Thursday, 8 December 2011

The Abominable Snowman




Yeti Day, All My Troubles Seemed So Far Away...

The Abominable Snowman
(aka The Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas)
UK 1957
Directed by Val Guest
Hammer Region 2

I’ve always been a big fan of productions boasting stories and screenplays by Nigel Kneale. I absolutely adored all four of the original Quatermass serials... and the Hammer remakes of the first three... and the Radio show set between the third and fourth serial... although I was left unimpressed with the condensed down “movie-spliced-together-from-TV-episodes” adaptation of the fourth serial and similarly unimpressed by the still fairly recent TV remake of The Quatermass Experiment, despite featuring the excellent acting talents of Jason Flemyng and David Tennant.

This is the first time I’ve seen The Abominable Snowman and, I have to say that, while it’s not as absolutely terrifying as the Quatermass serials... it does still have that sense of nagging, lurking, building terror coupled with a keen intelligence which seems to be a signature of Kneale’s work. Of course, it helps that we have an experienced director working with Kneale’s material and director Val Guest had already made the Hammer Horror remakes of Kneale’s first two Quatermass serials The Quatermass Xperiment (based on The Quatermass Experiment) and the appropriately named Quatermass 2.

In The Abominable Snowman, Hammer veteran Peter Cushing stars as Dr. John Rollason, a researcher in the Himalayas who teams up with an American “hunter”, Tom Friend, played by the token lets-put-an-American-in-it-so-we-can-sell-it-overseas actor Forrest Tucker... who did the same kind of token American duties that Brian Donleavy was doing in the Quatermass remakes but in films like this one and such genre classics as X-The Unknown and The Crawling Eye (based on the TV serial The Trollenberg Terror). Like Val Guest, Cushing was also no stranger to working on Nigel Kneale’s material since he’d starred in both Kneale’s much lionised, infinitely superior TV adaptation of George Orwell’s 1984 and also the original TV play The Creature, which is what The Abominable Snowman is a remake of... Cushing plays the same role in this movie that he played on TV but I believe Stanley Baker played the part which Forrest Tucker has inherited here... it’s a shame that The Creature is a lost “classic” as I would dearly love to see that one.

The film starts with Dr. Rollason, his wife and his fellow researcher studying artefacts in a Tibetan monastery. Rollason breaks it to his wife, much to her alarm, that he is going with Tom Friend and his crew on a fairly dangerous expedition up a mountain to research evidence of recently sighted Yetis. He leaves his wife and colleague behind the next day and goes off with Friend and his small band, who have pre-loaded the trail with buried food while passing through with a larger expedition previously.

As the crew bed down for the first night, it becomes clear to Rollason that his ideas of locating The Abominable Snowman for scientific study are at odds with Friend’s “commercial showman” mentality, who is definitely there to capture said Yeti and bring it back, King Kong-like, to civilisation and make large amounts of "Yeti cash" from the proceeds. However, what Friend and the gang don’t realise (although Rollason twigs it a lot quicker), is that one of the expedition has payed Friend to be there after seeing one of the beasts (and it is definitely Abominable Snowmen in the plural that our decidedly unheroic heroes eventually find) which has established a psychic link with him and is susceptible to what I can only describe as... “the will of the Yeti!”

And of course, once it’s been established that the Yeti can get inside the minds of humans, it’s not long before members of the expedition start dying by their own hand... at the instigation of the abominable snowmen who, in all fairness, just want to be left alone.

I don’t want to spoil this movie for any enthusiastic Hammer or Kneale fans among you so I won’t tell you who, if any, survives to the end of the movie. What I will say is that director Val Guest has kept the Yeti mostly unseen until an up-close-and-personal encounter near the end... relying instead on just glimpses of the odd Yeti arm or the reactions of the actors to what is left slightly off screen for the most part. A shrewd move by a director who, I suspect, had less faith in the design and execution of the creatures themselves... although I personally thought they were pretty good Yeti suits (and none of them were wearing a watch like their real life counterparts). Although, with people like Richard Wattis turning up in the cast... I was half expecting to see Yeti Jacques walk on!

Definitely not the best of either Kneale or Guest's works but certainly well worth a watch, especially for the seasoned veteran who like’s nothing better than to watch a solid British horror production and have fun playing spot the actor. It also boasts a score by the composer Humphrey Searle, who horror music fans may remember was the composer for the score of Robert Wise’s 1963 horror masterpiece The Haunting. There’s a recent new release of The Abominable Snowman from Hammer on Region 2 and it’s also quite inexpensive to boot. Pick it up if you’ve got nothing better to spend your hard earned cash on. Rawwwwr!

Tuesday, 6 December 2011

All The Boys Love Mandy Lane




Mandy Lane Is In My Ears And In My Eyes...

All The Boys Love Mandy Lane
US 2006
Directed by Jonathan Levine
Optimum Region 2

Warning About The Spoiler Warning: The following spoiler warning contains information that could be considered a spoiler!

Spoiler Warning: Although I will try not to spoil the ending of this movie for you, the very fact of knowing that there is a little twist in the movie may well cause you to look for this when watching and, now that you know there’s a twist, it will probably be practically impossible to watch this and not figure out what that twist is within the first 5 or so minutes of the movie.

You know... I really hate the majority of the films in the grubby, American slasher movie genre which was inspired and informed by the much more stylish and artistically brilliant Italian gialli which came before them. American slasher movies tend to be tedious exercises in gorily killing off a group of people incremently (usually a bunch of teenagers) until you are left with a “final girl” and a semi-suspenseful chase scene. The Italian giallo, however, is usually a badly acted and written but ultimately much more satisfying confection of top notch cinematography and set design all wrapped up with a powerful and beautiful score by the likes of Goblin, Ennio Morricone or Stelvio Cipriani.

So the odds, right from the start, were against me liking a movie like All The Boys Love Mandy Lane... but I’d seen the trailer before the film was due to be released (it’s still a hard to come by movie in its home country, apparently) and kinda liked the way the trailer was cut so I thought I’d give it a go. Except the opportunity never really materialised and it got held back from release for a long time and I kinda forgot about it.

But luckily for me... I remembered it again when I came face to face with a used copy at the Camden Film Fair going for £2. Yes! A film I wanted to see and the price was right!

Now then, because of all the reasons I mentioned above about my lack of interest in the American slasher genre, I wasn’t really holding out a lot of hope for this movie... but I have to say that when I finally did get around to watching it, I was quite pleasantly surprised.

