Maybe not entirely relevant to film...

... but I love these posters.

The Slasher...

In lieu of Aronofsky's trailer for his new film Black Swan, which has been taking the internet by storm.
Kris and I thought we should post a youtube classic...

Gentlement Broncos... or a review of Sam Rockwell

Gentlemen Broncos. Yeah that's a movie, I guess. Watchable though? Barely. I thought this might have its moments - I mean, I like sci-fi pulp and I liked Flight of the Conchords and Napoleon Dynamite so I thought 'surely it can't be entirely bad, can it?'. And it wasn't entirely bad, but only because Sam Rockwell is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors of the moment and is consistently such a pleasure to watch. From the first time I can remember seeing him, in the Green Mile as Wild Bill, I thought he stole the show every time he was in it. And, although it wasn't a great role, and it was in a fairly shitty movie, I remember him really standing out even in Charlie's Angels. Every time I watch him in something I like him a little bit more and after watching him in Moon recently it solidified for me how great I think he is. He carried the entire film with what seemed like ease, which I realized is how he is in every role I've seen him in. He plays all of his characters so naturally and so smoothly that you wonder if he's even really acting or just acting like himself, but then you compare the roles and realize that surely one man can't be as disgusting and evil as Wild Bill, smooth as Eric Knox, sexually depraved as Victor Mancini and the man certainly isn't a intergalactic fuck-up/goof (which he actually plays in four different movies by my count, all in entirely different ways).



But, I digress. Back to Broncos:

Napoleon Dynamite walked a very fine line and, for some people, it really fell on the side of annoyingly juvenile and absurd. I found it pretty funny but easily saw where these people were coming from. Well Gentleman Broncos jumps over that line and then some. While Napoleon seemed like a slight prod at small-town American living this movie is a full fledge mockery of the dreams and intelligence of small-town Americans. Napoleon could be seen as a hero, in some ways, in his small town of losers but everyone in Broncos is a loser, especially the lead character. He’s a complete pushover and, while we’re supposed to feel like everything works out for him in the end with the publication of his story, even with him getting the girl, you end up feeling like he’s still just a loser. Because his published story is stupid and he never wanted the girl in the first place. And because their first kiss is with a mouth full of his puke. You’re never rooting for him except in the sense that you want things to get better for him just so you don’t have to watch his patheticness anymore. The only good parts of the film are those with Sam Rockwell playing Bronco/Brutus of Benjamin/Chevalier’s story – an intergalactic warrior who has his testicles stolen from him and needs to get them back. And yeah, it’s as funny as it sounds. However, as much as I love Rockwell, there isn’t nearly enough of him to make this movie a worthwhile view, not that any of you were going to bother with it anyways.

Up (2009)

Up is, like, soooooooooooo, so, so great.

Cinematheque Ontario's top films of the last decade

http://tiffg.ca/mediacentre/viewrelease.aspx?recordId=678

Midnight Madness Day 3: George A. Romero's Survival of the Dead

Throughout TIFF, Kris and Joe will be doing "shared" reviews, in which we'll offer our opinions on a particular film in a single post. Kendall is sitting in for Joe who couldn't make it. This is day 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was fitting that last night i attended George A. Romero's latest entry in his ... of the Dead series "Survival of the Dead" zonked from a 3 hour sleep and a following 10 hour shift at the FBE.
I showed up in line looking very much like a member of the undead and feeling not too far off from the same.
Kendall soon joined me and we shuffled into the theater where chaos for good seating ensued. Somehow we snagged some pretty amazing seats, middle row center.
It wasn't until we looked around and noticed that disgruntled cast and crew members were yelling at Tiff volunteers and that we were also sitting right behind the man himself, George A. Romero, that we started to think we were sitting in the wrong seats.
Ah well, it was too late to do anything about it.

Romero came out before the screening to a very impressive standing ovation. As an audience we were not only paying tribute to the legend, but we were also welcoming him as an official Torontonian. Now that he does live here I wonder if Scott will buy 10 copies of all of his films just in case he comes into the store... we'll see.

