Sunday, April 24, 2011

Film Review Catch Up

Before last weekend, you could be fooled into thinking that I had vanished from the blogging scene. Instead I was trying to reinvent how I reviewed films. Firstly, I started a Facebook group that anyone could join, posting news, reviews, trailers, music videos - anything entertainment based. That is still running, and I will continue to post reviews there.

I also post my reviews on the Ultimate Geek Forum, but I didn't know what to do with the blog. As you may remember, there was also a Thom's House Of Film blog, but that left this one pretty barren as I seem to have now trained myself to keeping my rants contained to Facebook or Tweet length.

So, the next few blogs I will be posting will be slightly older reviews from these other sources. Hope you enjoy them.

Film Review: Hobo With A Shotgun



I have a lot of time for Rutger Hauer. Best known for his outstanding performance in Blade Runner, I prefer his lesser known roles like in Wanted: Dead Or Alive or The Hitcher (which, to this day, is still one of the creepiest performances I have ever seen).

So I was looking forward a great deal to Hobo With A Shotgun when I first heard about it. It is based on a competition winning fake trailer during the time Quentin Tarantino and Roberrt Rodriguez' Grindhouse came out, and ended up being used with the other fake trailers during Grindhouse screenings in Canada (where first time director Jason Eisener hails).

The plot concerns Hauer's titular hobo who arrives in a new town to find it has been overrun by the criminal and the corrupt. He decides to take justice into his own hands and kill his way to the top - crime boss The Drake (Brian Downey).

While it's not a massive problem with what it is, the film does try a bit too hard to be shocking and gory. The violence is absolutely insane most of the time - body parts being shot off, a pedophile Santa being blown away, glass eating, a bus full of school kids being incinerated...it's not subtle stuff, but as a 'grindhouse' film that's kinda the point.

Hauer is on good form as the Hobo, and the rest of the cast are suitably over the top. The introduction of two armor clad killers called The Plague is quite strange though, as is the inexplicable octopus moment (you'll know it when you see it), even the hooker with a heart of gold character isn't as one dimensional as you would normally get.

Extra points must be awarded to the use of music over the end titles also, the choice of 'Run With Us' by Lisa Lougheed (the end theme music from 80s cartoon The Raccoons) is a masterstroke, and fits in with the retro feel of the film perfectly.

In the end, Hobo...succeeds with what it set out to do, but it's pretty much what I expected it to be. It's hard to put a finger on that kind of criticism with a film, but it did exactly what it said on the tin, should I have expected anymore than that?

***1/2
A solid genre film, but it is the film you expect it to be. For the most part, not in a bad way, but I did find it was trying a bit too hard with the violence. Worth a watch, though.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Film Review: The Fourth Kind

THE REAL FOOTAGE IS FAKE.

That is the equivalent in reading my review terms of how long it took me to realise the 'real life footage' in The Fourth Kind was, in fact, nothing of the sort. It was acted, and to make things more annoying about it all, badly acted. Worse than the 'acted' portion of the film, sadly.

Anyway, let us backtrack a moment so I can tell you what the film is about. We open with Milla Jovovich introducing herself as herself, and she informs us she will be playing the 'real life' character of Dr. Abbey Tyler. Dr. Tyler, you understand has had some kind of alien abduction happen to her, and several of her patients. This is 'supported' by interview footage with the movies director Olatunde Osunsamni interviewing the 'real life' Dr. Tyler (and I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but she is played by ACTRESS Charlotte Milchard).

The whole concept is a good idea but falls flat on it's arse for a few reasons. Firstly, it came out in 2009. The whole world has the information at it's fingertips to instantly debunk the 'real footage' as rubbish. There are cases of abduction in Nome, Alaska (where the movie is set), but none of the characters portrayed in the film existed. After watching the film it took me all of 30 seconds to see fact of that. Maybe if they had tried this sort of thing in the eighties it would have worked better (but they would have still needed better actors).

There is a lot of 'real police footage' shown also, and at one point its shows (slightly blurred) a man shooting his wife in the head, then shooting himself. Now I'm pretty sure that the authorities don't release that type of footage, what with the law and everything. I think it probably extends to cautionary shots of drunks on 'Worlds Craziest Drivers', this however would border on snuff.