Now then, to understand the extent of my surprise, you have to realise that I “so wasn’t” expecting any kind of twist to this movie. When the killer of this movie was revealed about half the way through, I didn’t expect anything further from the movie in ways of so-called “revelatory content” and in this one instance, this was to my advantage. Now had I known or suspected that there might have been a twist to this movie I would, in all probability (since the set up is positively littered with clues as to what’s really going on), have figured out this so-called twist within the first five minutes of the movie and spent the rest of the film rolling my eyes and trying to figure out why the characters in American slasher movies are always so dumb. But the point is... I didn’t suspect there was a twist and I’m afraid that the reason for this has more to do with my poor attitude towards the artistry within this particular genre of film than for any other reason. If it had been a bona fide Italian giallo for example, I would have expected every twist in the book (and probably got them). But, since I treat (perhaps deservedly so) the American slasher movie as the dumber cousin to what I see as its mother genre, I just didn’t expect any more of the writer and director on this movie to be doing anything other than a by-the-numbers body count movie... so I’ve only myself to blame/thank for the little surprise at the end.

So for all you people who have seen this movie and are sitting there saying to yourself that All The Boys Love Mandy Lane has an absolutely obvious twist which you could see coming after five minutes... I have to answer, yes, you’re almost certainly right and I would have seen it way before it happened (instead of 5 minutes before it happened as was the case) had I credited the crew on this movie with a little more intelligence. But I didn’t and, as a result, I had quite a good time with this movie.

The plot is simplistic and everything you/I would expect from a slasher movie. Much desired high school girl is invited to a weekend party at a rich boys ranch so all the boys (and girls presumably) can attempt to have sex with her. Everyone starts dropping like flies when a serial killer shows up and gorily killing them. Mandy Lane is noted for her ability to “run” in athletics so you assume that there will be a scene towards the end where she is running for her life (and that’s an assumption which also threw me off the scent a little... nice red herring of a set up Mr. Director and Mr. Writer)... but there’s a little more to this movie than just the crap story.

Truth is, although the mise-en-scene is not as stunning as it is in a giallo, the film is quite stylishly put together with a lot of montage sequences used to take the place of overlong dialogue and a real emphasis on the visual side of cinema as opposed to the dialogue heavy approach to the art form we are more familiar with in American made movies. The running time absolutely whizzes by... even though nothing really happens in the movie... pretty much.

And that’s all I’m prepared to say about this movie without going deeper into spoiler territory. The subtleties I picked up on in the opening sequences and then promptly ignored as being too clever for a slasher flick are exactly the things which will give the game away to the majority of the audience. But it’s not really the point of a movie like this anyway because, if truth be told, this movie is more about the way it is edited and shot rather than about story... and that’s its great strength and the reason why it scores over the majority of other US movies in this genre.

If you are into these kinds of films then I’d have to shout out to you that All The Boys Love Mandy Lane is one of the better attempts to make a movie of this kind. It's definitely a Saturday night movie with an alcohol and friends kinda vibe to it. Take a look if this genre is one you hang out with on a regular basis.

Sunday, 4 December 2011

The Thing (2011)




Thingin’ In The Brain

The Thing 2011 US
Directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.
Screening at UK cinemas.

Warning: There’s probably a thing or two in here that will mimic "slight" spoilers... but which ones are the spoilers?

Back in 1951, director Christian Nyby, under the assured production of one Mr. Howard Hawks, released into the world a science fiction/horror movie called THE THING From Another World and, quite frankly, no modern version has ever bettered this. I will probably watch this again next year some time and review it, along with Carpenter’s excellent 1982 homage, so I won’t go into too much detail about it here. However, I will need to reference these two films quite a bit for this review, I suspect, so beg the reader’s forgiveness a little about possibly carping on about the 1951 version a fair bit, with it’s tremendous quick-fire and often overlapping dialogue and portrayal of the camaraderie of the human spirit in a claustrophobic, survival situation.

I also need to make the reader aware that, although I’m familiar with the movie versions of this little landmark of the combined genres, I’ve never actually read John W. Campbell Jr’s 1938 novella Who Goes There? on which the three movies were based (it was originally published as part of an issue of the famous pulp magazine Astounding Stories)... so I can’t really give an accurate assessment of which, of any, of the movies is the most successful adaptation of this. However, it’s generally accepted that the original version strayed a fair bit from the source material... it goes as far as to make The Thing a humanoid alien and so the important paranoia element of a shape-changer who could be any one of the protagonists at any time is missing. The movie still manages to kick all kinds of ass even without that ingredient though.

John Carpenter’s version, just called THE THING, but with an opening title logo that aped the original version (and is in turn aped by the new movie, but only in it’s method of appearance and not the actual font, I think), is generally regarded as a much more closer adaptation of the novella and, to be fair to one of the great directors of the genre, Carpenter’s version also kicks all kinds of ass... and really ramps up the terror and gore effects. All in all though, I still prefer the original... but that’s not to detract from Carpenter’s homage, which I could also watch at least once a year if I didn’t have such a big backlog of movies to get through.

And now we have a new version of THE THING for 2011 and, to quote Amy Pond in Doctor Who... “This is where it gets complicated.”

Here we go then... first thing you have to understand is that John Carpenter’s THE THING is as much an homage to the original 1951 version of the story as it is an adaptation of the original novella. In some ways, in fact, it can be seen as “kind of” a sequel to it because the titular alien entity which is dug up from the ice in the original and accidentally thawed out is already on the loose right at the start of Carpenter’s version (albeit the shape shiftin variant). And when Kurt Russell’s main protagonist, McReady, goes to investigate why they suddenly have two dead Norwegians on their hands and why they came to the American base camp in Antarctica, aggressively pursuing and shooting at a dog from a helicopter, he discovers the carnage of a deserted Norwegian base camp where a battle against the creature has already taken place. It also includes some video footage of the Norwegians circling around the ice, trying to get some sense of scale and shape of the crashed alien spaceship beneath them and this, itself, is a recreation of an iconic moment from the original THE THING From Another World. Some of the stuff McReady finds is recreated during the course of this new 2011 version of it but it’s just a shame that the iconic, circling around the ice moment was not recreated for this third version... it would have been a very welcome moment for fans of the previous two.

Now the new 2011 version is pitched to audiences as a prequel to Carpenter’s 1982 remake/homage/adaptation, even going as far to have Marco Beltrami’s score echoing the two note pulse of the Morricone/Carpenter/Howarth mash-up score in a couple of notable places... although I noticed that some of the audience I saw it with seemed to be oblivious that there were any previous versions of the movie. However, it could also be classed just as much as a remake of the original 1951 version of the movie and an adaptation in its own right of the novella because it has elements from both the previous two versions in it.

Since this is a prequel, of course, the movie makers have been quite blatant in making sure all the action and paraphernalia of the 1982 version (which is when this modern version is also, of course, set) is retrofitted in this incarnation and matches up or works towards matching up with it by the end of the movie (more on that later). However, some of the elements from the original are also quite blatant... if you’re are old enough or well versed enough in film to have bothered to watch the original. Three things I noticed which are of note in this and the 1951 version are...