After a few formalities from George the lights dimmed and i was already fighting to stay awake and that's without one frame of the film playing.

Survival of the Dead is a sequel of sorts to Diary of the Dead which i haven't seen. Unlike any other "of the Dead" films this one has a direct connection to another. The lead in this film was a character in Diary.

Sorry for pussy footing around the review for this flick, i just don't know how to come out and say i didn't like it. So I'll say that. I didn't like it that much.

All the characters have unfinished or unused character arcs, the plot branches out in many directions yet it never follows any plot twist to its natural end. Instead the film jumps and stalls constantly, the film desperately seeking some sort of conclusion but no one is kind enough to just shoot it in the head and be done with it. We watch it limp in horror; a living dead film.

Keep in mind that maybe Romero films aren't my thing. I love Return, Dawn, and Day but when i attended Land of the Dead i was left baffled as i was the only one i knew who just didn't get anything out of it. So there, it may just be me. I heard a lot of people say that Survival was better than Diary of the Dead.

Joe told me to separate the film from the director and look at it as just a film to form a more honest opinion but i can't help it.
It bothers me that Romero's name is on it. I feel like he should be a beacon of quality for the zombie genre, at the very least he should be a director that holds onto old film techniques and the use of special effect make up instead of going digital and heavy use of cheap cgi.
I want one more really good Romero film and this one isn't it, not by a long shot.

What followed after the film was quite possibly the worst Q & A session i have ever attended. Questions like "Do you prefer fast zombies or slow zombies?" or "Why did the zombie cross the road?" or the closing question "Can we see your best zombie impersonation?", all great stuff Toronto.

But i was a zombie by that point so who knows? It may just have been the best b style horror movie ever made followed by the wittiest questions anyone has ever asked a director.

I would like to thank Kendall for being such a blast of a Midnight Madness partner, she snuck in crispers which we would have ate during the movie if we weren't sitting right behind George A. Romero.

Tonight an Aussie horror flick, The Loved Ones looks very promising. Now that the big name tittles are out of the way and the star gazing element of Midnight Madness becomes more subdued I'm excited to sit down and watch some real film. No more big names, no more expectations, from here on in it's all about the films. (minus the closing film Ong Bak 2, I'm hoping for that one we will be treated to a martial arts demonstration by Tony Jaa)

-Dropkick

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Survival of the Dead began my (very low, after the disaster that was Diary of the Dead) hopes began to rise. 'Here [I thought], here we will have a Romero movie that is really worth something, about the survival of humanity as a species and the disintegration of our benevolence and the human condition in the face of a crisis.' Ok so maybe i didn’t think quite so poetically in the moment, but you get the idea... unfortunately Romero didn’t. I love sci-fi and horror that aims to expose our humanity as a total crock, a facade of intelligence and superiority over other species that crumbles as soon as we are faced with disaster. Day of the Triffids and The Stand, to me, are both brilliant books that explore this concept, if you’re interested in a good read (I’ve seen neither of the movie-versions). Survival of the Dead, initially, seemed like it was going to be in the same vein as these; the theme of the film murkily reflects this sort of idea with constant references to the difficulty of choosing to hold on to our humanity in terms of our lives, and our humanity in terms of our relationships with people, something that we like to think separates us from animals, at some point in this movie everyone must choose one or the other. However, this whole idea is so muddled by useless story lines and characters that it is hardly noticeable, in fact I’m not even sure Romero noticed it, or really intended it. The story of Survival moves in way too many directions, one leading to another, introducing us to a new character, who we then think will be the focus of the movie, but never turns out to be. In the end the focus settles exactly where it started, making everything that happened in between feel completely useless, and where the film started is with a feud between two Irish families who live on an island outside of Delaware, and it’s exactly as ridiculous as it sounds.

I really don’t have anything else to say about this movie other than that it’s only redeeming quality is that it is ever so slightly better than Diary of the Dead, which I guess is good for Romero... I guess.

-Chandles

The Inbetweeners

If I can recommend one show to bring back to you all, it's this one. It's like... Superbad meets Peepshow... or something. I'm tired and can't write a proper review. I dunno if this is available in NA yet, but when it is, we should get it... and until then, you should download it.

