Archive for April, 2010

SAW II

Posted in 2005, Cinema Knife Fights, Sequels, Serial Killer flicks with tags , , , , , on April 8, 2010 by knifefighter

(For those observant readers who notice this one is out of sequence – originally I was going to put this one aside and run a bunch of SAW reviews all in one week, but then I realized there were only reviews of about half of them in our repertoire. And this is the only one we did together (the rest are solo reviews I did). So here it is, our Cinema Knife Fight review of SAW II. I still can’t believe Michael saw this one ~LLS)

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: SAW II (2005)
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(Lights come on to L. L. Soares and Michael Arruda in a filthy abandoned restroom, chained to the walls)

MA: How did we get here?

LS: I don’t remember. But slide me that hacksaw. I want to cut my leg off, so I can get out of here.

MA: Here’s some salt.  Why don’t you gnaw it off?  (slides him a salt shaker).

LS:  Actually, we’re here to talk about the new movie SAW II, the sequel to last year’s hit horror film, SAW. The first film took place in an abandoned room just like this one. It featured two men, chained to the walls, being tormented by an unseen psycho called Jigsaw. This guy was a different kind of serial killer. Instead of actually killing you himself, he’d make a game of it, and make you do the dirty work yourself.  Like giving you the option of dying or sawing off a limb.

This time around, Jigsaw (Tobin Bell)  is finally caught by hard-ass cop Eric Matthews (Donnie Walhberg). But Jiggy has the last laugh since he’s kidnapped several people and trapped them in a house of horrors. And one of the unfortunate victims is Walhberg’s teen-age son. Walhberg has to watch TV monitors of his son and the others being tormented, while trying to get answers out of Jigsaw as to where they are being kept.

The movie jumps back and forth between scenes of Walhberg and Jigsaw talking and Jigsaw’s victims being subjected to more and more bizarre tortures as the movie unfolds. Our killer actually has a reason for his bad behavior. He’s dying of cancer and feels that too many people take life for granted, so he wants to put them in situations that will make them appreciate being alive – if they can live through them. At least that’s what he says. In reality, he’s just a psychopathic sadist with a messiah complex.

The scenes between Bell and Walhberg are intense and effective. The scenes of the people trapped in a mysterious abandoned house are pretty effective too, as you wonder who will come to a horrible end next. We learn they’re all breathing in poisonous nerve gas which will rot away their insides unless they get out in time and get an antidote. This sets the stage for some very desperate and violent behavior on the part of those trying to survive. One scene, where a person is forced to dig through a pit full of syringes for a key, is especially wince-inducing.

The movie feels like a hyperactive rollercoaster ride. It doesn’t let up for a minute, and you’re sucked into it, wondering what will happen next. SAW II is a popcorn movie, and for what it is, it works just fine.

It’s not going to make it on my list of best horror films ever. But it was an intense hour and a half, and it did exactly what a horror movie is supposed to do. It screws with you as it doles out the scares.

Will you throw me that hacksaw already?

MA: No.  You have to listen to me first.  Yeah, it’s just a popcorn movie, if you like your popcorn drizzled with blood!

LS: (Licks lips) I do!

MA: I prefer butter. SAW II is yet ANOTHER serial killer movie filled with lots of bloody mayhem and mutilation.  Sure, the film looks good, and there’s some decent acting, especially the aforementioned Tobin Bell as Jigsaw, so there’s some obvious talent behind this thing. But it takes talent to create computer viruses, too.  And who likes those?

Why are serial killer movies a genre, anyway?  We don’t have rapist movies.  We don’t have pedophile movies.  Why are these sickos different?

LS: (Reaching for saw):  Because in our society, murder isn’t considered as taboo as those other crimes.

MA: I wish we didn’t have to glorify this sort of lunacy time and time again.  Hey, I love PSYCHO (1960) and I love SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991), but a genre?

I’d rather suffer a week long migraine headache (which I do get, by the way) than watch another movie like this.  It belittles the human condition.

SAW II is about as much fun as having your eyelid’s sliced with a scalpel.  Woo hoo!  Yeah, right.

LS: You’re totally missing the boat on this one, and showing your conservative streak.

MA (Wearing an elephant mask):  Huh?

LS:  SAW II isn’t really a serial killer movie. It’s a cartoon.

MA:  I’m sorry, I must have missed the animation credits somewhere!

