Re-Animator (1985)

How great is this film? I first saw it in the cinema, and was just blown away. It was so audacious, so over-the-top, and just so brilliant! HP Lovecraft's original story was his first professionally published work and was written as a serial, which really shows; every chapter begins with a short recap of a bunch of stuff you already know, 'cause you only just read it... Not his best work, by a long shot. As a fan of Lovecraft's writing, what came as the biggest surprise with Re-Animator is just how much Stuart Gordon "gets" the feel. It couldn't be more different, stylistically, but somehow, it just feels "right".

The biggest problem with trying to make a Lovecraft film is that most of his characters spend their time reading old books and visiting libraries. Doesn't exactly make for an exciting film. Another huge problem, of course, is the constant references to things which can't be described (as they're too horrible). Earlier attempts to film his work were almost universally dismal; they would overlay gothic (as in Die, Monster, Die!), or just go for the weird/psychedelic (The Dunwich Horror). Re-Animator, on the other hand, updates the story to the present day, then goes berserk with the gore, and adds the most bizarre necrophilia scene ever into the mix. And the weirdest thing is that this actually works!

Jeffrey Combs is perfect as Herbert West; he's creepy, nerdy, and has a roaring case of Aspergers. He's also completely obsessed with his quest to return the dead to life, and doesn't let anything, least of all morality, get in the way. The other standout is Barbara Crampton as Megan Halsey; she is one of my all-time favourite screamers, and really pulls out all the stops when it comes to kinky... She is a recurring Stuart Gordon fave, as is Combs, and I can see why.

Richard Band's music is also great; hugely plagiarised from Psycho, this actually adds to the enjoyment. I particularly love the title sequence, with its Psycho theme and anatomical illustrations.

Filmed on a relatively low budget, and, of course, before CGI made some effects ridiculously easy, the film stands up well to the test of time; 25 years on it still looks pretty good, and its just as much fun as it ever was. If you've never seen (or imagined!) a severed head giving head, you need to watch this movie. Its gory, its truly sick, but its also a work of twisted genius. If you make it past the eyeballs exploding and the removal of the cadaver's brain, all within the first couple of minutes, you'll manage the rest just fine!

Thoughts on Star Trek

After reviewing JJ Abrams Star Trek reboot, I found myself thinking about what it was about Star Trek (as a franchise) that had such lasting appeal. More than anything else, what stands out in Gene Roddenberry's creation is his optimism; and it is here where, I believe, Star Trek overwhelmingly failed in the years after its creator's death.

While it is obvious that you can't have drama without conflict, it was Gene's belief that this conflict could also teach us a moral lesson and the last thing he could be accused of was subtlety in this regard. While this kind of hammer-over-the-head approach to morality plays (and I'm thinking, particularly, of Let That Be Your Last Battlefield from Season 3 while I type this!) seems terribly dated now, you can't deny that his message got through!

The message itself was pretty simple; if people can just get along with each other, and work for the common good, then the world (or galaxy, or universe...) will be a better place. In fact, his utopian ideals were amazingly close to the ideals of socialism, especially surprising given the US paranoia regarding anything even remotely connected to communism.

So, we have the original series (TOS), where Gene did his best to entertain 1960's audiences with a microscopic budget and a big heart. Many of the scripts were outstanding (i.e. The Naked Time, City on the Edge of Forever, The Trouble With Tribbles), while some were, quite frankly, execrable (Spock's Brain), but all of them were informed by Gene's values. The Next Generation (TNG) carried on in this tradition (including it's own updated version of The Naked Now), while the original cast appeared in movies of variable quality.

Where it went wrong was with Deep Space Nine (DS9). I remember reading about DS9 when it was in the planning stages on FidoNet, and all I could think of was "Which part of the word TREK didn't you understand, people?". Trekking involves, like, moving about, doesn't it? So, how do you move about if you're living on a space station? So, problem one, no trek. Problem two turned out to be the Bajorans. I mean, a story or two about a particular race is one thing, but an entire TV series devoted to a bunch of belligerent religious loonies is not my idea of interesting! Problem three were the Ferengi. I mean, those guys are just irritating. I never met a Ferengi I even came close to liking, and having them as major characters is bound to annoy anyone with any taste.

