Wild Strawberries (1957)

Sara (Bibi Andersson) shows Dr. Isak Borg (Victor Sjöström) his reflection.

It is certainly fair to say that much of Ingmar Bergman’s work (The Seventh Seal, Fanny and Alexander) takes an experienced mind to fully appreciate. As elitist as I’m in danger of sounding for writing that, I do believe it, but I will also concede that I am by no means experienced enough in life to appreciate Wild Strawberries fully. It makes me wonder why a film like Wild Strawberries would be shown in film classes to budding and perhaps talented artists, but not unlike me, they are most likely novices at life. Dr. Isak Borg (Victor Sjöström) is not a novice. He knows what it is like to lose love and surrender to something less. He knows exactly what it is like to be lulled and deceived by life’s trials. For so long he was dead in life and would become alive again during the process of his death. It is a bittersweet and profoundly beautiful realization that Dr. Borg is compelled to find in this truly amazing film.

From left; Ingmar Bergman with cast members Jullan Kindahl, who plays Adga, and Sjöström.

Wild Strawberries follows the one day journey of 76 year old medical scientist Isak Borg. Isak was born into a family of ten children and he is the only one alive today. He has been a doctor for fifty years, a father for probably more than thirty years, a widower for some time, and socially he has withdrawn quite a bit. He is being rewarded for his professional accomplishments and he travels to his destination to receive his honors. Through interactions with various characters, through triggered memories, and sometimes through horrific dream sequences, this film turns out to be a meditation on Dr. Borg’s life. It is ultimately about a man in the twilight of his life gazing into the mirror, perhaps for the final time, to find some level of resolution and comfort.

Surreal scene from one of the film's dream sequences.

There are so few filmmakers today making existential road films like this. Alfonso Cuarón (Y tu mamá también, Children of Men) comes to mind. It’s so rare to find something so deep and succinct. Most films that rely to any degree of making philosophical statements through dream sequences and similar devices are often reduced to being vague, cryptic, and sometimes even pretentious. Wild Strawberries provides both a glimpse into the psychology of Dr. Borg as well as a more macrocosmic spirituality some viewers will empathize with and find endlessly rewarding. It is a film about nerves and dread but at the same time it is a film about authentic self-identity, satisfaction, and peace. There’s a lot to learn here. This is a film to enjoy multiple times for sure.

My rating is 5 out of 5 stars.

Alternando su reciente faceta de documentalista con la de productor de cine y realizador de TV, el maestro del costumbrismo contémporaneo, el futuro ganador del Cecil B. DeMille en los próximos Golden Globes, el gran Martin Scorsese, se prepara para una grata sorpresa. Y la sorpresa es su regreso al género del terror y el suspenso.

Para los que no recuerden Cape Fear y su magnífico DeNiro, Martin Scorsese en 1991 adaptó la novela de John D. MacDonald y junto a él, Nick Nolte, Jessica Lange y la jovencita Juliette Lewis armaron lo que para mi es un claro ejemplo de suspenso donde el cruento enfrentamiento entre DeNiro y su abogado defensor, Nolte, nos dejó petrificados en nuestras sillas. Para ese entonces Juliette Lewis caracterizaba a una jovencita casi de la misma edad mía; en ese entonces no concebía muy bien la diferencia de edades y pues me parecía un acto de seducción medianamente normal. Vista uno o dos veces después, el acto pedófilo se hizo más evidente y alimentó mi morbo en esta peli en particular. No hay cabida para ser tan macabro como lo fue DeNiro y tan genialmente malvado como Scorsese para lograr esta factura. La maldición de Scorsese, y de paso la de DeNiro, era la de arrasar en nominaciones y no ganar absolutamente nada (una gran injusticia con este par de monstruos), esta no fue la excepción. Qué buen guión, qué buena factura, qué actuaciones, etc… Y nada. Al final la revelación de Lewis y su virginal papel, le conllevaron dos premios y una nominación a nivel independiente.

Scorsese se prepara para un nuevo atardecer, de la mano de un reparto sencillamente impresionante, de Robert Richardson veterano de mil batallas en cinematografía al lado de Oliver Stone, el mismo Scorsese y recientemente visto en los basterdos de Tarantino, y de Thelma Shoonmaker editora que no sólo es una ganadora impresionante de óscares sino casi la mano derecha de Scorsese en todo su portafolio de largometrajes.

Apunta a ser escalofriante, impresionante, tenebrosa, ojalá muy gore y de una factura impecable. Que se lleve sus buenos premios y que Scorsese como es caballero repita Oscar como es debido.

Leonardo DiCaprio (Teddy Daniels)
Mark Ruffalo (Chuck Aule)
Ben Kingsley (Dr. John Cawley)
Michelle Williams (Dolores Chanal)
Max von Sydow (Dr. Jeremiah Naehring)
Jackie Earle Haley (George Noyce)
Elias Koteas (Andrew Laeddis)
John Carroll Lynch (Deputado Warden McPherson)

*No encontré el papel de Patricia Clarkson en IMDb y no lo he podido encontrar en ningún otro lado :-S

The Seventh Seal (1957)

"You all say that. But I give no respite."

Crusader, Antonious Block (Max Von Sydow) and his squire Jöns (Gunnar Björnstrand) have returned home after ten years. Unfortunately, thorough chaos and the black plague await them. Block himself comes face to face with a human manifestation of Death (Bengt Ekerot). Death has come for him and during Block’s trials over the last ten years he has felt his faith in God diminish. Block challenges Death to a game of chess that plays on throughout the entire film. We wonder if his expectations are to actually outwit Death and survive. During his many interactions with Death he asks for true knowledge of God’s existence and therefore some guidance as to his own. He is conflicted and to some degree he views the concept of God as merely an idol created to pacify fear and doom. These are just a few of the many insights that make their confrontation so enticing. Block’s squire Jöns seems to acknowledge and exist in this oblivion and acts as humanity’s voice of helplessness to Block. Block likely knows his death is forthcoming but is playing his game of chess as a way to delay the inevitable. The delay allows him to reunite with his wife and to further ponder on the existence of God. But most importantly, it is all a way for him to express and examine his utter dissatisfaction with the possibility that life has absolutely no meaning at all.

"I want knowledge. Not belief. Not surmise. But knowledge. I want God to put out His hand, show His face, speak to me."

I was first exposed to some of Ingmar Bergman’s work when I was in my teens. Back then I only thought I understood Bergman. I was wrong; with Bergman there is always some new guidance to provide further appreciation for life. Unfortunately, this outstanding director passed away in July of 2007. I felt obligated to buy Criterion’s release of Bergman’s masterpiece The Seventh Seal. I’ve seen the Seventh Seal three times. The first time without really paying attention but just kind of suspecting it was something special, this was years ago in my late teens. The other two times I watched it alone and both times I became consumed by it; once as a pious Christian and once as a skeptical agnostic. I saw the film in a dramatically different light with each viewing but yet it was still a great experience. Needless to say, if you’ve seen The Seventh Seal and not felt that your faith or lack thereof is being questioned and tugged at then you may need to watch it again. In the end, I found a satisfying resolution either way and the film is both personal and universal in it’s commentary, so you may too. It is interesting to note that The Seventh Seal never tries to directly answer Block’s questions and almost anyone could walk away satisfied with the conclusion. The Seventh Seal isn’t necessarily about God and faith directly, but really just the aspects that produce them. The experience of life and finding comfort in our own personal existence is something only the ignorant or indifferent could look away from, and they may be the only ones unsatisfied with The Seventh Seal’s conclusion. As a character Block is anything but ignorant or indifferent. He is more alive and passionate throughout the film because he knows full well he is in Death’s grip and he wants to know if his actions in life are worth anything. This is a hugely significant film that tackles hugely significant subject matter and does so without preaching at us. It even uses some humor in doses at just the right time. I’m hopeful that one day a film like this could be produced again but somehow I see cinema going in a very different direction.

"Mia! I see them, Mia! I see them! Over there against the stormy sky. They are all there. The smith and Lisa, the knight, Raval, Jöns, and Skat. And the strict master Death bids them dance. He wants them to hold hands and to tread the dance in a long line. At the head goes the strict master with the scythe and hourglass. But the Fool brings up the rear with his lute. They move away from the dawn in a solemn dance away towards the dark lands while the rain cleanses their cheeks of the salt from their bitter tears."