LS:  While the movie pretends that these are real people and what happens to them is of consequence, the truth is that nobody except Tobin and Wahlberg is developed on any level to be a fleshed-out human being. These aren’t people who you can really care about or root for. They’re cannon fodder. And that’s exactly what they’re supposed to be. If this movie had any real meaning beyond a fun 90 minutes, then it would delve deeper into the repercussions of violence. But it doesn’t. It’s an amusement park ride.

MA:  One that makes you throw up.  And you’re right- the characters aren’t fleshed out, which is another reason not to like the movie.  If I’m going to spend 90 minutes watching people suffer brutal tortures, at least let me care about them first!

LS:  Look, the SAW movies aren’t cinema classics, but they aren’t exactly an affront to humankind either.

MA:  That’s your opinion.  I obviously disagree with you there.

LS: It all comes down to the basic argument of whether violence and gore have a place in horror.   The old subtle horror vs. extreme horror debate that’s been going on for decades. Which is better? Well, personally, I think there’s room for both if they’re done well.

MA:   I agree. I just think there’s too many serial killer movies.

LS (Finally reaches hacksaw):  Got it!  Now for my leg! (starts sawing).

MA: (Pulls out a key) Should I tell him?

—END—

(Originally published in the HELLNOTES newsletter on November 23, 2005)

© Copyright 2005 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

FINAL DESTINATION 3

Posted in 2006, Cinema Knife Fights, Sequels with tags , , , , on April 7, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT- FINAL DESTINATION 3  (2006)
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares


(MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES are looking at odd blurry pictures on a computer screen.)

MA:  These pictures will provide the clues.  They’ll tell us how we’re going to die!

(Image on computer screen shows MA & LS standing underneath a falling safe, just inches above their heads).

MA (overacting):  If only we could see the clue!

(A loud pounding at the door.  LS opens door to find the GRIM REAPER, carnival music playing behind him).

LS: Come on in.

(DEATH sits down.)

LS: We’re reviewing the movie FINAL DESTINATION 3 this month. I haven’t seen the other films in the series, but the formula is pretty simple. A bunch of characters are involved in a disaster. Most die, but a few somehow escape their fate. Death doesn’t like people cheating him and goes about putting an end to the lives of the survivors anyway, and people begin dying in strangely elaborate ways in the order they would have died if they’d succumbed to the disaster. In the first movie, the disaster was a plane crash. In the second, it was a pile-up on the highway. This time it’s a faulty rollercoaster that runs off the tracks during a high school senior outing. Wendy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) has a premonition of the upcoming catastrophe and freaks out. She gets off the coaster with a few of her friends before the rest of the passengers ride to their deaths.

It’s up to Wendy and her friend Kevin to stop Death from killing the survivors.  But Death is not easily bested.

There are some flaws. Wendy’s premonition scenes are particularly annoying, especially when you’re led to believe they’re actually happening at the time. And Wendy herself is a dour, self-professed control freak who can get tiresome at times with her ultra-seriousness.

(LS is playing chess with DEATH). This certainly isn’t an Ingmar Bergman movie, but it’s fun and keeps you watching. It doesn’t hurt that it’s also R-rated, which means there’s some nudity and gore – minor points, but a nice change from the sanitized blandness of the PG-13 horror movies we usually have to sit through.

The movie’s director, James Wong, and co-writer Glen Morgan were also writers for THE X-FILES (and wrote some of the best episodes). Wong and Morgan know how to tell a story and ratchet up the suspense. I have to admit, I wasn’t looking forward to seeing a movie with a 3 in the title, but this movie is better than it should be. What did you think?

MA: I thought the first 20 minutes were damn cool.  See, I live in mortal fear of roller coasters—

LS:  Don’t you mean merry-go-rounds?

MA (ignoring him):  — and the roller coaster sequence that begins the film is one of the best I’ve ever seen.  It truly captures what it’s like to be afraid of riding a coaster, as well as the sights and sounds of an amusement park.  To make matters even better, the pay-off doesn’t disappoint.  The actual accident is horrific – extremely well done, I thought.

But then the film drifts off into silliness, relying on creative and grotesque ways to kill off its victims.  I’m surprised you liked this movie.  I thought it suffered from the “slaughtered sheep” problem you’ve mentioned before, in that the characters weren’t fleshed out people we cared about.  The two leads aren’t bad, but the rest are cardboard cutouts.  It’s the old slasher formula, but without the slasher, which is another problem.

