The Screaming Axe

Dead Space (PC)

2012-02-07T18:14:00.000-08:00

Dead Space is a sci-fi/survival horror third person shooter game. I'd say it's a sort of spiritual successor to Doom (a game with a very similar theme - encountering hellish monsters in space), which I grew up on, but with a third rather than first person perspective. On a cinematic level, it seems to draw inspiration from many classic titles in this genre, such as Alien, John Carpenter's The Thing, and most obviously, Event Horizon. The result is a very effective (that is, scary) survival horror game in space, that also manages to be lots of fun to play. The game is not without flaws (which I'll go into), but except for one spot in particular, they didn't prevent me from enjoying my gaming experience very much.

In Dead Space, you play as Isaac Clarke, a seeming jack-of-all (or nearly all) trades, who is part of a very small crew sent in to investigate the USG Ishimura, a "planet cracker" (a large starship that mines planets from space) in the midst of a total communications blackout. After your inevitably rocky landing, it quickly becomes clear that some horror without precedent has occurred on this ship, as the crew is mostly dead, the few survivors seem to be insane with terror (or something else), and the ship is crawling with "necromorphs" - a kind of biological alien predator that manifests from corpses. The ship itself is in a state of total disrepair, and so you must embark on a quest to get the ship back in relative working order, while trying to uncover the mystery of just what the hell is going on.

And it has something to do with a "Marker" that was discovered on the planet below, which is probably alien technology, and certainly is the source of the necromorph invasion - but exactly how is a little hard to work out. Many of the crewmembers of the Ishimura were (perhaps not uncoincidentally) members of a fanatic religious cult that views the Marker as some kind of divine idol. Their fervor, which involves an unhealthy fascination with the necromorphs, does nothing to facilitate the needs of those who'd prefer to live - and stay human.

I think Dead Space is fascinating on a number of levels - first, from the horror perspective of exploring a ship crawling with monsters; but also the idea of trying to get this ship back up and running. That task takes you all over the ship, one section at a time. For example, you have to visit the medical bay to recover computer access codes from the body of the captain - who lies in the morgue. Than you have to travel to the engine room to get the ship up and running, after which you have to divert power to asteroid shields so the ship isn't torn to pieces. Then you've gotta head to hydroponics to sort out the problem of alien growths polluting the air. This goes on and on until the ship is almost as good as new (okay, I'm exaggerating), at which point it's inevitable that you're gonna have to find some way to get off of it. It's lots of fun, although from a logical perspective I think it's amazing that a crew of just three (with Isaac clearly doing the majority of the grunt work) could put a ship back together that its own much larger crew couldn't hold together. I mean, it's not like we're not also being ambushed by these necromorphs at every corner! But I guess maybe we have the advantage of not being subject to the sheer confusion of an entire ship under attack and perhaps also in mutiny.

Let's talk a little (or a lot) about gameplay, which is where my main gripes come up - although Dead Space has a lot of clever innovations as well (at least as well as I can tell, given my lack of experience with a lot of modern games of this sort). The primary difficulty I've had with this game is with the interface/motion controls/targeting. I'm willing to chalk it up to my inexperience with third person shooters that use the mouse (I like the simplicity of Doom's keyboard only setup), but I was a lot less confident in moving around, as well as targeting my gun. Of course, that enhances my feeling of vulnerability, but not in a good sort of way. I also felt that the mouse was a little slow or choppy in responding, which further added to my frustrations at trying to stay alive - particularly when the necromorphs swarm and ambush, sometimes causing considerable slowdown. That may be a function of my computer's capabilities, though, as I do not have a computer optimized for gaming.

Ultimately, I've been able to more or less adapt, but every once in a while there'll be a portion where it becomes a frustrating difficulty. That frustration is partly compounded by what is actually one of the cleverest innovations in this game - that the necromorphs, alien organisms that they are, can only really be killed by cutting off their limbs (though I'm still not sure why). So instead of firing into the large mass of flesh that's hurtling toward you, you have to aim for its flailing limbs (although shooting out the legs is a frequently effective strategy) - hard enough when the adrenaline is coursing through your veins, but even harder when your mouse isn't responding as fast as you'd like (and sometimes, when you start impatiently jerking it around, you find yourself spinning 180 degrees, losing track of the monster that's clawing at you, and then by the time you've got the gun trained back on him, you're dead...). I'd also mention the difficulty of opening up your inventory (a painfully slow process when each second could mean your death) to use a med pack to restore health in the middle of a fracas, except that I discovered there's a 'health' button that does that automatically, that I guess I missed the first time I went through the tutorial at the beginning of the game. (facepalm)

I have to take a moment to mention the Asteroid Defense System. About a third of the way through the game, there's a little "mini-game" portion, just before you get the asteroid shield up around the ship, where you have to manually shoot the asteroids hurtling toward the ship from a gun turret for a couple minutes (that feel like eternity). It's like playing Asteroids in 3D, except that it's IMPOSSIBLE! Maybe with a hair-trigger mouse it wouldn't be such a big deal, but with the slow response I had to deal with, it was really, truly, impossible for me to get past that portion of the game. I was honestly this close to just giving up and not finishing the game, but finally I turned in desperation to the control options and upped the mouse sensitivity the highest it would go. It was still kind of jerky, but fast enough that I was at least able to actually beat that portion of the game. But I still have very strong negative feelings toward it, and I was only slightly reassured (during the height of my period of frustration) to read an interview with the game's makers apologizing for that part of the game, and assuring the public that it wouldn't be reprised in the game's sequel.

More on gameplay. I love the stasis module (which freezes/slows things down - good for combat and non-combat situations), and even more, the kinesis module, which allows you to grab things at a distance, draw them toward you, and then shoot them away, if you like. Very cool. The weapons are lots of fun too. I ended up using the first weapon - the Plasma Cutter - well into the game because I was so familiar with it. But once I started picking up less ammo for it, I had to resort to trying some of the other weapons, some that are more useful than others. The Line Gun is currently my favorite. Powerful, with a wide shot - excellent for taking off an approaching necromorph's legs, and if that doesn't do him in, another shot will tear off his arms as he starts crawling toward you. Also great for those little buggers who jump on the walls and have those three tentacles that shoot darts (well, except when they're hanging vertically). I was excited when I picked up the Flamethrower, but I ended up using it very little, since fire just doesn't kill the necromorphs fast enough. The Ripper is really neat - it shoots a spinning razor blade that hangs in the air - but I've had a lot of frustrations trying to handle it appropriately. Love the Contact Beam - not for regular combat, but for taking out those nasty pustules (particularly on the grabby tentacles) in a single hit.

There are a couple of other guns; my only real complaint is that you can only carry four at a time. I guess that means there's some strategy to what guns you're gonna carry, and I think the ammo you pick up depends on what guns you're carrying - so that, I guess, you get ammo for the guns you're actually using. But I like the Doom method of having each gun designated to its own number. It makes getting familiar with the guns much easier as they're always in a particular spot (5 is the rocket launcher, 3 is the shotgun, 7 is the BFG, etc.), rather than being shuffled around the only four carry spots you've got. But oh well. I think it's interesting that each gun has a secondary fire mode, which is fun to discover (some of them I haven't even bothered to learn yet, since I don't want to waste ammo, and the middle of a scuffle isn't always the greatest place to experiment).

Other neat gameplay elements include the Zero-G and vacuum portions (which may or may not occur simultaneously). The Zero-G portions were lots of fun for me. After the first one, I said to myself, that was really cool, I hope there are more like it later in the game. The suit you're wearing has boots that can attach to the floor, so you don't actually go flying through space, but you can jump onto the walls and ceilings, and there are often large, circular rooms designated for Zero-G areas. It's lots of fun. As for the vacuum areas, they're cool, too, although there's an element of impatience involved, as your suit only has so many seconds of oxygen before you need either a refill, or to exit the vacuum. It's like the underwater portions of other games, where you can only hold your breath for so long. I've always hated those portions, because I like to take my time and not feel rushed, and make sure I'm not missing anything. But in this game, it's rarely so bad that you don't have enough time before you exit the vacuum or get to an oxygen refill station, so I'm less scared of those portions. Plus I love that the sound actually mutes in those sections (well, mostly), given that sound does not carry in a vacuum, which is very cool. On that note, I noticed that when monsters attack in those vacuum sections, it's less scary for me, which indicates that a not insignificant portion of their intimidation is a result of the scary sounds they make, as well as the scary music and other effects that usually accompanies their attacks.

Alright, I've almost exhausted what I want to say about this game. One last gameplay element is the bench. In the game there are benches where you can upgrade your weapons and equipment with power nodes that you can collect throughout the game. You can make your weapons faster, stronger, hold more ammo at a time, etc. You can also power up your stasis and kinesis modules (improving range and duration and such), as well as your rig (which is your suit) - you can increase your HP and the amount of oxygen your tank can carry. At first, I didn't like this gameplay element, because it involved making decisions - what to upgrade and how, as the upgrade dynamics are not linear: there are connected dots on a 2D grid, some of which indicate upgrades, others just placeholders, and you can only activate a dot adjacent to one you've previously activated, with only certain dots on the perimeter designated as entry points (sorry if that's not very clear). I just hate the feeling that I might upgrade one thing, and find out that I wasted those nodes because a challenge I face later in the game requires more functionality from one of my other weapons, for example. But I guess that's really just me being overly cautious. Because I've warmed up to the system, and I actually really like it a lot now - it allows a certain customization of gameplay: so that if I like a particular weapon, I can make it really powerful; or I can decide between upgrading a gun's capacity or reload rate in order to have faster or less frequent reloads (an added advantage of the latter is that the more the gun holds, the less inventory slots you'll use up for spare ammo); or if I, for example, have particular trouble on the vacuum portions, I can dedicate my power nodes to upping my oxygen capacity, whereas someone else who has no problem with those areas, but instead has trouble with the challenges that require stasis, can use his power nodes to increase the duration of his stasis!

And that's actually one of the biggest contributions to this game's replay value. I just beat it (finally) the other day, and I wasn't planning to play through it a second time. But you get to keep all your equipment on subsequent playthroughs, along with some extra gifts for beating the game, so the temptation for me to collect more power nodes and make my equipment that much more powerful is strong. There's another thing, though - I still have some questions about some of the details of the plot. There's actually a very interesting plot to this game (even if I think the cult's fanaticism is ridiculous, and no better than the ravings of a lunatic). I've got the basics down from one playthrough of the game, but I'm a little uncertain about the motivations of various characters, and what exactly the truth is about this Marker, because there are some different perspectives on it from different sources, and I'm not a hundred percent sure yet who's right and who's not. So maybe another playthrough will make that a bit clearer for me. I know I'll certainly enjoy it, even as my confidence and familiarity reduces (though definitely not completely) some of the feelings of fear and vulnerability that this game creates.

Which reminds me of one thing I forgot to mention, and that's how much I hated the one necromorph that's effectively immortal, constantly regenerating his limbs. I hate him with a passion. They throw you into a room with this monster, and then the ship locks the doors in quarantine, and you have to fight with this monster until one of your crewmates can override the lock and get the doors open. Trick is, you can't kill the immortal necromorph, you just have to run around, killing all the other necromorphs that break in through the air vents, trying not to let the strongest one catch up to you and tear you a new one. Even more difficult than it sounds, and very frustrating. I'll tell you, it was with great satisfaction that I finally had a chance, considerably later in the game, to effectively incapacitate him.

Mockingjay by Suzanne Collins

2012-02-04T22:42:00.000-08:00

Warning! This review contains spoilers from the very end of The Hunger Games trilogy! For a spoiler-free introduction to the trilogy, see my review of The Hunger Games.

Having now finished the series, I am happy to report that The Hunger Games maintains its pace of drama and excitement through to the very end. In fact, the climax is probably even more exciting than Katniss' first foray into The Hunger Games, and the conclusion seems to hint at the story's underlying conscience. The writing in these books is so good in a way that you don't often come across - in that it is both highly entertaining, and also very intelligent and insightful, probing the nature of the human condition and asking some very difficult questions.

Like the age old question of what's fair in love and war, what sort of atrocities can be justified, and where you cross the line between self-defense and becoming like the enemy that oppresses you. But there is no easy answer. Gale's anger sometimes feels righteous, then seems to cross the line. Katniss makes some stupid decisions that put her at risk, yet you welcome her moral compass. Ultimately it's clear that war is a terrible, terrible thing, but what isn't clear is whether we can ever truly escape it.

But one of the most disturbing revelations, for me, regards the nature of entertainment. Lines are blurred in Mockingjay, when the war itself becomes a sort of Hunger Games. The propos (propaganda spots) that the rebels create have a clear tactical purpose, yet their effectiveness relies on their entertainment value. And it's instantly discovered by those behind the scenes that staged emotions aren't as exciting as the real thing. So Katniss is put in real danger in order to get good footage. And then later, in the warring streets of the Capitol, it's almost as if the rebels are in the position of the Gamemakers (and I'm sure it's no coincidence with Plutarch being around), realizing that in order to stir up some enthusiasm with their propos, some blood's going to have to be shed. It's chilling, really.

And at the end, in the epilogue, Katniss makes her statement on the games, and I want so badly to believe in the righteousness of that statement, but then I can't help realizing that I've been as bad as the smarmy Capitol residents, calling out for blood, all in the name of good entertainment. After all, The Hunger Games would not be nearly as entertaining if not for the horrors it depicts. Prim's death was the one thing I almost couldn't stand. Almost. It destroyed me, and I was really angry that it happened. But afterward, you still have to admit that it makes the story that much more intense. That it will stick with you for that reason, because it wasn't afraid to pull any punches.

But if there's one consolation, it's that in the real world, I think staged entertainment is just as effective as the real thing. More so, probably. Because in a book, when a character you love dies, it's very sad. But it's still just a character. You can move on. It's like what happens in real life, but on a much smaller scale, because you only knew her for those several weeks you were reading the book, and only in those moments. She's not someone you've known all your (or her) life, and you only know of her what the author has given you. In real life, when people die (especially violently), the horror and the sadness greatly outweighs whatever sick entertainment (if any, really) one could glean from it.

And so I can at least rest assured in the knowledge that though I enjoy reading The Hunger Games (and can't wait for the movies!), it doesn't make me like the Capitol in the story. However, the lingering question that does remain, is the question of war. War still rages on in the real world, and we don't seem to be any closer to ending it forever. Despite the clarity of its horrors - at least to me - on it goes. Just as Plutarch alludes to. I don't know how to solve that one.

Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins

2012-01-31T12:23:00.000-08:00

Warning! This review contains spoilers from the first two books of The Hunger Games trilogy. For a spoiler-free introduction to the trilogy, see my review of The Hunger Games.

The Hunger Games continues in book two of the trilogy. After the excitement of the first book, I was curious (though not doubtful) to see if the second book could successfully continue the momentum of the story. It starts off relatively slow (with a few punctuated moments of excitement), even as the first book did, but picks up to at least as exciting a crescendo as the first book, if not more so.

In the beginning I was wondering what this book would cover, since in the first, we had already been treated to an occasion of the Hunger Games. That's when the Victory Tour came in, and I was thinking, oh, hey, this'll be a great opportunity to introduce each of the districts! But the author didn't quite have that in mind, and instead, moved quickly through the Victory Tour and on to even more exciting events that follow it.

Nevertheless, the scene where Katniss speaks to District 11 was one of the most touching in the book, and the following public execution of "the whistler" was one of my favorite scenes, as it so brutally - and for me unexpectedly - brought home the point that hey, the Capitol is ruthless and dangerous, remember? In the first book, there was almost a sense of distance between the Capitol's residents (some of which, like Cinna and his crew, were actually likable) and the brutality they sponsored (i.e., the Hunger Games themselves), that you almost couldn't reconcile the two, and you had to ask the question, if these people are generally decent, how can they possibly support the Hunger Games? It didn't quite add up.

Here, in Catching Fire, you get to see more of the bureaucracy, particularly in President Snow himself, who personally embodies the calculated brutality of the games, and he at least offers some explanation for the Capitol's support of the games, in that the subjugation of the districts is required for the entire nation to continue running smoothly. However, of course, you have to be skeptical of the tyrant's word, and consider that he probably just relishes his power - forcing the poor districts to labor for the convenience of the rich Capitol - as well he probably has a sadistic streak that he enjoys being able to get away with exerting. But then, of course, you come to the conclusion that the majority of the Capitol residents are probably not so brutal or politically minded, and have probably been duped by censorship and propaganda, and bought off with the comforts that the twelve district's labor laboriously produces.

Which brings us to the interviews for the Quarter Quell. But before that, I'll admit that I was shocked when it became clear that Katniss would go back into the arena. When the topic of the Quell came up, I thought, oh, hey, there's an idea, there'll be another Hunger Games in this book! And since it's this "Quarter Quell" thing, it'll be even more bombastic than the last one! But I still didn't think Katniss would return. I figured she'd probably mentor, and the President would probably do something specific to torture her, like force Prim into the arena this time. But, as it becomes clear by the end of the book, Snow's overconfidence in his own power, leading to the decision to put previous Games' victors back in the arena, was a huge mistake.

The interviews before the Games have always managed to be surprisingly climactic, and while the last games' interviews were spot on, these ones for the Quell were unbelievable. Totally brilliant, the way they managed to turn the Games around, and play off their (especially Katniss & Peeta) popularity to practically turn the Capitol's residents itself against the Capitol. So totally inspiring. And even though they still had to go back in the arena (quite exciting once again, and with a very different flavor than the last Games), in the end their solidarity paid off.

It's funny, but as I was getting towards the end of the book, and the Games relentlessly continued on, I started thinking to myself, there's only so many pages left, there's no way they can wrap up the Games that fast, unless something drastic is going to happen. And then, as the other tributes failed to die off quickly enough, I started worrying that maybe Katniss was actually going to die in these Games, and that would be the abrupt ending of the book. A horrifying thought, and though that isn't what happened, the ending to the Games was indeed abrupt, but very exciting.

And now the shit has really hit the fan. The rebellion is on for sure. I love the symbolism of the mockingjay, even as Katniss has spent so much time blissfully ignorant of its meaning, and the significance of her part in the whole 'game' (the rebels' game). And the idea that the mysterious District 13, the alleged secret underground base for the rebels, used to deal in nuclear development is too exciting to write off as the hopeful delusion of the desperate. I'm confident that the final book in the trilogy will offer an exciting and fitting conclusion to this story, but it remains (to me) to be seen who will survive and how the world will fare, for better or worse, when the dust clears.

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

2012-01-23T17:30:00.000-08:00

It only took me over a decade to jump onto the Harry Potter fandom bandwagon, and only just in time to catch up with the series before its triumphant finish (that is, the film series' triumphant finish). Then again, with all of its momentum (seven titles in the series, at least four of the books over 600 pages in length), "jumping into" Harry Potter in the middle of its reign over popular culture was a commitment requiring considerable (albeit rewarding) effort. Well, now another popular book series is being adapted to the silver screen (premiering in March!), and with just three modestly sized titles, it's much less daunting. So I'm getting in while it's fresh, though largely at the behest of my brother who rates it as one of the best series of books he's ever read, up there with Harry Potter.

Naturally, you're gonna have some expectations with hype like that, and since I respect my brother's taste (and recommendations), I had no fear of being disappointed. But opening up The Hunger Games, the first book in the series, I couldn't help issuing a silent challenge to the book, akin to whispering into its leafy pages, "show me what you've got!" And I still wasn't disappointed. There's very little to criticize about The Hunger Games. It's well written. It's a very engaging story, with characters you can relate to, and a tempered love affair that feels - in spite of its context - far more real than the typical romantic fiction of death-do-us-part passion. It's got lots of action, but none of it is mindless. In fact, the story is driven by an intellectual backbone of socio-political commentary, but in a matter-of-fact way that is not the least bit pedantic. It doesn't drill its morality into you, it merely presents an immoral world and allows you to position yourself by your reaction to the effects it has on its very human inhabitants. There's plenty of pathos here - more than one section had me genuinely tearing up. And the length and pacing is comfortable; the book spends enough time on personal and cultural details to bring you into its world, but is constantly moving towards the next great scene or revelation, which is always (to an impressive extent) impeccably engineered.

In sum, it's a whole lot of fun to read, and it doesn't require a huge time commitment. As such, I would heartily recommend it to just about anyone. Unless, I suppose, you're the type of person who would cringe at the very mention of a fictional society that would enthusiastically (and sadistically) rally around a sporting event that pits children (technically, adolescents) against each other in a brutal fight to the death while simultaneously braving the elements of a deadly wilderness arena. It's Survivor meets Battle Royale, where the futuristic dystopia recalls echoes of the gladiators of the Roman Empire. The Hunger Games drops you into an unbalanced society where the lower class inhabitants of twelve outlying Districts scattered across what was once North America are so oppressed that, while struggling daily for survival, they can do naught but sit by and watch as the wealthy, technologically-advanced Capitol remorselessly slaughters their children for entertainment. But rather than condoning these "hunger" games, the narrative follows the perspective of one of its unfortunate contestants, who is nevertheless uniquely poised to give the Capitol a show they won't soon forget. And as the story finally builds to its inevitable climax, I am left wanting to know: what will part two of the trilogy have in store - both for us, and for the unfortunate inhabitants of this frightening world?

Ginger Snaps (2000)

2012-01-13T19:39:00.000-08:00

Reading up on the movies I watch inevitably leads me to ever more movies to watch. And so it is that in the wake of watching The Company of Wolves, I was directed to Ginger Snaps, another werewolf movie that plays on the symbolism of sexual awakening - specifically, the onset of puberty. Unlike the former movie, this one is less an exploration of themes and more a standard narrative. Early on it plays up the similarities between lycanthropy and the changes initiated by menarche, and blurs the appetite for flesh with sexual desire (setting up at least one really good "infection" joke), but instead of maintaining the symbolism, it veers more towards traditional horror fare later on.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. When the movie started, my immediate impression was that it feels like a cheap modern movie (in contrast to the classic and cinematic feel of The Company of Wolves, which is from the '80s), but it turned out, to my delight, to be actually highly watchable. Much of that is probably due to the dual leads, two teenage sisters, who, as gothic outcasts, are eminently likable (and ironically, much more attractive than the "popular" girls they are bullied by). One of their first orders of business in the film is the presentation of their school project, consisting of photographs of elaborately staged suicides by the both of them, as their response to the theme of "Life in Bailey Downs" (which is the name of the neighborhood they inhabit). Seriously, these girls raise suicide to the level of high art, and the teacher's moral indignation is especially egregious because any true artist with integrity would see - not just the talent of the girls' work - but the genius of their artistic vision.

Anyway, there's a mysterious beast loose in Bailey Downs, that's been knocking off the neighborhood's dogs in gruesome fashion. We never find out where this beast came from, or why it's stalking Bailey Downs, but one of our girls, named Ginger, gets bitten (in)conveniently on the night she gets her first (belated, at the age of 16) period. As it goes, gushing blood, strange desires, hair in unusual places, and monthly frenzies are par for the course for any lycanthrope - or adolescent girl. The rest of the movie deals largely with Ginger's gradual transformation into a confident and sexy young woman, albeit with an unusually violent temperament, and her more sensible sister Brigitte's difficult attempts to stick with her, while often having to clean up after her sister's impulsive messes. The movie grows to a rather tense - if a little drawn out - climax, leading to a sad and heartfelt ending. Ginger Snaps doesn't inspire quite like The Company of Wolves did, but it is entertaining nonetheless, and worth watching for fun.

The Company of Wolves (1984)

2012-01-12T13:42:00.000-08:00

The Company of Wolves is my new favorite werewolf movie. Being based on The Little Red Riding Hood, it's more of an allegorical fantasy than a horror movie - which a lot of other werewolf movies are - yet it still manages to be genuinely terrifying. It actually succeeds at conjuring an atmosphere where wolves stalking the woods outside of a village are actually scary again. The cinematography is fantastically dreamlike, which becomes quickly apparent in an impressive nightmare sequence near the beginning of the film.

The story-within-a-story (within a story) structure of the narrative places an emphasis on the themes presented - the symbolism of the wolf as sexual desire, and the anxieties of a young girl entering puberty - rather than the whats and the whys of the characters' lives, which is an element that has attracted criticism from some viewers, but earns my enthusiastic support. Angela Lansbury stars as the old-fashioned grandmother, intent on warning her granddaughter about the wolfish desires hiding within every man. Sarah Patterson (who is remarkably actually 12 in this role) plays the pretty young girl who eventually dons the red hooded cape, with a confidence and curiosity that belies a strength and uncertain knowledge that Granny's outdated perspective on gender relations can't comprehend.

"If there's a beast in men, it meets its match in women too."

In fact, this seems to be one of the themes of this treatment of an ages old tale, which is rife with potential sources of symbolism. The morality is troubled at best, as even though the wolves (those that are hairy on the outside, as well as those that are hairy on the inside) are characterized as a threat, they are at times sympathetic, and almost human. This could perhaps be a statement on the ambiguity of feeling that accompanies one's sexual awakening - that one is taught to fear their animal desires, yet maturity necessitates taking ownership of them, and realizing that one's anxieties often exaggerate the perceived traumas of reality. The story of Little Red Riding Hood is an inspiringly deep wellspring of creative thought, and while no adaptation can comprehensively explore every facet of its interpretation, The Company of Wolves crafts a beautiful, haunting, and thoughtful meditation on some of its central themes.

Black Country Communion - Live Over Europe (2011)

2012-01-11T11:49:00.000-08:00

I'm a fan of Black Country Communion, and I've been following Joe Bonamassa's career for the better part of the last decade, so you'd expect me to get a kick out of this band's first concert DVD. Even so, I was actually surprised by how much I dug it - it's just that good! This is a fantastic band, and they're really tight, so I wasn't sure they could really improve on their formula on stage. They don't really need to, but watching these guys at work - and it's very clear that they enjoy playing in this band - totally rubs off on you.

I can't believe how much Glenn Hughes drives his voice, it's a wonder he's not hoarse after three songs. Clearly, he's a consummate professional. And being the elder statesman of the group, having played in Deep Purple back in the '70s, he takes control as the frontpiece for the band. Meanwhile, beside him, Joe wails on that guitar. For once the focus isn't entirely on him (as it is in his solo career), and his virtuosity is just one piece of the overall musical experience, yet he's my main draw to the band. Joe Bonamassa is a real role model, not just because he's the greatest guitar player alive today, but because he's also the hardest working guitar player alive today. Filling out the group are the son of the legend, Jason Bonham on drums, and the understated keyboard stylings of Derek Sherinian (known for his work in the band Dream Theater).

I hate to compare BCC to Led Zeppelin because really, they're two very different bands, and any comparison of a "revival" group to one of the legends is bound to come off as insincere hyperbole. But even aside from the fact that Zeppelin's drummer's son is in Black Country Communion, you have to note that there are some similarities. They've got two hard rocking albums under their belt in less than a year, due in no small part to the spontaneous charisma they have together as musicians. But Kevin Shirley deserves mention, too, as the band's producer, and the man who helped put the project together, like directing a river towards the sea. His vision was to create a band that produces the kind of music that so many people still love to listen to, but isn't really being made today - that is to say, contemporary classic rock that is not so much a nostalgia trip (cue endless dinosaur tours) as fresh insight from the same perspective that drove the musicians of ages past. As Glenn Hughes likes to say, it's not about the past or the future, but the present.

Live Over Europe is culled from a handful of shows across Europe, which gives the performances some visual variety that is nice and refreshing from a live DVD. The band plows through many great songs from their not huge but just big enough repertoire, with very little need to borrow songs from other sources. Highlights for me include a balls to the wall version of Beggarman (which is a kickass song to begin with), some inspired soloing on Song of Yesterday, one of the band's songs that sounds most similar to Joe's solo work, and the heartfelt Cold, which Glenn introduces as a song about the friends we've lost that we never had a chance to say goodbye to. These songs are all very tight, but room is made for some inspired jamming here and there.

In a couple places I heard some familiar riffs - like Rock and Roll, and one of the songs opens with a drumbeat that channels When The Levee Breaks, and Derek leads one song into a coda that is an unmistakable homage to The Who's Won't Get Fooled Again. But these are brief and exciting moments that only emphasize how strong the band's original material is, that they spend very little time deviating from the original and nonderivative music that comes naturally out of the four of them playing together. Even when Joe brings in The Ballad of John Henry from his solo catalog, he makes it sound unique, with less recycling than ever (not that I hate recycling; Joe is, after all, as accomplished a cover artist as he is a songwriter). And though the concert ends with a rousing encore of Burn (written during Glenn's days in Deep Purple) that totally got me hopping in my seat, the credits leave you off with another song from the band almost as if to remind you that hey, this is Black Country Communion you're listening to, and nobody else.

And it all works because the music is just that good. And seeing how much the band loves playing it, and how honest and straightforward the BCC project is, you can't help getting even more enthusiastic about it. I don't know what's in the cards for this band's future, but I am looking forward to hearing what they do next. And maybe if I'm lucky, I might get a chance to see them live, if they do an extensive tour of the States some time in the future. I'll tell you what, though, these guys are seasoned pros (Kevin Shirley most definitely included). So unlike that last great new rock band that I got excited about, that was chewed up and spit out by the music biz, I know these guys know what they're doing, and whatever they do, it'll be exactly the right thing for them - and that's the best thing for us, the fans, too.

Gary Moore - Blues For Greeny (1995)

2012-01-08T12:47:00.000-08:00

Gary Moore, who tragically passed away only just this past year, was a phenomenal blues rock guitarist who had the unique flexibility to be able to wrench both soulful blues leads as well as insane metal shredding from his guitar. He's the type of talented musician who had that curious tendency to fly under the radar, a big fan and performer of the type of blues-based rock that was popular in the '60s and '70s but whose own most notable material is weighted towards releases in the '80s and '90s. Perhaps his most well-known hit was the [excellent] song Still Got The Blues, released in 1990 (on the album of the same name), but he also had a history playing with Thin Lizzy off and on in the '70s, recording the album Black Rose with them in 1979.

But Gary Moore's history goes back even further than that, most notably in my mind, to the days during the '60s when John Mayall's Bluesbreakers recruited Peter Green to replace Eric Clapton on lead guitar - and Gary Moore was in the audience when the Bluesbreakers played in Moore's home country of Ireland. Moore became not just an avid fan of Peter Green, but they developed a working relationship over the years, with Green acting as a sort of mentor and friend to Gary, ultimately leading to Green's decision to sell his coveted Les Paul (the one he performed and recorded with in Fleetwood Mac) to Gary Moore after Peter had reconsidered his dedication to the business of performing as a professional musician.