Oscars

As much as I agree with Sporgey's rant about the lack of soul of the whole Oscar/Hollywood celebration that they throw for themselves. It's like a Golf club, that used to be so exclusive that everyone wanted in, but was racist, so they excluded some really great people, and then to make up for it they let in Tiger Woods' cousin or something... Bad, bad analogy, but it's fucking late, ok?

So yeah, as much as I agree with ya Sporgey, for the first time, I have actually seen all of the major players in the oscar nominations for this year, so for once in my life I feel like I can really participate in the Oscars and know what the fuck I am talking about, not just what the hype of critics tells me about a film. Too bad I don't own a TV to actually watch the stupid thing. And yeah, I watch that shit, because a) I like to see the beuatiful gowns I will never have any reason to wear and b) who's going to do something fucking weird, or which dude decided to show up in a tux with some sort of grizzly beard.

This list is not about picking who I think will win, because I am quite sure that I do not know what a board of this kind will take into consideration when picking the winners, obviously, since I don't even know why the fuck they pick the nominees. But, I know who I think should win... and who really, really shouldn't.

Oscar Ballot teef'd from evite.com

BEST PICTURE
[ ] The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
[ ] Frost/Nixon
[ ] Milk
[ ] The Reader
[X] Slumdog Millionaire

By far, Slumdog Millionaire was the overall winner for me in this category. If the best picture category is truly about honouring the idea that filmmaking is a collaborative effort, and about recognizing the value of a film in all of the areas which are required to give it substinance, then Slumdog is for sure the number one.

DIRECTOR
[ ] David Fincher, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
[ ] Ron Howard, Frost/Nixon
[X] Gus Van Sant, Milk
[ ] Stephen Daldry, The Reader
[ ] Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire

Obviously if I was trying to predict the outcomes of the Oscars, I would never choose a different film for best picture and best director. For the longest time when I was younger I never even knew that these were two separate categories. If we are speaking strictly direction, though, I think that Van Sant deserves to take the prize. The different styles in this film were expertly woven together. Gus pulls documentary style images and scenes, which gave pertinence to the story of Harvey Milk and his role in a movement, and combines them with extremely personal viewpoints which give credence to the fact that this important movement depended on a man, who was really just a man.

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
[ ] Frozen River
[ ] Happy-Go-Lucky
[X] In Bruges
[ ] Milk
[ ] WALL-E

I will admit that I have not seen every film in this category, and I will admit, I am no expert on what constitues a great screenplay, but, from the first time I saw In Bruges (and I have seen it at least three or four times at this point) I thought that the script was utterly fantastic. All of the dialogue between Gleeson and Farrell, and the shorter occasions where we are graced with Fiennes’ additions, is quick and hysterical. There is no moment in this movie to not be entertained and despite being a hitman comedy, the entertainment does not come from explosive scenes or schwazenneger-worthy catch phrases, it relies on action scenes confounded by stupidity and catch phrases which are uttered by the many slightly-needs characters which make up this film.

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
[ ] The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
[ ] Doubt
[X] Frost/Nixon
[ ] The Reader
[ ] Slumdog Millionaire

I don’t know if one is allowed to discuss this category properly without having read or viewed all of the original works from which the screenplays were adapted. I also wonder if perhaps it is easier to adapt a play into a film, but I don’t care. Frost/Nixon was at the very lease better than The Reader (a movie which was probably an excellent book for women to read and cry about and ignore the irony of reading a book about an illiterate woman), Doubt (which, in my opinion, was really only a good film because of its cast) and Benjamin Button (Forrest Gump II: Story of the Backwards, Slightly Less-Racist Gump).

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
[ ] Richard Jenkins, The Visitor
[ ] Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon
[ ] Sean Penn, Milk
[ ] Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
[X] Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler

I could have maybe picked this film for best direction had it been an option. A mockumentary that never mocks anything, or reveals itself to be documentary-style in anything but the direction. So supremely executed. The only other thing, besides the directing, which gives this film that amazing appeal, is Rourke’s amazing performance.