1. Both the 1951 version and this new version have a couple of female characters... Carpenter’s has none (as I suspect the original novella didn’t, but don’t know that for sure at time of writing this... I’ll grab it next year and have a read).

2. Another thing the first and last versions have in common is the fact that they both dig up a big block of ice holding the alien creature in it... and of course, it’s not too long before that creature is on the loose!

3. Okay, there’s an actual, proper scientist in both versions (not including the female lead of the new version). They are both different characters but both are blinded by their need to research THE THING in the name of science and to the endangerment of the other characters in the movie... and there’s even a scene in the new one where the scientist is wearing exactly the same kind of silly hat that his predecessor did in 1951. Nice little reference right there which I’m sure a lot of fans didn’t fail to notice.

So how does the new version measure up to the previous two? Well I’ll make no bones about it, and this is not a negative review by the way, but the new version is neither as good as the original or the 1982 version it is “prequeling”. However, that being said, the new one is definitely still a great little gem of a movie... a scifi/horror movie which will probably get just as much play on my DVD player when it comes out as the previous two... so even though it’s not as great as those two... it’s well worth a watch for any genre fan out there.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead as the main female lead is absolutely excellent and certainly does a good deal to carry the movie all on her own (and there’s no way I would have pegged her as the girl who played Ramona Flowers in Scott Pilgrim Vs The World unless I’d just looked her up on the internet)... but even if she wasn’t such a strong and charismatic lead (which, again I stress, she is), she wouldn’t have to be as this is a real ensemble piece... like the two versions before it. It’s got more in common with its 1951 predecessor though, on that level, because everyone really gets on well for most of the time and seem to be enjoying themselves and having a great time where they are... as opposed to Carpenter’s take where everyone seems isolated and alienated from each other in their day-to-day life, even before the paranoia begins to set in.

The weak points are that the creature and gore effects are, as a necessity, inspired by Carpenter’s and very similar... and although they are actually better executed than those in Carpenter’s version to some degree, they are not nearly as creative as the 1982 version and so don’t seem quite as interesting as those ones. Not quite by the numbers either, though, and the way the characters and creatures are moved and manipulated to eventually match up with the carnage that McReady discovers in the next/previous film in the sequence is rather cleverly done. They’ve even got a character which bears a strong resemblance to Kurt Russels character in this one... who ends up throwing his lot in with Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s character by the end of the movie (as you knew he would).

It also has some fairly weak points. When one character is revealed at the end to be an offshoot of the creature... it makes absolutely no sense given that character’s actions and motivations up to that point... right then, that’s it for specific weak points... only one that I can see at the moment then.

The film has two endings. The first, natural ending sets it up for a sequel. When the idea of a sequel to this was first mooted before the filming of the “prequel” was even under way, people assumed that this sequel would just be a cash-in remake of Carpenter’s version. But here we have an ending which allows for a new, original sequel involving the Russian base camp. And it’s also at this point that fans of the Carpenter version will want to know what the heck is going on... this can’t be the ending, surely, if it’s supposed to be a prequel. Fear not, wait until the credits have started playing out and we get a mini additional ending intercut with the end credits... so a few credits... another bit of the movie... a few more credits... then another bit of the movie... an so on. And it’s here that the writers brilliantly bring in a brand new character and another character from the movie, who by now I had completely forgotten was still alive and on the loose somewhere, returns into the narrative. The two characters meet and then we see... the dog/thing. It runs... the two Norwegian characters pursue in a helicopter trying to shoot the dog and... well, watch the 1982 movie to see what happens next.

At the end of the day, the new version of THE THING is a great little scifi/horror movie which is nowhere near as good as the previous two but also, in no way, drags the other two down... it’s a good little genre movie. Take a look at it because, if this kind of movie is your thing, you won’t be disappointed.

The Thing at NUTS4R2

The Thing From Another World (1951)
The Thing (1982)
The Thing (2011)

Tuesday, 29 November 2011

Sanshiro Sugata (The Films of Akira Kurosawa #1)




Sugata De Blanc

Sanshiro Sugata
Japan 1943
Directed by Akira Kurosawa
Criterion Eclipse Region 1

About a decade or more ago I went, with a friend, to a one day seminar on my favourite director Akira Kurosawa in London, followed by a special screening of his chanbara The Hidden Fortress. The day was held at the National Film Theatre and it was filled with presentations by various experts and fans of his work such as his main biographer and friend Donald Richie. Another director I admire somewhat, Mr. Alex Cox, showed us all a packet of postcards issued by the Japanese post office on the occasion of Kurosawa's death, each reprinting the original poster art for each of the 30 feature films that Kurosawa had directed (I would really love to get my hands on a set of these if anyone has any leads on where to get them).

Of these photographs, Mr. Cox invited the audience to discuss and vote whether each of the films could be considered a “masterpiece” and, after much lively discussion from the audience as to what the actual definition of the term masterpiece could usefully mean, the exercise began. It was Mr. Cox’ idea, I believe, to prove (and he really didn’t have to since we already knew the answer in regards to Kurosawa) that the measure of a film-maker’s success, influence and general richness as an artist could perhaps be measured, for fun, by the percentage of his work that could be considered to be masterpiece works. As the exercise continued using debate and shows of hands, the audience agreed that at least two thirds of Kurosawa’s output could be considered to be the great and influential works that prove him to be an artist of exceptional worth.

I relate this story by way of explaining to the reader a) what a daunting and challenging task it is to write my first review of a director's work when he's a director who I personally hold in such high regard and b) to say, having seen all but three of this director’s films to date (but don’t worry, they’re all in the pile to watch), that although the seminar day was fun, I’d have to disagree with the final verdict of Alex Cox’s presentation. For me, you see, Kurosawa is the perfect director and I believe his films are so riveting and full of absolute artistic genius (and integrity) that they are all masterpieces and couldn’t fail to be anything else. Each time one watches a Kurosawa film it’s like taking in a mini course on film making by osmosis... it’s that good.

So here, then, I present my review of Kurosawa’s first ever feature film as a credited director and, therefore, my review of the first of his many “masterpieces”...

Kurosawa worked his way through the Toho Film Studio’s apprentice system and after working on loads of movies as script editor, script writer, second unit director etc, he had become someone to be reckoned with and, for the first film he picked to actually direct himself, Kurosawa asked the studio to buy the rights to a novel he liked called Sanshiro Sugata, a period piece which tells the story of the competition and rivalry between the Martial Art of Jujitsu and the “new” form of self defence, Judo.