Then, in 1995, Gary Moore decided to record a tribute to Peter Green - a full album of covers of Green's songs from his days as a Bluesbreaker, and in the band that he had formed, Fleetwood Mac. As a huge Peter Green fan, myself, this is an exciting album, not just because it features Green's music, but because it's performed by a very talented musician that I also admire, and, in an almost mystical or poetically just manner, the music is performed on Peter Green's own old guitar. And the result is amazing.

Some people say that the point of a cover isn't to duplicate what the previous artist has already accomplished, and there is merit to this view. But Moore's album Blues For Greeny isn't so much about the influence and inspiration that Peter Green's music had on him - that's demonstrated in much of Gary Moore's other recordings. This album is a tribute to who Peter Green was, and the beauty of his talent as a songwriter and a performer. And because of this, it is very faithful to Green's original recordings. There have been moments when I've had this album on, and I've forgotten that I'm listening to Gary Moore and not Peter Green, and that's really the highest compliment I could give it (and reminds me of the times when I've been listening to Peter Green, and momentarily forgotten that it wasn't B.B. King I was listening to).

It is in Moore's voice where you can most easily notice the difference between the artists, but Moore's guitar work perfectly evokes Green - and while it would be foolish to discount Moore's own talent and dedication to the musician (and his music), it must be said that his use of Green's own guitar (which possesses a unique tone that is said to have been the result of a flipped pickup) surely facilitates the imitation. However, Gary Moore inherited Peter Green's guitar for good reason, both because of his talent and his connection to the man. This is, then, a very fitting and endearing tribute to the legacy of Peter Green, as well as an impressive demonstration of Gary Moore's own abilities as, even though the music is not original, it is accomplished and warrants listening to even independent of the source material.

And speaking of that material, Gary Moore does an excellent job of selecting songs for his tribute, choosing not just from Green's more notable repertoire with Fleetwood Mac, but also from his influential (though short-lived) days as a Bluesbreaker. This includes, for example, The Supernatural - a sublime instrumental that is well-suited to Gary's penchant for holding out long, sustained notes, which makes one wonder if this is not the sort of song that inspired him to develop that talent in the first place. But from the Fleetwood Mac days, you get excellent, and all but forgotten, tracks like Looking For Somebody and Merry Go Round from the Mac's first album, the slow blues Love That Burns, that is one of my favorite Peter Green songs, as well as the romantic Need Your Love So Bad, the slide guitar showcase Showbiz Blues from the album Then Play On, and the surprise selection Drifting (not an original album cut, from what I know), which is a fantastic guitar workout.

In spite of the great selection of tracks, Moore doesn't try to be comprehensive - as he couldn't possibly be on a single album. He leans more toward the bluesier tracks, and you won't find here every single great song Peter Green ever recorded (like the more rocking Rattlesnake Shake, the popular Black Magic Woman, or Green's tortured metal opus, The Green Manalishi, all absent from this disc), but that shows Moore's dedication to theme. Undoubtedly, there is plenty more to be impressed by that came from Peter Green, and this album is certainly not meant to be a definitive statement on the musician - for that, one would hope that this album encourages you to dig deeper, if you're not already familiar with the genius output of Peter Green. But as a tribute album, Blues For Greeny is a huge success, and an impressive accomplishment - rare, also, for one musician to so wholly dedicate a project to another musician, not unlike, perhaps, the way Peter Green has recently dedicated an album or two to blues legend Robert Johnson (and he's not the only one). I maintain that Peter Green is every bit as worthy as Robert Johnson to have tribute albums dedicated to him, and in that, it appears I have something in common with Gary Moore. Well done, Gary.

Michael Bloomfield with Nick Gravenites and friends - Live At Bill Graham's Fillmore West (1969)

2012-01-07T13:43:00.000-08:00

Michael Bloomfield was a uniquely gifted guitarist in the '60s and '70s, coming out of the Chicago blues revival scene, who nevertheless managed to avoid the spotlight, ensuring that he would not become a household name. He played behind Bob Dylan at the Newport Folk Festival when the folk bard who was the voice of a generation grabbed an electric guitar and hailed (to mixed reactions) the revolution of electric rock music. Yet Bloomfield's name is all but forgotten, because he never played in a superstar rock band, or put out a lasting record, or cut a hit pop song. He was more authentic to the blues than perhaps many of his contemporaries who preferred a rougher, more rocking approach to blues revival, but his talent as a guitar virtuoso, particularly in the context of playing a soulful blues lead, is self-evident - the only problem is that few get the chance to hear him.

I discovered Michael Bloomfield years ago while I was a radio DJ delving into the hidden treasures of the classic rock era, and once wrote a comprehensive Amazon guide to help people discover this forgotten legend. I dedicated one of my radio shows to Bloomfield and the many musicians he played with, and in the process of researching for that show, I scoured Bloomfield's recorded history. It's a shame, but it's true that Bloomfield's genius as a guitar player was hard to capture on record, whatever the reason. But one of the greatest recorded live albums in Bloomfield's discography was this show at the Fillmore West, from 1969. I'm only getting my hands on it now because it's only recently been released on CD. At the time of researching for my radio show, I had to resort to tracking down a vinyl copy of the LP - and I remember sitting in an office in the library on campus that my friend was working at, using their device to record the LP to digital format, so I could play those tracks more easily on my radio show (and to listen to in the future).

A few of the live tracks recorded did not end up on the original Fillmore West LP, and those were released by request on Nick Gravenites (a singer and friend of Michael Bloomfield, who appears at this concert)'s album titled My Labors. The new CD release of Fillmore West attempts to combine those tracks with the original LP's tracklist, but unfortunately falls short of being comprehensive by excluding the (rather long) Wintry Country Side, instead adding (quite unnecessarily) a track from a different live album from a different tour (the song Mary Ann from The Live Adventures Of Mike Bloomfield & Al Kooper). It's a shame they couldn't fit that one last track on there, because now you'll still need to pick up My Labors if you want the whole concert (and Wintry Country Side, while slow to start, is a real burner). The only other complaint I have is that the false start leading into It Takes Time has been removed. I understand this can be viewed as a mistake, but I'm used to hearing that song with the false start (the band kicks into the song, stops after just a few notes, then starts right over from the beginning), and frankly I think it's a rather charming start to the song.

But that's a minor complaint, and even the exclusion of one track doesn't mar my enthusiasm for finally being able to have the remaining tracks (not released on My Labors) from this concert on CD, and on a CD that is, if not comprehensive, now the definitive version of one of the greatest recorded concerts representing Michael Bloomfield's elusive legacy.

Lance Lopez - Live (2007)

2012-01-07T00:54:00.000-08:00

Lance Lopez is one of the artists I discovered via Grooveyard Records (which has an internet radio station now), an independent record company dedicated to, as they describe it, "outstanding total guitar music" (in other words, it's right up my alley). Lots of it is blues-based rock guitar virtuoso type of stuff in the tradition of Jimi Hendrix, which is just the way Lance Lopez could be described. The other artist I latched onto via a Grooveyard Records release was none other than Joe Bonamassa, who has been decidedly more prolific in the past decade than Lance Lopez. Nevertheless, I was blown away by the first Lance album I picked up - Wall of Soul - and it kept me coming back for the subsequent releases of Simplify Your Vision and Higher Ground. Now, as you've probably guessed, I've got my hands on his live album.

My first impression of Lance's live set is that his voice is a whole lot rougher than on his studio albums, and unfortunately not in a good way. However, his guitar work is absolutely top notch, and he scorches on this short collection of numbers divided nicely between the harder rockers (like Hendrix's Spanish Castle Magic and Howlin' Wolf's Killing Floor, or, more interestingly, the Lopez-penned There Is Love and the insane second half of Walk It) and, on the other hand, the searing blues (such as the remarkable Mr. Rattlesnake, and I'm Doin' Fine, which totally cooks). But the highlight of the disc would appear to be a twenty-three and a half minute long jam on the Stevie Ray Vaughan-esque slow blues Everytime I Turn Around - except that it's only a 12 minute long jam (though still very impressive), hiding a 12 minute hidden bonus track that turns out to be Hendrix's I Hear My Train A Comin' (always an exciting song to hear).

I have to wonder why they stuck these two tracks together. I'd suggest that they wanted to hide it in order to avoid royalty issues, except that there's already another Hendrix track listed on the disc. At any rate, they could have kept the bonus track hidden (as a pleasant surprise, I guess, or possibly to downplay the emphasis on Hendrix), and still given it its own separate (unlisted) track. As it is, sticking the two songs together is not only misleading (when I saw the track length, I was anticipating a 23 minute long jam), it also makes it more difficult to isolate those tracks for playing individually out of context of the rest of the album. But it's a minor quirk, and it doesn't change the quality of the material on this disc. His vocals might be lacking, but on guitar, Lance is at the top of his form. Fans will not be disappointed with this live album.

The Rolling Stones - The Brussels Affair (Live, 1973)

2012-01-06T01:04:00.000-08:00

It's hard to believe that it's taken this long for a live album from The Rolling Stones' prime era to be released officially by the band - if only in digital online format (this concert can be purchased exclusively from The Rolling Stones Archive website). Considering the band's penchant for releasing live albums to commemorate the tours in support of their later albums from the '80s onward, long after the band had reached their peak, you'd think they might be more enthusiastic about demonstrating the power and energy they had when they were still young and contemporary and their reputation as the world's greatest rock n roll band was still fresh and self-evident. Granted, we've had Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! from 1970, but that's like Led Zeppelin's Royal Albert Hall compared to Madison Square Garden. It's good, but this new concert from the Stones' 1973 tour benefits from more of their best material (including tracks from Exile on Main St and Goats Head Soup), while the band is still in their stride, and before Mick Taylor left to be replaced with Ronnie Wood. The tracklist from this concert is fantastic, and the quality of the performance is sublime. If I had to choose only one Stones concert to demonstrate the band's classic stage presence, I would not hesitate for a second in picking this one.

Explosions In The Sky - How Strange, Innocence (2000)

2012-01-05T16:36:00.000-08:00

Explosions In The Sky is a post-rock band more or less in the vein of Godspeed You! Black Emperor. Post-rock is my favorite contemporary genre, as it marries the instrumentation of orchestral music with the rough energy of rock n roll, often producing hauntingly beautiful soundscapes (with minimal, if any, lyrics) that could easily provide the soundtrack to a post-apocalyptic landscape (as was the case when one of Godspeed's songs was begrudgingly allowed to be used in the soundtrack to zombie apocalypse movie 28 Days Later - the moment I became a post-rock fan).

The aptly titled How Strange, Innocence is effectively Explosions In The Sky's demo tape, recorded before their first large-scale album release, and later re-released due to fan demand. It is not quite as smooth or polished as the other Explosions album I own, The Earth Is Not A Cold Dead Place, recorded a few years later. However, the rough nature of these tracks seems to lend itself to emphasizing the dynamic range of these songs - in essence, the transition between quieter and louder sections of music that is my favorite staple of the post-rock formula. Sometimes these transitions are rapid, even unexpected, and sometimes they are very gradual (which is more often the case with Explosions' music). From this album, the song Time Stops best encapsulates the sort of build and grandeur that I associate with Godspeed You! Black Emperor, which is in my opinion the best post-rock band.

Another thing about instrumental music that I find so fascinating is that the mood of the piece is determined more by the sound (and harmony) of the instruments, than the lyrics the vocalist is singing (as is often the case in pop music). A lot of times, the mood of a piece matches the lyrics - i.e., a song about heartbreak will be either angry or melancholy depending on the singer's mood. Other times, you have songs whose mood seems poorly matched to the lyrics (and sometimes, even, the lyrics don't make much sense and leave you guessing), which could either work in the song's favor, or to its detriment, depending on what sort of effect the artist is going for. But with instrumental music, it's all about creating moods and feelings without resorting to words. How do you make someone feel sad, or happy, or anxious, or calm, or frightened, without telling them that's how they should be feeling?

I think it's a fascinating question, one that I've struggled with myself as a musician, and something that a post-rock band has to be able to accomplish in order to be any good. On a related note, I love the freedom of coming up with curious song titles for instrumental tracks. Songs with names like Glittering Blackness and Remember Me As A Time Of Day (and countless excellent examples from other albums and other post-rock bands) inevitably and intentionally set the scene for an instrumental passage to play out in, and also give a short glimpse into the mind of the artists who created that passage, what they were thinking, and what they feel the passage means to them. It's very much like abstract impressionism. And I admire that open-endedness of interpretation, especially set against a title that, unlike "Love Song No. 9" or something of the sort, gets you thinking before the music even begins.

Jethro Tull - Aqualung (1971)

2012-01-05T11:50:00.000-08:00

Aqualung is one of those quintessential classic rock albums, and it's actually surprising that it's taken me this long to own it. But Jethro Tull has always been the sort of band that's hard to pin down, and while I appreciate their frequently hard rocking edge, the inclusion of Ian Anderson's flute gives their music a poetic, almost folksy flavor. So Aqualung fell through the cracks in my music collection, and the longer I went without owning it, the stranger I felt about going back and picking it up. I recently changed my mind because I sat down to learn how to play the title track on guitar, and I figured it was a good time to finally get my hands on the album.

I remember borrowing the album from my dad's collection several years ago, and listening to it then, in its entirety. Of course the songs Aqualung (with a kick-ass riff and a truly epic guitar solo) and Locomotive Breath (which features a plodding rhythm and the meanest flute solo I've ever heard in a rock song), and to a lesser extent Cross-Eyed Mary, registered in my mind as they were songs I'd heard, and enjoyed, on rock radio. But my most novel discovery was the song Wind Up, which closes the album, and covers one of the main themes of the album - the distinction between God and religion, as it's been described - a theme I can absolutely relate to.

"I don't believe you, you have the whole damn thing all wrong:
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays."

The band vehemently denies (almost too strongly) that Aqualung is a "concept album", but even if it was not intended as such, it certainly works well as one, after the fact. The second half of the album focuses on the religion topic, with several songs that attack the hypocrisy of organized religion, such as the vitriolic My God, and the haunting Wind Up. The first half of the album is a collection of songs which could easily be mistaken as a series of character sketches, that has probably done just as much to encourage the rumor that Aqualung is a concept album as the cohesion of theme on the second half. The album opens with the title track, which describes the titular character that is depicted on the cover - a "letching grey", a perverted and homeless old man, in dubious health. He even makes a cameo in the next song, Cross-Eyed Mary (who is a schoolgirl prostitute), in almost rock opera fashion.

So you see, confusing Aqualung for a concept album is an easy thing to do. However, learning that it's not intended to be one - or a rock opera either, for that matter - was actually a relief, because I was having a hard time tying together the themes and understanding what Aqualung, the character at the beginning of the album, had to do with the anti-religious sentiment that invades the second half of the album. My resulting impression is that, as far as quintessential classic rock albums go, Aqualung isn't on the level of Led Zeppelin IV or Dark Side of the Moon or what have you, but then, I wouldn't rate Jethro Tull on quite the same level as Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd. Still, they were a unique band with a hard-to-duplicate sound, that put out some good songs (not all of which have found radio popularity), many of which can be found on this album.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show [Soundtrack] (1975)

2012-01-05T11:15:00.000-08:00

Only just a few months ago I finally introduced myself to the cult sensation that is The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I like to conceptualize it as a rock opera (perhaps because I like rock operas far more than I like musicals), but as a friend remarked to me, it's a much better experience watching the film (even without the audience participation) than just listening to the soundtrack. Still, the quality of the songs are pretty good for a musical, and I'm happy to have them on CD/mp3 for the occasional reminder of how much fun the Rocky Horror Show is, and to be able to refer to them in the future for various potential purposes. I'm disappointed, however, that the Sword of Damocles song that Rocky sings as soon as he comes...to life isn't included on the soundtrack - I kind of liked that song. Maybe I should have got the more recent version of the soundtrack, although judging from the reviews, despite how comprehensive it's supposed to be, it still suffers from a few small but frustrating flaws.

Journey - Look Into The Future (1976)

2012-01-05T11:12:00.000-08:00

If my interest in Fleetwood Mac is any indication, I seem to have a thing for bands that were - musically - very interesting before they hit the pop charts with new members and a more user-friendly format. Journey became an absolute sensation in the '80s after hiring the crooning balladeer Steve Perry (and I admit, he's got a very soothing, romantic voice), but they were formed in the '70s from members of Santana (back when it was a jam band, before Carlos Santana began pimping his talents out to the pop singers of the day). Guitarist Neal Schon and keyboardist/vocalist Gregg Rolie from Santana teamed up with drummer Aynsley Dunbar, and gave birth to Journey, which began as an instrument-driven progressive rock band that released three albums before selling out (for better or worse, depending on your opinion) with the addition of Steve Perry to the band.

One thing that strikes me about early Journey, aside from the vastly different sound they had compared to their later pop ballad style, is how epic their music is. They don't piss around building up pleasant melodies, they just barrage you with power and accomplished instrumentation, and aren't afraid to go off on a jam that has little to do with anything related to commercial song structure or anything of the sort. If there's a drawback, it's that their songs aren't catchy in the sense that they have hooks that get you to remember them, and enable you to distinguish them from each other. But in my mind, that's a small cost for such consistently impressive musicianship across the disc, and there's lots of interest to be found hidden within some of these songs - including a portion during I'm Gonna Leave You that sounds eerily similar to an important riff that features in Kansas' Carry On Wayward Son (released in the same year, curiously). Fans of pop-era Journey may not like this, the band's second album, but if you dug the sound on their debut album, I'm certain you'll like Look Into The Future at least as much.

Fleetwood Mac - Kiln House (1970)

2012-01-05T11:08:00.000-08:00

Kiln House is the first album Fleetwood Mac released after the departure of founding member Peter Green. Remaining were the other two core members, Mick Fleetwood and John McVie (on drums and bass, respectively), as well as the two guitarists/vocalists that filled out the band: Jeremy Spencer and Danny Kirwan.

The album doesn't have any major surprises; it's basically a collection of the sort of songs Jeremy Spencer and Danny Kirwan were playing while Peter Green was in the band, including their "vaudeville" imitations of Elvis, Buddy Holly, and the like. Spencer's highlight is the rocking track Hi Ho Silver (which recalls Honey Hush from their BBC Sessions), but it's Kirwan's melodic and soulful tracks that better echo Peter Green's more introspective songs from previous albums.

Tracks like Station Man and the instrumental Earl Gray, or Jewel Eyed Judy and the rocking Tell Me All The Things You Do, are the kind that may not make a greatest hits compilation for the band, but are intriguing deep album cuts that could fascinate an unsuspecting listener who is not familiar with the complicated history of Fleetwood Mac. It seems clear to me that the departure of a driving force like Peter Green opened the door for a more eclectic (and unfocused) sound for the band, and paved the path for an evolution that would culminate with the introduction of a new driving force (in the form of the Buckingham/Nicks partnership) several albums later, that would bring the band fame with a more pop-friendly sound.

Also of note is that Christine Perfect, longtime friend of the band, provides some backing vocals on this album (uncredited), and would soon marry into the band officially as Christine McVie. She also drew the artwork on the album cover for Kiln House, which is a very beautiful fold-out illustration in bright colors, depicting a boy and a girl heading towards the titular Kiln House, in a scene that is cheerful on the surface, yet subtly creepy when you take a closer look. (Why are they headed toward a "kiln house"? Will they, perhaps, meet a fate not unlike the kids who stumble upon a gingerbread house deep in the woods?)...

Rush - Feedback [EP] (2004)

2012-01-05T11:04:00.000-08:00

While not having the status of rock bands like Led Zeppelin and progressive acts such as Pink Floyd, Rush has a strong and committed following. My own feelings towards Rush have been pretty lukewarm, so in lieu of singing their praises, I choose to respectfully defer you to other, much bigger Rush fans. I've never been particularly impressed by the popular tracks that get played on the radio, and as much as I hate to judge a band by its singer, I've never warmed up to Geddy Lee (and that's purely a matter of taste, as I'm fond of other unconventional singers, like Neil Young, or Mick Jagger). What's more, I haven't found their less accessible and more progressive tracks to be all that exciting, so far (compared to, say, Yes' classic recordings).

However, Working Man is one of the best songs I've ever heard on the radio, and it's not surprising that it comes from the band's first album on which they've been said to sound more like Led Zeppelin. I got that album last year, and this year, I turned toward the band's [relatively] recent EP of cover songs. Feedback is something of a tribute to the songs that inspired Rush in their formative years. The song selection is excellent - two songs by the Yardbirds, two by the Buffalo Springfield (including Mr. Soul), and a few by The Who (with a nod to Blue Cheer) and Cream. And impressively, the songs sound really good in their cover versions. Not surpassing the originals, necessarily, but good enough to enjoy listening to in their own right. That gives me the impression that Rush is an exceedingly competent band - just that the style of music they usually play isn't entirely in tune with my palate.

Black Sabbath - Heaven And Hell (1980)

2012-01-05T11:00:00.000-08:00

Heaven And Hell marks Black Sabbath (the band that invented heavy metal)'s debut in the '80s, with their new vocalist Ronnie James Dio filling the space that Ozzy Osbourne left when he went solo. It's a new Black Sabbath for a new decade, but apart from the voice, it's not all that different.

The music is still consistently good, though perhaps with less hard-hitting epic riffs and songs as in their earlier days (the title track being one obvious exception). Though it's possible that the songs are simply less memorable or catchy somehow, because if you listen to them, they are good.

I still maintain that Dio is one of my favorite metal vocalists - he's got a distinctive voice that seems well-suited to heavy music (even if that's coming from someone who prefers metal bands to employ singers rather than screamers) - but there's something about the Black Sabbath brand that's missing without Ozzy on vocals. Even so, this is good music, and I can't imagine a more competent and fitting replacement for Ozzy. If you're concerned about the quality of Heaven And Hell as a Black Sabbath album (released a decade after their debut and without their original singer), you need not fear, this album can sit proudly beside the best of the band's earlier releases.

Iron Maiden - Edward The Great (2002)

2012-01-05T10:21:00.000-08:00

Before I ever listened to Iron Maiden, I had them contextualized as one of those quintessential metal groups from the '80s. Being more of a rock fan, with a much greater interest in music from the '70s (as well as the '60s), I didn't think they would necessarily be my cup of tea. I don't remember now what made me decide to start listening to them (several years ago), but when I did, I found I really liked their music, which, in my opinion, has more in common with AC/DC than Metallica.

Structurally, it has a metal feel, with lots of speed, a hard driving beat, and frequently horror-themed lyrics. But it's lacking the sort of raw heaviness that, in my mind, characterizes the distinction between hard rock and heavy metal. Plus, the lead vocalist (Bruce Dickinson) opts to sing rather than scream (or worse yet, growl) the lyrics, which many rougher metal bands are guilty of doing, which usually turns me off.

It's a wonder I haven't heard more of Iron Maiden on rock radio, considering how big they were, and how contemporary rock radio stations seem to be in bed with the '80s. Edward The Great is a satisfactory greatest hits compilation, which I chose among others largely because I liked its album cover, and I wanted a collection of songs that could fit on one disc - not necessarily comprehensive, but enough to sate my infrequent appetite for good quality '80s metal.

Music Haul (2011)

2011-12-29T23:13:00.001-08:00

CDs are a great Christmas gift - certainly for a music fan. They're cheap, you can never have too many (I've been collecting for years and am still nowhere near done), and each one is a potentially exciting musical discovery waiting to happen. The only trick is finding the ones a person is going to like (much easier if they tell you which those are). It is true that the digital revolution is changing the way we consume all sorts of media - not limited to music - but I have yet to outgrow the CD format (it's scary to think that the day is fast approaching - if it's not here already - when kids will view CDs in the same antiquated light as I learned to view vinyl records (albeit I've always given them the reverence due a well respected elder format)). So, it doesn't take a stretch of belief to hear that my most numerous Christmas gift is that of the CD album. I shall now list those CDs I received this year, and give a short review of each:

Iron Maiden - Edward The Great (2002)
Black Sabbath - Heaven And Hell (1980)
Rush - Feedback [EP] (2004)
Fleetwood Mac - Kiln House (1970)
Journey - Look Into The Future (1976)
The Rocky Horror Picture Show [Soundtrack] (1975)
Jethro Tull - Aqualung (1971)
Explosions In The Sky - How Strange, Innocence (2000)
The Rolling Stones - The Brussels Affair (Live, 1973)
Lance Lopez - Live (2007)
Michael Bloomfield - Live At Bill Graham's Fillmore West (1969)
Gary Moore - Blues For Greeny (1995)

Bonus:
Black Country Communion - Live Over Europe [DVD] (2011)

2011 Movie Releases (In Review)

2011-12-20T11:10:00.000-08:00

At the end of last year, I posted a summary of the movies that had been released throughout the year that I got to see in the theaters, followed by a discussion of: the movies released that year that I saw outside the theaters; the movies that were released that year that I wanted to see, but didn't get around to; and what I was looking forward to seeing in the next year. I thought it was a fun idea, so I decided to revive it for 2011!

Actually, it's a couple weeks early yet, but I don't know of any movies coming out between now and the New Year that I'm probably going to rush out to the theater for, so I figured I'd go ahead and take a look back while it's on my mind.

It turns out 2011 was a much leaner year for [new] movies, for me, than 2010 was, probably largely because of my financial and transportational condition. I only saw four movies in the theater this year, and the one movie I mentioned that I was looking forward to (Red Riding Hood), I ended up skipping - although I did get a chance to see it at home later in the year. Here are links to my reviews of those five movies:

Super 8 - a great nostalgia piece/sci-fi action flick from the minds of J. J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg, and starring Elle Fanning (conveniently released during my period of obsession with her sister's filmography) that I described as The Goonies of the 21st century.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 - the continuation of the previous December's release and the final installment in the Harry Potter film series.

Paranormal Activity 3 - a second sequel to the movie I rated as the scariest movie I'd seen in my adult life (although unfortunately not entirely living up to its predecessors' accomplishments).

The Thing - a prequel disguised as a remake to John Carpenter's best movie (confusingly, with the same title), which was itself the best remake ever done, and one of my favorite movies of all time (though the prequel expectedly does not quite live up to the previous movie's reputation).

Red Riding Hood - the movie I described as Little Red Riding Hood adapted for the Twilight generation. As a fantasy and an erotic thriller, it leaves much to be desired, but Amanda Seyfried looks fantastic, and it's a curious gothic romance.

Now for movies released in 2011 that I missed! There were three in particular that I heard about and wanted to go see, only to find out they weren't playing anywhere near me. Those were Trust, Texas Killing Fields, and Shame. As for the rest, I'm going to browse through a list of movie releases in 2011 to refresh my memory of what came out...

* I had heard good things about The King's Speech, even if it doesn't look like the sort of film I'd be drawn to. But I ended up not seeing it.

* Hanna looks good, but I don't remember hearing anything about it.

* Soul Surfer is one that somehow slipped under my radar.

* I considered seeing Your Highness due to its pervertedness, but ultimately decided against it as "sexy" comedies are frequently disappointing in the erotic department.

* The Tree of Life intrigued me when I saw trailers for it - not enough to get me out to the theater, but I'd still like to watch it sometime.

* I'll probably watch X-Men: First Class some day, but my feelings for the X-Men movies are lukewarm.

* Bad Teacher appeals to me at least to the extent that I like teachers that do not conform to the industry code on how kids are supposed to be indoctrinated (although it is, unfortunately, only a comedy).

* Rise of the Planet of the Apes is one I would have liked to have seen. You know, if I had had more enthusiasm to get out and spend money.

* I was this close to going out to see the Don't Be Afraid of the Dark remake, but I ended up sating myself with the original.

* I'll admit that Shark Night (3D?) caught my attention, but I'm not sure it's good enough to live up to its premise (shark attacks on girls in bikinis). It could be a totally cool exploitation flick, but I have a feeling it's more likely to be on the level of a cheap sci/fi (sorry, syfy :p) channel monster movie. I guess I'd actually have to watch it to find out...

* Contagion sounds interesting. Makes me think of Outbreak, which I liked.

* I really want to see Red State. A guy I met at the Horror Realm Con really hyped it up for me. I wouldn't have expected Kevin Smith (see: Clerks) to do a good horror movie, but that's the word on it, and it sounds good. Plus, it's supposedly about religious intolerance!

* Dirty Girl looks intriguing, but would be a lot more...interesting...with an actual teenager. :-\

* No comment on The Human Centipede 2. :p

Alright, that's enough. I think the moral of this story is that there are more movies out there than I have the time (and the money) to watch, and that's not even taking into account the decades of movies past that I have yet to see!

But as for next year, I think The Dark Knight Rises is the big one to look out for. There's also a lot of excitement for The Hunger Games - I think I'm going to probably read the book(s) first, and then we'll see how excited I get. I'm also looking forward to seeing The Perks of Being a Wallflower when it comes out (featuring Emma Watson in her first post-Harry Potter role). And it looks like The Hobbit (part 1) might be coming out next December? I guess we'll have to wait and see!

SRV - Slow Blues

2011-12-18T00:16:00.000-08:00

Legendary British blues guitarist Peter Green (the man who formed Fleetwood Mac, and penned Santana's hit Black Magic Woman) once differentiated between the two styles of the blues, saying that he considered all the faster songs to be rock n roll, with the slower ones being the true blues. And while there is a long history of upbeat blues, this comment has always resonated with me, as it's the downbeat blues that have always spoken to me on a deeper level. In my mind there is a significant distinction between that style of up tempo blues that has a good rocking beat, that gets you jumping and moving, as if to dance your blues away, and the down tempo blues that seems to wallow and revel in sadness and despair. Both approaches have merit, and I do indeed enjoy both of them immensely for their separate appeals, but as a bit of a darker, more melancholic, inwardly directed person, it's the Slow Blues that truly calls to me.

So I took some time to dig through Stevie Ray Vaughan's discography recently. SRV is undoubtedly one of the greatest blues guitarists to ever grace this planet, and is probably my favorite artist whose career is situated primarily in the decade of the '80s. One of the most fascinating aspects about Stevie is his seemingly effortless combination of talent and popularity. Many pop artists rely on hooks to draw audiences in to their music, while many highly talented instrumentalists garner only a fraction of their popularity. It was more common in past decades, in my experience, for pop artists to be accomplished musicians, but Stevie Ray Vaughan is uniquely talented, even while being widely regarded and capable of writing a very good pop tune that demonstrates, rather than obfuscates, his mastery of the guitar.

