brittany's Talk

Black Christmas

To those of you Halloween fans, THIS is the film that came first, John Carpenter's Halloween is doused with aspects lifted directly from Bob Clark's Black Christmas. Alongside Psycho it remains one of my personal classics. Very unnearving and in parts horrific - the phone calls for instance. Basically its Christmas time, as the title suggests and an unknown killer has found his way into the attic of a sorority girls house and begins killing them one by one. Kidder's performance of the drunken, outspoken Barb is fantastic, followed closely by Olivia Hussey, who is truly beautiful in this movie. The camera work and direction is first rate, the first person perspective, heavy breathing - which most will know from Halloween, Mr Clark did it here first, and in my opinion, did it better than JC. It's not full of gore its full of suspense and wonderful creepy atmosphere, as I mentioned before, the phone calls really will put you on edge, as will the 'eye' scene. Get ready for a shocking ending and watch it again for all the bits that you didn't catch, believe me there will be some. Alongside Jacob's Ladder, Don't Look Now and The Fog this really is one of the most frightening films I have ever had the pleasure to acquire.

House of 1000 Corpses

Its sad that a film as wonderfully made as this is so grossly misunderstood.

Let me say this right off that bat. If you're idea of a horror film is I know What You Did Last Summer and you consider Scream and The Exorcist to be the most shocking films ever made, this is not a film for you. If you havent seen I Spit on Your Grave, Evil Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dawn of the Dead or Last House on the Left, this is not a film for you. If you've never listened to "Living Dead Girl" or "Superbeast" this is not a film for you.

Now having said that, this is a film for me. It is a film for true horror fans, the kind that stay up and watch Dawn of the Dead and The Beyond, who know who Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento and George Romero are. This is a film that was meant to be seen by people like this and will only be enjoyed by people like this. This is not exactly mainstream stuff here. Only a small percentage of people enjoy this stuff, and for those people, this film is a true rivival of classic exploitive horror.

Rob Zombie has created a homage to 1970's exploitation/horror films, and he has been extremly successful in achieving that goal. The film borrows largely from Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Last House on the Left, with his own little bits of original demential thrown in and an assortment of other horror film references. The film tells the tale of four teenagers who are terrorized and tortured by a bizarre southern family living in a remote farmhouse in 1977. The film uses all sorts of camera tricks--negative colouring, split-screens and seemingly random inserts of grainy snuff-like footage of various S&M and gore images; the off-the-wall effect is similar to what Oliver Stone did in Natural Born Killers. The film is not about plot, or about characters. Its purpose is to shock and disturb, to serve no other function than to entertain through exploitation and disgusting and bizarre violence. Just as you think the limits of weirdness are approaching, Zombie takes the film a step farther, and before long you surrender yourself to the mercy of the film and just accept things for what they are. The film has the feeling of an out of control freight train being piloted by a madman and the climax of the film is truly bizarre. The reviewers who wrote the film off as overly-sadistic with little in the ways of character development, plot or suspence have come to see a different kind of film, perhaps more at home with titles like The Sixth Sense or Silence of the Lambs. The have no busineness debasing a great film like this.

Rob Zombie has created a film that is both a homage and derivative at the same time; most things in the film have been done before, in one shape or another, and the level of gore is a fraction of what was intended, due to its shameful R-rating. To see the inevitable Unrated Directors Cut on video is going to be a true horror experience.

But this film is something has hasnt been seen in decades and it has been made with the utmost care that only a true horror fan could provide. It is a film made by horror fans for horror fans, a true labor of love by Mr. Zombie, despite some flaws. If you arent sitting the theater going "hey, theres Bill Mosely from TCM 2!" or "hey, that shot is a homage to the cover of Evil Dead!" or "hey, he wears peoples skin like Leatherface!" then you probably arent meant to be seeing this film. But for those who are, the film is a true gem and a rarity; it is a kind of film that hasnt been seen on the screens in over twenty years and probably wont be for another twenty years. Get out there and enjoy this rare experience while you still can.

An instant cult-hit.

Grade: A

For true horror fans only. Everyone else just wont get it.

Psycho

When Psycho came out, the horror industry of movies was merely monsters, zombies, werewolves, and vampires. So when Psycho hit screens, the audience was finally introduced to psychological thrillers. It hit with such a huge bang that the audience was shocked...with fear and suspense. Psycho created what the thriller genre is today. It sliced through clique monster movies and changed it forever. Still today when you look at Norman Bates and his extremely freaky look when you see him watching the inspector's car sinking into the swamp sends chills down my spine. And when Marion Crane met her bloody demise in the middle of the movie, Hitchcock proved to everyone that this movie is different, different from every other movie you have ever seen. The cinematography in this movie is marvelous, the music is marvelously freaky, the acting is magnificent, the story is exceptional, watching Norman Bates lossing his marbles was wicked and everything else about the movie is great. Too bad the sequels and the new remake was complete trash.

