You can listen to the show in the player below, or download or stream it HERE
Next Week: Parrk Chan-Wook's Stoker, Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters and more
Feb 25, 2013
The Picture Show: Side By Side / To the Wonder
You can listen to the show in the player below, or download or stream it HERE
Next Week: Parrk Chan-Wook's Stoker, Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters and more
Feb 24, 2013
Cinematters: Stars
I've always graded films on the 5 star scale, no halves, which is the same system used by Empire, Total Film, most newspapers and most of the other mainstream film publications in the UK, including most of the online publications, but for the last three and a half years these grades have been unpublished. There are a few reasons that I am reintroducing grades, but I'm afraid the main one is rather self-serving.
The site has been online for quite a while now, and I've been writing criticism online for over 13 years. I've got a relatively small audience, but a loyal one (thanks guys), but I'm always looking for ways to grow the site's profile, and one thing that I've seen happening for more and more friends, and benefiting their sites is that they have been getting quoted on posters, or rather their grades have. Poster quotes are a double edged sword, but they would almost certainly help the site's profile, and I recognise that the way I write - long sentences, liberal sprinklings of profanity - doesn't exactly lend itself to a snappy line on a poster. A simple star rating is much easier to excerpt, and is all but impossible to take out of context, it's something I'd be secure in getting quoted on.
This is not to say that I'm chasing quotes, or that I will be anything other than my familiar, cantankerous, hard to please self in the future. I despise people who nakedly go out to be quoted on posters for every movie they can (does ANYONE honestly believe that, say, The Daily Star's 10/10 for A Good Day To Die Hard is anything but quote chasing?) and I promise you, I'll stop writing rather than become one of them. BUT, if stars make it easier to promote a little movie I love (let's face it, blockbuster don't need me) and get a little publicity and credit for the site, that's fine.
The reason I initially dropped grades was that I felt they were reductive, and made it easy for people just to look at the grade instead of the whole review, which, given that typically a review takes an hour plus to write while a grade tends to be an almost instant gut reaction - though the writing process can sometimes alter the grade as I think over the film again - disappoints me as a writer. The argument against this is really twofold: first of all I'll only putting the star graphics at the end of the review, rather than up top as some sites do, and if you're going to scroll down anyway you may as well read the review. Secondly, I already provide a summary of each review in the last paragraph, so if you are looking to skip most of the review but still get the gist, you have always been able to. Also, to be frank, I'm secure enough as a writer now to believe that if people are coming here, and especially if they are coming back, as most seem to, they're coming to read, it's not like I'm big on pictures.
I'm sure I'll come up against all the problems of star ratings, but I have tactics for the two big ones.
1: People who comment saying things like "You gave X 5 stars but Y 4 stars, when Y was clearly better. Why? Are you a moron or something?"
There was, is now, and always will be just one answer to this READ THE REVIEW. The review is the opinion, the review is what matters, the rating is to give you a quick indication of how the film stacks up overall, measured against films broadly like it. This is 40, for instance, gets 1 star compared to The 40 Year Old Virgin (3 stars), not compared to The Red Shoes (5 stars).
2: Being split between two grades.
I don't use halves, first I think they're a cheat and second if I was going to I'd just grade out of 10 instead. Grades are wide bands, and there will always be a band of quality in any grade, but if I'm torn between two grades my rule will be this: ALWAYS ROUND DOWN. I'll never use a grade to convince myself or you that a film is 'better' than I'm sure it is. If I want to use a half I'll have a much easier time defending a lower grade than a higher one, and this will also mean that when I do use a 5 star grade (which I'm sure will be rare) you can be sure that I mean it.
Now, for the record, here are the grades.
Catastrophic: a terrible film with few or no redeeming features. To be avoided at all costs.
Poor: a film where the bad outweighs the good, but which has enough going for it to at least make it watchable, or a very bad film with one outstanding element.
Decent: Something of a mixed bag, or a solid but uninspired effort. A film that has things to recommend, but never quite scales the heights.
Very Good: A film that is absolutely worth seeing and, despite having some problems, has many outstanding features.
Outstanding: A must see, and a great piece of cinema with only very minimal flaws.
Feb 23, 2013
Mama [12A]
Dir: Andrés Muschietti
When they are prefixed with 'Directed by' I see the words 'Guillermo Del Toro' as a promise, but Mama is yet more upsetting evidence that when they are followed by 'Presents' those same words should be viewed as a threat. I know my position on The Orphanage (I didn't like it. At all.) isn't popular, but that and other by the numbers horror-lite workouts like Julia's Eyes and Don't Be Afraid of the Dark have primed me to expect disappointment when Del Toro - unquestionably one of the horror genre's modern visionaries - is not directing.
Mama, based on it's director's short of the same title begins with two young girls being abducted by their estranged Father, who has just murdered their Mother. When his car crashes he takes the girls to a cabin deep in the woods. Five years later, with their Father missing, the girls are found in the cabin and are sent to be cared for by their Uncle (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) and Aunt (Jessica Chastain). The girls are almost completely feral, but as the older one , Victoria (Megan Charpentier) re-learns how to communicate she tells her psychiatrist how they survived in the forest, because they were looked after by something they call Mama, something jealous, that seems to have followed them to their new home.
This isn't a film with one huge overarching, easy to define problem, nor is it incompetent. For the most part, logic gaps that we'll come to shortly aside, the problem with Mama is simply that it's just rather dull. I suspect that if you're either especially susceptible to jump scares, frightened by rubbery CGI, or someone who never watches horror films, it will scare you once or twice. I'm none of those things, and I was just bored for most of the running time. The film tries desperately to conjure an unnerving atmosphere, and to give you sudden jolts, but none of them work.
The jolts, for me, are particularly weak sauce. Take a moment towards the end of the film, as Jessica Chastain enters the kitchen to find another character standing there, incongruously still, facing away from the camera. You KNOW she's going to turn around once the camera is in the right place to get her face in close up, and you KNOW what you're about to see when that happens, so there's no tension about it, and no fright when it happens (actually, because of the ropey CGI, the effect is closer to comical). Compare this to the still terrifying camcorder shot in The Descent, and you'll get an idea why I stayed firmly planted in my seat during this and many other supposed jump scare moments in Mama.
One thing that Mama should really have going for it is the presence of the magnificent Jessica Chastain. To credit both her and the film, she is physically very different here, with a short black wig and painted on tattoos to show that her character is a bassist in a rock band. There are some interesting aspects to the character, especially in the way she finds herself saddled with children she doesn't want (in a hamfisted bit of foreshadowing her first scene actually has her do a fistpump and say something like 'Score' in response to a negative pregnancy test). Chastain gives it her best, but even she, surely one of the most talented and versatile actresses to emerge on the screen in the past five years, can't make this character fully rounded.
This is something of a pattern in the film, many of the performances are capable enough; Charpentier and Isabelle Nélisse as younger sister Lily are both fine, Daniel Kash's hammy psychiatrist less so, but what good work there is tends to be undone by a script and a visual style that feels extremely derivative and uninspired, when it isn't beset by illogic. For instance, Chastain and Coster-Waldau are supposedly a married couple in love, so why, when he's put into a coma at a given point in the film, does she spend no time at the hospital after the night it happens? She can always take the girls with her, indeed that would vary the film a bit, because otherwise all the ghostly happenings are confined to the house or the cabin, or if they didn't happen at the hospital it would be an ideal way to explore why not, all without making one of the film's most important relationships needlessly risible.