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
[ ] Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married
[ ] Angelina Jolie, Changeling
[ ] Melissa Leo, Frozen River
[X] Meryl Streep, Doubt
[ ] Kate Winslet, The Reader

I didn’t even really like this movie. But I loved Meryl Streep, so she must have been good.

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
[ ] Josh Brolin, Milk
[ ] Robert Downey Jr., Tropic Thunder
[ ] Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt
[X] Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
[ ] Michael Shannon, Revolutionary Road

Gotta do it. He was just way too good.

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
[ ] Amy Adams, Doubt
[ ] Penélope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
[ ] Viola Davis, Doubt
[ ] Taraji P. Henson, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
[ ] Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler

I don’t even want to pick anyone in this category. This is a joke.

ANIMATED FEATURE
[ ] Bolt
[ ] Kung Fu Panda
[ ] WALL-E

Kung-Fu Panda hands down. Kris, youknowwhatI’mtalkingabout. I coulda sat through that shit again... but instead we went to go see Indiana Jones... shame.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
[ ] The Betrayal (Nerakhoon)
[X] Encounters at the End of the World
[ ] The Garden
[ ] Man on Wire
[ ] Trouble the Water

Once again, I have no technically seen all of the films in this category, but I have seen more than I thought I would’ve considering I don’t watch a ton of documentaries if they don’t come from PBS, NOVA or National Geographic. Encounters at the End of the World probably just appealed to that nature-doc love of mine, but despite showing these fantastic images of nature’s wonders, it was not a nature documentary truly. It was a documentary about a place, the natural wonders of it and the inhabitants and their lives, both creature and man.

Do the rest of these even matter to anyone but the nominees?

ORIGINAL SCORE
[ ] The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
[ ] Defiance
[ ] Milk
[X] Slumdog Millionaire
[ ] WALL-E

ORIGINAL SONG
[ ] "Down to Earth" - WALL-E
[X] "Jai Ho" - Slumdog Millionaire
[ ] "O Saya" - Slumdog Millionaire

ART DIRECTION
[ ] Changeling
[X] The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
[ ] The Dark Knight
[ ] The Duchess
[ ] Revolutionary Road

CINEMATOGRAPHY
[ ] Changeling
[ ] The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
[ ] The Dark Knight
[ ] The Reader
[X] Slumdog Millionaire

COSTUME DESIGN
[ ] Australia
[ ] The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
[ ] The Duchess
[X] Milk
[ ] Revolutionary Road

MAKEUP
[ ] The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
[ ] The Dark Knight
[X] Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Yeah, that's right Benjamin Button, I said it. I couldn't even pay attention to the makeup because the CGing of Brad Pitts wrinkly face onto a child body was so fucking terrifying.

SOUND MIXING
[ ] The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
[ ] The Dark Knight
[ ] Slumdog Millionaire
[ ] WALL-E
[ ] Wanted

Who knows?

SOUND EDITING
[ ] The Dark Knight
[ ] Iron Man
[ ] Slumdog Millionaire
[ ] WALL-E
[ ] Wanted

Who cares?

VISUAL EFFECTS
[ ] The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
[ ] The Dark Knight
[X] Iron Man

It deserves something for making me cream my pants so hard.

FILM EDITING
[ ] The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
[ ] The Dark Knight
[X] Frost/Nixon
[ ] Milk
[ ] Slumdog Millionaire

Meh.