LS: You’re right, the movie does lapse into silliness at times, but in this case that’s intentional. This movie clearly has a sense of humor about itself, which somehow makes the lack of truly fleshed-out characters less annoying.

MA:  Yeah, that’s what I heard – that it had a good sense of humor about it - but I didn’t find it that funny. FINAL DESTINATION 3 also suffers from the lack of a villain.  Death, unlike the fellow playing chess with you, doesn’t make an appearance.  Evil personified would have been scarier.

LS: I actually found the lack of an actual slasher refreshing. Slashers are a dime a dozen. And I think that an actual personification of death would have made this movie even sillier.

(GRIM REAPER grunts)

MA:  I didn’t mean I wanted a slasher or the Grim Reaper.  I just think the film suffers from not having a villain.  I like villains.

LS:  I do, too, but the fact that death is portrayed here as simply a force that is inevitable worked better for me in this case.

(GRIM REAPER nods in approval).

MA: Inevitably predictable!  It’s the same old boring formula we’ve seen a thousand times before, otherwise known as “second sequel syndrome,” (HALLOWEEN 3, NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 3, you get the idea).

LS: (to DEATH) Checkmate !  (to MA) The real appeal of this movie was the way death cleaned up after itself. I’m a fan of “elaborate death” movies. The peak for me was Vincent Price’s movies from the 70s like THE ABOMINABLE DR. PHIBES (where the deaths were based on the biblical plagues) and the best of all, THEATER OF BLOOD (where the murders were based on Shakespeare’s plays). I don’t think the FINAL DESTINATION movies are anywhere near as cool, but I think they share the same sense of fun in coming up with bizarre, convoluted death scenes. And I think that’s just enough to push this series slightly ahead of most tired, slasher sequels.

MA:  I like those movies, too, and that’s my point.  This film doesn’t have a “Vincent Price” presence.   I loved the beginning, but the rest I found boring and predictable.

(GRIM REAPER pulls a cord, and a giant safe falls from ceiling.  It stops in midair.  LS reaches inside, grabs 3 beers, and hands one each to MA and the GRIM REAPER).

LS (to readers):  What else did you expect?  (points to GRIM REAPER).  He’s a horror fan.

—END—


(Originally published in the HELLNOTES newsletter on February 23, 2006)

© Copyright 2006 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

MEET: JASON HARRIS

Posted in Interviews, News with tags , on April 6, 2010 by knifefighter

Jason Harris will be doing interviews for us here at the Cinema Knife Fight site. I’ve known him for almost a decade now, and he’s always been a supreme movie nut, so he should fit right in.

Here’s a little about Jason:

Jason Harris is a rabid horror fan and movie enthusiast.  His articles and interviews have appeared in the Journal Inquirer, The Chronicle, and other news publications.  When he is not stalking actors and directors, he spends his time visiting old movie theaters in the New England area.  Jason lives in Connecticut with his wife, Stacey, and his two cats, Wednesday and Pugsley.  He can be contacted at dudley228@att.net.

That’s all for now. But look for his first interview here soon.

~LLS

CLASH OF THE TITANS!

Posted in 2010, Cinema Knife Fights, Fantasy Films, Monsters, Remakes with tags , , , , , , on April 5, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010)
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE: a beach. A beautiful young BLONDE is tied to a stake. Surrounding her are fifty or so soldiers, dressed in ancient Greek military garb. Their burly, bearded KING steps forward.)

KING (roars): Release the Kraken!

(Cue dramatic music. The sea rumbles, everyone looks with anticipation, and from under the water emerges a giant— cracker monster. Its body is rectangular like a Saltine, and its eyes are olives, its nose pimento, its mouth a piece of cheese, and its face is dotted with poppy seeds.)

KING (rolls eyes): I said “Kraken!” not “Kracker!” That’s it! I’m sick of this happening all the time! I quit!

(The crowd dissipates amidst a chorus of boos, leaving the BLONDE tied to the stake, along with MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES, who had been among the throng.)

MA: Weren’t we just here for our “April Coming Attractions” column?

LS: It just goes to show you that sometimes, even the second time, things don’t work out.

MA: Yes, sometimes you just have to try and try again. Not that I’d want to see CLASH OF THE TITANS remade yet again. I don’t think its story is strong enough to warrant that.

LS: Actually, that was kinda cool.

MA The CLASH OF THE TITANS remake?

LS: No, that cracker monster. He lives underwater, but didn’t look soggy at all!!