While Andrés Muschietti wears his visual influences on his sleeve, he does at least present some pretty pictures (when they aren't slathered in needless and rather cheap CGI), but that and couple of slightly better than deserved performances are really all that Mama has going for it. These things aside it's a dull, poorly written and very by the numbers ghost story. Jessica Chastain has far better things to be doing with her time and, quite frankly, so have you.
Mama, based on it's director's short of the same title begins with two young girls being abducted by their estranged Father, who has just murdered their Mother. When his car crashes he takes the girls to a cabin deep in the woods. Five years later, with their Father missing, the girls are found in the cabin and are sent to be cared for by their Uncle (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) and Aunt (Jessica Chastain). The girls are almost completely feral, but as the older one , Victoria (Megan Charpentier) re-learns how to communicate she tells her psychiatrist how they survived in the forest, because they were looked after by something they call Mama, something jealous, that seems to have followed them to their new home.
This isn't a film with one huge overarching, easy to define problem, nor is it incompetent. For the most part, logic gaps that we'll come to shortly aside, the problem with Mama is simply that it's just rather dull. I suspect that if you're either especially susceptible to jump scares, frightened by rubbery CGI, or someone who never watches horror films, it will scare you once or twice. I'm none of those things, and I was just bored for most of the running time. The film tries desperately to conjure an unnerving atmosphere, and to give you sudden jolts, but none of them work.
The jolts, for me, are particularly weak sauce. Take a moment towards the end of the film, as Jessica Chastain enters the kitchen to find another character standing there, incongruously still, facing away from the camera. You KNOW she's going to turn around once the camera is in the right place to get her face in close up, and you KNOW what you're about to see when that happens, so there's no tension about it, and no fright when it happens (actually, because of the ropey CGI, the effect is closer to comical). Compare this to the still terrifying camcorder shot in The Descent, and you'll get an idea why I stayed firmly planted in my seat during this and many other supposed jump scare moments in Mama.
One thing that Mama should really have going for it is the presence of the magnificent Jessica Chastain. To credit both her and the film, she is physically very different here, with a short black wig and painted on tattoos to show that her character is a bassist in a rock band. There are some interesting aspects to the character, especially in the way she finds herself saddled with children she doesn't want (in a hamfisted bit of foreshadowing her first scene actually has her do a fistpump and say something like 'Score' in response to a negative pregnancy test). Chastain gives it her best, but even she, surely one of the most talented and versatile actresses to emerge on the screen in the past five years, can't make this character fully rounded.
This is something of a pattern in the film, many of the performances are capable enough; Charpentier and Isabelle Nélisse as younger sister Lily are both fine, Daniel Kash's hammy psychiatrist less so, but what good work there is tends to be undone by a script and a visual style that feels extremely derivative and uninspired, when it isn't beset by illogic. For instance, Chastain and Coster-Waldau are supposedly a married couple in love, so why, when he's put into a coma at a given point in the film, does she spend no time at the hospital after the night it happens? She can always take the girls with her, indeed that would vary the film a bit, because otherwise all the ghostly happenings are confined to the house or the cabin, or if they didn't happen at the hospital it would be an ideal way to explore why not, all without making one of the film's most important relationships needlessly risible.
While Andrés Muschietti wears his visual influences on his sleeve, he does at least present some pretty pictures (when they aren't slathered in needless and rather cheap CGI), but that and couple of slightly better than deserved performances are really all that Mama has going for it. These things aside it's a dull, poorly written and very by the numbers ghost story. Jessica Chastain has far better things to be doing with her time and, quite frankly, so have you.
Feb 21, 2013
Beautiful Creatures [12A]
Dir: Richard LaGravenese
When I saw the trailer for Beautiful Creatures my heart, as it so often does during trailer reels, sank. I thought I was done with this supernatural romance twaddle, but no sooner has Twilight finally gone away than this - which basically looked like a gender reversed version of that accursed series with a witch in place of a vampire - rears its head. It looked like horribly acted, idiotic, cheese for fourteen year old girls. Unfortunately, I'm a film critic and something of a cinemasochist, so off I went to check it out.
I don't often eat my words, and while I perhaps won't finish the plate in this case, there is definitely some humble pie to be consumed, because Beautiful Creatures is not Twilight, nor is it bad.
The story, from the first in a four book series by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl, is set in America's deep south in a conservative town that main character Ethan Wate (Alden Ehrenreich) can't wait to leave. As Ethan starts his Junior year of high school there is a new arrival; Lena Duchannes (Alice Englert), whose extended family have owned most of the town for generations and are said to be devil worshipers. Ethan is fascinated by Lena, largely because he thinks he's been dreaming about her, and after she initially rebuffs him the two become friends. It soon becomes clear that while Lena's family aren't all the evildoers that people think they are, they are different; they're casters, and soon, when she turns 16, Lena will be chosen by either the light or the dark side of magic, and this makes her friendship and eventual love for Ethan dangerous for both of them.
From that summary you're probably thinking; so far, so Twilight, and you'd be right, but for me the problem with Twilight was not so much the tale as the telling, and that's where Beautiful Creatures exceeds your expectations. There is an absurdity about the scale of some of the themes in this story; good vs evil, the possibility that love is pre-destined, the supernatural colliding with the real world, and the first smart thing that Richard LaGravenese does from both a screenwriting and a directorial point of view is to embrace that absurdity. He never quite allows the film to slip into parody, at least when it comes to the main characters, but around the margins he plays up some of the camp value, avoiding the po-faced seriousness that, ironically, made the Twilight series so hard to take seriously.
The other strength here is in the characterisation. That's not to say that these are world's richest and most complex characters; they're drawn in pretty broad strokes and many fall into very black and white categories of good and evil, but the central pairing have a lot going for them. First of all both Ethan and Lena are smart, they think about and talk about things beyond the depths of their feelings for each other, and that gives those feelings a little more weight. They're also sympathetic and, while they are definitely designed for the target audience to either see themselves as or fall in love with, neither is the empty shell of a character that we've often seen in films like this.
The solid writing is backed up with an interesting cast, all of whom do good work in hitting the tone that LaGravenese asks of them, which is a bit different for each actor. For example Emma Thompson (as a judgmental local possessed by an evil caster) and Jeremy Irons (as Lena's uncle, who has forced himself on to the light side of magic) have a tremendous time competing to see who can slice the ham thickest. Almost equally big, but in a different way, is Emmy Rossum's vampy performance as Lena's cousin, you can almost see her smacking her lips at how deliciously evil she is. It's not all great news; Viola Davis has a bit of a nothing role, and I suspect there's more of her on the cutting room floor.
The leads are also good. Alden Ehrenreich manages to give us some depth to the way Ethan feels about Lena, without coming off overly earnest, so much so that a key plot point near the end, which could easily fall flat, actually hits you. Alice Englert was somewhat overshadowed by Elle Fanning in Ginger and Rosa, but she comes into her own her with a strong performance that gives the film's theme of good and evil both trying to pull Lena in their direction some punch. It's also nice to see, in a film primarily targeted at teenage girls, a young female lead who is intelligent and not only doesn't wait for a boy to save her, but sees it as her job to save him.
All this praise isn't to say that Beautiful Creatures is perfect. Visually it's a little by the numbers, and has more than a handful of ropey bits of CGI, and the third act does become a bit more of a by the numbers exercise, seemingly in a bit of a hurry to get to the end credits before the film breaks the two hour barrier, when it could perhaps use a little more breathing space.
