 Introduced the modern running zombie Director: Zack Snyder Writer: James Gunn; based on Dawn of the Dead by George A. Romero Cinematographer: Matthew F. Leonetti Producer: Richard P. Rubinstein, Marc Abraham, and Eric Newman by Jon Cvack The film starts back up after the accident. Ana exits and meets police officer Kenneth Hall (Ving Rhames) who leads her through a bike tunnel before they bump into another armed trio - a middle-aged television salesman Michael (Jake Weber), an armed gangster Andre (or so it’s suggested; Mekhi Phifer) and his pregnant Russian wife Luda (Inna Korobkina). Hall wants to go to find his brother at Fort Pastor; but the others warn against it, as all the other towns have been overrun. Instead they’re heading to the mall. Inside they’re greeted by a trio of security guards - Terry (Kevin Zegers) and another character/actor I cannot seem to find (even after going through the extensive list on Wikipedia), led by C.J. (Michael Kelly) who refuse to let in any more members in their faction; taking them as captives and imprisoning them in one of the department stores. Terry begins to doubt the strategy. Michael Kelly plays the perfect smart asshole (not to be confused with a smart ass) who goes through a wonderful arc; from complete slime to a reliable friend who sacrifices himself for the others. It’d be so easy for the role to have been generic and amoral, but rather Kelly creates a complex character, managing his fear the best he can; as though an aspiring cop who might either be on the verge of the police academy, or had one too many screws loose when testing to get in. Soon, after seeing a van with people in need. C.J. refuse to accept them until Ana and the others retrieve the guns and rush to help the others. Another caravan enters, including an actual smartass and rich shob Steve Marcus (Ty Burrell ), his hot and soon to be mistress Monica (Kim Poirier), a closeted gay man Glen (R. D. Reid), and a sick older woman Norma (Jayne Eastwood), along with a bitten father and his daughter who provide the film’s first somewhat interesting moral dilemma - being only 99% sure of a bitten person turning into a zombie, should they kill them? They imprison the security guards back in their office and soon take over the mall; providing the fantasy I’m sure most everyone imagines would be the greatest part - able to take and use whatever you want, with enough space to live the hedonistic life you desire. The mall provides an accessible metaphor to any discussion. Even as a teenager, I recall discussing the generic idea with friends. People are drawn to the mall by their instincts, driven by their hunger to consume, and the zombies, driven by an insatiable hunger for flesh, knows it’s exactly where to find them. It’s a bizarre symbol - as it operates as both a grand comment and a logical action; both for the people to go and for the zombies to arrive. Yet even if there were decades worth of food and water, or even sex, I was left wondering how long it’d be until boredom kicked in; when characters like C.J., Glen, and Hall will never get to have anyone. How long would they stay put before wanting to see what else was out in the world that could provide them meaning? Parallel to the story, though told through an obtuse plot, Frank and Luda live quietly in a back room of one of the department stores. Luda has become increasingly sick and all the closer to delivering her child. By labor, Luda has fully transformed into a zombie as Frank has constrained her in the hopes of delivering the baby. He succeeds, though unfortunately it’s a zombie infant, and when the caravan’s truck driver discovers the site, she shoots Luda dead, causing Frank to open up. The two kill each other, leaving the baby to be discovered and killed by the others. During the infanticide, the power goes out, leaving C.J., Michael, and the actor I can’t seem to find to head into a parking garage to reset the generator. They discover a friendly and healthy dog before a platoon of zombies chase them down, which they soon burn alive. Hammond’s one close buddy is a fellow marine Andy across the street. The two communicate via binoculars and a whiteboard. When Andy says he’s running low on food, they decide to send the dog over with some food; though the dog’s closest - and obsessive - owner is the daughter who lost her father, who doesn’t want him to die. Nevertheless, they send the dog over and the girl takes the caravan truck to chase him down; an action that is the film’s greatest weakness, as aside from the cool sequence to rescue the girl, I just couldn’t fully buy someone so fully willing to risk their own life for a dog they’ve known for a couple weeks. It like it could have worked just as well if they went over to rescue both the dog and an unbitten Andy, who then could have fallen like the guy who’s name I can’t find does, all in the spirit of one last courageous save. Better than allowing the film to take out the character I can’t name. Either way, the tragedy claims the closeted gay man’s life as well, and the group decides that it’s better to try and take Steve’s yacht to an island somewhere in Lake Michigan. They’ll armor up a couple of mall shuttles and head to the marina in the hopes of reaching the boat and sailing off to safety. Now aside from the glaringly obvious question of how they plan to exactly feed themselves by living on a small island off Lake Michigan (I guess I’m willing to believe they might one day do supply missions back to the mainland), this is an amazingly