MA: Well, let’s get down to it. CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010) is a remake of the 1981 Ray Harryhausen movie of the same name.

LS: Actually, the 1981 movie was directed by Desmond Davis. Harryhausen only directed the stop-motion special effects.

MA: Big friggin deal! I mean, who out there knows Desmond Davis? No offense, to Mr. Davis, but Ray Harryhausen is a household name and the reason movies he worked on are still watched today, not the directors.

LS: Calm down. You don’t need to get so worked up about it.

MA: I’m just sayin.  But back to the new movie. Once again, it tells the story of Perseus (Sam Worthington) a half-human son of Zeus (Liam Neeson) and a human woman, who needs to fulfill his destiny by defeating the mighty monster, the Kraken. In this one, at least, Perseus has more motivation. He’s angry at the gods because they’re responsible for the death of his human family, whereas in the original, “fulfilling his destiny” sort of meant meandering around the countryside until he found something worthy to do, in that case saving the princess Andromeda.

Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) is here again too, sentenced to be sacrificed to the Kraken. You see, her parents insulted the gods by declaring they and their people could do without them, and that their daughter Andromeda was better looking than any of them.

LS: She ain’t so great!

MA: Evidently these people hadn’t read their Greek myths, or they would have known Greek gods don’t like to be insulted.

Zeus agrees to let his evil brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) have his way with these people, and so Hades gives them a choice: sacrifice Andromeda, or have the Kraken destroy their entire kingdom.

LS: Was it just me, or did Neeson and Fiennes look an awful lot alike? I thought it was the same actor at first – Neeson playing both roles. The duality of good and evil. Not that Zeus is all that good. But it took me awhile for it to sink in – this isn’t Neeson, it’s good old Ralph Fiennes!” They must have had the same barber. I don’t remember any confusion like that when Laurence Olivier played Zeus.

MA: That’s because Hades wasn’t in the original movie. But you must have had some fingerprints on your 3D glasses; I didn’t think they looked alike.

As fate would have it, Hades is also the god responsible for the death of Perseus’ family- back before he found out he was really the son of Zeus – and so he is more than willing to take up the challenge of saving the princess and killing the Kraken, all in an effort to eventually get to Hades and kill him too. But can you kill a god?

LS: I’m not sure, but it sounds like it would be fun to try!

MA: Perseus and his band of merry soldiers travel to the far ends of the earth to kill Medusa so they can use her head to turn the Kraken into stone. I wonder why Perseus didn’t decide just to use the head on Hades? It would have saved him a lot of extra work and trouble.

LS: I think they explained this. Hades, as a god, can’t be killed by a human – or even a demigod like Perseus, at full power. However, when he expends tons of energy to revive the Kraken, he’s much more vulnerable – that’s when you strike. If only Perseus had two heads, one for Hades, and one of the Kraken. That might work.

MA: Yes, two heads are better than one. Anyway, CLASH OF THE TITANS was shot in 3D, and I have to say, as much as I was impressed with the 3D effects in AVATAR, I was just as unimpressed with the 3D effects here. First and foremost, the neat depth- perception that permeated AVATAR is practically nonexistent here. Throughout most of this movie, I barely noticed I was watching 3D.

LS: Oh, the 3D here was HORRIBLE. I really felt cheated – especially now that, since AVATAR made 3D the new big thing, theater chains have decided to exploit it and up the price of tickets to 3D movies. Instead of $11.50, I got screwed out of $16.50 for this one (and they have the nerve to ask you to recycle the glasses afterwards!). Man, did that tick me off. I was soooo tempted to go to a rare 2D screening to save the cash. But I thought our audience deserved a review of the full treatment

And, for the record, it wasn’t shot in 3D originally.

MA: Yes, I read that the 3D effects were added almost as an afterthought to this movie, and it shows. It looks like when this movie was filmed, no thought at all had gone into it being shot in 3D. And the effects didn’t enhance the action sequences. I had a real problem with the action sequences even without the 3D. They were shot at close range and at such a quick pace that they were difficult to see. As a result, they were hardly enjoyable.

Director Louis Leterrier, who directed THE INCREDIBLE HULK (2008), a movie I really liked, dropped the ball on this one, I think. In THE INCREDIBLE HULK, he had crafted some memorable scenes, especially the action sequences. I thought the action sequences here were a major letdown.

LS: I liked that version of THE INCREDIBLE HULK, too, even if it was by-the-numbers at times. This movie has its moments, too, but yep, it’s a letdown overall.