On the whole though, this is much better than expected, and, that being the case, it has underperformed at the box office. That's a pity, because the point that this film ends at is one that sets up an interesting sequel, which I'd really quite like to see made. If you are at all on the fence about this one, or want to take your kids out for a film, I'd say it's well worth a look, and that's advice I really didn't expect to be giving.
I don't often eat my words, and while I perhaps won't finish the plate in this case, there is definitely some humble pie to be consumed, because Beautiful Creatures is not Twilight, nor is it bad.
The story, from the first in a four book series by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl, is set in America's deep south in a conservative town that main character Ethan Wate (Alden Ehrenreich) can't wait to leave. As Ethan starts his Junior year of high school there is a new arrival; Lena Duchannes (Alice Englert), whose extended family have owned most of the town for generations and are said to be devil worshipers. Ethan is fascinated by Lena, largely because he thinks he's been dreaming about her, and after she initially rebuffs him the two become friends. It soon becomes clear that while Lena's family aren't all the evildoers that people think they are, they are different; they're casters, and soon, when she turns 16, Lena will be chosen by either the light or the dark side of magic, and this makes her friendship and eventual love for Ethan dangerous for both of them.
From that summary you're probably thinking; so far, so Twilight, and you'd be right, but for me the problem with Twilight was not so much the tale as the telling, and that's where Beautiful Creatures exceeds your expectations. There is an absurdity about the scale of some of the themes in this story; good vs evil, the possibility that love is pre-destined, the supernatural colliding with the real world, and the first smart thing that Richard LaGravenese does from both a screenwriting and a directorial point of view is to embrace that absurdity. He never quite allows the film to slip into parody, at least when it comes to the main characters, but around the margins he plays up some of the camp value, avoiding the po-faced seriousness that, ironically, made the Twilight series so hard to take seriously.
The other strength here is in the characterisation. That's not to say that these are world's richest and most complex characters; they're drawn in pretty broad strokes and many fall into very black and white categories of good and evil, but the central pairing have a lot going for them. First of all both Ethan and Lena are smart, they think about and talk about things beyond the depths of their feelings for each other, and that gives those feelings a little more weight. They're also sympathetic and, while they are definitely designed for the target audience to either see themselves as or fall in love with, neither is the empty shell of a character that we've often seen in films like this.
The solid writing is backed up with an interesting cast, all of whom do good work in hitting the tone that LaGravenese asks of them, which is a bit different for each actor. For example Emma Thompson (as a judgmental local possessed by an evil caster) and Jeremy Irons (as Lena's uncle, who has forced himself on to the light side of magic) have a tremendous time competing to see who can slice the ham thickest. Almost equally big, but in a different way, is Emmy Rossum's vampy performance as Lena's cousin, you can almost see her smacking her lips at how deliciously evil she is. It's not all great news; Viola Davis has a bit of a nothing role, and I suspect there's more of her on the cutting room floor.
The leads are also good. Alden Ehrenreich manages to give us some depth to the way Ethan feels about Lena, without coming off overly earnest, so much so that a key plot point near the end, which could easily fall flat, actually hits you. Alice Englert was somewhat overshadowed by Elle Fanning in Ginger and Rosa, but she comes into her own her with a strong performance that gives the film's theme of good and evil both trying to pull Lena in their direction some punch. It's also nice to see, in a film primarily targeted at teenage girls, a young female lead who is intelligent and not only doesn't wait for a boy to save her, but sees it as her job to save him.
All this praise isn't to say that Beautiful Creatures is perfect. Visually it's a little by the numbers, and has more than a handful of ropey bits of CGI, and the third act does become a bit more of a by the numbers exercise, seemingly in a bit of a hurry to get to the end credits before the film breaks the two hour barrier, when it could perhaps use a little more breathing space.
On the whole though, this is much better than expected, and, that being the case, it has underperformed at the box office. That's a pity, because the point that this film ends at is one that sets up an interesting sequel, which I'd really quite like to see made. If you are at all on the fence about this one, or want to take your kids out for a film, I'd say it's well worth a look, and that's advice I really didn't expect to be giving.
Feb 18, 2013
30/31 Days: Intro
I need some structure for my writing and, though I've spent more than twenty years on it so far, I also need to expand my film education in some key areas. To this end, I've decided to start a new series whereby each day of a given month I will watch a film on a given theme, blogging about each viewing and trying to get an overview of the topic by the end of the month.
Each month I'll look back at some films I've already seen, but also watch many films that I've never seen before, and I'll post a schedule ahead of time so that you guys can watch along with me if you wish, or comment on the films that I'll be looking at during the month.
I've got solid ideas for subjects for some time going forward, but if there's a particular style, country or genre you'd like me to explore for this feature then do please suggest it and I'll try to fit it in in the future, just bear in mind that I'll need to be able to source at least 28 films for each topic.
The first series will kick off in March, when I'll be spending... 31 Days: In Japan.
The first thing to say here is that I won't be including any anime, as that will be its own month long feature in the future. Aside from that, anything goes. Japan's film culture is vast and intimidating and ranges from the austerity of Mizoguchi and Ozu to the lunacy of Sion Sono, taking in everything from gangster films to samurai and irradiated monsters. I can't possibly cover it all, but I want to touch some bases that I, unaccountably, haven't yet got to (I've never seen a Kurosawa film... I know, I'm sorting it), as well as revisting some of my favourite Japanese directors - though, with one exception, watching films I've not seen - from Takashi Miike to Yasuzo Masamura to Tetsuya Nakashima.
In short, I'm sure those of you who have already seen more than I have will scoff at how many basic requirements are on this list, and I'd welcome suggestions for next steps after the month is over, but here's the list. The only film I've seen before is Noriko's Dinner Table, which I've been meaning to write about forever.
A little challenge: spot the film I put on the list just because I thought it had an awesome title.
Note: Onibaba would have been on the list, but I'll be watching it before February is out as I have to review the blu ray for another site.
1st: Exte
2nd: Hana-Bi
3rd: The Happiness of the Katakuris
4th: Female Prisoner 701: Scorpion
5th: Manji [Masamura]
6th: Vengeance is Mine
7th: Godzilla
8th: Rashomon
9th: I Was Born, but...
10th: Sword of Vengeance
11th: The Warped Ones
12th: Branded to Kill
13th: After Life
14th: Swing Girls
15th: Angel Guts: High School Co-Ed
16th: Harakiri
17th: The Burmese Harp
18th: Strange Circus
19th: Red Angel
20th: Woman of the Dunes
21st: The Seven Samurai
22nd: Goke: Body Snatcher From Hell
23rd: Kamikaze Girls
24th: Intimidation
25th: Stray Cat Rock: Sex Hunter
26th: Kwaidan
27th: Tokyo Drifter
28th: Men Behind the Sun
29th: Kakera: A Piece of Our Life
30th: Detroit Metal City
31st: Noriko's Dinner Table
Coming in April: 30 Days... Of Slashers.
Each month I'll look back at some films I've already seen, but also watch many films that I've never seen before, and I'll post a schedule ahead of time so that you guys can watch along with me if you wish, or comment on the films that I'll be looking at during the month.
I've got solid ideas for subjects for some time going forward, but if there's a particular style, country or genre you'd like me to explore for this feature then do please suggest it and I'll try to fit it in in the future, just bear in mind that I'll need to be able to source at least 28 films for each topic.
The first series will kick off in March, when I'll be spending... 31 Days: In Japan.