Sanshiro is a reckless youth played by Susumu Fujita, a regular Kurosawa actor who would later be supplanted by the “explosion of acting” that was Toshiro Mifune (a nice visual metaphor for “out with the old and in with the new” can be found in Kurosawa’s Yojimbo where Susuma Fujita plays the former bodyguard of one of the warring clans who does a runner and waves cheekily to Mifune as he makes his exit from the films of Kurosawa... at least as a major player). The character of Sanshiro is played pretty much as an “adult child” who wanders the slow path to enlightenment as he learns the spiritual and practical skills of Judo... although he’s still pretty much a wide eyed innocent at the end of the movie.

Loads of the classic Kurosawa signatures are already in place in this, his first feature. Those moving wipes that George Lucas favoured in his Star Wars films (which I suspect Kurosawa probably inherited from his love of US movies anyway... the Flash Gordon serials are full of those wipes) are already present, as is the really groundbreaking stuff like cutting a shot on motion... which was thought not to be the done thing and was, frankly, considered a mark of bad filmmaking for a long time in the western world... until film editor (and later director) Peter Hunt used the same techniques to add excitement and prove to Westerners that it is a valid technique all over again when he edited the first of his Bond films, Dr. No.

The film starts off brilliantly by leading, after a deliberate lull to show the inferiority of the jujitsu men that Sanshiro has initially come to study with, to a fight scene where the older sensei of the Judo school is harassed by the jujitsu guys and forced to despatch them all. Sanshiro joins up with him by replacing the man’s rickshaw driver, who has run off. He casts off his clogs to be able to run better and already, less than ten minutes into the film maybe, Kurosawa gives you a long visual metaphor of the casting off of his former life by fixating on one of these clogs as time marches on and you see it go, in a series of transition shots depicting the abandoned footwear while it passes from season to season, down a street in various states of distress until it is last seen floating away in the river in which the Judo master dispatched his opponents.

Fantastic stuff! And this is Kurosawa’s directorial debut? What style!

There are lots of visual and audio “surrogates” used in the film, such as Sanshiro throwing himself into a dangerously dirty sump for a number of hours/days after his chastisement (for his fondness of brawling) until he has an epiphany, of sorts, in the form of an appreciation of a flower (a thing of beauty surviving in the ugliness) growing at the side of the sump and sees himself, presumably, as this growing flower.

Another good tool Kurosawa uses is a children’s made up song about Sanshiro being a force to be reckoned with, which is chanted as they go about their play in a couple of scenes and is here used as short-hand by Kurosawa to get the message across to the audience that Sanshiro has moved on a little more over the course of the months/years.

There’s loads of dynamic moving camerawork... a lot more motion than you’d probably expect from someone who was labelled by his own people as being more of a Western director than an Eastern director, after his international success with Rashomon... although this was pretty much rivalry, jealousy and xenophobia on behalf of the Japanese for having to tolerate that Westerner’s could understand Kurosawa's films. And why is that? Because he’s using the international language of good cinema and strong semiotics which can be understood worldwide... that’s why. Even though, it has to be said, Kurosawa was an acknowledged admirer of the films of John Ford.

Also heavy in the mix on this debut movie is Kurosawa’s sheer genius of having establishing shots and, I guess you could call them “establishing moments” sneak up on you before you are aware of them on screen on a conscious level. Check out the young samurai’s introduction on Seven Samurai for an excellent introduction to this “technique by stealth” as the character is masked into shot with a load of other people before his appearance is slowly highlighted by the way in which the extras are aligned with the key players in those scenes. It’s almost like Kurosawa has found a direct line to the collective audience subconscious and uses it to throw elements of importance at you to begin their work before you’ve even consciously registered what they are... Steven Moffet uses the same approach with his “scary moments” in his writing for Doctor Who.

And this also, of course, is where Sergio Leone and the traditions of Italian spaghetti westerns truly begin... yes, I know Leone’s directorial debut was a remake of a Kurosawa film which didn’t originally get made until some 18 years after this one, but hold on a second and I’ll explain my theory...

This is where the Kurosawa action sequence starts and, hopefully most people will agree with me when I say that the majority of Kurosawa action pieces do not rely on great, strung together pieces of action. They may seem dynamic in speed and, in the case of epics like Kagemusha and Ran, scale... but they are actually more about pauses and machismo and the way in which the action is actually highlighted in intensity between the slow pacing and build up between each little segment of an action piece. And this is what Sergio Leone went on to do with his own action cinema when he started out with his Yojimbo remake A Fistful of Dollars. It’s all extreme close ups of the eyes and music and twitching facial muscles with Leone and, in the case of Kurosawa’s approach, though not overtly as stylised, it’s very much the exact same thing. That’s my theory and I’m sticking to it unless proven otherwise. The final fight in a field of wheat in the extreme wind, for example, is all about the atmosphere created by the weather and that long, tall, rippling wheat in contrast to the martial arts skills being used. It is the atmosphere of action and the intensity of the feeling of action that Kurosawa seems more interested in... and not the actual details of the action itself, it seems to me. I believe without these early demonstrations of this kind of film-making, you would never have gotten to the Leone style which was taken up as a template for all Spaghetti Westerns after his first one... or at least, the Spaghetti Western would have evolved in another direction. So yes, I am saying that Kurosawa was accidentally responsible for creating a genre of Italian cinema which he had nothing to do with... just as he himself was influenced by the Westerns of such luminaries as John Ford and his ilk in his early career.

I first saw Sanshiro Sugata at the cinema in a retrospective of his work of which the aforementioned seminar was a part of and then, later on, went on to buy the awful Region 3 Poker industries release of this movie... which was muddy and had subtitles written by somebody who did not seem to be able to speak, or at least successfully write, the English language to such an extent that it was almost impossible to follow the story with the words which were being, almost randomly, thrown up on screen. This new Criterion edition is a definite improvement on all predecessors but I am annoyed that Criterion chose to release this movie as part of their “bare bones” Eclipse series as I would have loved to have seen the accompanying documentary episode of the TV show Akira Kurosawa: It Is Wonderful To Create which accompanies the regular Criterion editions of Kurosawa’s movies. Perhaps one day.

Still... no contest. The Criterion Eclipse boxed set of The First Films of Akira Kurosawa (which includes his first four movies) is definitely the best way of seeing this movie so far, next to seeing the thing projected properly at a cinema.

All of Kurosawa’s movies are a definite recommendation from me... this is the first one... it won’t be the last.

Sunday, 27 November 2011

Blood Sabbath




The Blood, The Bad
and the Jiggly!

Blood Sabbath
US 1972
Directed by Brianne Murphy
Pegasus Region 0

SEXIST PIG WARNING! This is probably one of the most blatantly sexist reviews I’ve ever written. In my defence, however, I would like to point out that it’s the most appropriate response I could come up with to this movie.

