To see a few sights and kill some people

Sightseers (2012)

Where the previous movie from Ben Wheatley was only serving small portions of dark comedy, this one is all out pouring it. Tina (Alice Lowe) is a bit of a nerdish woman whose over controlling mother seems to think she was responsible for the death of her dog and that giving birth to Tina in the first place was a mistake. So family life is not easy for her. She then leaves for a road trip with her new boyfriend Chris (Steve Oram) with plans of seeing such magnificent sights as the pencil museum, the tram museum and the Blue John Cavern. The seemingly boring trip takes a turn to a very different direction when Chris kills a man. Soon enough they end up on a killing spree across England. The comedy in this one is dry and pitch black, just the way I like it. It's a satire about the dull every day lives of couples and serial killers. A mix you'd definitely not expect, but it works surprisingly well. The movie has a very nice realistic look, the shots are not overly staged so the realism comes through nicely, which of course works brilliantly with the crazy story. The cast was great, especially the main couple, both do a brilliant job. All in all I really liked this movie, though I do understand this might not be for everyone. It doesn't really set up any of it's jokes, they just come and as the subject matter is very dark it might get people puzzled wether it's ok to laugh or not. The dialog is filled with brilliant lines which could just as well be on some comedian's stand up act, the delivery is just different. This is one of those movies you either like or hate, as in the humor works for you or it doesn't, there's really no middle ground on that. For me it worked.
85%

The man with the coffin

Django (1966)

In the future I guess Django will eventually become synonymous for Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained (2012), which has very little to do with this movie, apart from the name and a small cameo by Franco Nero. So this is my feeble attempt to bring some life to this classic so that it's not totally forgotten. This one has quite a many similarities to Sergio Leone's classic A Fistful of Dollars (1964), a mysterious stranger comes to a small town torn between two groups of criminals and kicks the hornet's nest. So the basic idea is quite a clear copy, but so was A Fistful of Dollars (1964) from Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo (1961), so it's a bit easier to look past that. Otherwise this is a movie that stands surprisingly well with the others. Sure, it doesn't quite raise to the same level, but still well deserves a spot in the history of spaghetti westerns. Franco Nero is brilliant as Django, the coffin-dragging gunslinger. And speaking of the coffin, what's inside results in one of the most memorable scenes in the history of spaghetti westerns. At this point of his career, before he became the second big name in spaghetti westerns, Sergio Corbucci coming from mostly comedies implemented a lot of humour into the story. That humour is the key why this movie works so well. Had it taken itself too seriously it would have just turned out to be a sad ripoff from a popular movie, but as it doesn't it gets to have a voice of it's own. Don't get me wrong, it's not all laughs, there's still surprisingly good drama in there as well. And another thing that sets this one apart is that Corbucci's West is not the same dry and hot West of Leone, it's a muddy, dirty and cold God forsaken land. That creates a nice contrast on the comedy and drama. Sure the plot is rather predictable and some of the acting is quite bad, but those are things you should already expect in a spaghetti western. The theme by Luis Bacalov gets stuck to your head and some of the shots by Enzo Barboni are quite brilliant. So all in all it's a great spaghetti western and does what is expected brilliantly.
85%

Documenting exploitation

In the past couple of years there's been quite a bit of these documentaries about old exploitation movies. As I watched some of them recently I decided to gather them up here in one big post.













Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation! (2008)

Even though this one is almost 5 years old, I'll still include it here as it kind of started this new boom for documentaries about genre cinema. This one focuses on ozploitation, the Australian exploitation cinema. It starts from the goofy sex comedies, continuing through the bloody horror flicks and sleazy violence movies, ending to the high octane road rage movies. The genre in itself was quite unknown to me before I first saw this documentary. I mean sure I had seen the Mad Max movies and a few other, but most of them I didn't know even existed. It's a highly interesting look into the history of Australian cinema, or the lack of it in some cases, with plenty of weird, crazy and fascinating films you most likely have never heard of. But the great thing about this documentary is that it makes you want to see these movies, at least I searched through the DVD stores for ozploitation after I first saw this. There's a great selection of ozploitation film makers, actors, actresses, film critics, stuntmen, producers and fans voicing out their experiences and opinions. The talking heads are balanced with a plethora of scenes from these wicked and sometimes simply lunatic movies. Anyone who cares even a bit about movies should get something out of this documentary and exploitation film fans will just love it.
85%

Machete Maidens Unleashed! (2010)

This one is from Mark Hartley as well, but instead of Australia this one focuses on those genre movies made in the Philippines. Just like the previous one this is highly entertaining look at these wild movies. It might not be the most in-depth look, but still there's some movies in it even I hadn't heard of before, so it's more than enough for a documentary like this. It covers the most notable and weird movies from the 60's to the early 80's. It goes from the early schlock horror flicks and the women-in-prison movies to the late 70's - early 80's kung-fu and war movies. Of course not forgetting Philippines biggest movie star, the tiny powerhouse Weng Weng. Again there's lots of talking heads, with a nice selection of actors, actresses, directors, producers, cinematographers and so on. For example Roger Corman, Sid Haig, Pam Grier, Eddie Romero and Cirio H. Santiago just to name a few. The talking heads are balanced with plenty of clips from various movies in question. This was a highly entertaining documentary about a weird time in the movie history, I warmly recommend it to all exploitation movie fans and even to people who know nothing about them just to see how crazy it was back then.
80%

American Grindhouse (2010)