The first thing to say here is that I won't be including any anime, as that will be its own month long feature in the future. Aside from that, anything goes. Japan's film culture is vast and intimidating and ranges from the austerity of Mizoguchi and Ozu to the lunacy of Sion Sono, taking in everything from gangster films to samurai and irradiated monsters. I can't possibly cover it all, but I want to touch some bases that I, unaccountably, haven't yet got to (I've never seen a Kurosawa film... I know, I'm sorting it), as well as revisting some of my favourite Japanese directors - though, with one exception, watching films I've not seen - from Takashi Miike to Yasuzo Masamura to Tetsuya Nakashima.
In short, I'm sure those of you who have already seen more than I have will scoff at how many basic requirements are on this list, and I'd welcome suggestions for next steps after the month is over, but here's the list. The only film I've seen before is Noriko's Dinner Table, which I've been meaning to write about forever.
A little challenge: spot the film I put on the list just because I thought it had an awesome title.
Note: Onibaba would have been on the list, but I'll be watching it before February is out as I have to review the blu ray for another site.
1st: Exte
2nd: Hana-Bi
3rd: The Happiness of the Katakuris
4th: Female Prisoner 701: Scorpion
5th: Manji [Masamura]
6th: Vengeance is Mine
7th: Godzilla
8th: Rashomon
9th: I Was Born, but...
10th: Sword of Vengeance
11th: The Warped Ones
12th: Branded to Kill
13th: After Life
14th: Swing Girls
15th: Angel Guts: High School Co-Ed
16th: Harakiri
17th: The Burmese Harp
18th: Strange Circus
19th: Red Angel
20th: Woman of the Dunes
21st: The Seven Samurai
22nd: Goke: Body Snatcher From Hell
23rd: Kamikaze Girls
24th: Intimidation
25th: Stray Cat Rock: Sex Hunter
26th: Kwaidan
27th: Tokyo Drifter
28th: Men Behind the Sun
29th: Kakera: A Piece of Our Life
30th: Detroit Metal City
31st: Noriko's Dinner Table
Coming in April: 30 Days... Of Slashers.
Feb 17, 2013
This is 40 [15]
When I saw it at the cinema I quite liked Judd Apatow's first feature, The 40 Year Old Virgin. It managed to be both sweet and raunchy and, despite a clunky third act break up, present two individually likeable characters in Steve Carell and Catherine Keener, and get you to root for them as a pair. On DVD the film expanded, and became bloated and self indulgent, thanks to an added 17 minutes, pushing an already long film north of the 2 hour mark.
Eight years on, with his two subsequent films resounding hits, Apatow has the sort of clout that means he doesn't have to wait for the DVD to present the indulgently overlong version of his film, and so we have this 135 minute personal opus, revisiting two of the side characters from his spectacularly overrated Knocked Up (which gave the world Katherine Heigl's film career, gee, thanks Judd).
In This is 40 Apatow's real life wife Leslie Mann and close friend Paul Rudd play Debbie and Pete, in their 13th year of marriage, both approaching 40, and with two kids (played by Apatow and Mann's own children Maude and Iris). Supposedly a realistic look at a modern married couple, a lot of the individual incidents in This is 40 ring true, but stitching them all together accentuates how unbelievable some of the film is, as well as how awful these characters are.
For all the little things – largely improvised arguments between the clearly talented Apatow siblings – that really do ring true, there are things here that make the films pretensions and claims to realism downright insulting, particularly the rich person's view of what it means to be in financial difficulties. Newsflash, Judd, people struggling to pay the second mortgage on the house they might soon have to sell aren't generally able to put another $12,000 on their American Express card on a whim. We hear about all the problems that two failing businesses have caused for Pete and Debbie, but the consequences seem intangible. There is discussion that an employee who has stolen $12,000 from Debbie has to pay her back, but no indication that this will ever happen, or that the Police might be involved, instead, following a scene that exists to let a cameo player improvise, the issue is forgotten.
If you can give the film a pass on these issues, there's still the matter that Pete and Debbie are just awful. Each, at some point during the film, tell the other colossal, life altering, lies. Many would see just one of these lies as grounds for divorce, but the combined weight of them only ever produces one argument, which is simperingly and all too easily resolved come the merciful release of the end credits. They're terrible in smaller ways too, particularly when it comes the way they deal with a kid who has been rude to their older daughter on Facebook and his Mother (a cameoing Melissa McCarthy, who continues to be cast as someone devoid of even a grain of the charm she had in The Nines). They get away with this the same way the film excuses all the other awful things they do and say (see the ENTIRE birthday party set piece); by dint of the fact that EVERY other adult in the film is worse than they are.
I don't mind a film having characters who are reprehensible, but I do feel like the film should view them as reprehensible. In the Company of Men gets this right; Aaron Eckhart's Chad is a chillingly believable corporate sociopath. The film challenges us by making us spend time with him, by making us wonder whether we'd also go along with him, but it doesn't present him AS us, or as someone we should sympathise with. Of course I'm using an extreme example, but think about it, would you really be any more interested, given how they behave, in spending time with any of these characters? How about John Lithgow as Debbie's Father who has ignored the existence of his daughter and granddaughters for the best part of 35 years? Albert Brooks as the father who has been mooching off Pete for what seems to be about 15 years? Or how about Pete and Debbie themselves? I'd cross the street to avoid any of them.
This, along with the fact that its 135 minute running time is paced like a cricket match between two all sloth teams, makes This is 40 feel like it actually runs for the entire week its story covers. The pitch of the film is unbearable, roughly half the dialogue is yelled or screeched – that's about 67 minutes of shouting, if you're counting. Here's the thing; you're somewhat obliged to sit through your own family's trivial arguments about bullshit, but that doesn't mean you would, or should, sit through the same from another family. The difference is twofold; first of all when it's your family you have a personal stake, and second, and perhaps more pressing; you can usually walk away from an argument with your family, here you're trapped, doomed to sit through it until the mercy deficient editor finally allows you respite.
The most elusive and wonderful thing in cinema is usually when you're able to walk out of a film able to say that it truly captured a feeling. This is 40, for all its faults, does that. Finally, magically, someone has filmed what it feels like to have a raging headache, and projected it for 135 minutes. An insufferable film about awful, awful people, This is 40 marks my, and hopefully other audiences, divorce from Judd Apatow.
Feb 13, 2013
Cinematters: Die HARD, or not at all.
I'm probably slightly atypical among
lovers of the Die Hard series in that Die Hard With A Vengeance, the
third film, is currently my least favourite of the series. It never
quite felt like a Die Hard film to me, the antagonistic relationship
between Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson is abrasive and little
fun, and, despite a great villain, the film collapses in its last
half hour, which feels anticlimactic after the lengthy build up. Die
Hard 4.0 (or Live Free or Die Hard if you prefer) is not much more a
Die Hard film – like With a Vengeance it lacks the claustrophobia
that defines the first two films, and, for me, marks the series out –
but I enjoy it more as a pure action film, at least in the Extended
DVD cut.
One thing that has been notable
throughout the series, but became much more acute in the cinema
version of the fourth film (a 15 here, but a PG-13 in the States,
much to the consternation of some fans) is that each film has
slightly blunted the violent and profane edges that the original film
exhibited with such pride. Let's trace the development of the Die Hard series in this respect. The first film was an 18 certificate on its cinema
release, and has retained that certificate in every iteration since,
probably largely thanks to the bathroom scene, in which the camera's
focus is lovingly turned on McClane's foot as he pulls a piece of
glass out of it. The second film was a very odd case; a 15 at the
cinema, it came out in two separate prints on video, both were uncut
from the cinema version, but the Widescreen version got an 18
certificate, but it has now been downgraded to a 15, which seems appropriate given that the film is still very violent, but lacks that focused moment the first film has.
