Just for the record, I probably wouldn't have sought out this movie on my own. Though I love zombie movies, I'm not usually much for comedies - they just don't get me excited like serious movies do. And I want zombies to be scary, not funny. Nevertheless, my roommate has been on something of a zombie binge lately (we saw World War Z together a few weeks ago), and it's practically the only subgenre of horror she sincerely appreciates, so I like to encourage it as much as possible. That having been said, she likes comedies a whole lot more than I do. But, I didn't want to pass up the opportunity to see another zombie movie (hey, I even gave Zombie Strippers a chance :p).
In short, Cockneys vs. Zombies does exactly what it says on the tin. It's a humorous, tongue-in-cheek movie about the zombie apocalypse centralized in East London, populated entirely by a cast that speaks with Cockney accents. As someone who doesn't totally appreciate comedies, I can, however, say that it's a well put-together and entertaining movie, and I couldn't in all honesty say that it was a waste of my time. I still maintain that the only zomcom I really like is the original Return of the Living Dead. But, if you're into comedic zombie movies, and especially if you liked Shaun of the Dead, I think you'll probably dig this movie. If that sounds like you, then by all means, give it a try.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Monday, July 15, 2013
Django Unchained (2012)
So I borrowed a friend's DVD and finally got to watch Django Unchained, which came out at the end of last year. It's basically Quentin Tarantino doing a blaxploitation western (southern?). It's very much in the recent vein (of which Tarantino is a leading proponent, along with Robert Rodriguez - see Planet Terror, Death Proof, Machete, etc.) of homages to the classic era of grindhouse cinema. Also, in the same way that Kill Bill was Tarantino's take on the martial arts flick, this movie in some ways recalls the genre of "spaghetti" (Italian) western films, of which it draws much inspiration (the original "Django" - which spawned innumerable unofficial sequels - was one such film).
Django Unchained is a bit of a slow burner, with a runtime approaching three hours. But it's infected with Quentin Tarantino's signature style of humor and social commentary, which keeps you immersed, until it builds to its satisfying climax, which is unashamedly awash in Tarantino's typical brand of ultraviolence.
It's not only fun and exciting, but also racially rewarding, as although the film is populated largely with racist characters (the story takes place two years before the civil war), vengeance is ultimately exacted upon the racist characters by the badass black hero - Django himself - and there exists at least one black villain and at least one white hero, to avoid over-generalizing racial stereotypes.
As for the premise (for those of you who are curious as to what this movie is actually about), the story follows a German immigrant (the quirky and polite Dr. King Schultz, played by Christoph Waltz) who is employed in the U.S. as a bounty hunter. He tracks down and frees a slave by the name of Django (an intimidating Jamie Foxx) to help him I.D. one of his targets, and the two become unlikely but amiable partners.
Eventually, in search of Django's wife, the pair come up against a sadistically enterprising plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio's Monsieur Candie), aided by his head house slave (an idiosyncratic performance by Samuel L. Jackson). Our heroes concoct a dangerous ruse that involves feigning an interest in Mandingo-fighting (think cock-fighting but with human beings), and march right into the belly of the beast: a plantation deceptively named Candie Land.
The resulting suspense and inevitable standoff is nothing short of cinematic fireworks, and I recommend you see it for yourself.
Django Unchained is a bit of a slow burner, with a runtime approaching three hours. But it's infected with Quentin Tarantino's signature style of humor and social commentary, which keeps you immersed, until it builds to its satisfying climax, which is unashamedly awash in Tarantino's typical brand of ultraviolence.
It's not only fun and exciting, but also racially rewarding, as although the film is populated largely with racist characters (the story takes place two years before the civil war), vengeance is ultimately exacted upon the racist characters by the badass black hero - Django himself - and there exists at least one black villain and at least one white hero, to avoid over-generalizing racial stereotypes.
As for the premise (for those of you who are curious as to what this movie is actually about), the story follows a German immigrant (the quirky and polite Dr. King Schultz, played by Christoph Waltz) who is employed in the U.S. as a bounty hunter. He tracks down and frees a slave by the name of Django (an intimidating Jamie Foxx) to help him I.D. one of his targets, and the two become unlikely but amiable partners.