But with my previous discussion of slow blues in mind, I have gone through Stevie's discography, skipping over those accomplished pop rockers (many of the ones you hear on the radio frequently), even [reluctantly] ignoring those tracks (several of them instrumentals) that showcase SRV's awesome guitar abilties, to focus in on the slow blues numbers that Stevie has recorded. As a result, I have compiled a nice, tight playlist of Stevie Ray Vaughan songs that emphasize the melancholy of the blues, the kind of songs that wallow in despair, the sort you might like to listen to on those days when you feel depressed, and you don't have a lot of energy, you're not ready to start feeling good again just yet - you just want to sit up in your room, as Son House once described it, and cry a while. Here's the tracklist:

Amazon.com Widgets

1. Texas Flood
2. Dirty Pool
3. The Things (That) I Used To Do
4. Tin Pan Alley (aka The Roughest Place In Town)
5. Ain't Gone 'N' Give Up On Love
6. Life Without You
7. May I Have A Talk With You
8. Leave My Girl Alone
9. The Sky Is Crying

Notes on The Deathly Hallows (book version)

2011-12-15T22:41:00.000-08:00

Warning: Harry Potter spoilers!

Just barely over a year since I became interested in the Harry Potter series and started watching the movies, I have now finished reading the books!

And this time, I finally decided to write down notes as they came to mind while reading the story, instead of waiting till the end to pull my thoughts together.

* I'm surprised that Dudley redeemed himself, in the end. I guess that makes him a less pathetic character than Draco?

* While not unattractive in the movies (though she is inevitably overshadowed by Emma Watson's Hermione Granger), judging from the chapter illustrations, Ginny is a lot prettier in the books. Hence, I mind Harry pairing up with her (instead of Hermione) less than I do when I watch the movies (which are filled with great Harry x Hermione moments).

* Wow, I just discovered that some people ship Tom/Ginny (like from Chamber of Secrets), and I think that's fantastic. (Okay, that note wasn't actually related to this story)...

* Much clearer antagonism between Harry and Scrimgeour in the books. He practically grills them like a police investigator during the reading of Dumbledore's will!

* Even with the Deathly Hallows movie split into two parts, it's amazing what didn't make it into the movies. Like how Regulus got that locket, and Grindelwald's association with the titular Deathly Hallows. This is good stuff we're talking about.

* It's fascinating that with Kreacher, we're given a nice middle ground for how to treat house elves. You don't have to forcibly deny them their lifeblood, the work they are proud of doing, you just have to treat them with fairness and respect. It might be tempting to have a slave who is forced to do your bidding, but considering that elves have some nice tricks up their sleeves, it's probably better to get them to help you because they like you, not simply because they have to. Anyway, it's better for your conscience, and it shows what kind of a person you are, the way you treat your slaves.

* Rather convenient that Harry's starting to see into Voldemort's mind again. Not that I'm complaining, those bits of exposition are both exciting and integral.

* Dumbledore really was pretty distant. I guess I could understand if he didn't like to talk about his family, but there was more he could have told Harry, at least as much as using the sword to defeat the Horcruxes. I know he trusted Harry to be able to figure it out on his own and all, and he was an extremely busy man, but Harry had always seemed to be resentful of Dumbledore's distance. I would have thought, apart from wanting to protect Harry from the truth, that maybe his admiration of Harry would have led to more of a connection between them. Although I can't really fault Dumbledore for not treating Harry with respect (like few else do), even back when he was just eleven.

* Wow, after Harry and Hermione visit Godric's Hollow, it's such a low point, even more than I remember it being in the movie. With Ron gone, and Harry's wand broken, they didn't find the sword, almost got killed by Voldemort (who himself actually showed up!), and most incredibly of all, Harry inadvertently helped Voldemort discover who the wand thief was that he's been looking for! And when Harry re-experienced Voldemort's attack on his parents, it's amazing the confusion between Harry and Voldemort, that you can't even really tell if it's the one or the other...

* Amazing that Dumbledore and Grindelwald were friends. Even so, I don't think Dumbledore's letter was as damning as it was supposed to be. I've had plenty of discussions like that in my own youth. I'm sure it was a difference of interpretation, that led Grindelwald to become a powerful dark wizard, and Dumbledore to be the icon of respect that he was. Just because he thought Muggles could stand to benefit from the powers of wizards doesn't mean he wanted to enslave them or kill them on a whim or anything of the sort. Even so, I do agree that Dumbledore should have told Harry much more than he did. It's to a point that I've lost a lot of my respect for him. On the other hand, his current actions (noble and not) may be an attempt to make up for what transgressions he may have committed in the past. If anything, it seems that Dumbledore, immensely talented though he was, is not perfect (maybe not even close), even though he may have been right about Snape all along (the one thing that seemed to be the most obvious evidence of his flaws).

* Xenophilius (awesome name) strikes me as something of a cryptozoologist. With the Lovegoods, you have to wonder if they're outright crazy, or if there's some merit to their mysteries. Take Luna. She was one of the few in Harry's group who could also see the Thestrals, ironically "proving" that Harry wasn't crazy in seeing them. And she believed Harry's story about Voldemort's return before most. So you want to believe there's something to her ability to discern truth in the world, and you begin to wonder if the crazy things she talks about aren't true, after all. And Xeno, he knew all about the Deathly Hallows - it makes you think they have inside knowledge on things. But then again, maybe it's just that they're so gullible that they're the first ones to believe those things in the world that are true, but are so improbable that most others don't believe them. On the other hand, it seemed like Xenophilius knew that Erumpent horn wasn't really a Crumple-Horned Snorkack's horn, and he was going to use it to trick the people that took Luna. Yet he insisted (as he must, to keep up appearances, so that the trick would work) that it was indeed the horn of a Crumple-Horned Snorkack. Was this just an unusual circumstance, or is he not as sincere about other things as he makes himself out to be? It's all quite a mystery. No doubt, though, that Luna is unusually sincere, loyal, and a good friend.

* The chapter "The Deathly Hallows" is clearly a turning point, but it's also gotta be one of the most expository-rich chapters in the entire Harry Potter series. I'm so used to getting mere glimpses of exposition here and there, being served with more questions than answers, all throughout the series, which is frequently frustrating. But here in this chapter, we get so much. It's thrilling! I'm glad the group acknowledged that they have one of the Hallows already (the Invisibility Cloak), which went entirely unmentioned in the movie, even though I had been left with the conclusion that it was not unique (other members of the Order were using other invisibility cloaks, unlike in the movies where the cloak was unique). Also exciting to think of Harry being a descendant of the three brothers in the original story (although, wouldn't that also, frighteningly, mean that he's related to Voldemort? And wouldn't that mean that he's also descended from Salazar Slytherin?). And shocking that Harry suspects the Resurrection Stone is inside the golden snitch so early in the story. I love that Harry is so possessed with the idea of collecting the Deathly Hallows and the power/protection it will bring him. Maybe it's immodest or whatever, but he is fighting at a disadvantage, after all, and it's a very exciting goal to have in a fantasy story. I didn't feel as much emphasis on the Hallows in the movie, they were almost incidental, like some trinkets they happened to come across (except maybe the wand, which Voldemort [was allowed to, as a dark and proud wizard] make a big deal about) in the course of their journey.

* Wandlore is fascinating. If I were a wizard, I think I would be tempted to become a wandmaker.

* How the hell is Aberforth the Hog's Head's barman? In the movie, it looked like he was hiding in some underground bunker or something. Did anybody know who he was? He's supposed to be this big mystery, and now it feels like he's been hiding in plain sight all this time...

* The Deathly Hallows is definitely shaping up to be the best book in the series, with all that goes on. Breaking into Gringotts, the Horcruxes and the Hallows, on the run from the Death Eaters, and of course the great concluding battle against Voldemort. Plus it's totally awesome to finally get a look inside the Ravenclaw common room (I love that the password is answering a question!). ;-)

* When Voldemort kills Snape, I can't help thinking (and I had the same thought when I watched the movie), that his method of killing is highly suspect. I mean, it's pretty darn convenient that he kills Snape in a way that leaves him alone and conscious for the last few moments of his life, for Harry to slip in and take his memory. I don't suppose Voldemort knew Harry was hanging around, but considering the meaning behind his killing of Snape (re: the Elder Wand) I would have thought he'd stick around to make sure Snape was dead, as well as to kill him with his own hands. Is he so proud and overconfident as to overlook the surety of a nice, quick Avada Kedavra curse, which he's used so many times before? I mean, honestly, even if Voldemort was right about the wand passing into the hands of the one who killed its previous owner, then even by that logic, the wand would be Nagini's, not Voldemort's...

* Speaking of, I always thought it was curious that Avada Kedavra is so reminiscent of the antiquated magical spell "Abra Cadabra". Plus the "Kedavra" part seems to suggest "cadaver", which the spell can be said to create. The spell names are actually really well done in this series, often foreign-sounding but subtly suggestive of their effects. Like the Cruciatus Curse which subjects a victim to excruciating pain.

* Snape is a tough nut to crack, there's no two ways about it. I guess that's what makes him such an effective spy. I think Snape was a generally unpleasant person, with a genuine interest in the Dark Arts, who nevertheless had sincere feelings for Lily. It wasn't enough to change him into the kind of person Lily would have liked (I would argue that such a thing is impossible - we are who we are), but it was strong enough that he never wavered in his devotion to her. [Incidentally, I knew (with the benefit of foresight) that when Snape called Lily a Mudblood in that one memory Harry spied on during Occlumency lessons, it was something he regretted; I figured that even more than his humiliation at James' hands, it was that outburst against Lily that made that memory one of his lowest and most shameful].

So when Voldemort threatened Lily's life, Snape was forced to make a decision, and his devotion to Lily was stronger than his devotion to the Dark Arts. So he pledged his allegiance to Dumbledore, and even though they couldn't protect Lily, Dumbledore convinced him not to let Lily's death be in vain. I think from that point forward, Snape was genuinely good, if still a generally unpleasant person who was still interested in the Dark Arts. (And his attitude towards Harry was complicated by the combination of his hatred of James Potter and his desire to honor Lily's memory). Voldemort never believed Dumbledore's claim that love was the strongest kind of magic, and I think that's the reason why he trusted Snape, even to the end (and I do believe Voldemort trusted Snape, even at the moment when he killed him). He had to know about Snape's feelings for Lily, since Snape begged him to spare her, but he probably shrugged it off, not thinking that love could possibly override one's devotion to the Dark Arts (especially one as dark and unpleasant as Snape - who could imagine that one like him could feel love?). Yet another personal failing that led to Voldemort's fall.

But the most poignant aspect of Snape's most personal memories, in my opinion, is the point at which Snape implores Dumbledore never to reveal his devotion to Lily, to which Dumbledore responds, "My word, Severus, that I will never reveal the best of you?" I think that, right there, is Severus Snape in a nutshell.

* More answers when Harry "dies" and gets to talk with Dumbledore once more. I think that better explains Dumbledore's plan to die at Snape's hand, since he was dying anyway since foolishly putting on the ring/Horcrux (tempted by the Resurrection Stone - another detail left out of the movies). Dumbledore (and many of the characters) seems more human in the books, which have more time for exposition and characterization than the movies. He's also less perfect. I really like and respect him a lot, but after everything that's happened in this last book, I don't know that I revere him quite as much as I used to. He's less of an untouchable role model, and more of a flawed person, albeit an uncommonly respectable one. Maybe that's for the better.

I like that this series is full of complexity, and you have flawed characters like Dumbledore, who has dirty secrets despite being so well-loved, and Snape, who is a courageous hero in spite of his slimy personality and dubious proclivities. And the stance against trusting both the media and politicians throughout the series is very refreshing. After Dumbledore's parting speech, though, I really wanted Harry to gather the Deathly Hallows, even after it's been explained about how dangerous coveting them is - he was the one who deserved them in the end. I guess maybe I'm not as mature yet as Harry is at the end of the book. :p I guess this series is more than just an entertaining fantasy, but something of a life lesson, too, in certain ways.

I minded Harry coming back to life less in the book than I did in the movies, but I'm not sure if it's because, knowing what's supposed to happen this time around, I'm less committed to the seductive thought of Harry Potter dying at the end of the series, or if it's because the added exposition given by the books makes it seem less like cheating. Perhaps it's a combination of the two.

* Harry and Voldemort's duel was a lot more exciting in the book. The movie seemed to focus on the flash of the spells, whereas in the book, the verbal confrontation between the two wizards was emphasized, and that made it feel more personal, and more satisfying - Voldemort being defeated not just as a wizard, but as a person. And ultimately, it felt less like Harry winning by a "wand technicality", like it did in the movie, and more that he truly earned his victory.

* The Afterthought (er, Epilogue) actually bothered me less in the book. It was actually kind of touching, with the kids hopping around, the excitement of heading off to Hogwarts fresh in the air, recalling back to Harry's first trip on the Hogwarts Express all those years ago. A fitting coda to the series, I think. And I can't help noticing that Harry's son, Albus Severus Potter, if you take his initials, they spell out ASP, which is a type of snake...

The Walking Dead: Season 2 Episode 7 (Pretty Much Dead Already)

2011-11-27T19:56:00.000-08:00

Spoiler Warning!

Episode 7 is the mid-season 2 finale of The Walking Dead. The series will, allegedly, continue in February. I have to say, the finale left me speechless. Not just speechless, but with tears streaming down my face, and my throat dry from hyperventilation. I want to say that it couldn't really have ended any other way, and yet it still hit me like a ton of bricks, because I really didn't want to believe it. But even aside from that, the showdown was really intense. And not because the group was in any real threat, but because of what it meant. Because of Hershel's insistence that the walkers are people, the requirement that they adopt this view if they want to stay on the farm ("my farm, my barn, my rules"), and Shane's aggressive agitation which, though undeniably destructive, seemed in the end to finally restore some sense of cohesion to the group, and shake them - especially Rick - out of their idealistic reverie.

It's remarkable looking at Hershel, how much respect he continues to have for the dead, compared to Rick, who is being forced in the other direction, despite remembering that that's how Rick himself started out. The thing about him that made him so unique is that he respected the walkers. He wasn't afraid to kill them, but he paid his respect to their living memory. And Rick, in the first season, was the guy who could make anything work out - even the most cockamamie plan. He made it work because he could make the right decisions, and was always able to pull through. And now, from Shane's perspective, his softness and indecisiveness is seen as a threat to the group. He's putting the group in unnecessary danger to cater to the whims of a man (Hershel) who is not in touch with the reality of the danger that's out there in the world.

On the other hand, it's remarkable that Hershel has managed to survive so long, if his approach to the walkers is unnecessarily dangerous. It's a wonder that the farm is such a safe place, they hardly ever seem to get any walkers roaming in, that they don't even really need to defend themselves. Undoubtedly, that's why Rick and the gang likes the place so much, but I'm curious why it's so uncharacteristically safe. What makes it different from the other farms, and all the other places the group has thus far been, that it doesn't attract walkers?

The scene between Lori and Shane after Rick told Shane that Lori's pregnant (thank god - as Glenn rightly says, enough with secrets, secrets get you killed) confirmed my suspicion that Lori isn't as sure that the baby is Rick's as she would like to pretend. There's definitely going to be some conflict, because Lori doesn't want Shane interfering with her little family with Rick. But if Shane sticks around, and the kid is his, he's bound to have some influence on him. Even if the kid's not his - he's already got some influence on Carl, and Lori is resenting that. I guess this is another case of a romantic drama situation that would be easily solved by a threesome.

It seems that what this series is about, at least from the perspective of Rick, who is more or less the main protagonist, is transformation. From the day he woke up in that hospital, he's had to come to terms, as everyone does in their own way, to the shape of the world and what it takes to survive in it. But the confrontation between Shane and Dale in the swamp is unsettling. Shane undoubtedly has the skills to survive, but is it worth the cost of his humanity? His civility? His heart and soul? Is that the path Rick must follow if he is to be able to keep his family alive? Or is there some kind of compromise? No question, hard decisions have to be made at times, and maybe the only tenable solution was to disavow Hershel of his illusions about the walkers. Yet that's the sort of thing Rick doesn't like to do - he's too nice, and accommodating, which is what makes him a sympathetic character. Shane, on the other hand, who can do the dirty work, is a live gun, who is not above threatening the lives of his own group members. If the two could only work together in a more compatible fashion, without being either too tough or too soft to threaten the group...

But by god, it stopped me dead in my tracks when Sophia shambled out of that barn. Well, I was sitting in a chair in front of the television, but it put me in no less of a shock and a stupor than it did the entire cast. Even after gunning down a whole mess of walkers, what to do? I thought this might drive home Hershel's point that these are people - people we once cared about. But the harsh truth is that they're not people anymore, they're walking corpses, and they're dangerous. I knew somebody was going to have to do her in, and I wondered who it was gonna be. And then I saw Rick take control of the situation and I knew it was down to him. The man who took responsibility on himself for having lost Sophia in the first place, and couldn't bear to give up searching for her. If anything is going to seal off his sentimental emotions this would be just the sort of thing. I can't wait to see what happens next, how Hershel will deal with this devastation, and how the group will handle the fallout...

Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

2011-11-24T01:18:00.000-08:00

I first saw Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County several years ago - presumably during its original run on UPN. The broadcast version consisted of clips from the offending tape (that depicts a family's standoff against an extraterrestrial home invasion), interspersed with interviews and opinions with experts in a variety of fields, discussing whether the tapes were genuine or a hoax, and the implications of either. I imagine that was more or less around the time when I was at the height of my alien abduction paranoia (as was most of our culture, I bet), and probably not far removed from my late born obsession with The X-Files. When I saw Incident in Lake County on TV, I honestly didn't know whether it was real or fake, and it scared the shit out of me. Mesmerized, I ordered the VHS tape of the broadcast, and it still sits in a drawer in my room to this day (though I'm not sure I still have a working VCR).

Lately, my attention has turned to the title again, and I was reminded of the uncut original footage from which were drawn the clips that appear in the television broadcast. Having never seen the entirety of the original tape, I tracked it down (an infinitely easier task with the modern power of the internet at my fingertips) for viewing, to get myself prepped for Thanksgiving dinner. You see, in the tape, the McPherson family (who would allegedly go missing by the end of the night) is just about to sit down to their own Thanksgiving dinner before things start to get really frightening. Tommy McPherson is a young guy who aspires to be a director (though you wouldn't know it from his 'home movie' approach to recording the night - unless, that is, he intends to be a documentary filmmaker), and he records with enthusiasm what starts out as a family holiday gathering, but ends up as a document that could prove not only that extraterrestrial life exists and has come to earth, but that they apparently don't have much concern for the value of human life.

The fun starts when an unexpected flash of lightning (on a dry night) knocks out the power. But when a few of the men in the family head out to investigate the nearby power converter, they find something unbelievable - what appears to be an alien spacecraft landed in the woods, and there are alien beings wandering nearby, performing some kind of experiment on a cow with a red laser. The aliens spot the curious McPhersons, and turn their heat ray on them, prompting them to run screaming back to the house. The rest of the family doesn't believe their story at first - until they rewind Tommy's tape. But things only get worse from there, as the aliens - whose motivations we can only guess at, but one might suppose that they don't like being interrupted during their chupacabra routine - lay siege to the McPherson's farmhouse, one of them even crawling in through an upstairs window, and torture them psychologically via an array of fear tactics before ultimately taking them away to a fate Tommy's camera does not record.

It's a wonder that Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County is scary at all, because it's so obviously fake. The acting is terrible, and the fx are frequently laughable. When I was younger, the fact that the abduction scenario played out subtly differently than what we'd seen in other pop culture depictions, yet while covering all the expected bases, contributed to my suspicion that it could be real. After all, everything else we'd seen was a dramatization - maybe this was what it really looked like. Now, with the benefit of experience and insight, I can tell that the tape is so obviously faked, and I actually think it would be more effective if it took a few less liberties, seeing as the liberties it takes come most often in the form of really cheap effects, rather than clever changes to the formula. On the other hand, I do enjoy the more aggressive approach of these aliens, who seem to prefer besieging an entire family while awake to picking off individuals in their sleep without, in many cases, leaving much of a lasting memory (at least not until years later, after undergoing hypnosis). It may be less stereotypically alien behavior, but it is at least fresh.

But as I said, Incident in Lake County is a wonder, because it still manages to be scary, in spite of the aliens dressed like cat burglars, whose primary weapon seems to be a flashlight with red cellophane stretched over the bulb. This is one of those cases where the fear of the unknown exceeds the terror of the thing one fears. The aliens are more menacing at a distance, or lurking in the shadows, shuffling quickly past windows in the background, than when they take center stage. The whole of Alien Abduction plays on a very conceptual fear, and the ideas that it invokes are far scarier than the scenes that it renders, which is probably why it's so effective in spite of its low-fi fx. The scariest scene - the scene in the bedroom - had my skin crawling thinking about it before it happened (and it's got my skin crawling again just thinking about it again) so much that I was actually afraid to watch it and momentarily considered shutting the tape off to avoid it. Seriously, watching a film like this one just doesn't feel safe, like 99% of movies are. But when it actually happened - though it's still a pretty scary scene, and probably one of the more effective on the tape - it wasn't a fraction as terrifying as I was anticipating. Strange how that works, that the anticipation will affect you more than the experience itself. Proof that your mind is your most intimidating enemy after all?

So as a found footage film, Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County - the full tape and not the television broadcast - works pretty well, in the sense that it's very low budget and not particularly sophisticated, but that it effectively plays on some very visceral fears. I'm sure not everyone will agree, just as some people don't find Paranormal Activity the least bit scary, though I consider it one of the scariest films I have ever seen. If the concept of a found footage alien abduction movie doesn't particularly disturb you, then you might simply see it as a low quality, laughably bad flop. I wonder how I would feel if this were a similar quality movie about a different subject - say, a science experiment to resurrect an extinct carnivorous dinosaur. Hey, it might still have some merit. ;-)

Anyway, now I have other matters to attend to. I'm going to try my hardest not to think about aliens as I climb into bed (a futile task, I know), lest I get no sleep at all to prepare me for this year's turkey dinner. Happy Thanksgiving, loyal readers. :p

Taxi Driver (1976)

2011-11-23T12:20:00.000-08:00

Taxi Driver is such a good film. I wish I could tell you why it's a good film, but frankly, I don't know what it is that makes it so good. Is it Paul Schrader's deeply personal script? Martin Scorsese's inspired directing? The acting talent of a young and fresh Robert De Niro? Or the rest of the talented cast, including Jodie Foster's impressive and iconic performance as a 12 year old hooker? Is it because the characters are so real, and the dialogue so honest? And why is the gritty climax still so haunting, even after years of overexposure to ultraviolence in movies? I suspect it's a combination of many elements, where everything just seemed to go right. But it has to count for something that the primary filmmakers believed in this project, and had a real passion for it. Rather than a blockbuster engineered for superficial enjoyment, Taxi Driver is a serious film that makes you think and feel, and that is so much more rewarding.

Synopsis:

Ex-Marine Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro) is having some trouble adapting to modern life in the city. He has few prospects, doesn't relate well to people, and spends his nights awake, wandering disinterestedly between porno theaters. So he decides to become a taxi driver, working the night shift. This puts him in contact with all the scum that walks the street at night - prostitutes, junkies, criminals of all stripes - and it quickly begins to wear on him. Then he meets an angel, in the form of the ravishing beauty Betsy (Cybill Shepherd, looking absolutely scrumptious), who works on the campaign for a hopeful future presidential candidate. Travis doesn't really follow politics, but he goes out on a limb and asks Betsy out on a date. She seems intrigued by his unusual demeanor, and decides to take a risk on him. But when Travis absentmindedly takes her to a porno theater on their second date (not even seeming to realize his faux pas), that's the end of it.

Travis is left to wallow in his loneliness, as his increasing misanthropy pushes him further from sanity. In a misdirected desire to bring some meaning to his life, he begins a serious exercise regimen, and arms himself to the teeth with illegal firearms. Cleaning the scum off the streets of New York is never far from his mind, but he lacks a plan. Then he runs into Iris (Jodie Foster, a major player despite her minor status), a 12-year-old prostitute selling her body on the street. As an inverted parallel of his introduction of Betsy to the sleazy underground of the city, he hatches a plan to rescue Iris from her trashy lifestyle - but she seems less than enthusiastic about being dragged back to the parents she ran away from. Travis intends to make a name for himself somehow though, and he has to take his frustration with life out on someone - and his opinion seems to be that whatever he decides on, his own survival isn't a requirement.

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

If you've seen the film, then you know all about the brutal climax, in which Travis - refashioned with an intimidating mohawk - shoots Iris' pimp, guns down her mafioso client in the middle of a job, and then splatters her treasurer's brains all over the wall as she sits nearby on the couch cowering in fear. Suicide is ruled out when Travis finds his guns have run dry, so he sits and waits for the authorities to arrive and take over. Iris is presumably scared straight (as opposed to just being scared?), and Travis is lauded as a hero in the newspapers, for ridding the streets of a few more criminals - gangsters and traffickers in the human flesh trade. Iris' parents treat him like a saint for "saving" their daughter from a life of sin and vice, and he even seems to receive forgiveness from Betsy, whose opinion of him has improved. Happy ending, right?

Not quite. What of the fact that Travis Bickle is a disturbed man, who just murdered three people in cold blood (never mind that they were criminals), without so much as a slap on the wrist - in fact, he's been commended for his actions! - and might do it again, maybe to less deserving victims next time? Should we really forgive him his violent and antisocial outburst just because the targets of his frustration were persons involved in prostitution, specifically of underage girls? We have the justice system to deal with criminals - not vigilantes. Who is he to judge a person's guilt, and then decide their punishment? And yet, throughout the film, he is a largely sympathetic character, and because we have a hard time relating to junkies and prostitutes, we don't seem to want to count their lives very highly (and we consider Iris to be better off at home, even if she wouldn't agree). I think that may contribute to the sense of horror that we feel in that climax, that we have sympathized (and perhaps continue to do so) with someone who is capable of doing something so gruesome - and that despite viewing the victims as lowlifes, we see the violence perpetrated against them in a stark, unyielding light.

"You looking for some action?"
And that is another part of the brilliance of this film. Though we sympathize with Travis, every person that gets in his way is a fully-fledged character with desires and motivations of their own. They're real people, not just obstacles for the protagonist to overcome, without any moral complexity. Even Iris' character is based on a real life teenage prostitute (in fact, she's in the movie - she's the girl that Iris hangs out with on the streets). It would be so easy to make Iris the caricature of a lost girl dragged against her will into the lurid world of urban prostitution - and then, there would be no question that what Travis does is right. But instead, she actually defends her lifestyle - rather convincingly if you ask me (no, Travis, I'm afraid you're the one who's square). No, it's not glamorous, but it's not as sensationally evil as the headlines (and our imaginations) are inclined to make it, either. And that makes it harder for us to condone Travis' actions in the end. Because even though we might relate to his good intentions - rescuing a young girl off the streets of New York, and cleaning those streets of criminals and thugs - we realize that in the end Travis' self-serving saintly aspirations result in the gruesome murder of at least three people, and a likely traumatic scarring for the girl he intended to save. This is not the work of a divine avenger, but of a troubled and confused psychopath!

If this film has a flaw, it's that it supports the stereotype of the antisocial loner who is just a ticking time bomb. But it's a testament to the quality of the film that I still like it very much despite this - as well as the moral stance our protagonist takes against those who choose to live in sin and vice (which are often confused with crime - partly because many vices are wrongly classified as crimes). Although, I derive great satisfaction from the fact that our supposed representative of a "moral guardian" is a racist, porn-watching, black market gun-toting murderer. His victims may have been lowlifes, but what makes Travis so high and mighty? Hypocrisy kinda puts a damper on a man's virtue of integrity. This is a complex story about complex characters, so to make broad generalizations about people from it is a grave misstep. Critics may argue that movies like it inspires (if not also glorifies) violence, but as screenwriter Paul Schrader confirms, it's a study of a character - a very real character - who will exist regardless of whether or not we shine the light on him. And studying him may yet yield some positive results, if nothing else, to get to know ourselves better, and identify the commonalities that run at the base of the human condition.

Notes on The Half-Blood Prince (book version)

2011-11-21T15:58:00.000-08:00

Warning: Harry Potter spoilers!

* I noticed in the earlier books that the author used a strictly limited third person point of view focusing on Harry, such that we, the readers, were not privy to any scenes where Harry was not present. We learned about Voldemort's resurrection - as the rest of the wizarding world did - because Harry was there when it happened. This was particularly apparent in the last book, as Harry's sharing of Voldemort's dreams/feelings felt almost like an excuse (though a good one) for us, the readers, to be able to know what Voldemort was up to without leaving Harry's presence.

Knowing that The Half-Blood Prince opens with a scene far removed from Harry - when Snape makes the Unbreakable Vow (and then the official introduction of the new Minister) - I was wondering if the book would deviate from Harry's perspective for that. I don't know if it's the first time the series has done so, but I thought it was interesting enough to be worth mentioning. Indeed, now that Voldemort is back and threatening the world outside Hogwarts, there are things of importance happening even beyond Harry's scope of knowledge!

* And speaking of Snape... Knowing what I do, having already finished the series in movie form, I can't help looking at Snape as a good guy. But Bellatrix's interrogation (due to her rightful distrust of him) reveals an important point - that Voldemort, a highly skilled Legilimens, grilled Snape on his involvement with Dumbledore at Hogwarts, and not only did not kill him, but decided to retain his services as a Death Eater/spy.

There are only two explanations for this - either Snape was able to convince Voldemort that he's bad, or Voldemort believed that he still has use to him despite his lack of total allegiance. In the first case, we are led to believe that Snape really is bad (and since the series' conclusion seems to contradict this view, I think it's possible that he legitimately "swings both ways", and can't conclusively decide between good or evil, which is why he can convincingly fool both Voldemort and Dumbledore) - unless...I suppose Snape could have extracted his most sensitive memories before meeting with Voldemort - like he did before Harry's Occlumency lessons in the last book. Presumably (judging how the magic is allegedly supposed to work) Voldemort can't read Snape's thoughts that aren't currently in his head at the time of reading.

In the second case, it's possible that Voldemort knew Snape's true loyalties lie elsewhere, but nevertheless had reason to believe that retaining his services could be beneficial to him in the long run. Considering that Snape's involvement is crucial in Voldemort's plan to assassinate Dumbledore, this is plausible. So plausible, in fact, that I'm beginning to wonder exactly how much use Dumbledore's brilliant plan to let Snape kill him to earn the Dark Lord's trust really was. What did they gain after all? Thinking back (to the movies), it might have something to do with tricking Voldemort into not understanding how Dumbledore's wand works. Didn't he also have something to do with giving Bellatrix a fake sword of Gryffindor? Yeah, wasn't he the one who showed Harry where the real sword is, which is of course integral to the destruction of the Horcruxes?

At any rate, it's complicated, and I'll have to wait and see what happens in the final book.

* I have to admit, I don't understand why Slughorn was so resistant to giving Dumbledore his memory. I know that he was ashamed of giving Tom Riddle the information he needed to create his Horcruxes, but as in the end Harry assures him, giving up the memory is the best and only way to make up for that, and is (in Dumbledore's opinion), crucial to fighting back and ultimately defeating Voldemort. I don't care how ashamed he was, and how much he might have been implemented in aiding the Dark Lord's rise to near immortality, but withholding that memory is nothing short of active resistance to the Order [of the Phoenix], and outright protection of the Dark Lord. Then again, he was head of Slytherin, not Gryffindor, so I guess I shouldn't expect noble actions of him where self-serving deeds could suffice.

* I love that the book delves deeper into Tom Riddle's life history, as well as the significance of the Horcuxes, than the movies did. It makes a lot of sense that the plan to defeat Voldemort would require diving into his mindset, and looking at the kind of person he is and was, in order to locate and take advantage of his weaknesses. The very fact of knowing about the Horcruxes is evidence of that - how important it is to understand Voldemort in order to defeat him - but I think the movies underplayed that fact.

And the Horcruxes themselves were regrettably glossed over in the movies. I think the idea of the Horcruxes is wonderfully fascinating - not just the idea of using items to harbor portions of your soul, as if they were extra lives, but the fact that they are treasures! I love treasures, and especially collectible treasures that form a set. But it's more effective if you know something about why those treasures are valuable, and the trouble it took to acquire them. I don't recall the movies ever mentioning that the ring was Voldemort's grandfather's ring, that the locket was his mother's, and that both were family heirlooms that presumably belonged to Salazar Slytherin himself! And I also like the idea of collecting trinkets from each of the founders of Hogwarts. It really is too bad the movie didn't include the scene where Voldemort asks Dumbledore for a teaching job at Hogwarts; it seems to me like that's a perfect scene to illustrate the transition between the curious Tom Riddle, and the malevolent Dark Lord.

* Dobby is less annoying in the books, because since he appears more often, he has more chances to demonstrate how helpful he is. Whereas, in the movies, he shows up in The Deathly Hallows and all you've got to remember him by is the crap he pulled in The Chamber of Secrets.

* I'm less annoyed by the Hermione and Ron pairing in the books, I think partially because I see Hermione more as a brilliant nerd, than the brilliant gorgeous nerd that Emma Watson makes. I still think she deserves better - namely, Harry - but what can you say if Harry simply doesn't have those feelings for her? Regardless, I thought Harry and Ginny's kiss (finally, towards the end of the book), was charmingly sweet. Even though it directly preceded the very terrible events of the book's conclusion, quickly destroying the happy feeling it created. The whole scene in the cave was very creepy and suspenseful.

"It is the unknown we fear when we look upon death and darkness, nothing more."

* The "ghosts are transparent" exchange between Snape and Harry was hilarious! Snape is an off and on character - he was downright pathetic at the end of The Prisoner of Azkaban, but when he's on, he's really cool. The scene where Harry unknowingly uses Snape's spell to put Draco in the hospital - wow, what a scene, with Snape chastising Harry for using "very Dark magic", and one of his own spells, at that. At the end of the book, during the chase to escape Hogwarts, when he yells at Harry to stop calling him a coward - that was real. It has to take courage to be sneaky enough to double-cross the Dark Lord, and presuming Dumbledore's trust is founded, for him to agree to kill a truly great wizard that he respected and who treated him well (the sort of treatment I get the impression he hasn't received much of throughout his life) in order to do so. But so few people know enough about him to understand (and not knowing is precisely why they distrust him). He's a tragic character, that's for sure.

Red Riding Hood (2011)

2011-11-21T01:17:00.000-08:00

Red Riding Hood is, basically, The Little Red Riding Hood adapted for the Twilight generation. It's not a bad movie, but it's not a terribly good movie either. As a fantasy, it's not very convincing. As a drama, it's not very believable. It's too smooth to be very scary, although it works decently as a thriller. But the CG is distractingly obvious - horror requires grit and substance.

The film works best as a mystery - indeed, I was compelled to continue watching largely to find out who turns out to be the wolf. I don't know that it's a good mystery, because though there were many legitimate candidates for wolfhood (Red Riding Hood not excluded, with the woodsman ironically being the most visibly suggestive candidate), I wasn't invested enough in the fantasy world to care about following all the clues and making note of the 'rules' (assuming they're consistent), so I don't know whether it's actually intelligent or just lazy. But it is a mystery that wants solving, even if the paranoid atmosphere recalls much better films that have gone the "killer among us" route.

However, in spite of how it turns out, I'd be just as willing to believe that Father Solomon was running a racket, tricking villages into submission by introducing werewolves that only he knows how to effectively fight. I guess that shows you how unconvincing the characters were, that I'd just as soon believe them to be something else, rather than what the script apparently intends. I find it amusing in a not necessarily constructive manner that this is not the first film in which Gary Oldman has played a character who fights werewolves (harking back to Sirius Black in The Prisoner of Azkaban).

If not effective, it is a pretty film, helped in no small part by the luscious features of Amanda Seyfried as not-so-little Red herself. Although she is gorgeous, and has a more childlike demeanor than most women her age, I couldn't help noticing that she's not as young as her character is portrayed. Though she's not supposed to be a child, as she is in the prologue, when the narration jumps ten years into the future, it looks more like twenty years have passed. And I have a hard time believing that in this [admittedly make-believe] pre-modern era, one's parents would wait until a girl is twenty-five to arrange her marriage, and that, being as beautiful as she evidently is, noone else would have made arrangements of their own long before that time.

Now, I have no problem with an 'adult' telling of Red Riding Hood (actually, the original version is said to have been pretty gruesome already), but I've seen it done better before; and if you're going to make it 'adult', you might as well make it gritty. Red Riding Hood is sensual and romantic, but it's not sexy. It's mysterious and thrilling, but it's not really frightening. And most unfortunate of all, it tends to drag in the way that you feel like somebody had the idea to put their own spin on the story, but it's something that would have been better accomplished in a shorter format (or else with a better script) - here, the less-than-satisfying filling brings down those elements of the story that might actually be clever and/or original.

The Walking Dead: Season 2 Episode 6 (Secrets)

2011-11-20T19:44:00.000-08:00

Spoiler Warning!

It looks like things are finally coming to a head on the farm, as the secrets fly in episode 6 of The Walking Dead's second season. My respect for Glenn is increasing - he's always been a likable character, but now he really seems to be coming into his own. I can really relate to the way Maggie sees him - as an intelligent guy who has a good sense for what the 'right' thing to do is (for example, his advice to Lori - he refrained from trying to make her decision for him, like Dale did, but stressed the importance of consulting Rick first before choosing), but is too soft-spoken to actually step up and put his opinions across to the rest of the group. Yes, he gave away two big secrets in this episode, but they're the type of secrets that shouldn't have been kept in the first place.

"I suck at lying. I can't even play poker, it's too much like lying!"

Dale was at least clever about bringing up the issue with the barn full of walkers to Hershel, in a way that didn't implement Glenn (although I think Hershel may have picked up on that anyway, given the attention Maggie's been giving him). The explanation for that barn full of walkers turns to make a whole lot more sense than the wild theories I originally had - Hershel's just too darn sentimental, and thinks the walkers are still people, and should be treated with respect. He almost has a point, except that Maggie's close call in the pharmacy demonstrates just exactly why the walkers are so dangerous and must be treated as foes and not simply sick friends.

If anything, though Hershel is still intent on kicking out the group (and getting eager now that Carl is in good condition), he seems to at least partially be warming up, at least in allowing his people to attend Rick and Shane's shooting practice. I'm glad Carl's parents are allowing him to learn how to shoot. Lori's arguments are heartfelt, but it's the hard truth that they're living in a dangerous world, and Carl's better off knowing how to use a gun safely - at least he's got well-trained instructors in his sheriff dad and partner.

And on the gun front, it turns out Andrea is a natural. She had some trouble with the moving targets at first, but after a single live trial, she's taken to it like a fish to water. The look in her eyes, I fully believe she's found her new reason to live - to kill as many walkers as possible. But though I respect her for that, I fear having another ultra-cocky member of the group, like Shane. After all, her eagerness to kill walkers almost got Daryl killed! And Shane, well damn, his threatening Dale was fierce and scary. Dale's obviously jealous that Andrea's beginning to like Shane more and more. I don't think Shane will act rashly unless he's pushed into a corner, but this does not bode well for the cohesion of the group.

But thank god, Lori has finally come clean with Rick. About her being pregnant, and her time with Shane when she thought Rick was dead. Although the ending cut out a little quick, before we could tell that Rick understands and forgives her for that (like I think he should), as much as he seems to want to. The decision about Lori's baby-to-be, though, should definitely have been discussed with Rick. I don't care what your motivations or rationalizations are - that's a 'together' decision. It may be a hard decision, but it's one you endure together. And Lori has a lot of nerve to berate Rick for not telling her that Hershel expects them to leave the farm, when she has been keeping so much from him.

But as for the baby's prospects, indeed they look dim; but hard though life may sometimes be, it's not true that there can be no joy found, even in a post-apocalyptic world infested with cannibalistic corpses. If anything, a child born in such a world won't have anything better to compare it to, and while s/he won't have those good times to look back on, s/he may be more quick to come to terms with the world as it is, and have a better perspective on it, and how to be happy in it, not knowing anything else. However, it's true that survival will be tougher with a baby to take of, and for that, the group would fare much better if they could wrangle a deal with Hershel to stay at the farm. I've become kind of intimidated by Hershel, but maybe he's open to a compromise after all.

I just wonder what's going to happen when Shane finds out about Lori's pregnancy. She's convinced that the baby's Rick's, but I'm not sure I believe her. And whether she's right or wrong, as long as there's a possibility that it's Shane's, I have no doubt that he'll stop at nothing to see that that baby is safe. Nothing, even if it means the destruction of the rest of the group. I'm anticipating some real shit hitting the fan very soon.

Communion (1989)

2011-11-17T13:35:00.000-08:00

Two years ago, Paranormal Activity was released to theaters. It proved to be the scariest film I had seen in my adult life, largely because it tapped into a fear that is very personal to me - poltergeist-style hauntings - and because that fear was depicted, via the found footage conceit, in a very plausible rather than sensational manner. A month later saw the release of The Fourth Kind, a film that taps into another of my deep personal fears - the alien abduction phenomenon. It was very frightening - though not on the level of Paranormal Activity, and was ultimately not entirely satisfying.

My favorite alien abduction movie remains the unrivaled Fire In The Sky, which I saw in theaters as a child, and which I have suspicions may be the cause of my deep-seated fear of alien abductions. I can't have been more than ten at the time, and that was several years before I began to watch (and subsequently become a huge fan of) The X-Files on television. My latest viewing of Fire In The Sky (a few years ago now, borrowed from the "evidence room" during an overnight stay at the Little A'Le'Inn in Rachel, Nevada, just over the mountains from the purported location of Area 51) confirmed once again my impression of the movie. But seeing The Fourth Kind renewed my appetite, and I wanted to know if there were any other good alien abduction movies out there that I had not yet seen.

That's how I came upon Taken, a television miniseries presented by Steven Spielberg, which proved to be entertaining, if not altogether terrifying. This is not too surprising, though, considering Spielberg's treatment of aliens in both E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind - there the balance is undoubtedly tipped in favor of science-fiction, if not completely devoid of the horror elements I am more fond of. But I also found a movie called Communion, which is based on a book that describes the allegedly autobiographical accounts of a writer named Whitley Strieber, who claims to have been repeatedly abducted by aliens. Dramatization aside, this would seem to be, as they say, a story of alien abduction straight from the horse's mouth. And it's just about as crazy as you could imagine.

The movie opens on a rather ominous scene - an aerial view of the twin towers (which takes on new significance in the 21st century) backed with an eerie instrumental that has a haunting guitar lead that caught my attention even before the name "Eric Clapton" flashed up on the screen during the opening credits. Christopher Walken plays Whitley Strieber, and he imbues the role with a certain quirkiness that either drives or perfectly complements (depending on the source material) the bizarreness of the alien encounters. But before getting that far, the encounters start out rather frightening, and when Whitley freaks out upon seeing a children's Halloween mask (because it reminds him of something else he's seen), you know that something truly disturbing is going on.

It's amazing to me how subjective people's fears can be. Just the sight of a spider can send one person's skin crawling, whereas another might look at it with mild disinterest (and some, even admiration). Communion manages to get my skin crawling with something as simple as transitioning from a cheerful party scene to a little boy entering his shadowy bedroom, with a clear look on his face that something isn't right. In any other movie - a slasher, for example, where I might be expecting a serial killer or an undead monster to be hiding in the closet - I wouldn't be scared on as visceral a level (if at all) as I am when I'm expecting to be confronted at any moment by the iconic type of alien that likes to abduct helpless people from their beds to conduct sadistic medical experiments on them.

Said alien doesn't even have to be present in any real physical sense to be threatening - an indication of its almost supernatural powers (comparisons to poltergeist activity would not be inappropriate here), thanks to their super-advanced technology, and the largely psychological nature of the abduction experience (if there is one thing you can't protect yourself from, it is the mutiny of your own mind). However, the almond-eyed grey is one of the few images that is so terrifying to me that looking at it is scarier than imagining it hiding in the shadows. This is an exception to the general rule that the more you see a creature in a horror movie, the less scary it gets - which, however, this film is not immune to, as the creature effects are rather basic, almost to the point of being humorous when you finally get a good hard look at them. Yet, one thing this movie has the ability to do, is to make even the silly scary just out of sheer illogic. Many of the dreamlike contact experiences are not simply frightening, but also surreal and disconcerting, sometimes in a wacky sort of way that is reminiscent of something you might see in a music video.

And that exemplifies the position that this film strives toward. It goes beyond the horror of the abduction experience, and tries to find some kind of [intuitive, not logical] meaning behind it. Strieber is reluctant to admit that anything is happening at first, but over time it becomes impossible to ignore. He quite naturally worries that he might be losing his mind, a possibility that the doctors seem to rule out, but I don't. But when his therapist turns out to be something of a new age spiritualist, enthusiastic practitioner of hypnotherapy, and host of a peer support group for abductees, he begins to wonder if resisting the aliens is futile, and that maybe by accepting their interference in his life, he may be able to gain some creative benefit (he is a writer, remember) from the experience. And so it goes, and it seems that the aliens become considerably less menacing after he welcomes them into his life.

But as imaginatively inspiring as the alien presence is, I have to admit that it doesn't make any logical sense. Yes, of course, you could argue that alien logic - not unlike God's - is incomprehensible to man, but I feel that's rather more of a cop-out. And so I cling firmly to my belief that this is a psychological phenomenon (while not undermining its creative benefits, even were it proven to be the symptom of some kind of disorder) - also suspicious is the fact that the aliens often come for their previous abductees' children, which could suggest that the condition has a genetic origin. I wonder, now that alien abduction has passed largely out of the pop culture mindset, whether these repeated abductees are still enduring their experiences, and what the latest scientific discoveries may have to say about it.

Communion is really a rather unique alien abduction story, more well-rounded than say Fire In The Sky, which focuses on the horror of a single abduction - though I still prefer the latter approach. It is unfortunately a bit dated due not just to the nature of the theme, but that it is steeped in the culture of the late eighties during which it takes place (amazing that fashion was that bad only just over two decades ago). The acting at times feels a little choppy, and the stress between Whitley and his wife, while a significant source of drama for the story, is a bit strained - especially when their conflict is due to a simple lack of communication. I know it's hard to make sense of being abducted by aliens. Dealing with it means coming to terms with the fact that you're either going insane, or there are inhuman beings taking you from your bed at night to perform experiments on you so terrifying your mind is trying really hard not to remember them. And if the latter, everyone else is going to think you're insane, anyway. But it's something you have to figure out together, with your significant other and/or loved ones - not something you should try to hide and ignore, pretending like nothing is happening.

In the end, there are relatively few stories about the alien abduction experience, and while most of them claim to be based on true stories (not unlike the majority of exorcism movies), precious few are as close to the source material as Communion presumably is. So though it's a bit of a head-scratcher at times, it is however also genuinely frightening at others, and while it doesn't provide any of the answers you weren't expecting to get anyway (because nobody really has them), it does try to contextualize the abduction phenomenon in a way that attempts to make it significant, rather than merely curious and scary. It may not actually make a whole lot of sense, but it ends up feeling meaningful. Even if you still wouldn't want it happening to you in a million years.

District 9 (2009)

2011-11-14T19:24:00.000-08:00

District 9 is surreal. It's unlike any other movie I've ever seen. And it's one of the most original and intelligent sci-fi movies ever filmed. Right from the outset, a barrage of news clips constructs - rather plausibly, via a pseudo-documentary style - a world much like our own, but for one significant difference: extraterrestrial life has made contact with Earth. But one of District 9's greatest strengths is that that contact doesn't play out in any sort of way we've seen before. The aliens are neither aggressive nor diplomatic; they are instead mostly helpless, and it seems that they've come to Earth not with a plan so much as by accident. And while communication between the species is eventually possible, they seem to have no leader and little organization, and not much more clue how to operate their advanced technology than the humans do. So they are brought from their spaceship hovering over Johannesburg, South Africa (as opposed to a more diplomatically sensible location, such as Washington, D.C., or any of the world's other prominent capitals), to live as refugees among the city. But their customs and natural instincts prove rather destructive to the humans living in the city, so the aliens are confined to a slum designated District 9.

(Warning: General plot spoilers to follow.)

Twenty years later, human toleration of the aliens' presence is wearing exceedingly thin, even as a small pocket of humanitarians protest for the aliens' rights. District 9 has become little more than a hive of criminal activity, and an elaborate scheme is concocted to displace the aliens to an internment camp farther from the city. There is undoubtedly a racial subtext to this film, and it's pretty clear the way the aliens are treated by the humans is mostly abhorrent, even accounting for the inevitable difficulties inherent in the culture clash. The company leading the research into the aliens' technology - that, frustratingly, is designed to be inoperable by humans (or anyone not possessing the aliens' genetic identification) - is also charged with serving the aliens' their eviction notices before their displacement. However, this is mostly a public relations scheme (and to satisfy minimum legal requirements), seeing as the aliens are, on the one hand, unlikely to comply, but on the other, just as unlikely to understand what the humans are on about.

Naturally, as you might predict, this diplomatic raid turns into a debacle as pockets of violence erupt, as much due to confusion and the humans' deplorable treatment of the aliens than to any organized resistance. But just as we are ready to conclude that the entire refuged population of aliens consists of simplistic individuals with mostly animalian instincts, we discover that one particularly intelligent alien has been salvaging fuel from scrapped alien technology over the last twenty years, in a hopeful attempt to reactivate the mothership. But the crucial implement in his plan is confiscated even as it infects the man in charge of the raids, merging his DNA with the aliens' and initiating a gradual transformation not unlike the one Seth Brundle has to endure in The Fly. Of course, once the research division finds out, they want to sacrifice him for science, and his search for a cure leads him to reluctantly assist (as the audience ramps up their support for) the aliens.

From there, the movie shifts into action mode, but it's exciting action, with some very cool alien weapons. The whole movie runs at a brisk pace, and before you know it, it's over. The door is wide open for a sequel, and this is one of those cases where I have conflicting feelings - I would really enjoy seeing a sequel that continues the story, but lightning rarely strikes twice, and the chances are slim that another title could be as good or as effective as this one was. Nevertheless, what we have here is a very impressive sci-fi film that is hardly rivaled, let alone equaled, by anything dealing with this theme in the last decade, if not longer. I get the sense that it's the kind of film Independence Day wants to be when it grows up and matures a little.

The Walking Dead: Season 2 Episode 5 (Chupacabra)

2011-11-13T19:28:00.000-08:00

Spoiler Warning!

In episode 5, the search for Sophia continues, as the atmosphere grows tenser and more volatile with every day the group spends on the farm. The series seems to be making a habit of showing flashes back to earlier periods of the group's sojourn, before we joined up with Rick in that hospital back in the first episode. This time, we see Lori and Shane stopped on a highway that looks a lot like the one the season opened on - except with people still alive (which threw me off). They bump into Carol and Ed, and Carl befriends Sophia, just before we see Atlanta (I presume) napalmed into oblivion.

Back in present time, Rick and Shane have a little disagreement about the wisdom of continuing the search for Sophia. Shane cares only about keeping Lori and Carl safe, and he views their rescue mission as a liability when they should be focused on staying together and keeping themselves safe. Rick, of course, feels he has a duty to find Sophia, and is too honorable to just leave her behind. But, he seems to be slowly succumbing to Shane's perspective - further doubting his approach, and whether he's being too soft in a hard world, and that his values, the values that have made him such a unique and compelling character, are out of date in this post-apocalyptic world.

Daryl continues to make the most headway in tracking Sophia down, although he's always a step behind. Though this time he almost loses his life falling down a ravine. In the episode preview, I was shocked to see Merle back, but it turned out to be more of a fever dream that actually worked quite well, which helped pull Daryl to his senses and survive the backtrack to camp after injuring himself in the fall. On the other hand, his hallucinatory meeting with his missing brother may have been just what was needed to turn him against Rick and the rest of the group. I've really come to like and respect Daryl, I almost hate to see him become an enemy of the group.

Now when he made it back to camp, it was huge when Andrea unknowingly shot him, thinking he was a walker. I'm kind of disappointed that the bullet only grazed him and that he's okay, because when the show cut to commercial, I was thinking how amazing that was, that they'd just kill him like that, and the consequences of it. Andrea may have saved the group, if Daryl was determined to attack Rick, but he was shot before he had a chance to do anything, so the rest of the group wouldn't have known that, and would only view Andrea as having mistakenly killed one of their own. What's more, with the doll tucked in Daryl's belt, for all they could have known, he might have found Sophia, but he'd never be able to tell them where to look if he were dead. But then, he wasn't dead, only mildly injured (on top of his earlier injury), and it's almost like nothing came of all the potential drama. Except that we're no longer sure if Daryl can be trusted.

Hershel seems to be characterizing himself as more and more of a dictator within the farming household. I resent his strictness and his rules, not necessarily because they're a bad idea, but because he refuses to explain them to our group. It makes me not want to trust him, all the more with Glenn's revelation at the very end of the episode. It's not clear what that barn full of walkers is for (I still don't believe they wouldn't have made any noise, such that noone would have figured it out already), but it's ominous at best. My first inclination is that Hershel plans to kill his new guests for some gain, although I don't see what that is. A more optimistic guess is that maybe he's studying the walkers somehow in the hopes of finding a cure. In any case, the group has been doing nothing but getting on Hershel's bad side lately, and I feel very strongly that something big is about to go down. I also kind of hope it does, because it's beginning to feel like we've lingered at this farm just a bit too long, and it's about time to move on.

With or without Sophia, although I really would like to see her safe and sound...

The Walking Dead: Season 2 Episode 4 (Cherokee Rose)

2011-11-06T19:33:00.000-08:00

Spoiler Warning!

This episode represents a break in the action - to the extent that our group can get any respite in this broken world. The group is holing up at the farm, Carl is slowly recovering, and they have the means to conduct a more thorough search for Sophia. But, as ever, danger looms on the horizon, and chaos can strike at any moment.

My respect for the old man farmer is beginning to wane. I like how he treated the group's arrival, and everything he did to save Carl's life, but he may yet prove to stand at odds with the group. He doesn't want them sticking around too long - as it's their policy not to take in strangers, but Rick is desperate for a place to spread his roots, and this farm is as safe as any he's yet come across. In fact, it's surprising that the farm is so isolated from the zombie threat, I start getting suspicious about why that is. And the rule about them not carrying any guns on the property - though it doesn't seem like they need them - is there more to this story? I have a feeling that as much as Rick wants to honor the farm group's rules, his own group may end up coming into conflict with them, resulting in trouble ahead.

The farmer is also a religious man. I thought his exchange with Rick on the hill was pretty telling. Rick is right that the last time he asked God for a favor, God saw to it that his son was shot and nearly killed. Of course, the farmer prefers to focus on the good things, and wonders why Rick doesn't see God in the fact that he woke from that coma, was able to find his family, and that despite getting shot, his son was able to survive. But the God thing itself is purely extraneous. The difference of opinion here is between focusing on the good things that happen to you in a bad world (the farmer's approach), and focusing on all the bad things that happen to make the world such a bad place. But God has absolutely nothing to do with any of that. It's merely a difference of interpretation - God's presence is entirely absent. And while there might be a psychological benefit to focusing on the good things, it's not honest to posit God as the cause for them, especially considering that the cognitive dissonance required to reconcile God's ability to make good things happen, with his seeming pleasure in making even more bad things happen - or his inability to stop them, take your pick - is enough to screw with your head. Rick's absolutely right on one thing - if God does exist, he's got a twisted sense of humor.

I'm rather surprised that the farm group hadn't realized there was a zombie (a "swimmer") in their backup well. All this time, and they never once heard him moaning or splashing around? I don't believe he would have been that quiet. I guess maybe the pumping could have 'woken' him up, but then, farm girl said they used that well for their cows (I guess it's convenient that the zombie infection doesn't pass between species). But I'll tell you what, the whole, "let's not shoot him in the head because if he hasn't contaminated the water yet just by sleeping and shitting in it - which he probably has - then we don't want to ruin it by splattering his guts all over the well," was stupid, stupid, stupid - and this series is too smart to make that mistake. Yeah, it was tense lowering Glenn into that well, but it was a completely unnecessary risk. I expect more than that.

I loved, however, Glenn's moment in the drug store. He was embarrassingly awkward when he accidentally picked up those condoms, but when the farm girl said she'd have sex with him and then just started getting undressed in the middle of the drug store - totally hot. I guess that's one often overlooked advantage to a post-apocalyptic wasteland - you can have sex out in the open and in all sorts of places you would get in trouble for in a regular world where there are lots of people constantly milling about. Well, I think that's an advantage anyway. Provided you've got someone to do it with - farm girl was right, it's slim pickings when most of the population is [un]dead.

Also, 'protection' may (or may not) be hard to come by, and you don't want to go and get the wrong girl pregnant. Which is, finally, where we find Lori. And Glenn knows. And Rick knows, if it's right that that's what Dr. Jenner told him, except Lori doesn't yet know that Rick knows, and Rick doesn't know yet that Lori knows. I actually thought she was going to tell him during that scene at the end, before she headed out to the woods. I was sure she'd have known already by then, and I got freaked out when she headed away from the tents with a knife - I thought she was going to go ahead and give herself an abortion, just to eliminate the problems that this baby is going to cause. It's definitely Shane's, or at least it's going to bring out the conflict between Rick and Shane's claim on Lori. This is going to be huge when it breaks. And Shane has no idea yet.

Wow, Shane almost confessed to Andrea about Otis there, when he was teaching her about shooting. But it didn't seem like she caught on. He did a pretty good job covering his ass at the funeral. I can just tell this is all leading towards what might prove to be a major splintering of the group. But in better news, I'm convinced Daryl found evidence that Sophia's okay in that old house. I started to wonder, what if my suspicions when she ran away were true, and she doesn't want to be found? The whole thing with Daryl and the flower leaves me guessing. Did he find her, and was she dead, or can he tell that she doesn't want to come back? I guess we'll get some clues based on whether or not he tells the group about that old house - I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned it yet. I have a feeling there's a trick to it that we'll find out more about soon.

The Who - The ELITE Collection

2011-11-05T01:22:00.000-07:00

As an intermediate level fan of The Who (I think they're a great band, but I don't own their entire discography), I've found that The Ultimate Collection is actually a pretty satisfying collection of songs that represent The Who - from their early breakout singles (I Can't Explain), to their epic middle period (Won't Get Fooled Again), down to their waning hits (Eminence Front). In the world of greatest hits compilations, there are many methodologies, but two basic formats - the single disc "essential" collection, and the more comprehensive double disc compendium. The Ultimate Collection is the latter of the two, yet listening to it, I am taken by the desire to squeeze it down to a single refined disc by eliminating the lesser half of the songs on the tracklist. You know, just for fun. So here's what I would pick (your selections may vary):

I Can't Explain
My Generation
Substitute
Boris The Spider
I Can See For Miles
Magic Bus
Pinball Wizard
See Me Feel Me
The Seeker
Summertime Blues (Live)
Baba O'Riley
Won't Get Fooled Again
5:15
Love Reign O'er Me
Who Are You
You Better You Bet
Eminence Front
I was especially harsh on the tracks from Who's Next and Quadrophenia, just because they're two of The Who's best albums, and contain several tracks good enough to include - but I wanted to keep the disc nicely distributed, without too strong a focus on any one period.

I was also tempted to put in A Quick One, While He's Away, which is a good, fun song, but it's a bit long. Other tracks I would have considered adding (if that were the task) include Water and Naked Eye, which you can get on expanded editions of Who's Next, as well as Heaven And Hell (a b-side I'm fond of) and Shakin' All Over (a great rock n roll cover in the vein of Summertime Blues) both from Live At Leeds. And lastly, I would consider throwing in Sparks, as it's probably my favorite track from Tommy, being a sort of thematic overture to the piece (and I do have a thing for instrumental tracks).

But, the tracklist is already maxed out as it is (time-wise). It proved to be a more difficult task than I thought it was going to be!

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

2011-11-03T00:06:00.000-07:00

I was not expecting to like The Rocky Horror Picture Show as much as I have. I'm not generally a fan of musicals (with one conspicuous exception), and while I do enjoy engaging in transvestitism, it's because I like the clothing that looks sexy on girls, not because I like to see other men wearing it. And though I'm very tolerant of alternative lifestyles, I've never really been very connected to the 'queer' community (I hope that's not offensive, I use the term with affection). I wonder how much my appreciation for Rocky Horror is related to my experience humping a hot girl in lingerie on stage the night I first saw it, at the theater. But now that I've had a chance to watch the movie again at home (so I can actually understand what's going on - not that the story makes a whole lot of sense anyway), I still find that I like it.

"It's not easy having a good time."