Die Hard With a Vengeance is where the
tide begins to turn. Yes, it's as profanity strewn as ever, what
with Samuel L. Motherfuckin' Jackson in the cast, but thanks to the
film's plot contriving to keep McClane away from the bad guys as far
as possible, the violence is more muted. This didn't stop Fox making
cuts to retain the film's cinematic 15 certificate on video though.
Die Hard 4.0 is an infamous case; released initially in a PG-13
version which made it seem as though someone had washed John
McClane's mouth out with soap, and with much less violence (though
there's no shortage of action the film dwells little on the effects
of the violence, which was a great strength of the first two films,
but which tends to bump up your certificate). Though the film did
well at the box office, there was dissatisfaction with the PG-13, and
that seems to have been something that Twentieth Century Fox have
taken note of for A Good Day to Die Hard, in the US.
A Good Day to Die Hard is rated R in
the United States, which would seem to signal an at least partial
return to the harder hitting violence and saltier language that John
McClane used against his adversaries in the first three films,
however, Fox have chosen to cut this version of the film on
pre-submission advice from BBFC, for the UK market in order to secure
a 12A certificate.
It's not hard to see why Fox would want
to do this, given both recent precedent at the box office and the
difference between the US and UK rating systems. Though it is likely
that this plan was in place beforehand, given the round thrashing the
box office has recently given two 80's action heroes with new 15
rated films – Arnie's excellent The Last Stand and Sly's dreadful Bullet to the Head – the decision to use the 12A
certificate to open up the new Die Hard to audiences of all ages
makes sound commercial sense; thinking like a marketer, it allows
Dad, who grew up on the series, to take his son and introduce him to
the films in a way that is a bit 'safer'. It's easy to criticise, but you
can't deny that a 15 effectively cuts out a large part of not just a
younger but an older audience. There will be parents who won't go to
a film because of either the expense or the hassle of getting someone
to take care of the kids, and they might well go – and bring an
extra person – if the certificate allows them to bring junior. The
maths, frankly, is irresistible.
Unfortunately, given the UK's system,
to get your film plugged into that seductive little equation you have
to make it fit the 12A certificate. The same is not the case in the
US. R rated films do usually make less money than their PG13
counterparts, hence the proliferation of PG13 horror, but because the
R rating is, like the 12A, advisory rather than statutory, the
equation still works whether or not the film is cut. The thing is,
the fact that I understand doesn't mean that I approve.
Maybe it's just looking at it from two
opposing perspectives at two different ages, but when I was a kid it
seemed as though I was – legally speaking – excluded from most
action films, because they were made for adults, and now it seems
that I'm excluded from them because they're being made suitable for
kids. When I was young, these films were a sort of forbidden fruit;
they were too mature for me to see, and that's reflected not just in
the violence and profanity of Die Hard, but in the fact
that it takes a more complex and adult view of the world. In Die
Hard the hero is a man with a strained marriage, a man who is not
just flawed and fallible, but deeply ambivalent about the idea of
being a hero. The key point is that in no sense is he
indestructible; he has to be talked through several moments where
he's close to mental breakdown and giving up, but he's also seriously
physically vulnerable. By the end, John McClane could be accurately
described as a broken man, and because you like him so much, that's
tough to see.
This is the key thing that has gone
away in the series, and the key thing that has served to
infantalise it. As the series has gone on, and especially in the
fourth film (whichever version you see), McClane has become ever more
impervious to pain, the way that a cartoon character is. It's always
puzzled me that the way to make violence 'suitable' for children is
to pretend that it doesn't hurt, but that's another discussion. The
problem is that by making McClane an impervious cartoon, the
filmmakers reduce him, they make less interesting, less relatable, in the same way that
Superman's invulnerability makes him boring (for me). It looks, from
the very orange trailer, as though this is going to be even more
accented in A Good Day to Die Hard than it was in 4.0.
I, and I'm sure most fans, don't want the Die Hard series to be suitable for 9 year olds. First of all, going to the
cinema to see these kinds of films used to be a good excuse to get
away from unruly kids in the audience (not that adults are any better
these days, but I digress). More importantly the certificate
means that the film will seriously struggle to deliver the kind of
action and the kind of dialogue that has come to define the series
and is the reason that people have such affection for it and keep
wanting to revisit the films. If you neuter that, if you take the
Hard out of Die Hard, why make the film in the first place?
All this said, the 12A itself, the
cynicism of it, the presumably neutered content, is not the reason
that I'll be avoiding A Good Day to Die Hard at the cinema. The
reason I will boycott the film is that Fox has singled us out for
special treatment, whatever the financial reasons, and however much I
can see the thinking behind them, Fox has decided that British fans
don't merit the same consideration as American fans, that because of
our slightly more restrictive ratings system we don't deserve to see
the complete version of this film. Not only that, they've decided
that at the cinema we don't even deserve the choice. There is
precedent for this. When Sacha Baron Cohen's repellently unfunny
Bruno hit cinemas there was such desire from a younger audience to
see it that the distributors cut about 90 seconds from the film and
released an alternate version as a 15. If younger audiences deserve
a choice at the cinema, why don't older audiences? I'm sure that
we'll get the uncut A Good Day to Die Hard on a much trumpeted Blu
Ray release, emblazoned with banners saying 'UNCUT' and 'WHAT YOU
DIDN'T SEE AT THE CINEMA', and I'm equally sure that that release
will simply be the R rated cut that is being released all over the
world, except here in the UK. So, while Fox treat us like children
and the rest of the world like adults with this film, I won't be
putting money in their pockets. I hope some of you will join me, and
send them a message.
Feb 9, 2013
Blu Ray Reviews: Radley Metzger Triple Bill
On February 11th, Arrow Video are releasing three Radley Metzger films, Camille 2000, The Lickerish Quartet and Score as dual format editions. You'll find a combined review of all three releases below.
The Films
When these films landed on my doorstep, given my limited prior knowledge of Radley Metzger (I had seen only one of his films before this; The Image, made after Score), I was expecting three helpings of sixties and seventies sexploitation, but, from the opening moment of Camille 2000 - the earliest of these three films - it's clear that Metzger has more highbrow aspirations than most directors working in adult film. Not only is Camille 2000 adapted from the story by Alexandre Dumas, but it sets out a determinedly stylised stall from the off, opening with a slate, and an informal scene of the cast horsing around on the steps of the opera house the first scene will take place in.
Metzger clearly has a signature style as a filmmaker, and you can see it reflected and refined through these three films, which each have strong visual identities and while they deliver the sex, nudity and eroticism that audiences would have gone to them in pursuit of, also want to entertain and satisfy in terms of storytelling.
Camille 2000 is the weakest film here, its story of the fall of Marguerite a modern day courtesan (perhaps an overly polite word) and the affair she has with a man who is simply not rich enough to keep her in the style to which she's accustomed is well acted, especially by leading lady Danièle Gaubert, but at 130 minutes the pace is extremely slack, and the drama doesn't quite sustain the film. That said, it is incredibly striking looking. Constrained by the censorship conditions of 1969, Metzger has to find interesting ways to imply the harder action he can't show. This leads to a fun little metaphor where he repeatedly racks focus between Gaubert and some flowers in one scene, the rack getting faster as she gets more worked up. It's likely for the same reason that there are so many shots, particularly during the sex scenes, in which we see the characters in mirrors. In one shot, taken from above, the entwined bodies of Marguerite and her lover Armand (Nino Castelnuovo) are reflected over and over, creating a multilayered effect that is pretty unique. Camille 2000 is also strong from a design standpoint; the boldly coloured late 60's chic creates a striking look for the film.