Eventually, in search of Django's wife, the pair come up against a sadistically enterprising plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio's Monsieur Candie), aided by his head house slave (an idiosyncratic performance by Samuel L. Jackson). Our heroes concoct a dangerous ruse that involves feigning an interest in Mandingo-fighting (think cock-fighting but with human beings), and march right into the belly of the beast: a plantation deceptively named Candie Land.
The resulting suspense and inevitable standoff is nothing short of cinematic fireworks, and I recommend you see it for yourself.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Sinister (2012)
I heard about Sinister when leading actor Ethan Hawke did an AMA on reddit recently. Then I started noticing it being mentioned alongside Insidious as one of the great horror movies of the past few years. So I figured those two titles would make a good double feature (well, I put a couple of days between them, but still...). Insidious was good, and a lot of fun, but I liked Sinister even better.
It starts out with a fantastic premise. A true crime author moves his family into the house where a horrible crime was committed, clinging to the hope that his next book will be the breakout success that brings him all the fortune he needs to continue providing for his family. But here's where it gets really interesting. He finds a mysterious box of super 8 film reels in the attic, which turns out to be a collection of snuff films cleverly disguised as home movies, apparently recorded by a serial killer who takes the act of recording his crimes to the level of an art. (As an aside, that means it's sort of a movie about found footage but not actually a found footage movie). The author researches the crimes for his book, and some weird stuff starts happening and he gets a little closer to them than perhaps he ought to.
Depending on how little you like to know about a movie before you go and see it, you might consider the rest of this paragraph to contain some spoilers. So consider yourself warned. As intrigued as I was by the idea of an intelligent serial killer putting together this disturbing puzzle of a crime mystery, there turns out to be a supernatural element involved, as the crimes are ritualistic in nature, and seem to have been performed to appease an ancient demon that feeds on children. When the author consults a professor of the occult, we also learn that the demon (Bughuul, or Mr. Boogie to the kids) has, as the legends claim, the ability - otherwise rightly relegated to superstition - to affect people through the power of images (and in modern days, videos), causing them to perform terrible acts by viewing depictions of past atrocities. In real life, this belief frustrates me to no end, but in fiction it can be very powerful - especially as a metaphorical or symbolic tool. This theme reminds me of Cigarette Burns, one of my favorite episodes from the first season of Masters of Horror.
Alright, no more spoilers.
The film begins to edge somewhat into cliche territory toward the end, when we see how the author's obsession is tearing the family apart, and when he finally "wises up" and does what any rational person would do, instead of the things he'd been doing that actually make the movie interesting to watch (namely, getting closer to the murders and not steering clear of them). But, without saying too much, I think the ending makes up for it.
Sinister is a pretty creepy movie, that doesn't shy away from confronting the dark side of human (and inhuman) nature. But most importantly, it's an intelligent and a creative movie, the kind that doesn't just entertain me with blood and guts and a foreboding atmosphere, but one that actually intrigues me and inspires me, and starts my mind churning with ideas. And as not just a consumer, but as an artist and a writer and a creator, that's really one of the best things I can ask for from a movie.
Ultimately, your tastes may not match mine, but I am going to have to highly recommend this movie nonetheless.
It starts out with a fantastic premise. A true crime author moves his family into the house where a horrible crime was committed, clinging to the hope that his next book will be the breakout success that brings him all the fortune he needs to continue providing for his family. But here's where it gets really interesting. He finds a mysterious box of super 8 film reels in the attic, which turns out to be a collection of snuff films cleverly disguised as home movies, apparently recorded by a serial killer who takes the act of recording his crimes to the level of an art. (As an aside, that means it's sort of a movie about found footage but not actually a found footage movie). The author researches the crimes for his book, and some weird stuff starts happening and he gets a little closer to them than perhaps he ought to.
Depending on how little you like to know about a movie before you go and see it, you might consider the rest of this paragraph to contain some spoilers. So consider yourself warned. As intrigued as I was by the idea of an intelligent serial killer putting together this disturbing puzzle of a crime mystery, there turns out to be a supernatural element involved, as the crimes are ritualistic in nature, and seem to have been performed to appease an ancient demon that feeds on children. When the author consults a professor of the occult, we also learn that the demon (Bughuul, or Mr. Boogie to the kids) has, as the legends claim, the ability - otherwise rightly relegated to superstition - to affect people through the power of images (and in modern days, videos), causing them to perform terrible acts by viewing depictions of past atrocities. In real life, this belief frustrates me to no end, but in fiction it can be very powerful - especially as a metaphorical or symbolic tool. This theme reminds me of Cigarette Burns, one of my favorite episodes from the first season of Masters of Horror.
Alright, no more spoilers.
The film begins to edge somewhat into cliche territory toward the end, when we see how the author's obsession is tearing the family apart, and when he finally "wises up" and does what any rational person would do, instead of the things he'd been doing that actually make the movie interesting to watch (namely, getting closer to the murders and not steering clear of them). But, without saying too much, I think the ending makes up for it.
Sinister is a pretty creepy movie, that doesn't shy away from confronting the dark side of human (and inhuman) nature. But most importantly, it's an intelligent and a creative movie, the kind that doesn't just entertain me with blood and guts and a foreboding atmosphere, but one that actually intrigues me and inspires me, and starts my mind churning with ideas. And as not just a consumer, but as an artist and a writer and a creator, that's really one of the best things I can ask for from a movie.
Ultimately, your tastes may not match mine, but I am going to have to highly recommend this movie nonetheless.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Insidious (2010)
I didn't notice when Insidious first came out - it's one of those titles that flew under my radar. But recently, I've been hearing about it a lot, usually in the context of being touted as one of the few really good (and effective) horror movies to come out in the past several years, among dozens of flops and mediocre titles. And with the sequel being advertised now (I saw the trailer for it when I went to see World War Z), I figured the first was one that I had to watch.
I didn't really know what to expect from this movie, as I hadn't read much about the actual plot beforehand. I think I had some idea that it had to do with ghosts. So I started watching it, and I was thinking to myself, okay, what can they do with a haunted house story to make it fresh and original? And, truthfully, they pretty much hit it out of the ballpark.
The movie sorta has two acts. In the first act, we're introduced to a cozy family and get a peek at their home life. Then, in typical haunted house fashion, things start to get weird, the family members get stressed out, and the audience is treated to some nice scares. This is all stuff we've seen before - but it's done really well. The characters are genuine and likable, and they actually react plausibly to the haunting. I mean, when was the last time you watched a haunted house movie where the family actually moves houses after shit starts getting weird? Yeah.
So then we get to the second act, and this is where Insidious really pulls itself ahead of the pack. Without dropping the horror, the story takes on more of a sci-fi/fantasy flavor and - I don't think this is really a spoiler, but if you want to be as surprised at the change of direction as I was, go watch the movie now and then come back and read the rest of this review - introduces the theme of astral projection and spirit worlds.
And you know what? I'm not going to say that the execution is perfect, but I still think that's fantastic. So many movies tell a good old-fashioned human story of horror, but shy away from entering a world of fantasy and imagination. Imagination can be horrible too, you know. I'm talking about movies like Event Horizon, or Drag Me To Hell, which end right where they should be beginning - when the character gets to Hell. Or movies like The Silent House, which craft an effective atmosphere, but then are afraid to speculate on the world of the supernatural.
Insidious is, in some ways, a cross between Poltergeist and Beetlejuice (albeit with the balance tipped toward horror/drama rather than comedy). I also got a sense of The Cell, starring Jennifer Lopez, also about a dream world populated by dangerous entities. Plus, Insidious has a certain style to it, and an idiosyncratic soundtrack, that at times recalls that old carnival haunted house aesthetic. Patrick Wilson (the creep in Hard Candy, or The Watchmen's Nite Owl, if you prefer) and Rose Byrne (the military chick in 28 Weeks Later!) are both excellent as the leading couple, and Lin Shaye is very charismatic as the medium who leads the affected family through one of the most original and action-packed séances I've ever seen on the silver screen.
I'm not quite prepared to list Insidious as one of my favorite horror movies ever, and my opinion of modern horror is perhaps not so picky as other fans, but this was a very good movie, very original, and I highly recommend it. I am now looking forward to the sequel, although having seen the ending to the first movie, I'm kind of wondering how what I saw in the trailer fits together. But I guess I'll find out when I see it!