The Day the Earth Stood Still

I´m a big fan of the 1951 classic sci-fi, this is another unecessary remake and where the bloody hell is the famous quote of Klaatu? Klaatu barada nikto!, even without that frankly, the film can impress me. Anyway, I went to the cinema expecting nothing from this movie. I thought this must be just another SpecialFX showcase. I surprised me so much.

The film began with a man discovering that glassy sphere in the trailer on the top of an icy mountain. In the next shot it left the man and just started telling us what was happening in the present day. Scientists and military people are summoned for an urgent meeting after a strange object had been detected to crash on the earth. Sounds like a very old-school sci-fi? The movie, however, contain little action and a lot of talking about this and that, all of which concerned much with human's basic instincts and behaviors.

The opening sequence wasn't really thrilling at all. The acting wasn't perfect. The scripts sound ridiculous at times. If it's this flawed, then why did I gave it 7/10? Keanu Reeves gave an interview indicated that Klaatu will become more 'human', he was absolutely right. Just this 'human' is a kind of human portrayed in the film.

Yes, i praised the quality of special effect. From the beginning those scenes were real eye-candy. In my opinion, casting Reeves as Klaatu was a right decision. He has successfully portrayed something 'alien' to us. Did you thought that a boy and many character in the film should be killed? If you did, then the movie have completely fulfilled its purpose: to teach you what human being really is. I didn't understand this until the movie ended and let me having some time with myself. According to the film, Klaatu learned that human race loves violence. And, without any bias, yes, we are. Seeing men fighting for a ticket in the train station, a higher-rank left his crew died just to be safe, and a representative of US government (one good performance from Kathy Bates) acting like she rules the world was, for me, reminded me how cruel people treated each others.

Punisher: War Zone

I saw this a couple hours ago in Apollo Theater. I was a reader of the comic, and am a fan of what we've seen from Marvel lately. This movie is just what I wanted, and what I expected.

Ray Stevenson is perfect as Frank Castle, and everyone else is at least good enough for an action movie. Dominic West is over the top as Jigsaw - which is what Jigsaw should be! A horribly disfigured mob boss with a vendetta is not a subtle thing to begin with.

As for the "respectable" critics' complaints: 1. Violence: Of course it's violent! What part of the title "Punisher: War Zone" implies peaceful conflict resolution? He's not the "Admonisher". The gore and violence is not at the level of a "Saw" film, but it is high. It is rated "R" for a reason.

2. Dialogue: I think the critics have been spoiled by "Dark Knight" and "Iron Man". Those were comic-book movies with extraordinarily good dialogue. "Punisher: War Zone" is no worse than a "Predator" or "Rambo: First Blood". Not great, but not awful. This is not supposed to be "Hamlet".

3. Script: The story moves along well, and when there's a break in the action (which isn't very often), the film doesn't drag- it's always going somewhere. Not perfect, but good. Much better than the critics have made it out to be.

All in all, a good time, and one that I'll buy and re-watch as soon as it comes out on DVD.

Quantum of Solace

# 39 Quantum of Solace
It's intense and sometimes confusing but I came out feeling this is a film that will endure and ultimately prove satisfying.

I left wanting more at the end of QoS. I felt the film was missing something, and that it could have given me more. I have left other bond films after the initial screening feeling dissatisfied but with DAD and TWINE I knew they had nothing else to give. With QoS, I feel there is definitely a lot more there which will be revealed to me when I see the film in future and as I step back and think about it. QoS is a complex film with many layers which need to be peeled back.

The heart of the film is Bond's emotional journey as he comes to terms with the death of Vesper, and therefore it feels less consequential than other Bond films where Bond is a key player in a wide reaching plan and plot. The plot does feel somewhat disjointed at times, particularly early on in the film, and it does make some big (and sometimes silly) jumps, but reaching the end of the film I felt the plot was un-important, it was merely a vehicle to provide a framework and a tapestry to enable Bond's emotional journey to played out and illustrated.

Dialogue is scant and is split between brief exposition and some slower deeper conversations, particularly between M and Bond, and Bond and Camille. I think a lot is communicated via other means, through images and sound, through juxtaposition and intelligent montage which will need a second viewing to reveal itself as the first viewing the assault on the senses is somewhat disorientating.

Action sequences are shot in a very similar way to Paul Greengrass's Bourne films, and the comparisons are inevitable. They do work though, and are well conceived and shot.