Hope you enjoyed my 4am post. Why didn't I just write my essay?

the future is here and it fucking sucks

Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008)

This movie had loads of interest and requests at the store this summer. I've finally sat down to watch it today and I have to wonder if the interest stems from genuine belief and interest in the ideas that the documentary proposes, or if it's simply because the film is anti-Christianity/war/America-in-general, all that stuff we just love to hate.
I enjoyed the first chapter of the film, which discusses the Jesus myth in relation to pagan religions, and more fascinatingly (to me) how the story of Jesus might just be a personification of phenomenon regarding the sun, constellations and the equinox. It is a very fascination proposition and was presented very tangibly, however, it was also presented as fact. The film completely ignores the possibility of any other explanation of the Christian religion, and, more importantly when discussing how religion effects politics, it completely ignores the importance of why Christianity rules the nation, the history of the church itself rather than the religion. Choosing instead to focus on the stupidity of belief in Jesus, rather than discussing the much more prevalent point of belief in the church, two things which, although intimately connected, are not at all one in the same. This was somewhat of a running motif with this movie - using very understandable visuals and presenting information as absolute fact so that the story it tells is quite compelling when truthfully the way in which the film presents evidence is just as deceptive as the people are of the groups and actions it is obviously against.
The historical aspects of the film are interesting. The creator does well to give historical information, much of which I admit that I did not know, that itself is quite interesting and does, in fact have connection with the modern events he is discussing. However, the modern issues which it addresses are presented biasedly, to say the least. Skimming over details and never addressing any counter-arguments would never fly in an academic paper, I don't see why, just because something is on film and not paper, it should be passable in this instance. And I don't see how, morally, making a film in this deceptive manner makes someone any better than a government who the creator claims does the same thing, and that he is so abhorrently against.

It's beginning to look a lot like halloween... part 13: 1980s Kinder Surprise Advert

As Scott proved in his Gumby post, sometimes the scariest videos of all are not the slasher films, the zombie flicks or the ghost stories...

It's beginning to look a lot like halloween... part 10: True Blood

My selection of movies over here is rather limited. Basically, with no video rental place anywhere near me, I'm confined to what I can rent from the school library, whatever is playing at the little cinema (very reminscent of the good old Eaton Centre theatre) nearby, or what I can find online. Well, you can imagine how great the selection at my school library is, and I've already seen the movies that are playing at the theatre here. This has made the task of finding decent horror movies to watch this month and include in the countdown somewhat more difficult.

But thankfully, Alan Ball has temporarily solved this dilemna for me by creating True Blood. After not being able to find anything good at the library yesterday I recalled hearing about this show premiering not long before I left, but never recalled hearing anything about whether it was decent or not. Although I've only watched two episodes of the new project from the creator of Six Feet Under, I'm well addicted already.

Set in Louisiana, True Blood follows waitress Sookie Stackhouse (Anna Paquin), who can (for yet unexplained reasons) read peoples' minds, and how her life changes one night after she meets a vampire, her first since they 'came out of the coffin' two years ago. Now that a Japanese company has perfected synthetic blood, vampires claim that they have no need to kill anymore and just want to be like the rest of us. However, as one character points out in the first episode - would you give up all your favorite foods and drink just SlimFast for the rest of your life?

This show, similarly to Six Feet Under, is not a joke show, though their premises might make them seem like they could go that way. The show is sexy and violent, sometimes more disturbingly it is both at the same time, though Ball would not be the first person to cash in on this portrayal of the vampire world. Despite the fact that this show is much more fantastical than Six Feet Under, Ball seems to have counteracted this element of unrealism by cutting back a great deal on even the dark, twinge of humor that his former HBO hit had, although there are still some traces of it.

So far I like this one, but I may have to update after a few more episodes.

It's beginning to look a lot like halloween... part 2: The Strangers

Last night, as I ignored the pile of work on my desk for the second day in a row, I decided to watch The Strangers, the fantastically frightening debut movie from director Brian Bertino. This film seriously gave me the willies, people. The entire movie takes place over the course of just a few hours at the conveniently-out-of-the-way summer home of leading man James (Scott Speedman).

His girlfriend, Kristen (Liv Tyler), and he have arrived at the summer home late in the night after attending a wedding. During the first fifteen minutes of the film we become privy, through various flashbacks to the night’s events and conversations between the leads, to the fact that this relationship of theirs is not exactly in a good place at the moment. Just as the pair are about to partake in what looks to be some kind of very hot hate and/or break-up-sex, a knock comes from the door. A young, somewhat dazed girl, stands in the shadows of the doorway, giving only minor glimpses of her face as she asks if “Tamara” is home. James informs her she has the wrong house and sends her politely away.