Wow. I don’t often go for Twitter recommendations but when Hypnogoria brought this one to my attention with a bit of “live tweeting”... I knew I couldn’t resist. Actually... another important factor in my decision to purchase this film was the fact that Amazon were selling it for under £2... so the price was right too (although only a couple of months later, I see, they have put the price up to £9.99. What up with that?).

I have to say though... after having seen this movie, which is truly terrible but, you know, in that good way... I am somewhat at a loss to have much of anything to say about it, other than it’s a really bizarre little movie, so expect this one to be a really short review.

If I had to summarise what this movie is about I’d say it’s about an ex-vietnam soldier trekking through Mexico who is attacked by large chested hippy gals for no obvious reasons... who also like to be running about naked and jiggling their aforementioned large chests... also for no obvious reasons. The man is knocked unconscious and left for dead but is revived by some kind of river dwelling dead gorgeous (and also just “dead” as it happens) babe who also seems to favour attire that is either downright skimpy or non-existent.

Our hero, the heroically named David, wants to see more of her so he stays with a local who also happens to take a child to be sacrificed to witches every year so the local village can have good crops. The witches also, it would seem, have a penchant for dancing and running about in their birthday suits and have equally humongous bosoms as the hippy ladies at the start of the movie. They might even, for the most part, be those same ladies but, if they were (and I’m guessing yes) then I certainly didn’t remember any of their faces from the start of the movie... might have got distracted by something else I reckon. Anyway, the head witch is the arch enemy (well, maybe that’s a bit strong, just a rival shall we say) of the cute babe of the river... who Dave wants to settle down and have lots of sex with.

The rivalry progresses and lots of naked dancing, naked cavorting, naked running and generally naked ritualistic posturing is on hand to throw confusion over an already confusing lack of plot which can only, it seems, have a happy conclusion if the lead character dies. Think I’ve got that right... I think the ending of this one may be a little open to interpretation.

Anyway... this film has exactly two things going for it as far as I can see. Well, that’s apart from the two things that seem to be attached and bouncing around naked on practically every female character in this movie, that is.

Thing one is that the lead villain-witch is played by Dyanne Thorne. Yes, that Dyanne Thorne... she who is perhaps best known for notoriously playing Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS and also for appearing in the classic Star Trek episode A Piece Of The Action. It’s long been my professional opinion that the buxom Ms. Thorne has easily “the best bosoms in the business” and my head starts spinning when I realise the name of the character she is playing is called “Alotta”. Well, all I can say to that is she sure has Alotta large assets on display in this movie (I’m so sorry, I couldn’t resist... but can you blame me?). I actually have a bit of a soft spot for Dyanne Thorne so I can’t complain about this in any way, shape or form.

The second thing this movie has going for it is a score by Bax... which is a pseudonym for Les Baxter (who provided scores for lots of movies like the majority of the Corman “Poe” films... to name but a few). The scoring seems mostly appropriate to the movie but, only in as much as it’s almost impossible not to be inappropriate with the scoring on a movie like this. In the words of Hypnogoria... bongos and bosoms!

There’s a cheesy opening credits song and a cheesy end credits song... I didn’t think much of the first but the second song kinda stuck in my head and I would love to get a hold of it if I could. Sadly, there’s been no score released for this movie and most likely won’t be... although it’s not impossible as their have been some totally unexpected limited edition soundtracks released in small runs over the last five years or so and Les Baxter does tend to sell out (except in the one single solitary case where I bought a second copy in an introductory attempt to play the speculation game on e-bay... oh yes... this would be the one Les Baxter album that didn’t sell out! Curse you Ray Milland!).

The only other thing the movie has going for it (What? A third thing? Nobody expects The Spanish Inquisition!), as I’ve already mentioned but will repeat at the risk of labouring the point, is a large collection of jiggling breasts which seem to get exposed constantly at the drop of a hat... and their must have been a lot of metaphorical hats dropped in this movie because, as I noted at the time, there are more breasts on display in this “horror” movie than I’ve seen in some porn movies (not that I’ve ever watched any of those, of course).

So, in summary...

Is this movie any good? No.

Would I watch it again and would I recommend it to anyone? Yes, of course I would. It’s a comically bad excuse for nakedness starring Dyanne Thorne and with a Les Baxter soundtrack. What’s not to like? Trash lovers will get a kick out of it I reckon. Be warned though, the special effects aren’t so special and even the script seems a bit low tech (if such a thing is possible).

Have fun!

Friday, 25 November 2011

Galaxina




Galaxina-A-Go-Go!

Galaxina
US 1980
Directed by William Sachs
BCI Eclipse Region 1

Before this movie had its premiere, Playboy Playmate of the Year 1980 Dorothy Stratten (who plays the title character) had her head blown off with a shotgun by her husband before he turned the gun on himself. She was twenty years old and has since been played on screen by both Jamie Lee Curtis in Death of a Centrefold: The Dorothy Stratten Story (1981) and Mariel Hemmingway in Star ‘80 (1983).

I didn’t know any of this back when I was a kid. All I knew was that, according to articles in Starburst and Starlog magazines, there was a cool new sci-fi film called Galaxina supposed to be coming out... and where was it already? Well I don’t know if it ever did get a cinema release here in the UK but I certainly saw no sign of it at my local cinema and it had always been one of those “films that got away”... until I recently discovered there was a 25th Anniversary edition of the movie that got a release on DVD in the US. So now I’ve finally gotten to see one of the movies I wanted to see as a kid... and it’s a curious little timepiece I must say.

While its not quite the Star Wars bandwagon rip off I was expecting from this movie... there are certainly all the obvious elements that would point to the green light for the budget being given the go ahead in the wake of the first installment of Lucas’ seminal space opera. However, it has to be said that Galaxina is a real pot pourri of styles and inspirations, many of which are far from subtle, given the fact that this is definitely a film which is both not to be taken seriously and... to my surprise... not trying to take itself seriously. It’s definitely a comedy and, while not really that big on laughs, you can see that it’s certainly been inspired by both Ridley Scott’s ALIEN and, more obviously, John Carpenter’s Dark Star... that is to say, the influence of Dan O’ Bannon is perpetually on screen in this movie with some elements, such as a “feeding the alien” sequence and a dinner table “alien parasite birth”, being quite blatant in their sense of “homage”. It very much carries the atmosphere of the original Heavy Metal cartoon within its frames too... perhaps it could be said that both movies were good at catching the spirit of their time.

The story tells of a police starship crew who are ordered to take on a mission which will necessitate spending 27 extra years in suspended animation. During the time the crew sleeps, the ship’s robot, Galaxina, reprogrammes herself so that she can have sex with a particular human on the ship she has fallen in love with, Sgt. Thor, without electrocuting him (a feature built in to stop humans and robots sexually fraternising) and also teaches herself how to speak. The crew go to retrieve a revered artifact but they are not the only ones who want to take possession of it... hilarious and also, it has to be said, not so hilarious hijinks ensue.