cynical move by the film. Aside from leaving the characters to live happily ever after in the mall, ultimately it does seem like the smarter solution that has posed little risk since they arrived; if not for anything else beyond the massive S.O.S. painted on the mall’s roof, which - unless every human in the area died - seems an inevitable solution to their problem, requiring patience, if nothing else. I also think this might have been the filmmakers’ cynical intention; as their attempt to escape from the mall results is their doom, reflected in the brilliant closing credit sequence. They head out by shuttle, attempting to drive through an army of thousands of zombies, all determined to eat their flesh, and requiring C.J. to throw a propane tank bomb into the crowd to help them drive forward. It works and they cruise on, but one of the vans tips and in a matter of moments, everyone except the daughter, Terry, Steve, and Ana reach the boat; even Michael is forced to stay back, having been bitten while helping the others escape. They take off and it cuts to black, and seconds later, the film cuts into a found footage short; where someone finds Steve’s old camcorder; filming the crew as they run out of water and food, finally reaching the island, believing they're safe, until a mass of zombies comes out of the woods; killing them all an ostensibly ending any chance for a sequel. The $25 million movie earned over $100 million, and yet there was never a follow-up. Nevertheless, it was a rare definitive ending, in a series that thrives on leaving just enough room for one more. While I had my doubts for a few years, I’m swinging back to thinking this is one of the greatest remakes of all time - up there with Oceans Eleven, The Thing, coincidentally, 2018’s A Star is Born which I just saw hours before finishing this up. It’s a display of Snyder’s once reserved talent, in which he instead relied on an exciting action-horror story that could get by with minimal CGI (thank God) and great set pieces, and a grainy/sick feel that I failed to notice any the previous times watching it (I now want to blame my old roommate and I's shitty Westinghouse TV for the poor experience). I still think its Snyder’s best work, and I'm left wishing he’d come back for a Day of the Dead remake. It’s one of the 00s greatest horror films, and definitely in my top fifteen, possibly top ten, of all time. Give it a few years, and the cheeseball effects and music soon seem vintage and cool. BELOW: Full cylinder horror Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page
0 Comments
 As usual, half of a good horror film are good characters Director: Zack Snyder Writer: James Gunn; based on Dawn of the Dead by George A. Romero Cinematographer: Matthew F. Leonetti Producer: Richard P. Rubinstein, Marc Abraham, and Eric Newman by Jon Cvack The last time I watched this film was for my birthday years back in my first apartment in LA.I had long considered it the greatest remake ever made, featuring one of the greatest opening credit sequences of all time. It was one of the first films I watched on BluRay and with half a dozen people over who I thought it’d be one of the better horror screening experiences of my life. Yet it was shortly after that awful helicopter POV insert while they’re all standing on the mall’s roof that I had a feeling that this film and the curse of cheap 00s digital effects had finally exhibited the initial symptoms of millenial’s aging cinema. By midway through the movie, I stopped the film and requested that we switch over DVD, convinced that the movie looked so bad that it had impacted the experience. I was convinced that it was a bad transfer, with the BluRay costing only $8 and including the DVD as well (a rare bargain, at the time), and after a long debate of how I was wrong (which I was), being my birthday, I was able to switch out the discs. Sure enough, though likely due to confirmation bias, I recall the film playing better; with at least of the people listening to the debate agreeing (though perhaps because they felt bad for me). Admittedly, something remained wrong with the film; as it seemed to have lost the badass edge it once had upon release; which I think the proliferation of zombie content, specifically the walking dead, likely contributed to. I’m not sure what made me want to return to the movie, as I honestly haven’t even put the thing on for what has to be nearly six years since then, other than the strange desire for the familiar and fun. Like most, my favorite part of the film is the excitement it creates; to seek refuge in an abandoned mall with most things you could want, all while zombies linger outside, wanting to eat you. I can’t find more words than that; it’s a feeling that has remained since I first saw the original in high school. I struggle to think of a more exciting and fun setting for a zombie movie to take place; it’s a location appreciated and shared by all walks of life. I put in the BluRay wondering if I should even just stream it, still a bit convinced that the transfer was bad. Sure enough, as the film opens up at the hospital and we meet nurse Ana Clark (Sarah Polley) whose doctor fails to empathize that she’s an hour over shift and anxious to get home. The first thing I noticed this time around were the dominant green walls, shot with a bleached out look that is a bit jarring at first. Again, I turned off the movie and put in the DVD, hoping I was right about the transfer, and all I saw was a shittier version of the same thing, so I went back