I didn't really know what to expect from this movie, as I hadn't read much about the actual plot beforehand. I think I had some idea that it had to do with ghosts. So I started watching it, and I was thinking to myself, okay, what can they do with a haunted house story to make it fresh and original? And, truthfully, they pretty much hit it out of the ballpark.
The movie sorta has two acts. In the first act, we're introduced to a cozy family and get a peek at their home life. Then, in typical haunted house fashion, things start to get weird, the family members get stressed out, and the audience is treated to some nice scares. This is all stuff we've seen before - but it's done really well. The characters are genuine and likable, and they actually react plausibly to the haunting. I mean, when was the last time you watched a haunted house movie where the family actually moves houses after shit starts getting weird? Yeah.
So then we get to the second act, and this is where Insidious really pulls itself ahead of the pack. Without dropping the horror, the story takes on more of a sci-fi/fantasy flavor and - I don't think this is really a spoiler, but if you want to be as surprised at the change of direction as I was, go watch the movie now and then come back and read the rest of this review - introduces the theme of astral projection and spirit worlds.
And you know what? I'm not going to say that the execution is perfect, but I still think that's fantastic. So many movies tell a good old-fashioned human story of horror, but shy away from entering a world of fantasy and imagination. Imagination can be horrible too, you know. I'm talking about movies like Event Horizon, or Drag Me To Hell, which end right where they should be beginning - when the character gets to Hell. Or movies like The Silent House, which craft an effective atmosphere, but then are afraid to speculate on the world of the supernatural.
Insidious is, in some ways, a cross between Poltergeist and Beetlejuice (albeit with the balance tipped toward horror/drama rather than comedy). I also got a sense of The Cell, starring Jennifer Lopez, also about a dream world populated by dangerous entities. Plus, Insidious has a certain style to it, and an idiosyncratic soundtrack, that at times recalls that old carnival haunted house aesthetic. Patrick Wilson (the creep in Hard Candy, or The Watchmen's Nite Owl, if you prefer) and Rose Byrne (the military chick in 28 Weeks Later!) are both excellent as the leading couple, and Lin Shaye is very charismatic as the medium who leads the affected family through one of the most original and action-packed séances I've ever seen on the silver screen.
I'm not quite prepared to list Insidious as one of my favorite horror movies ever, and my opinion of modern horror is perhaps not so picky as other fans, but this was a very good movie, very original, and I highly recommend it. I am now looking forward to the sequel, although having seen the ending to the first movie, I'm kind of wondering how what I saw in the trailer fits together. But I guess I'll find out when I see it!
Sunday, June 23, 2013
World War Z (2013)
So I took advantage of an opportunity to go out and see the big new zombie movie that's out in theaters. After what I read about it, I was partly expecting it to be a jumbled, disjointed mess. As it was, it turned out to actually be a really good, coherent story. I'm not about to rate it the best zombie movie ever, but it's not the worst, either, and if you get a chance to see it, I recommend it.
One thing World War Z does is take a slightly different approach to the zombie apocalypse. In the beginning, it builds up a really convincing panic state as the shit hits the fan, and for a while, it feels just as much like one of those blockbuster disaster movies (like 2012 or The Day After Tomorrow or what have you). But, the disaster is zombies.
The narrative takes a very smooth and interesting path starting from one family's experience of the apocalypse. The father, Gerry (played by Brad Pitt), is an ex-UN agent, so he's at an advantage when it comes to having friends in high places who want to keep him alive. He and his family make it safely to a ship out in the ocean, but he's soon split up with them as he's put to work trying to fight this zombie outbreak.
The story then goes to various places as Gerry accompanies a brilliant young doctor to investigate an alleged patient zero, and try to figure out if the zombie 'disease' has a weakness. We also get to visit Jerusalem which, remarkably, has built a wall to keep out the zombies, and may well be the last human city to resist the outbreak.
From there, things get a little more personal, involving a plane ride, and a WHO (World Health Organization) facility, as Gerry desperately racks his brain to devise a way for humanity to fight back against the zombies. The solution he comes up with is actually pretty clever, even though it seems to highlight some of the premise's flaws.