This is played for laughs for a lot of the time but, while I personally found that a lot of the jokes just weren’t working for me, this didn’t fail as spectacularly as one might think... indeed, even with some of the less than tasteful attempts at humour on display here, the film does have a certain charm laying within its celluloid coils and when the occasional joke or witticism does strike true... it really begins to work as a movie and while it is, in many ways, quite terrible... I have to say that I quite enjoyed it and will certainly be taking another look at this one in due course.

The aforementioned and tragic Miss Stratten is, obviously, not hard to look at and plays her role more than competently. She is, it seems to me, quite underused at times but when she is sent down to a planet to retrieve the artefact in question, "the blue star", she really comes into her own... even if she does have to be rescued from a dangerous cult of Harley Davidson worshipping bikers. The tragedy of her wasted life will probably start to hit home once you see how good she was in these sequences.

Also, although the comedy and wit is, as I said, a bit hit and miss... there’s enough of it coming at you on all sides that you sometimes fail to keep track of some of the good stuff. A “Human Restaurant” on the planet which turns out to be a restaurant serving bits of cooked humans has some great titles on the menu... fun stuff like "Knuckle Sandwich" for example.

There’s also some great little things for movie fans to watch and listen out for...

The alien planet is shown in posterised colours during the daytime, presumably to hide the lack of “alien atmosphere” when the cheap production could only afford to utilise a Western back lot set for the planet... but this doesn’t stop the director from pushing that point home when he includes a little homage to the Sergio Leone “stare” shots in a shoot out between Galaxina and her enemy.

The Batmobile from the Adam West Batman TV show is also prominently on display as a car from another planet and many of the sound effects heard in the show are cribbed straight from old episodes of Star Trek and what would have been a fairly new TV show at the time, Battlestar Galactica.

The biggest homage to movies, apart from the pre-credits title crawl lifted from Star Wars (although it was originally used in the old Universal Serial recaps of the late 30s and early 40s... and I suspect the director must have been conscious of this in light of what I’m about to write) is the use of music. These guys presumably had no budget for a soundtrack so they’ve gone with old classical music pieces, needle-dropped in for the bulk of the film. One cue in particular is Franz Liszt’s Les Preludes which is played quite prominently during key scenes of the movie and eagle-eared viewers may remember this as being the piece culled to score the opening titles and a lot of the interior music to the 1939 serial Flash Gordon Conquers The Universe. Although this is obviously the cheap option... the use of this just feels so right to invoke a science fiction movie where the emphasis is on fun as opposed to anything more cerebral... Galaxina is, it should be said, not a cerebral movie.

All the actors in this, including the aforementioned Playboy Playmate of the Year 1980, are more than competent in their performances and, if the script often creaks and jars credibility and taste, at least the performances of these lines are put across with a certain conviction and loyalty to the finished product. I’m not saying that makes the lines that much easier to take in some instances... but it does sweeten the pill just a little bit and, at the end of the day, what this movie lacks in decent scripting, it more than makes up for in the charm department.

If you like science fiction movies in a big way and want to see something which is vastly inferior to Dark Star while at the same time being a noble stab at something which is not a “complete” rip off of Star Wars... but made at a time when not being a complete rip off of Star Wars was considered a crime against the mighty spirit of the box office, then giving this film a spin certainly won’t do you any harm and you may find you start to enjoy it. Get some alcohol and a few friends in and give it a go, perhaps?

Monday, 21 November 2011

Bipedality




Bi-Fi

Bipedality Ireland 2010
Directed by Rouzbeh Rashidi
Experimental Film Group

Bipedality is yet another of director Rouzbeh Rashidi’s “slow burn” movies. And by slow burn I mean it starts working on you right away but the power of it crawls slowly up your brainstem without you at first noticing it. Although, having said that... it has to be noted that the first couple of really strong shots in this film don’t so much crawl as, well... rather they sit you up and shake you and make you pay attention.

The film starts, you see, with two quite achingly beautiful tracking shots of an industrial landscape by a river and I just wish I’d at some point have gotten to see this on a bigger venue than just the screen of my Macbook Pro. Unfortunately, these kinds of films just don’t get cinema releases. The two shots pan up and down in their constant pursuit of travelling the length of the river and allowing viewers to take in certain details of the landscape... and these are accompanied by the sound of rain and thunder. These are pretty much the only moving camera shots in this whole piece.

In anybody else’s movie, this might be considered a typical opening play at an establishing shot... but this is Rashidi we’re talking about here. If you’ve seen any of his movies before (or even read my reviews) then you’ll know he’s just not going to be that interested in leaving it at that and, sure enough, he soon cuts to a shot of another landscape but the effect is jarring because it’s a) static and b) got a completely different soundtrack to the previous two shots... basically an audio representation of bird song and tranquility. Thus both the audio and the visual form, from moving to static, has a jarring effect on the viewer.

After a while we cut to the two main and, but for a few shots near the end, only characters in the movie. A man and a woman at, presumably, the start of a relationship (although they don’t know it yet) talking at length on a bench (and I suspect a lot of this was done without any script) about a five year old child who has gone missing since an incident involving a fire and their perceptions of a mother who has become desperate to find this child (naturally). This conversation, like all of the rest of the sequences in this film, is punctuated by intercut shots of different landscapes using different filters and treatments while the sound of the conversation continues on.

It seems to me that, from this first conversation onwards, the film then follows pretty much a pattern of a reflection of itself in terms of structure... the only thing really missing is two tracking shots to close out the picture. I’ll explain this a little more in a while but it’s interesting that the syntax I’ve used to describe the echoing scene structure is “reflection” because, it seems to me, Rouzbeh Rashidi’s film-making is all about inhabiting a “cinema of reflection”. I’ve noticed this before in his films but the words that are coming out of the characters mouths... even the way they interact with each other (with or without verbal stimuli), always confounds a conclusive comprehension of the scene because, like in real life perhaps, you are constantly aware that what is not being said by the characters is much more important than what’s actually coming out of their mouths.

Everyone always seems to be looking internally for some kind of universal truth which will help to get them through their day... or at least make them clearly understood. It’s like the characters are constantly exploring their inner dialogue trying to nail something which can’t quite be nailed. Now, you could say thay this is an expected outcome of the process of the acting if, as I believe, a lot of Rashidi’s films are improvised in terms of the craft. However, I personally believe the auteur is at work from the director in this matter because, this quality may well be exactly what Rashidi is looking for and why he so favours the form of improvisation over standard scripting techniques. I suspect he gives limitations and topics as opposed to handing out pages and pages of dialogue to his actors.