to the BluRay and let it play. Ana exits the hospital and sees a pair of legs sticking out an ambulance. I recall the first time watching, thinking it was a dead body and Snyder was getting right to it. A call comes in and we see it’s a man napping. He pops up and heads out, and what you realize the second time around is realizing that they’re likely going to a zombie attack and will soon die. She heads home and meets her husband who appears to work in construction. They live in a freshly developed middle class Milwaukee suburb. Ana is greeted by one of their kid neighbors on rollerblades who shows Ana how she can skate backwards. Ana heads inside and greets her husband; the pair exhibiting the perfect amount of chemistry without the hackneyed platitudes. She’s able to get three days off and he’s tired from work. The two make love in the shower and then pass out. The next morning, they’re greeted by who appears to the kid neighbor, working her way down the dark hallway before revealing her infected face and pouncing at the husband. Ana tries her best to save him, watching as the blood floods from his neck as she realizes there’s nothing she can do. He turns into a zombie and chases her into the bathroom and she hops out a window (leaving me wondering what married couple takes the first floor bedroom, but whatever; bit of a logic snafu). She hops into the car and in another effect that completely bombs in age, we see the town on fire, with CGI flames emanating all throughout the distance. No worries, cause it shifts and Ana speeds off, chased by a zombie, and we see her entire neighborhood under attack, then cutting to God’s eye as she speeds down a hallway, and a car t-bones another, narrowing missing her, and crashing into a gas station which explodes, causing Ana to spin off and crash into a ditch. So begins the greatest opening credits of all time as Johnny Cash’s “The Man Comes Around” plays over a series of images of civilization falling into chaos, and while some of the images have become stale to the genre, it embodies the film’s spirit; pumping us up for what’s to come; serving as a type of overture. If a few of the clips were replaced, it could remain just as strong. Continue to Part 2... BELOW: One of the best credit intros of all time Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  It's cheap as hell, but one of Vincent Price's better horror flicks Director: William Castle Writer: William Castle Cinematographer: Wilfred M. Cline Producer: William Castle by Jon Cvack The Tingler opens up with a Hitchcockian-introduction from William Castle, warning everyone about the strange sensations they might feel while watching. Vincent Price stars as Dr. Warren Chapin while conducting autopsies on recently executed prisoners of the state who died by fear, he discovers the event was caused by a parasite that attaches itself to the victim’s spine. As the parasite feeds on the spine it forces the victim to writhe in pain before dying while the the tingling parasite then escapes - making it look like the individual had died from fear alone. Movie theater owners Oliver and Martha Higgins (Judith Evelyn ; Philip Coolidge) operate down the street from Dr. Chapin’s office. Oliver visits Chapin in order to get some help for his deaf and mute wife, who seems to be getting more fearful by the day. Not sure what to do, Oliver leaves, with Martha dying days later, to which Oliver offers Chapin the opportunity to complete the autopsy. Chapin finds The Tingler which has grown to the side of a Dachshund hound. He puts the creature into a cage and heads to Oliver’s where learned the man utilized his wife’s inability to speak to frighten her to death. The Tingler then escapes, making its way to the movie theater where we get the best taste of William Castle’s genius. As the creature makes it way through the crowd, the entire movie cuts to black, with Vincent Price’s voice coming on, telling everyone to remain calm. You can’t help but smile, wondering what it might have been like to have been in the theater back 1959 when the trick was played. While not necessarily as close as some of Hitchcock’s marketing tricks, it comes pretty close, especially for a creature that wants to attack those who fear the most, creating a strange hyperloop of what I imagine were some trying to contain their fears while scared out of their mind that the creature was going to crawl up their leg. The film continues on, eventually securing some justice in Martha’s tragic death, and while it doesn’t make complete sense, it’s a fun enough film to ignore all the illogic and appreciate the story for what it is. BELOW: Cheesy and delicious hi-def goodness Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Would go on to influence Tim Burton's Batman Director: William Castle Writer: Ray Russell Producer: William Castle Cinematographer: Burnett Guffey by Jon Cvack Taking place in the 1800s, Mr. Sardonicus follows London Physician Sir Robert Cargrave (Ronald Lewis) who visits Baron Sardonicus (Guy Rolfe) who lives in a castle far in the middle of nowhere at the urging of his ex-girlfriend who believes that Sardonicus is veering toward unethical medical practices. At the castle, we meet the film’s greatest performer and arguably the greatest scary movie henchman of all time Krull (Oskar Homolka), whose eye is sealed shut by an nauseating flap of skip that connects his top and bottom lids. Looking up his bio, Homolka never did much more than B and C-level movies, though beyond the screen he was a renowned