This one is a general overview of the Grindhouse cinema and mostly the exploitation movies it involved. It starts all the way back in the invention of cinema and the silent exploitative films and ends up in the modern homages to the genre. Covering in between pretty much everything which was Grindhouse cinema, though quite notably it leaves out the European exploitation movies which were quite a big part of the genre. But it's called American Grindhouse after all, so that's where it focuses, the American exploitation cinema. Even though this one is missing some big American names as well like Roger Corman for example, it's still a great quick look on what the Grindhouse cinema was all about. As it tries to cover such a large variety of Grindhouse movies it of course left me wanting a bit more in-depth look at them, but I guess that would have made this documentary quite boring for everyone else except the Grindhouse fans. All in all quite an entertaining documentary.
75%

Screaming in High Heels: The Rise & Fall of the Scream Queen Era (2011)

This movie focuses on three of the most notable horror B-movie scream queens; Linnea Quigley, Brinke Stevens and Michelle Bauer. They weren't the first ones and definitely not the last ones, but I would say they are the most famous, at least to 80's horror B-movie fans, so it's a perfect selection. First this documentary gives a small introduction to drive-in cinema and the video boom which killed the drive-in venues. Then it focuses on the trio going from the late 70's to the golden age of the 80's and from there to the 90's when the genre kind of started to die and even to the 2000's where the video camera had become the number one tool of the B-movie makers. The quality of this documentary can't stand comparison to the previous three as it's clearly a smaller scale work and very narrowly focused on the three scream queens and their work. But that's actually not a bad thing, for me as a horror fan growing up with some of these movies it was quite a fun nostalgic trip down memory lane. Though I kind of doubt anyone else but horror fans get anything out of this one.
70%

Corman's World: Exploits of a Hollywood Rebel (2011)

As the title says, this movie is all about Roger Corman, the "King of the B's". The film starts off with Roger Corman on the set of some of his recent horrible movies for the Syfy channel. Then it goes back in time right to the start of his career and works itself back up again. Out of all of these documentaries this must have the most "prestigious" group of people having their say on Corman's life. With people like Robert De Niro, Jack Nicholson, Martin Scorsese, Ron Howard and Peter Fonda you see that Corman's movies were the early playgrounds for some of the biggest stars. Funny thing I noticed is that Joe Dante seems to be the go-to guy when someone needs someone to talk about exploitation cinema as he's in three of these documentaries. Anyway when you are doing a quick documentary about a man who has produced almost 400 movies you are bound to leave some good ones out. Well saying good about a Roger Corman movie doesn't sound right, but you get the point, the ones which are so bad they are brilliant. But that didn't really matter, it still has most of the notable ones and plenty of the campy ones to keep you entertained. I actually learned quite a bit from this documentary, like that Corman almost produced Easy Rider (1969) and he wanted to make Mean Streets (1973) as blaxploitation, just to mention a few. Then again I have never really had the interest in digging into his movies that much, even though I do love some of the pre 80's ones. Lets face it, most of the movies in his filmography are crap and Jack Nicholson said it best; "By mistake he actually made a good picture every once and a while". In the end this was a very entertaining documentary which barely scratched the surface of the filmography of Roger Corman and might be a good watch for people who don't even know who Roger Corman is.
72%

Linda Blair cleaning up the streets

Savage Streets (1984)

This movie borrows quite heavily from Death Wish (1974) and others of it's kind, though this time Charles Bronson is replaced by the young Linda Blair. Se plays Brenda who with her friends ends up pissing off a group of drug dealing gang members. The gang then rapes Brenda's sister and kill her best friend as a revenge. Brenda decides to take the law into her own hands and deal out some justice with a crossbow. This movie is simply fun, it's clearly made with a tongue in cheek attitude with plenty of violence and nudity, not forgetting the great one liners in true 80's action movie style. Add to that a brilliant 80's soundtrack and a plot which is just hilarious in stupidity and you have an entertaining movie. Surprisingly enough there are quite a few good performances in this one, John Vernon as the principal was great as was Robert Dryer as Jake, the leader of the gang. And I must say I also enjoyed Linda Blair giving these great one liners before dealing some violent justice, even though her performance otherwise wasn't that great. Rest of the cast were from ok to rather bad. But they fit their silly roles anyway so it didn't matter that much. This is one of those great movies to get over a hangover morning or some night with friends drinking to get one.
80%

The Gladiator gets extended

Gladiator (2000)

The problem with these big Hollywood spectacles is that they are rather one dimentional, they thoroughly entertain and thrill you when you first see them, maybe even leave you with something to think about. But usually the more times you watch them again the worse they get as there's nothing more for them to give and thus you end up paying too much attention to the small details, which usually tend to not work as well. I've seen this movie now about 5 or 6 times and even though none of those times has topped the first time I saw it at the theater, I still find this one working surprisingly well. The reason I watched this one again was because I updated my old DVD to a Blu-Ray which had the extended cut on it and I hadn't seen that before. I must say these Universal 100th Anniversary Collector's Edition Digibooks are absolutely brilliant. You can find good deals on them with less than 10 euros and with that you get the movie beautifully remastered on high definition and a ton of extra material in a nice book cover. Like I said the movie worked surprisingly well even though I've seen it often enough. Though of course the small things caught my eye a bit too much, like the problems with the background action in the war scene where people are just standing around there in middle of the battle and quite a few other small issues. But really I didn't mind them that much as the movie is still a great action packed drama with brilliant performances by the cast. Nowadays I don't see Russell Crowe's performance as great as I used to, it's still not bad by any means, but it's hugely overshadowed by Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielsen, Oliver Reed and Richard Harris. So pretty much every supporting actor does more or less a better job than Crowe. Another thing which has changed during the years are the visual effects, back in the days they looked amazing, but now not that much, especially on Blu-Ray some of the CGI shots stand out quite clearly. But luckily there aren't that many of them and otherwise this movie looks and sounds amazing in HD. And about the sounds Hans Zimmer's score is a classic already so that of course works great. Anyway, most of the extended cut material was actually not that great. I mean it was very interesting to see the scenes and at parts they brought a bit more depth to the supporting characters, but to be honest those scenes were rather nonessential and well worth leaving out. So in the end they only dragged the movie a bit too much. This rating is for the extended cut, the theatrical cut, and acording to Ridley Scott that's the director's cut as well, would be a few points higher.
81%