The DVD release itself is a very good one and I definitely recommend the Criterion release. The film has been restored enough to appreciate the cinematography for the time and budget, and there are also some great extras that really help to put Bergman’s film career in perspective. I can honestly say that no film affected me like The Seventh Seal and I am a Bergman fan for life, with still much of his filmmography left to discover and enjoy. He will be sorely missed.

My rating is 5 out of 5 stars.

“Something beyond comprehension is happening to a little girl on this street, in this house. A man has been called for as a last resort to try and save her. That man is The Exorcist“

Ok, you can tell I am still catching up on reviews from the Halloween season. So, it’s not like I am getting in the holiday season mood with a viewing of The Exorcist. In my opinion the scariest movie ever made. This is also one of the few horror movies that received critical acclaim, nominated for a total of 10 Oscars including Best Picture. If you don’t know the story, it is about a young girl possessed by a demon. Her mother turns to a local priest, who has just lost his mother and is starting to have questions about his own faith. It is this priest, Father Karras, who realizes the little Girl Regan needs a lot of help, in fact she needs an Exorcist.

This film has a great cast of characters. Ellen Burstyn (Requiem for a Dream, The Yards, and Best Actress nominee for The Exorcist) plays Regan’s mother and local actress, Chris MacNeil. She plays a very caring mother who really doesn’t have a strong religious background of any kind, yet finds herself to the point of breaking down and helpless when it comes to helping her sick daughter. Jason Miller plays Father Karras, who was also nominated for a Best Actor Oscar in this film. A wonderful surprise performance from Linda Blair (Airport 1975, The Exorcist 2: The Heretic) who plays Regan. She was nominated for Supporting Actress. Unfortunately she did such a great job, she fell into a Hollywood stereo type of playing in a lot of B Horror movies like Hell Night. Long time great Lee J. Cobb (12 Angry Men, The Three Faces of Eve) also has a significant role as the detective investigating the murder.

I know some that have laughed this movie off, and I guess that can be expected some as much as this film has been lampooned and joked about. Just mentioning the words “Pea Soup” is iconic for the film, and even people who haven’t seen the film get this reference. Is it a horror film. Yes. Is it a religious film. Yes. The one thing this film will always remain is a true classic and the scariest film of all time.

I’ll keep this brief, as I’m scheduled to make an appearance tonight on a certain well-known late-night television program, and I have to allot enough time for primping, preening and rigorous exfoliation. Looking good comes quite naturally to me, but one can never be too careful, especially when it comes to television.

The Swedish and French conspiring to screw the Irish… where have we heard that before, right? What? Seriously? Don’t you remember the infamous Querelle de Famille? Where the Lundquists and Lavaltries joined forces to battle the McGillicuddys over shipping rights in the North Sea? No? Do you live in a cave? OK, how about Max von Sydow, heard of him? Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. Can there be a clearer case? Born in Sweden and currently a French citizen, he cruelly and brazenly turned his back on his father, a professor of Irish folklore, to pursue other things. Clearly an affront to not only his father, but the Irish people as a whole. The bitterness runs deep between these three.

And now we’ve come to the latest chapter. In case you missed last night’s World Cup qualifier between France and Ireland, France went through thanks to an extremely controversial goal in extra-time, in which Thierry Henry of France not only controlled, but redirected the ball into the path of a teammate using his hand. I would link to it here, but the links are going up and being taken down faster than I can type. A quick google search of “Thierry Henry hand ball Ireland” should do the trick.

And here’s the thing. The players knew it happened. The fans watching at home knew it happened. Any fan in attendance within 500 feet of the goal knew it happened. Who didn’t know it (allegedly)? The Swedish referees. That’s right. They allowed the goal to stand and France is now in the 2010 World Cup, while poor Ireland can only wonder what might have been.

Which brings me to the point of the thing… instant replay. I’ve heard the arguments against it… shallow, frivolous, superficial and empty, all of them. Used in a court of law, they would probably get the lawyer disbarred, surely get him ridiculed, and might even have him chasing car crashes for the rest of his career. The alpha argument, the one instant replay’s opponents hang their collective hats on, is that it would interrupt the flow of the game. Poppycock (that’s right… you heard me). As an avowed fan of American Football, I can speak with some experience as to the trials and tribulations of instant replay introduction… it’s worth it. Yes, some games get dragged down a bit when reviewable plays occur consecutively, or at least within a short period of time, but this is rare, and it’s worth it to get the call right.

And this would be less of an issue in soccer, since 99% of reviewable plays would be related to goal-scoring in one way or another. In the time it takes a player to slide on his knees toward the corner flag, salute the crowd, be engulfed by his teammates and slowly plod back to his end of the field, a replay could be handled (preferrably by a fifth official in front of a monitor) with time to spare. It would all be so simple, and would have very little effect on the flow of the game.

I even condone the use of replay post-match, to determine red cards and suspensions, and even, in a more radical altering of the rules, penalties for diving. I firmly believe the sport won’t take off in America until diving, and especially the feigning of injuries, is eradicated. But that’s a story for another time.

Anyway, if there’s any good to come from the Irish job, it’s that the issue of instant replay will move to the front-burner. Even then, it might take an egregious mistake in a World Cup Final to, at long last, begin it’s instigation.

Oh my, look at the time. Where’s my loofah?

Laslo Benedek, who in different films had once directed Fredric March, Marlon Brando, Yul Brynner and Frank Sinatra, got to direct two of the actors who made my list of the fifty best film actors of all time, Swedes Per Oscarsson and Max von Sydow, in a frightening, highly entertaining though formally messy thriller about two axe murderers, related by marriage, in The Night Visitor. Liv Ullmann is also on board as the wife of one and the sister of the other, and part of the film’s eventual pleasure is that Liv Ullmann, as the result of someone’s swings of an ax, becomes Liv + Ull + mann. (Now if we can only have a remake with Meryl Streep in the part . . . .) Trevor Howard plays the police investigator. An adorable parrot, let me add, gets in the last word.
     Only Oscarsson can be credited with what might be a third of the way in the direction of a performance, but von Sydow is highly active here, climbing trees and up and down insane asylum walls. I suspect that Max the Ax is so batty because his character is named Salem. A name like that can’t help a guy.
     Guy Elmes wrote the preposterous script from an original story by Samuel Roeca. The terrible music is by Henry Mancini.

Movie Poster 27x40

 

Creepshow is an American horror-comedy anthology film directed by George A. Romero (of Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead fame), and written by Stephen King (Carrie, The Shining, Misery, The Stand).

It was considered a sleeper hit at the box office when released in November 1982, earning over $21 million domestically, and remains a popular film to this day among horror genre fans. The film was shot on location in Pittsburgh and the suburb areas. It consists of five short stories referred to as “Jolting Tales of Horror”: “Father’s Day”, “The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill”, “Something to Tide You Over”, “The Crate” and “They’re Creeping Up on You!”. Two of these stories, “The Crate” and “The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill” (originally titled “Weeds”), were adapted from previously published Stephen King’s short horror tales. The segments are tied together with brief animated sequences. The film is bookended by scenes, featuring a young boy named Billy (played by Stephen King’s own son, Joe King), who is punished by his father for reading horror comics. The film is an homage to the E.C. horror comic books of the 1950s such as Tales from the Crypt, The Vault of Horror and The Haunt of Fear.

Buy this Title on Blu-ray

In later years, the international rights of the film would be acquired by Republic Pictures, which today is a subsidiary of the Paramount Motion Pictures Group, itself owned by Viacom. The film’s UK rights are owned by Universal Pictures.