Spoilers:
Like, the part where the one doctor says they already tried to infect the zombies with known lethal diseases - but that it's impossible to get a dead person sick (because the disease agent needs a living host). But that, of course, leaves the question of what's causing them to reanimate. If it's a virus like everyone's saying, then how does it live in a dead host? They never get around to answering the question of what's causing the zombism, but unlike other films, this one is very scientific and down to earth which would seem to preclude a supernatural explanation.
Then we come to the solution itself, which I said was very ingenious. But the part where the zombies are somehow able to smell whether a person is infected with a terminal disease kind of stretches my suspension of disbelief. Still, the idea of using it as 'camouflage' is very clever and not one I think I've seen used in quite that way before.
End Spoilers!
Which brings us to the zombies themselves. As this movie is sort of a cross between a zombie movie and a pandemic movie, the zombies are not your typical shambling fare. They are fast and angry, like the zombies in 28 Days Later, but they move in what I couldn't help but consider unnatural ways. This is allegedly one of the movie's strengths - as it presents a new kind of zombie we've never seen before, one that swarms like insects - but frankly, I found it to be largely unappealing. As I said, it didn't seem natural, the way these creatures threw themselves around, they were more like indestructible supermen than reanimated corpses.
But, the rest of the movie has enough going for it that it doesn't totally spoil the experience. And as I said, it's interesting to see zombies that are different than the ones you've seen so many times before. I enjoyed the movie quite a bit; it has its share of tension and fear, and a good deal of intelligence, too. In fact, I feel inclined to read the book it was based on now, and feel kind of guilty for not having already read it several years ago when my friend tried to push it on me. Then again, if I had read the book first, I might not have been able to enjoy the movie adaptation as much (which is kind of what happened with The Hunger Games).
One thing World War Z does is take a slightly different approach to the zombie apocalypse. In the beginning, it builds up a really convincing panic state as the shit hits the fan, and for a while, it feels just as much like one of those blockbuster disaster movies (like 2012 or The Day After Tomorrow or what have you). But, the disaster is zombies.
The narrative takes a very smooth and interesting path starting from one family's experience of the apocalypse. The father, Gerry (played by Brad Pitt), is an ex-UN agent, so he's at an advantage when it comes to having friends in high places who want to keep him alive. He and his family make it safely to a ship out in the ocean, but he's soon split up with them as he's put to work trying to fight this zombie outbreak.
The story then goes to various places as Gerry accompanies a brilliant young doctor to investigate an alleged patient zero, and try to figure out if the zombie 'disease' has a weakness. We also get to visit Jerusalem which, remarkably, has built a wall to keep out the zombies, and may well be the last human city to resist the outbreak.
From there, things get a little more personal, involving a plane ride, and a WHO (World Health Organization) facility, as Gerry desperately racks his brain to devise a way for humanity to fight back against the zombies. The solution he comes up with is actually pretty clever, even though it seems to highlight some of the premise's flaws.
Spoilers:
Like, the part where the one doctor says they already tried to infect the zombies with known lethal diseases - but that it's impossible to get a dead person sick (because the disease agent needs a living host). But that, of course, leaves the question of what's causing them to reanimate. If it's a virus like everyone's saying, then how does it live in a dead host? They never get around to answering the question of what's causing the zombism, but unlike other films, this one is very scientific and down to earth which would seem to preclude a supernatural explanation.
Then we come to the solution itself, which I said was very ingenious. But the part where the zombies are somehow able to smell whether a person is infected with a terminal disease kind of stretches my suspension of disbelief. Still, the idea of using it as 'camouflage' is very clever and not one I think I've seen used in quite that way before.
End Spoilers!
Which brings us to the zombies themselves. As this movie is sort of a cross between a zombie movie and a pandemic movie, the zombies are not your typical shambling fare. They are fast and angry, like the zombies in 28 Days Later, but they move in what I couldn't help but consider unnatural ways. This is allegedly one of the movie's strengths - as it presents a new kind of zombie we've never seen before, one that swarms like insects - but frankly, I found it to be largely unappealing. As I said, it didn't seem natural, the way these creatures threw themselves around, they were more like indestructible supermen than reanimated corpses.