Anyway, even the producers of DS9 realised, after a while, that Trek without trekking was a bit stupid and gave them a space ship to wander about in, but by then I'd already lost interest.

Meanwhile, the internal tensions within the Federation were becoming major factors in the story; instead of a utopia where problems were almost always resolved within 40-45 minutes, we now had a deeply troubled political system which was cracking up through a combination of internal tensions, external forces, and human frailty. This is NOT the world of Star Trek; this is a thinly veiled attempt to portray some of our own political systems' problems within the Star Trek universe. This is a problem because the Federation in Star Trek was always intended to be a benevolent parent, not a troubled bully. The individual members of the Federation may not be perfect, but the Federation as a whole could be counted on to, ultimately, do the right thing. By the time we got to the 9th movie (Insurrection), the Federation is so corrupt that it's siding with the bad guys against an indigenous population. What the...? Gene would be spinning in his grave!

The 10th film (Nemesis) ended up so far removed from Roddenberry's values that it is almost unwatchable. And they had Riker married to Troi (when every Trekker in the world knows that Troi married Worf). When the people writing this stuff can't even remember what they did 10 years ago, how are we supposed to take them seriously?

Anyway, what this is really about is that I'm very glad to see the new reboot of Star Trek returning to the core values of the franchise, and I earnestly hope and pray that they can maintain this without falling into the trap of using the Federation as a proxy for our current, flawed, political systems. Please, Star Trek producers/writers/directors, whenever you're in doubt, just ask yourselves "What would Gene do?".

Star Trek (2009)

Who woulda thunk it? After the spectacular awfulness that was Nemesis, it seemed impossible for Star Trek to even recover, let alone rock our socks off, and yet JJ Abrams somehow managed it. Not only that, but he did it with that most risky of propositions; the reboot...

How to make everyone happy? You've got your die-hard Trekkies, your battle-hardened Trekkers, and the rest of the proles who either don't care, or (although the gods alone know how) don't even know what Star Trek is. The chances of pleasing even a small proportion of any one of these groups (especially the first two!) with a reboot of what is probably the most famous TV/film franchise of all time seemed pretty remote, but Abrams not only pulls it off, he literally blows the audience away.

In reality, credit should be spread around here - The writers made sure that the action never let up, the actors (all of 'em) nailed their characters, and the director managed the circus. Having a healthy (i.e. LARGE) budget helped, but there have been plenty of high-budget movies that have been absolute duds in the wrong hands.

The film never really lets up once its started; we are thrown from one situation to the next with just enough of a breather, and there is just the right balance of pathos and humour to keep us involved with the characters and their development. Oh, and the bad guy is awesome; Eric Bana as Nero is my favourite Star Trek baddie since Khan... Completely insane, and thoroughly entertaining. You can tell he was having great fun just being wicked!

More than anything else, though, it's the actors that pull this together and make it the pleasure that it is. It was an impossible task; they not only had to play their characters, they had to somehow remind us of the actors who previously played the same characters, without leaving us preferring the originals. How does anyone manage this? It's like Chris Pine is channelling William Shatner, while still managing to bring his own feel to Kirk, and Zachary Quinto IS Spock. It was even more impressive in Zachary's case, because he had to play up against the "real" Spock; his older alter-ego, Leonard Nimoy. Zoe Saldana (as Uhura) was beautiful, Simon Pegg (Scotty) was hysterical, Karl Urban (Bones) was spot on, and Anton Yelchin (Chekov) can actually act!

Perhaps the smartest move was in creating an alternate time-line. That way, when events occur (particularly in the inevitable - and eagerly anticipated - sequels) that didn't previously occur in Star Trek "cannon", they can be excused as being allowable. If they had simply gone back in time and shown Kirk and Spock growing up and becoming Star Fleet officers, they would have had to have stuck to the original timeline. Very restrictive. As it is, they can do just about anything and, so long as they keep the overall "feel" of the Star Trek universe (which was where, I feel, the last two Next-Gen Star Trek movies failed), everyone will be happy.

If you haven't watched this reboot yet, for whatever reason, pull your finger out - It really is awesome fun - A roller-coaster ride with great effects, humour, character, and non-stop action.

