brittany's Talk

Cannibal Holocaust

Ruggero Deodato may be the most hated film director on the planet for his disturbing exploitation masterpiece that is Cannibal Holocaust. It's truly one of the few films that lives up to the hype its marketing gives it. The posters scream, "The one that goes all the way!" How true. "Can a movie go too far?" I think in this instance, yes. Cannibal Holocaust is now and will always be the most disturbing motion picture ever made. The brutality in what it shows and the unbelievable disregard for emotion that the film makers portray is enough to make you shudder without actually seeing the movie. Some of the displays in the movie are hard to even believe a human being could think up such vile and putrid acts, and they're shown in raw, uncut form. Deodato doesn't try to stray away from the action or try to censor with camera tricks. He sticks the camera right into the mix and displays some of the most shocking and nauseating images ever put to film. Of course it's perverse, and of course it's putrid, objectionable, and all other vile things you can think of, but despite all this, it's still an incredible film; a true landmark in movie history.

The movie begins with a TV program about the documentarians who go missing - Alan Yates, director; Faye Daniels, script girl and Alan's fiancé; and Mark Tomasso and Jack Anders, both cameramen. NYU anthropology professor Harold Monroe heads to the Amazon to lead the search "team," which consists of a hardened jungle guide and his young, talented assistant. They witness disturbing and shocking rituals by all three local tribes, the Yakumo, Yanomano, and Shamitari, which is the beginning of the moral stand Deodato takes. After gaining some trust with the Yanomanos, Monroe discovers that the documentarian troupe had been killed. Frustrated with the Yanomanos' hostility and brutality, Monroe trades the group's footage (possessed by the Yanomanos) for a tape recorder. Back in New York, he views the material and discovers who the real savages are. As the film starts out, we sympathize with these four who, for the sake of information, go into the jungle for research, only to be savagely mutilated by brutal primitives. However, we come to realize that the natives were the victims of civilized society by being tortured and exploited in incredibly grotesque and inhumane ways by the documentarians, which ultimately lead to their demise in an incredible, horrifying, and disturbing climax. The climax is all the more disturbing that Faye, the script girl, received the full blunt of retribution, when she was, in fact, seemingly innocent and took no participation in the evil (and actually tries to stop it). The trouble is that she's powerless to the three other men in her group. What Deodato's intentions were to include a character like Faye is unclear, other than maybe to heighten the disturbing factor of the film's climax.

It pulls no punches. There is no chance for you to escape. Every time you think you're finally safe, you're slammed with more and more visceral content. It never stops. However, Deodato does make these horrifying and disturbing images into a cinematic masterpiece. What separates Cannibal Holocaust from other exploitative sleaze (other than being competently made and well acted) is the inclusion of subtle social commentary. Had this been a film that was grotesque for the sake of being grotesque (like Lenzi's later Cannibal Ferox), it would be as reprehensible as many claim. However, the movie instead tests our ethics and our stomachs with some of the most realistically gruesome images ever portrayed on film. The message is simple: while we can think of outsiders and, in some cases, primitives as savages, our hate and discrimination can turn US into the savages (such as racist hate of minorities). The film makes us look into ourselves. We came from savagery, and savages we are. The pinnacle of this is during a scene where the film makers impale a young girl that they just raped, and are smiling at the disturbing result. This also reflects what incredibly visceral images we as humans can find as entertaining, and also suggests that the media stages their sensationalized footage (like the film makers in the movie). And if not, it condemns the media for focusing on the violence and exploitation of the news instead of trying for honest journalism. How is easily explained. The team's goal was to produce harrowing and nasty footage, all to make into a "documentary," and obviously, the more shocking, the more unbelievable, the more successful, and staged the footage to achieve this. The all too obvious irony is that this film is in itself morally reprehensible, and still has an incredible following and fan base.

Though it is an incredible film, it's obviously not for everyone, especially the animal activist, as six animals are actually killed on screen, which is probably the most controversial aspect of the film, and the worst part of which is that the animal killings are actually unnecessary, and have no ground in the plot or morals of the rest of the movie. However, the fake human violence alone, whether it's simple gore or horrific rape, is enough to make it the most brutal movie experience ever. Other mainstream shockers such as Texas Chain Saw Massacre pale in comparison to the savagery of what is Cannibal Holocaust. Never have I felt so depressed after viewing a film, which is amplified by Riz Ortolani's beautiful, flowing melody that shocks and disturbs at times by playing during the most disturbing parts of the movie. If you are able to stomach the film enough to see it, hopefully you'll be able to look past the violence, disgusting material, cruel animal killings, and the outright evil this film depicts and see the true nature of a political statement. The downfall of the cannibal genre, Cannibal Holocaust truly stands in a league of its own.