But, the rest of the movie has enough going for it that it doesn't totally spoil the experience. And as I said, it's interesting to see zombies that are different than the ones you've seen so many times before. I enjoyed the movie quite a bit; it has its share of tension and fear, and a good deal of intelligence, too. In fact, I feel inclined to read the book it was based on now, and feel kind of guilty for not having already read it several years ago when my friend tried to push it on me. Then again, if I had read the book first, I might not have been able to enjoy the movie adaptation as much (which is kind of what happened with The Hunger Games).
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Black Sabbath - 13 (2013)
13 is Black Sabbath's new album. I didn't buy it based on hype. I didn't buy it because I'm a fan of the band's output from the '70s, either. If I went out and bought every new album from every band I liked in the seventies, I'd be broker than I am now, and, quite frankly, I'd have suffered quite a few disappointments. Good or not, few classic bands can put out material that actually rivals the stuff they built their reputations on. No, I bought this album on the strength of its hit radio single alone (which, I remark with gleeful satisfaction, is a heavy track clocking in at an epic nine minutes long, during which Ozzy contemplates the death of God).
Funny thing is, I'm pretty sure I heard the single a few times on the radio without really noticing it - it's one of those songs that grows on you. Which isn't to say that it doesn't have a lot to love right off the bat. But I didn't really hear it until I was browsing an FYE store in the mall, and it came on the store's speakers, and I fell right into the groove of Tony Iommi's distorted chords and crunchy riffs. I didn't buy the album right then, no - I went home and then listened to it over the next few days on YouTube. All the while, it was sinking in, and I found myself liking it more and more. And, even if he's not entirely convinced, the fact that Ozzy sings about the death of God - a pivotal moment in the history of civilization that I believe we are currently in the process of experiencing - took it one step further and solidified my resolve to buy the new album.
And it sounds really good. It's classic Black Sabbath, with even a few homages to their heyday. For example, the opening chords in the first song, End of the Beginning, recalls the style of the title track from their first album, Black Sabbath, a theme that is echoed by the tolling bells (which open the band's first album) at the end of the last track, Dear Father - which is a scathing condemnation of the Catholic church's child abuse scandal. Hell, there's even a song (titled Zeitgeist) that conspicuously adopts the style of Planet Caravan, the unsung track from the otherwise uber-popular album Paranoid, a song that I was certain I was the only one who remembered.
The only near misstep on the album is a song that seems to criticize loners, but I'll grant that - preachy though it is - it does kind of end on a frighteningly poignant note. Still though, I'm for more and not less understanding of social reclusion. But that's an interesting point about Black Sabbath. They have this big reputation as a Satanic band - and to that interpretation's credit, the band does adopt a lot of Satanic imagery. But the reality is, they're more devil's advocate than devil. Yeah, they sing about dark stuff, rather than God and purity and all that dreck, but usually it's from the angle of: look at how bad this stuff is, it screws up your life. It's pretty ironic, when you think about it.
Take bonus track number one, for example - Black Sabbath turns its eye to a modern poison (remember Snowblind?), but rather than glorify meth addiction, Ozzy sings about how much it fucks you up. Q.E.D. You know, I was debating whether to shell out a few extra bucks for three bonus tracks (curiously released on an entirely separate CD, despite the main album's length being under 55 minutes), but I'm glad I did. The quality of the bonus tracks (including one song about being a pariah) are comparable to the rest of the album. It's a queer way to release a CD, though, but I'll chalk it up to artistic license.
Either way, if you liked Black Sabbath's classic seventies output with Ozzy at the helm, then you're going to love this album. I know I do.
Funny thing is, I'm pretty sure I heard the single a few times on the radio without really noticing it - it's one of those songs that grows on you. Which isn't to say that it doesn't have a lot to love right off the bat. But I didn't really hear it until I was browsing an FYE store in the mall, and it came on the store's speakers, and I fell right into the groove of Tony Iommi's distorted chords and crunchy riffs. I didn't buy the album right then, no - I went home and then listened to it over the next few days on YouTube. All the while, it was sinking in, and I found myself liking it more and more. And, even if he's not entirely convinced, the fact that Ozzy sings about the death of God - a pivotal moment in the history of civilization that I believe we are currently in the process of experiencing - took it one step further and solidified my resolve to buy the new album.