It always feels like his characters are looking for some sense of closure from the situation they’re in and Rashidi rarely shows these situations or catalysts in his work, just the “reflection” on these incidents. Frankly though, if these two particular characters are looking for some kind of relevance and closure from each other or by looking within themselves... well, they’re pretty much buggered if they’re in a Rashidi movie. Although, to be fair, in this movie there may well be a certain closure of a kind (if you don’t think about it too much)... but there’s not a whole lot of closure for the audience on this directors films, or at least that’s how it seems to me.

There’s a sense of trying out different visual techniques in this movie too. One brave shot has the two characters carrying out their conversation as a reflection of themselves in a moving body of water which is in front of them, even though there's been no visual indication in any of the previous shots that they are in front of said water.

After 25 minutes, the scene changes to an interior shot of a kitchen where the same guy and gal have obviously moved on in their relationship with each other. They are obviously living together but are having a bad time as their relationship has ground to a halt by the attitude of the woman to the object of her self reflection and inner life. It's uncomfortable to watch the couple bat around the death of their relationship, even as the discussion is both beautifully framed and again, like the earlier conversation, is punctuated by insert shots of beautiful scenery. And a lot of this scene is juxtaposed with the sounds of rain and thunder to enhance the tension beneath the words.

I wonder if Rashidi chooses the moments in a scene to cut away to an insert shot with a specific design or whether the positioning within the flow of the film is based on masking certain parts of the scenes “out” which Rashidi is less happy with. Again, there are some really great contrasts of texture and in one notable cut away, density is created with a shot of a forest which brings the simplicity of the textures and composition of the actual kitchen setting back into sharp relief on the return to the master shot.

After 15 minutes or so of this we cut to the guy having a shower... the woman watches him, although he is unaware of this. She seems underwhelmed. The two regroup on a sofa for another round of non-communication... this time, silent non-communication.

This goes into a minute or so of black before we cut back to the characters again as they have moved in a little more in time and are once again sitting on a bench and talking... athough it's not the same location as the earlier sequence. The woman seems less interested in being distant... but she's making no sense and a lot of this stuff reminds me of a past relationship I once had. Sometimes it's hard to unravel the truth of a matter if one of you is becoming slightly unhinged. It's actually a little frightening how the non-sequitur of the woman's dialogue, with her talk of knowing where the child mentioned in that first conversation disappeared to, can be used to indicate the fragility of us all... and reveal the truth that we are all, deep down, strangers to each other.

The missing child is, of course, a standard Rashidi set up to non-disclosure... although there is, surprisingly, a certain small sense of tension-release to this film at a non-verbal level... as the couple kiss passionately at the end. All this serves to increase awareness that the words of the characters are mostly irrelevant... as if Rashidi uses dialogue as mere window dressing to the more important aspects of dramatic tone and visual contrast in his work.

I said earlier that there was a certain reflecting quality to the scene structure and now I’ve got this far in the review I can reveal that it seems to go something like this...

TYPE A: Conversation in external location.

TYPE B: Conversation in internal location.

TYPE C: Shower scene (bodies of water and the sound of them seem to be a running theme for this movie).

TYPE B: Conversation in internal location.

TYPE A: Conversation in external location.

Now I don’t, for certain, know if the director planned this structure to push the “dual” element implied by a title like Bipedality (or just made this visually implicit by limiting the majority of the shots to a cast of two) but I’d like to think that there was a certain plan to structuring this movie like this. Perhaps to just pull the rug out and disorient the audience a little more by confounding the predictability of ending on a set of tracking shots (as I was expecting the film to end with while I was figuring out the scene sequence while watching).

But this is what Rashidi does. He doesn’t make films to pander to the narrative expectancy of an audience. He makes films which will challenge (to a certain degree) and certainly inspire an audience to look beyond their expected world view as it applies to watching movies. No answers are given and no answers are necessarily conceived... just a set of cinematic rocks to rub together to produce a certain friction of thought. The film Kill List, which had a mainstream cinema release earlier this year, does much the same thing but in a slightly more commercially acceptable manner.

I think what I’m trying to say here is that, as usual with a Rashidi movie, you get back what you put into it. Your place as a member of the audience is not to question why or fathom the problems and concerns of the character... it is to look at the characters and see them in both the simplicity and complexity of life and to draw your own sense of meaning (or lack thereof) from the visual and aural collisions on screen. And if you are willing to allow yourself to experience these kinds of films in these kinds of ways... then your rewards from viewing these kinds of movies will come to you and bring the kind of mental enrichment you require, without the necessity for clarification or meaning or, in this case, a sense of a mystery solved.

Lay down your tools and receive.

Sunday, 20 November 2011

Anna, Quel Particolare Piacere



Feneching Touches

Anna, Quel Particolare Piacere
(aka Anna, The Pleasure, The Torment
aka Secrets Of A Call Girl)
Italy 1973
Directed by Giuliano Carnimeo
MYA Communications Region 0

Right then. I’m kinda glad I took the time to watch this movie but I found it quite a troublesome viewing. Also, expect this to be a very short review because it left me a little underwhelmed and I was a lot more dissapointed with this movie than I thought possible.

Now then... there are two very good reasons why I wanted to watch this film, even though Italian crime movies aren’t really my scene (having said that, of course, I watched a couple of really great ones earlier in the year so maybe I’ll explore this genre properly at a later date).

My first and main reason was because an Italian soundtrack expert I know, who sells me and also helps produce some of the Italian score CDs he sells, told me that this score, by Luciano Michelini (who also did the score for Island Of The Fish Men as well as the theme music for a TV show a friend watches called Curb Your Enthusiasm), was probably the best score he’d ever been involved in on CD. I bought that limited edition score from him on the strength of that recomendation and, while I wouldn’t agree that it was in any way an outstanding score when compared to a lot of the Italian movie scores I’ve listened to and cherished over the years, it’s certainly got some good stuff going for it and is in much the same vein as a typical Stelvio Cipriani score for this genre would be.... and so I did want to see the film at some point to better understand the music in the context of its placement with the original imagery.

Secondly, the movie stars Edwige Fenech as the titular(!) Anna and, frankly, she’s my favourite of the “giallo” girls I have loved seeing on screen. I even have a mug with her on it in scenes from The Case of The Bloody Iris (aka What Are Those Strange Drops Of Blood Doing On Jennifer’s Body?) which was also directed by the director of this film) to drink my tea out of. I’ll pretty much watch her in anything and so, there was no way I could really go that wrong when I finally got around to tracking down a copy of this movie and buying it.

However, it has to be said that the film does not have a lot going for it in my opinion. True, the acting is great in this story of a girl who falls for a “bad apple” who beats her up and pimps her out for his mafia connections... at least, that is to say, it’s good for the standards of this particular genre and Edwige is always a convincing actress who throws herself into her roles.