Trivia:

• Stephen King carried a toy figure of the character “Greedo” from Star Wars (1977) on the “Creepshow” set for good luck.
• Cameo: [Joe Hill] (son of Stephen King) The young boy featured in the beginning of the film (avid reader and collector of “Creepshow” comic books).
• Rice Krispies were used as maggots on the corpse’s eyes in the first story, “Father’s Day”. In addition, real maggots were also utilized.
• The marble ashtray (which plays a major role in Creepshow’s first story, “Father’s Day”) is featured in all five of the film’s stories if you look closely.
• The wrestling match Jordy Verrill is watching on TV in the second segment, “The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill”, was being called by Vince McMahon (Chairman of the WWF – now WWE). The wrestlers in the ring were then-current WWF Champion Bob Backlund and The Samoan No. 1.
• A sign leading to “Castle Rock” (Stephen King’s trademark fictitious town) appears at the very end of the segment “The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill”, among other signs.
• Ted Danson, who played Harry Wentworth in “Something to Tide You Over”, said in a T.V. interview that his daughter was on the set during the scene where his character returns from the dead encased in rotting flesh and seaweed. He purposely tried avoiding his young daughter out of fear of scaring her. Finally, despite his best efforts, she went up to him, looked at him and simply said, “Oh, hi Dad.”
• It is rumored that Max von Sydow was originally slated to play Upson Pratt in Creepshow’s final story, “They’re Creeping Up On You!”.
• In a “Creepshow” special feature from the pages of “Cinefantastique” magazine around the time of “Creepshow”’s release, Stephen King (screenwriter) and George A. Romero (director), revealed that if the film’s final story (“They’re Creeping Up On You!”) had proven to be too difficult and ambitious to film, it would have been substituted with the King short story “The Hitch-Hiker”, which ended up being the final story of the film’s sequel, Creepshow 2 (1987), directed by George A. Romero’s cinematographer on the original Creepshow, Michael Gornick.
• Originally, in Stephen King’s first draft 142-page screenplay for the film, the stories “The Crate” and “Something to Tide You Over” switched places. Making “The Crate” story number 3 and “Tide” story number 4. This is also how the Berni Wrightson Creepshow graphic novel adaptation turned out.
• In Stephen King’s original script for the film, the final story, “They’re Creeping Up On You!”, originally took place in a lush, carpeted penthouse apartment. However, because with roaches this would have been unworkable, Romero opted for a more empty almost hospital room-like set for the story.
• Two of the characters featured in the film, Tabitha and Richard (The new professors at the faculty reception at the beginning of the fourth segment, “The Crate”), were named after Tabitha King (Stephen King’s wife) and Richard Bachman (his ghostwriting name), according to the author.
• In the film’s second segment, “The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill”, the film playing on Jordy’s television in the background is A Star Is Born (1937), according to director George Romero’s commentary on the UK special edition DVD.
• The prop 10-cent “CREEPSHOW” comic book featured in the film was drawn and inked by veteran artist ‘Jack Kamen’, one of the artists for the original E.C. crime and horror comics of the 1950’s. Creepshow was a tribute to these comic books. Jack Kamen also created the comic book-style poster for the film, which was also featured on the front of the Plume “Creepshow” comic book adaptation (which Bernie Wrightson, another prolific horror comic artist, drew and inked the interiors for). Originally, (‘Stephen King (I)’ wanted Graham Ingels, another EC artist (famous for his work on the title “The Haunt of Fear”) to do the artwork for the film’s poster, but he refused. It was head of EC comics ‘William M. Gaines’ who then suggested Jack Kamen do the assignment. Kamen accepted.
• A screen capture of the “Creepshow” comic book featured in the film reveals that the letters page has letters from “Brian Hall of Ann Arbor, Mich.” and “David Graves of Spruce, Maryland”, among others. Spruce is the maiden name of King’s wife Tabitha. David Graves is the name of King’s late brother-in-law (married to wife Tabitha’s sister, Catherine). David Graves lived in Maryland (although not “Spruce”, Md), until his death in 2000.
• The on-set nickname for the monster in the crate in Creepshow’s fourth story was “Fluffy”, as named by director George A. Romero. The creature’s creator (and makeup artist on the entire film), Tom Savini, was the shorter garbageman featured near the end of the film.
• Why does Aunt Bedelia’s father come to life after 7 years in the first story “Father’s Day”? Not because of the lucky number it turns out. If you watch closely you will see Bedelia spills whiskey on the grave. In Gaelic, the word for whiskey is translated as Water of Life, and is likely a nod to James Joyce and his book “Finnegan’s Wake”. In the story a builder’s laborer falls from a ladder and breaks his skull, but is revived when someone spills whiskey on his corpse at the wake. The story of Finnegan’s Wake is in turn written based off an old Dublin street ballad.
• At the end of “The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill”, on the signpost is the town of Portland, Maine. This was Stephen King’s home town, and King is the star of this segment of the film.
• Adrienne Barbeau was still married to John Carpenter when Creepshow was released. Carpenter would make the film version of Stephen King’s Christine (1983) the following year. King wrote and makes an appearance in Creepshow.
• The housekeeper in the “Father’s Day” sequence is Mrs.Danvers. The malevolent housekeeper in Alfred Hitchcock’s suspense film Rebecca (1940) is also named Mrs. Danvers.

In that note, below are some movies to watch.

The Road (2009)

Director: John Hillcoat
Writers: Cormac McCarthy (novel) Joe Penhall (adaptation)
Release Date: 25 November 2009 (USA)
Genre: Adventure | Drama | Sci-Fi | Thriller
Plot: A post-apocalyptic tale of a man and his son trying to survive by any means possible.

Cast
Charlize Theron -Wife
Viggo Mortensen -The Man
Guy Pearce -The Veteran
Robert Duvall -Old Man

The Lovely Bones (2009)

Director: Peter Jackson
Writers (WGA): Fran Walsh (screenplay) &  Philippa Boyens (screenplay)
Release Date: 15 January 2010 (USA)
Genre: Crime | Drama | Fantasy | Horror | Thriller more
Plot: Centers on a young girl who has been murdered and watches over her family – and her killer – from heaven. She must weigh her desire for vengeance against her desire for her family to heal.

Cast
Mark Wahlberg -Jack Salmon
Rachel Weisz -Abigail Salmon
Susan Sarandon -Grandma Lynn
Stanley Tucci -George Harvey
Saoirse Ronan -Susie Salmon
Michael Imperioli -Len Fenerman

Tell-Tale (2009)

Director: Michael Cuesta
Writers (WGA): Dave Callaham (screenplay) Edgar Allan Poe (short story “The Tell-Tale Heart”)
Genre: Drama | Horror | Sci-Fi | Thriller
Plot: A man’s newly transplanted heart leads him on a dangerous journey to find out who murdered its donor.

Cast
Josh Lucas -Terry
Lena Headey -Elizabeth
Brian Cox -Van Doren

I Love You Phillip Morris (2009)

Directors: Glenn Ficarra and John Requa
Writers (WGA): John Requa (written by) & Glenn Ficarra (written by)
Release Date: 12 February 2010 (USA)
Genre: Comedy | Drama
Plot: Steven Russell is happily married to Debbie, and a member of the local police force when a car accident provokes a dramatic reassessment of his life…

Cast
Jim Carrey -Steven Russell
Ewan McGregor -Phillip Morris
Leslie Mann -Debbie

Shutter Island (2010)

Director: Martin Scorsese
Writers (WGA): Laeta Kalogridis (screenplay) Dennis Lehane (novel)
Release Date: 19 February 2010 (USA)
Genre: Drama | Horror | Mystery | Thriller
Plot: Drama is set in 1954, U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels is investigating the disappearance of a murderess who escaped from a hospital for the criminally insane and is presumed to be hiding on the remote Shutter Island.

Cast
Leonardo DiCaprio -Teddy Daniels
Mark Ruffalo -Chuck Aule
Ben Kingsley -Dr. John Cawley
Emily Mortimer -Rachel Solando
Michelle Williams -Dolores Chanal
Max von Sydow -Dr. Jeremiah Naehring
Jackie Earle Haley -George Noyce

Daybreakers (2010)

Directors: Michael Spierig and Peter Spierig
Writers: Michael Spierig (writer) Peter Spierig (writer)
Release Date: 8 January 2010 (USA)
Genre: Action | Drama | Horror | Sci-Fi | Thriller more
Plot: In the year 2019, a plague has transformed most every human into vampires. Faced with a dwindling blood supply, the fractured dominant race plots their survival; meanwhile, a researcher works with a covert band of vamps on a way to save humankind.