Sam Raimi going back to his roots

Drag Me to Hell (2009)

I don't know why so many people seem to dislike this one, I think it's a great horror comedy, just what you'd expect from Sam Raimi. Maybe they were expecting another Spider-Man (2002) but instead they got a movie in the spirit of Evil Dead II (1987). I guess I can't blame them as I too was starting to feel he's only making Spider-Men, but luckily this was a blast from the past by him. It's a story about Christine (Alison Lohman) a bank worker who gets cursed by an old gypsy lady, played brilliantly by Lorna Raver. As the curse gets worse Christine seeks help from a psychic (Dileep Rao) and learns that she will eventually be taken to hell unless she can find a way to reverse the curse. The comedy is great and there's even some efforts into tension building, not just the usual cheap scares. Unfortunately Alison Lohman and Justin Long who plays her boyfriend are not exactly great at their parts and that's a shame as some of the supporting cast is rather brilliant. Despite that and the somewhat easy to guess ending this is a great horror comedy.

80%

An atmospheric giallo

The House with Laughing Windows (1976)

This is one of those movies which divide people's opinions, you either hate it or love it and there seems to be no middle ground. Well I must say I love it as it's an atmospheric giallo which builds tension slowly but surely. In a way this reminds me of The Wicker Man (1973) even though there's no folklore in this one and not really any dark comedy either, but it's the tension building and the similarities in the settings that make me quite sure Pupi Avati has taken quite a few ideas from it. Anyway it's a story about a restorer called Stefano (Lino Capolicchio) who is called to a small village to restore a painting in a local church made by an insane painter. As he gets intrigued by the story of the painter he stumbles onto a mystery and it seems someone wants him to stop poking around the past. The less you know the better as the story unravels itself in a nice way. The camerawork is quite stylish and one of the nicest shots in the movie was actually a real earthquake caught on camera. A lucky moment yes, but the way it fits the scene is just brilliant. The acting is surprisingly solid for a movie like this so no complaints on that one either. The music didn't really strike me in any way and thinking about it now after just watching it I can't even remember what kind of music it was. Anyway this is a great slow paced thriller which builds tension better than most of the newer movies.

88%

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Four Flies on Grey Velvet (1971)

This is the last of the “animal series” of giallos from Dario Argento, the others being The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970) and The Cat O' Nine Tails (1971). This time a drummer (Michael Brandon) ends up killing a man after an unfortunate encounter. Then someone who witnessed and photographed the killing starts blackmailing him and soon bodies start piling up as he tries to cover his tracks. Well the “accidental” killing at the start was extremely far fetched and the rest of the plot isn't exactly great either. But as so many times it's the mood Argento sets up which is the driving force of his movies and this was no exception. The score by Ennio Morricone wasn't bad, but really it wasn't used as well as it could have been. The visual side however was well in hand, the compositions were quite great and the camerawork by Franco Di Giacomo was pretty much perfect. Some of the scenes are extremely memorable, whether that's a good thing or not is for the viewer to decide, I sure loved them. The biggest problem of this movie is the long and unneeded explanation of the motives at the end and in this Shameless release of the extended cut it's even longer than in the American cut. It's a shame as the ending is otherwise great it just drags on way too long on the explaining part. Apart from that and the misuse of Morricone's talents, this is a great giallo.

80%

A sci-fi giallo?

Footprints on the Moon (1975)

Well it's not really a giallo and it's not really sci-fi even though there are elements from both of those genres in it. It's a true Hitchcockian mystery done with the audio-visual style of giallos and involving sci-fi side plot. Alice (Florinda Bolkan) is troubled by weird dreams of astronauts being left stranded on the moon. One day she wakes up to see that she has missed two days and not knowing what has happened in those days. She starts to investigate the past and ends up in a nearly deserted island town called Garma which looks strangely familiar to her. When people seem to remember her being there before she starts to question her own sanity. I really like this movie and even though I had seen it before it didn't trouble me at all that I already knew the mystery behind all this. When I think about it, there's actually not much happening in this movie, apart from the beginning and the ending, but the atmosphere is just so magnificent that it doesn't matter one bit. It builds tension brilliantly right from the start and it even nears horror at times even though there's no serial killer on the loose or anything like that. I must say that the Shameless release of this one was a bit of a miss, I mean it's good quality as always and the added scenes were mostly good, though again they were in Italian only, but the ending is where this one goes wrong. The American cut didn't have the text at the end which gives you the answer to the biggest question this movie leaves you with, but this Shameless release has it and it kind of waters down the otherwise strong ending. Like I've always said, it's better to leave some things open for the viewer to ponder on and not overly explain everything. Without the text this would have been a brilliant movie, now it's “only” very good.

88%

A dated guide to witchcraft

Häxan: Witchcraft Through the Ages (1922)

This is another movie that has sat in my shelf for ages before I now finally watched it while recovering from a nasty flu. This certainly was an oddity, it's part documentary, part mockumentary and part fictional horror movie. There's slide show like graphic presentation, acted story telling and even some stop motion animation in it. It's divided into seven segments each of which has a story of it's own but all focused on different aspects of witchcraft. This movie has a rather painfully slow start, the first segment with it's illustrations and history lessons was just simply boring. Maybe if you are more into the subject matter you could get something more out of it, but for me it didn't really serve any purpose. The second part was better but not much, it follows a witch cooking with some surprisingly comic moments as well. But after that the movie gets going and stays quite interesting until the end. The last segment with all it's philosophical aspects is very dated and a bit tedious to watch, but it does have an interesting point to it. I can understand why this movie was banned in pretty much every country when it came out, not because it would be pro-witchcraft, it's actually quite the opposite, but because it's anti-religious. It basically compares religion and people who believe in witchcraft to a mental illness. Then again not long ago I read that some Nepalese woman was burned at the stake for being a witch, so I guess this movie is still relevant today. Which of course it should most definitely not be.

Anyway even though there are some relevant points to the story of this film, it is mostly quite dated. But that didn't bother me much as this movie was pure brilliance for me as a film history lesson. I must say where people praise Lang, Eisenstein and Murnau among others for being the early pioneers of film making, I'd put Benjamin Christensen to that list as well. Technically this movie is a marvel. There's some movie tricks that even today look impressive. And the acting deserves a special mention, the whole movie is rather brilliantly acted without the usual over acting very common in silent films. The makeup is surprisingly effective, I mean sure the demons look a bit goofy, but they are strikingly similar to the old drawing presented at the start from old history books. But what I loved the most was the cinematography, every single frame was lit and framed perfectly down to the smallest details. After seeing this it's not hard to believe it took three years to shoot it. For anyone even a bit interested in the history of movies, this is a must see and well people who are into witchcraft might get something out of it too, but as an entertaining film for the casual viewer I don't think there's much to go with this one. Anyway for me this was an eye opener and showed that some of the early cinema pioneers came from Scandinavia. Oh, and if you are planning on watching this, beware there are two versions out there, the original 104 minute version and a shortened 77 minute version with a narrator. Steer clear from the shortened version as the music is some crappy jazz which doesn't fit it at all and it's missing some very nice scenes, so watch the original or not at all.

81%

Behind every Psycho there is a great woman

Hitchcock (2012)

As I'm a huge Hitchcock fan I'm of course excited about everything related to him, so I was waiting for this one with maybe a bit too high hopes. I've read the book Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho by Stephen Rebello which I saw was the basis of this movie's script. The movie merely scratches the surface of the problems that went into making Psycho (1960) and focuses more on the relationship between Hitch and his wife Alma Reville. That's not a bad thing as a movie just about the production of Psycho would be only good for the fans of it, now it's quite an universal story about love. Then again as a fan I would have hoped a bit more insight on the production as now this movie skips through it so fast that it kind of gives out a wrong impression on many aspects of it. What I would have liked to see more was the cultural impact the movie had, as it wasn't just a huge box office hit, it really shook the whole movie industry and changed the way people saw movies. But I guess it didn't really fit in after all, then again I wouldn't have minded watching another 90 minutes after the movie's premiere and even about the making of The Birds (1963). Anyway I liked quite a many things about this movie, first of all the cast is great. This is an actor driven movie and that's certainly well in hand in this one. Anthony Hopkins does a solid job as Hitchcock and at times he looks and especially sounds strikingly like Hitchcock. But it's Helen Mirren who steals the show in this one with an absolutely brilliant performance as Alma Reville the wife in the shadow of the master of suspense. Another one I need to pick out was James D'Arcy who not only looks exactly like Anthony Perkins but also gives a stellar performance. Too bad there's not much room for his character so he's left with very little screen time, which was the problem with Scarlett Johansson as well, who was great as Janet Leigh for the short time she was there. Even on the smaller parts were cast brilliantly, like the “Karate Kid” Ralph Macchio as the screenwriter Joseph Stefano and Kurtwood Smith was a perfect pick as the censor.

The acting was not the only thing that worked, I really liked the witty Hitchcockian comedy in it as well. It shows that the director Sacha Gervasi and the screenwriter John McLaughlin are fans of Hitchcock's movies, there's so many witty remarks for them that I lost count. From framing shots and directing scenes to the dialogue the whole movie was quite Hitchcockian. I also really liked the music by Danny Elfman, which sounded like an homage to Hitchcock's favorite composer Bernard Herrmann. All in all this is a very good love story which did leave me wanting a bit more insight into the making of a masterpiece. But in the end it didn't matter that much as otherwise this was a great movie.

82%

High tension in a tin can

Voyage to the Bottom ofthe Sea (1961)

I love old sci-fi movies, the wacky designs in them are usually just a feast for the eyes. Not only that but you either get something so absurd that it turns out to be hilariously entertaining or every now and then you actually see a movie that's quite current in themes even today. This was a bit of both. The Americans have invented a new atomic submarine, called Seaview, and during it's first test voyage the Van Allen radiation belt around the Earth catches fire. As the Earth is slowly turning to a barbecue grill and the extinction of the whole human race seems imminent the best scientists around the world seem clueless as how to prevent this. But fear not as the two brightest scientists are on board the Seaview and they have a plan to blow up the Van Allen belt with an atomic rocket. As most of the other scientists seem to disagree with them as they think it would be wiser to just wait for it to burn out, the tensions rise between them and even amongst the crew of Seaview. First the parts that worked even today. Michael Schiffer must have watched this movie for inspiration to the screenplay of Crimson Tide (1995) as there are so many similarities to them, even though the plot around them is quite different. When you have a group of people inside a submarine with no connection to the outside world and the Admiral has a plan that could either save the planet or destroy it, it of course creates conflicts between the crew. And it surely doesn't help that the United Nations have sent a submarine to destroy the Seaview before it can shoot it's rocket. Also the fact that the world is about to end and there's no guarantee that the crazy plan will work the crew needs to figure out how to spend the last moments of their lives, with their loved ones or with a seemingly crazy plan in hopes to stop it. Another thing that worked very well were the problems created between science and religion. So there's quite a few things that worked even today as an interesting and thought provoking movie.