Daniel Craig delivers a solid performance, although I have to say I was less wowed than in Casino Royale, but this is because I was not expecting such an intelligent portrayal of Bond in Casino Royale, while with QoS I was, so it was less of a surprise. Again, as in Casino Royale, this is his film, he is a primeval force that pushes the film forward.

Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric and Judi Dench are all superb, although they inevitably fade into the background at times as Dan does his stuff, however Giancarlo Giannini holds his own as an emotional core to the film to rival Dan in his few brief scenes. Jeffrey Wright is great but underused. Elvis and Medrano are less consequential than I was expecting.

The producers have taken a big risk with this film. More casual viewers who sit back with a bucket of popcorn and expect to be entertained while switching off their brains will not be pleased. The film expects you to understand Casino Royale well, and for you to engage. It could also prove dissatisfying to those viewers who are able to engage but want to see a familiar Bond-structure such as in OHMSS or FRWL, which is why I guess some true Bond fans have expressed concern. It's smart and rewarding but very very different.

I guess for the next film a more conventional structure will be required as we get back to Bond-basics, but ultimately I'm glad this film exists, and I think the Bond legacy would be poorer without it. It is the film we should have had after OHMSS. It will be a 'one-off', but it is a triumph - small, introspective and personal.

Best Bit: Agent Fields cover on oil,remaarking the infamous scene of "Goldfinger"

Taken

Liam Neeson, is the vodka in James Bond´s martini. The most thrilling movie I've seen in a long time. Neeson is what we would fear if James Bond went to hell and came back for revenge (I doubt big budget Quantum of Solace will top this). I loved Jason Bourne; but where Bourne is confused for half the movie, Neeson is looking down a barrel of a pistol 3/4 of the time. In a three way spy battle, I would put Neeson edging out Bourne, who would be a step ahead of Bond.

Between the jaw-dropping action sequences was the subject matter of international trafficking, which was pretty miserable to watch. Although homicide is good in some case, justice is not necessary, only vengance.

The Serpent and the Rainbow

In this intense thriller inspired by a non-fiction book by Wade Davis, Bill Pullman plays Dr. Dennis Alan, who travels to Haiti in search of a mysterious white powder that is supposed to have powers of resurrection. While there, he hooks up with attractive local doctor Marielle Duchamp (Cathy Tyson) and locks horns with nasty, psychotic villain Dargent Peytraud (Zakes Mokae).

For me, "The Serpent and the Rainbow" is one of those rare scary movies that thoroughly engrossed me. It's a heart-pounding, solidly acted (particularly by Mokae), elaborate movie with lots of local flavour since the film-makers had the good sense to film it on location in Haiti. The atmosphere is so heavy that it's palpable. I would consider it to be one of the better Wes Craven pictures which I have seen. It's probably not one of his better known films - I think that most of them get kind of over-shadowed by the original "Nightmare on Elm Street" and the "Scream" trilogy. But I would suggest that interested viewers seek it out. It takes Dr. Alan and the viewer on an interesting if morbid journey.

Audition (Ôdishon)

Takashi Miike's "Audition" has to be one of the best Japanese horror movies I have ever seen.Ryo Ishibashi plays Shigeharu Aoyama,a lonely middle-aged man.After many years of being loyal to his deceased wife is the right time to begin dating again.His friend Yasuhisa decides to set up a fake casting audition in hopes that his friend can find new wife.Aoyama then goes through countless portfolio's looking for women to audition,but as soon as he sees the beautiful Asami's picture he knows that she is the one.Soon they begin dating.Everything seems perfect at first,but is Asami all that she seems?"Audition" isn't as violent and outrageous as "Fudoh" or "Ichi the Killer",but it certainly delivers some of the most harrowing scenes of violence ever captured on screen.The film is atmospheric and artistic,so if you're looking only for gore and violence avoid this one like the plague.However if you're a fan of Miike's works this masterpiece is not to be missed.

The Strangers

The Strangers is a movie that delivers everything it promises it would. It scares you. Simple as that. Instead of relying on buckets of gore and an over-contrived premise, it keeps things simple and thats what makes it work. For an hour and a half, the viewer is subjected to a slowly mounting sense of dread that just keeps building without ever pulling back. The story never falls victim to the usual horror movie clichés, but at the same time , it doesn't make any ridiculous attempts to go against them. Perhaps the best thing that the movie has going for it is it's believability. There isn't really any thing to distract the viewer from buying into the premise wholeheartedly. Considering that this is the director's first ever movie, it's a feat that's even more impressive. This is the kind of movie you shouldn't watch at home alone in the dark.