Red Riding Hood Trailer
Because I can’t resist a werewolf film. I sincerely hope all this eerie atmosphere from the trailer maintains itself in the actual film, with a strong narrative to boot.
Thundarr The Barbarian: Old School Animation Goodness
I got myself Thundarr the Barbarian on DVD, which was created by comics writer Steve Gerber as a Saturday morning cartoon that ran from 1980-82. The series only lasted two seasons, but it was the stuff of my dreams. This is very old school animation entertainment full of strengths and weaknesses.
Thundarr, Ookla & Ariel don't take that mess off of tyrants.
Thundarr exists in a post-apocalyptic Earth after a runaway planet passes between the Earth and the moon. As the shows says, “unleashing cosmic destruction.” After 2,000 years the world is now populated with magic, super science, mutants, and humans. Thundarr, along with his friends Ookla the Mok (mutant), and Princess Ariel (sorceress) travel this new world and help humans and friendly mutants against wizards, pirates, etc. Thundarr tells many of his foes he “bows to no wizard,” and often disposes of them by the end of the episode.
When looking at many of the wizard’s one can see a parallel between some large corporations who use people and spit them out. For example, many humans were fodder, pawns, slaves and insignificant to wizards in the hierarchy of schemes. Several humans lived in ragged conditions while wizards lived with style and well-constructed strongholds. Wizards always hold all the knowledge of old Earth and the bulk of super science. There are two exception to this rule where the wizards are on very low end of the spectrum. You know times are tough all over when the economy wrecks a wizard or two.
Wizard Gemini says, "Bring it on."
Some of the cons to this show is continuity errors, some bad perspective in spots, and the occasional plot logic errors that I often scratch my head about, even as a kid. It does not outweigh the good.
One of the good points of this show is many of the character designs. Comics/Animation legends Alex Toth and Jack Kirby worked on this series. Toth designed Space Ghost and characters for the Super Friends cartoon. Kirby, has an equally fantastic legacy in comics. His creations for Marvel, DC still exist in current continuity. Kirby’s style is clear and strong in several of the characters and vehicles. Many of the antagonists bear Kirby’s style. It’s good to see Toth and Kirby’s work in animation to have an extended life.
Sound plays a high role here as well. Several of the wizards have a creepy metallic voices that adds to their supernatural presence. The sound effects for the time were distinct enough to reinforce the more exotic elements of the show.
The future looks mighty bleak, but entertaining.
Some of the episodes, “Mindok The Mind Menance” (bodiless wizard) “The Brotherhood of Night” (werewolves), “Stalker From the Stars” (alien in search of humans as food), and “Island of the Body Snatchers” (witch who steals Ariel’s body) were creepy and made them a little bit more memorable to me.
The DVD is bare bones, and with a mislabel on dic three as to episodes. I wish there were some liner notes or interviews that were either preserved or started so that we could hear from the surviving creators of the series. It’s a slice of animation history that I’d love to see get a little more fanfare.
Body Politics in An American Werewolf In London
As the curse begins, humanity and wild converge in dreams.
An American Werewolf in London is a 1981 cult horror film directed by John Landis. This film mixes black comedy with tragedy, and horror. Story-wise, the title says it all: An American, David ( David Naughton) hikes in England with his friend, Jack (Griffin Dunne) and they are attacked by a Werewolf. While Jack is slaughtered, David survives. The curse lives on in David.
This is why I never go hiking.
I think of the 1980s look as “rustic” because narrative and visuals hold up pretty well. You see where the film attempts to edit some scenes but I find that gore and nudity come together to make the film.
Nudity plays a provocative role of danger and laughs when the primal side of the body’s displayed. Censors and prudes be damned. The beast was unleashed, played for a while, then put down. It is a rejection of our own bestial natures. Visually and emotionally David’s body journey’s through multiple stages of vulnerability, love, suffering (transformation), and ends with David’s death.
Note the contrast in David's gaze from previous image.
Seeing the undead people arguing with each other and discussing ways for David to kill himself to break the curse is hilarious and dreadful. David is mortified, and in some was so was I, yet found the scene funny .
David’s transformations from human to beast are horrible, yet sublime. The special effects look painstakingly detailed. We have the human body being reshaped into a creature. As the film progresses, you want this torture to end, yet you don’t want David to die. Like David, we don’t really have a say in the matter.
Waxing is gonna get ugly for poor David.
The Wolfman
The Wolfman 2010 (dir. Joe Johnson) stars Benico Del Toro, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, and Hugo Weaving. This is a remake of sorts of the old Universal horror film. I can say it has a few scary moments (moments not scenes) in there, and the Blu-Ray disc contains an extended version of the film. Admittedly I saw the extended version first. When I saw the theatrical version, I realized that some of the ideas didn’t match up in my head.
