is the subject of the fight exactly once. So, despite his criminal under-representation in his own film, I'll talk a bit about the monster. The big mystery, of course, is what the monster actually is. At first we don't see anything of the monster at all, just the people it's tearing apart flailing about wildly. Once we do see it in all its CG glory, it is duly impressive. It also is not immediately apparent what the hell it is, which is a necessicary, but nicely done, touch. The running theory throughout the film is that it is some kind of giant wolf. Here is the way in which to completely ruin the second half of the movie for yourself: The first time you see the beast in its entirety it will be moving in the background of a scene. Watch it carefully, not at its shape or form, but in the way that it moves. Wolves do not move that way. If you look carefully, you will realize that there is ONE animal that DOES move that way. Realization of this point will tell you the entire remaining plot of the film (minus the minor detail of "why") in half a second.
I am being a little unfair calling it only a martial-arts flick. It's also a conspiracy (surrounding the monster), action (hunting the monster), romance (and sex), and whodunit film. These all sort of run together to form a well-thought out, if genre-confused film, but anime fans will recognize the driving themes of fight anime popping up to the exclusion of other aspects. On the other hand, I was actually fooled several times into thinking it would suddenly turn into a horror flick and the monster would be a werewolf, but that was at least partially wishful thinking on my part. To add just a few nitpicks to my review; where on earth did they find bamboo in the middle of France? Why was there a LIT "hand of Glory" in the badguy's study? (You need to know how it works for that point.)
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
If you have a mangled limb that nonetheless still works and wouldn't be so nasty if you just cut the nails once in a while, why would you hide it away? Is it more socially acceptable to be missing an arm rather than have an ugly one? Hasn't he heard of sleeves? And gloves? And how did he keep it so fit when it was tied down all the time? And that was a really pathetic end for the monster..
END SPOILER END SPOILER END SPOILER END SPOILER END SPOILER END SPOILER
Summary: Believe the "like the Matrix with blah blah blah" ads.
Again, uncertian of what to review next time. We'll see. -
Well....does she like sticky buns?....
2002-01-20 21:27:27
KZ: Re: DK2 "The Question." I may be entirely off base here, as I am stretching way WAY back in my memory for this, but I believe that "The Question" was a DC hero in his own right. An exceedlingly obscure one, from around the time that DC comics were starting to get really artsy (beginning of the "Black Orchid" and some of the better parts of "Swamp Thing"), and from a time long before I ever collected, but a hero with his own title, nonetheless. Here's proof that I'm not entirely insane:
http://newkadia.safeshopper.com/453/cat453.htm
Although, all it really proves is that "A" comic of that name existed, since it doesn't have any cover images. (I'll have a comment on "Vampires Redux" at some point, just give me some time to think about it.)
shaister: Thanks, too, for the kind word on the reviews. (Although I'm starting to wonder if this is a none-too-subtile hint to move my other hobby off of this page and onto its own, as it's crowding out legitimate content...) :)
EK: Jeez, when it rains it pours, hunh? If there's anything the rest of us can do, just say the word. You could talk to TJ about hosting, but I think the bandwidth would blast ryo-oh-ki.net to small fragments.
(Oh, and if that Dorothy pic goes up on e-bay, I may be bidding on it. That's just all dark and cool and stuff....like I have any wallspace left
:( )
Everyone: OK, stop it. We're all well aware of the situation. I am begging everyone on both sides to just drop it and walk away. I was there when this happened to cosplay, as a result of bickerings over the Ramseys, etc., causing the hobby to loose a lot of the most helpful and eloquent contributors, and we all know what kind of a hobby cosplay has become as a result. I will do anything in my power to prevent this happening to my favorite little hobby, but the truth of the matter is that there is nothing I can do. This entirely depends upon the combatants, and who is going to be big enough to tolerate the slings and arrows of the other until the issue dies out and we can just get back to the normal bout of gently clashing egos.
Well, apparently I have a few more regular readers than I thought, as my journal hits are only 7 away from 1000, and my profile just passed 3/4 of that. Not much on the scale of the most popular writers here, but I think it's rather respectable.
Three moments of horror (one within the review).
Go here: http://www.twinturboz.net/freaky.gif There's an image here that's a rather intricate optical illusion. Stare at the hallway in the picture just behind the mattress. You'll have to watch it for about 25-30 seconds, but an image should come into focus. (P.S. this is not one of those headache-inducing magic eyes, or anything like that. Just take a close look.)
You know, I think this reviewing of horror films has done something to my head. I have a running commentary going on in the back of my mind and it WON'T SHUT UP. Approaching my dorm today, I was absolutely convinced that there was an organ lying on the sidewalk in front of my building's back door. Turned out it was a dropped jar of Presto thick and chunky. Still gave me a fright.
A special treat tonight: I wasn't certian what I would be reviewing since I didn't know if I'd have time to watch the other half of that double-bill DVD with Horror Hotel. Fortunately, I did. The second movie (actually the headliner, but the other was shorter so I watched it first) is "Carnival of Souls," and is the real reason I bought the DVD. I have a very vauge memory of seeing a preview for this film many years ago, and somehow came away with the impression that it was an artsy French horror flick. Seeing it available for $6 was the real reason for picking up the DVD. Turning off all the lights and watching for the first time at midnight gave it it's maximum effect. To be honest, I really wanted this to be a good film, since I felt a bit cheated by the other half of the DVD.