Cast
Willem Dafoe -Elvis
Isabel Lucas -Alison Bromley
Ethan Hawke -Edward
Sam Neill -Charles Bromley

Source: http://www.imdb.com/

MAGIA, ESPADA Y FANTASÍA (V)

Siempre nos quejamos de la colonización que sufre el cine por causa de las tantas, tan superfluas e innecesarias adaptaciones a partir de tebeos que padecemos en los últimos tiempos. No obstante, no es una moda ni mucho menos reciente, al contrario, de lo más antigua, aunque no a este nivel de explotación extrema, absurda, repetitiva y, por lo general, intrascendente. Periódicamente, pese a todo, nos sorprente entre tanto bodrio con películas notables inspiradas en esa fuente y que nos ofrecen como producto interesantes trabajos que exceden su propio origen y su ámbito natural de público: el friki de los tebeos (dicho sea con todo el respeto; aquí pensamos que es de lo más saludable ser friki de algo… dentro de un orden). Uno de los mayores exponentes de esta excepción es la adaptación que del famoso tebeo de Robert E. Howard dirigió en 1982 el cineasta, al que se atribuyen ideas filofascistas, John Milius (lo que hace más sorprendente que escribiera el guión a medias con Oliver Stone, sospechoso de todo menos de ser filofascista), protagonizada por un Arnold Schwarzenegger al que la tontería del taparrabos y la musculación le cambió la vida.

Con un extremo cuidado en cuanto al diseño de producción, la película nos transporta a esa Edad Oscura intemporal (que algunos sitúan entre la caída del Imperio Romano y la llegada del feudalismo medieval) de caos y desorden en la que son tribus o pequeñas ciudades las únicas estructuras de poder que se sostienen gracias a una agricultura de subsistencia y un comercio embrionario. Conan, un guerrero cimmerio (interpretado de niño por Jorge Sanz y ya de machorro por el austriaco Arnold Schwarzenegger, cuya foto de cabecera no tiene desperdicio; no se sabe si la inclusión de cuernos en su indumentaria fue un homenaje “hispánico” de Milius, Stone y compañía), último de una estirpe, se enfrenta junto a sus compañeros, una joven guerrera y un arquero de rasgos orientales, a los malvados que arrasaron su pueblo y acabaron con su familia, tres guerreros que encabezan un extraño culto con centenares o miles de fieles que acuden como peregrinos a una ceremonia ritual en la que las serpientes ocupan el lugar central. Alimentado durante años de esclavitud por su sed de venganza, ha ido esculpiendo un cuerpo para la guerra a través de innumerables y fatigosos esfuerzos y combates, hasta el día en que la casualidad le pone en la pista de sus víctimas.

Rodada en su mayor parte en España, en ubicaciones de la Sierra de Madrid y la Ciudad Encantada de Cuenca, la película nos traslada a un remoto y legendario tiempo de aventuras épicas y alterna violencia y magia, mitos y superstición con mucha acción y con el habitual y necesario laconismo en los diálogos siempre que el amigo Arnold anda por medio, pero con guión correcto, a pesar de ser una típica, tópica y previsible crónica de una venganza sangrienta, obra de Milius y del cineasta Oliver Stone, una atmósfera muy sugerente, fenomenalmente fotografiada (de hecho, pese a haber pasado más de veinticinco años sigue pareciendo extrañamente actual), magníficamente acompañada por la monumental música de Basil Poledouris, y gran pericia visual, en la que sigue siendo una de las mejores adaptaciones del tebeo a la pantalla. Justita en cuanto a interpretaciones, eso sí, destacan Max Von Sydow y, sobre todo, James Earl Jones como villano (acostumbrado a ese papel tras años poniéndole voz a Darth Vader en la trilogía original, y para quien escribe, única digna de ser llamada así, de Star Wars), cuyas apariciones son las únicas cuyo empaque consigue llenar la pantalla más allá del clembuterol muscular de Chuache.

Del rodaje español cabe señalar dos elementos anecdóticos: uno, la presencia de Nadiuska como madre de Conan-Jorge Sanz, mito erótico del cine español de los 60-70 posteriormente abocada a la indigencia, y dos, el hecho de que en pleno rodaje de la película en febrero de 1981, la Guardia Civil irrumpiera en el plató y paralizara los trabajos de la película, con el correspondiente desconcierto y sorpresa del equipo extranjero de la cinta, y con el sobresalto y preocupación obvios por parte de los españoles presentes. Así las cosas, cabe apuntar a los muchos y largos méritos de la Guardia Civil (no es cuestión aquí de entrar en sus muchos y largos deméritos) en su haber el hecho de haber podido con Conan y con el actuar gobernador de California. Será el tricornio…

El éxito inesperado de la cinta provocó el rodaje de una continuación con Richard Fleischer como director, de calidad visual y narrativa notablemente inferior, como quedará constancia en su momento oportuno.

This movie looks excellent.  I am not usually a fan of Hollywood films but I will see this one.  Mark Ruffalo is a new favorite of mine (well, new since 2003,) and Leonardo Dicaprio is a fine actor.  The pair play U.S. Marshalls investigating the disappearance of a patient from a remote island hospital for the criminally insane.  Also starring the legendary Sir Ben Kingsley, Max Von Sydow, Patricia Clarkson and Michelle Williams.  Based on a novel by Dennis Lehane (Gone Baby Gone, Mystic River,) and directed by Martin Scorsese.  Due in theaters February, 2010.

Your mother’s in here, Karras. Would you like to leave a message? I’ll see that she gets it.

– Demon

I owned a VHS copy of The Exorcist for a time, but I have not seen the Director’s Cut of the movie until now. Seeing that this is the end of my “Creep-A-Thon”, I wanted to end on a high with this ten-time Academy award nominated movie and the #208 movie of All Time on IMDb by William Freidkin. It won for Best Adapted Screenplay for William Peter Blatty for adapting his own book. This movie still creeps me out.

It has been a long time since I have seen the movie that I don’t want was or wasn’t in the theatrical cut. In this version, Father Merrin (Max von Sydow) is on an archeological dig in Northern Iraq where he uncovers an ancient artifact that is reminiscent of the devil.

Cut to Georgetown where an actress, Chris McNeill (Ellen Busrtyn) in the middle of filming a movie for Burke Jennings (Jack MacGowran). She rents out a house with her daughter, Regan (Linda Blair). Everything seems to fine, except Mrs. MacNeil hears noises from the attic. She thinks that there are rats. When she investigates, nothing is there.

After Regan’s twelfth birthday, she starts acting weird with spacing out, the inappropriate outbursts and swearing. Chris and Regan don’t know what is going on. Chris contacts Dr. Klein (Barton Heyman) to perform a battery of tests on Regan. He concludes that she has a lesion in her temporal lobe that causes the change in behavior.

In consulting with Dr. Taney (Robert Symonds) with x-rays, they cannot find on her brain. The doctors are stumped. They have exhausts of their options medically. It could be mental. A therapist (Arthur Storch) is called to put Regan under hypnosis. During the session, a spirit that inhabits her body is brought out.

There last resort is an exorcism to drive the spirit out of her body. Father Karras (Jason Miller) wants the task to perform the exorcism, but his superiors want to have a person that had actually performed. The church enlists Father Merrin to lead the exorcism.

I can’t believe that I was bored at some parts with this movie. During the movie, I was dozing. I don’t remember the movie having these B, C and D subplots with Karras’ mother, the mystery of the death of the director, the noises in the attic, etc.

The movie is still good. This movie is so creepy that it might happen to you. Being possessed by the devil. It’s more real than a vampire, a werewolf or a zombie coming after you.

Judgment: After all this time, the movie is very effective by freaking you out.

Rating: ****

The Exorcist (1973)

"This sow is mine!"

In 1973 William Friedkin created a screen adaptation of William Peter Blatty’s novel The Exorcist. It is a character driven drama that deals with the demonic possession of a young girl named Reagan MacNeil (Linda Blair) and her faith-finding mother’s (Ellen Burnstyn) desperation as she sees her daughter consumed by this evil supernatural force. The film earned ten Oscar nominations.