Shakespearean actor in German theater. The film is worth watching for this performance alone. Oskar is creepy and unnerving while conveying a tremendous amount of foreboding death as he struggles with his master’s terrifying surgeries. Arriving at the castle, Cargrave discovers Krull torturing one the servant girls by sticking leeches in her face, which look real enough to give you goosebumps. Cargrave goes on to meet Sardonicus, who he discovers has a terrifying and permanent grin strewn across his face. Sardonicus explains how he developed the deformity, in which having grown up little with his parents both working long and hard hours, his dad had one day bought a lottery ticket and won, then had a heart attack and dying, accidentally buried with the winning ticket. Sardonicus’ wife urged him to open the casket in order to retrieve the ticket. Sardonicus eventually acquiesced, digging up his father’s grave, opening the casket, and discovering his father’s grinning skull, forcing the same grin onto Sardonicus’ face forever since. Sardonicus has thus been on a mission to cure his deformity, experimenting on his servants - including with leeches - to try and fix the problem. Unable to discover any solutions, Sardonicus has called on Cargrave and his expertise to fix the problem. Cargrave tries and fails, which drives Sardonicus mad. From there the film involves a brilliant play by both Cargrave and Krull as they learn that perhaps Sardonicus’ ailment is much more in his mind than anything physical; that in a quest for money, even if disrupting his father’s grave, Sardonicus might have responded to the terror of seeing his father’s skull with such a large smile on his face due to his own appetite for the money and power, knowing that what made his father smile was the potential immediate transformation of life, no different than Sardonicus’. To think that he might have lived a normal, though poor life if he disregarded the idea is something that’s stuck with me for days after. The makeup is so good and the performances so strong and the story so bizarre that the film is far above any B-Movie designation I think it’d receive. Aside from Psycho (1960) in the year prior, I can’t find many films better than Mr. Sardonicus within a five year or so period that stand up. It’s the exact type of film you hope for when picturing an old black and white horror film taking place in a castle. The images stick with you long after. A testament to how strong of a horror film it is. BELOW: Heck of an intro Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Tom Poston - a charming everyman who never got much play Director: William Castle Writer: William Castle; remake of The Old Dark House (1932; James Whale); based on Benighted (1927 novel) by J. B. Priestley Cinematographer: Arthur Grant Producer: William Castle and Anthony Hinds by Jon Cvack I don’t know much about Roger Corman or William Castle, but it seems to be that William Castle is the Dante’s Peak to Corman’s Volcano, or the poor man’s Hitchcock. I’ve been meaning to check out a few of his films, but - as I discussed in The Masque of Red Death (1964) and The Man They Couldn’t Hang (1939) - given how bland some of the Corman films were from the period, I had put off dumping them into my queue, and while I’m a bit disappointed I took so long, I also think the delay might have worked out, as a recent interest in older films over the last few years has allowed me to appreciate even the campiest of films and the ways they often tried to push the boundaries during the Code Era. The Old Dark House - a remake of the 1932 film with Boris Karloff - stars Tom Poston, who aside from Christmas with the Kranks (2004) and the fifth Beethoven movie (2003), hasn’t been in all that much and yet possesses such an everyman charm to him, veering between car salesman Tom Penderel in this film to Linguistic Professor Jonathan Jones in another William Castle horror collaboration Zotz! (1962). With an aloof look and endearing innocence, Poston has that rare ability to make you feel like he could be your neighbor or colleague, leaving me surprised and finding it a bit tragic that he didn’t find much success. Penderel has recently sold a Rolls Royce to his friend Casper Jemm (Peter Bull) who’s instructed Tom to drop the car off at his creepy mansion. However, upon arriving at the mansion, he discovers Casper dead and meets his strange and eccentric family, including his twin brother Jasper. When a terrible rainstorm rolls in, the family offers Tom a room for the night and so begins a bizarre murder-comedy story, which while far being perfect, is a bunch of fun. We learn that each of the relatives is required to remain in the mansion each and every night, as per the terms of an ancestor’s will, anyone who refuses to honor this requirement forfeits their shares. As a result many of the siblings have lived there for years. Yet with Casper’s recent passing, the night brings a killer to the house, claiming a victim per hour through exciting and bizarre murders, before resulting in a classic bomb-defusal scene, which while completely out of left field, works with the comedic undertones. It’s not a perfect film, but for going in expecting a dull and uninspired story, I was pleasantly surprised. BELOW: A short doc on William Castle Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Short, sweet, and eerie Counter to The Masque of Red Death I knew that this film was written by Edgar Allen Poe. And while the photography was the same bland crap found in that