But as it's an old sci-fi movie there's plenty of that absurd stuff in there as well. Of course the whole idea of a ring of fire around the Earth was just ridiculous and the stuff one might find deep at the bottom of the sea turned out to be a hilarious surprise. So there are quite a few of those ridiculous moments as well. Then again they kind of fit the pace of the movie, once the “smart” stuff turned into a stall it went to the “funny” stuff to keep up the interest. The cast were fairly ok, nothing to rave about but surely nothing to complain about either. This movie looked surprisingly good and the restored print on the DVD was a feast for the eyes. Sure some of the effects were bad in modern standards, but still most of the underwater shots looked amazing. A movie well worth watching, especially if you're into old sci-fi.

85%

I meet Abbott and Costello

I have a big gaping hole in my general knowledge as I haven't seen any of the Abbott and Costello movies, so it was time to patch that up. I started with the double feature of Abbott and Costello: MeetFrankenstein/Meet the Mummy as it had the Frankenstein which seemed to be recommended by most as one of their best and the Mummy from the next decade to give some diversity.

 

Abbott and Costello MeetFrankenstein (1948)

This movie should rather be called Abbott and Costello Meet the Universal Monsters as they don't actually meet Frankenstein, but they do meet his monster with Dracula, Wolf Man and a surprise guest at the end. Right from the start I must say I was amazed that Bela Lugosi was playing Dracula and Lon Chaney the Wolf Man, just like they did in the originals. Too bad Boris Karloff isn't playing the Frankenstein's monster, but still two out of three is quite impressive to be honest, though I guess it wasn't that big of a task to get them in the movie as all of the franchises were owned by Universal as was the Abbott and Costello movies. Anyway Chick (Abbott) and Wilbur (Costello) are working at a postal office and one day they get two crates for delivery to the Museum of Horror. Turns out those crates contain the not so dead bodies of Dracula and Frankenstein's monster. Dracula plans on resurrecting the monster and plant Wilbur's brain on it for more control. Lawrence Talbot, the Wolf Man, joins the party in hopes of stopping Dracula and his devious plan, but as it seems every night there's full moon things don't work out as planned. Abbott seems to be the brains of the duo while Costello is the goofier one always getting into trouble, but they both get their equal share of laughs. I really liked the chemistry between them at times it was like watching an old married couple going at each other. Another character that stood out was Dracula as Lugosi gives out quite a great performance in this one. What made this movie stand out from the other horror comedies of it's kind was that it didn't directly make fun of the monsters, they could have just as well been in a horror movie, it's the duo around them creating the comedy. That works surprisingly well. The comedy is a mix of crazy goofball action, slapstick and witty remarks. And especially those witty remarks really cracked me up. Even though time hasn't been kind to this one, I must say this was one of the better horror comedies out there and probably the best of it's time. I was truly entertained and got some very good laughs.

80%

Abbott and Costello Meetthe Mummy (1955)

Abbott and Costello are in Egypt and get mixed up with a murder of an archaeologist and a plot to raise the mummy of Klaris. Even though this movie had it's moments and actually couple of hilariously funny scenes, it's extremely repetitive from the Frankenstein one. The scene at the archaeologist's office was almost like an exact copy of the one at the Museum of Horror from the previous one with the same jokes just a different surrounding. Sure it still managed to squeeze a few laughs from me, but I started to worry that these characters don't have that many jokes in them as there were very familiar scenes later in the movie as well. However there were some quite original ones in there as well, so it's not a total miss. The start was not that easy as it seemed so similar to the previous one, but towards the end this movie kind of found its place. So in the end it was merely an ok comedy. Even though I didn't like this one that much I must say I'll definitely will be watching more of the Abbott and Costello movies in the future as they truly are a funny pair of characters.

50%

When one psychopath just isn't enough

Seven Psychopaths (2012)

Martin McDonagh is probably the most interesting new director at the moment. I've been waiting to see a new movie from him ever since I saw In Bruges (2008) and indeed it's been a long wait. But luckily it was worth it. Marty, Colin Farrell, is a screenwriter with a writers block, so he seeks help from whiskey bottles. Billy, Sam Rockwell, Marty's friend, is an unemployed actor who runs a dog kidnapping business with an elderly gentleman Hans, Christopher Walken. Billy, who is determined to help Marty find a great idea for a script, ends up dognapping the wrong Shih Tzu. The dog belongs to Charlie, Woody Harrelson, a ruthless mob boss who is willing to kill everyone in town if it brings back his dog. As that wouldn't have made things bad enough for Billy and Marty who gets mixed up in the dognapping, the script they are planning requires psychopaths, so Billy decides to advertise on the local paper that they are looking for psychopaths to interview for the script. So there's some weird people destined to knock on the door when things are already going crazy. There's so much going on in this movie that it's exhausting, mostly it's actually a good thing, but at times it kind of loses focus. Still there's that great mood which was in his previous movie as well and the comedy is extremely dark so I didn't care that much, was mostly just laughing my ass off. But it's not just a crazy violent comedy, there's quite a many witty ideas in it as well. The cast is absolutely brilliant, with surprisingly Sam Rockwell stealing the show from the others. And the mood, it's every bit as great as it was in In Bruges, just for that this movie should have been on my best of 2012 list, but unfortunately saw it only now. The scope of the movie is so large that it does tend to crack from the edges, but none the less it's a great movie.