Move Over Darling

Metropolis

I was shocked to find myself riveted to this movie. This is without a doubt the best sci-fi movie I've ever seen! Let me explain my position. We have all seen modern sci-fi movies, and argued over which is the best ever made, but those film makers have high speed film and computers. Imagine trying to make a movie today with only the tools available to Fritz Lang in 1925, and even if you used a modern camcorder it would be nigh impossible! This is a must see for all persons interested in the history of film, as well as just good fun for everyone. The social metaphores as well as the religious and philosophical double meanings are a sight to behold.

The Last House on the Left

Whether you love it or hate it (there really seems to be no in-between), you must admit that Last House on the Left is a powerful film. In my opinion, it may be one of the most important American films ever made. Screw Scream--this is Wes Craven's best. Combining professional and amateurish elements on a low budget, it has the scratchy, over-saturated look of a perverse home movie--and the rough edges make it all the more unforgettable. The actors are very good, especially David A. Hess in his definitive role as sadistic sex murderer Krug and Jeramie Rain as a deranged woman obviously modeled after Sadie Glutz. The brutal rape-murders and scenes of vengeance are staged in a chilling, claustrophobic manner that makes you feel like you're there. Oddly enough, the clash of light (the comically inept cops, the cheery soundtrack) and dark elements creates a juxtaposition that's even more disturbing; despite what's happening, the three nuts are enjoying themselves without remorse and the rest of the world just bounces along obliviously. Also, the cop scenes often provide a necessary break from the brutality, giving you a brief second to breathe before plunging you back in. A tone of grim tension is maintained throughout, and it clings to you long after you've left the Last House. How, you ask, could a person enjoy something like this? Because it does what a horror movie is ultimately supposed to do, and I know that in the end, "It's only a movie...only a movie...only a movie..."

Love in the Time of Cholera

Love in the Time of Cholera is one of my top five favorite books of all time. I was so excited when I heard it was being made into a movie. I'm one of those who approve of books being made into films, as long as they reasonably stick to the novel, because they bring a new perspective and life to the story.

However, I had read nothing but horrible things about this film before I went to see it. Now that I have, all I can say to all those who had only negative things to say is: HAVE YOU READ THE BOOK? "Love in the Time of Cholera" retains the same authenticity and tone on the screen as it did on the page. Yes, the characters are strange people, but that is what makes them memorable; we see parts of ourselves in them and parts of their culture that molded them into who they were. Bardem's Florentino is being called a "creepy" "stalker", but his actions in the novel are no different then those on the screen and reflect the passion and desperation of the world he lives in. Fermina is being called "cold" and "unlikable", but in the novel that's what she is; a haughty, proud woman who keeps her heart buried.

I know the number of bad reviews out there will undoubtedly outnumber the good ones. I don't care. I urge you to go see this film. The novel it follows is a classic and is one of the greatest love stories of all time. Its characters are not perfect, they are human. The scenery, costumes, and overall atmosphere of the film are authentic and moving. But at the heart of the images, there is a love story that is timeless, character traits that hit close to home, and a happy ending that it seems few of us find.

This is why we watch movies. It's not the entertainment, the celebrities, or the technological feats. It is the stories that make us think, that cause us to question the world we live in. We all didn't watch "To Kill a Mockingbird" for the comedy or memorable performances (though they were). We watched it for the time it portrayed, the people it involved, and the message that made us ponder what our world was, is, and is going to be.

"Love in the Time of Cholera" is a movie about us. The faults, successes, failures, and dreams we all have. It is worth anyone's time to see it at least once.

Across the Universe

Pure emotion. No one can mix theater with film like Julie Taymor. From beginning to end the film takes you on a psychedelic beatle ride that grips you by the ears, the heart and the soul and never lets go. Even now. Hours after the projector was shut off. Every song adaptation interpretation and setting is spot on, fans of the Beatles will recognize that every detail in Taymor's images recall an instance, a photograph, a line or a quote from the band. Even the girl that comes in through the bathroom window. Nothing is left to chance, everything is on purpose. Amazing. Easily the best film of the year. And in regards to people saying it's a two hour music video.. well... yeah, what the heck were you expecting???