I’m always in the mood for a supernatural story. With The Wolfman I was more than ready to devour this film and enjoy it all. As a child the old Universal Monsters were some of my favorite films. I wasn’t looking for scares as much as looking for thrills. The endless possibilities of a the film kept me exited. I got to see it on Blu- Ray disc, and not in the theaters. I have mixed feeling about this film. Very mixed.
To say this The Wolfman is without some charms would be a mistake on my part. As far as the scenery goes, the Gothic elements of this story are done well. I love the crumbling estate we only see in its former glory in brief flashbacks. Symbolically the estate represents the deteriorated roles (and morals) of the characters so well. It also reeks of isolation, desperateness, and loneliness. No one’s mind resembles more of the Talbot Estate more than John Talbot (Hopkins). John Talbot is a shadow of himself, and all the things that were wondrous about him, have long gone. Likewise the relationship with his family is barely there.
This film loves its atmosphere and loves to take its time to let actions unfold. While the extended version makes sense, it does not always take the quickest route to the story. It does make me wonder how long to get to the story. The theatrical version trims the story down, and is worth a second viewing. Yes it was likely a mistake to see the extended version first, but its what I did.
Part of the film to me suggests that in civilization we have a bit of a cages animal within us. Its embodied in the form of this wolfman who is still wearing his clothes when he transforms. The transformation looks painful, and very drawn out. The pain of transformation adds to the curse, as if to suggest that the change from civilized man to pure animal is agonizing.
What the Wolfman does not show so well is the duality of the two natures. We have a rational, and somewhat restrained man who becomes a beast. It would be nice to have seen some changes in his persona. Was he more hungry, amorous, arrogant. Instead he (Lawrence Talbot) stays restrained, a little cautious, and more than attracted to Gwen (Emily Blunt). Perhaps this is the duality, to hold on longer to one’s self control. I’m taking a leap here, as nowhere in this film do I see either werewolf struggling to hold onto themselves.
I could argue that being a werewolf is akin to puberty or an emotional growth for Lawrence. Despite his occupation as an actor, it is only after become the creature that Talbot decided to be emotionally vulnerable. He allows someone inside of his insular world to accept love and compassion. Such trials are savage, brutal, and not without consequence.
I loved Emily Blunt’s performance as Gwen. In my mind I instantly compared/contrasted her role to that of her character in The Devil Wears Prada. In Prada, she was arrogant, snobbish, and hateful. Here she’s restrained, well mannered, and cool. Ultimately she has to “release” Talbot from the curse, making their love tragic and doomed from the moment Lawrence survives the bite.
One of the great problems I have with this film is the motivations of some of the characters, and the pacing. When I try to digest Hopkins’ character (John Talbot), and understand his point of view, I fail. I get his distant persona at first. Some people are like that. Repressed rage and the desire to “let the beast out” only after he explains it.
John Talbot turns on his family first. While his actions can be likened to that of a serial killer (with a supernatural bent), he has to tell us this as opposed to us seeing this within the film. While the character he plays is more than distant, (and he does platy a compelling disassociated patriarch), as a doppelganger I felt we did not know of feel enough. By the end of the big reveal, it feels forced. Like we need to have these things here, as opposed to us suspecting these things about him.
For all the character’s charm, and the slow pacing of the film, I think there should have been room to allow us to see the motivations of the villain. This brings into play who is the main character? Is Benico Del Toro the protagonist, and Anthony Hopkins the antagonist? Their roles seem intertwined in a bad way. At one point Hopkins takes the lead because he has the most control. He know who is the true culprit of all the grizzly crimes. He manages to stay a step ahead of all the other characters. His confrontation with his son, which would be inevitable, also seems a bit staged in my opinion. Hopkins has to clue everyone in, and that makes his role a bit too pat.
The film’s playful stance with the violence with the over the top killings. Because of the comical effect, it lessens the horrors of the film. It in effect, remains distracting for the fact they we’re dealing with a powerful killer. For example, the guy who gets caught in the marsh after spending all his bullets tries to kill himself before the Wolfman gets him, but but he’s out of bullets. The Wolfman decapitates him. When a constable sticks his hand in one of the Gypsy wagons, the Wolfman cuts it off, then gouges the Constable’s eyes out as if to suggest the constable may or may not have been too curious for his own good.
Once scene that left me thinking this movie’s struggling with direction and marring its tone is Lawrence Talbot’s transformation in the asylum. Are we to believe that the Doctor was so full of himself and his speech as to not turn around to notice Lawrence? The mayhem that follows is predictable and silly.
The Blu-Ray deleted scenes are a mixed bag for me. There are alternate endings, and a scene where the Wolfman encounters a blind signer at a party. It does hold fast to the civilized and uncivilized world clashing. I almost wished it was added to the film.
Twilight Saga: New Moon: A Vampire Weepie
I went to see New Moon (dir Chris Weitz, adapted from the novel by Stephenie Meyer) with the film posse. I really had nothing to lose (so I thought). This was film time with friends. It would offset the heavy world cinema films I was watching (which were all good, BTW). I thought there would be a disconnect when I saw this film. That I would not like it based on the fact it’s a generation thing. I dismissed this notion knowing my love for supernatural creatures would win out.