Now, the iconic image of this movie is that of Tim Curry dressed in drag, who spends much of the movie pining for a buff man in skimpy underwear. But the fact is, you don't have to be gay to like the film. My favorite scene is when Janet tears off most of her clothing and gets fondled by Rocky. Curry's character Frank-N-Furter is more pansexual than anything - he's neither straight nor gay, he's just free of hangups and social conventions. It was actually a queer interpretation of the film (in response to Glee's recent emasculation of the story's thrust) that increased my appreciation for what it stands for. It's all about the triumph of the counterculture over boring, traditional (prudish) values. If you can get over the sexual hangups, 'queer' culture is just another form of social rebellion; queer is to straight as freak is to square (akin to the kink community's usage of the term 'vanilla'). 'Heterosexual' and 'straight' don't have to be synonymous.

"What's this, let's see - I feel...sexy."

The movie itself is highly quirky, and very bizarre. But wonder of wonders, it's actually good - despite being a send-up of the horror/sci-fi b movie features it adoringly mocks. Rocky Horror is actually not all that scary - although it's essentially a perversion (literally) of the Frankenstein story - and is as much sci-fi as anything else. But what it is mostly is fun, and I'm sure that's why it has such an enthusiastic cult following. And that's precisely the atmosphere that's amplified in the theater when you go to see the movie complete with audience participation, costumes, and maybe even a shadow cast. It's all about having fun. And the music is pretty good, too. ;-)

However, I still prefer Tim Curry as the Lord of Darkness to an alien transvestite. :p

"Don't dream it - be it."

Note to "virgins": If you're interested in discovering what all the fuss is about, and you're trying to decide whether to watch The Rocky Horror Picture Show for the first time in a theater or at home, I say, it can't hurt to watch it at home first. Unless you see it with a pretty small crowd, you're going to have a hard time following the story and dialogue/songs through all the 'audience participation'. Once you've seen it at home, then I think you'll be in a better position to appreciate the excitement of seeing it with a crowd (and yeah, it's worth experiencing at least once - more if you end up liking it).

Trick 'r Treat (2007)

2011-11-01T11:47:00.000-07:00

Trick 'r Treat is a nice period piece - not historical period, but seasonal period. It, like not enough films do, perfectly captures the atmosphere of Halloween. Indeed, the enthusiasm with which the town in this film celebrates Halloween makes me jealous that my own town isn't as dedicated to what is my favorite holiday of the year.

Trick 'r Treat is fun, and clever, and also scary. But what really sets it apart is its narrative structure, which has been compared to Pulp Fiction, in that it depicts several different stories involving different characters, occurring more or less simultaneously, all within the same locality, that often overlap. And in trying to capture the Halloween atmosphere, it provides us with a nice hodgepodge of thematic elements that serves as much to honor the spirit of Halloween as to revel in it.

And the greatest element of the story is its reverence of Halloween. The film opens with a Halloween-hater getting her comeuppance at the hands of an unidentified killer - and all I could say in spite of myself was, "this bitch totally has it coming." The rest of the film spends a lot of time showing the gruesome ways in which those who disrespect the holiday, and opt out of honoring Halloween's traditions (it is, as one character rightly explains, a holiday that predates Christianity), are punished, often by a mysterious sack-headed costumer no larger than a child (I suppose we are, ultimately, led to believe that he embodies the very spirit of Halloween).

I have to say, I might not rate Trick 'r Treat as one of the greatest movies I've ever seen, but as a Halloween movie, it absolutely delivers. It captures the spirit of the holiday, and to those of us who love horror and think Halloween is the greatest time of year, it's like a good friend who's there to pat us on the back when everyone around us is complaining about how much they hate Halloween. It's got vampires, and werewolves (hands down, the sexiest werewolf transformation I've ever seen), and ghosts, and serial killers, and zombies. There are Halloween parades and parties, and kids in costumes going door to door. Candy and jack-o-lanterns and Halloween lore. And scares galore!

Fright Night (1985)

2011-10-31T20:49:00.000-07:00

Many many years ago, I caught a segment of a horror movie on television, that featured a transformation sequence so shockingly gruesome that it was etched into my memory. Yet, I hadn't the slightest idea what that film was (I guess I didn't have the foresight to check at the time), and I promptly pushed that memory towards the back of my mind. Until last month, during a discussion with a fellow horror fan at a local horror convention. He mentioned the movie Fright Night, and how it was known for having one of the best transformation sequences in horror film history. Could this be the film I remembered?

Indeed it was. Fright Night starts out favorably, planting itself as one of those fun horror movies that doesn't take itself too seriously. The characters are amusing, and the premise - a high school boy suspects his new next door neighbor is a vampire - is cozy. It was almost shocking for me to see Amanda Bearse, who plays Marcy on Married With Children, not only in a different role, but cast as the high school sweetheart. I thought some of the decorations in the lead protagonist's bedroom were amusing - like the neon beer sign (he's in high school, so it's pretty cheeky for him to advertise his appreciation for alcohol), and the "Girls' Locker Room" sign that I wouldn't mind having in my own room. ;-)

The "Fright Night" concept is itself perhaps the most clever element of this story. In the film, Fright Night is a horror franchise (probably not unlike Hammer Films) that hosts horror movies on television featuring a character named Peter Vincent, who plays a vampire killer in many of those [fictional] films (his favorite being "Orgy of the Damned" - mine too :p). So when Charley (aforementioned lead protagonist) suspects his neighbor is a vampire, he attempts to enlist Peter Vincent's help - giving him, reluctantly, a chance to be a real vampire killer like he is in the movies. The only thing that would make this premise more clever is if "Fright Night" was a real life franchise outside the film (which I began to suspect part way through the film) - like Creepshow or Tales From The Crypt or one of those titles.

Unfortunately, once the film starts to pick up momentum, it begins to drag, and - particularly in the night club scene - becomes far too entrenched in eighties culture, to its detriment. Watching that scene, I began to speculate - and that's all this is - that maybe the reason so many people dig the eighties is because, despite the horrendous fashions, everything was so safe during the eighties. Think about it. People in the sixties were waging a revolution, the seventies fostered the fallout of that revolution, and by the nineties, we've got the alternative culture picking up. The only thing safer than the eighties was the fifties, and I know some people who really dig on fifties revisionism, too. (And let's not talk about the hypocrisy of the oh-so-popular Victorian age).

Luckily, the movie picks up again in its last act. The creature effects in this movie are truly top notch. As mentioned, the transformations are amazing, and the death scenes for the monsters are particularly gruesome. The best one of all is the scene that I remember from years ago, which is incredibly intense, on both a visceral and an emotional level. It's really amazing, because this could be a scene from one of the greatest horror movies of all time - if only the rest of this movie were better than it is. It's a shame these creatures and effects weren't used in a more serious, more psychologically heavy film, because they could have been downright terrifying. Here, they're still impressive, but they're more of a cool effect to admire than something that adds to the atmosphere of the film.

Still, they're so good, it's worth seeing, even if the rest of the movie doesn't live up to their promise. And anyway, it's still a fun movie to watch. I'm just the type that prefers more serious movies. I'll leave you with what I thought was a funny quote given by Vincent Price on being sacked due to the changing nature of horror fandom in the eighties. It really seems to capture the zeitgeist of the times (for better or worse - and I don't necessarily consider it a bad thing):

"Nobody wants to see vampire killers anymore, or vampires either. Apparently all they want are demented madmen running around in ski masks hacking up young virgins."

Phantasm (1979)

2011-10-31T20:13:00.000-07:00

Phantasm is a wonderfully creepy film. It feels a little off, in that the editing is choppy, and the acting a bit wooden, but what it excels at is maintaining a very creepy tone throughout the film. The music, and the images, and the sounds, all work together to create a strange and foreboding atmosphere.

The horror elements are infused with a healthy dose of science fiction (I noticed what must have been thinly veiled homages to both Dune and Star Wars), which makes them both unusual and unpredictable. Mike's exploding hammer is brilliant! And the dwarves sound positively ferocious, which adds to their menace.

One of the best scare elements in this film is utilized a lot in the beginning, perfectly capturing the unease of seeing something strange in the corner of your vision, just as it dodges out of view. Very creepy. And speaking of the beginning, I love that the film opens with a scene of two people making love in a graveyard (though as you can imagine, it quickly turns sinister)!

I'm sorry, but isn't she just gorgeous?

The Walking Dead: Season 2 Episode 3 (Save The Last One)

2011-10-30T19:53:00.000-07:00

Spoiler Warning!

Holy shit.

Episode 3 of The Walking Dead's second season shows us how Shane and Otis fare in the zombie-infested high school while trying to bring medical supplies back to the camp to save young Carl's life. Meanwhile, Glenn and T Dog join the group at the farm, and Dale and the others keep watch for Sophia back at the RV on the highway.

I have to admit, I really like Daryl as a character. I haven't read up on the comics that inspired this TV show (even though I had planned on doing so - and I intend to in the near future), but judging from Robert Kirkman (the writer of those comics)'s comments on the Talking Dead special that's been airing on AMC, Daryl is an original character for the TV series - and thus a wild card, since readers of the comics don't know his fate.

His brother Merle didn't ingratiate himself to the group very well, but Daryl seems to be a good person, and above all, he knows how to survive - while keeping a relatively positive attitude, too. He almost has me convinced that Sophia really is okay, after all, and that they'll find her. And with Rick starting to lose it over his son's condition, the group really needs a level-headed leader. But he's not as sympathetic towards the walkers, judging from his attitude towards the hanged man. On the other hand, his passive attitude toward meddling in the fate of others demonstrates his conviction not to make other people's choices for them, which seems to be the theme of this episode.

For example, Lori begins to consider whether letting Carl die here and now is not the more merciful decision, than fighting for him to stay alive, to have to endure living in such a hellish world any longer. Which is partly surprising, giving Lori's strength in the face of adversity, and her love for her son. But she has a good point. Still, I truly admire Rick's unswerving faith in his will to live, and his dedication to hope beyond reason. So though it's not as dramatic as his earlier silent pause in response to Lori's question of why it's worth living on in this hell, I was glad that he later found a reason to give her.

It was a combination of there still being beauty in this world (the deer), as well as the fact that Carl, during the brief period when he was lucid, focused on that - the good feelings he had been having, and not the fact that he had just been shot and must have been in great pain. But the most important point of all was that Carl seemed to want to live, and it's not really Lori nor Rick's decision to decide whether to kill him mercifully - whether to live on in this hell or not is something every person has a right to decide, but only for themselves.

Which brings us to Shane. I was really, honestly, truly, starting to like Shane again, even after all the questionable things he's done. He really stood up and did what needed to be done for Carl in terms of getting those medical supplies from the zombie-infested school. I've also come to like Otis - the man who accidentally shot Carl. I was prepared to totally hate this guy when that happened, but he turned out to be such a nice guy, and genuinely resentful of his accident, and so insistent on doing whatever he could to make up for it, I couldn't help liking him. So it's sad that he ended up allegedly sacrificing himself for Carl's sake, though poetically just. That rocketed my appreciation for him up even more...until I found out the truth.

In doing everything he could to accomplish his task, Shane may have finally crossed the line he's been walking for so long. I thought in my mind how perfect it would have been for Otis to sacrifice himself, using his larger size as an advantage to stave off the zombies long enough for Shane to make it out alive. But then when I found out Shane had effectively killed him - making that decision for him - for that very reason, that changed everything. The outcome is the same - and I'm sure that's what Shane was focusing on - but the difference is merciful sacrifice versus murder for advantage.

The ultimate question is, was Shane justified in committing murder in that instance, thinking there was no other way to get out, knowing that the success or failure of his mission could determine the fate of Carl's life? To what extent are we bound by a code of ethics in a world without law, where the dead walk the earth, feeding on the living? Can exceptions be made, or is it more imperative than ever that we follow that code and choose right actions?

Regardless of the answer to these questions, it's very clear that Shane is dangerous - to the point of almost becoming a villain. He may be on our side, but for how long, and what lengths will he go to against someone he perceives as a threat to his own survival, or the survival of those he cares about? Clearly, he's not comfortable with his actions - is there room for forgiveness, and is he obligated to tell the rest of the group the truth about what happened to Otis? Does the answer to that question depend on how it would affect the cohesiveness of the group, or not?

This is what makes The Walking Dead such a great series. Tough questions, with even tougher answers. And continuing on the God front, Maggie from the farm group makes a good point about the absence of God in a world practically devoured by the walking undead. Whether he's up there or not - and the evidence that he is isn't very strong - it's up to us to do what we can to make things right, not to rely on God to fix our problems for us...

Requiem (2006)

2011-10-28T18:35:00.000-07:00

Requiem is the most realistic exorcism movie I've ever seen. There are no demons (not explicitly, anyway), and although there are some emotionally intense scenes, it's more of a drama than a horror. But that's what makes it so intelligent. Unlike The Exorcism of Emily Rose, which was based on the same true story, Requiem's purpose is not to scare you with hellish visions of demonic possession, but rather to take a restrained and sensitive look at the situation and consider, without sensationalism, what may have actually happened.

In other exorcism movies, you hardly care at all about the girl being possessed, beyond the fact that she's innocent and being harrassed by the devil. In Requiem, we get a chance to meet the girl, named Michaela in this adaptation of the story, and observe how her condition develops. She suffers from epilepsy, and while there's enough ambiguity to preclude me from stating straight out that she was definitely not possessed, it's pretty clear that her problems were more physiological than spiritual in nature. But what makes this story so fascinating is that we get to see how this girl, Michaela, confronts her own condition, and how, even though her reluctance to rely on medical help (and I can't entirely blame her, considering how doctors are) in lieu of spiritual assistance may have contributed to her death, that she actually finds meaning in her possession, and perhaps died happy, believing she was a martyr for God.

Of course, it's sad, because given the proper psychiatric treatment, she may have lived a much fuller life. But the frightening thing is that a lot of what she believed in, and the arguments she used, I can relate to. The frustration of having to deal with being dealt a crappy hand by God, and wanting to believe - not that God doesn't love you - but that you are being tested in some way. That the desperation of your condition is the cost of being special in His eyes. That there's some kind of point to it. One must not neglect the psychological effect a physical condition can have on a person - even to the point of believing the medical condition is caused by a spiritual affliction. But again, I think this is where psychiatric intervention would have made a crucial difference in the outcome.

This is every bit the story I had wished The Exorcism of Emily Rose had been, after reading into the true story that inspired it. Although I anticipated a more obvious antagonism via the girl's parents and religious upbringing (though her mother was a significant problem), this film is not as critical against religious belief as I would have made it. In fact, the film doesn't seem to have a driving message at all - it is very passive in its presentation of the events, which I think serves it well. In the end, you get the sense that the filmmakers are trying only to emphasize the girl's struggle, in a way that shows her respect, without necessarily signing off on the things she believed in. (On the other hand, they do seem to de-emphasize the grueling nature of the exorcism process itself).

I feel like that's how I approach religious people in my life - I try to respect what their beliefs mean to them, without believing in them myself. And yet, the lingering tragedy of this story is the knowledge that this girl, though she may have found peace with her condition before her death, may have lived to accomplish so much more given the right opportunity. Yet in the end, it really was her choice, though we can argue how much that choice was influenced by the suggestions of those around her. (I totally spotted a poster for The Exorcist in the corner of one scene, which came out in Germany around the time that the true story occurred, and was said to have been a potential catalyst for the girl's behaviors).

All in all, Requiem is a very good dramatic horror, if I may call it that, that feels quite like a good arthouse film. Although the camera's a tad bit shaky at some parts, the characters are likable, the soundtrack is fantastic, and this novel approach to the very popular story of demonic possession and exorcism is quite compelling. I recommend it to those who are looking for something a little bit deeper than your typical scare film.

[Rec] (2007)

2011-10-27T20:00:00.000-07:00

Well, I think I just found the highlight of this season's batch of horror titles (that I've decided to watch). I went into [Rec] knowing it's gotten lots of praise, and I expected it to be good, but I came out of it being impressed even beyond my expectations (and that's rare, especially with titles I already expect to be good). If I hadn't long ago given up on the futile practice of rating movies, I would unhesitatingly award it a 10/10 (which I did over on IMDb.com immediately after finishing the movie). In fact, I'm still basking in the afterglow of the experience right now. What can I say in a review? Well, two things. I can tell you what the movie's about, so you can decide if it's worth seeing, and I can tell you what I liked about it in particular, and what made it so good.

[Rec] is, for better or worse (and in this case, it is most certainly for the better), a foreign language (Spanish) found footage film that my good friend The Found Footage Afficionado described to me as Resident Evil the movie - done right. Now, hearing that, don't be discouraged by the poor quality of the Resident Evil films. That's just the point - [Rec] is what Resident Evil should have been as a movie, and it taps into everything that made the game series (specifically, going back to the basics of the original) so good. It's much the same concept as how Jacob's Ladder is what Silent Hill as a movie (adapted conceptually, and not literally) should have been. (Though in that case, Jacob's Ladder came before Silent Hill, and has been officially acknowledged as one of many inspirations for the game). While, as a Silent Hill fan, I think the Silent Hill movie was good, it doesn't quite reach 'masterpiece' status the way the original game did. Jacob's Ladder, on the other hand, is a cinematic masterpiece, and it embodies a similar spirit as Silent Hill the game. The same can be said about [Rec] - that it, generally, embodies the spirit of Resident Evil, but is a cinematic masterpiece of its own, and not just a name brand cash-in like the Resident Evil movies are.

But enough with the comparison to Resident Evil. Like most(?) found footage films, the movie opens with our leads engaged in a rather different pursuit than they'll later be unexpectedly thrown into the middle of. We have a two man (cameraman plus reporter - well, the reporter is an attractive young woman) local TV crew filming an on-site report of what it's like to spend a day (or night, rather) in the shoes of a local fireman. As they conduct interviews and find other ways to pass their time, an emergency call is received, and the crew heads out with the firemen to investigate a domestic complaint at a local apartment building. When they get there, they come face to face with an uncommunicative and violently psychotic old lady who attacks one of the police men on call. Things go from bad to worse when the entire apartment building is quarantined, trapping everyone inside in an effort to contain an unknown and unpredictable infection. Tensions run high, and all attempts to keep things under control eventually fail as the chaos spreads.

Ultimately, any movie can be made to sound good or bad in a synopsis, and what really matters is how the movie approaches its premise, and whether or not it's successful at crafting an effective and exciting cinematic experience. As you no doubt will have guessed by now, my opinion is that [Rec] succeeds at this with flying colors. Rather than sit here and pontificate on why it succeeds, you should really just go and watch it for yourself. But I will say a few things. First, that I actually screamed out at one part in this movie - and that's something that I never do! Also, I think the "zombies" (if they're even technically that) were portrayed rather well, in their mannerisms. They weren't stereotypical shambling corpses - they behaved erratically and unpredictably, and seemed to exhibit symptoms of psychological imbalance - though in other cases, frightening intelligence and even strategy.

I wonder that maybe the reason a film like this succeeds where, say, George Romero's Diary of the Dead (also a found footage take on the theme) fails, is because at this point Romero is too caught up in zombie subculture, and all the predictable tropes that go with it, whereas [Rec] taps into the basic fear of zombism, and the immediacy of that terror, in a fresh way that someone who's been making zombie movies for decades would have a lot of difficulty doing. And one more comment I want to make is that [Rec] provides one of the most original - or at least creatively inspired - explanations for the zombie condition/outbreak that I've ever seen or heard before. It's not space dust from a fallen meteorite, nor is it hell being filled to capacity. Telling you would be a huge super-duper spoiler, but it's so clever, I want to say it anyway. Close your eyes and stop reading now if you don't want to be spoiled.

Begin Spoiler (highlight to read)
It's the same 'disease' that causes demonic possession, except that in studying it and trying to find a cure, man has inadvertently made it contagious! Genius, I tell you.
End Spoiler

And by now you know enough to understand why [Rec] is so good, and why you should go watch it if you're a horror fan and haven't seen it yet.

The Thing (2011)

2011-10-25T23:25:00.000-07:00

John Carpenter's The Thing from 1982 is a cinematic masterpiece, and one of my favorite films of all time - horror or otherwise. So you can imagine that I went into the unfortunately titled The Thing (2011) (which can't seem to decide if it wants to be a prequel or a remake) with a mixture of excitement and trepidation: excitement that I would get to see another story like 'Carpenter-Thing'; and trepidation, because Carpenter-Thing was perfect, and you can't improve on perfection. The result is, 'prequel-Thing' is a pretty good try at recapturing the magic of Carpenter-Thing. It doesn't succeed, but then it never really stood a chance. It does manage to be entertaining, however.

In fact, prequel-Thing succeeds best where it tries to be its own movie, and worst when it tries to replicate what made Carpenter-Thing so good. Unfortunately, though, prequel-Thing spends a lot of time trying to be Carpenter-Thing. The movie starts out well, successfully capturing the appropriate mood of the piece, even bringing back the bass-driven theme from the older movie (what is it about slow, driving bass lines that suits creepy movies so well?), and utilizing a title sequence that recalls the previous one.

But where Carpenter-Thing was a paranoid, claustrophobic pressure cooker, prequel-Thing can manage only a dull imitation. The characters are not very compelling - you've even got the cliched egotistical scientist who values a novel discovery (especially when it's an extraterrestrial lifeform with the potential to be used as a biological weapon - have we heard this before?) over the lives of the humans he works with. And it's quite clear from the start who the "final girl" (to use slasher parlance - it's a shame I have to stoop that low, as Carpenter-Thing, despite using a slasher formula at its base, managed to rise above the widespread mediocrity of slasherdom) will be (and thus, you're pretty sure she's not going to be 'replicated'). MacReady was a great character in Carpenter-Thing, but even then, I don't think there was as much certainty that he would make it out in the end (and it's still up in the air whether he actually did).

But, as I said, where prequel-Thing gets interesting, is where it expands upon the story and tries to be its own movie. This involves spoilers, however, so if you haven't seen it, you might want to skip ahead to the next paragraph now. This time, we get to see where The Thing came from - not his home planet, but his resting place in the ice. And we get to see his spaceship too - in fact, we get to go inside it at the end of the movie. I'm tempted to say that the whole spaceship thing jumps the shark, but the fact is, it's actually pretty cool, and if this movie didn't have that plot point, then it would be nothing more than a dull rehash of Carpenter-Thing, and then it wouldn't have anything new going for it.

One item that simply cannot be neglected in a discussion of The Thing is the creature fx. Carpenter-Thing had some of the best creature fx ever put to film, and that, in addition to the great story, characters, and mood, elevated that movie to the status of legend. The Thing (as conceptualized in John Carpenter's version of the story) is one of the greatest sci-fi/horror creatures of all time, and one of the rare few that can stand up to H.R. Giger's xenomorph from Alien. Naturally, I was curious to see how today's modern computer graphics would compare to the brilliant practical fx that brought The Thing to life decades ago. Anyone who's anything in the movie world knows that CGI doesn't hold a candle to good practical fx.

And the verdict? It seems to me that the makers of prequel-Thing tried very very hard to do the creature justice. They couldn't match the brilliance of the earlier fx, but I have to admit, they did a pretty damn good job of trying, and probably ended up with the best CG creature fx you'll see anywhere. And I'll tell you, The Thing is a pretty awesome creature. Though here, it did end up looking almost like some kind of mutation out of one of the Resident Evil games. Later on, in its more tentacled form, I got a craving for someone to create a live action tentacle porn movie. With the right amount of effort and attention to detail, that could be simply amazing... But I digress.

I don't think this is much of a spoiler, given that the entire premise of prequel-Thing is that it's a direct prequel to Carpenter-Thing - depicting the Norwegian camp's discovery of the creature before it makes its way to the American camp. But the movie ends as you would expect - on the very scene that opens the older movie. I think it would be a bizarre experience to watch these two films in narrative order, to see the creature move from one camp to the next, only to experience a 30 year devolution in special fx. Better or worse, the difference alone would be funny to witness.

And one further point - without saying too much, the ending is pretty open-ended (though not in the brilliant way that the older movie's ending was), and even sets up the potential for another story to be told, occurring after (or even concurrently with) the story of Carpenter-Thing. I don't know if the studio intends to continue this series or what. Frankly, I'm concerned about turning this series into one more sequel-happy cash cow. There's a difference between making a movie because you have the inspiration, and making one because you know people will pay to see it. Genius like Carpenter-Thing is rare and unpredictable. Then again, even that was a rehash of a story that had already been made into a movie once before...

The Wicksboro Incident (2003)

2011-10-24T20:09:00.000-07:00

Chances are good you've never heard of The Wicksboro Incident. I hadn't heard of it until The Found Footage Afficionado gave me the heads up. It is a mockumentary in the classic found footage style, centered on an interview of an old man who was involved in government research that he believes was tied to the truth about extraterrestrials living disguised among us, and the following investigation of a small Texas town that was wiped off the map, leaving only one survivor. If you dig found footage movies, and/or have an interest in the government conspiracy/alien phenomenon theme, then I recommend this movie. It's simple and effective, and doesn't try too hard to go over the top like big budget Hollywood movies do.

Now let's discuss a few spoilers.

Apart from the style and basic theme, I didn't know exactly what to expect from this film as I sat down to watch it (and I think that uncertainty is part of what makes these found footage films so exciting - you don't know what's going to happen, and it may not be what you expect from watching thousands of Hollywood plots). So going into it, I was already ready to suspend my disbelief, thinking this would be a movie about aliens. But the more old Lloyd talked, the more my belief waned, and when it got to the point where he was waving his "alien detector" around, I thought, "this guy is clearly a nut". But then it became apparent that the documentary makers felt the same way. So it's like, oh, alright, we're not really supposed to believe him. But then where does it go from there?

Of course, it turns out Lloyd was right. And the whole experience from the moment they find the fallout shelter and begin to be hunted by government agents is wildly exciting. Yet I wonder, if in the end they wanted us to believe Lloyd, then why did they make him sound so ridiculously crazy from the start? Do they want us to believe all his crazy ideas are true? Or do they want us to lend more credibility to the crazies out there, so as not to be so quick to dismiss all their crazy theories just because some of them are easily disproved? I feel like it must have something to do with the whole theme, that Lloyd discusses, of inundating the public with crackpot theories in order to reduce the credibility of those few wild theories that are true. But, ultimately, seeing as we're supposed to believe Lloyd in the end, the film would have been a bit more believable if his ideas were - while still crazy - less ridiculous, from the start.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that not a single alien appears in this movie (unless you count the ones identified by Lloyd's alien detector, who are allegedly only disguised as humans). And yet, it's still a good alien movie, and also pretty scary towards the end. That chase through the abandoned building at the end was very harrowing. When the cameraman was running through the dark, I was half-expecting something very scary to come up out of the darkness. I was actually afraid that it would happen, because I knew how much that would freak me out. But I was spared. And when he used his lighter to light the way, everything about that made it feel like I was playing a video game in first person perspective. I thought that was pretty cool. It was much more effective than in the film version of Doom, even without trying to be.

But as I said, in the end there wasn't a single alien. Yet, the underground laboratory was there, and the government was keen on protecting something - so keen as to be willing to kill for it. I think a plausible alternative hypothesis is that Lloyd was in fact working on something very secret to the government. Not necessarily extraterrestrial-related - maybe a weapon or something. His beliefs may even have been influenced subtly by the government to discredit him in case he ever decided to leak information about the project, so that noone would believe him. The documentary makers made the mistake of humoring him for their project, and got too close to the truth, even if that truth wasn't extraterrestrial in nature.

Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)

2011-10-24T01:00:00.000-07:00

The big question on my mind going into the movie was: will Paranormal Activity 3 live up to the precedent set by the first two entries in this film series? To get myself in the mood beforehand, I pulled up my reviews of Paranormal Activity and Paranormal Activity 2 for a read-through. At the risk of sounding immodest, both of those reviews are really good, and probably two of the best reviews I've ever written. So in addition to hoping PA3 would live up to to its predecessors, I had the additional pressure of writing a review of it that would do its predecessors justice.

For better or worse, the pressure is off. I can say two things about Paranormal Activity 3. It was a good, scary, fun movie. Yet it didn't feel quite as satisfying as the previous two Paranormal Activities. And I may be able to guess at the reasons, but I can't quite put my finger on exactly why that is. Though the scares are still effective in the same way they've always been, perhaps the edge has been blunted and the novelty worn off. Then again, I can't rule out the possibility that something in the way the story itself was put together missed the mark in a subtle but significant way.

Perhaps it's that Paranormal Activity has become more of a phenomenon than an experience. As before, audience reactions in the theater were uncharacteristically (judging by the standards of your average movie experience) enthusiastic. But though there were lots of screams, I've become more skeptical than ever that they were genuine. It's very possible that these people were genuinely scared, but it seems to me that PA has become that movie that comes out around Halloween that you go to with your friends to have a good time and scream your head off. I mean, the advertisements certainly butter you up to the point that anything less than audience hysteria would be a letdown. And also in addition to that, while there were a lot of funny scenes in PA3 (more, I think, than in the previous titles), there was perhaps more laughing (and a little bit of talking) than was probably appropriate.

And the movie itself? Let's talk spoilers.

PA3 is a prequel. It fleshes out Katie (from the first one)'s initial encounter with the demonic spirit that haunts her, during her childhood. It's her sister who has taken this spirit on (in time-worn cliche fashion) as an apparently imaginary friend named Toby. But we know he's much more than that. In the hyped-up climax to the film (which threw me off because I was expecting a house fire that the movie never delivered), we discover that Katie's grandmother is a member of a witches' coven who has, apparently, summoned this demonic spirit upon the family, and it has chosen Katie's sister to be its "bride", ostensibly for the purpose of producing a male child (judging from the explanation we got in PA2 - though for what reason I don't know or recall) - though not in the exciting way; it appears the demon is content to wait it out, perhaps because his own "seed" is not compatible with humans.

Frankly, I think the imaginary friend thing - as creepy as the concept of a child befriending a ghost is (it's been done better in differently styled films) - kind of endears the demon to the family in a way that, while it's still a frightening and clearly dangerous entity, makes it slightly less of an unknown threat. Moreover - and I'm not alone in thinking this - the addition of the witches' coven subplot, while a fun theme to play with, seems to lessen the demon's impact even further, almost lowering it to the level of a pet (albeit a supernatural and deadly one) at the beck and call of very human (if magickal) owners.

Spoilers begone! I cast you out!

If you ask me, it seems like we're getting more exposition to fill out the story (though with as many new questions as answers). And you know what? It makes for a fuller story. We get lots of humor, and lots of action, and it begins to feel a little bit more like all the other (scary) movies that are out there. Paranormal Activity was effective because it was so unique. Paranormal Activity 2 built upon that. PA3 builds further, and while I can't say that the progress it makes is a bad thing (I think the use of PA-type scares in more mainstream movies could be a very fruitful partnership), it has the side effect of making it feel less special, less groundbreaking, and while still quite scary, less spine-tinglingly terrifying.