film, the story was easy enough to follow to avoid explaining small details in a boring way. It involves a wealthy man, Guy Carrell (Ray Milland), who has an overwhelming fear of being buried alive; what is called vivisepulture when I was seeing if there was a word for it. Guy also has a cataleptic disorder in which, like his father, he can faint and appear dead, even though he’s not. He often recalls his father’s funeral where he swore to have heard his father screaming from his tomb, who allegedly died for other reasons. After his wedding day, Guy faints while listening to his wife play the piano, growing even more paranoid about being buried alive, leading him on an obsessive mission to construct a foolproof chamber vault that provides him all chance of escape, including a collapsible coffin, ladder through the chimney, and even with a poisonous elixir, if all else fails. The end is so great that it’s best to stop and avoid risking spoilers, as even early M. Knight Shyamalan would be proud. It all pieces together into a great classic tale of terror - providing the rare occasion of a film meeting the exact definition of that general phrase and explaining why the double feature was rated so high. It provided everything you’d want from a Poe story, even matching well with the photography’s limitations. There’s nothing more to say beyond the experience of watching it. It’s a perfect film for any small Halloween party that’s serving cocktails. BELOW: An early Boris Karloff adaptation Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  As usual with Corman films - the synopsis is far more enticing than the experience Director: Roger Corman Writer: Charles Beaumont and R. Wright Campbell; based on The Masque of the Red Death and "Hop-Frog" by Edgar Allan Poe Producer: Roger Corman and George Willoughby Cinematography: Nicolas Roeg by Jon Cvack The Birds (1963) and a few other films aside, I’m not sure what it is about color horror films from the early to mid-60s that makes them look so boring. Nearly every single time I return to these Vincent Price B-horror films I’m disappointed, hoping for so much more, often with premises that could have made for great material, and yet always possess that flat, bland lighting while it’s black and white peers pushed its style to the limits of creating the atmosphere necessary for any good horror film. I’m fairly certain that color film was more expensive and required more light to shoot in, and with such fast production schedules, there simply wasn’t enough time to light the scenes well. The Masque of the Red Death starts out strong, shot out in the fields surrounding a castle that sits far in the matted distance, with the trees stripped of leaves and a low hanging fog all around. An old woman meets a hooded figure dressed in red from head to toe who gives a woman a white rose which then drips with blood. We then meet Prince Prospero (Vincent Price) who arrives at a village with his guards, discovering the old woman actually has the plague and orderingg the village burned to the ground to avoid its spread, sparing the one attractive girl Francesca (Jane Asher) who he brings back to the castle. There he entertains his cronies with lavish parties and expensive meals, with all the sex and alcohol they could ask for, all while trying to seduce Francesca who later learns Prospero and his friends are Satanists and so begins a strange series of events that I’ll leave you to read the extensive Wikipedia synopsis to discover all of the bizarre story details. Essentially, the Satanists are participating in endless amounts of debauchery while thousands die outside the castle doors, all while this Red Hooded figure is getting closer, before finally getting inside the castle, approaching Prospero, declaring, “Each man creates his own God for himself - His own Heaven, his own Hell”, removing his mask and - SPOILER - revealing himself to be Prospero himself; that is, Prospero is in his own hell, having sold his soul to Satan for a brief life of hedonism that cycles on repeat. The synopsis reads like an incredible story and makes Edgar Allan Poe’s source material that much more clear. Unfortunately, the film someway/somehow buries these exciting ideas. It’s not so much that I didn’t follow them as that I was so bored with how the story looked that I couldn’t pay attention or connect the pieces all that well. Not knowing it was an Poe short story, I thought it involved a shitty Satanist Vincent Prince who eventually faces his sword, with one really cool and terrifying scene of a furry man in a gorilla suit burning alive. The issue is the complete lack of feeling in each and every scene, as though I was watching each person acting rather than experiencing what they feel; either through performance or the design. Reading a more concise breakdown, I see a story about a man driven by greed and lust while thousands of his sick and poor countrymen die outside. Beyond his lust for Francesca, the film never seems to explore what drives Prospero, or the type of pleasure he receives from living out his every desire. BELOW: A far better - and shorter - adaptation Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  If only Burton kept rolling with a non-CGI style Director: Tim Burton Writer: John August; story by Tim Burton; based on Frankenweenie by Tim Burton and Lenny Ripps Cinematographer: Peter Sorg Producer: Tim Burton and Allison Abbate by Jon Cvack There are three facts that make Frankenweenie a fascinating film. First being that the film’s based on