Now that their totally hot fun has been interrupted, and because James got Kirsten so worked up in those few short seconds they were at it, she really needs a cigarette. Unfortunately for both of them, she’s all out. James being the stand up guy that he is offers to drive and go get her some. As Joanna Newsom plays on the old record player (Joanna Newsom on vinyl?) and Kirsten knocks back a beer, a knock comes yet again from the door – this time much slower, and much louder. Through the security of the wooden door, Kirsten asks who is there, to which the young voice from the shadows again asks for Tamara. After informing the voice that she has already been here before, we can hear retreating footsteps.

Now somewhat afraid, Kristen calls James’ cell phone and tells him to come home quickly, just before the phone is cut off. Kirsten goes to get her own cell and finds that it is out of batteries and needs to be plugged in. As she wanders around the house, checking the windows to see if the young girl is outside anywhere, our lead villain finally makes his first quiet appearance – watching Kristen from the edge of the next room, already inside of the hom, a hood-like mask drawn over his face. This quiet introduction lasts an uncomfortably long time (in an awesome, horror kind of uncomfortable way), yet without it seeming unbelievable that Kristen does not spot him. When she eventually turns around the masked-man is gone, but seconds later she hears a door being shut. Grabbing a knife she goes to investigate and finds some things amiss in the house that obviously lead to someone having been inside with her. She returns to the spot where she had plugged in her phone only to find it missing. And then the knocking returns.

Hearing another noise at the window Kristen moves to investigate, and, drawing back the curtains, she is now confronted by the hooded man who had watched her earlier. Terrified, Kristen hides in a back room of the house until James returns and finds her in hysterics. Skeptical of Kirsten’s story, James says that he has left his cell phone in his car and will go and get it, only to find that his car has been smashed up and his cell phone has also been taken. The couple returns to the car together and this is when the torture-through-terrifying begins as James at last sees what Kristen already has. Over the next hours until early day-light finally comes, the couple is chased and menaced by a voiceless “family “ of three mask-wearing psychopaths who over-and-over again taunt them torturously until eventually, as day finally breaks, the two of them end up bound beside each other and come face-to-face with the menacing-Mansons.

Finally being confronted by them, Kristen asks them ‘why?’ to which the young girl replies ‘because you were home’.

Perhaps I enjoyed this movie more because I am somewhat mourning the lack of Halloween on this side of the pond, but, the very minimal presence of blood and gore in this movie, along with absolute creepiness of the villains and the manner in which they induce fear for no obvious reason, really made this one great. My only qualm about this movie would have to be the publicity-stunt-like addition of a disclaimer at the beginning of the film which states that the movie is ‘based on true events’, which upon further investigation one quickly finds out is not exactly true. Speedman and Tyler are both superbly understated in their roles, there is no obscene over-dramafication by either one. And, although at first I thought the movie might have done well without the back story of their relationship in turmoil, I found that, in fact, it added a necessary element of distance and mistrust between the two characters.

All in all a good one.

It's beginning to look a lot like halloween... part 1: Mother of Tears

Mother of Tears is the long-awaited finale to Dario Argento’s series of The Three Mothers, preceded by Suspiria, and Inferno. It was premiered last year at TIFF midnight madness which I, very unhappily, was unable to attend. I feared that it might be ages before it was released on DVD and was even warned by Joe of a rumor that the DVD release would be a much duller, less gory version than what was screened at the festival. This is why I was supremely excited to finally get to watch this the other night, in full. Although after finally watching it? Well...

True to Argento style the gore certainly does not disappoint; within the first ten minutes the blood is spilling and the guts are flying (as well as being used to strangle people). Sarah (Asia Argento, Dario’s daughter) is a student at the Museum of Ancient Art in Rome where she and her colleague open an ancient urn, sent by a priest, intended for their boss (and Sarah’s extracurricular love affair). As Sarah runs off to collect some books to decode the ancient script on the urn, her colleague opens the urn, unleashing the Mother of Tears, the third and most beautiful of the three sisters who appear in Argento’s series. The contents of the urn include a red tunic, apparently the witch’s most powerful relic, which the Mother dons to regain her powers, summoning demons who kill Sarah’s colleague in a superbly-grotesque fashion.