At least while watching it. As the scenes flood back into memory as I sit here writing this, the fear is amplified, and I remember how I felt after the first two Paranormal Activities, and I become afraid to go to bed and shut off the lights. If PA3 falls short of its goals, confusing as much as it explains (a situation exacerbated by the intentionally misleading trailer), it still remains an effective entry in the series. And it would seem that there is nothing stopping the studio from continuing that series for at least another year, if not longer. I am very excited to see both more films in this vein, as well as to explore further the increasingly convoluted and inconsistent plot of this series. I only hope that the series doesn't (continue to?) suffer from profit-inspired degradation.

The Walking Dead: Season 2 Episode 2 (Bloodletting)

2011-10-23T19:45:00.000-07:00

Spoiler Warning!

In episode 2 of the second season of The Walking Dead, Rick races his unconscious son Carl back to the farm where the man who accidentally shot him lives. Luckily (in a relative sense), there is a doctor living on the farm, and there is a chance that Carl may survive. But not without extra medical supplies that need to be recovered from a nearby zombie-infested high school.

One of the real strengths of this series is, as I've said before, how much it focuses on the real human drama at the heart of the zombie apocalypse. We've seen, time and again, the horror of a zombie onslaught - and this series certainly dishes them out - but what other titles don't do as much of is show just how much of an indirect effect the zombie apocalypse has on people. It shows the tension that exists among the survivors even when the zombies aren't just around the corner.

The doctor on the farm has his own, tempered philosophy on the zombie apocalypse, that I thought was rather intriguing. He compares it to the AIDS epidemic, and while this is a problem on a whole different order of magnitude, one can imagine the drastic effect that the black plague had on civilization in the middle ages. Many died, and prospects must have been very bleak to those living through it, but society pulled through, and we came out the back end stronger for it. This perspective, above all, seems to suggest hope for mankind. Yet there is still not much hope for any one man having to endure the struggles in the meantime.

In this episode we can really see Rick's strength of resolve breaking down. He's been so strong so far, always knowing the right thing to do (if not without self-doubt), and always having the strength to do it. But now, with the life of his son on the line, he seems to be losing it. Shane really steps in here and for once, his dominance works well for the good of the group in his support of Rick, and his go-to attitude when it comes to recovering much-needed medical supplies from a dangerous area. Rick, on the other hand, doesn't seem to know how to sit and wait in a crisis - even when it's the one thing he can do to help the most. You'd almost begin to think that his instinctive jump to action is as much a way of running from his problems than dealing with them. He can help others in their times of crisis, but he can't seem to take care of himself when he's the one who stands to lose so much.

I can't wait to see what happens next!

Stigmata (1999)

2011-10-21T13:41:00.000-07:00

Spoiler Warning - I'm gonna go ahead and spoil the whole plot of the movie, because that's what's really worth talking about.

Stigmata is a pretty effective dramatic thriller, with a religious theme, but what's so fascinating about it is the premise. Allow me to outline the plot. A priest discovers a new gospel, never before found, which, in the process of translation, he determines are the words of Jesus himself, spoken on the night of the Last Supper. However, instead of rejoicing at this discovery, the Vatican excommunicates the priest and tries to cover up the existence of the Gospel of Jesus. As it turns out, the church will let nothing interfere with their authority - not even God himself.

In the words of Jesus: "the Kingdom of God is inside you, and all around you, not in mansions of wood and stone."

So when the offending priest dies, his spirit travels across the world (attached to the priest's rosary, nicked from his coffin by an enterprising young thief), and possesses a young woman who lives in what I think is supposed to be Pittsburgh (it looks nothing like Pittsburgh). And our primary protagonist, other than this young woman, a self-described atheist, who begins to experience the stigmata - a souvenir from the excommunicated priest whose soul inhabits her body - is another priest who is rather more of a scientist, that goes around on the Vatican's orders, investigating claims of miracles. But his skepticism and desire for the truth will pit him against the church in the end.

Apparently, the basic story (of the gospel, not the possessed woman experiencing stigmata) is based on true events, surrounding the Gospel of Thomas, which was alleged to be closest to the words of Jesus himself, and is not officially recognized by the Vatican. Of course, the truth of any matters regarding religion is muddy at best, but the idea itself I find intriguing - the idea that the words of Jesus himself contradict the entire foundation of the church that was greedily enacted in his name. That the true spiritual path that Jesus recommended not only does not demand the presence of the church, but is actively hampered by it (to say nothing of its corruption). Now that's a religious message I can get behind.

Diary of the Dead (2007)

2011-10-20T11:04:00.000-07:00

In Diary of the Dead, zombie movie king George Romero tackles the zombie apocalypse - again - this time in a cinéma vérité/found footage style. As an established film director, Romero makes good use of the format, casting the main characters as film students working on a low budget, independent horror film of their own, when the zombie outbreak occurs, and they find themselves in the perfect position to record the decline of modern civilization. As film students, they know how to use cameras, and we actually get multiple angles of view in many scenes, as well as some on-the-fly editing performed on laptops before their videos are uploaded to youtube (as long as the server lasts) for the world to see.

The one major flaw of this film, however - other than the amateur acting - is that it beats you over the head with its social commentary. Romero's zombie films have always been a social commentary - most notably on the effects of consumerism - but in the past the commentary was subtle. It was something you only thought about after you watched the movie - it wasn't necessarily obvious during viewing, and it certainly didn't distract you from enjoying the action and horror. But here, in Diary of the Dead, we are bludgeoned with it - and the bulk of it isn't even directly related to the zombies, from what I could tell.

The worst of it was the commentary on how people "hide" behind their cameras to distance themselves from the world. It's a valid concept, and worth exploring, but the way the film approached it was too preachy. It seems a relic of a bygone era, the pre-internet age that the older generations are still trapped in. They have a hard time adapting to the new, digital world. As a photographer, I am frankly insulted when somebody suggests that standing behind my camera causes me to miss out on experiencing life. In a sense, it's absolutely true, but that view completely ignores all the good that standing behind a camera can accomplish - to say nothing of the fact that some people are more suited to be behind the camera than in front of it, and that that isn't a bad thing or a character flaw or whatever. We need all kinds of people in this world. Different ones will have different roles, and we shouldn't disparage the ones who choose to live (and record) life differently than we do.

There are, however, some potentially clever devices in use here. Like how the zombies so frequently avoid the man holding the camera, as if he weren't actually there. And then there is the mirroring of the opening scene towards the end, which I thought was pretty amusing to see. On the whole, though, the film lacks the "oomph" of Romero's classic Dead trilogy, and as I said, the commentary has a tendency to leave you rolling your eyes. It's certainly worth a look if you're into these kinds of films (zombie films, found footage films, or films that comment on modern society), but if you're looking for a good zombie movie, I would recommend instead Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead.

Notes on The Order of the Phoenix (book version)

2011-10-20T10:40:00.000-07:00

Warning: Harry Potter spoilers!

* When Harry was waiting over the summer for news of Voldemort's return, it reminded me of what it was like after 9/11, when we all (or at least I) thought World War III was coming, and then nothing really happened.

* I am in love with Nymphadora Tonks' special ability. I would kill to be a metamorphmagus. I used to think that if I could have one magical item or ability from Harry Potter, I'd take an Invisibility Cloak; but upon further reflection, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to be able to willfully change my appearance.

* I love how Hogwarts descends into chaos after Umbridge ousts Dumbledore. It just goes to show, you can only push so far, before the oppressed begin to push back - when the cost of obedience outweighs the fear of punishment. It's just a shame it takes that long, and that it's only effective when enough people are willing to fight back that they can't be easily stifled and singled out.

* I can't believe Umbridge was prepared to use the Cruciatus Curse on Harry! I was convinced at that point that I would view Umbridge as a Dark Wizard (Dark Witch?) - even if in no way affiliated with Voldemort. But then later, when even Harry used the Cruciatus Curse in his anger after Sirius was killed...I figured, as much as I still hate Umbridge, I have to at least give her the benefit of that doubt, else I'd have to consider Harry a Dark Wizard too.

* I was thinking that Voldemort must have been allowing the Ministry of Magic to go about its business, because out of coincidence, it happened to be working in his favor. Not believing the rumors of Voldemort's return meant that the Ministry was helping the Dark Lord to stay hidden and unknown. Plus, their meddling with Hogwarts was directly undermining Dumbledore's authority. But Voldemort was so focused on getting the prophecy, and scared to face down the Ministry head on in the end, that I guess maybe it wasn't necessarily part of his strategy, but just a coincidence in his favor.

* Finally, evidence that Dumbledore is not infallible, even if it has nothing to do with his trusting Snape - and I could see it all along:

"Youth cannot know how age thinks and feels. But old men are guilty if they forget what it was to be young..."

It's obvious that Dumbledore's plan wasn't working re: getting Harry to learn Occlumency. His mistake - a mistake that too many make too frequently - was to try to control another person's behavior, believing that lying to (or withholding information from) them is the best way to trick them into following your path. In this case, it was Dumbledore tricking Harry into learning Occlumency, when Harry's instinct was to resist those lessons. How could he be so blind as to not see that being honest and forthright with Harry was the best (indeed only) way to accomplish what must be done? But yes, it was his love and protective instinct that precluded him from being able to do it.

It's like in Don't Be Afraid of the Dark. The old househand warns the new occupants not to open the bricked in fireplace. He doesn't tell them why, apparently not realizing that their curiosity (and lack of a good reason) would only make them more eager to open up the fireplace and see what's inside. Maybe they wouldn't have believed him if he told them there were evil murderous spirits inside, but it couldn't have hurt their chances of opening up the fireplace against his wishes.

I'm getting diverted, but it's the same concept. Trying to trick someone into behaving a certain way by lying to them or withholding important information, instead of being honest and open and giving them the opportunity to choose to do the right thing, with full knowledge. I really thought Dumbledore of all people was better than that. Not to give the wrong impression, I still respect him and all that - and indeed, his blunder makes for a great example. And after all, he is aware of his mistake and regretful of it like few would be.

* Snape came off pretty pathetically in the third book. In this book, it's Sirius who comes off pretty pathetic, ignoring his tragic demise. Cooped up in his old house that whole time, eager to be reckless... It's a shame his hands were tied and he couldn't go out and be more of a hero.

* On a related note, James Potter doesn't come off very well via Snape's memory. Not very well at all. Of course, it's a little unfair to judge his character based on what is Snape's worst memory (or one of them), and quite possibly one of James' least proud moments in his life. We all have bad moments like that, when we do things we are not proud of, and it would be grossly unjust to judge a person's character based entirely on one of those moments. Still, James' arrogance does not come off well at all.

* Still looking forward to learning more about Snape's past, and his motivations, in the last two books.

* I was kind of underwhelmed to learn that Hermione's patronus is an otter. What's so great about otters? It's kind of unremarkable. On the other hand, it's only one letter shy of "Potter", so maybe it's an indication that Hermione truly does belong with Harry. :3

* I was relieved when Harry finally did his interview and told his story to the wizarding world. I really felt, all along, that the majority of the people sneering at him didn't necessarily disbelieve his claim about Voldemort's return, or believe the things the papers were saying about him. I think they just wanted to hear his story, to know just what happened, before coming to any kind of conclusion. Granted, I know it's not easy for Harry to talk about it, but I think he should have at least understood that - that they just needed to know more.

* In this book, one of the characters asks Hermione the question I've been dying to ask her - why isn't she in Ravenclaw? Predictable answer - the Sorting Hat considered it before finally putting her in Gryffindor - but it's nice to actually hear that confirmation that Hermione is total Ravenclaw material. Of course, given Cho and her friend's behavior, that may indicate the difference between Ravenclaw and Gryffindor, with an emphasis on Gryffindor's honor.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

2011-10-19T16:09:00.000-07:00

Rather than being simply another exorcism movie, The Exorcism of Emily Rose puts a unique twist on the story by marrying it to a courtroom drama. The story actually begins immediately following Emily Rose's death, at which point the priest who administered the failed exorcism, Father Moore, is charged with negligent homicide (not an unbelievable outcome, considering modern attitudes toward demonic possession). The story then follows the court case, as the truth behind Emily's ordeal is told, one piece at a time.

I enjoy a good exorcism story, and I think this was a very clever way of presenting the story from a new perspective, without changing the basic formula. However, where this film stumbles is in its attempt to enact a war of facts vs. beliefs in the courtroom. Instead of a situation of "was this girl really possessed or not?", it's more "can we convince the jury that this girl was really possessed or not?", because the narrative unambiguously takes the side of the defense. We, the viewer, are shown all the supernatural goings on that the jury is not privy to. And if there's one thing that corroborates the supernatural explanation, it's that the phenomenon seems to follow those that get involved in the case, rather than sticking to the [potentially psychologically deluded] possessee.

There's a great story to be told here (closer to the true story the film was based on) about the damage that dangerous religious beliefs can cause - essentially, the prosecution's argument, which seeks to charge the priest with negligent homicide, for emphasizing spiritual over medical treatment for the girl's condition (a theme that The Last Exorcism touches on, though it ultimately has a different purpose) - but this film shies away from that in favor of telling a traditional supernatural exorcism story. Thus, it manages to be entertaining, but misses an opportunity to be truly groundbreaking. There was, however, another film based on those true events - a film called Requiem - and I am going to have to try to get my hands on it.

(And now for some spoiler stuff, for those who have seen the movie:)

When the evidence comes out that Emily Rose saw her experience as an opportunity (with help from Father Moore's testimony) to give the world evidence of the spiritual realm (with the Virgin Mary's blessing), I think the case lost a lot of credibility. For one thing, it showed that Emily had a motive to convince people that her demonic possession was real - thus presenting the possibility that she may have been willing to fake it. Also, if we are to take her written statement at face value, it begs the question of why Mary would be willing to have an innocent, faithful girl suffer when there are much better, less sacrificial ways to convince the mortal world that the spirit realm exists.

I also wonder at how when the devil tends to meddle in the affairs of men, there's plenty of evidence, whereas God's touch is so subtle as to be imperceptible. Of course, believers arguments' tend toward the thought that proof of the existence of the devil will imply existence of God - but still, why the hell does God not just provide some evidence himself? And anyway, the whole ordeal is moot, because in the end, not even the agnostic defense attorney manages to be convinced in her faith by the end of the movie. I have to believe that there are far more effective methods at God's disposal to convince people of his existence...

(end spoilers)

I'd like also to mention that it didn't skip my notice that the prosecution emphasizes that the victim, Emily Rose, was a "young girl", as is often the case with exorcism episodes. However, the fact is, she was a young woman - a university student. Of course, emphasizing her innocence and vulnerability plays into the prosecution's hand, given that they're trying to convict the man allegedly responsible for letting her die. And I certainly couldn't fault the devil for choosing to pick on such helpless, sympathetic victims - but I think he, at least, would have the ability to see through man's self-deception with regards to treating young adults as if they were still children.

The Funhouse (1981)

2011-10-17T13:46:00.000-07:00

The Funhouse is a fun little slasher flick from the [early] eighties, directed by Tobe Hooper, who you might know as the man who brought us The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It's not as impressive, terrifying, or as influential as that earlier film, but it manages to be effectively entertaining. I would say that it's in the wave of slasher films that comes after the genre-defining originals (of which TCM was the shining beacon, preceding even John Carpenter's Halloween), whose purpose is more entertainment than innovation, yet before the later wave in which the slasher formula became tired and cliche. Indeed, The Funhouse is not free of slasher cliches, but it manages to make them genuinely interesting, in its freshness (for its time).

The film opens with a truly inspired scene, that the rest of the movie hardly even manages to live up to. Critics will be quick to point out that it's an homage to the opening scene in Halloween, as well as the infamous shower scene from Psycho, but despite being derivative, I found it to be an interesting and highly effective twist on both those themes, while being enormously entertaining. After that scene, I was immediately hooked on the movie.

The rest of it changes gears slightly, as a group of four teenagers on a double date visit the local carnival, and make the very ill-informed decision (considering the carnival's prior newsworthy reputation) to sneak into the funhouse ride and stay over for a night of illicit lovemaking. But they end up unintentionally spying on a terrible accident involving one of the (horribly mutated) carnival freaks and his call girl. If anything, carnies stick by their own kind, and when they find out some kids could get in the way of their cover-up story, the murderous rampage begins.

The flashing lights, spooky sounds, and creepy decorations inside the funhouse ride contribute to a chaotic and distracting atmosphere as the teens try desperately to find a way out of the ride before the carny and his freak get to them (and you can guess how that will turn out). I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the movie Dark Ride (from After Dark's first year of Horrorfest) was a spiritual successor to this film. The chase may drag on a bit towards the end, and the mutant freak, while highly disturbing at first sight, loses its creepiness factor the more you look at him. But apart from that, The Funhouse is a quality classic slasher flick, that I would recommend to those looking beyond the first tier pinnacle of slasher titles.

The Walking Dead: Season 2 Episode 1 (What Lies Ahead)

2011-10-16T20:43:00.000-07:00

I almost missed tonight's premiere of season 2 of The Walking Dead. Almost. I've been looking forward to it ever since the conclusion of the first season. But I assumed that the season premiere would air on Halloween (or Halloween weekend, anyway) like last year, so I wasn't looking out for it, yet. Luckily, I went online to check the schedule for this year's FearFest on AMC just yesterday, and saw an ad for The Walking Dead indicating that the premiere was scheduled for today. The flesh-eating fun begins again!

Spoilers ahead! Proceed at your own risk.

At the end of the first season, we left the group on their way out of Atlanta, after their short and harrowing stint at the CDC. En route to their next location (I think I heard "Fort Bragg"), they come across a vehicle blockade on the highway. In addition to being an inconvenient obstacle, it provides a great opportunity to forage for supplies - gasoline, water, clothing, and weapons! Unfortunately, the group is soon overtaken by a migrating herd of zombies in a demonstration of how quickly and how easily things can all go to hell in this post-apocalyptic landscape.

The group lays low while the zombie herd marches through, and manages to stay relatively unnoticed. But in the chaos, 12 year old Sophia is chased off into the woods and gets separated from the others. Sheriff Rick Grimes rescues her by diverting the pursuing zombies, but she gets lost on the way back to the highway. The rest of the group tries to track her down, but she's nowhere to be found.

One of the highlights of this episode was the exchange between Dale and Andrea, after he takes her gun away from her, fearing that she'll use it to off herself. If you remember, in the climax to the last season, Andrea had been prepared to take Dr. Jenner's offer of a quick and painless death, after losing all that was left of her family. But Dale, not wanting to go on without her, threatened to sacrifice his own life, prompting Andrea to run off with the survivors. Dale expects some gratitude for saving Andrea's life, but Andrea views it a bit differently. She makes a great argument that what Dale did was not honorable and righteous, but actually quite selfish, and Andrea is not at all grateful for the opportunity to live in this god-forsaken wasteland any longer. The only reason she chose not to die at the lab was because she didn't want to be responsible for bringing Dale with her.

Looks like this series still has its bite in the second season, doesn't it? I have to admit, I wavered a bit at the end of the episode. While searching for Sophia in the woods, the group comes across a (nearly) abandoned church. Naturally, some of the survivors' thoughts turn to God. Carol prays for her daughter's safety, but in bringing back the topic of her late abusive husband, I started to wonder if maybe Sophia ran off intentionally, instead of merely getting lost. Rick, as the leader of the group, has been getting a lot of gruff from Carol about losing sight of Sophia when she first ran off, but his wife Lori does a good job of defending him. After all, Rick's in a tough spot, and he's honestly done the best he could (and far more than could be expected of anyone in his shoes) to keep the group together and alive.

But one can't fault Rick for beginning to doubt himself. After all, it's very hard to know whether you're doing the right thing. In a moment of weakness, Rick enters the church and asks God for a sign, any kind of sign. He's not much of a believer, but right now, he could use the extra help. Then, he and Shane and his son Carl head into the woods to look for Sophia one last time. They come across a graceful buck in the forest, and Carl approaches to touch it. It's a truly magical moment, beautiful even, and I was thinking to myself, as I watched, is this really the direction this series is heading? Religious sentimentalism? Rick gets his sign that he's on the right path, maybe the buck leads them straight to Sophia, and all is well?

But then I thought, this is The Walking Dead. The series where nothing is sacred. The series that's supposed to be really gritty, the series that holds no punches. Something really gruesome has to happen here, or the series will have lost its guts. And I knew, as Carl approached the buck, that this would be the defining moment. What happened in the next few seconds would determine whether The Walking Dead continued to deserve my respect, or whether I would have to consider it to have jumped the shark. And you know what, I honestly expected to be disappointed. And I guess that just goes to show you how pervasive that spineless sort of attitude is that I thought the chances of them going all out and making this show fucking rock were too slim to hope for.

But you know what? The Walking Dead pulled through, and the season 2 premiere ended on a horrifying note that left my jaw gaping into the credits.

You've got me for another season, The Walking Dead.

The Amityville Horror (2005)

2011-10-15T22:28:00.000-07:00

The Amityville Horror is probably the most iconic haunted house story in modern history. Based (though probably loosely) on a true story, it starts with a man named Ronald DeFeo, Jr., who woke up one night and inexplicably slaughtered his entire family (Jim Morrison-The End-style), claiming to have been guided by the voices in his head. Later, the Lutz family moved into the house where the murders took place, and experienced a slew of paranormal activity, escaping the house just in time to avoid ending up like the previous family. Their story (the authenticity of which is under question) inspired a novel, which was adapted into a film, and then remade decades later. It is the latter film remake I intend to review here.

It's been a while since I've seen the original film from 1979, so comparisons may be sketchy. My enduring impression is that, though dated, it was a good film, with some good scares, although (like many things) its execution may have fallen short of its inspiration. In particular, I recall a fireplace in the basement that turns out to be a tunnel to hell, but little more is made of it than that. In the 2005 remake, we do get to see a little more of what's hidden in the basement, but rather than a tunnel to hell, it's a set-up for the extra back-story I presume was invented for this remake to flesh it out - and while sinister, has a more human than demonic origin.

The greatest thing about this story is that it's not simply a case of a house being haunted by ghosts of an unjustly murdered family. The house itself becomes a character, and a rather menacing one, at that. For example, when a priest attempts to bless the house, he is assaulted by a swarm of flies and commanded by the house, in no uncertain terms, to "get out!" Though there are angry ghosts present, the question remains, what led Ronald DeFeo, Jr. to commit those initial murders? The voices in his head - was he insane, just making excuses, or was he actually being egged on by the house? Well, the Lutz family's experience would indicate the latter, as Mr. Lutz begins to follow down the same path as DeFeo. When the family first moves into the house, he shrugs off the superstition about the previous murders committed therein, saying that "houses don't murder people. People murder people." But as it turns out, he may be dead wrong.

I'd say the 2005 remake is a pretty effective movie. It manages to be both tense and scary, and I would hesitantly say (considering how much time has passed since I saw the first one) that it provides a richer exploration of the theme than the original film did. However, there is one aspect that I have mixed feelings about, but it's spoileriffic, so if you don't want to be spoiled, skip ahead to the next paragraph now. The remake builds up a back-story for the house, indicating that a sadistic reverend who dabbled in black magic used to torture indians in that house, and killed himself in a ritual that allowed his evil spirit to embody the house, presumably for eternity. It's a good story, don't get me wrong, but even though the original film didn't follow the thread far enough to my liking, I think I prefer the house's evil to have a nonhuman (or at best, ambiguous) origin. It's just that much more unsettling, don't you think?

So it's a pretty good movie. It was interesting to see Chloe Moretz again in a role very similar to the one she plays in Wicked Little Things - the little girl who befriends a child ghost(s) of ambiguous threat. I also like the one musical theme that occurs in the movie with the driving bass line. I don't recall if it's a reprise of the theme from the original movie, but I really like it, and it works very well in this context, capable of building a sinister and foreboding atmosphere.

Wicked Little Things (2006)

2011-10-11T20:08:00.000-07:00

Five years ago, After Dark Films premiered their pseudo-annual Horrorfest featuring 8 independent horror films ("to die for") shown in theaters nationwide for only one (or two) weekends. Horrorfest lasted for four years before evolving into something different, and I had the luck of discovering it in its first year (as well, that was a time in my life when I was really starting to become engrossed in my horror fandom). But of those first eight films to die for, I did not get a chance to see one of them - the one titled Wicked Little Things, which I have just, tonight, had a chance to see.

The titular monsters of Wicked Little Things are a cabal of child zombies, who, in their former life, were child laborers in a mine in Pennsylvania. They were buried alive in a mine collapse, and are now, in their undead state, intent on getting revenge on the descendant of the mine owner who put them in danger. Though in the meantime, they like to roam the mountain woods every night to feed on warm, living flesh. And a young widow with her two daughters (one teenage, one younger) has just moved into a house near the mine that was owned by her late husband, who tended to keep quiet about his family history.

Wicked Little Things falls into that category of horror films that has certain things going for it, but ultimately falls short of greatness, not least of which due to an over-reliance on genre cliches. It occurs to me that these sorts of cliches may work on an audience uninitiated into the realm of horror cinema - as those audiences must have been who went out to see the defining films in horror's early days. But today, there is such a body of expectations in how horror movies go, and how people in them act, that it's more formula than inspiration. And as evidence of how bad it's gotten: to an extent, even many inversions of time-worn cliches have by now become cliched.

What Wicked Little Things has going for it is a great atmosphere - very dark and creepy; the foggy woods and dilapidated house provides a great environment for a scary story to develop. The zombie children make fairly interesting monsters - if not super scary. As zombies, they look rather pristine, instead of decayed, more like dolls than walking corpses, but maybe that's what zombies look like as children ;). But the weapons they carry (nothing like a murderous kid shouldering a huge pickaxe), and their flesh-hunger (watch them dive eagerly into their bloodfeasts), certainly mark them as a threat to the living. I happened to like the gushing blood effects, and even the decision - however bizarre - to shower the characters in it during the climax.

But the most shocking thing of all about this movie was putting it on and seeing Chloe Moretz' name in the title credits. I had no idea! Not that it's any surprise that she'd do a movie like this - she was, after all, the vampire in Let Me In - but to think that she'd starred in one of the Horrorfest films? Crazy. She doesn't own the role as much as she owned Hit-Girl, but it's always a delight to see her pretty face up on the screen. Scout Taylor-Compton - who played the elder, teenage daughter - on the other hand... She's a genre favorite, but after all the incessant screaming she did in the sequel to Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween, and her successful job of capturing Lita Ford's bitchiness in The Runaways biopic, I don't think I like her all that much. But that's just personal taste.

Pink Floyd - Rare Singles

2011-09-27T10:16:00.000-07:00

So today Pink Floyd releases newly remastered versions of their 14 major studio albums, along with some other treats, like a six-disc version of Dark Side of the Moon, a new best of album to come shortly, and more. This is exciting for new Pink Floyd fans, who have yet to discover the band, and dedicated Pink Floyd fans, who have lots of money to shell out on fresher, cleaner, fancier versions of what they already have. Pink Floyd was my top favorite band in high school, and they remain one of my favorites to this day. But I guess I fall under that group who already has all this material (albeit in less shiny forms), but doesn't have the money to go out and buy new copies every time they release a new version (you know how many times they've re-released Dark Side of the Moon? And to this day, I've only bought it once).

However, this is a perfect opportunity for me to introduce you to a Pink Floyd compilation I put together myself a number of years ago. I call it Rare Singles, and it puts together a lot of the non-album material from the Floyd's early days. In 1971, the band itself released a compilation titled Relics, which consisted of a few early singles, some standout tracks from their first few albums, and one or two unreleased tracks. I eventually discovered that there were other early singles not appearing on this disc, or any other easily acquired disc (that is, without shelling out a fortune for one of the box sets). So, I decided to "upgrade" Relics by creating a new compilation that would dispense of all the album tracks, and replace them with more of the hard-to-find stuff.

I think it's a fantastic compilation, and it sounds really great. It brings out more of Syd Barrett's genius through those early singles that are mostly forgotten today, and it also has a nice balance of stuff that showcases the rest of the band. I also threw in the great track Embryo which appears only on Works, an otherwise unremarkable Pink Floyd compilation released in 1983, as well as a live version of the song which stretches it out and gives it more life. You know record companies are in that game to scam fans out of their money, so they'll release compilations with mostly stuff they already have, plus one or two rarities they can't get anywhere else. I think it's dishonest, and so that's the point of Rare Singles - to put all (or at least a lot of) that rare stuff together on one disc. You'll never see it on store shelves, but I think it would be very popular if such a disc were ever released.

Here's the track list:

1. Arnold Layne
2. Candy And A Currant Bun
3. See Emily Play
4. Apples And Oranges
5. Paintbox
6. Scream Thy Last Scream
7. Vegetable Man
8. It Would Be So Nice
9. Julia Dream
10. Point Me At The Sky
11. Careful With That Axe, Eugene
12. Biding My Time
13. Embryo
14. Embryo (Live at BBC 1970)

And for the cover, I made a point to search out a rare picture of the band that includes both Syd Barrett and David Gilmour, which bridges the gap between the two main and early lineups, and represents the spirit of the compilation.

Notes on The Goblet of Fire (book version)

2011-09-25T12:19:00.000-07:00

Warning: There be Harry Potter spoilers in this post.

* I love that Moody's "Mad-Eye" can see through things - even Invisibility Cloaks!

* I love how Hermione is NOT crushing on Viktor Krum in this version. (He's definitely not her type - not that Krum's any worse than Ron, though :-\).

* I loved the entire house elf liberation subplot. It was a great allegory for slavery. Even down to the fact that the slaves feared their freedom, and most people justified the convenience of having slaves by believing that the slaves enjoyed their slavery - even perfectly reasonable, caring people believed this. There is no force as strong, or as corrupt, as conservativism.

* I am continually impressed by how much of an inspiration and a role model Dumbledore is. He has such wisdom and integrity. The way he treats people with respect who deserve it - whether human or giant or youth or former Death Eater - is so admirable; yet he is a force to be reckoned with against the agents of evil and hypocrisy and cowardice.

* I like how scathing this book is toward both the media (Rita Skeeter), and politics.

* I immensely enjoyed the confrontation between Dumbledore and Cornelius Fudge, the Minister of Magic, at the end of the book. It really shows how inadequate politics are, and how fear and laziness can contribute to evil and corruption. And it also sets up the Ministry as an enemy (even independent of Voldemort's influence), and what is to happen to Hogwarts at the hands of Dolores Umbridge in the next book. Like many things, this is explained much more clearly in the books than it was in the movies.

* On that note, I also liked the explanation for what happened between Harry and Voldemort during their duel (Priori Incantatem). It makes a lot more sense than, "oh, guess what, these ghosts are gonna show up, but we're not gonna tell you why".

* The Goblet of Fire is the turning point in the series, and I think that's why it's one of my favorite parts of the story. The tension, and the despair when Voldemort finally returns. It's like the ending of The Empire Strikes Back, when the bad guy wins, and everything looks so grim, and you're dying to find out what the heroes will do to fight back. I'm looking forward to reading on!

Horror Realm Con (Saturday)

2011-09-17T23:59:00.000-07:00

I got the autograph I wanted on Friday, but I decided to come back for another day of fun at the Horror Realm Con. Being a late riser, I skipped all the programming in the first half of the day and arrived in the afternoon to roam the Dealer's Room a bit more before catching some panels. I was considering picking up some cheap smut, since, you know, where else can you find that sort of stuff (offline)? And there was plenty of it to choose from. But you know how porn is - all the content is pretty similar, and finding something with a model you like can be a crapshoot.

It occurred to me that I could try to find something with Misty Mundae in it. She's a model I like, and she's done both softcore porn and horror. In fact, I think she's even been described as a scream queen; although, the Ladies of Horror lamented yesterday that the label "scream queen" has sort of lost its prestige these days, being diluted by the countless amateurs who grasp onto it hoping to make a name for themselves. Considering what I had seen in the Dealer's Room on Friday, I knew I wouldn't have much trouble finding a title featuring Misty Mundae, but I wasn't expecting to find a booth right outside of the Dealer's Room advertising various erotic features, including some of Misty Mundae's work! I suppose I should have taken it as a sign, but I ended up not buying anything, because I really didn't want to spend any more money. :-(

So what's the deal with all this porn at a horror convention? Well, it's no big secret that the 'sleaze sector' kind of runs through both the 'b' horror and porno genres. Actually, the Ladies of Horror mentioned yesterday the stereotype they have to deal with, where people will assume that if you're a female actress who does horror movies (careful you don't pronounce it "whore movies" ;D), then you also do porn. Which is not necessarily the case. Nevertheless, the naked fact is that there is indeed some overlap between the genres. Like how the exploitation genre covers both gratuitous sex and violence. Which brings me to the first panel I attended on Saturday.

It was a talk with 42nd Street Pete, who grew up around the grindhouse theaters on 42nd street in New York City, during their heyday. He had plenty of sleazy stories to tell about that scene, with all the drugs, sex, and bootleggin' you can imagine. The one thing I took away from it was that as cool as the exploitation genre can be, the grindhouse lifestyle was not very glamorous. The movies were good; but the lifestyle of the movies' patrons - not so great. Of course, there's a sort of cult of sensationalism around this kind of seedy lifestyle, and these guys are idolized for their participation in the history of this genre. But as the panel room just across the hall started drawing a crowd for the Pin Up Contest I had also wanted to see, it became obvious to me that hanging out with a group of guys bragging about their experiences with hookers isn't half as interesting as actually spending time with attractive women, admiring their impressive, and sometimes sexy, costumes.

Speaking of which, I tracked down one girl who had, hands down, the greatest outfit of the entire convention. I don't think it was even horror-related, but it didn't matter, because it was amazing. It was sort of a gold vinyl outfit, that didn't leave much to the imagination, with a huge peacock tail on the back. It was fantastic. I talked to the girl briefly, and I discovered that not only was she the fire-breather from the night before, but she was also going to be the DJ later that night! When I approached her, I was afraid that she'd be weary of the sort of attention she must have been getting a lot of, but she turned out to be incredibly friendly, in a way that very few people are. I guess that, if you're going to wear something like that, you have to be able to appreciate that kind of attention. Which, in my eyes, is a truly admirable quality. ;p (It didn't surprise me when I later learned that she's done some modeling).

So then I skipped off for some dinner at the food court across the street, then I got back just after dark to catch the first half of the Horror High Homecoming Party, which consisted of two bands (one after another) playing outdoors right next to the hotel pool (which was closed - it was rather chilly, anyway). The first band was Devilz in the Detailz, which was not as metal as I was expecting these bands to be, and the second band was River Runs Scarlet, which was very metal and just the sort of band I'd expect to hear at a horror convention.

The second part of the homecoming party was indoors in the restaurant attached to the hotel, with tunes provided by DJ Cy-Fi, the same girl with the fantastic outfit I was just talking about. Except she had changed, into another fantastic outfit.

There was also a costume contest, but the theme seemed to be skewed towards an '80s motif (since, you know, that was a great decade for horror movies), which I felt took some of the attention away from the great horror-themed costumes that were around. Like the chefs carting around a zombie wok, filled with disembodied limbs, and lots of brains! There were a lot more people in costumes today than there was on Friday. Several zombies - some of them really good. Lots of violent makeup effects - both on zombies and non-zombies. Spooky contacts were very popular - and I admit, they can have a very disconcerting effect. Have you ever tried talking to someone with fogged-over eyes? It's unnerving.

There were also quite a few goth fashions, though many of those were attached to the lovely Black Hearts girls. I discovered that DJ Cy-Fi is also the owner of Black Hearts Clothing, which had a booth set up in the Dealer's Room. Their clothing is awesome - they have vinyl corsets, and miniskirts, and all the sorts of things I wish I could wear, if only I had the right figure. You know, a girl wears these things, and she's just plain hot. A guy wears them, and it's some kind of bizarre fetish. Then again, maybe I'm just not hanging around with the right crowds.

I caught another well-dressed group who were advertising a stage adaptation (by the Rage of the Stage Players) of the film The Hamiltons, which you'll remember was one of the After Dark Horrorfest films a few years ago. Isn't that crazy? The one girl in the group, who I believe won first place in the Pin Up Contest, had a brilliantly themed "gothic lolita" costume. She was Little Miss Muffet, wearing an elegant dress, but covered in spiders - they were even in her bowl of curds and whey! Ick!

I'll admit that after the party was over, I was reluctant to go home. There was still activity in the halls, and I think there was a midnight show about to go on in the film room, but they looked to be running a little bit late, and I didn't really feel like waiting til after 2am to walk home. So with a heavy heart, I left. I wasn't expecting to have as much fun as I did at this horror convention, but it turned out really well. The only thing that would have made it better is if I had some friends of my own to go with (friends who live in my city and enjoy sharing my interests), and if I had had time to prepare a costume. I actually had one I could have worn, one that I've been looking for an excuse to wear, but the convention was a totally last-minute thing, so I didn't have time to plan it out. Plus, I don't know how comfortable I'd feel wearing that costume out in public all on my own...

Maybe I should stop by Black Hearts' store sometime and get myself outfitted. ;)

Horror Realm Con (Friday)

2011-09-16T23:39:00.000-07:00

Horror has a history here in the zombie capital of the world, the City of the Living Dead, where the modern zombie first rose from the grave in George Romero's Night of the Living Dead, the movie that breathed new life into the zombie genre and awakened a new generation of horror fans. In spite of this, and my horror fandom, until today I had never attended a horror convention. But yesterday (and not a moment too soon) I found out about the Horror Realm Con, being held this weekend close enough (and cheap enough) for me to attend.

But the thing that clinched it, that gave me the motivation to get my butt out there, was seeing Kyra Schon's name on the guest list: Kyra Schon, the ghoul next door herself, who played Karen Cooper in the original Night of the Living Dead, the little girl zombie whose face is on the poster - a visual icon of zombie horror. I don't know if I've ever said this before, but I've always wanted to hang one of those NotLD posters on my wall. So I figured this would be the perfect opportunity to get an autographed copy!

When I got to the con, the first thing I did was head for the Dealer's Room, to look for a NotLD poster, or t-shirt, or anything with the iconic image of the zombie girl on it that I could get signed the moment I ran into Kyra Schon. It turns out she was in there, with a booth set up, all ready to sell autographed prints (and posters, and t-shirts). So I ended up getting an iconic print, with a personalized autograph from Kyra herself, who was very sweet and friendly. I was so excited (and also afraid of the print getting bent in my backpack), that I immediately walked over to the arts & crafts store nearby to put it in a frame. :3

But since I had made it out to the con, I was determined to stick around and see what other creepy fun it had to offer me. If I had the money to spare, I could have spent tons on the DVDs available in the Dealer's Room - all kinds of horror and exploitation flicks, including many hard-to-find cult classics. Also lots of posters and prints (signed and not), and plenty of homemade crafts like the stuff you find in the Artist's Alley of the anime cons I'm more familiar with. But, of course, with a horror theme, and a particular emphasis on zombies!

I stopped by the panel room to sit in on the Ladies of Horror Panel, featuring a discussion with four scream queens - Linnea Quigley (the girl who danced naked on a tombstone in Return of the Living Dead!), Tiffany Shepis, Amy Lynn Best, and Sarah French. One thing I discovered is that in spite of my enthusiasm for the genre, my fandom is not so developed, or obsessed, to recognize all the important names and titles that come up. Nevertheless, it was very interesting to hear these ladies talk about their experiences being in horror films, and what's it like being a woman in the industry. (Apparently, it's not as hard as the feminists would have you believe. But then, horror has always been unusually appreciative of its female icons. If you can get beyond the whole "sex and violence is degrading!" mindset.)

After that panel, I stuck around to hear author Jack Ketchum answer questions about his life's work. You might (as I did) recognize him as the man who wrote The Girl Next Door, inspired by a horrific true story, which was adapted twice to film, one of those based on Jack Ketchum's novel (the other one an independent retelling of the true story, and, incidentally, starring Ellen Page). It's tempting to view horror writers as sick, depraved people, but that's a far too easy stereotype to fall into. Hearing Jack Ketchum talk about his work was very illuminating. Apparently, his 'hook' was to translate the sensationalistic violence he was seeing in the cinema back into literature, where it wasn't being represented; instead, authors were in the habit of utilizing too much restraint. I know a lot of people outside the horror fandom would recoil in disgust at that notion, but hey, that's what horror's about. It's not about fluffy bunnies hopping through dewy sunlit meadows. It's about blood and guts and terror.

After nightfall, and coming towards the end of the night, some girls were advertising "half-naked fire-breathing" out in the parking lot. Can you guess which direction I headed? I overheard some talk of the girls dancing on top of a zombified van parked nearby, but unfortunately that did not come to pass (that would have been fun to watch). However, the half-naked fire-breathing did go on as advertised, and that in itself was exciting. I think it's just fantastic that I can say I went to a horror convention and got to see half-naked girls breathing fire. What have I been waiting for all these years?

On a related note, I didn't see a whole lot of full-on costumes at the con, especially compared to what I see at the anime convention I regularly go to. (But there is an '80s horror costume contest planned for tomorrow night). Then again, I did see a lot of people dressed in some pretty groovy gothic fashions. The people overall were very friendly, which to me is not surprising, but might shock you if you believe the stereotype that horror fans are violent, antisocial folk. The fan community may have been skewed toward a male audience, but there was actually a pretty good proportion of females in attendance - especially taking all the actresses into account. There were even a few kids there (more girls than boys!), and though they appeared to be in tow of the celebrities or other con-goers they were related to, they seemed enthusiastic about the atmosphere. (When I picked up my badge at the registration desk, two girls came running up bragging about the candy they were carrying, and we all had a friendly laugh about them "taking candy from strangers").

Friday's programming culminated with the Horror Cabaret, that ran until just before midnight. Four acts performed, starting with Evenings in Quarantine: The Zombie Opera, adapted for the convention. It was, as billed, a zombie opera, featuring music and [some very impressive] vocal performances (plus some really cool on-the-fly arm-severing fx). I don't know if the fact that you can hear the zombie apocalypse story told in opera form reflects the ubiquitousness of zombies in popular culture, or if it speaks to the obsessive quirkiness of zombie fans. Either way, it's a shame the story has become so cliched, because it truly is a good one. But I suppose that even if you beat the story to death, it will just keep coming back again and again, because people love it.

Also performing at the cabaret was the ElectroBelly & Friends Dance Troupe. I have mixed feelings about belly dancing. On the one hand, belly dancers are known for their curves, and I tend to be be attracted to thinner body types. But on the other hand, it's a very sensual dance form. I am impressed that these dancers can get up in front of a crowd and dance so sensually, seemingly without self-consciousness. I could have just been imagining it, but I sensed that some of the guys in the audience were embarrassed to be seen watching too closely (I wasn't - I figured they weren't dancing just to be ignored). Meanwhile, the few people I noticed who were staring intently were female! I also love that, in spite of how sensual it is, belly dancing is considered a legitimate dance form that can be performed in festivals and conventions, and not restricted to seedy bars and back alleys, like "adult" performances are.

The other two cabaret acts were less in tune with my interests, and so they inspired less enthusiasm from me. One of them was mentalist & magician Chris Handa. I'm a skeptic, and I'm not really into "audience interaction" performances, but he wasn't bad. He certainly did a convincing job of "magically" selecting the hottest girl in the audience to come up front for a demonstration. We all know "magic" is just a series of tricks, but a performance like this is all about showmanship, and this guy put on a pretty entertaining show. The other act was a comedian/musician named Weird Paul, who sang a bunch of silly songs with funny lyrics. Amusing, certainly, but not really my preferred style of entertainment.

Stay tuned for Saturday at the con!

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (1973)

2011-08-30T19:19:00.000-07:00

A movie came out last weekend by the title of Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, and it is a remake of a horror film from the seventies that seems to have a lot of respect among cult audiences. I hadn't seen it before, but with the release of the remake, I thought it was a prime time to go back and watch this cult favorite. Having just done so, my impression of the classic film is that it is a quality horror film, though it hasn't aged terribly well. I didn't find it to be super scary, looking back from the perspective of a 21st century horror fan, but there were a lot of elements to it that were genuinely terrifying, and I can believe that this film frightened a lot of people back in the seventies - especially if they watched it as a child.

The premise of the film is that a young married couple have just inherited an old house, but it is hiding a terrible secret. There are apparently some kind of devilish gremlins living in a bricked-up fireplace, and they want out. And you can bet that once they get out (and you know they will), they won't be up to any good. The concept of the creatures is pretty scary, and the film does a very good job of building atmosphere, and not showing you too much. But, inevitably, as weird as the creatures look, seeing them detracts a little bit from their fearfulness (at least interpreting it with my adult mind). However, their whispering is very frightening, and the concept of small gremlin-like creatures emerging from a pit in a fireplace, who thrive in the dark, and don't like the light, is a strong one.

I'm actually curious to see the remake at this point. Of course, one must approach remakes with a healthy skepticism these days, but as much as the original film has gained a loyal cult following, I think the film could stand to gain from a little modernization. Of course, that could just as easily be a kiss of death for a cult classic, but I think it's worth a look. I did notice from the trailer that the remake has recast the protagonist as a child, and I wonder if that somehow reflects on our modern paranoia about the vulnerability of children, as if to capitalize on that fear to enhance the effect of the horror. Frankly, I think a creature that has the power to terrorize full-grown adults (and doesn't have to rely on targeting the weakest link) is much scarier. But at this point, I'm only speculating. It remains to be seen whether I'll get a chance to go out and see the remake in the near future. At any rate, this has been a rather early introduction to horror season, which is coming up in another month!

P.S. Oh yes! This is a total spoiler, so you shouldn't read this if you haven't seen the movie, but I have to commend this film for the direction it took in the ending. Far too often the good guys win out in the end, foiling the plot of the evil ones that hound them. But not this time. I know it's nice to come out of a movie thinking, "boy that was scary, but at least we got 'em in the end", but realistically speaking (well, realistic in a suspending-disbelief sort of way), if an evil supernatural force was after you, I'd wager that your chances for survival would be very slim. ;-)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

2011-07-18T14:11:00.000-07:00

Warning: this review contains SPOILERS from the second part of the seventh Harry Potter movie (the final part of the series).

That's it, it's all over. This movie is kind of complicated to review because you can either look at it a) independently, b) as the second half of the full Deathly Hallows experience, or c) as the conclusion to the entire Harry Potter series. As a standalone movie (though having seen the rest of the series), it was very exciting and entertaining. As the continuation of The Deathly Hallows, it was a fitting second half, where all the plotting and running around gives way to the final hefty showdown at Hogwarts. And as the conclusion to the Harry Potter series, well, it's mostly satisfying (more on that in a bit), and certainly you get what you were expecting - the final duel between Harry and the Dark Lord - and everything gets wrapped up neatly in the end.

The final battle was exciting. I really liked that the final showdown ended up being the siege of Hogwarts. Voldemort was somewhat less intimidating in the very end than I anticipated, but I suspect that's due to the fact that he fragmented himself into those horcruxes, and that by destroying them, Harry and friends were able to weaken him considerably even before the final fight. Originally I had viewed those horcruxes as if they were extra lives, but I guess I should have taken the "splinter your soul" (or however it was described) phrase more seriously. Now, I wonder if that was really the best idea. Would Voldemort have been more powerful if he had kept all of his strength within himself? And while we're speaking of the horcruxes, I would have liked to have learned more about their individual significances, though I suspect this may be elaborated on more in the books. They mainly seem to be valuable treasures, which is really cool, and I thought that deserved some more focus.

I stated all the way back in my review of the first HP movie that I like the concept of the wands (and my feelings haven't changed). There's a question, though, of how much power the wands themselves have, and how much of that power is the wizard's own. I like to think of the wands as being conduits for magical power, and that different ones - designed differently and with different materials - will magnify or manifest a wizard's power differently. But then there's also the issue of the wand's will, which is brought up in this film, and turns out to be of critical importance. I expected a more traditional power struggle (like Goku vs. Vegeta) between Harry and Voldemort, with Harry ultimately overpowering Voldemort with the power of his love and friendship, rather than Voldemort failing on a wand-related technicality. But the whole horcrux sidequest seems to suggest that it was always more a battle of strategy than brute strength even from the beginning.

So it turns out I was right in my suspicions about Snape, regarding Dumbledore's death. They were indeed co-conspirators. Though I hadn't imagined Snape's connection to Lily, but it explains a lot. I had wondered how Snape could have been a Death Eater, and yet had later gained Dumbledore's trust. I imagine there's probably more exposition in the books (which I am about to read), as there is a lot in the movies that is sort of glossed over, without going into much detail. I can imagine Snape would have been driven to the dark side due to his experience of unrequited love, yet I wonder how sincere his allegiance to Voldemort ever was, considering that he was able to renounce it, and climb so high as to become a trusted friend of Dumbledore. Was Snape a spy all the way back then, too? Or was it Voldemort's murder of Lily that ultimately turned Snape around? I can see it happening that way.

I talked a bit about Draco in my review of the first part of The Deathly Hallows. I was really hoping that he would come out and do something significant, to redeem his character (either as a reluctant hero or a respectable villain, either way). I guess he's just a weak person. And it's no wonder, his father's a spineless coward. It's too bad, though, because I could really see so much more coming from Draco. If he had been a stronger person, he could've become the next Dark Lord after Voldemort's demise. A true thorn in Harry's side. But I guess that's a story that wasn't meant to be.

I was really moved when it was revealed that Harry's fate was to sacrifice himself to be killed by Voldemort. Maybe it's because I have a bit of a martyr complex. Can you imagine how hard that would be? Coming to terms with the fact that you have to give up your life for the greater good? How could you find the resolve to march willingly to your own slaughter? It's a really heavy development, but I liked it. Though things sort of turned out differently in the end. Maybe the book is better on the details, but I felt a little gypped that Harry came back, after establishing that he was going to have to die. I know, it makes for a good narrative - force the audience to mourn Harry's death, and then give them a happy ending anyway. Plus, seeing Harry come back for the final bout is exciting.

But still, when you make super big decisions like that, you should commit to them. Can you imagine how much different the end of the series would have been if Harry had had to die (and stay dead)? It would have been much darker, yes, but they still could have prevailed over the Dark Lord in the end. It would be a bittersweet victory, for sure, but it would be more emotionally heavy, and perhaps more true to life. Sure, some significant characters did die, but the only one that truly leaves a gap is perhaps Dumbledore, and he was old, anyway. There's no constant memory - "oh, that's right, Harry's not around" - like a memento, of the great battle and just how much was sacrificed.

In fact, that's just the thing. The ending is too convenient. Too concise, too wrapped-up. Nothing has really changed. You get to the epilogue, and 19 years later, you're right back where you started. Almost as if nothing even happened. No real lasting scars or memories. And if nothing else, I was pissed that Harry wasn't the Headmaster of Hogwarts, or at the very least, the Defense Against The Dark Arts teacher. Think about it, not only is Harry Potter the one who defeated the Dark Lord Voldemort, but he's the only guy who was killed, twice, by Voldemort, and lived. That's pretty bad-ass. I mean, what better Defense Against The Dark Arts teacher could you ask for than someone who is immune to the killing curse? And what's more, Harry could have been a Master of Death if he so chose, since all three of the Deathly Hallows passed into his hands (two of which he let slip through his fingers).

Regarding the ultimate pairings, I couldn't help but notice the trend of extraordinary people marrying mediocre people. (And ironically, both of those mediocre people are Weasleys). You got Harry, the boy who lived (and then defeated Voldemort), marrying a damsel in distress, and you have Hermione, the brightest witch of her age, marrying a talentless doofus. When it was first revealed that Harry was going to have to die, I thought that was the reason the author had put Ron and Hermione together - so that they could have some measure of happiness in the long run. Even though Hermione deserves to be with Harry. If there's any good to come from this, it's the reassurance for all the mediocre people out there that you may actually have a chance pairing up with somebody extraordinary. Keep the dream alive!

Speaking of Hermione, Emma was as good as ever in this movie, and actually very cute acting all sweet on Ron, even though I hated that it was Ron that was making her act that way. But as an added bonus, her polyjuice scheme in this part was infinitely more intriguing than the woman she impersonated in part 1 of The Deathly Hallows. Emma looked good dressed up in Bellatrix's goth fashions, and damn if I wasn't convinced at first that Helena Bonham Carter was acting in place of Hermione transformed. Their personalities are so wildly different that to see Helena acting more like an insecure Hermione than a wacked-out Bellatrix threw me for a loop. Well done.

So that's it. I think I've said enough. I'll defer you to some other more dedicated Potter fan to give you more celebration for the conclusion to the series. It's funny to think that I hadn't even been interested in the Harry Potter series until just December of last year - a mere seven months ago - as opposed to those who have been dedicated to it either from the beginning of the film series, or even longer, from the books' original releases. And that's where I'm headed now - to read up on the original story behind this epic film phenomenon.

Emma Rating: Sugary Sweet

The Runaways (2010)

2011-06-21T16:52:00.000-07:00

Rock biopic The Runaways is a special film. It's my favorite Dakota Fanning movie, but I like it for different reasons, so it would probably still be one of my favorites even if it didn't star Dakota Fanning. But, I'm glad that it does. Not simply because she's my favorite actress, but also, casting her as Cherie Currie was truly an inspired choice (and the same can be said for Kristen Stewart as Joan Jett). I can't imagine anyone doing a better job in the role than she did. This film really is the trifecta - it stars Dakota Fanning, it's a good movie, and the subject matter is right up my alley!

But it's a funny thing: after watching over a dozen movies starring Dakota Fanning over the past few weeks, this is the one role where I was least conscious that it was Dakota I was watching throughout the movie. (Needless to say, I was, however, still drawn to her fantastic performance and amazing looks). There could be any number of reasons for that. You might say it indicates that her acting is better in this movie than all the rest. Or maybe it's because she's not playing the "precocious brat" (not my personal choice of words) type of role she's best known for. She does seem to have a lot more innocence in this role, in spite of the fact that, while still just fifteen, she gets mixed up in a world of typically adult vices - namely, all the sex and drugs that come with rock stardom.

But if you ask me, I think it might have to do with the vintage '70s look Dakota takes on in this movie - particularly her feathered hair (which is right for the role, but I like Dakota's normal hair better) and heavy makeup. Or, even the fact that Dakota is not playing a fictional character this time, but an actual person, for which there exists a context independent of Dakota's performance. Lastly, it might simply be the fact that Dakota is no longer the child we all remember her as being. Yep, it's remarkable the change that has occurred in the three short years (or so) since Dakota's other sexy music-related role - Hounddog, in which she discovered the blues. And in The Runaways, she gets to experience the rock 'n roll lifestyle.

"Listen. Rock and roll is a bloodsport, it is a sport of men. It is for the people in the dark. The death cats. The masturbators. The outcasts who have no voice, no way of saying, 'hey, I hate the fucking world! My father's a faggot! Fuck you, fuck authority, I want an orgasm!'"

So who were The Runaways? They were the band that launched Joan Jett's music career. If you ask eccentric record producer Kim Fowley (inspiringly performed by Michael Shannon in the film), they were a conceptual rock project. Joan's idea was to start an all-girl rock band amid a scene utterly dominated by men. Kim Fowley picked up on the ingenuity of that idea and ran with it. Joan wanted an outlet for her musical talent, and Kim seized the opportunity to essentially pimp the band on the novelty of it being an all-girl rock group. And the group thrived on that short-lived balance between the two forces of women's lib, and women's libido. But it wasn't a stable balance.

The women's lib aspect is what makes the band historically significant. The Runaways didn't last long, but they did prove that girls could rock. They weren't actually the first all-girl rock group, as Suzi Quatro, who was a large inspiration on Joan Jett, had a band with her sisters about a decade prior. But the Quatro sisters (in their band The Pleasure Seekers, later Cradle) didn't attain the recognition that The Runaways did - Suzi was better known for her following solo career, with a backing band that included guys. But the important thing is that there was substance to The Runaways' rock act - real, quality music performed with real rock 'n roll energy - and that made an impression.

"What the hell are you wearing?"
"I'm thinking with my cock."
"More like, boner."

"You're basically ready for the peep show circuit, all you need's a porn name."
(Uh, hello? She's the Cherry Bomb!)

Nevertheless, the band's image was saturated with the ooze of women's libido. This had something of a two-pronged effect - attracting the attention of men by tapping into their sexual fantasies, as I'm sure Kim Fowley anticipated, but at the same time giving people a chance to criticize the band as a novelty act - chicks who were worth looking at but not listening to. Clearly, this wasn't true, as they were a very competent band, but that didn't stop people from tossing around those complaints. Maybe they were just feeling insecure, seeing teenage girls performing what they considered to be a man's role, but you could expect that hearing comments like that would lead the band members to start resenting their sexualized image.

"Pretty soon you'll be opening for us."
"Opening your legs, maybe!"

I'm pretty sure this issue has been exaggerated to enhance the dramatic conflict in the climax to this film adaptation of The Runaways' story (which is based on lead singer Cherie Currie's memoir, Neon Angel - which I highly recommend). This is somewhat unfortunate, because from my perspective, I view women's libido as being part of women's lib, and an integral element of The Runaways' formula. In the film, tensions in the band come to a head based on a sexualized photoshoot engineered by Kim Fowley as a clever publicity stunt. Cherie, who is hardly to blame for falling into Kim's trap, as it were, is berated for publicizing her crotch instead of the band's music. Granted, there's also an element of jealousy between the rest of the band, who, to varying degrees, resent Cherie being the face of the band, despite not necessarily being the best musician in the group. But the intent is clear when Joan (via Kristen Stewart) bemoans the fact that those sexy pictures are all the band's going to be remembered for. (It's notable that the pictures from that photoshoot, taken for publication in a Japanese magazine, are a lot harder to find today than the band's albums).

"They just showed up at my house with cameras, what was I supposed to say?"
"You could say I'm the singer in a band, not Linda fucking Lovelace."

But it doesn't have to be one or the other: sex or the music. After all, the success of The Runaways was a combination of factors, including both sex and music. If they weren't so sexy, would they have been as successful? How many genuinely good bands fall by the wayside because they can't find an audience? It's true that a novelty act will grow stale, but a song without a hook doesn't get much airplay. You're allowed to have both - style and substance; in fact, it's the groups that have both that tend to go the farthest and be remembered the longest. And what's wrong with having a sexy image, anyway? Especially in the sleazy world of rock 'n roll. You're right, it would be selling the band short if a fan liked them only because they were hot - but the band would similarly be selling people short for assuming that if a fan likes their looks, then they're not sophisticated enough (or too distracted) to appreciate their musical talent.

Case in point: yours truly. I think the band is totally hot - both the real band, featuring Joan Jett and Cherie Currie and the others, and the movie band, starring Dakota Fanning and Kristen Stewart and the others. And I also think they're an amazing band, from a musical standpoint (by the way, Kristen and Dakota both did a great job singing their parts in the film). What more proof could there be than this: during the movie, I had to pause it and go pick up my guitar to check the fingerings I use to play some of The Runaways' songs after watching the way Kristen played them (I can't say how accurate her playing was supposed to be, but I do believe she was coached by Joan Jett on the set). So you see, my sexual interest in the band doesn't have to cloud or obstruct my interest in their music. In fact, it makes me that much bigger a fan, because I can enjoy both listening to them and fantasizing about them, too! And that's just my point, the sexual aspect is a bonus, not a liability. There is often a thin line between rock gods and sex gods. That goes without saying for male rock stars, so why should it be different for female ones? (That's where the inconsistency of anti-sex "feminism" comes into play - it's female empowerment only so long as you suppress your female sexuality, which is, after all, nothing but a tool the patriarchy uses to subjugate women. Bullshit.)

As good as this film is, it's not above criticism - though I would argue that its flaws are insignificant compared to its better qualities. The biggest complaint a Runaways fan might have is the inaccuracies in the story. But seeing as this is a motion picture dramatization, that really comes with the territory. You shouldn't watch The Runaways expecting to get the real story, you should watch it to have a good time. If you want the former, check out Edgeplay, which is sort of a documentary via interviews with the various members of the band (excluding Joan, unfortunately). Another complaint fans might have is that in spite of the movie's title, The Runaways focuses on Joan and Cherie to the exclusion of the rest of the band - and even Joan's later success is glossed over, so that it's less of a Joan Jett biopic than a Cherie Currie biopic. But that's because it was based on Cherie's memoir, after all (perhaps they should have used Cherie's title - Neon Angel - for the film, but you can't argue the strategic/publicity advantage of calling it The Runaways). But if you can get over these quibbling facts (they don't bother me), The Runaways is a whole lot of fun. And as you could expect from a rock biopic, it has an outstanding soundtrack!