Wow.
Just wow.
This little gem was made in 1962 and shows it. It has since become a complete cult classic, deservedly so. Now let me go through all the reasons this SHOULDN'T be a good film. The acting is bad. Not laughably MST3K bad, but the bad acting of first-timers earnestly trying to do a good job. There's a doctor whose head is kept in constant motion during his every line, nodding, shaking, tilting back to consider. A boarding-house woman who doesn't know what to do with her hands or where to look, and tends to be a little uncertian about her lines as well. A priest doing a middling job with some very awquard lines. The dialouge isn't very well written. There are occasional "out of the blue" or "this is significant" lines worked badly into the conversations. ("But, my dear, you cannot live in isolation from the human race, you know." "We have an organist capable of stirring the soul.") The cinematography is very spotty. Some scenes are excellently shot with a couple of clever transitions or properly framed to give the audience clausterphobia, or building tension, but then there's the two-minute reaction shot of a closeup on the minister's face while he listens to organ music; sections of clumsy transitions; moments of badly positioned cameras; the entire beginning section is abrupt and stuttered. This film stars no one and was directed by nobody. None of the secondary actors went on to do any films you've ever heard of (few did any at all), the director never made another film, and the writer never sold another script. The star, Candice Hilligoss, did star in one other film: "The Curse of the Living Corpse," but apparently it was such an unknown film that the DVD itself is under the impression that Candice appears in only "Carnival of Souls." The plot has moments of utter contrivance.
So why on earth do I like it? Simple. It's SCARY. For all the amatureish acting, filming errors, and badly written script, the overall story and several scenes in particular give me the chills. If modern horror film makers can just get this simple point through their heads, we'll see a lot more good horror films out there.
OK, to get an idea of this film, do your best to imagine this as well as possible. You are returning home late from work and it's already dark out. You live alone and are walking up your front steps when you happen to glance in through the side-window next to your front door in passing. There is a man standing stock-still in your living room, staring directly at your front door. He is dripping wet and has an oddly intent nature about him. Understandably disturbed, you step back and look again. The figure has vanished, without even a puddle to mark where he was standing. You live alone. What do you do?
The story of the film involves a girl named Mary Henry, the sole survivor of a watery car accident. She's badly shaken from the experience, and takes a job as a church organist in another city to get away from the memories. (There's a wonderful scene of her practicing in her home town on a towering monstrosity of an organ.) On her way to the town she passes an odd structure standing alone in the center of a barren plain, and soon afterwards....bad things start happening. The odd structure, it turns out, is an old bathouse that had since gone through a couple of transformations, finally as a run-down carnival. The structure itself is real enough (they couldn't have had the budget to mock it up) and looks like something from Lilek's old "how the mighty have fallen" files. It's an enormous, rambling, half-built, half-collapsed structure. Anyway, as Mary tries to settle in to her new home and new job, she keeps seeing someone, hollow-eyed and deathly-pale, watching her, glimpsed in a mirror, standing where someone else was a moment before, and then gone the next second. Nothing can keep the figure away from her, and the film builds a truly wonderful sense of paranoia in Mary. She becomes desperate for company, willing to tolerate even the advances of her slimy house-mate, just to avoid spending the night alone. Then, strange hallucinatory episodes begin to affect her. She can't hear, or make herself be heard or seen by others. She has visions. The end she is driven to is truly horrifying despite its absurdity, and I wouldn't want to ruin it for ya'll so I'll stop there.
I get the distinct impression that the director of this film really only knew how to direct horror scenes. This he does magnificently, although the editing is sometimes a little weird. He uses subtile cues and camera angles to set the audience on edge, and then plays with them, sometimes paying off, sometimes not, so you really don't know what's happening. In one scene, Mary goes into a department store dressing room (the only titilating scene...and then only to see Candice in a slip), and something happens. We're not sure what, but something has definitely changed. Mary senses it as well and looks around pensively as she gets dressed. The camera moves in close so we can't see the whole room as she turns repeatedly and looks about. We get pensive, and more pensive, as she gets more and more worried, and then Mary makes a dash for the door. It won't open! (Oh, wait, turn the handle the other way.) and the scene is over.
Brilliant.
Candice herself manages the "terrified" aspect of her character with more skill than you'd expect from her other scenes. She isn't any worse than the other actors in those scenes, but the scene of sheer terror as she desperately barracades herself in her room, or begs the slimy house-mate to stay with her for the night just compounds the mood to truly powerful effect. Also, Candice Hilligoss DOESN'T BLINK OFTEN ENOUGH and this CREEPS ME THE HELL OUT. Jeez, shades of Ford Prefect.
Emphatic thumbs up. I don't have a lot of movies on my "classic horror film" list, but this one goes on there. However, the blurb on the back of the box is evidently from an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MOVIE so just ignore it. (Read the back of Akira sometime.)
Next time, we go over the history of the Beast of Gevaudan and the brave Indian ninja who killed it.
P.S. To the people who went to http://www.twinturboz.net/freaky.gif
Gotcha :)
JOURNAL: MCWagner (Matthew Wagner)
Current server time: Jan 27, 2025 12:31:58