89%

When the rich and the poor clash

Dead End (1937)

This is a very nice little film noir, even though film noir puritists might argue about it being a film noir in the first place. Well it's a drama involving criminal activities with cynical attitudes and quite a few noirish shots, so that's enough for me. Anyway the movie is set on the docks of East River in New York where the rich and the poor neighborhood divide sharing one block in between. That of course builds tensions between the two “classes” and sure enough things end up getting violent. The main couple of the movie is actually overshadowed by the supporting characters so much that their ordeals end up being just another story on the block. It's Humphrey Bogart's Baby Face Martin and the Dead End Kids who run the show in this movie. Not only are those characters more interesting, they are also played brilliantly. The themes in this one are just as valid today as they were back in the 30's, you could actually say they are even more relevant today as the rich keep getting richer and the poor are still poor. William Wyler does a great job at keeping the pace fast moving and the dialog sounds real enough to fool me. The cinematography is at points very straight forward, almost documentary like, which fits the story brilliantly, but then again there are some absolutely stunning noir like shots in there as well. Watching this now shows clearly that it's shot in the studio and the matte paintings were rather visible, especially as the DVD had a very nice image quality, that eats the realism a bit, but in the end it didn't matter much. There were some unintentionally funny moments, like when a guy gets killed the news about it is already in the papers around the block few minutes later and so on, but those are also partly the charm of old movies. Kind of like winking at the viewer not to over think it, it fits the story so just go with the ride. In the end this was a very good movie that has stood time amazingly well.

87%

African childcare

War Witch (2012)

Finally had the chance of seeing this as I've been wanting to see it since I missed it last year on the Helsinki International Film Festival and even more so when it grabbed an Oscar nomination for best foreign film. I must say I was moved. This is a story about Komona, played brilliantly by Rachel Mwanza, a 12 year old girl living a child's life in her peaceful village. However one day the rebels attack the village kidnapping all the children as rebellion fighters and killing everyone else. Komona gets an assault rifle shoved to her hand and the first thing she's forced to do is to kill her parents. Needless to say this movie is grim. It follows Komona for 2 years as a child soldier, but it turns out she's more than that, she's also a witch who can see the ghosts of the dead, which makes the rebel leader think she's the key to victory. This movie is gripping and an extremely brutal portrayal how war effects children making them grow up faster than nature would allow. At first I was a bit puzzled about the whole ghost thing, but as the movie has almost like a documentary feel to it I understand that it needs those moments to escape from the cruel reality, otherwise it would just be too much and they fit the story very well. What I didn't understand was the romantic comedy part of this movie. I mean sure everyone needs love so I can understand that being even in middle of all this madness, but why the comedy? It just felt wrong, kind of like the movie saying don't take it too seriously, it's all fun and games. Then again as it takes quite a shocking turn after that part I guess they tried to maximize the effect of it with a bit of light hearted fun. I just think it didn't work as intended. Technically this movie was surprisingly good, it looked and sounded great at parts, and especially the documentary feel was a huge plus. I haven't seen the other contenders on the best foreign film part, but I'd say this is a very strong contender for the Oscar.

89%

I actually got a feedback asking for trailers for the movies I review. I though it's easy to watch them from the imdb link on the name, but sure I'll put a trailer with the review from now on.

Night Visions Colt Concert 2013

4 nights of spaghetti westerns from glorious film prints (well some of them were quite worn down to be honest). That's what I call a great film festival! So I tried to cram every film to my schedule, which I would have managed otherwise as I have three of them on DVD. But unfortunately I'm getting too old for these marathons so I had to leave 2 night screenings out as I just couldn't stay awake anymore. Still, I saw some amazing movies and here's a recap of them.

 

Sartana (1968)

First of all I must confess, I have never seen a Sartana movie even though they seem to have been quite popular and there is quite a many of them. Ye I know and I dare to call myself a spaghetti western fan... But well, better late than never. At the beginning I was rather troubled as this didn't look like a spaghetti western at all and the music surely didn't sound like one either. But luckily it found its tracks towards the end and there were some quite brilliant scenes. The music though didn't really strike me at any point, but the visual side was well in hand towards the end so it didn't really matter that much. Also at the beginning I was quite confused to say the least, the plot seemed to make no sense at all. Some stage coaches were robbed and everyone was killing everyone and that was about all there was. It didn't really become that much clearer towards the end, but the general idea was that everyone betrays everyone for a case of gold which everyone tries to steal in one way or another and there's some big conspiracy and this undertaker and oh fuck it, I give up. All I know is that amongst it all there's Sartana, this mystical seemingly bulletproof gun slinging “pall bearer” who at least seems to know what's going on. All the while you are just completely puzzled and mostly wondering did the body count hit one hundred already and where do all these “henchmen” come from. But it didn't really matter as the movie was still a blast. I can see why Sartana spawned so many sequels, spinoffs and even ripoffs as it's an intriguing character and this first movie was quite a great one even though it took a while to get going.