Hounddog (2007)

2011-06-19T01:14:00.000-07:00

The first thing to be said about Hounddog is that it has generated tons of controversy, being the film in which beloved child actress Dakota Fanning gets raped. There's a lot to say about that alone, but most of it has been said elsewhere. My position is that it is only a movie - a fiction - and nothing to get overly worked up about. Furthermore, of all the 12 year old actresses in modern cinema history, Dakota is the one who was most likely to have been mature enough to take on the role - a task that she accomplished in spades. And if you've heard anything about her commitment to the role, she was not only okay with the nature of it, she was actually very supportive of the entire project.

So no, there was no abuse or exploitation of any kind involved with this film, regardless of what you might have heard from the puritanical zealots. In fact, the director herself invited the feds to investigate, and they gave it a big ol' thumbs up. The rape scene itself is a "disappointment", in terms of being rather underwhelming after all of the hype it has generated (which was never the point). And here's a piece of fun trivia you can throw in the face of anyone who doesn't understand the term "acting" - not only was Dakota not actually raped on the set, she wasn't even naked. Want proof? It's right there in the scene itself! One has to wonder whether that "goof" was left in there intentionally to spite the film's critics.

"It's not really happening. It's a movie, and it's called acting." - Dakota Fanning
So moving on, there are thankfully some people out there capable of looking past the hysteria. But it seems to me that a lot of them have come to the conclusion that, while Dakota's performance is noteworthy, the film overall is pretty mediocre. What's disturbing is this trend I'm noticing in people explicitly advising against seeing the film, like as if they're afraid of what others might see in it. Talk about silencing the director's voice. Is the film really so uninspired that it's not worth "wasting" your time on? Well I don't agree. I think you should go see it and make up your own mind about it. Moreover, my personal opinion is that the movie is really good; in fact, it's one of my favorite of Dakota Fanning's many feature films.

So what does Hounddog have going for it? Well, it's a story about a young girl's discovery of the healing power of the blues. Kind of a preteen Black Snake Moan, which is another movie I liked. The southern setting is beautiful (if rustic), and the warm, summery atmosphere is a climate I can really appreciate. And visually - well, you've got Dakota looking fantastic.

(No worse for the sweat and grime. :p)
I think a lot of people get upset about this movie not just because of the rape itself, but because it's one of Dakota's sexiest roles - at just twelve years of age. In the opening scene, Lewellen (Dakota's character) convinces a boy to play "show me yours" with the promise of a kiss. She spends the entire film running around in a minimal amount of clothing. She goes swimming in her underwear. She writhes about in bed. And there's no doubt of the sexual connotations of her hip-shaking Elvis impressions. These are all perfectly natural behaviors for a poor, sexually curious, Elvis-obsessed girl of 12. So why do they make us uncomfortable? I suppose it's because we either think sexuality is damaging to a young girl, or that it's dangerous. Both of these approaches are represented by two of the villains in the film.

Exhibit A: Lewellen's grandmother. She's a very religious, anti-sex type. She sees Lewellen's burgeoning sexuality as if it were a poison in her soul, and she wants to protect her from it, to preserve her childhood innocence for as long as possible. So she forbids the girl from entertaining those devilish thoughts, and from hanging out with boys. What does this accomplish? It doesn't prevent Lewellen from being victimized, but it does add another layer to her suffering - the guilt of sin. Plus it totally destroys Lewellen's innocent romance with Buddy, which could be interpreted as a catalyst leading to her abuse, as well as to the further breakdown of their friendship afterward - leaving Lewellen utterly alone to deal with her pain. With all this in mind, why do we still stress the importance of purity and chastity? Perhaps it's because we see the danger in sex, and we want to protect our youth from it.

"You think she's yours, her daddy thinks she's his."
"And you think she's yours?"
"No, I don't. I don't think she's anybody's. Only person she belongs to is herself."

Exhibit B: Wooden's Boy. He is an older boy from the neighborhood, lacking moral scruples. He gets wind of Lewellen's burgeoning sexuality - just as we, the audience, do - and, disgusting creep that he is, marks her out as a target for rape. I think this is an important point, because we tend to want to follow this script. We see rape as the inevitable result of a young girl's precocious sexuality. So when the director forces us to participate like voyeurs in this girl's sexual awakening, we feel guilty, as though we are condoning the ensuing rape. As if the director were inviting us to rape Lewellen with our eyes. Simply watching the film, and passing it around, becomes an act of support for the rape.

But this belief relies on that presumed connection between a young girl's sexuality and her victimization. Why are we so insistent on that point? That any lapse in purity and chastity is tantamount to violent assault? Talk about a harsh deterrent. Are we really suppressing kids' sexuality to protect them from rape, or are we using the fear of rape to suppress kids' sexuality, knowing that they will soon grow to become the next batch of adults in charge of running society? The villain here is the rapist. Do we hold the girl responsible for the sexual predators she attracts? Do we blame her sexual precocity for the abuse? Is it the fault of the girl's guardians for not successfully keeping her chastity belt locked tight? To say so would be akin to justifying rape as a punishment for impurity. And that's unforgivable. Rape is never justified.

The solution is simply to sever the tie between our notion of a young girl's sexuality and abuse. If we stop viewing her sexuality in the context of abuse, then we stop going out of our way to ensure that abuse is always present. Where it is present, the perpetrator is easy to single out. Where it's not, there's no room for criticism. The villain is Wooden's Boy, not Lewellen. Wooden's Boy is guilty for raping Lewellen. Lewellen is not guilty for expressing her sexuality. And neither are you guilty for witnessing it. And neither is the director guilty for depicting it. It's not something that has to be locked up in a vault, hidden from the world, so that we can all pretend it doesn't exist (like that would accomplish anything worthwhile). And this story is not one that ought to be suppressed. The director's voice has every right to be heard.

And that is truly the point of this film. It's a story about a girl finding her voice after she's had to endure a traumatic and personally devastating event. Her love of Elvis is silenced when it is perverted and used against her. She has to reclaim her sense of identity, and self-worth, and rediscover the value of the music she once cherished - by going to its roots. And she doesn't accomplish this by blaming herself, least of all for things she couldn't control. She learns that hardship is not the end of the world. And with guidance from a wise snake charmer, she learns to take the metaphorical poison inside of her, and turn it into a well of strength. She uses it to enrich the depth of her soul, which she pours into the blues she sings. And in that way, she gains the ability to impart her experience to others who may be down, as she once was, in order to lift their spirits, too. And that's the true meaning of the blues.

Double Dakota Feature: Trapped (2002) & Nine Lives (2005)

2011-06-15T23:34:00.000-07:00

Kevin Bacon stars in Trapped as a man with a plan - the perfect kidnapping. But of course something goes wrong - otherwise there wouldn't be much of a movie. Dakota Fanning plays the scared little girl who gets kidnapped, a couple years before her similar role in Man On Fire. Comparisons between these two titles are inevitable. I liked Man On Fire better; its story had more pathos. And Dakota was more memorable, having more time to develop her character, with less focus on being the terrified victim. But Trapped isn't bad. It's less about the grief that ensues after a kidnapping, and more about the protracted struggle between good guy and bad guy as the plan gradually plays out. In that sense, it's a bit more contrived, but for the sake of crafting an entertaining plot, I presume. It all builds up to an exciting climax that involves more carnage than may be reasonable, but just as much as an audience could hope for.

Nine Lives is a different kind of a film. I would describe it as a reflecting pool, wherein you gaze as you contemplate your struggles in life. It features nine loosely-related stories about nine different women, and the struggles they have to go through. For example, one woman is separated from her daughter while in prison; another woman faces up to her abusive childhood; another deals with her anxiety directly preceding a mastectomy. They are all very human stories, and largely depressing. But that is life, and if there's a lesson to be gleaned, it's not a convenient or patronizing one.

Initially, as the film played out before me, I thought to myself, okay, these stories are going to weave together in some way and head towards a conclusion - but it's not entirely that straightforward. You don't really get a whole lot in the way of closure. But then, it seems to me that the point of this film is not about the specific details of the characters' lives, but rather the overarching themes - the kinds of themes we experience ourselves in life. Sacrifices we make, the importance of family, losses we suffer, the need to overcome grief...

It's not a very happy story, but if you can get into it, it's really well crafted. I read that each of the nine individual chapters was filmed in a single shot; which is entirely believable, because I recall lots of panning in lieu of cutting from one scene to another. It's really remarkable thinking back on each of those scenes, considering the distances covered in some of them. And it gives the film a really unique and compelling style. It's also fun to look for the superficial connections (in addition to the deeper thematic connections) between the segments - characters featured in one segment that might show up elsewhere on the side.

All of the actors put in a good performance. Dakota's role was relatively short, in the final segment, but nevertheless unforgettable. She was a veritable ray of sunshine, even in spite of the cemetery setting. I would have liked the entire length of the movie to have featured her, but well, that wouldn't have suited the story. Ah well. I guess this feeling suits the nature of her role, after all. This really is a beautiful film, though that's coming from someone who thinks suffering (of the psychological variety) is a fascinating thing.

The Descent: Part 2 (2009)

2011-06-13T13:32:00.000-07:00

I had the good fortune of seeing The Descent several years ago during one of my periods of going to see horror movies in the theater. It was one of the best movies I saw that year. When Part 2 came out, I pretty much ignored it, figuring that it was more or less a cheap cash-in sequel. But the perfect opportunity just came up, so I sat down and gave it a watch.

The Descent: Part 2 requires suspension of disbelief on a number of issues, and there's a lot of light in that cave for it being underground, but there are also some good moments that make the journey worth it. There are some predictable plot elements, but also some exciting surprises, so in spite of being derivative of the first movie, I'd say it's still worth seeing. It's not as good as the first, but if you liked The Descent, you will no doubt enjoy watching Part 2.

Phoebe in Wonderland (2008)

2011-06-12T13:40:00.000-07:00

I'm gonna try not to say too much about Phoebe in Wonderland, because it's just the kind of movie you should watch for yourself. Provided it's the kind of movie you like to watch, which isn't going to be the case for everyone. It's a drama, for starters. And it's about a young girl who appears to have a mental problem of some sort, that makes her particularly prone to breaking rules, and causes her considerable distress. The part is played amazingly by the enchanting Elle Fanning, who totally carries the film. The girl, Phoebe, finds some solace in playing the lead part in her school's production of Alice in Wonderland, and finds something of a kindred spirit in the unconventional drama teacher. Meanwhile, Phoebe's parents try to deal with her at times problematic attitude, reluctant to admit that there's anything clinically wrong with her.

The great thing about this movie, for me - aside from Elle Fanning, who is every bit as gorgeous and charismatic (not to mention talented) as her sister - is both that it deals with the difficulty of living and coping with a mental disorder, and that it takes its stance firmly in the camp of us eccentrics, who are often harassed and our lives generally made miserable by the normies, who not only make up the majority of the population, but also dictate how society runs. Unfortunately, eccentricity and mental illness are often not far apart (and there is much more to be said about that). I think that probably a lot of people wouldn't relate to this film the same way I did, and apart from the question of whether or not it's a good film (and I definitely think it is), may or may not simply like it like I did. But for what my opinion is worth, I unhesitatingly give it a full 10/10.

Super 8 (2011)

2011-06-10T23:07:00.000-07:00

Tonight was the anticipated release of the new J.J. Abrams project, produced by Steven Spielberg, and starring Dakota's lovely sister Elle Fanning - the film titled Super 8. It's rare that I go out to see a movie on opening day (or in the theater at all) - not because I wouldn't like to, but because I can't afford to. But I figured that considering my current obsession with Dakota Fanning, it would be insane to pass up the opportunity to see this exciting new film her sister is starring in. Plus, I've been hearing good things about it.

Having now seen it - and gone to unusual lengths to get to the theater - I can say that it was definitely worth the effort. Hype doesn't tell me anything because every movie gets hyped up, and not every one deserves it. But forget what people are saying, this movie is a lot of fun. It has something that so many films lack - style. It's funny, but not in the way that the comedy is forced. The conversation is natural, and you laugh because the characters are genuinely funny, and also genuinely charming. But this isn't a comedy, and that's why it works. The humor makes watching the film a fun experience, but it's not what you're there for, you're there for the story.

What I didn't realize about this film until the last minute is that it's actually a retro '70s throwback film. And that's where a lot of the style comes into play. It's not over-the-top in the same way that an exploitation film is - like the recent grindhouse throwbacks: Planet Terror, Death Proof, Machete, etc. But it has that same kind of freewheeling love-of-the-cinema atmosphere. And it does go over-the-top in a few humorously ridiculous action scenes. And since the story within the story is about these kids directing a homemade movie of their own (a zombie film), that really drives home the point that this is a movie created by people who really love making movies.

Elle Fanning is really great in this role. But the rest of the cast - especially the main gang of kids - all hold their own in creating a lovable ensemble. I fear this may be a rather strong statement, but I'm tempted to say that Super 8 is The Goonies of the 21st century.

My brother was worried that the movie would turn out to be a lot sappier than the trailers (that I saw) suggest. There is some drama in this movie, but it's sweet, and it doesn't take away from the excitement, or the action. There's room for feelings in a movie like this; if you want a brutal two hours of film with no morals and no sensitivity, there are other titles to suit that bill (many that I've seen, and many that I've liked). But this movie, this movie is about having a good time.

I could say some things about the monster, but I'm hesitant to spoil anything. I'll try to be discreet, but as usual, if you really don't want to be spoiled, skip ahead to the next paragraph now. I'm tempted to call this film sort of a Cloverfield Jr. My standards for monsters in monster films are pretty high. Rarely do you get something as terrifying as H.R. Giger's xenomorph, or as horrific as John Carpenter's The Thing. I would rate the monster in Super 8 as falling short of being truly impressive, but good enough to hold the story. After all, this is less of a horror movie than a sci-fi thriller.

For those concerned about this being one of those shaky-cam found-footage type films, it's not like that at all. The production values throughout the film are solid.

In short, you should definitely go out and see this film. It's not just a good movie, it's a really fun movie to watch. And that's something you don't see every day.

Double Dakota Feature: Sweet Home Alabama (2002) & Uptown Girls (2003)

2011-06-08T23:12:00.000-07:00

It's funny, I remember seeing the trailers for Sweet Home Alabama when it came out, but I never saw the movie. Personally, I think that song is overrated. Everybody loves it, but you hear it so much, and it's truly one of Lynyrd Skynyrd's poppier songs. I like a lot of their music, but not so much that song, although it's inevitably become the de facto rock anthem for Alabama.

As for the movie itself, it's a kind of annoying story about an upcoming fashion designer in New York City who has to head home and confront her rural roots after her boyfriend (the mayor's son) pops the question. I say annoying because there's this whole conflict between city manners and country ways - and not to disparage either one, but the lovely Reese Witherspoon (who plays the lead) gets caught in between and can't seem to decide between them, when it feels like the answer should be simple. But I guess those complications are what make the drama, and I'll admit, I was taken in by the romance that influences the final decision (even if it's pretty cheesy).

Dakota's role in this film is minuscule. She plays the 10 year old version of Reese's character, and only features for a couple minutes at the very beginning of the film. But, it's a romantic scene that involves a kiss during a lightning storm!

I wasn't sure if I'd like a movie titled Uptown Girls. Not because I have anything against uptown girls, but every time I read that title, the song gets stuck in my head - and it's not really my type of music. But it turned out to be pretty good. The charismatic Brittany Murphy plays the grown daughter of a rock star, living like a modern day urban princess, until her financial sponsor skips town, and she has to learn to fend for herself. She gets a job looking after a severely uptight, germophobic child played by Dakota Fanning. The child, nicknamed Ray (short for Lorraine), lacking much parental affection, has adopted an unusually adult demeanor, whereas the rock star's daughter, Molly, herself still behaves like a child. The two don't get along at first, but they have a lot to teach one another.

I hate to admit that, this time, Dakota's character crosses the line from adorably precocious to downright annoying, but then, that's her character. She's still adorable, though, and I love her sarcasm and cynicism. And Brittany just lights up the screen. I'd have to say these two actresses really make the film, which turns out to be an amusing (and a little bit touching) dramedy. But the interaction between these two characters is where it shines. And the film culminates in a surreal theater performance that involves a squad of tiny ballerinas carrying electric guitars. Yeah. I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it myself.

"Why are you buttering my plastic scone?"

Double Dakota Feature: The Cat in the Hat (2003) & War of the Worlds (2005)

2011-06-06T23:35:00.000-07:00

I wasn't expecting The Cat in the Hat to be all that good - and it wasn't - but it wasn't quite as bad as I expected, either. In the beginning, seeing the wacky world of Dr. Seuss brought to life in 3D was actually exciting (I love that all the girls wear dresses with super poofy petticoats). But once the cat showed up, the comedy devolved into slapstick-style shenanigans, which isn't my cup of tea. I regained some interest after some semblance of a plot appeared, but it didn't change the fact that the cat was possibly the weakest aspect of the film.

Now, I'm sure Dr. Seuss was some kind of creative genius, but I haven't dedicated my life to his collected works, so my faith in humanity doesn't hinge on the success or failure of this cinematic adaptation of his story. And it's been many years since I've actually read The Cat in the Hat, so I'm not in the best position to critique the differences between them. But when the cat shows up, he delivers a line that seems to sum up this film's approach, which I suspect is where it deviates from the original book's modus operandi:

"I'm not so good with the rhyming. Not really. No. ...Look, I'm a cat that can talk. That should be enough for you people!"

And at that point, we go from creative wordplay to plain silliness. The cat is played by Mike Myers (the actor, not the bogeyman), and it's probably a testament to his iconic brand of humor (or, depending on your perspective, his poor acting skills) that you can really tell it's him even under all that ridiculous makeup. But while I think Austin Powers is comedic genius, The Cat in the Hat is much less inspiring.

Even so, it is a charming story, if simplistic. I bet most of the flaws can be overlooked by anyone who actually enjoys this particular brand of humor - assuming they're not hung up on the feeling that this movie stains Dr. Seuss' legacy, as many apparently are. And Dakota Fanning is (unsurprisingly) darling as the exceptionally bright little girl with control issues. "Jenny's not my friend anymore. She talked back to me so I ordered her not to speak to me." Ah, Dakota. It's a testament to her charisma that I felt watching a movie of this type was actually worth my time in the end.

I had wanted to pair The Cat in the Hat with Hansel & Gretel, but I couldn't find the latter, so I dug up War of the Worlds instead - in spite of the fact that I had already seen it, back when it first came out. But I decided it would be nice to have a chance to re-evaluate Dakota's performance in the movie, since the first time I watched it, I didn't even know who Dakota Fanning was (hard to believe, I know :p). And besides, it's an entertaining (if not perfect) film adaptation of a truly classic story, so it was exciting to see it again after several years.

I don't know how I overlooked Dakota in this movie before, because her performance is really strong. But I guess there is less opportunity for her natural charisma (and confidence) to shine through when her role dictates that she act like a very frightened little girl. And for once, the epic scale of the movie itself has a tendency to overshadow Dakota's character, so that it becomes more of an alien movie that happens to feature Dakota Fanning than a Dakota Fanning movie that happens to have aliens in it. Nevertheless, amidst all the chaos and the terror - and my suspicion bears out that this is at least as much a horror movie as it is a sci-fi movie - Dakota still manages to make an impression. (Even grimy and covered with dirt, which to me recalls the character of Newt in that other, classic sci-fi/horror/action flick - Aliens.)

Robin Trower - The Playful Heart Tour (2011)

2011-06-04T01:06:00.000-07:00

Looking back, I'm actually surprised that this is the third time (and not the second) that I've seen Robin Trower in concert. Not that that's anything remarkable - he is one of my favorite guitarists of all time, after all. But it just goes to show, I'm not a newbie concert-goer anymore - I've been going to concerts for almost a decade now.

But this was a brand new venue. I've actually avoided coming to this venue in the past (Robin Trower and Joe Bonamassa both have done shows there that I've skipped), because it's a little farther out of my way. But it's a nice place, and it's not too hard to find. Fancier than the Rex Theatre I've seen Trower at in the past, and more on par with the Carnegie Music Hall of Oakland that I saw Joe Bonamassa in earlier this spring. My seat was up in the balcony, but in the front row (not unlike at that Joe Bonamassa show), so that I wasn't super close, but I at least had a good view of the action.

I was actually a little rushed getting out to The Palace Theatre, thinking the show was going to start promptly at eight ("the circus starts at eight, so don't be late"), since there was no mention whatsoever of an opening act on the ticket. I got there just after eight, and a rock trio was playing. I have no idea who it was. Looking back at my records, I had no idea who the opener was for the last Robin Trower show I saw either, so I guess that's just Trower's thing. Anyway, they were alright. The guitarist was a show-off, and he was good, but the sound was kind of off, to my ears.

Robin Trower opened with a surprise - a song that I was very happy to hear, Confessin' Midnight. I still maintain that despite the greater popularity of Bridge of Sighs, For Earth Below is the superior album. And I am thus always grateful to hear Robin perform tracks from that album in concert - and I like that he does, because it shows that he recognizes that album's brilliance as well.

The next surprise I got was the third song in the setlist. Robin introduced it as a track from the In City Dreams album. I was at first dismayed, because that album's not quite on par with his first three - but I should have trusted Trower's judgment. It was the track Somebody Calling, which is a fantastic funky rock number that I absolutely love. And it sounded great in concert. One of the highlights of the show.

Following that was a double shot of title tracks - first For Earth Below, which sounded really sublime in the instrumental coda, and then Twice Removed From Yesterday. Then we heard the usual Day of the Eagle into Bridge of Sighs combo. Even though I've heard them live before, it was interesting to hear them from the perspective of having played them myself semi-regularly. So instead of just listening and being impressed, I can actually pay closer attention to how the song comes together, and where Robin plays the different riffs, and how he works out the solo. Of course, I can only follow so far, but it's still interesting - I've picked little things up here and there that way, before.

I don't want to be a downer, but Bridge of Sighs wasn't as sublime as it has been in the past. I don't know if it's because of the way Robin played it, or just because I've heard it a few times already, and its magic is wearing off. Notice, I'm not saying it was bad, just less magical. It still sounded great. But afterward, the band kicked into Shame The Devil, another track from For Earth Below - and one of my favorites. I was really excited to hear that one, though it seems like they cut it a little short. Oh well.

Funny story, before I went to the concert, my brother asked me if Trower was promoting a new album, and I mentioned The Playful Heart. He asked me if it was any good, and I mentioned that there was one song on it in particular that I really liked. I decided that there was no way he'd play that particular song at the concert, because these guys always do the hit songs, skipping the ones that are truly the best, musically. Strike two - I really shouldn't doubt Trower. He played only one track from his new album throughout the concert, and it was that one track that I liked the best - a song called The Turning, which has a sublime instrumental coda.

Yeah, that's kind of a motif in Robin Trower's music - instrumental codas (that are often sublime). It's funny, in a lot of songs, the band would go through the first half, and then Davey Pattison (returning vocalist from previous concerts I've seen) would walk off the stage for the second (instrumental) half of the song, only to come back for the next song.

After the crowd-pleasing Too Rolling Stoned, the band finished out their set with Little Bit of Sympathy - in my opinion, one of the best set-closing songs ever. I was actually a little surprised when I heard it, because I knew it had to be the last song, and it felt a little early. The band played for a good hour and a half all told - I guess I was spoiled by Joe Bonamassa's long set in March, but then he actually didn't have an opening act.

The whole encore production ("walk off the stage pretending to be done, even though every single person in the audience knows you're gonna come back and do an encore") was kind of silly. I thought to myself, if I was in their place, I wouldn't go through all that silliness just because people expect it. I wouldn't walk off the stage pretending I was finished unless I actually believed I was finished - and encores would be encores, not closing mini-sets. But then I thought, if a band did that, then after they were finished, the crowd would expect an encore (because that's what they've come to expect), and would probably riot if they didn't get one. So I guess the band's hands are pretty much tied. They have to jump through those hoops because that's what people expect them to do. It's kind of sad, and I wish there was a solution for it.

The encore consisted of two songs. The first was the only song of the night I didn't recognize, and the second was Daydream. Daydream is my favorite Robin Trower song bar none. And it still sounds fantastic live. It's a beautiful song to start, and it suits Trower's tone and technical style of playing guitar perfectly. Though I feel he may have set the bar for it too high on the live version from his Live album from the seventies, with those impossible sustained notes. You can tell the whole audience is expecting to hear a repeat of that performance, but sustain is a hard thing to control. Nevertheless, the song sounds fantastic even when it doesn't reach those heights, and while you're busy wishing for the stars, you find that you've settled in cozily among the fluffy clouds.

Setlist:
Confessin' Midnight
Lady Love
Somebody Calling
For Earth Below
Twice Removed From Yesterday
Day of the Eagle
Bridge of Sighs
Shame The Devil
The Turning
Too Rolling Stoned
A Little Bit of Sympathy

Encore:
Rise Up Like The Sun
Daydream

Double Dakota Feature: Charlotte's Web (2006) & Dreamer (2005)

2011-06-02T23:15:00.000-07:00

I don't usually go in for talking animal movies, but like I've said before, I'll watch anything with Dakota Fanning in it. At least it's live action, and not (fully) animated - that's where I draw the line. And anyway, it's Charlotte's Web. I remember reading that story too many years ago in school. Not the best story I ever read for school (I recall A Day No Pigs Would Die being a little bit more...visceral), but it's a nice one. Too nice, maybe. It's a really sappy story. The pig was really cute, though (I can't believe I just said that), and Dakota was (of course) even cuter. Especially in the pretty yellow dress and red ribbons she wore at the fair.

"Ewww! You look like a giiirl!" *pow* "An' I still hit like one."
It's weird, this is a children's story, and you want to believe it's all fun and happy, but it's really a sad story, isn't it? I had this heavy feeling through it all, because I knew how it was going to end. After all, it's a pig's desperate attempt to avoid becoming breakfast. I even cried when (spoiler) died. I like the theme of looking past stereotypes to see the good in 'people', but honestly, I can't find the good in spiders. Charlotte is a wonderful human being, but in real life, spiders are creepy. But then, animals don't act like people in real life, so you can only take the comparison so far. I imagine this film would be a satisfactory supplement to the novel.

Part 2 of the "Dakota befriends animals" program features Dreamer: Inspired By A True Story. In it, Dakota plays the daughter of a racehorse trainer (played by Kurt Russell), who ultimately gets her chance to race a horse of her own, literally against all odds. It's a very touching story, and a bit more mature than Charlotte's Web. Kris Kristofferson plays Dakota's character's grandfather, and a surprisingly convincing father to Kurt Russell. The horse in the story, Sonador (Spanish for "Dreamer", 'Sonya' for short) is a sweetheart.

Dakota really shines in this role, as a little girl with the confidence to teach others the value of holding on to one's dreams. Of course, at the risk of spoiling the [fairly predictable] ending, things go impossibly well, which has the double effect of making it a highly inspirational story, but at the cost of making it less than relatable in real life. Still, if you like inspirational stories (and despite my cynicism, I enjoy watching things go right for people on occasion - especially if it's Dakota), this one'll probably be an exciting ride. And, to repeat myself (though I'll never get tired of saying this), it's worth watching for Dakota's performance alone. She's just so incredibly charismatic. I love her can-do attitude in this one.

"Are you gonna spend your life shovelin' horse squat for shakes?
Or are you gonna get back in the game?"

Double Dakota Feature: Hide And Seek (2005) & Fragments (2008) [Bonus: Cutlass (2007)!]

2011-05-31T22:47:00.000-07:00

"Daddy can't save me now."

I was excited when I discovered that there was a real bona fide horror movie among the list of films Dakota Fanning has starred in. However, my first impression was that I didn't like that she had darkened her hair, and I was a little disappointed that she was not her usual chipper self. Nevertheless, I was very impressed; she makes a totally convincing creepy child character. Proof that she's not just a pretty face, but a great acting talent as well. And her morbid look actually did grow on me.

As for the movie itself, it was genuinely creepy. I hesitate to say too much, as it is a mystery/thriller, and I don't want to give anything away for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. (So if you really don't want to be spoiled, you might skip ahead to the next paragraph now). But I have to mention that despite looking like another cliched "is it an imaginary friend or a ghost" plot, it actually turns out to be something I wasn't expecting. Even if they did stoop to using the lamest trick in the horror filmbook - the cat jumping out of the closet. Honestly, I can't tell if horror films are still doing that in earnest, or if it's a joke, or just an homage to the genre. Anyway, I won't hold it against the rest of the film, and besides, this one makes up for it via the inclusion of a different and much creepier cat-related scene.

So, Hide and Seek is not the greatest horror film I have ever seen (granted, I have seen quite a lot), but I liked it. Bob De Niro (;p) is pretty good in it, too, in something of a more sensitive role than I'm used to seeing him in. But if for no other reason (and there are others), it's worth seeing just for Dakota's performance. She manages to make depressive mental disturbance so very endearing.

"Whatchu drawin'?"

"You, dying."
Intermission: Cutlass (2007)

Cutlass is a short film written and directed by Kate Hudson, who I can't help remembering as Penny Lane in Almost Famous. It features an all-star cast, including Dakota Fanning in her most outrageous role yet - a normal teenage girl. She wants to buy an expensive guitar (a vintage '79 Gibson Hummingbird), but her mom is reluctant - until she recalls her own teenage years (her younger self played by a totally hot Kristen Stewart) when she wanted desperately to buy an expensive car (a 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass). The film's only 16 minutes long, but it's a lot of fun, and features other stars I haven't mentioned, so definitely, it's worth seeing if you can get your hands on it.

"It's not just a guitar, it's my life."

Fragments (a.k.a. Winged Creatures) is a heavy film. It's a shame it's so depressing, because Dakota looks absolutely amazing in it. Unfortunately, though, I found her character to be a bit annoying, but then, I understand that the point of this film is to show the characters in what is decidedly not their best moments.

Expanding on that, the film tracks the aftermath of a random diner shooting, and examines the unique way in which each of the survivors deals (or avoids having to deal) with the trauma. One man, who is shot and survives, tests his luck at the slots. A girl who lost her father (Dakota's character) turns fervently to religion. A boy refuses to say a word after the incident. A doctor desperately clings to his ability to help people. And in the process, we learn a little bit about each of these (and other) characters.

But it's not easy to take in. These characters are acting under considerable stress, so the logic behind their actions is not always obvious. And the film can be kinda subtle on certain points. But watching these characters deal with their emotions is, to me, interesting. But not easy. It's not a very happy experience, and there isn't much of an uplifting message, even at the end. The process of recovery is a very slow one, but for many people in life, this is something they have to endure. That's what I believe this film is about.

I would show you a thousand screenshots. I really would.
So don't tempt me. :p