MA: For the most part, CLASH OF THE TITANS remains faithful to the Ray Harryhausen version. There are some changes here and there, some that work and some that don’t.

One that does work is the script by Travis Beacham and Phil Hay. I thought the character of Perseus was much more interesting and motivated in this movie than he was in the 1981 film.

LS: Yeah, I thought the story was a little bit better this time – but it’s a weak plot, and the only reason it exists at all is to give us something to think about in between the fights with monsters. Of which, there are too few in this movie.

MA: The supporting soldier characters were also more memorable here than in the 1981 movie, in which they were pretty bland. Here, there are some memorable personalities.

LS: Yeah. Especially Mads Mikkelsen as Draco, the guy who used to be the best soldier in Argos. He’s jealous that Perseus is getting all the attention, and there’s an intense rivalry there that eventually turns into a bond of mutual respect.

MA: Definitely, Mads Mikkelsen as Draco is easily one of the best performances in the movie. You might remember Mikkelsen in the Daniel Craig Bond flick CASINO ROYALE (2006) as the card playing villain “Le Chiffre.” He was great in that movie, too. I like Mikkelsen a lot, and I thought his presence here was one of the best parts of CLASH OF THE TITANS.

There’s another Bond connection to this movie as well. Gemma Arterton, who plays an immortal character name “lo” appeared in the second Daniel Craig Bond film QUANTUM OF SOLACE (2008). I thought Arteton was excellent here, too, and I’d have to say that I liked her and Mikkelsen better than Sam Worthington in this movie.

LS: I was wondering where I’d seen Arterton before, since I’m not a big Bond fan and didn’t see QUANTAM OF SOLACE (which I still say is a dumb title!). I’d actually seen her before in the PBS “Masterpiece Theater” version of TESS OF THE D’URBERVILLES, strangely enough, and I thought she was great in that as Tess, and quite striking. Here, I thought she was the best thing in the movie, too, and much more beautiful than the much- praised Andromeda!

MA: The whole cast is very good. Sam Worthington as Perseus was enjoyable. He makes for a likeable action star and probably could make a career doing this sort of thing if he chose to. That being said, of his three recent acting performances, I liked him the least here. He was much more memorable in both AVATAR and TERMINATOR: SALVATION.

LS: I agree. I thought he was very good here, but CLASH is a mediocre film. I actually thought I liked him best in TERMINATOR:SALVATION, because that was a BAD film, and yet he stood out as the only thing good about it.

Notice how Worthington’s Perseus here flies around on a flying horse, the legendary Pegasus, which “no man has ever ridden?” It reminded me an awful lot of how Worthington’s character tamed the flying dragon-like creature in AVATAR. I think he’s starting to repeat himself.

But at least Worthington actually looks like a hero, unlike Harry Hamlin in the original. He looked like a soap star slumming in a kids’ movie!

MA: Liam Neeson is OK as Zeus, but it’s kind of a thankless role, as all he gets to do is look majestic and shout nasty orders like “Release the Kraken!” and “Crush the humans!” Much more disappointing is Ralph Fiennes as Hades. Fiennes is an excellent actor, and he’s completely wasted here. He must have needed some extra cash or something. I can’t figure why he’d accept this role. Hades could have been, and should have been, a real nasty baddie. Instead, he looks like he a reject from the HARRY POTTER series.

LS: You’re right, Fiennes deserves much better than this and the HARRY POTTER movies. So does Neeson. They’re better than their lame roles.

MA: It was also good to see Pete Postlethwaite on hand as Perseus’ human father

LS: Oh, he’s always good to see. And keep your eye out for a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it cameo by the goofy robotic owl from the original CLASH OF THE TITANS. That’s actually pretty funny.

But you’re right, the casting was very good. I also like the two guys who join Perseus’s pack later on – they’re professional monster killers or something, and I didn’t catch their names – but they added some comic relief to the story. I wanted to see more of them.

MA: I liked them, too.  The heroes definitely fared better in this one than the villains, which I found boring. In the 1981 version, Calibos was a memorable villain and a strong presence. His role in this one is seriously reduced, and his portrayal by Jason Flemyng is no more memorable than Fiennes as Hades. If your villain isn’t strong, usually your movie isn’t either.

LS: I liked the disfigured, monstrous Calibos in this version (although I liked Harryhausen’s version better). They didn’t give him a lot to do, but he was more interesting than the gods.