Hamlet

Part of the genius of Branagh's interpretation of Hamlet is in the use of the techniques of the cinema to enhance the production. Branagh has not condensed the acts like some mass market soup, as was done in Olivier's 1948 Oscar-winning production, or in, say, Zeffirelli's 1989 Hamlet lite starring Mel Gibson (both excellent, though, within their scope), but has kept every word while directing our understanding so that even those only casually familiar with the play might follow the intent and purpose with discernment. Recall that for Shakespeare--the ultimate actor's playwright who wrote with precious few stage directions--interpretation was left to the direction and the actors, an open invitation that Branagh rightly accepts.

The use of flashback scenes of things implied, such as the amorous union of Ophelia and her Lord Hamlet abed, or of a vast expanse of snow darkened with distant soldiers to represent the threat of Fortinbras' army from without, and especially the vivid remembrance in the mind's eye of the new king's dastardly deed of murder most foul, helps us all to more keenly appreciate just what it is that torments Hamlet's soul. I also liked the intense closeups. How they would have bemused and delighted an Elizabethan audience.

Branagh's ambitious Hamlet is also one of the most accessible and entertaining, yet without the faintest hint of any dumbing down or abbreviation. A play is to divert, to entertain, to allow us to identify with others who trials and tribulations are so like our own. And so first the playwright seeks to engage his audience, and only then, by happenstance and indirection, to inspire and to inform. Shakespeare did this unconsciously, we might say. He wrote for the popular audience of his time, a broad audience, it should be noted, that included kings and queens as well as knaves and beggars, and he reached them, one and all. We are much removed from those times, and yet, this play, this singular achievement in theatre, still has the power to transcend mere entertainment, to fuse poetry and story, as well as the high and the low, and speak once again to a new audience twenty generations removed.

Branagh himself is a wonderful Hamlet, perhaps a bit of a ham at times (as I think was Shakespeare's intent), a prince who is the friend of itinerant players. He also lacks somewhat in statute (as we conceive our great heroes); nonetheless his interpretation of the great prince's torment and his singular obsession to avenge his father's murder speaks strongly to us all. Branagh, more than any other Hamlet, makes us understand the distracted, anguished and tortured prince, and guides us to not only an appreciation of his actions, wild and crazy as they sometimes are, but to an identification and an understanding of why (the eternal query) Hamlet is so long in assuming the name of action. In Branagh's production, this old quibble with Hamlet's character dissolves itself into a dew, and we realize that he was acting strongly, purposely all the while. He had to know the truth without doubt so that he might act in concert with it.

I was also very much impressed with Derek Jacobi's Claudius. One recalls that Jacobi played Hamlet in the only other full cinematic production of the play that I know of, produced in 1980 by the BBC with Claire Bloom as Gertrude; and he was an excellent Hamlet, although perhaps like Branagh something less than a massive presence. His Claudius combines second son ambition with a Machiavellian heart, whose words go up but whose thoughts remind below, as is the way of villains everywhere.

Kate Winslet is a remarkable Ophelia, lending an unusual strength to the role (strength of character is part of what Kate Winslet brings to any role), but with the poor, sweet girl's vulnerability intact. She does the mad scene with Claudius as well as I have seen it done, and of course her personal charisma and beauty embellishes the production.

Richard Briers as Polonius, proves that that officious fool is indeed that, and yet something more so that we can see why he was a counselor to the king. The famous speech he gives to Laertes as his son departs for France, is really ancient wisdom even though it comes from a fool.

Julie Christie was a delight as the besmirched and wretched queen. In the bedroom scene with Hamlet she becomes transparent to not only her son, but to us all, and we feel that the camera is reaching into her soul. She is outstanding.

The bit players had their time upon the stage and did middling well to very good. I liked Charlton Heston's player king (although I think he and John Gielgud might have switched roles to good effect) and Billy Crystal's gravedigger was finely etched. Only Jack Lemon's Marcellus really disappointed, but I think that was mainly because he was so poorly cast in such a role. Not once was he able to flash the Jack Lemon grin that we have come to know so well.

The idea of doing a Shakespearean play with nineteenth century dress in the late twentieth century worked wonderfully well, but I know not why. Perhaps the place and dress are just enough removed from our lives that they are somewhat strange but recognizable in a pleasing way. And perhaps it is just another tribute to the timeless nature of Shakespeare's play. The mirrors in the great hall added to the effect of a vast and indifferent castle environment, and in the scene with Ophelia and Laertes returned tended to magnify the focus.