True, also, there’s some lovely shots and edits and fairly inventive camera work which is typical of the “Italian movie scene” of the time and which helps to elevate this movie visually with some expert moving camera work to draw you in and some great set design with vertical slashes of blue and red boldly placed in the centre of some of the frames which is quite astonishing and brave in some sequences.

However, the story and characters were so worrying to me that I wasn’t able to pull myself out of the picture significantly enough to concentrate on the mise-en-scene... even when Fenech was walking around nude, as she did a fair amount in her movies. The sexist and misogynistic attitude of her mafia boyfriend was such that I really had a hard time watching Fenech get shouted at, forced to do stuff against her will and constantly slapped around the face. While there are certainly interesting elements to the film, such as the way the time displaces itself between scenes by jumping six or so years at a time or the unbelievably Dr. Kildare-to-the-rescue-but-not-quite bleakness of the ending with her young child and John Richardson (from such movies as Black Sunday, She, One Million Years BC and The Vengeance Of She), the sheer brutality of the role is really not my cup of tea and, despite its noteworthy soundtrack, I don’t think I’d find myself watching it again to be honest.

So there you go. A film which was not to my taste and which I can’t in all conscience recommend to people, even though I know a fair few people have said some good things about it. Not my cup of tea I’m afraid... even when I’m drinking it from my Edwige Fenech mug!

Saturday, 19 November 2011

Mission Statement/Coming Soon



Missionary Position

“Restate my assumptions”
Maximillian Cohen, Darren Aronofsky’s PI.

I think I need to make a slight adjustment to my own, and possibly other people’s, expectations about this blog review thing I’ve got going on here. But, just to make it a little more fun (hopefully), this’ll also take the form of a “coming soon” kinda thing for future entries on these pages... as much as it will an apology of sorts.

My faith in film blogging has been shaken a little recently. That is to say, my selection process as to whether I write about a movie has had to undergo a very minimal rethink... here’s what happened...

On Halloween weekend I, and a few friends, went to a special screening at my local “art complex” although, to be fair, complex is a bit overblown for the kind of building it is. Anyway, we were there for a double bill screening of Universal’s 1931 film Frankenstein and their 1935 sequel Bride Of Frankenstein. It was also meant to, not just celebrate the spirit of Halloween, but also to honour the memory of a famous local celebrity of days gone by who used to attend my school, namely... Boris Karloff.

All was well until the first film screened... they’d squashed (or stretched, depending on your point of view) the original 4:3 aspect ratio of the movies into a 1.85:1 aspect ratio to fit the size of their screen (this film was made before the traditional widescreen process as we know it today had been invented, don’t forget). This resulted in a load of fat, bloated actors looking like they were walking around the set of a crazy fun house... ushered in, not by the traditional Universal globe but by a Universal rugby ball... or so it seemed from its shape.

Now I went out to complain about the films being improperly framed but was fobbed off and told, in more or less these words, that they had decided to show them in an aspect ratio distorted to fill their screen... rather than actually show the film properly. Nothing was changed and people were forced to watch this painful mockery or leave.

Now I sent a lengthy letter of complaint to a couple of my local newspapers and was happy to see that they’d both published my angry and, it must be said, sizeable rant against the “cinema-nazis” and their “crimes against filmanity”. Hopefully the people responsible will take heed of some of the points I raised in my letter.

However, this left me with a dilemma because I wanted to review the two films for this blog... but hadn’t actually seen them (this time around) in their best light. Now I’ve seen both films a fair number of times (at least into double figures) and I could probably write a fairly accurate and honest appraisal of both these films in my sleep without even bothering to watch them again I suspect (and please, no comments about the blogs coming out more comprehensible if I stuck to writing them in my sleep :-7 ) but the point was... should I?

I thought about my original intentions with this blog and how I wanted to ensure that every film and TV show I watched would be reviewed here (along with the majority of the books I was reading and a smattering of music reviews when I felt brave enough) but I then thought, rather than write about these films right now... I would save these two for a future year (maybe next year, maybe the one after) and watch them again properly... but this time in context as an occasional running series on all the classic Universal Horror movies of the 30s, 40s and 50s in chronological order of their release... so readers new to the material could get a sense of the progression (or possibly digression and regression, depending on whether you love these movies as much as me or not) and context with the series of films. So that’s what I’m going to do...

So there you have it... my apologies for not reviewing two films I’ve seen recently... but they will go back on the list and be done properly, rather than write a review based on the hideous screening I saw at the end of last month.

Actually, series’ of reviews are something I want to get into more in the coming months/years so, here’s a little preview of some of the things I hope to achieve on the blog sooner or later...

For one thing I want to continue to watch and promote small independent films which have no or little mainstream commercial appeal... they’re definitely not in it for the money... they’re in it purely for the art (for once). So films by writer/directors like Rouzbeh Rashidi and actor/writer/directors like @eJamesDevereaux are something I’m going to continue to promote here on my blog... and hopefully Leilani Holmes will make some more of her excellent movies and I’ll be able to watch and review them here. In fact, I’m hoping to get an interview with Devereaux on my blog sometime in the very near future and also, if she’ll still consent, an interview with gothic horror photographer and jewellery designer Amanda Norman at some point either late this year or, more likely, sometime in the New Year.

I’d also, as I said, like to get into some reviews which review a large body of work over a period of time... so in addition to the aforementioned Universal Horror classics... I’d like to do something like a serialised review for the complete feature films of Akira Kurosawa, another series on Andrei Tarkovsky (including The Killers and The Steamroller & The Violin) and another on a man who I personally believe to be the greatest “living” writer/director, Mr. Hal Hartley .

And don’t worry... I’ve still got the cinematic trash and exploitation covered... gialli, b-movies, blaxploitation, westerns, sci-fi shockers... it’s all in a pile on the floor waiting to be watched. So don’t be surprised if you find... along with all the reviews of what I’m seeing currently at the cinema... and alongside of the Bergmans and the Kieslowski’s... stuff like Invasion Of The Crab Monsters, Galaxina, Blood Sabbath (on the recommendation of Hypnogoria... so blame him) and Four Flies On Grey Velvet (of which I seem to have now acquired four different prints of... not bad for a film which has only had a commercial DVD release in the last few years).

So there you have it... I’m going to keep on blogging with some interesting titles to review to suit, hopefully, lots of different tastes (I’m nothing if not eclectically post-modern)... so as long as you brilliant readers continue to pop by every now and again and check out the odd review or two (and some will no doubt be odder than others)... I’ll keep churning them out for your entertainment and, perhaps once in a while, enlightenment.

Thanks for reading... a new review coming soon!