76%

Django Unchained (2012)

Tarantino's newest turned out to be a bit uneven but still highly enjoyable ride. It had a lot more drama in it than you'd expect from a Tarantino movie, but it was actually a good thing as the movie is cracking jokes at quite a touchy subject for the Americans so it kept it from turning into a total farce. First the things that didn't work. It's the first Tarantino movie I thought could have maybe been a tad shorter, though thinking about it afterwards I can't think of anything to leave out. Would have to see it again to say for sure, but that's definitely a good thing as I really want to watch this one again. The soundtrack is mostly good, though it wasn't as brilliant as I would have expected and what made it even worse was the rap. It's not your usual western soundtrack with the likes of Jim Croce or Anthony Hamilton and Elayna Boynton in it, those worked quite well actually, but the rap, oh come on. Jamie Foxx wasn't exactly great either, but then again he's being overshadowed by Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson in pretty much every scene in the film. Partly the fault of the script as he's not given those moments where an actor can shine, he's the unsung hero amongst these great crazy characters, but partly also because he's not really in the same league as the others. Speaking of the others, I was also a bit disappointed that Christoph Waltz has a very similar role as in Inglorious Basterds (2009) and Samuel L. Jackson is also playing in a familiar turf. They are of course brilliant at what they do, but would have hoped to see something completely new and different from them as well. Leonardo DiCaprio on the other hand is definitely out of his element and does an amazing job at it, I'd call it his best performance since What's Eating Gilbert Grape (1993). Also need to note Don Johnson who was a nice surprise as well. For a Tarantino movie those above are a surprisingly lot of things which I didn't really like, but in the end they didn't really matter that much as the rest of this movie was pure dynamite. Also as an old spaghetti western fan I was going crazy with all the references and nods towards the classics of the genre.

85%

The Hellbenders (1967)

Like I've said before Sergio Corbucci is the second best spaghetti western director right after Sergio Leone, so the chance of seeing one of his classics on the big screen was something I was surely not going to miss, even though I've seen this already couple of times before. Anyway this movie is quite an oddity amongst spaghetti westerns, mostly because of the story. It's a story about a Confederate colonel, his three sons and a woman who after the Civil War steal a ton of money from the Union in hopes of rebuilding the Confederate in the Southwest. The problem is getting the money to safety so they have a plot where they hide the money in a coffin and play a role of mourning family on their way to bury their family member. Even though they have a great disguise things of course don't go as planned as they get trouble from Union search parties, cowboys, indians, bandits and even between each other. The movie starts with a bang, but then slows down and that's pretty much my only gripe with this one, it's rather slow paced. Then again as tensions build between the group and outsiders and also within the group, the pace most of the time fits it quite well. I loved Morricone's score and the movie looks great. Joseph Cotten is brilliant in the role of the colonel not willing to let the past go. Rest of the cast is not that strong, but they are mostly fine. This one is a must see for every spaghetti western fan out there as kind of a different subject done in the spaghetti western style. And it's definitely not a bad movie even if you're not that into spaghetti westerns.

82%

Light the Fuse... Sartana Is Coming (1970)

My second Sartana film I've seen and after this I must say I really need to watch the others as well as this was just plain stupid but still tons of fun. Again the plot is far from clear and simple, sometimes it just doesn't make any sense at all, but again there's some gold and apparently counterfeit money and everyone is after them. And I really mean everyone, there's so many side characters and double crosses that I honestly lost count. Sartana is still bulletproof and seems to know everything before everyone else. There's some very nice spaghetti western moments, even though the plot with a smaller body count could just as well be from some detective thriller. About the body count, towards the end it just goes crazy with a huge shootout with organs pissing fire and brimstone! The music was rather good and supported the mood nicely most of the time. It's not a great movie as it's rather uneven and well it just goes a bit too stupid some times, but still it was surely entertaining and well worth the watch. And damn that Alfie is a strong little toy.

74%

Joshua the Black Rider(1976)

Joshua, played by Fred Williamson, is a civil war veteran who returns home from the war only to find his mother killed. He then goes on pursuit of the five men responsible. This is a very straight forward western with only one spice to the mix, the lead character is black. That unfortunately doesn't make this weak effort any better as it's simply put boring. The photography was quite good and there were some nice sceneries caught on film from time to time, but not exactly in the same league as the stylistic spaghetti westerns. Music was just bad and annoyingly repetitive. You can see that Tarantino took quite a few influences from this movie as well, but at least he had the skills to make them work. Some of the ways Joshua decides to kill the murderers were just stupid beyond belief. And I couldn't really understand the motives of the kidnapped woman, first you get kidnapped and raped by a bunch of murderers and then you act like they are the nicest bunch of people around. Anyway I guess it was worth the watch mostly out of curiosity, but I'm sure I won't be revisiting it either.
35%

The Fighting Fists of Shanghai Joe (1973)

I didn't see this one at the festival, but as I have it on DVD I decided to revisit it and put a review here as it was in the festival lineup. This is another oddity amongst the spaghetti westerns as it adds kung-fu in the gun slinging. Chin Hao is a Chinese immigrant who travels to the wild west in hopes of becoming a cowboy. He soon finds out that the west is not a hospitable place for foreigners and he of course needs to kick some cowboy ass to prove his worth. He gets a promising job as a rancher, but soon finds out that the cattle is actually Mexican slaves. Righteous man as he is he then turns against the slavers and ends up in some serious trouble. The plot is rather straight forward with not much finesse to it, but that's what you'd expect from a movie like this. Funny thing is that Klaus Kinski is billed as the star of this movie on the title credits and he actually appears in the movie not much longer than 5 minutes. Well that's exploitation for you. Chen Lee plays the main character and does a solid job even though the role is incredibly stereotypical. This movie was surprisingly bloody even compared to the others of its kind and the action was quite good, even though I'm still puzzled why everyone were such bad shooters. Then again it wouldn't make much of a kung-fu movie if the guy is shot down before he can hand out a single punch or a kick. I liked the score by Bruno Nicolai, very spaghetti western style, even though the action was quite different it still fit it very well. Even though the entertainment values were high, it still got a bit tedious at times. Well worth the watch though.