Beautifully photographed and framed throughout, the film hits standout moments when it combines these qualities with its stronger moments of storytelling, as in a long orgy sequence in which Marguerite and Armand, now split up, attempt to make each other jealous. This is where the performers really excel too, selling the emotional as well as the physical content of these scenes.
If Camille 2000 is flawed but promising, for me, The Lickerish Quartet, from 1970 delivers on the promise. Here Metzger ups the explicitness of his erotic content, strips back the setup and delivers a surreal and playful work that not only bears but positively demands analysis. In an extended opening sequence a middle aged couple and their late-teenage son (Frank Wolff, Erika Remberg and Paolo Turco) watch and critique an 8mm adult film (often mocking it). The son doesn't want to continue with this form of entertainment, so they go out to a carnival and see a motorcycle stunt ride. When the female rider takes her helmet off the couple believe that she (Silvana Venturelli) is one of the girls from the loop they were just watching. They invite her back to their home, and that's when things get very strange.
Sexploitation cinema doesn't usually need much interpretation; the purpose is clear from the start, and most don't seem to aspire to saying much beyond 'look at these boobs'. The Lickerish Quartet is different. There are likely as many readings of this film as there are viewers, for me, the most interesting thread is about cinema. The opening scene could easily be taken as Metzger's critique of the worth of his own work, while the rest of the film retains that idea, but also uses the story, the ever-changing film within the film and the editing to say something about the effect of cinema on our perception. It's also entirely possible that that reading has nothing to do with what Metzger wanted to say with this film, but whatever your take on its meanings, this is a fascinating film that is clearly operating on a much more sophisticated level than your typical slice of softcore.
Of the four leads (who are, essentially, the only people in the film) three are excellent; Venturelli is seductive and mysterious, while Frank Wolff and Erika Remberg add to the 'anything could happen' atmosphere with their detached performances as the bored, jaded aristocrats. Only Paolo Turco lets the side down, though he's saddled with the film's worst dialogue. Once again the deign is striking and the now more explicit sex (none of Camille 2000's careful concealing here) is actually pretty sexy, thanks in no small part to the stunning Venturelli. Ultimately though, The Lickerish Quartet is notable for much, much more than its sex scenes, it's a rewarding and interesting film that straddles the line between art and smut as capably and intriguingly as the best of Walerian Borowczyk's work.
1974's Score is the last and latest of these three Metzger releases, it also likely to be the more controversial one for the director's admirers. Score exists in two cuts: an uncut version which features a hardcore scene and an R Rated version. From what the usually very reliable anti-censorhip site Melonfarmers says, it seems that Arrow initially submitted the uncut version, and were asked to make a little over two minutes worth of cuts to get an 18, but that the version now being released is cut by almost five minutes more, which would suggest that when the film was resubmitted the decision was taken to simply submit the R Rated version. I've asked for comment from both the BBFC and Arrow on this issue.
Censorship issues aside, Score is yet another fine film from Metzger. Based on an off Broadway play (which featured Sylvester Stallone), Metzger transports the action from New York to a coastal town in Europe, but otherwise keeps the story of a swinging couple in their thirties Claire Wilbur, who played the same role on stage and Gerald Grant) who have a bet running on how many people they can 'score' with and their attempts, over 24 hours to seduce a couple about ten years younger than them (Calvin Culver and cult star Lynn Lowry). The thing that still makes Score rather different to your usual sexploitation film is the configuration of its pairings. Both the older couple are bisexual, and the film contrives a same sex partner swap (the deleted hardcore scene is between Grant and Culver). I can only imagine the reaction of the dirty mac brigade on 42nd street in 1974, not just because, though there is quite a lot of nudity and a brief sex scene before, the film takes an hour or more to get to the main sexual event but also because this would have been something you were unlikely to see at the time outside of gay porn.
The film is dialogue heavy, and the cast all acquit themselves well. The elfin Lowry is perhaps best; her naive and repressed character slowly melting away, influenced by drugs and a headily sexual atmosphere, but Claire Wilbur is also excellent as the more forceful woman, whose unarticulated frustrations as she slowly tries to seduce Lowry are pretty funny. You'd expect less of Calvin Culver and Gerald Grant, as neither was so much an actor as a gay porn star, but they both do good work.
Metzger's visual invention was employed to practical as well as artistic purpose on this film. Lynn Lowry at one point developed a fever blister on her lip, leading to one of the film's most striking images as she and Wilbur talk with an odd decoration; a seesawing plastic bar, filled with water, obscuring the lower halves of their faces. Set in a more typical home than The Lickerish Quartet, this is perhaps the most visually restrained of these three films, but Metzger still has a great sense of composition, and the film never feels static or stagebound, even in the long sequence that takes place in the older couple's house.
A lighter, more direct, film than either Camille 2000 or The Lickerish Quartet, Score is nevertheless highly enjoyable. It's solidly written and acted, looks great, and in terms of its eroticism it certainly caters for all tastes.
The Discs
All of these transfers are much of a muchness, and all of them are seriously impressive given what and how old they are. All three films exhibit some print damage (Score more than the others), but it's never intrusive and damaged frames are very much the exception, rather than the rule. The rest of the news is good; while the HD 'pop' you get from the very best Blu Rays is understandably absent, these films are very pleasing to look at. Detail is impressive (and explicit) and the colours seem vibrant and true (especially compared to clips of the films seen in some of the interview footage). Grain is present, but neither it nor DNR seem to affect the film like look of the picture. It's not their most revelatory work, but these editions maintain Arrow's reputation for quality.
The Extras
Extensive, as you'd expect. All three films get commentary tracks with the talkative and engaging Metzger, alongside film historian Michael Bowen, and all three discs also have trailers for each of the three films.
Camille 2000 and Score both have lengthy behind the scenes footage from the set, given context with more commentary from Metzger (though he does repeat some of the information in the commentary tracks).
Camille 2000 and The Lickerish Quartet each feature deleted and alternate scenes (which really show up how good the films look).
A handful of other bits round out the video extras. On Camille 2000 there is a restoration comparison, on The Lickerish Quartet a comparison between the location and dubbed soundtracks and on Score a 19 minute interview with Lynn Lowry, who is very candid about both the good and bad experiences she had relating to the film.
Finally, each of the films comes with a collectors booklet by Cinema Sewer's Robin Bougie, these were not supplied for review.
Overall
Though I was less keen on Camille 2000 than on the other two films, I would highly recommend all of these releases, and watching them more or less back to back, as they chart the development of a man who seems to be a highly individual and interesting filmmaker, working in a field where most people would be content to turn out dross.
Camille 2000
The Lickerish Quartet / Score
The Films
When these films landed on my doorstep, given my limited prior knowledge of Radley Metzger (I had seen only one of his films before this; The Image, made after Score), I was expecting three helpings of sixties and seventies sexploitation, but, from the opening moment of Camille 2000 - the earliest of these three films - it's clear that Metzger has more highbrow aspirations than most directors working in adult film. Not only is Camille 2000 adapted from the story by Alexandre Dumas, but it sets out a determinedly stylised stall from the off, opening with a slate, and an informal scene of the cast horsing around on the steps of the opera house the first scene will take place in.Metzger clearly has a signature style as a filmmaker, and you can see it reflected and refined through these three films, which each have strong visual identities and while they deliver the sex, nudity and eroticism that audiences would have gone to them in pursuit of, also want to entertain and satisfy in terms of storytelling.