The demon Pazuzu

The way in which The Exorcist presents its characters and allows each of them to develop in this horrifying predicament is what sets the stage for the horror to seem so genuine. Especially considering that in this setting, regardless of your faith as an audience member, everything that happens and everything priests Father Damien Karras (Jason Miller) and Father Lankester Merrin (Max Von Sydow) believe in is absolutely real. It is their piety and endurance in the face of such evil that are precisely the tools needed for Reagan to be saved. It is their duty and they are the film’s heroes.

"Do you know what she did?!"

Vomiting toward The Exorcist

On the flip side, the demon, Pazzuzu, who has consumed Reagan, is just as devote to evil. Merrin makes it clear to Karras that the demon is a masterful liar and that they must not listen to him no matter what. Later on we see first hand the psychological onslaught of lies that they must endure. It is almost as powerful and horrifying as the earlier stages of the film where we see the gradual manifestation of evil in young Reagan.

A deeply possessed Reagan MacNeil

Father Merrin, The Exorcist and the film's great hero, arrives.

The shift from normal little girl to full blown demon in the Exorcist contains, at least within the context of this compelling drama, the scariest images ever portrayed on film. I saw the Exorcist for the first time when I was pretty young (in fact, too young). I didn’t even get to see the truly scary parts until years later, but even the early stages gave me nightmares. The scene where we hear little Reagan screaming from the other room and the doctors rush in with her mother and they see her flopping uncontrollably from the waste up. Then she suddenly leaps up and begins to talk as the demon for the first time. “This sow is mine!” she shouts. I was told that the film would only get worse from there, but I didn’t watch much beyond that until a few years later. So it stewed in my mind and I imagined horrible things and suffered quite a bit of nightmares. When I was 13 or so I saw it again, little did I know that even those years of imagining what could be worse then that “this sow in mine!” sequence did not prepare me for the crucifix scene.

"The power of Christ compels you!"

Reagan next to an image of Pazuzu's statue.

I watch the Exorcist every Halloween as it is the only classic that continues to scare me to this day. Part of that is nostalgia but it is an incredibly compelling movie as well. I just don’t understand when I hear people who say it is funny, and that they laugh when they watch it. It isn’t that I couldn’t find humor in they way they watch it; it is just that they’ve missed the point. Watching a horror movie should be like riding a roller-coaster. You should enjoy the excitement and hold your arms up in a roller-coaster to maximize the experience. The mind-set to enjoy a film like the Exorcist should be similar. You shouldn’t see it as a test of what you can and cannot look at. If you approached a roller-coaster that way you might get a stiff neck. With a horror film you are supposed to be afraid and furthermore, with any film you should ideally always be compelled into it’s fictional world. That is what makes the experience an unforgettable one. There are so few horror films that can do that, but the Exorcist delivers every single time. That is what makes it so exceptional.

My rating is 5 out of 5 stars.

In 1973, a little film directed by William Friedkin (The French Connection) was released that caused mass hysteria, fainting and undying controversy. The film launched new comer Linda Blair into the spotlight and set a benchmark for psychological horror films to come. The film was “The Exorcist”.

In the new Exorcist film, we are introduced to a younger Father Merrin (Stellan Skarsgard, Max Von Sydow in the original 1973 film). This film is almost an origin story if you will.

Following the devastation and gritty aftermath of World War II, Merrin has become disillusioned with his faith and turned his back on the church. He now makes his life as an archeologist.

His passion for uncovering the past brings him to a desolate village on the outskirts of Nairobi, Kenya where a church has been uncovered. The church was built in 500 AD and seems to hold a rather disturbing secret. Upon Merrin’s arrival, he is greeted by Sarah (Izabella Scorupco), a doctor who has been with the dig since the beginning.

As Merrin begins to investigate the mysterious church he learns that the site was constructed over a pagan temple and that the archeologist who uncovered the site has gone completely insane. As the mystery deepens, Merrin will face his tortured past, seek redemption and face the greatest evil man has ever known.

Stellan Skarsgard is quite impressive as the struggling Merrin and it his performance that accents a lot of the credibility housed in this film. You can see this man’s pain and how he conflicts with everything he witnesses. Even in the attraction scenes with the younger Scorupco, Skarsgard doesn’t allow his character to find any raw emotion.

Director Renny Harlin’s tone and gritty nature does emulate a lot of what is happening within Merrin. But his overly gory and bloody sequences make the film quite hard to stomach in places. I have also never witnessed so many blatant attempts to lay on the gore so heavy.

Gore is fine but here it seems layered on as a sort of horror icing. Does gore equal horror?

What was so fun about the original was that it was highly psychological even though we did have that infamous “pea soup” scene. It dove into the mind of not only Linda Blair’s 12-year old girl but the struggling of Father Merrin. In the new film we seem to lose the psychological element as the true evil is finally revealed.

The film feels like it goes over three hours but it is only about 100 minutes. The reason for this is probably because there is just so much heaviness and dark gritty scenes that your mind plays tricks on you.

In a lot of the scenes which used overly horrific elements, I found that is was just too much. Also the film throws out the whole idea that Hollywood doesn’t harm children on camera. There are just so many unsettling and disturbing scenes housed in this film.

I really enjoyed Skarsgard and Renny Harlin’s gritty direction. I also was captivated by a lot of the film’s mysterious elements and story. I just got frustrated with the gratuitous gore and disturbing violence.

3 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

I’m still not fully on board with Leo in a horror, because I’m still jaded about Secret Window, Johnny Depp’s half-ass return to “horror”, so can Leo pulls this off? We shall see , I guess. Yes, I know Johnny and Leo have nothing to do with each other, but it’s the way mind works. Anyway to refresh the noggin, here’s the story:

It’s 1954, and up-and-coming U.S. marshal Teddy Daniels is assigned to investigate the disappearance of a patient from Boston’s Shutter Island Ashecliffe Hospital. He’s been pushing for an assignment on the island for personal reasons, but before long he wonders whether he hasn’t been brought there as part of a twisted plot by hospital doctors whose radical treatments range from unethical to illegal to downright sinister. Teddy’s shrewd investigating skills soon provide a promising lead, but the hospital refuses him access to records he suspects would break the case wide open. As a hurricane cuts off communication with the mainland, more dangerous criminals “escape” in the confusion, and the puzzling, improbable clues multiply, Teddy begins to doubt everything – his memory, his partner, even his own sanity.

Due to circumstances beyond my control (work), I didn’t get the chance to see that many films this day. I did, though, have an unpleasant encounter with a member of the film jury, which – if not anything else – convinced me that the winner of the festival’s jury prize will be left entirely to chance and incompetence. I wish the festival leaders had considered their jury choices a bit more carefully. More on this later.

I first became aware of Belgian director Jaco van Dormael with his 1993-film Toto the Hero, which generally got rave reviews and which I liked. I seem to recall that I felt it put an unnecessary sentimentalism to the world of the child protagonist, but I think that was part of its theme. Not having seen the film since its cinema run 16 years ago, I don’t want to compare it with his latest work, which was my first film of the day.

Mr. Nobody is by far his most ambitious project to date. It cost close to $50 million and features at least B-list Hollywood actors. It is filmed at several locations; Belgium, the famous Studio Babelsberg in Germany, in Canada and at several other places. Most of the money, though, must have gone to the impressive special effects which are very, very good. Very complicated fx shots integrate seamlessly with the “real” world and a number of editing tricks and film styles are on display.

The film is not only ambitious from a financial or technical perspective. The story seeks to sum up the entirety of the universe’s existence, and not only this universe. It is at times a period film, a science fiction story and a contemporary love story. It is about storytelling, parallel universes, time travel, religion, immortality and death. Most importantly it is about love.

Jared Leto plays the grown up version of the protagonist Nemo Nobody and he does it well. I think this is his first leading role in a film of this magnitude. Then again, there are not that many films of this scope. In a way I felt the film was never quite only itself, but borrowed from a number of films and from the history of film. Perhaps it had to, but I felt at times that the director had seen the works of other directors he admired and tried to emulate them and, by combining their tropes, hoped to find something personal enough to call his own.
There is a bit of Darren Aronofsky’s the Fountain here, but on an even bigger thematic scale. Kubrick’s 2001 is quoted in some images. In a scene depicting humanity’s pre-existence, the moments before we are conceived, Van Dormael used the Melanesian music from Terrence Malick’s The Thin Red Line while at the same time putting this music to images of white and black children playing innocently together in a heavenly innocent state. So, in other words, welcome to the beginning of The Thin red Line! The basic concept of splitting destinies – of turning into several future versions of oneself – based on a choice made while standing by a train, is found in the less ambitious Gwyneth Paltrow vehicle Sliding Doors. The drowning in a car scene reminded me of Lars Von Trier’s Europa (By the count of ten you will be dead, as Max Von Sydow laconically narrates in that film). In a way Mr. Nobody is two and a half hours awaiting said count. I could go on, but you get the point.