Død Snø (2009)

This is the reason we watch stupid movies. Not because we like stupid movies, but, because, just every now and again, one of the films we thought was going to be stupid was just great fun. And stupid. Or fun because its stupid. I mean, ya just know that a film featuring Nazi zombies is gonna be a hoot, but will it actually be any good? The good news is that Tommy Wirkola's Norwegian zombie-slasher, Dead Snow, is just great!

I've always been a big fan of the zombie genre, from White Zombie to Romero's classic series (how many is it now? 5?), and just about everything in between. While not a huge fan of the new trend towards "fast" zombies, sometimes I can look the other way, if the concept is good. And, lets face it, when it comes to the things we all love to hate the most, nazis and zombies have gotta be top of just about everybody's list, right?

So, our typical holidaying college students find themselves in a cabin in the mountains (with no cell reception, of course!), and naturally manage to piss off the local boogey-men by helping themselves to some treasure they just happen to find under the floorboards. All pretty pedestrian stuff, so far, but what elevates this film above the general fare is the sense of humour on display throughout. Much like the recent "Undead", what they lack in budget they more than make up for in imagination, and a love of their craft.

The big drawcard, of course, with Dead Snow is the prospect of Nazi zombies. There's just something about the idea which instantly appeals - I know, myself, as soon as I saw the trailer all I could think of was "I've just gotta see this film!". And I was right! And its got chainsaws! Oh joy, oh joy!

Okay, enough rapturous adulation... Don't expect any twists; there are no surprises here - It's a straightforward horror narrative, with all the obvious cliches. What you can expect, however, is to have a great deal of fun while you watch the students confront their tormentors with various improvised weapons. The characters are actually quite believable, in an over-the-top kinda way; they panic realistically, they sometimes act heroically, and they generally make the sorts of stupid mistakes I guess real people would make in the same circumstances. Much more likeable than your average monster-fodder.

The film has some really nice suspense in it, and some wonderful use of the frigid Norwegian environments. I felt cold just watching this film! Be prepared for some incredibly gory shots, though; dangling over a cliff by hanging onto a zombie's intestines, while another zombie is hanging on to you and trying to bite your throat out is one of the less gross sequences, once the body parts start flying. The effects guys certainly don't pull any punches, and the fact that one of the characters is wearing a "Brain Dead" t-shirt should be enough warning...

If you love zombies, then you can't afford to miss this film. If, on the other hand, you think that zombies are just an excuse to spread gratuitous amounts of blood and viscera around, then, well, maybe you'd be better off with the Sound of Music. At least it's got Nazis.

Un chien andalou (1929)

What the...?!? Very famous, and very weird. Directed by Luis Buñuel, and co-scripted by Salvador Dali, this short is probably most famous (or is it infamous?) for its depiction of a woman's eyeball being slit open with a razor... This occurs in the first scene, and An Andalusian Dog (its English title) just gets weirder from there!

Of course, it's not meant to make sense, and it is quite fascinating; like witnessing a dream. There's a reason Dali was later drafted by Hitchcock to design the dream sequence in Spellbound, and anyone who has seen any of his art should certainly know what to expect. After the initial shock, the film settles down into a serious of bizarre images, flitting backwards and forwards in time and making no logical sense whatsoever. The one thing I can guarantee, though, is that you won't be able to take your eyes off it!

My personal favourite image is the guy with the ants in his hand; he just stands there staring at these ants coming out of a hole in his palm, as does the audience. Really neat stuff, and extremely well done - It is obviously a fake hand, but you don't notice and don't care. The final image is classic Dali, and typically thought-provoking.

Don't let the eyeball/razor idea put you off seeing this film. While shocking, it was nowhere near as unpleasant as I expected, possibly because I'd heard about if for years and imagined it being much worse (and I have a real thing about razors; they freak me out!).

My verdict? An amazing little film, and well worth a look. It's all of 16 minutes long, and the time will just fly by... probably with you gaping open-mouthed at the sheer insanity of Buñuel and Dali's mad vision.

Stuck (2007)

I noticed Stuck when it was first released, but was a little put off by the subject matter; mostly because I knew it was based on a real story. A couple of years before the release of this movie, I heard an item on the radio about a woman who had struck a pedestrian, the pedestrian had become embedded in her windshield, and, rather than seeking assistance, she had driven home and parked her car in the garage, with the poor bastard still stuck in her windscreen. He died a few days later, and she only ran into trouble when she called on her friends to help dispose of the boy... It was noted that, had she sought medical assistance for her victim, he may well have survived. Instead, her fear of punishment created a situation which was much worse than it might have been if she'd faced her circumstances and done what she could have from the start.