There is so much more to say about this wonderful cinematic production. It is, all things considered, one of the best Hamlets ever done. Perhaps it is the best. See it, by all means, see it for yourself.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (AVP 2)

I work at a movie theater, so I had the awesome pleasure of getting to dry run this movie (that's projection lingo for "watch movie early"). I just saw this, and let me tell you.....it's Bad-Ass, with a capital B and A, if you didn't notice. Let me explain why this sequel is roughly a jillion times better than the first movie...

Now, anyone who knows about this movie is already familiar with AvP 1. That was directed by Paul Anderson, a man who's been raping franchises for a while now. The movie was rated PG-13, which should already tell you how good it's gonna be (who rates an Alien/Predator movie PG-*******-13?). Turns out, the movie was complete garbage. It looked good, but it sucked for a few reasons: The Predators weren't BAMFs. Two got killed way early, and the last one standing just didn't take care of business like a bad-ass. He had to team up with a human in order to defeat the aliens. Come on now. Second, it was cheesy as hell (thanks to Paul Anderson). The human characters sucked, and overall, it lacked the feel of a Predator and Alien movie. Last....it was rated PG-13, and had little to no blood. It's Predator and Alien! How could it be PG-13? Long story short, it sucked.

Now, we have AvP: Requiem, and Anderson had ZERO to do with it, so that's an early indication it won't be a stinking pile of ass. It was directed by The Brothers Strauss, who directed a whole bunch of cool music videos. These two not only made a movie that looks amazing visually, but they made a movie that felt exactly like a Predator and Alien movie should feel like: Thrilling, bloody, gory, and absolutely HARDCORE. I'm not kidding. Just when you think this movie goes too far, it goes even further, and you're just sitting there, thinking, "Wow, that's bad-ass."

The one difference everyone will notice is that it's rated R, and for good reason. This movie pulls out no stops when it comes to savage and brutal, bad-ass violence. In the first ten minutes, a guy hunting in the forest with his 8 year old boy gets his arm melted off, and he and his son get impregnated by a couple of face-huggers. A few minutes later, they both come to, and guess what? Both their chests burst in bloody goodness. The movie sets the tone within the first ten minutes. I mean, my God, they kill an 8 year old kid in the first ten minutes. That's how you know this movie will be bad-ass and balls-to-the-wall violent.

Unlike the first one, this movie actually has interesting characters that you kind of enjoy watching and listening to. They have personality, and you actually don't really want most of them to die (even though it's beyond bad-ass when they are killed).

The story revolves around the Predator ship from part 1 crash landing on earth, with an alien/predator hybrid in it. They send a lone Predator to earth to "clean up" the mess, and let me tell you, this Predator is a complete bad-ass. If Chuck Norris had dreads, a helmet, and mandibles, he'd be this predator. No joke. This Predator goes around the small town, and hunts down the aliens, killing them off one by one in some amazingly bad-ass scenes. Caught right in the middle of this chaos are the humans, but unlike in AvP, this Predator shows no mercy towards anyone. He doesn't team up with a human, he doesn't cooperate, he goes in, cleans up, kills aliens, and if a human gets in his way, he eviscerates them. The stars of the show are obviously the Predator and Aliens, so whenever a human is on screen and they start fighting, naturally, you're just waiting for the Predator to come back and start killing. But either way, who cares. It's bad-ass.

The action scenes are thrilling, to say the least. Every single action scene in the movie has at least one "HOLY ****!" moment, and the movie is filled with scenes that make you just say, "That's just ****ing insane." For instance, SPOILERS HERE, in the movie, they kill an 8 year old kid, like 30 newborn babies in a hospital (although it's not shown on screen, you know what the hell happened), and an unborn baby while it's in it's mother's belly. I am not kidding. This movie doesn't take the easy way out with characters or events. Characters that you don't expect to live die, and what they do to prevent the alien threat from spreading outside the town is pretty surprising and crazy. This movie is ****ing hardcore and brutal.

The end fight with the Predator and Predalien is awesome. The fights with the Predator and Aliens are absolutely amazing, especially the hospital fight where he takes on like 5 of them. The end of this fight is nicely capped off with an unexpected "HOLY ****!!!" moment. You'll jump the **** out of your seat smiling when you see what happens to one of the human characters at the end of this fight.

If you hated the first one, you'll love this one. If you loved the first one, you'll love this one. It amps up the action, gore, blood, thrills, and just sheer bad-assness by a million. The Brothers Strauss did an amazing job with this movie, not only visually, but pretty much on every scale possible. When you watch this, you feel like you're watching the original Predator again. All it needed was an Arnold cameo, and it'd be set.

This comes out on Christmas. I'm sure Jesus will be happy to get a bad-ass present like this one