And some of the stuff does seem pulled out of nowhere, like the mysterious owls that look at you before you get abducted, which I am convinced is because owls sometimes can creep people out a bit when they keep looking at you.

To it's credit, the film does have a couple of decent moments. The moments when characters are possessed by the alien force and sit bolt upright, and the cameras go funny, is quite effective. It would be more effective if they weren't trying to make you believe it was all real, though. I'd have liked to have seen just a film about this, because on paper it's a good idea, but in reality with all it's purported 'real life footage' (performed by an amateur dramatics society) it all just strikes me as a Blair Witch Project for very thick people.

*1/2
A half star added for the creative idea, but put out in the wrong decade, when anyone with a laptop and a spare minute can instantly debunk the film as utter bobbins, which is what it is.

Film Review: Martyrs

On first glance at Martyrs it all seems like your usual 'rape-revenge' flick, but French. The case does nothing to sway your opinion to the contrary, but it couldn't be more far removed from that if it tried.

The film starts showing a young girl, Lucie, running from a warehouse, beaten and half naked. After this she is put in a youth home where she befriends another girl, but is still troubled by the events that took place in the warehouse. Fast forward 15 years and both girls are going out to seek revenge on the people that did what they did to Lucie. But Lucie is still dealing with a very present face from the past.

Apologies if that last paragraph sounded slightly vague, but it's hard to put across what happens in the film without giving too much away, it's best to watch the film knowing the bare minimum, like I did. The above describes the first 15 minutes or so of the movie, and after that it descends into one of the most disturbing films you will ever witness.

This is where you shouldn't balk at the word 'disturbing'. It really, really is, but at the same time it's brilliant and unforgettable. The film is so well made it is one of those rare films that transcend its genre. This is no regular horror film (not slighting the genre at all, but this is something else)

But, I guess if you are of a nervous disposition this isn't for you. Contrary to what you may think this film shows no scenes of sexual abuse whatsoever. Disturbingly, this is not why Lucie was being held in the warehouse. As the reasons for this make themselves clear, you almost wish they were. It's brave, but incredibly hard to watch at times stuff (there was one part where the thought crossed my mind that I'd have to turn it off soon).

Again, apologies for being vague and not covering as much ground plot-wise as I sometimes do in these reviews, but you really owe it to yourself to get this film and watch it as soon as possible. You may not thank me, but you won't be able to deny its power.

*****
Brave, Disturbing, Brilliant, Horrific, but overall unforgettable. You will never see anything like Martyrs again, that's for sure.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Film Review: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre/The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2

The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre is an undisputed genre classic. Causing mass outrage when it was first released in 1974, it does seem a bit tame when you compare it to todays horror output. For one thing, you barely see anything THAT gory really. But none of that matters, the film drips menace and dread. Every moment is just building to something more and more disturbing.


The film (if you don't know) is about a group of friends travelling one day in Texas. After a bizarre encounter with a hitchhiker, things slowly get worse and worse as they are picked off by a cannibalistic family (including the iconic chainsaw wielding Leatherface).


It's astonishing that 37 years later this film can still fill the viewer with the same sense of foreboding that it must have done back when it first came out. A truly disturbing masterpiece.


Watching the sequel directly after the original isn't the smartest move. The film is akin to asking a pre-pubescent teenager what happened in the original then filming that - every character resembles more a cartoon version. Leatherface starts to fall in love, the hitchhiker is transformed to the ultra annoying Crop Top, and the father figure becomes a huge rednecked cliche, whilst the heroes either run around screaming, or in the case of Dennis Hopper, run around with their own chainsaw shouting about "the walls coming down". For ages.


It's a shame because it started well. You knew that revisiting a film like the original in the 80s was never going to have the visceral unpleasantness the original had, and I accepted that. Immediately more gory, with lots of 80s music playing, all was well.


Until about 45 minutes in where the repeated running/screaming/Dennis Hopper shouting kicks in. For ages. After a burst of interest the film ends as abruptly as the first.