It is not easy to sum up what this film is about. When the protagonist is forced to make a faithful choice at the age of nine (I think), he is separated into two persons, depending on which choice he makes. Within these two possible characters comes a further three choices – which makes it six characters(?) – based on his choice of girlfriend as an adolescent. One version of himself turns out to be a lecturer in astrophysics, who sometimes enters the action to lecture the viewer about the history and philosophy of the universe. He says there are seven dimensions in the universe; six of these are spatial, while the seventh is temporal. He then poses the question of whether the temporal – time – inhabited more than one dimension. (I take this from memory, so forgive me for any inaccuracies!) To complicate matters further, another one of these personalities takes up writing, creating a fictional world that in the film is presented as just as real as the non-fiction worlds. This fiction takes the action to space (to Mars) and the future. However, another future is also depicted in the film, a future where the protagonist is the last mortal human alive (and thus, the last who remembers love and lust; you don‘t need children if you live forever…) There is a point to this, but I won’t discuss it here, so as not to spoil the film.

While the plot of the film seems incredibly advanced and ambitious, to its credit, we are never lost and most times understand perfectly where we are in the story and what is depicted. Actually, I had no problems with the science fiction elements of the tale. They are well thought and very well executioned. It is in the way the film revolves around the concept of love that I feel it loses itself a bit; it becomes a bit too much.

One kind of love that is decisive for Mr. Nemo Nobody is the child’s love for his parents. Another kind of love is the puppy love between nine year olds, then the lustful love between adolescents and finally the emotional, during and at times hard and stressful love between spouses. Put together, this becomes a whole lotta love, as the song says. Now, if the love theme had been presented a bit more smartly, I wouldn’t have any problems with it. (While it is presented in a complicated tale, this doesn’t make the kind of love on display any more “intelligent” or new to the viewer). Especially irritating is the extremely cliché ridden music the director has chosen for the soundtrack. There are just so many times you can hear Mr. Sandman, bring me a dream… Almost every scene has music that has been used so often before in films that it brings you as a viewer out of the film’s universe and at least I began pondering boredom and references rather than the action taking place before me.

Another unfortunate effect of the music has to do with its placement. When the protagonist as a young boy sees a girl his age, nine, swimming, a lusty soul-number is played, thus turning her into a kind of sex object. This is disturbing and can’t have been the director’s intention. While he wants to tell us that the protagonist falls in love at this moment, there must surely be better ways to sonically enhance this element!

Then there is the fact that all of Nemo’s love stories revolve around three girls that he meets as a young child. I find it a bit far fetched that these same girls shall also be his only interests in adolescence and in marriage. The film is, then, not only about premeditation, but about an emotional stiltedness, as if Nemo doesn’t really evolve during the film and this is the reason for his future being so clearly delineated into his separate possible selves. The name Nemo, by the way, does not refer to the captain of the Nautilus. You’re better served by reading it backwards.

In closing, I’ll venture to say that the word ambitious will surely be used in pretty much every review of this film. (It wasn’t finished in time for Cannes, so it hasn’t been shown that many places yet). While it is certainly intricate, it ultimately doesn’t convince me. While I’m perfectly willing to take any leaps of logic that the film requires of me, I’m not sure that it ultimately adds up. I have a strong feeling that there are internal discrepancies within the fantastic logic. This should have been worked out a bit better, but I think I will need to see the film a second time to really pinpoint these errors. (And the ones I could point out would ruin the ending, so I’ll refrain).The problem is that, as much as I admired the film for what it’s trying to do, it was just a bit too long and ultimately not all that it could have been, so a second viewing will probably not take place in the immediate future. But if you are in the mood for a lengthy love story told in a brilliant technical style and with a basic sience fiction concept underlining it all, by all means take a chance on the film! I think it deserves an audience and it is without doubt a much better film than The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which was half the rave at this year’s Oscars, and which it also shares some sensibility with. Being the better film of the two, I’m also sure that it won’t find half the audience of Fincher’s unfortunate detour into drivel and mediocrity.

While Mr. Nobody may be flawed, it is at least interesting enough for me to have given it more attention and space than most films. This is more, much more than I can say for the next film I had the misfortune to attend this day. I guess I should have seen the warning signs; it being French the clearest.

Un Lac – A Lake – is a minimalist work about an epileptic boy, his sister and family in an unknown wintry location. This is the second film as writer/director for Philippe Grandrieux, his fourth as director. On this film, he also serves as cinematographer, so he is an auteur in the real sense. The problem is that he is just not a very interesting one. Most of the actors are, for some reason Russian, and it is filmed in France and Switzerland. And the landscape does seem wonderfully oppressing and beautiful at the same time. That is, if any of the images had been in focus. (The images of the brother and sister found to the left are pretty much the only two clear images of the film)

Grandrieux uses a handheld camera style that is extreme in its use of closeups and movements following the characters so closely that we are supposed to see the world as they themselves do. The mother of the family is blind, though it took me some time to decipher this. Many of the scenes are filmed in near darkness and the ones that are not are foggy and out of focus. The brother has a close relationship with his sister, possibly incestuous, but I was never able to tell for sure. His epileptic fits grows in frequency. He is at times very happy for no apparent reason, at times he is moody. One day he is by the cold lake that seems to be the only contact with a wider world. A young man arrives. He says his name is Jurgen. Soon this man starts a relationship with the sister and finally they sail off on the same lake. This is the film. Or what I managed to see of the film.

Do not misunderstand me. I have no problems with challenging films, be it in narrative or in film style. This film, however, is ridiculous, very boring and unbearably pretentious. The dialogue is almost non-existent. Perhaps this is a good thing, for when they speak, they speak platitudes. “You are my sister”, the brother says. Then he adds: “I am your brother”. Yes, well, you had me at sister…

Of course one can read something symbolic out of the minimalist setting and action. The more minimalist a work is, the easier to regard it as symbolical of something. But here even the symbolic meaning is trite and clichéd. Perhaps the director wants to deal with archetypes, with a biblical simplicity. If so, he fails miserably. Is he interested in hidden pockets of humanity, of humanity’s place in an unforgiving and uncaring nature? Well, he doesn’t come even close. Perhaps he wants to talk about female sexuality and awakening. If so, he says nothing new and certainly nothing of interest. – If you want an arty film about this, watch Picnic at Hanging Rock again! You will be grateful for it. Do not waste your time with Un Lac. With the basic setting of these characters in this kind of nature, you have to be pretty incompetent not to make it even slightly interesting or even beautiful even in a harrowing sense. Unfortunately, competence has no place here.
It strikes me that writing even disparagingly about the film, I make it sound better than it is. Give me a camera, this location and these characters and I would have made a better film. Look away, there is nothing to see here! By the way, this was a film I had high hopes for and that I really wanted to like. More the fool me.

Based on a 13^th Century Swedish ballad (“Töres dotter i Wänge”), Ingmar Bergman’s The Virgin Spring tells a tale of revenge, faith, morality, and justice. It won the 1961 Best Foreign Language Film Oscar and has become one of Bergman’s most famous pictures. Interestingly, the movie was banned in Fort Worth, Texas, over controversy dealing with the pivotal rape sequence.

Bergman’s picture is couched in religious belief and the clinging that people do to their traditions and concepts of reality. As with many of his movies, The Virgin Spring questions the conception of deities and highlights the confusion that many feel in practicing religious beliefs. The tale is thoughtful and intimate despite feel rather large and expansive at times, owing a lot to Bergman’s skill as a filmmaker in taking the medieval genre and creating something as small as a standard modern setting. At no time does he attempt to make an “epic;” this is a small, spiritual story about revenge and justice.