Camille 2000 is the weakest film here, its story of the fall of Marguerite a modern day courtesan (perhaps an overly polite word) and the affair she has with a man who is simply not rich enough to keep her in the style to which she's accustomed is well acted, especially by leading lady Danièle Gaubert, but at 130 minutes the pace is extremely slack, and the drama doesn't quite sustain the film. That said, it is incredibly striking looking. Constrained by the censorship conditions of 1969, Metzger has to find interesting ways to imply the harder action he can't show. This leads to a fun little metaphor where he repeatedly racks focus between Gaubert and some flowers in one scene, the rack getting faster as she gets more worked up. It's likely for the same reason that there are so many shots, particularly during the sex scenes, in which we see the characters in mirrors. In one shot, taken from above, the entwined bodies of Marguerite and her lover Armand (Nino Castelnuovo) are reflected over and over, creating a multilayered effect that is pretty unique. Camille 2000 is also strong from a design standpoint; the boldly coloured late 60's chic creates a striking look for the film.
Beautifully photographed and framed throughout, the film hits standout moments when it combines these qualities with its stronger moments of storytelling, as in a long orgy sequence in which Marguerite and Armand, now split up, attempt to make each other jealous. This is where the performers really excel too, selling the emotional as well as the physical content of these scenes.
Sexploitation cinema doesn't usually need much interpretation; the purpose is clear from the start, and most don't seem to aspire to saying much beyond 'look at these boobs'. The Lickerish Quartet is different. There are likely as many readings of this film as there are viewers, for me, the most interesting thread is about cinema. The opening scene could easily be taken as Metzger's critique of the worth of his own work, while the rest of the film retains that idea, but also uses the story, the ever-changing film within the film and the editing to say something about the effect of cinema on our perception. It's also entirely possible that that reading has nothing to do with what Metzger wanted to say with this film, but whatever your take on its meanings, this is a fascinating film that is clearly operating on a much more sophisticated level than your typical slice of softcore.
Of the four leads (who are, essentially, the only people in the film) three are excellent; Venturelli is seductive and mysterious, while Frank Wolff and Erika Remberg add to the 'anything could happen' atmosphere with their detached performances as the bored, jaded aristocrats. Only Paolo Turco lets the side down, though he's saddled with the film's worst dialogue. Once again the deign is striking and the now more explicit sex (none of Camille 2000's careful concealing here) is actually pretty sexy, thanks in no small part to the stunning Venturelli. Ultimately though, The Lickerish Quartet is notable for much, much more than its sex scenes, it's a rewarding and interesting film that straddles the line between art and smut as capably and intriguingly as the best of Walerian Borowczyk's work.
Censorship issues aside, Score is yet another fine film from Metzger. Based on an off Broadway play (which featured Sylvester Stallone), Metzger transports the action from New York to a coastal town in Europe, but otherwise keeps the story of a swinging couple in their thirties Claire Wilbur, who played the same role on stage and Gerald Grant) who have a bet running on how many people they can 'score' with and their attempts, over 24 hours to seduce a couple about ten years younger than them (Calvin Culver and cult star Lynn Lowry). The thing that still makes Score rather different to your usual sexploitation film is the configuration of its pairings. Both the older couple are bisexual, and the film contrives a same sex partner swap (the deleted hardcore scene is between Grant and Culver). I can only imagine the reaction of the dirty mac brigade on 42nd street in 1974, not just because, though there is quite a lot of nudity and a brief sex scene before, the film takes an hour or more to get to the main sexual event but also because this would have been something you were unlikely to see at the time outside of gay porn.
The film is dialogue heavy, and the cast all acquit themselves well. The elfin Lowry is perhaps best; her naive and repressed character slowly melting away, influenced by drugs and a headily sexual atmosphere, but Claire Wilbur is also excellent as the more forceful woman, whose unarticulated frustrations as she slowly tries to seduce Lowry are pretty funny. You'd expect less of Calvin Culver and Gerald Grant, as neither was so much an actor as a gay porn star, but they both do good work.
Metzger's visual invention was employed to practical as well as artistic purpose on this film. Lynn Lowry at one point developed a fever blister on her lip, leading to one of the film's most striking images as she and Wilbur talk with an odd decoration; a seesawing plastic bar, filled with water, obscuring the lower halves of their faces. Set in a more typical home than The Lickerish Quartet, this is perhaps the most visually restrained of these three films, but Metzger still has a great sense of composition, and the film never feels static or stagebound, even in the long sequence that takes place in the older couple's house.
A lighter, more direct, film than either Camille 2000 or The Lickerish Quartet, Score is nevertheless highly enjoyable. It's solidly written and acted, looks great, and in terms of its eroticism it certainly caters for all tastes.
The Discs
The Extras
Extensive, as you'd expect. All three films get commentary tracks with the talkative and engaging Metzger, alongside film historian Michael Bowen, and all three discs also have trailers for each of the three films.
Camille 2000 and Score both have lengthy behind the scenes footage from the set, given context with more commentary from Metzger (though he does repeat some of the information in the commentary tracks).
Camille 2000 and The Lickerish Quartet each feature deleted and alternate scenes (which really show up how good the films look).
A handful of other bits round out the video extras. On Camille 2000 there is a restoration comparison, on The Lickerish Quartet a comparison between the location and dubbed soundtracks and on Score a 19 minute interview with Lynn Lowry, who is very candid about both the good and bad experiences she had relating to the film.
Finally, each of the films comes with a collectors booklet by Cinema Sewer's Robin Bougie, these were not supplied for review.
Overall
Though I was less keen on Camille 2000 than on the other two films, I would highly recommend all of these releases, and watching them more or less back to back, as they chart the development of a man who seems to be a highly individual and interesting filmmaker, working in a field where most people would be content to turn out dross.
Camille 2000
The Lickerish Quartet / Score
Feb 6, 2013
Blu Ray Review: Black Sunday [15]
The Film(s)
There are two cuts of Black Sunday on this new Blu Ray release; Mario Bava's Director's Cut, under his original title: The Mask of Satan, and the American release print (the version that has been most widely distributed) under the better known title Black Sunday. As the former is Bava's own cut, I'll focus on that version for this review
The Mask of Satan was the directorial debut of a then 46 year old Bava, who had, up to this point, been a cameraman (a DP in fact, but he apparently disliked the term cinematographer, finding it pretentious) and had previously stepped in as director on several films when other filmmakers had left or been fired. This was his reward for loyalty and good work, and Bava certainly makes good on the faith his producers put in him for this official directorial debut.
From its startling opening sequence, in which a witch (Barbara Steele) is punished by having a devilish mask lined with huge metal spikes nailed to - indeed through - her head, Mask of Satan is a stylistic tour de force from Bava, combining the more explicit gore allowed by the start of the 1960's with the gothic stylings of the classic Universal horror films of the 30's and 40's.
The bulk of the film takes place 200 years after the opening, two doctors (John Richardson and Andrea Checchi) on their way to a conference stumble across the witch's tomb and accidentally cause her to be reanimated. They also meet a woman named Katja, who looks exactly like the witch and turns out to be a descendant. The younger doctor falls for Katja, and ends up trying to protect her as the reanimated witch attempts to possess her body.
Bava's visuals are fantastic; his gliding camera and supreme control of light and shadow thanks to filming even 'exterior' scenes in a studio make for an intensely creepy and enveloping atmosphere that gives the whole film an otherworldly feel, which grows and grows as characters are possessed, killed, and as the witch comes closer to truly rising from her grave.
The film's gothic beauty is well matched by a smattering of grand guignol effects, especially an emphasis on eyes and trauma to them which seems to have permeated Italian horror in the years following this film (it's clear that Lucio Fulci owes Bava a debt in this respecy). The effects are perhaps not quite up to modern prosthetic standards, but they seldom look hokey, and a few - a punctured eye in particular - remain really shocking.
Performances are hard to judge, due to the fact that, as was standard at the time in Italy, the film was made without sound, and dubbed later. Certainly Barbara Steele's striking dark beauty is used well in the dual role of Katja and the witch and Andrea Checchi seems to be having fun, camping it up just enough as the older doctor. John Richardson is square jawed and good looking enough, but doesn't seem to be an especially brilliant actor.
Ultimately though, The Mask of Satan is a film more about reveling in atmosphere, and Bava certainly achieves that. Even more than fifty years on the film still chills and occasionally shocks, and most horror films struggle to do that fifty minutes in.
The AIP alternate cut, Black Sunday, is only minimally different. Some music is changed, the dubbing is slightly different, and an opening crawl and voiceover are added. Otherwise the only real difference comes in the reduced emphasis on some of the film's gorier moments. The Mask of Satan is the superior cut in every way, but Black Sunday is still a great film, though it's really more of a curio on this release.
The Disc
Arrow Video have a well established and well deserved reputation for treating their DVD and Blu Ray releases with a great deal of care, and this release of Black Sunday should only serve to strengthen that reputation. The black and white feature film looks absolutely outstanding; black levels are deep and dark, there are a great variety of shades of grey in the print, and texture is outstanding thanks to a robust grain structure that means the picture retains a filmic feeling, while remaining almost totally free of print issues. Digitial artifacts, which can be a problem in films that make heavy use of smoke, as this one does, are also absent. Overall, this is an outstanding transfer of a beautiful restoration, it really does justice to a great looking film.
Sound, at least through my stereo only TV, is clear, sharp and well balanced.
The Extras
As ever with Arrow releases the extras are plentiful. You could count the AIP cut of the film as among the extras, but even if you don't there's another extra film; I Vampiri, the first Italian horror film of the sound era, which Bava completed after Ricardo Fredda left the production.
Mask of Satan gets a commentary from Bava expert Tim Lucas. It's interesting in parts, but a little dry and heavy on 'here's what's happening in this scene' talk for my liking. Also offering a little context is Alan Jones, who provides an optional introduction to the film.
Star Barbara Steele appears - still looking great - in a 1995 interview. It's a bit short, but she's engaging and has some interesting things to relate, especially about the sets for Mask of Satan. It is a shame, however, that Steele didn't participate in any new content for this release.
The film-specific content is rounded out with a rare deleted scene, which, like most deleted scenes, is inessential but interesting.
The extras package is completed by a mass of trailers for this film and many, many of Bava's others.
Overall
This is another outstanding package from Arrow Video, who continue to treat horror films with a respect that most companies don't seem to think them worthy of, and which fans will revel in. This is also a brilliant film, and the package is an essential addition to any horror fan's Blu Ray library.
The Mask of Satan was the directorial debut of a then 46 year old Bava, who had, up to this point, been a cameraman (a DP in fact, but he apparently disliked the term cinematographer, finding it pretentious) and had previously stepped in as director on several films when other filmmakers had left or been fired. This was his reward for loyalty and good work, and Bava certainly makes good on the faith his producers put in him for this official directorial debut.
From its startling opening sequence, in which a witch (Barbara Steele) is punished by having a devilish mask lined with huge metal spikes nailed to - indeed through - her head, Mask of Satan is a stylistic tour de force from Bava, combining the more explicit gore allowed by the start of the 1960's with the gothic stylings of the classic Universal horror films of the 30's and 40's.
The bulk of the film takes place 200 years after the opening, two doctors (John Richardson and Andrea Checchi) on their way to a conference stumble across the witch's tomb and accidentally cause her to be reanimated. They also meet a woman named Katja, who looks exactly like the witch and turns out to be a descendant. The younger doctor falls for Katja, and ends up trying to protect her as the reanimated witch attempts to possess her body.
Bava's visuals are fantastic; his gliding camera and supreme control of light and shadow thanks to filming even 'exterior' scenes in a studio make for an intensely creepy and enveloping atmosphere that gives the whole film an otherworldly feel, which grows and grows as characters are possessed, killed, and as the witch comes closer to truly rising from her grave.
The film's gothic beauty is well matched by a smattering of grand guignol effects, especially an emphasis on eyes and trauma to them which seems to have permeated Italian horror in the years following this film (it's clear that Lucio Fulci owes Bava a debt in this respecy). The effects are perhaps not quite up to modern prosthetic standards, but they seldom look hokey, and a few - a punctured eye in particular - remain really shocking.
Performances are hard to judge, due to the fact that, as was standard at the time in Italy, the film was made without sound, and dubbed later. Certainly Barbara Steele's striking dark beauty is used well in the dual role of Katja and the witch and Andrea Checchi seems to be having fun, camping it up just enough as the older doctor. John Richardson is square jawed and good looking enough, but doesn't seem to be an especially brilliant actor.
Ultimately though, The Mask of Satan is a film more about reveling in atmosphere, and Bava certainly achieves that. Even more than fifty years on the film still chills and occasionally shocks, and most horror films struggle to do that fifty minutes in.
The AIP alternate cut, Black Sunday, is only minimally different. Some music is changed, the dubbing is slightly different, and an opening crawl and voiceover are added. Otherwise the only real difference comes in the reduced emphasis on some of the film's gorier moments. The Mask of Satan is the superior cut in every way, but Black Sunday is still a great film, though it's really more of a curio on this release.
The Disc
Sound, at least through my stereo only TV, is clear, sharp and well balanced.
The Extras
As ever with Arrow releases the extras are plentiful. You could count the AIP cut of the film as among the extras, but even if you don't there's another extra film; I Vampiri, the first Italian horror film of the sound era, which Bava completed after Ricardo Fredda left the production.
Mask of Satan gets a commentary from Bava expert Tim Lucas. It's interesting in parts, but a little dry and heavy on 'here's what's happening in this scene' talk for my liking. Also offering a little context is Alan Jones, who provides an optional introduction to the film.
Star Barbara Steele appears - still looking great - in a 1995 interview. It's a bit short, but she's engaging and has some interesting things to relate, especially about the sets for Mask of Satan. It is a shame, however, that Steele didn't participate in any new content for this release.
The film-specific content is rounded out with a rare deleted scene, which, like most deleted scenes, is inessential but interesting.
The extras package is completed by a mass of trailers for this film and many, many of Bava's others.
Overall
This is another outstanding package from Arrow Video, who continue to treat horror films with a respect that most companies don't seem to think them worthy of, and which fans will revel in. This is also a brilliant film, and the package is an essential addition to any horror fan's Blu Ray library.
Feb 1, 2013
The Picture Show: Review Special
You can listen to the show in the player below, or you can stream or download it HERE.
No show next week, due to scheduling problems, but the following week we're definitely going to get you an early review of Side By Side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)