one of Tim Burton’s earliest shorts (linked below) which is a black and white film about a boy and his dog who gets hit by a car. The boy reanimates the dog and so follows a story largely inspired by the first two Frankenstein movies. The second bit is that this entire film is in black and white to begin with; a super bold move from Disney which must have cost this studios tens of millions of dollars in revenue per the strange disdain people have for monochromatic films. The third is that the entire film was created entirely with puppets - a description that completely fails to capture what these designers achieved. I advise watching the supplement on the disc before seeing the film (it contains zero spoilers). The puppets required such detailed mechanics that production eventually had to call in Swiss watchmakers to design tiny nuts and bolts. Even so, the scale of the set was one of the largest ever created, with the houses and school standing nearly as tall as a person. Each puppet had a near endless array of facial pieces, providing any expression imaginable, down to a myriad of eyebrows to make an eyeball blink. We open up on tweenager and filmmaker Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) who lives with his parents Edward (Martin Short) and Susan (Catherine O'Hara) and whose best friend is a dog named Sparky. Victor is an outcast with few friends that he avoids hanging out, uninterested in the sports pushed by his father and instead obsessed with making tiny short films. At school, his Vincent Price-inspired teacher Mr. Rzykruski's (Martin Landau) demonstrates the way electricity could be used to reanimate the dead, later announcing a science fair and subsequently creating a fierce competition amongst Victor and his friends. The contest even attracts the attention of the Igor of the film, named Edgar (Atticus Shaffer). While playing in a baseball game he couldn’t care any less about, Victor hits a homer which causes Sparky to run out and get the ball, getting hit by a car. Victor decides to use Mr. Rzykruski’s lesson to reanimate his dog on a rainy night, with a laboratory comprised of items found all around the house, providing one of the most extraordinary scenes from the film- as with any Frankenstein movie - made all the more impressive when considering the amount of time it would have taken to pull it off. Edgar then learns of Victor’s accomplishment, blackmailing him to teach the method. However, knowing that there was no way that Sparky would wreak the havoc of the original Frankenstein, the story then turns to Edgar telling their science fair competitors Bob (Robert Capron) and Toshiaki (James Hiroyuki Liao) about the method, who then reanimate a range of dead lab creatures, including a rat, bat, mummified hamster, and sea monkeys; thus shifting the structurer from Frankenstein to a Universal Horror throwback, most comparable to House of Frankenstein (1944; which I watched a couple weeks later). So begins a thrilling final act as the Victor and Sparky are left to battle a fascinating series of terrifying Burton-esque monsters. The Bluray makes the craftsmanship pop off the screen, with the story just creepy and interesting enough to make you forget that you were watching what must have taken tens of thousands of hours to complete. If this movie was in color I think it might have taken a solid position in the pantheon of popular horror films; especially if it honored the color scheme and style of Edward Scissorhands (1990). While I can defend the black and white for how well it captures the essence of the original series, I assume mass audiences aren’t racing to put this film at the top of their lists when there’re so many other comparable films in color. To think that Burton was able to pull it off - and through Disney, nonetheless - goes to show his power; highlighting how incredible it once was that a director like Burton had enough leverage to make this type of film. BELOW: Burton's original short Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Started out as a hero, soon became a sociopath Director: Alex Gibney Writer: Alex Gibney Cinematographer: Maryse Alberti Producer: Alex Gibney, Marc Shmuger, and Alexis Bloom by Jon Cvack It was interesting to watch this documentary as the Trump Saga unravels and we further discover Wikileak’s role in hacking both the DNC and John Podesta’s emails. For a long while Julian Assange was a darling of the left and libertarian crowds, standing up to Big Business and Big Government, either individually, or the way they work together. In this case, Alex Gibney explores the release of Bradley Manning’s intel dump in which we learned of the gross abuses - arguably war crimes - by the American government throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; primarily the mass misrepresentation of civilian casualties and a disturbing video where a drone team takes out a group of terrorist suspects, celebrating their deaths which we later learn were civilians, with one man and his daughter killed who were simply trying to help the victims who were butchered without due process. Alex Gibney is one of the best documentarians working today, earning a berth next to any of the cinema’s all time greats - Agnes Varda, Werner Herzog, and Errol Morris - and like any great documentarian, is able to explore a broad spectrum, ranging from politics to music history to the Stephen Bartman/Chicago Cubs incident with Catching Hell (2011). We Steal Secrets follows the rise and close to the fall of Julian Assange. Wikileaks