And it sounds really good. It's classic Black Sabbath, with even a few homages to their heyday. For example, the opening chords in the first song, End of the Beginning, recalls the style of the title track from their first album, Black Sabbath, a theme that is echoed by the tolling bells (which open the band's first album) at the end of the last track, Dear Father - which is a scathing condemnation of the Catholic church's child abuse scandal. Hell, there's even a song (titled Zeitgeist) that conspicuously adopts the style of Planet Caravan, the unsung track from the otherwise uber-popular album Paranoid, a song that I was certain I was the only one who remembered.
The only near misstep on the album is a song that seems to criticize loners, but I'll grant that - preachy though it is - it does kind of end on a frighteningly poignant note. Still though, I'm for more and not less understanding of social reclusion. But that's an interesting point about Black Sabbath. They have this big reputation as a Satanic band - and to that interpretation's credit, the band does adopt a lot of Satanic imagery. But the reality is, they're more devil's advocate than devil. Yeah, they sing about dark stuff, rather than God and purity and all that dreck, but usually it's from the angle of: look at how bad this stuff is, it screws up your life. It's pretty ironic, when you think about it.
Take bonus track number one, for example - Black Sabbath turns its eye to a modern poison (remember Snowblind?), but rather than glorify meth addiction, Ozzy sings about how much it fucks you up. Q.E.D. You know, I was debating whether to shell out a few extra bucks for three bonus tracks (curiously released on an entirely separate CD, despite the main album's length being under 55 minutes), but I'm glad I did. The quality of the bonus tracks (including one song about being a pariah) are comparable to the rest of the album. It's a queer way to release a CD, though, but I'll chalk it up to artistic license.
Either way, if you liked Black Sabbath's classic seventies output with Ozzy at the helm, then you're going to love this album. I know I do.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Maniac (1980)
I read in Entertainment Weekly about a horror movie starring Elijah Wood that's coming out, and when I heard that it was a remake of an older movie - one with cult status, and something of a reputation for its brutality - I (of course) decided to track it down.
Maniac is the title of that movie, and it's fantastic. It's definitely got a real "exploitation" feel to it, the way it follows the serial killer around, instead of building up sympathy for the victims and keeping the killer a mystery, the way you're "supposed" to do it.
The effects are pretty good for its time (Tom Savini stars in a cameo role), and where there might be limitations, the stark thrust of the narrative, and the characterization of this brutal killer make up for it - so much so that even I was pretty startled by some of the scenes (which is totally a good thing).
And while the explanation for the killer's mania is ultimately not that consequential (typical abusive mother sob story), the character's emotional state fuels the amoral pathos that gives the story its unsettling edge - and eventually leads it into some wonderfully surreal territory that makes for an unforgettable ending. The movie's reputation is well-deserved.
I can't imagine the remake doing it justice - although the sky's the limit on gore effects these days, modern society doesn't seem to have the guts to stomach a morally ambiguous story anymore - and anyway the synopsis makes it sound like another boring drama rather than a horrifying character study - but I can't know for sure until I've seen it.
Maniac is the title of that movie, and it's fantastic. It's definitely got a real "exploitation" feel to it, the way it follows the serial killer around, instead of building up sympathy for the victims and keeping the killer a mystery, the way you're "supposed" to do it.
The effects are pretty good for its time (Tom Savini stars in a cameo role), and where there might be limitations, the stark thrust of the narrative, and the characterization of this brutal killer make up for it - so much so that even I was pretty startled by some of the scenes (which is totally a good thing).
And while the explanation for the killer's mania is ultimately not that consequential (typical abusive mother sob story), the character's emotional state fuels the amoral pathos that gives the story its unsettling edge - and eventually leads it into some wonderfully surreal territory that makes for an unforgettable ending. The movie's reputation is well-deserved.
I can't imagine the remake doing it justice - although the sky's the limit on gore effects these days, modern society doesn't seem to have the guts to stomach a morally ambiguous story anymore - and anyway the synopsis makes it sound like another boring drama rather than a horrifying character study - but I can't know for sure until I've seen it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)