MA: I thought CLASH OF THE TITANS began very slowly, and for a while I kept hoping something would happen. To me, the movie got better when it reached the scene with the giant scorpions.

LS: Not just to you. To the whole audience! This movie starts out very slow, setting up its storyline, and you keep wondering, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE MONSTERS? So yeah, it doesn’t hit its stride until the scorpions.

MA: I thought this was one scene that improved on the original, as it was very exciting and was probably my favorite action sequence of the film. However, even this scene had drawbacks, as the scorpions looked fake and weren’t that convincing.

LS: Sometimes they looked good, and sometimes they didn’t. But they moved around so fast during the battle scenes, you couldn’t really tell most of the time. I guess the fact that it was hard to see made you think they looked better than they did. The bad 3D didn’t help.

MA: While there are many who might say modern CGI effects are an improvement over the stop-motion animation effects by Ray Harryhausen, I say it depends on the movie. I have no problem with the Harryhausen style of special effects, and I’m sure if he were making movies today, he’d be able to make stuff that would satisfy modern audiences. CGI is just so inconsistent. Here, in this CLASH OF THE TITANS, I thought the effects were fair at best.

LS: Well, I’m a big Ray Harryhausen fan and I figured I’d just hate this movie’s effects completely. The strange thing is, overall, I didn’t mind them. This was one rare time where the CGI effects didn’t distract me from the story, and I didn’t mind them that much. Not the best I’ve ever seen, but workable. There was no way they were going to capture the fun of Harryhausen’s stop-motion style. And I’m glad they didn’t even try to.

MA: The Medusa scene here was pretty good, but it was the best sequence in the original film, and so I can’t say that this scene was an improvement. They were about the same.

LS: Yeah, I agree.

MA: And though I thought the Kraken looked more fearsome here, once again, he’s reduced to a brief scene, and that’s about it. So, he’s hardly worth getting excited about.

LS: I actually thought the Kraken in this one was terrific! The best thing in the movie, aside from Gemma Arterton, for me. And I loved the way Andromeda was suspended from ropes, waiting to be sacrificed. It reminded me a lot of KING KONG as the monster approached, with a little Lovecraft thrown in with those massive tentacles.

MA: Yeah, I would agree with you on these points. My beef with the new Kraken is he’s in the film so little.

LS: I wanted more of him, too!

MA: The bizarre desert/sand people/creatures, I thought, were really cool, and I really liked them. They didn’t appear in the original, and if I had to note one major improvement over the 1981 movie, I’d go with these creatures. They were fun to watch.

LS: They were called the Djinn – as in genies. I guess that is why they were able to perform some magic in the film (though not enough!). To me, they looked like they really belonged in a STAR WARS movie, for some reason. And I was disappointed to find out that that they used the giant scorpions as trained animals. Kind of took away their sense of danger that we got in the battle scene earlier.

MA: But as a whole package, I found CLASH OF THE TITANS mediocre, and certainly not worth the extra cost of seeing it in 3D. This could have been a powerful movie. It was loaded with strong actors, and its script wasn’t so bad, but it only boasted fair special effects, and I thought the direction was muddled and surprisingly poor. In short, there’s nothing really special about CLASH OF THE TITANS to lift it above the pack.

I was never a huge fan of the Ray Harryhausen original either, and it might be that the story itself isn’t that exciting. CLASH OF THE TITANS isn’t much of a clash, and as a result, I say skip this one until you’ve got nothing better to do.

LS: And it certainly is NOT worth the extra five bucks for the 3D glasses.

MA: Nope.

LS: Well, that’s it for this week.

BLONDE TIED TO STAKE: What about me, huh? I’ve been tied here the whole time, listening to you two go on and on about a movie. How about letting me go?

LS: Sorry, toots. We’re finished here. We’ve gotta move on.

MA: Sorry. I wish I could help you.

(LS and MA run toward the other end of the beach, where a bunch of bikini babes are playing volleyball)

GIRL TIED TO STAKE (screaming): DAMMMMMIT!

-END-

© Copyright 2010 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

COMING MONDAY

Posted in News, Uncategorized on April 3, 2010 by knifefighter

Our review of CLASH OF THE TITANS is coming!

CKF COMING ATTRACTIONS: APRIL 2010

Posted in 2010, Cinema Knife Fights, Coming Attractions with tags on April 2, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT:  COMING ATTRACTIONS:  APRIL 2010
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE:  a beach on which fifty or so soldiers stand, all dressed in ancient Greek military garb.  A beautiful young blonde is tied to a stake.  A king, also dressed in military garb, steps forward.)