was founded with a group of rebellious hackers in 2008, serving as a destination for whistleblowers to dump their content anonymously. After Icelandic financial corruption and Swiss tax evasion joined the Manning dump, Julian Assange went into exile, wanted by numerous governments, eventually seeking asylum in Russia.Achieving international rock star-level recognition, he of course attracted some women, allegedly abusing their interest by demanding unprotected sex, with some saying it was based on his narcissistic and disturbing desire to spread his seed in as many countries as possible. Soon women come forward, accusing Assange of numerous forms of sexual assault, including rape. While Wikileaks initially lambasted the accusations as a character assassination by world governments, in the #MeToo movement it seems important to give the accusers the benefit of the doubt (my general rule of thumb is while due process should always be honored, when more than one woman who’re in no way connected come forward with similar accusations it makes their accusations all the more credible). In the end, a mixture of the scandal and Assange’s arrogance leads many of Wikileak’s original team to quit the organization. In the end, Assange is stuck in Russia with few friends, leaving you to wonder if perhaps his limited alternatives might have played a role in dumping the DNC and Podesta emails. To speculate, it seems possible that what began as a noble cause was derailed when hubris entered the picture. Of course, parallel to much of this story is the story of Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning and the path which led to her stealing the top secret information. Prior to Manning professing her gender fluidity, Manning expresses a profound sense of alienation to one of Wikileak’s co-founders who would eventually rat her out. What we see is typical of any teenage angst, in which an extraordinary mind combined with the military’s rigidity and lax computer security all adds to Manning carrying out the rebellious act. In the end, Obama would pardon her 35 year sentence, and - as of writing this - she’s running for Senate in Maryland (and failing to win). It’s rare to see a documentary in which its content progresses and evolves long after its release, in which the ideas explored lead to consequences years later. I’m not sure it could use a sequel, but as a historical document - capturing a moment that would lead to extraordinary events later on - this one of the most prescient documentaries I’ve ever seen. BELOW: Great interview with Alex Gibney Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  One day I'll learn where they found this guy Director: Ruben Östlund Writer: Ruben Östlund Cinematographer: Fredrik Wenzel Producer: Erik Hemmendorff and Philippe Bober by Jon Cvack I nearly missed The Square in theater, only brought back to a local chain when the Oscars noms were announced and it returned for a week prior to the big show. I had loved Force Majeure (2014), best described by my buddy as Michael Haneke 2.0. The best art is that which is difficult to put into words and it was both Force Majeure and The Square that I struggle with the exact issue; from a macro perspective, both films seem so easy to categorize. One’s about an avalanche at a ski resort that traps everyone inside and a family struggles with the situation. The Square takes place at a contemporary art museum, and while I was nervous it’d offer a simple satire of the destination, instead discovered a profound insight into the nature of art while keeping each character grounded in reality rather than serving as caricatures. The Square involves an art curator at the contemporary X-Royal art museum named Christian (Claes Bang) who wakes up hungover in his office, about to be interviewed for a new exhibition by the American journalist Anne (Elisabeth Moss). After, Christian is walking the city streets when a frantic woman sprints up to him and a neighboring stranger, begging for help; in which a crazed boyfriend then comes running up to the men screaming, looking like he’s about to attack when he slows down and the girl thanks them and moments later Christian realizes that his wallet, phone, and watch have all been taken. The frantic act was a con. Thanks to “Where’s my iPhone?’, Christian is able to track the thief, discovering they live in one of the local projects. Christian recruits a low-level assistant Michael (Christopher Læssø) to help him, who suggests that Christian print out a bunch of letters explaining how badly he needs the phone, leaving the address to mail the package, and insert the fliers into all the mail slots at each apartment of the building. So carries out one of the movie’s most hilarious scenes as the pair head to the building in Christian’s fully loaded Tesla, listening to Justice on the way, where Christian hopes for his assistant (a black man) to head inside as Christian (a white man) just doesn’t fit in with the area. The assistant refuses and immediately the buddy-buddy ruse shifts into an awkward castigation from Christian who believes his authoritative position should exempt him from having to go inside. The plan works and the next day, a package is shipped to a nearby 7/11, including Christian’s phone and wallet. However, a young adolescent boy accosts Christian, saying his parents believe he is the thief, demanding Christian apologize to his family under threat of causing “chaos” to Christian’s life. Christian ignores the warning, and soon the boy begins stalking