The problem may lie with the film trying to be "funny" (the case in fact says its funnier than the original, not exactly difficult), but it just fails repeatedly due to the overbearing characters. Who knew that the signs for how bad Tobe Hooper became (did you see his 'Dance Of The Dead' Masters of Horror episode?)


Maybe it's because I watched the two back to back, possibly TCM2 would be more watchable in a standalone environment, and its infinitely better than the dreadful remake that was released in 2003, but these remakes are truly a dime a dozen. The original always shine through, and the shod is quite rightly left forgotten.


Texas Chainsaw Massacre - *****

Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 - **


The original is still one of the most disturbing, visceral films ever made and the sequel? Well just an 80s folly with the occasional standout moment. Strangely none of which involved Dennis Hopper.

Film Review: Scre4m




Scre4m (or Scream 4, if you couldn't decode the title) is a bit like recent TV show The Kennedys in quite a few ways. Nobody really asked for it, the story had been told repeatedly, and (personally) I felt obligated to watch it for some reason.

Probably due to the original Scream. Now 15 years old it is undoubtedly a classic and did rewrite the rules of a slasher movie. In the long run, it wasn't great as it spawned 'I Know What You Did Last Summer' and their ilk

Scream 2 wasn't up there with the original, and Scream 3 was just worthless, in fact the only highlight of that film was a cameo by Jay & Silent Bob.

So here we are. 11 years after the original, with the surviving cast trio of Neve Campbell, David Arquette and Courtney Cox-Arquette (who now looks like she could fashion her own line of wallets from her skin) and also with Kevin Williamson (who sat the third film out) and horror maestro Wes Craven.

The premise this time is weak to say the least. It's another Woodsboro anniversary, and Sidney Prescott unfortunately picks that time to return to town to promote her new book. As this happens some new young whippersnappers start to get picked off by Ghostface (after a hugely pointless opening salvo of 'Stab' openings, one featuring Anna Paquin and Kristen Bell), and its up to the new bunch of kids (including Emma Roberts and Hayden Panettiere) and the old guard to stop whoever is behind the mask this time.

It's a bit of a problem with the whole "Who is behind the mask?" question. It has gotten to the point in Scream films where they put so much weight on that one thing, that you are wondering if every character that appears on screen is the killer (and the only way you can put your mind to rest is if you see Ghostface kill them and even then you feel like it's no guarantee.

The new young cast are pretty punchable too, with the exception of Panettiere's Jill who is actually a pretty likable character as these things go. As for the the older cast, they are still pretty annoying, just older. In fact the younger cast seem so much younger than Campbell and the Arquettes did in the original, you have to wonder if Craven plans to do a 5th film in a kindergarten. Or inside a mother expecting twins perhaps. 2 babys, 1 killer, 1 stomach.

But the film isn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. It's a teen slasher that gives us a character you don't want eviscerated 30 seconds after meeting them, the deaths are pretty gruesome, incredibly so if you consider it's a 15 (and now, I think it's about time they released the original Scream uncut over here, considering that's an 18) and there's even the odd flash of creativity and humour in the writing. You do have to look hard for that though. The pace is quite good in the last 25 minutes or so too.

But sadly, the film itself is all over the place. Smart arsey one minute, totally incompetent the next. You have one moment you really dig, the next it's shat all over by some mirthless one liner ("Fuck Bruce Willis"), it's actually frustrating. You start to sense that the time when you saw Williamson and Craven do good films has passed, and in the case of the latter that is a hell of a shame.

**
A film that shows the occasional glimmer of what made the first two Scream films so good, possibly not as bad as Scream 3, but I try to blank that film out. But overall just a bit of a pointless shambles.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Dads Writing 1: Growing Up

I was going through a storage room at my Mums today and we found an exercise book with some of Dads writing in. There's only 3 bits in there but I thought I'd start to type them up on here if anyone wanted to have a read.

The first is the story of his childhood in Glasgow.

I was born in a small cobbled street in Glasgow, called Lyon St. The buildings were tall tenement buildings four storeys high and very old, so old in fact, that they were condemned before my parents moved into the single-end (single apartment) we lived in.