Sarah returns with the books only to see her friend being viciously murdered. She runs from the building, encouraged by a loud, unseen female voice. The police think that Sarah’s story is quite insane and have her followed. They do not beleive her story despite the fact that the city of Rome is suddenly now boiling over with evil and tearing itself apart; thiefs, murderers and rapists fill the city streets day and night along with gaggles of half-goth, half-harajuku girl-type witches. Seriously, these witches look like some kind of glam-rock meets pirate-hooker leftover from the era of 1980’s Inferno. And still the police think that Sarah is insane and in need of their unrelenting surveillance?

("You Harajuku Girls you got the wicked style. I like the way that you are, I am your biggest fan." - Gwen Stefani)

After her torrid love affair/boss/boyfriend’s son is kidnapped by the Mother’s cult, and he is then captured while attempting to find his son, Sarah is eventually forced to go on the run from the stupid cops and gothy witches chasing after her. Sarah escapes to find the last surviving exorcist recognized by the church. In his home she meets a woman who knew her mother and finally gives an explanation for the encouraging yet mysterious voice that has been pushing Sarah onwards to fight against the evil that is consuming Rome. Now prepared with her white-witch powers gifted to her by her dead-but-alive-via-apparitions mother (the voice), Sarah can finally kick some pirate-goth-hooker ass. Well, that is if Argento hadn't insisted on maintaining the stereotypical Italian-horror traditional roles which require Sarah to run about in heels and dresses without any clue what to do. Luckily for her, and basically through random chance, the chicken with its head cut off apparoch leads her to the Palazzo under which the Mother is living. At this point, without the use of any of her magical powers which took nearly most of the movie to be discovered and honed I might add, manages to shed the Mother of her tunic, burning it and causing the Palazzo to crumble, unleashing a tower which impales the Mother in an uncharacteristically lame death by Argento. Even at this point, after killing an entire coven including one massively powerful with who managed to effectively tear Rome apart in mere days, Sarah still requires the help of a man, the one cop who believed in her all along, to make her way out of the cave, because apparently it's just too... icky.

Immediately after finishing this movie I was quite excited by it. As mentioned before, gore is one thing that Argento does brilliantly and which, hopefully, will never change. But, as I thought about the movie more over the last couple of days I realized how blinded I was by my sheer wanting for the film to live up to its potential. Truthfully though: not such a good plot, terrible acting and an uncalled for amount of gore. This, as my friend pointed out, might be said of many of these ‘classic’-type horrors but Mother of Tears (save for the gore which, although uncalled for was certainly a pleasure) really took it to a level that I simply couldn’t appreciate in the long-run.

To Jesus, With Love and Respect

Dear Ted Neeley,

I’ll start by just saying that Jesus Christ Superstar is by far one of my favourite musicals. Your portrayal of Jesus perfectly complimented the rock opera’s need for a strong, passionate voice and you killed that scene in the temple.
However, you are 65 now. 65! That’s more than TWICE the age that Jesus even lived to be. Watching you on stage last month was… odd, for lack of a better word. My image of Jesus has never contained a beer belly or knees so old and weak he couldn’t kneel and pray. Perhaps the reason why you’re character has “tried for three years” and it “feels like thirty” is because it HAS been thirty years and you’re just too old to remember them. Sure you can still hit some of those strong notes but the audience wasn’t clapping with you, they were clapping at you, astonished that you could still pull it out once per act, cheering you on like when our 90-year-old grandmothers blows out their 3 birthday candles after 15 minutes of trying and one near fainting. And since when is Jesus a total lecher? That Mary Magdalene has got to be a third of your age you sly old dog. And I won’t even make the obvious jokes about you “crucifying” the role during your 10 minute long death scene.

I love you Neeley, but let’s just say that I think it’s time you retired your robe and sandals.


Sincerely,

Chandles