KING (roars):  Release the Kraken!

(CUE DRAMATIC MUSIC.  The sea rumbles as if something huge is about to surface.  From under the water, emerges a giant— chocolate bar monster, complete with jelly bean eyes, gum drop nose, and puffed rice cereal teeth.)

KING (rolls eyes):  I said “Kraken!” not “Krackle!”  Can’t a king get any good help these days?  I quit!

(King storms away from beach, followed by his soldiers.  Two men do not follow the military entourage.  MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES remain on the beach.  They wave to the giant Krackle who disappears back into the ocean.)

LS:  Damn!  I was really looking forward to this sacrifice!  I brought popcorn and everything!

MA:  As much as I enjoy popcorn, I think I would have rather chipped off some chocolate from that giant Krackle monster.

LS:  Me, too!

MA:  We’re here at the site of this monstrous sacrifice because our first column this month will be on CLASH OF THE TITANS, the 3-D remake of the 1981 Ray Harryhausen movie of the same name.  Both movies feature a giant creature called the Kraken.  In the Harryhausen movie, it was a cool looking monster, as most all Harryhausen’s creatures were, but unfortunately, it didn’t really do a whole heck of a lot in the movie.

Seen in the previews, the new Kraken looks like a huge frightening beast that I can’t wait to see more of in the movie.  Sure, it’s CGI, but it looks cool, and it reminds me a little of the CLOVERFIELD monster.  I hope in the remake the Kraken has more to do.

LS:  Yeah, I’m on the fence about this one. As a big fan of the stop-motion animation Ray Harryhausen was famous for, I hate to see this movie remade. At the same time, what I’ve seen of the new version looks pretty good.

MA:  The remake of CLASH OF THE TITANS stars Sam Worthington, who played the lead in the 3-D megahit AVATAR.  Worthington was also in TERMINATOR:  SALVATION, and arguably was the best part of that movie.  If CLASH OF THE TITANS is any good, he’ll have some serious bragging rights.  CLASH also stars Liam Neeson.

LS: Yeah, we first noticed Worthington in TERMINATOR: SALVATION and predicted he’d go on to bigger things. Well, you can’t get much “bigger” (in the Hollywood sense) than AVATAR. And it looks like CLASH OF THE TITANS will probably continue his winning streak.

MA: After enjoying AVATAR so much, I have to admit I’m really looking forward to seeing CLASH in 3-D.  And, as much as I like Ray Harryhausen, his CLASH OF THE TITANS has never been one of my favorites, so if someone’s going to remake a Ray Harryhausen movie, I guess CLASH OF THE TITANS is the one to do.  There’s room for improvement.

LS:  We’ll see about that.

Unfortunately, there aren’t a lot of new genre movies coming out this month, so we’ll be also reviewing some movies on DVD. The first one is actually not a DVD release, but a screener, for Greg Lamberson’s new movie SLIME CITY MASSACRE. This is a sequel to his midnight movie SLIME CITY from 1988. It sounds like he has a bigger budget this time and the script, which I’ve read, sounds very ambitious. I’m looking forward to seeing it. And I hope it gets an actual theatrical release at some point.

MA:  Yes, let’s hope so.  Greg deserves it.

LS:  We’ll also be reviewing the DVD release of HOUSE OF THE DEVIL. This movie recently had a limited release, but it wasn’t around for very long, and most people probably didn’t have a chance to see it. It’s been getting an awful lot of critical buzz in the genre, though, so I’m really looking forward to seeing this one. I don’t know much about it, and I actually want to see it knowing as little as possible, so that I can totally enjoy it.

MA:  I like the title – HOUSE OF THE DEVIL.  Has a classic sound to it, like HOUSE OF THE SEVEN GABLES, HOUSE OF USHER, HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, and HOUSE OF DRACULA to name a few houses, but something tells me this might be the only time I use the word “classic” in association with this movie.  But, who knows, right?  Stranger things have happened!

LS: Don’t forget LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT and LAST HOUSE ON A DEAD END STREET.

MA: On April 25, I’ll be doing a solo review on a movie yet to be determined.  It could be theatrical, or it could be DVD.  Think of it as a pot luck weekend.

LS: Wow, you’re going to surprise us!