The living space was about 12 feet square with two recesses in it for a bed in each recess, a range which supplied heat and for cooking meals, a gas mantle for light and a cast iron sink with just a cold water tap.

My family consisted of my Father, Mother, elder sister, elder brother, young sister, who came onto the scene 3 years after me, and myself. In that small space six of us lived, slept and ate our meals, to say things were cramped would be putting it mildly.

My father was one of the many who was unemployed, the only money he got was from the 'Means Test' (Social Security) and it wasn't nearly enough for six of us to live on, so my Mother had to go out to scrub floors and stairs to earn a little extra, but she had to be very careful, as the Means Test sent out people to spy on families, and spy they did. They had the authority to enter anyones home and go into cupboards and drawers to see if they had anything of value, and if the Means Test found out that one of the family was earning a few coppers, all benefit was stopped, so when my Mother went out for her little job, she had to carry her old working clothes in a shopping bag.

The part of tenement that we lived in was propped up with big beams of timber, each storey (landing) of the building had eight single-ends on it and two toilets which were shared by eight families, although living conditions were cramped, and always short of money, I can honestly say we were happy and contented, we ate regularly, and what my Mother could do with little bits of meat and bones she got from the butcher was miraculous. The only meal I didn't like was the one she made of mince. She'd buy a quarter pound of mince and cook it with so much water it became like a mince soup, she had to do that so to feed the six of us. She even went without food herself to give us a little extra to eat. Luckily we children had meals at school, which was normally a three course meal, how the schools did it in those days I don't know, as money was very short all round.

The school we went to was called Grove St. School, another very old building with large, high classrooms, which were bitterly cold in the winter - so cold that we'd have to sit with our coats and our scarfs on while having lessons, and the toilets were outside. The toilets had no roof on them and when it rained and you went to the toilet, you got wet. Also during playtime you had to go to the playground, no matter what the weather was like, and the schooling was very strict, you got strapped for the least wrong thing you did.

I'll always remember those straps (belts) they were leather, about 18" long and 2" wide and over an eighth of an inch thick, and when you got strapped the teachers would swing the straps up over their shoulders then bring it down hard on your hands, it was very painful as not only your hand was hit, but also part of your arm, so we learnt quick not to make mistakes or do anything wrong.

Then after school we'd play in the street until our supper was ready, but being young and energetic, we'd get hungry long before supper time, and if you had been in the street then, you'd hear the children shout "Hey Maw, throws doon a Jeely Piece" (Jam sandwich) and the mothers would throw them out of the window wrapped in newspaper, and sometimes, when thrown from the top storey, the newspaper would loosen and the Jeely Piece would land without any wrapping, but that didn't make any difference, we'd eat it just the same.

As I've said my Father was unemployed and like the rest of the men in the street he had to find ways of passing his days. Two days of the week was mainly spent in the 'Broo' (Job Centre) as he had to 'sign on' in those days. As the Broo was always crowded with men looking for work, he'd have to wait a long time to sign on. Most days he'd stay away from home at dinner time (Lunch time) so that my Mother could save on the food, so he would spend his signing on days at the Broo and eat his 'pieces' (sandwiches) there that my Mother may have been able to give him.

The other days he would play (if he had any coppers), Pitch and Toss, on the piece of spare ground in the street. Pitch and Toss was played by making a line on the earth, then the players would stand about six or eight feet from it and pitch their coins aiming for the line, the nearest one to the line would have the first go at tossing the coins. This was done by placing two or three coins on the index and middle fingers of the hand, palm upwards, and tossing the coins in the air making them spin, and the person who tossed them called out Heads or Tails, the coins that landed the way the person called he kept, then the next man nearest the line tossed the remaining coins, and it went on until all coins were claimed.

My Father didn't play that very much, as he tried to save his money for the Billiard Rooms, he was a first class snooker and billiard player, if he could get enough money to pay for one game, then he could be there playing nearly all day as they played that loser pay, and my Father very seldom lost. Sometimes bets would be made, I've known my Father to hand my Mother half a crown when he got home in the evening as part of his share of the bets.