On top of the horrific nature of the real-life events of this story, the fact that Stuart Gordon was the director put me off even more; not because I don't like Stuart Gordon, but because I know him well enough to be well aware of just how horrific his work can be. Re-Animator is one of my all-time favourite films, and yet again Gordon proves that he can handle any theme with style. As with so many other masters of horror, the closer he gets to filming reality, the more horrific it gets!

The film takes some detours from reality; it never claims to be accurate, just "based on real events", which allows for a much more cinematic experience than the original story would have entailed. Mena Suvari (who also has a production credit) is suitably hapless as the nurses aide, stoned off her tits, who hits Stephen Rea on her way home from a nightclub. Her complete lack of any empathy for her victim, who we see as being just some poor guy who has found himself at the receiving end of a terrible run of bad luck, is simply astonishing. Of course, it is even harder to stomach her behaviour when you know it is probably a fairly accurate representation of the real-life driver.

Again and again we are confronted with the sheer heartlessness of the main character, while at the same time cheering on the "bum" who she dismisses as not being worth the trouble "he" has caused her! Overall, I was really impressed with this harrowing, and depressingly accurate, portrayal of inhumanity. I'd recommend it to anyone who can stomach a little gruesomeness. Definitely one of Gordon's best.

Lost Horizon (1937)

A classic film, with a classic theme; I'd never seen all of this film before, but, having had the opportunity to see the digitally restored and remastered edition, I'm suitably impressed.

Frank Capra certainly made some great movies; It's a Wonderful Life, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and, my personal favourite, Arsenic and Old Lace, amongst others. While a little heavy-handed in its symbolism, Lost Horizon is right up there with his best. Shot at huge expense (it cost more than any other film Columbia had made before), and on an epic scale, it certainly had a cast of thousands. The opening sequence, with thousands of desperate Chinese civilians attempting to escape a civil war (while the European characters ignore them as if they didn't exist) is really impressive.

Obviously, the film suffers a little in this respect; it is definitely a product of its time, and the attitudes towards the natives, both in this opening sequence, and in the later scenes in Shrangri-La are patronising, to say the least. Nevertheless, ignoring the political incorrectness, the film does have a lot to say about human nature.

More than anything else, the film is about hope; a hope for a better future, for a world that is not obsessed with avarice and greed, where war is unknown, and unnecessary, and people can "just get along" with each other. Very utopian, very optimistic, and very naive! Still, it doesn't hurt to dream, I guess.

*** Spoiler Alert ***

One thing which I found disturbing was the apparent murder of the original pilot of the plane which the main characters board. Given that the inhabitants of Shangri-La are supposed to be enlightened and beneficent, why is it acceptable to murder a man in order to kidnap another? This struck me as being particularly inappropriate behaviour, and colours the entire film. When the kidnapper/pilot is later found dead, none of his countrymen seem to be the least bit perturbed, which I also find peculiar...

*** End Spoilers ***

The cast is excellent; I could listen to Ronald Colman's voice all day, and Edward Everett Horton has long been a favourite of mine, even if you can't help but think of a certain cartoon character every time he speaks...! Sam Jaffe as the High Lama is another standout - This was only his 3rd film, which surprised me. Jane Wyatt as the love interest gets to wear some truly beautiful costumes (I don't normally take a lot of notice of costume design, but some of her outfits were simply stunning).

The set design is also worth noting; a lot of effort was made to make the sets as hybrid as possible - They are clearly based upon European standards, but with strange oriental permutations, such as the shape of the doors. The monastery certainly looks slightly alien, which is perfect given the origins of its design.

One more thing... My wife thought the film was crap! I found her opinion quite interesting, as I really had no trouble seeing the intent of the film, which is often the most important aspect, especially when dealing with older movies. Still, I thought I should mention it - Let me know if you think its crap, too

As with all my "reviews", there are always things that I leave out. I'm usually more interested in impressions than in covering everything that's worth knowing about a film; this blog is about feelings, not facts. And don't hesitate to leave your own comments on any film that I discuss (or, even more interesting, don't discuss!).