Set in medieval Sweden, The Virgin Spring tells the story of a deeply religious time in Swedish history. There was a continual shift between the worshipping of traditional pagan gods and the newer one god of Christianity. Bergman’s characters set this up nicely, with the film opening with Ingeri (Gunnel Lindblom) praying to Odin as a god who stands for war and death. Ingeri is a foster child and she is pregnant, presumably against her will. She is the outcast of a rather wealthy family and is jealous of the family’s daughter, Karin (Birgitta Pettersson).

Ingeri is useful as an entry point to the tale, as her Norse beliefs clash with the family’s Christian beliefs. Christianity is new to the region; most of the family has not even seen a church, as the closest one is quite far away. Karin is, as a virgin, dispatched to take candles to the church and to the Virgin Mary. Ingeri goes along, but the two are separated thanks to a creepy man in the woods. Karin is set upon by a trio of herdsmen and is raped and killed.

Bergman then concerns himself with the concept of revenge and how it meshes with the family’s Christian beliefs. The herdsmen, it is presumed, are savages. They don’t care about what they’ve done and, when they show up at Karin’s family’s house looking for shelter and work, they aren’t aware of the situation they’ve put themselves in. Karin’s father, Töre (Max von Sydow), and his wife, Märeta (Birgitta Valberg), discover the truth about the herdsmen and their revenge is set in motion.

On its surface, The Virgin Spring functions as a tale of vengeance and ultimate horror. It has been adapted somewhat in the revenge fantasy film Last House on the Left, but Bergman has more at work here than simple comeuppance. This is a picture about the collision of “compassionate” Christianity and the root beliefs of a pagan culture. Ingeri prays to Odin, hates Karin, and feels ultimately responsible for her prayers being answered by the Norse god. Töre struggles with forgiveness and returns to violent roots, later begging forgiveness from his god.

The Christian characters are essentially filled with grace and mercy (outside of the obvious vengeance, of course). Karin is innocent, like a lamb to the slaughter, and shares her food with the herdsmen before meeting her end. All the same, Märeta compassionately serves travellers from her food storage and cares for the sick and weary.

There, too, is a sense of reluctance on behalf of Töre. Through Max von Sydow’s beautiful portrayal, we get the sense that his reaction is beyond that of a simple broken man. We get the sense that he is perhaps a recent, unwilling convert to Christianity. Perhaps he has followed the faith of his wife or the changing tide of the land. Regardless, that Töre attempts to make it right before his new god at the conclusion of the picture is telling of his true spirit. Confused as he is, he swears to build a church.

Bergman is unrelenting in his approach to every concept in The Virgin Spring. He does not allow us the respite of turning away during the awkward, fumbling, violent sequences and he does not allow us an escape during scenes that require deeper contemplation. The film is short, clocking in at 89 minutes, but it is groundbreaking and staggering in its ultimate impact. A beautiful, quiet, moving piece of work, The Virgin Spring is superb.

9.8/10

I must apologize for the lateness of this new posting; this strip was a feat in and of itself. For one, it’s got a celebrity likeness, which is never easy, not to mention the varying character positions, etc. But, beyond that, it was also a test of my dedication to this fine medium, Ben and you, our fine viewers (readers? How about Gluten Free Radicals?)

Ya’ see, I had a series of unfortunate mishaps including, but not limited to: brief sickness, one computer crash, one computer freeze, loss of file data and just overall exhaustion. And that’s not even including the weekly lynx wrestling sessions I engage in to keep myself spry.

With all that said, I persevered! #6 is complete, #’s 7 and 8 are already in the can and we can no get back to our regular schedule of Wednesday updates.

Thank you for your patronage and your kind words; nothing like popping on to check the numbers and seeing new comments. Always good for creator morale. Anyway, enjoy!

-James

Isaac Bashevis Singer called Norway’s Nobel Prize-winning Knut Hamsun, the author of Hunger (1890) and Growth of the Soil (1917), the “father of modern literature.” Hamsun, beautifully played by Max von Sydow (best actor, Bodil and Guldbagge Awards, and at Valladolid), is the subject of Hamsun, a long, interesting, handsome production directed by Sweden’s Jan Troëll. This isn’t the sort of thing I warmly respond to.
     Troëll has made the focus of his film the most controversial aspect of Hamsun’s public life. A staunch opponent of British imperialism, Hamsun supported Adolf Hitler, whose occupation of Norway he worked to ameliorate. Troëll’s film very nearly begins with one of Hamsun’s daughters informing her father, who hardly responds while busy writing at his desk, that Germany has surrendered. Troëll seems to imply that arrogant, jaded Hamsun is somehow responsible for Hitler’s reign of terror.
     Indeed, this film sheds no light on Hamsun’s “alliance” with the German leader and his Nazi program. We all know that Hitler flattered authors and other creative individuals by almost flirtatiously seeking their support, apparently all the while holding them in contempt. Hamsun’s naïvité when in his 80s he met with Hitler hardly explains the expansiveness of literary interest in Hitler, the despot’s attraction for a wide range of European intellectuals and aesthetes; moreover, it is ridiculous to imply, as this film does, that Hamsun’s wife Marie’s incipient feminism influenced her spouse in the direction of Hitler’s appeal to gender equality. For me, it is maddening to sit through such nonsense. Ghita Nørby, incidentally, gives a spirited performance as Marie Hamsun, whose taxing marriage to the great one is another focus here. One might quip that Hamsun lived too long to maintain his dignity.
     Overall, Troëll’s film is more pictorial than penetrating—a disappointment.

Almost nothing is better than finding a movie that you enjoyed as a child and realizing how much you still liked it. The only thing better than that is watching that same movie with someone who has never seen it before, revitalizing the experience and making it something special not only between you and the film, but between you and (gasp!) another human being. I had forgotten, in my cynical adulthood, about a staple film of my childhood, Conan the Barbarian. A filthy, bloody nightmare of a fantasy movie, it wore its R rating on its sleeve for all to see, as nudity and extreme violence were both on the menu in large portions. But with wonderful music, amazing effects for 1982, haunting imagery, and a few examples of perfect casting, this one deservedly goes in the books as one of my new (and old) favorites.

Based on the terrifying character Conan the Cimmeran by author and possible misogynist Robert E. Howard, we’re told the beginnings of the legend of Conan and his trials of youth. He was born into a small kingdom, his father the king being a wise and kind ruler. But one day his father’s tiny kingdom is besieged by the evil wizard Thulsa Doom, who annihilates all in his path, including Conan’s parents, with his superior army. He even cuts his mother’s head off in front of his eyes! So little Conan is sold into slavery, where he is bought by a group who forces children to turn a massive wooden wheel in the desert all day. For some reason. Time passes, and he grows to be the only survivor of a life so harsh, but that harsh work has made him brutally strong and broad. He’s so strong, his owners sell him to a man who makes him fight in the arena, bloody battles to the death for fame and acclaim. He is very successful in this, and becomes a famous fighter. He’s taken to the East, to train with the best in the world, but even they cannot contain his savagery. Fearing what he has, his owner frees him in what appears to be a drunken stupor. Suddenly a free man for the first time in his life, Conan knows what he must do; he must seek out the thousand year-old sorcerer Thulsa Doom and wreak bloody vengeance upon him for what he did to his family. Along the way, he meets allies who will accompany him on his quest, and even a fierce fighter named Valeria, who becomes a lover who truly understands him. But will all his strength and cunning be enough to face the might power of Thulsa Doom’s terrible magic and power?

I watched this with Steven and Jenni, two people who had never before witnessed the power and the glory of Conan, and watching them watch it really made me appreciate just how great a movie this is. All these movies I’ve been watching must have jaded me, because not once did I think to re-watch this little slice of brutal heaven. And motherfucker is it brutal! You’ve never seen a fantasy movie this hardcore before, and considering the climate fantasy inhabits nowadays and the lack of risk-taking for R-rated movies, you might not ever again. You have decapitations, lots and lots of (female) nudity, people being sliced up every which way, human soup (!!!), girls being thrown into roaring fires, and at one point Conan drunkenly punches out a camel!!! And he drops in one hit, probably killing him as far as the audience knows!