67%

They Call Him Cemetery (1971)

Feel good western of the festival. It's a story about two naive big city snobs who come to the wild west to visit their father. As they are rather dumb they end up pissing off a group of bandits and end up in some serious trouble. Luckily they meet a mysterious stranger with incredible gun skills, called Cemetery, who decides to help them out. However the bandits hire their own mysterious gunslinger called Duke and there of course needs to be a standoff. It seems that Gianni Garko is the actor of this festival as he's the main character in this one as well, in addition to the Sartana movies. That's a good thing as he's a great character for the parts, kind of like a mix between Clint Eastwood hardness and Terence Hill charm. Comedy is the name of the game in this movie and it surely doesn't take itself too seriously. Some of the jokes are rather bad to be honest, but most of them end up digging a few laughs out of you and as the mood is so light it's a great feel good spaghetti western. I absolutely loved the theme song by Bruno Nicolai, one of the all time bests, even though it's played so often I didn't mind the repetition. The movie has it's flaws and at parts it kind of stalls from the fun swing it has, but in the end it left me with a good feeling.

75%

Cut-Throats Nine (1972)

This is not really a spaghetti western, even though most spaghetti westerns were done in Spain. I guess you could call this a paella western, a Spanish western. This movie is grim to the bone and a highly nihilistic view of the west. It's a story about a cavalry sergeant, his daughter and a group of seven sadistic convicts who survive an ambush by a bandit gang. They are left without transportation in the middle of nowhere, while the sergeant tries to get the prisoners to their destination keeping his daughter safe from them and the bandits chasing them. If that wasn't enough trouble, he needs to figure out which one of the prisoners raped and murdered his wife. This was by far the most brutal western of the festival, both graphically and emotionally. There's not much hope in the world this movie builds and to be honest it got a bit tedious after a while. Even though it was a refreshingly different amongst the others in this festival, I can't really say I liked it that much. It's rather straight forward and lacking finesse to the point it becomes unintentionally funny. I did like the story however and in better hands it might have become an intense thriller, now it's just focusing on the exploitation aspects of it too much. I mean it's definitely not a bad movie, but can't really say it's a great one either, if you want to see a darker and more brutal western then this is a must see for you.

66%

The Grand Duel (1972)

Another one I didn't see at the festival, but as I have it on DVD I'll put it up here as well as it was in the festival lineup. This one is kind of like a Hitchcockian murder mystery in a spaghetti western disguise. I guess that's thanks to the writer Ernesto Gastaldi who's more known from writing a handful of giallo classics. Lee Van Cleef plays Sheriff Clayton who helps a man framed with murder. A powerful trio of Saxon brothers want the man dead, but the sheriff has other plans in his mind. The cast is solid and while Lee Van Cleef surely runs this show the others aren't that bad either. I especially liked the Saxon brothers. The movie includes some fairly surreal flashbacks, but other than that it's rather straight forward direction. And even though you can guess the mystery before the end there's still a twist which will make you second guess enough to keep the "surprise" even somewhat as a surprise. The title of the movie may be a bit misleading, but I guess it references the end which indeed you could see as a grand duel. I love the main theme by Luis Bacalov, but the rest of the score doesn't really come close to it. Not bad in any way but still noticeably in a different league. There's many things right in this one, but unfortunately it's quite uneven as a whole. At parts the mystery is swept aside from the entertainment values of big shootouts and then the movie wastes time to remind you of the plot again. Better balance between them and this would have been a very good movie, now it's "just" good.
68%

A Bullet for the General(1966)

I really wonder who came up with this English name for the film, it kind of spoils one of the biggest mysteries of this movie. Oh well, luckily there's more than one twist at the end so it still managed to surprise me. Bill 'Niño' Tate is a mysterious young man who joins a group of train robbing bandits lead by El Chuncho. Together the group rob weapons from the soldiers and sell them to the rebel leader General Elias. Everyone in the group seems to have different motives wether it's just money, patriotism or religious beliefs and of course the motives clash on the way. The movie starts off great as it's entertaining and leaves you with tons of questions. Unfortunately it gets quite dull in the middle, but the end saves a lot as it's rather brilliant, even with the spoiling name. The story was quite good and reflecting back to the time it was made, very political as well. What I was most surprised was the soundtrack, once I saw both Luis Bacalov and Ennio Morricone in the titles I was expecting to be blown away by the score, but I must say it wasn't anything special, quite forgettable to be honest. Even though this wasn't an audio-visual beauty like what you'd expect from some of the spaghetti westerns, it was still well worth the watch and actually a great ending to a brilliant festival as it made me want to see more from the genre apart from the usual Leone and Corbucci classics.

70%

Like I said, unfortunately I had to leave the two night screenings of Viva Cangaceiro (1971) and Death Rides Along (1970) out as I'm getting way too old for these kinds of movie marathons. I'm especially sad I couldn't see Viva Cangaceiro as it's a very rare spaghetti western and I really don't know if there's ever going to be another chance of seeing it. Anyway, this festival was a blast and I hope they will do it again in the future.