him. Amidst all this Christian is trying to manage the opening of a new exhibition, called The Square and represented by a 5x5 foot or so square shaped exhibit displayed both inside and outside the building with the slogan, “The Square is a sanctuary of trust and caring. Within it we all share equal rights and obligations.” This is in addition to sleeping with Anne, who lives with a Chimpanzee, and might have kept a condom with Christian’s semen, later saying she was hoping for something more from their relationship and hope to get herself pregnant. When writing this out, each individual fragment might sound far from original; an awkward sexual encounter between a man and woman, both wanting different things; a man trying to deal with the absurdities of his professional environment; or the buddy scene where two friends get involved with a situation that spirals out of control. However, it’s Ruben Östlund’s ability to add an extraordinary amount of depth to each of these more straightforward moments that allow the content to fully shine. Rather than having an awkward post-coital moment, Östlund adds a chimpanzee to the scene, never having any of the characters address it; rather than allowing the buddy scene operate at such a high velocity of feel-good fun and adrenaline, he has Christian reveal his true - and potentially bigoted - identity; rather than having Anne and Christian have an awkward conversation expressing what they each hoped to get from the relationship, there’s a fascinating art exhibit behind them which takes about half of the conversation to fully understand (there’re chairs stacked at about twenty-five feet in the air, swaying, and every so often we hear them crash to the floor), allowing the conversation to become all the more absurd. Each scene has a richness of depth that only numerous repeated viewings could possibly lead to discovering all of the details. However, this is all intercut with one of the film’s best subplots in having a couple of young Gen-Z/borderline millennial digital media consultants devise a marketing plan for the new exhibit. They’re aware of how competitive the endeavor actually is, knowing that the most effective piece of marketing is for them to create a viral piece of content. However, in the middle of pitching a video idea about a young blonde child standing outside the museum who \ gets blown up by a terrorist, Christian enters into the office frantic about his phone, agreeing to the absurd idea, which soon causes an international firestorm when the macabre video showing a child getting killed does, in fact, go viral across YouTube, causing the museum to have to take immediate action; leading to a fascinating question about the role of censorship in art. In the end, you’re left wondering what The Square means - if anything. In preparation, Östlund had actually built a low budget version of the same exhibit. The slogan is so simple and ambiguous, in which I’m unsure whether it translates poorly, or that the gross simplicity is the exact point. In one exhibit - created both in pre-pro and in the movie - a patron is meant to select between two options: trusting people and not trusting people, with the former leading them to a room where they’re to leave their phones on the ground while they explore the rest of the exhibit. In the best scene of the film (arguably the best scene of the year) a man who’s able to embody the volatile and violent temperament of an ape performs during a fundraiser with some of Stockholm’s wealthiest, in which the performer goes to the extreme, transcending any form of humanity and embodying the animal’s aggressive spirit; going so far as to attack others. In the end, we learn that although the place is calling The Square a place of “trust and caring” and allowing everyone to share “equal rights and obligations” it too has its limits which contradict that premise. What happens when an artist wants to create material that’ll offend people to the point of violence? What happens if a performer so embodies his role that he’s willing to scare or even hurt others? What is the line between respectable art and trash? The easy answer is that art should avoid harming others, but then you wonder about art such as Triumph of the Will and its long term propagandizing of Nazis and Uncle Tom’s Cabin and what it did to shed light on slavery, and the vast amount of violence which resulted from both; whether justifiable or horrendous. This isn’t to make a value judgment on these pieces so much as demonstrate that even seemingly innocuous pieces can produce harmful results. As frightening as the ape-man is, it also seems like negligence in failing to understand the extent of the act, and the same goes for the video that Christian greenlit without knowing the idea’s full extent. Then again, the phrase seems facile and empty; no different than the piles of shredded paper exhibit that the patrons avoid, failing to understand the point. With such an ambiguous phrase, it becomes essentially meaningless. Then again, maybe it’s only within The Square where such an idealistic philosophy could even exist. Such subtle ambiguity is the making of any great art and The Square is hands down one of the most fascinating films of the year. BELOW: 2017's best scene Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page |
Categories
All
© Jonathan Cvack and Yellow Barrel, 2015 - 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Jon Cvack and Yellow Barrel with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
|
RSS Feed