The reason I could believe someone punching and murdering a camel in one hit is simply because of the man we’re talking about here. Conan is famously played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is massive and terror-inducing beyond belief here. There is no way a guy in medieval times without the aid of creatine and 5 hours of workout time scheduled every day could look that good, but I don’t want to doubt him as Arnold could still crush me in his old age. This was the role that really brought him to American audiences, and the role that made him an action force to be reckoned with. He gives that icy, silent Schwarzenegger stare most of the damn movie (he couldn’t speak extremely good English yet, so they didn’t give him a lot of lines), and I could feel the fear welling up in me when I put myself into his enemies’ shoes. He’s fucking scary as Conan; it’s the demeanor of dominance he puts on that you can’t really argue with. He’s great, and other cast members excel as well, in particular James Earl Jones, who is Thulsa Doom. His presence is mighty indeed, and he has such a commanding way of communicating with it that pitting him against Arnold doesn’t seem so one-sided after all. Also keep an eye out for Max Von Sydow, who makes a cameo as an old king. He has a speech that is at once insightful, as well as too insightful for a movie about beating people to death with blunt objects.

A lot of care has been put into this film. The sets are lavish and extraordinary, filled with exquisite medieval details that set it apart from other cheesy sword-and-sandal epics of the time. Even though it’s set in a fictional world, it has a refreshing realism to the design. Conan the Barbarian looks like director John Milius actually CARED about how things looked, and it pays off; my favorite scene is at the orgy in Thulsa Doom’s palace, where you can see right down to the marble columns in the inner sanctum that the set designers were in detail mode.

But the best part of the movie might just be the score. I fell in love with the bombastic orchestral arrangements from the opening sequence, and I’m still feeling the crush even as I write this. The songs are so good and so appropriate. Nothing seems out of place; it almost has that feeling that maybe some of the scenes were not worthy to be scored by something so epic and amazing. Basil Poledouris, who is probably one of the top 5 score composers of all time (i.e. “Robocop Theme”), really outdoes himself here, and created a living, breathing, skulking masterpiece of majesty that transcends its inspiration and breathes to its own vibrant rhythm.

Don’t skip on this movie because it seems cheesy. The only thing that will be cheesy then is your Professor Grumps attitude, and I don’t want to call anyone names at this website. So, please, do yourself a favor and at least give it a try. You might find an appreciation for it, as I did, and even if you didn’t, you’ll have to admit that this movie was finely crafted and well-done by everyone involved. I give Conan the Barbarian 8 1/2 one hitter quitter camels out of 10.

Tomorrow I’ll do a short write-up of Street Trash. I promise this time. But it will be short, because Bren’s coming home tomorrow! Yay! Until then, digest this amazing piece of homespun knowledge passed down from Conan to all of us little people:

Wise words from a wise man…

Shutter Island

Daha önce haberini yaptığımız ve ilk fragmanını yayınladığımız Shutter Island (Zindan Adası) filminin yeni fragmanı yayınlandı. Usta yönetmen Martin Scorsese‘nin yönettiği filmin başrollerini Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, Emily Mortimer, Michelle Williams, Max von Sydow ve Jackie Earle Haley paylaşıyor.

Filmin 2. altyazılı fragmanını aşağıdan izleyebilirsiniz.

Given that my Netflix queue is chock full of movies that came out before I was born and given that I’m just seeing many of these for the first time because of being raised on crap ’80s movies, I’m going to assume that there are a number of people my age and younger who may be in a similar situation. So, as a service to the public and totally not as a means of attention whoring, I thought I’d take notes and write reviews of these movies. I’m not by any means professional in pretty much anything I do, so I wouldn’t expect it here. That said, I will have more to say than, “Worst. Movie. Ever.” or “Hated it!” if I don’t like a movie. I’m nothing if not a verbose son of a bitch.

Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal is one of those movies you see parodied or referenced an awful lot. The movie takes place in Sweden, with Antonius Block, a knight, and Jöns, his squire, returning home from the Crusades. We find the two on a beach when the Knight (played by Max von Sydow) is approached by the hooded and robed Death. The Knight challenges Death to a game of chess, and so long as he can ward off Death, he can remain alive to get his affairs in order, and if he happens to win, he gets to live, apparently forever.

During his journey back to his castle, he meets an assortment of characters, from a troupe of actors to a blacksmith and his wife to a girl that is to be burned as a witch. All of these characters help Antonius along on a metaphysical journey as he and Jöns make their way to Chez Block.

When Antonius and Jöns arrive at his castle, with the blacksmith, the blacksmith’s wife, and Jöns’s wife/housekeeper (that he picked up along the way) in tow, there’s a last supper served by Antonius’s wife before Death comes for all of them, as Antonius had recently lost his chess match. The movie ends with the moon-touched juggler, Jof, seeing Death leading everyone else in a sort of dance on the hillside.

As I’ve said, there are a number of movies and television shows that have made reference or parodied this. Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey comes immediately to mind, as they challenge Death to games such as Battleship and Twister. Interestingly enough, Metalocalypse also comes to mind, particularly with Toki Wartooth’s father, who looks very much like Death from The Seventh Seal, the only exception being that Toki’s father also sometimes wears a sort of Amish-looking hat. Oh, and how could I forget? This reminds me of every single college student film project ever, not necessarily in content, but in style. I guess it just shows how influential the movie was that it’s so oft copied.

There’s a ton of symbolism and existentialist philosophy in the movie. Jöns seems to be the person in control through much of the movie. Jöns seems unconcerned with the nature of God and often laughs as he remarks that he needs no one but himself to give his life meaning, though at other times he chooses to believe that life is just a big joke and we are the butt of it. Think The Comedian from Watchmen. Contrast this with Antonius, who is filled with angst over his lack of knowledge of the nature of God and the meaning of his life. For the uninitiated, these are some pretty heavy duty existential and absurdist concepts at work here.

As for minor stuff? Holy crap is Max von Sydow young in this movie! He’s so thin, so young, so blond! Having seen him only as old characters such as Brewmeister Smith and Ming the Merciless, it’s just so weird seeing him 20-30 years younger. I could hardly recognize him.

Oh, and interesting movie tie. In the movie Strange Brew, the name of the brewery where all the mind control experiments take place is Elsinore Brewery. In The Seventh Seal, the acting troupe was initially heading to the town of Elsinore. Max von Sydow was in both movies. Of course, I’m sure there are people smarter than me who will recognize the link between The Seventh Seal and Hamlet, what with Hamlet taking place in Elsinore and the characters of both Jöns and Hamlet’s gravedigger having similar absurdist attitudes toward life and death.

My next old ass movie that’s coming to me will be High Society, so hopefully there won’t be all this philosophical crap that I love but no one else does. No, in the case of High Society, you should expect a lot of unfavorable comparisons to The Philadelphia Story.

Hey, y’all.  You know what movie was supposed to come out this past weekend but didn’t come out this past weekend?  This one:

UGH.  I was so excited about this movie coming out, but Paramount apparently hates us, so now we have to wait ’til February.  Boo.  And now there’s a new trailer for Shutter Island?  One perfectly constructed to again remind us how great this movie is going to be?  Oh, and also about how it’s still MONTHS AND MONTHS AWAY?  Double boo!

Oh well.  I guess if we’re going to have to now wait ’til February, we might as well enjoy this new trailer, so let’s make like a masochist and salt this wound: 

The cranky part of me that’s still miffed about Paramount delaying Shutter Island’s release wants to get all uppity about the noticeable lack of Patricia Clarkson in this trailer.  FACT: Patricia Clarkson makes everything better, especially trailers for movies that should already be out in theaters.  Also, the editing towards the end is a little generic-thrillerish for me.  But clearly I’m grabbing at complaint straws if this is what I’m left with.

The reality is that this movie still looks totally freakin’ astounding.  Hell, it looks even better now than it did the first time, which is impressive because it already looked incredible.  I’m a sucker for an intelligent thriller, particularly one that can make even the most standard of plot conventions (of course, the phones are out during the terrible storm!) pleasurable in their very conventionality.  And did I spot a visual homage to Powell and Pressburger’s The Red Shoes in the shot of the pair of feet going up the spiral staircase?  I told you Scorsese loves him some Powell and Pressburger.

So curses to you, Shutter Island!  I hate the fact that I must continue to wait for you, but damn do I know it’s going to be worth it.