As for my Mother passing her days, the days weren't long enough for her, as she'd be out from early in the morning until before we got home from school, then she'd clean the flat, get our suppers ready, mend our clothes, do crocheting, knitting and embroidery then get us ready for bed. Then after we went to bed, she'd sit with my Father and talk of how they'd like to give us a better upbringing, but being poor there was no hope of that, still, they had their dreams.

We children, not knowing any other way of life enjoyed ourselves in our own way, some of my friends and I would stand at a corner of Garscube Road (the gaspipe) and Dobbies Loan and wait for lorries to turn into Dobbies Loan, then when the lorries slowed down enough, we would jump on the back of them and hang on, usually with our legs dangling inches above the roadway, or we'd jump on the back of the trams and hang on by our finger tips to a narrow ledge and get a free ride to the next tram stop. The conductor would usually try and get us off by trying to hit us with the rail-changer, but we'd be too far away from him.

These free rides that we got we called it "getting Hudgies", if we weren't getting Hudgies, we'd be playing at leaps. We'd find somewhere where there was plenty of Dykes (Walls) and Middens (small stone shelters for rubbish and ashes) then we'd jump from Dyke to Midden or Midden to Midden, some places had buildings that used to be for washing clothes, we used them for our leaps too. But I guess our most dangerous game was, we'd climb up into the loft in the tenement and open the skylight and get onto the slates, we'd then crawl up to the apex of the building and walk along it, sometimes we'd run from the skylight to the chimney, which was about 20 feet from the skylight. We'd run up towards the apex in an angle then down in an angle to the chimney, we'd never run back the way, we knew it was too dangerous, though being children we didn't consider what we were doing was dangerous, to us it was just a game.

There were several other games we'd play, one we called 'K.D.R.F' (Kick Doors Run Fast), we'd knock on doors then run off, leaving people to open their doors to find no one there. Sometimes we'd tie the handles of two doors opposite each other with a long piece of string, then knock on the doors, then we'd have a laugh as one person would get their door opened a bit then the other person would open their door pulling the first persons door closed. Looking back I guess we were little horrors.

Another game we used to play was called 'Buckety-Buck-Buck'. There'd be a group of us, we'd get a tin can and one of us would throw it as far as he could, and while another would run to fetch it, the rest of us would run off and hide somewhere, then the one who had to fetch the can would place it on the street and go look for us. The ones he had found had to stand near the can, but then as he was away looking for others one of the still hidden ones could rush out, grab the can, and bang it on the ground and shout "Buckety-Buck-Buck!", then throw the can away, letting the ones that were caught go hide again.

There were lots of things we used to do, as not having much money, we'd make our own toys. We'd walk to Cawder woods which was about 6 or 7 miles from where we lived, and get branches of trees and makes bows and arrows and slings (catapults), or we'd get some wood and make swords, knives and aeroplanes. Sometimes we'd fight another street, usually Balnain St. which wasn't far from us. We'd make loads of tomahawks, which was done by putting a length of wood inside a tin can and bashing the can flat making sure the wood (handle) was kept to one side of the can when flattened. These we would throw at the Balnain St. kids, sometimes we'd win, sometimes they would, we'd always come home covered in blood from bruises and cuts we received in our battles. We never worried about that, the only thing we'd worry about is what our Mothers would say if we got our clothes torn.

I'll always remember Balnain St. as there was a mission house there. On certain evenings they would show coloured slides, and those that went were given a cup of tea and a bun. We went for the tea and buns, though we had to sit and watch the coloured slides and listen to a lecture.

There were also 5 cinemas quite near us, there was the Grand which was near the start of the city centre, then there was the Phoenix which we endearingly called The Bug-House, which had benches instead of seats. There we watched the original Buck Rogers, also Pearl White, Laurel and Hardy, The Three Stooges, The Dead-End Kids and The East-Side Kids, and the cowboys like Tom Mix, Gene Autrey, Roy Rogers and I nearly forgot my favourite Old Mother Riley. We could always go to the cinema, as we could sneak into the cinemas, all accept the Grand, we could never find a way of getting in there. There were also the Astoria, the Magnet and the Electric which were all easy to sneak into.

John Downie.