MA: Yep, and then we’ll finish the month the way we began, with a column on another remake.  This time it’s the remake of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET starring Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy Krueger.  I’m excited to see Haley as Krueger.  His portrayal of Rorschach in WATCHMEN was one of my favorite parts of that movie, and I can’t wait to see what he does with Krueger.

LS:  I don’t have high hopes for this one. I like Haley, but his Freddy doesn’t seem to crack many jokes in the trailer. If they go the more serious route, I’ll miss the wisecracking Freddy that Robert Englund made so famous.

MA:  Not me.  I never really liked the wisecracking Freddy.  I found him tedious.  So I’m looking forward to the remake.  I was never all that into the original NIGHTMARE series.  I could never get into the whole “he kills you in your sleep” thing, which I just didn’t find scary.

LS: Maybe a lot of the original Freddy movies weren’t so scary, but it was a clever idea. A lot of people have ripped it off over the years, too.

MA: Plus, the movies eventually deteriorated into excuses for Freddy Krueger to kill teenagers while delivering humorous one-liners, a gimmick that got old fast. So, I’m hoping the remake is an improvement.

GIRL TIED TO A STAKE:  Can you untie me please?

MA:  Sure. (Uunties her.)

GIRL:  Was that giant candy bar monster really in the script?

MA:  Sure was.  I know, ‘cause I wrote it.

GIRL:  You did?

MA:  Yep.  The script for “April Coming Attractions?” I’m writing it right now.

LS: Me, too.

MA (Ignores him): That’s how I know what you’re going to say next.

GIRL:  You mean- (searches her memory) – Hmm. Would you like to go for a roll in the hay with me?

(MA smiles.)

LS:  Okay, Shakespeare, we’re done with this month’s preview.  Let’s go.

MA:  I was just trying to have a little fun.

LS:  And I’m here to make sure you don’t have any fun.  (To audience)  That’s it for now.  See you at the movies!

—END—

Suburban Grindhouse Memories: GISELLE

Posted in Suburban Grindhouse Memories with tags , , , , , , on April 1, 2010 by knifefighter

SUBURBAN GRINDHOUSE MEMORIES # 1
(What NOT to See on a High School Date)
by Nick Cato


Double dating when you’re a freshman in high school can always provide some unwanted challenges; money, a car, and in this case, the right film to see to make two teenaged couples happy.  My buddy and I figured we were lucky when we found a double feature listed at a local cinema of the teen comedy GOIN’ ALL THE WAY (1982), along with some mushy-looking flick called GISELLE (1980).  We figured we’d enjoy the laughs of the first film and the girls could enjoy the sappiness of the second.  Man, were we ever wrong.

For starters, the first film up was GISELLE, which turned out to be a Brazilian soft-core sex film disguised as a gothic romance.  Without any warning, it begins with horse trainers watching two horses humping (full horse penetration is shown!) before the first couple make love under a small waterfall…talk about being instantly blindsided.  Embarrassed beyond belief, I sunk into my chair as our dates said, “What kind of movie is this?”  Thankfully everyone laughed—nervously—and we continued to make fun of the overdubbing and horrendous acting for the remainder of this unforgettable sequence.  Being a film geek, I attempted to pay attention to whatever plot there might have been, but between my date’s constant looking at me to make sure I wasn’t enjoying the nudity too much, and my buddy’s tapping me in the leg whenever the on-screen couple switched positions, I nearly lost my mind.

What followed this twisted opening were 80-some odd minutes of poorly over-dubbed foreign trash cinema, packed with sex and some out-of-place violence.  There was lesbian sex, gay sex, threesomes, even one sequence where a young boy is seen zipping his pants up after he leaves some guy’s office.  How this piece of depravity ever found its way on an American teen-comedy double bill will forever remain a mystery.  Director Victor di Mello (who still acts in Brazil to this day) is responsible for this perverse oddity, which eventually found its way to U.S. video stores under the VHS title of HER SUMMER VACATION.

I can only imagine how many young teens rented this and lost their lunch to the infamous opening horse-hump fiasco.  Title character GISELLE (played by Brazilian actress Alba Valeria) despite being extremely easy on the eyes, managed to give me a guilt complex that lasted for the remainder of my high school years.

The main feature, GOIN’ ALL THE WAY, was a so-so FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH (1982) rip-off, not all too funny and highly forgettable.  But I don’t think any of us were focused on it after being assaulted by the Brazilian-sleaze that had come into our little neighborhood Twin Theater for a single week.

Who says grindhouses never existed in the suburbs?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers