Scooby Doo Lost in Space! what a brilliant idea!
Hopefully he dies at the end :devil:
:p
Let The Right One In
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/letr.jpg)
Twelve year old Oskar is an outsider, struggling to fit in at school and left alone to fend for himself at home whilst his mother works nights. One evening he meets the mysterious Eli. As a sweet romance blossoms between them, Oskar learns to overcome his tormentors and discovers Eli's dark secret and the connections to the gruesome events occuring across town. Together they must help Eli be gone and live, or stay and die.
Let the Right One In is the most original yet traditional horror film for years, even if it’s about a vampire, which along with zombies have been done to un-death. LTROI reworks the accepted lore into something fresh and definitive. I’m not sure any film before it has quite captured the essence of the legendary creature as well as this. If The Wicker Man is the Citizen Kane of Horror, then this could be the Citizen Kane of Vampires. There are enough of them now to warrant a genuine sub-genre! It is a benchmark to judge others by, along with Dracula, Nosferatu and... well, that’s probably it.
Vampires have become more like rock stars in superb movies like The Lost Boys and Blade, not to mention Buffy, but they play with the idea of secret societies, prophecies and conspiracies. This gets back to the idea of the vampire as an elemental, lone creature, obeying its nature. The twists on the classic rules are so good, you feel this is how it should always have been, especially resting places, inviting one into your home (and more importantly your life), plus there’s no silly Interview With the Vampire style soul searching when it comes to turning someone, even if it does happen by accident.
A lot happens by accident actually. Per Ragnor plays Eli’s faithful guardian (Igor? ;)), but has no luck. Almost as if his efforts to keep her hidden are simply denying her nature, because when she kills for herself, it’s messily efficient. The effects are sparse, but used perfectly, particularly Eli’s subtle changes and noises (stomach rumblings to snarls!). Director Tomas Alfredson is at pains to show the violence as awful as it would really be. And let me assure you, this is powerful stuff at times even if the nature of the story might lead you to think punches are pulled.
In that sense, and aesthetically, it is probably closest to Romero’s Martin, but its proud genre roots means it’s far more watchable despite the cold and melancholy story that unfolds slowly with meticulous attention to detail, supported by Johan Söderqvist’s beautiful score, ranging from delicate piano to something akin to Bach. The screenplay is disciplined in an old fashioned way that Hollywood forgot how to do and it understands drama properly, never resorting to hyperbole. As Goodguy (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,3213.msg89582.html#msg89582) has commented before, Alfredson builds wonderful visuals out of a very bland setting (perhaps what Argento tried and failed to do in Tenebre).
We still have the glamour and seduction, but delivered so sweetly and naturally. (Thanks to Achim (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5515.msg92984.html#msg92984), I hadn't spotted the real meaning of the wonderful moment with the Rubik's cube!) It doesn't matter that Eli (beautifully played by Lina Leandersson) is even aware of what she is doing because the story is about the relationship. Is she conscious of the veneer? She certainly knows she isn’t a “girl” as such and there has been a lot of discussion about her sexuality, but the film is perhaps stressing that Eli is a Thing. I’ve said recently that Horror should always have something the viewer can’t rationalise and this may be relevant here. Like Oskar, we’re drawn into sympathising with Eli, even though we can’t work out what she is or if she deserves it. Actually of course, Oskar doesn’t care because he’s smitten.
There are other changes from the book, reducing the role of Håkan to something more straightforward and making readers gnash their fangs! But John Ajvide Lindqvist has shown maturity in streamlining his own story to suit a more aesthetic, focused film. That’s the sign of a good adaptation. A book has room to explore characters more deeply, but a screenplay needs to find an audiences emotion and hold it consistently.
Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant, another note-perfect performance in a great cast) is that focus, the real story, and playing it out with children is a masterstroke because you can understand his innocence and desire to believe in fairytales. People are dying, but he’s a bullied outcast, a loner excluded by his peers and even his parents (there’s a heartbreaking moment with his beloved father, showing there is even a gap there), so no matter what he learns about Eli or what they may do together, she is giving him a purpose. (Note how he never reacts to the bullies, even when they really hurt him).
The final scenes continue to challenge the viewer without resorting to a cheap twist and it’s been dismissed by some as that awful term “tacked on”, demonstrating they don’t understand how narrative works! Actually it is a superb sequence. Essentially the story was complete, except for understanding how Oskar will move forward.
It brilliantly brings everything together. Oskar accepts fate, rather than fighting it (the moment in the swimming pool), so it’s a happy ending because he is absolutely committed to Eli and has found someone who needs him. But has she simply groomed him, as is her nature? And again, does she even understand that?
I know I’ve gone on. A bit. :bag: But I think this is very important and special film. Anyone interested in Horror, or the now acceptable Vampire genre in particular, should experience. Heck, anyone interested in film should see it. It is beautiful and poetic, and plays out with assured confidence by all involved.
Straw Dogs ****
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/straw.jpg)
A young American mathematician, David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman), and his English wife, Amy (Susan George), move to a Cornish village, seeking the quiet life. But beneath the seemingly peaceful isolation of the pastoral village lies a savagery and violence that threatens to destroy the couple, culminating in a brutal test of Sumner's manhood and a bloody battle to the death. Sam Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs" is a harrowing and masterful investigation of masculinity and the nature of violence.
While Straw Dogs is not a Horror, it is an ambitious and relentlessly bleak film that may leave you an exhausted wreck. It isn't fun to watch and it isn't supposed to be. Sam Peckinpah has attracted a lot of criticism because of the violent nature of his films, but what those critics fail to appreciate is his deep understanding of the nature of violence and death. It is never glamorised or gratuitous, but hard, with consequences.
It starts as several of his films do, with children teasing an animal (here, a dog; The Wild Bunch, a scorpion, and even in The Getaway, kids gather around a corpse) which immediately sets the mood. What's fascinating about this particular one though is setting it in a sleepy Cornish village. It's unusual to see such action outside the American West, not that it's exactly an rollercoaster. Very little happens for some time, just characters circling each other and emotions starting to boil.
Dustin Hoffman turns in another typically superb performance as David, an American writer (read, intellectual who doesn't get his hands dirty) who has moved into his young wifes childhood home. It's a complicated role in a Susan George plays the alluring Amy in the performance of her career. To comment on her performance seems cheap. Few actresses go as deep as this, even if you ignore the several topless scenes. You may already know that Straw Dogs centres on a dreadfully convincing rape sequence. What makes it really tough in this uncut version of the often banned film, is Amy is shown to briefly enjoy the attack. This is challenging stuff.
Be in no doubt though that Amy suffers real trauma. Peckinpah follows the scene with a clever sequence juxtaposing Amy's memories against images of her trying to tolerate a village party. Kids playing party games are interrupted by frames from the earlier attack. Masterpiece of editing. In fact, this is one of the first films I watched some years ago where I learned how well crafted films could be. There is one particular moment that demonstrates how much thought is spent going into what could be dismissed as an accident.
Charlie helps to load the antique trap into David's car, the same trap that ends up around his neck. There's a shot of him making small talk with the couple and the trap is out-of-focus in the foreground, pointing at his neck. Definitely not a mistake. Not something I spotted, by the way, but it's talked about on the DVD.
The last sequence is where it all kicks off with The Siege of Trencher's Farm (the title of the book that inspired the film). A messy, desperate and violent defence of what David believes is right; he's given refuge to a man with obvious learning difficulties who is suspected of killing a child and a lynch mob is determined to get to him. We know the man is guilty, but David and the mob don't know for sure. And while we've been waiting for David to grow a spine, he really picks his moments!
This is the brilliant ironic conceit of the film. David, the mild-mannered focus of the story, is the villain of the plot. His earlier inability to deal with several difficult situations properly has formed the catalyst for the violence, even the rape (he left her alone out of spite to go hunting with the very men who double-back to attack her). Can we even blame the mob for them wanting revenge? They are ignorant and vulgar, but could happily co-exist until the American arrived.
Ultimately the film has a problem because it is so bleak and relentlessly undermines the viewers perception to the point that you feel battered rather than enlightened. Still, as far as notorious examples of such films go, I find it far superior to A Clockwork Orange. It is an incredible film that I recommend... carefully. I keep returning to it and apart from the before-mentioned technical brilliance, I'm not sure what keeps drawing me back.
"I didn't want you to enjoy the film. I wanted you to look very close at your own soul."
Sam Peckinpah
Don’t Look Now
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/dln.jpg)
Following the death of their daughter, John and Laura Baxter (Sutherland and Christie) move to Venice in an attempt to forget what has happened. However, they soon meet a pair of elderly sisters, one of whom claim to be psychic and insists that she can see the spirit of their daughter.
Don’t Look Now is a fascinating film, typical of the 70s, with ambition, confidence and skill in equal measure. It would be impossible to make it today and make it so effective. Nicholas Roeg is a director who has strangely fallen into obscurity, but this at least will be a timeless and enduring film.
Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie are the heart of what is an essentially a very emotional story, and they are superb. The much talked about sex scene is possibly more effective than any other because we’ve been allowed to understand them so much more than an average screen couple. Roeg also cleverly intercuts with them simply preparing for an evening meal, so despite how explicit it is, it also feels natural.
It also comes deep into the story, long after the most devastating opening of any film; the death of their daughter, Christine. Sutherland is especially heartbreaking, especially when it’s already been made clear that he had an idea something was wrong moments before it happened. Later, a psychic will tell Laura (Julie Christie) that her husband has “the gift”.
If it feels like I’m reviewing this film backwards, then that’s only fitting! It is a triumph of editing that creates a strange atmosphere. It uses metaphors rather than strict time to progress. It is neither inaccessible, nor a gimmick as there is definitely a beginning, a middle and then an end in the correct order, but a strict sense of time is very hard to pin down. This makes Venice all the more enigmatic, because it is almost like they are trapped in some sort of hell (John at least, with his sense of Déjà Vu, haunting visions and relations with religious iconography), especially as the city has probably never been photographed quite like this, a decaying, grimy and dangerous place.
While the heart of the film is a powerful and realistic study of grief, there is a serial killer on the loose too and here the film has more of a horror bent. There still isn’t explicit gore or murders, but you can guarantee being seriously creeped out by the little red mac that is occasionally glimpsed. The psychic is convinced that John and Laura’s daughter is trying to warn them to leave, but is this who John keeps seeing? Unfortunately while Laura believes, John is the one getting the visions and he is confused by them, adding to his, and ours, torment.
Even if you already know the ending (and it has been parodied many times), I think it will still be a haunting shock, just by the way it is done. It is a film that you may find hard to watch, but impossible to stop. Multiple viewings are recommended to unlock it’s intricacies and that shock ending will never dull.
It’s the way she looks at him before slashing his throat open! :shock: Little bastard...