Mind you, my ears have been burning about how bad the Twilight books are. Only two people I know actually read them, but it’s got vampires AND werewolves! How can that be a fail? This is gonna be fun!
Well I am most disappointed in this film. While it’s billed as a romance/fantasy, it fails at both.
At first glance, New Moon has a lot in common with soap operas, romance novels, and to a great extent shoujo manga (girl’s comics)/anime. I say shoujo manga cause let’s face it, where else do characters sparkle? I did expect rose petals or feathers to fall from the sky too. It was that kind of scene when I beheld Edward’s “skin glow” moment. I confess to laughing. I wasn’t ready for it. Shoujo usually brings the romance, the love triangles, and the melodrama, which can range from excellent to sweet or syrupy. Bella’s depression reminds me of how some female characters in manga/anime behave. Her tailspin lasts for months.
The pacing of this film is disgustingly slow. So slow my mind began to stray from the film, which is never good. There is a lot of standing around and hearing plenty of dialog. What’s up with that? The film slows itself to a crawl that by time the action comes in, I was hoping it would stay.
New Moon could be better served if the director removed several chunks of the dialog, and added much more action. As an adaptation, I don’t think a few liberties would be too upsetting to make cuts or add action. Not necessarily fighting action, but doing something other than standing around. There so many long-winded speeches that lack any wit to make them fun.
Typically in a romance you have a triangle, which is not surprising that Jacob comes in the picture. Here’s the problem: Jacob never has a chance with Bella. He’s on the edge, waiting for a moment to make a move. Bella keeps him at bay in such a way it appears she’s toying with his emotions.
I like the character of Alice (Ashley Greene). She seems a little kooky, but real at the same time. She also speaks the truth to Bella about getting herself into some really dumb situations.
As a romance it lacks the depth that I’d like to see. Edward’s love seems on the surface. Bella (Kristen Stewart) seems far more interested in being a vampire, and literally harps on the fact of being made into one. Maybe that’s why Edward walked away. She’s such a damn nag.
Looking at the character of Bella, she is most annoying, and prone to acts of great stupidity. She begins taking on high risk behaviors by riding with strangers, bike riding (nearly killing herself), and cliff diving. Her friends are appendages and she ignores them as well. Her poor father is confused and unable to help her at all.
None of her risks seem to pan out. She keeps seeing ghost images of Edward (Robert Patterson). This is how we know Jacob and her won’t hook up. She’s got Edward on the brain all the time. She knows she’s using Jacob (Taylor Lautner), but she doesn’t care. That’s jerky for someone in emotional need.
Speaking of jerks, what’s up with Edward? Why does Edward he leave Bella so completely unguarded when he knows Victoria wants to kill her? Edward acts completely moronic to service the plot, which to me equates to failure in the story. Even further evidence of Edward’s stupidity comes when a phone call is all it takes to confirm that Bella’s died. Had he done a little investigation of his own, he would have known the truth.
Edward should be smarter than this. Someone suggested that this is a “young adult” to me, therefore it should not be allowed to have crappy plots. That is a feeble excuse for piss poor writing. The statement suggests that young adult readers don’t deserve a good plot or consistent characters.
On the other hand, as I stated about George Lucas films, I suspect the story is rife with old school melodrama influences. It is an outdated method of story telling where things can happen to characters for no real reason. For a modern audience, we need contemporary storytelling techniques. There can be a dozen reasons for Edward leaving Bella that kept the character intact, and still retain melodramatic elements.
As vampires we get some really neutered and spayed blood drinkers. They aren’t predatory (except Victoria). They’re kinda sweet and misunderstood. In other words boring and safe. Who the hell creates boring and safe vampires. That;’s like a cocaine dealer who’s cocaine only makes your nose “tingle a little bit.” Seriously. Why introduce a dark, supernatural creature only to pretty it up? We have a taboo relationship that only flirts with danger, then plays it safe.
The Volturi (ancient vampires) look promising with their ancient, grandiose ways. Actor Michael Sheen (who played the werewolf Lucien in the Underworld series) plays Aro with some weight and bite to his role. Too bad he’s not featured more into the plot. He’s have brought more shine than sparkle to this film. Only in Italy do we see how dangerous the vampires are, not only to Bella and Edward, but to tourists whom they prey on.
Can we call Jacob and company, “werewolves?” They’re more like mutants who turn into giant sized wolfs. Mind you, they look intimidating enough, but the aspect of a wolf with human attributes (which could be genuinely creepy) gets lost here. They’re more like animal totems.
To me, Twilight is a phenomenon that refuses to acknowledge characters, plot, or even real vampires. It does know how to turn up the old school melodrama AND the scenery. In other words, “oooh pretty.” I found myself calling this the first the many Vampire Weepies!
