|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Oct 30, 2010 0:57:02 GMT -5
MVZ MMC: October 2010Peeping Tom (dir. Michael Powell, 1960) Michael Powell has long been heralded as one of the greatest directors to come out of Britain (I, and perhaps most, would argue the world), but Peeping Tom was considered rather controversial upon it's initial release. Since then, much like many of cinema's greats (nobody much cared for The General upon it's release, either), it's earned itself quite the following. While Peeping Tom is not Powell's best film, it's a blunt and rather ingenious deconstruction of the art of filmmaking. Also released in 1960 was Psycho, and the two films are remarkably similar. They both featured the unexpected death of a major star (Moira Shearer and Janet Leigh), both dealt with a disturbed killer and the unusual Freudian relationship he had with a parent, and both contain elements of dark humor. In this film, for instance, after having nearly killed a blind woman without her knowledge of it, she asks the murderer, "are you anxious to get rid of me all of the sudden?" That's precisely what Hitchcock's humor was all about, and the relationship between Powell and Hitchcock is hardly a stretch - Powell was an uncredited screenwriter on Blackmail, Hitchcock's first sound film, and the two are reported to have been good friends throughout their respective careers. Although this film seems like an outlier as a raw thriller in Powell's otherwise mostly elegant oeuvre, it fits in eerily well with his earlier works due to it's sophisticated lighting set ups, graceful camera movements, and psychological complexity. The reason I suspect that the 1960's audience was so upset by it is because it's a film in which the camera is an object of perverse transgression, linking objectivity and subjectivity together to startling effect. My MMC History:
10/30: Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960): 5/5 10/29: Onibaba (Shindô, 1964): 4/5 10/14: Near Dark (Bigelow, 1987): 3.5/5[/url] 10/13: Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932): 5/5[/url] 10/06: Daughters of Darkness (Kümel, 1971): 3.5/5[/url] [/size]
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Oct 30, 2010 4:45:28 GMT -5
Thanks for the recommendation, Awesome Dude. MVZ MMC: October 2010Eyes Without a Face (dir. Georges Franju, 1960) Eyes Without a Face eases us into it's world with great care. After our suspicions have grown and we have a decent sense of what may be going on, we get our first glimpse of the doctor's mansion. We hear dozens of dogs barking. He slowly ascends the stairs of his sterile home, and then another set of them, as if Christiane were kept in a belltower. The quiet, eerie subtlety of these early sequences is significantly more effective than the graphic content that follows. Franju is a filmmaker who seems to enjoy toying with the audience, and about midway through the film he begins to play with our expectations. The audience has been grasping to find a hero in the story, and that comes when a woman, whose face has been stolen, attempts an escape out of the mansion. Her venture is short lived. Later, when the murderous couple brings a body to the cemetery, the gothic images recall classic Universal monster pictures. This scene's brief interruption by an extended shot of an airplane reminds us of the modernity of this particular film, and it's as if Franju is arrogantly distancing himself from horror films of the past. Christiane, faceless, is the most interesting character of the film. Her body movements are enhanced - there's rarely a moment where she's standing still. She gracefully descends the staircase and into the dog's cellar in a long, nearly silent stretch of film. Expressionless though she may be, such sequences fool us into thinking that we have a perspective on her interior life. Again, though, Franju has toyed with us - she who we had first expected to be the monster, who had then spent the majority of the film cementing herself as a tragic hero, in the end has arguably become what our first gut reaction expected her to be: a monster. While she is not as irredeemable as characters of her type - The Invisible Man, for instance - Franju continues the trend of faceless characters becoming so detached from the world that they're capacity for empathy is extinguished. My MMC History:
10/30: Eyes Without a Face (Franju, 1960): 3.5/5 10/30: Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960): 5/5 10/29: Onibaba (Shindô, 1964): 4/5 10/14: Near Dark (Bigelow, 1987): 3.5/5[/url] 10/13: Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932): 5/5[/url] 10/06: Daughters of Darkness (Kümel, 1971): 3.5/5[/url] [/size]
|
|
|
Post by AD on Oct 30, 2010 16:19:38 GMT -5
Carnival of Souls (Herk Harvey, 1962) The influence of “Carnival of Souls” has been well documented. George Romero saw it and decided to make “Night of the Living Dead.” Wes Craven was so into it that he produced a bigger budget remake in 1998. It even pre-dates Roman Polanski’s “Repulsion” (a much better film that explores similar themes) by a few years. Putting this aside, the film itself is a flawed but interesting exercise in psychological horror. Far from a masterpiece, but consistently atmospheric and entertaining. The film is now part of the public domain, which makes it legally available for free all over the internet if you want to check it out. Unfortunately, it also makes it possible for anybody looking to make quick buck to put out bastardized DVD “special editions.” There’s a colorized DVD out there, a cropped widescreen version, and even a 3D version. Obviously, these prints should be avoided at all costs. You should see it in black-and-white with the original 1.37 : 1 aspect ratio intact. I only mention this because I actually saw a colorized version years ago (when I didn‘t know it was originally in b&w) and didn’t care for the film at all. Seeing it as it was meant to be seen is an entirely different, and altogether superior, experience.
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Oct 30, 2010 21:59:31 GMT -5
MVZ MMC: October 2010Flesh for Frankenstein (dir. Paul Morrissey & Antonio Margheriti, 1973) Flesh for Frankenstein contains what might be the funniest line i've ever heard in a horror movie. After an elongated sequence in which Dr. Frankenstein makes love to a disemboweled corpse on an operating table, he stands up and exclaims to his assistant: "To know death, Otto, you have to fuck life in the gallbladder!" To call the film camp is a gross understatement. It's appeal to me, however, is not only in it's graphic humor and the charismatic, enormously hammy performance from Udo Kier, but it's the way that Morrissey demonizes sexual liberty and instead glorifies what we might instead perceive to be traditional passions. Morrissey isn't saying anything bad about "deviant" or non-heterosexual relationships (in fact, the would-be monk is clearly implied to be gay), but he's suggesting that erotic liberation taken to the extreme is dehumanizing. The movie is complete trash. It's amateurish on all accounts, most remarkably illustrated by some ungodly bad performances. But it's inventive perversity is, in it's own appalling way, tastefully done. The gore serves a purpose. This isn't gore porn. It's... incestuous necrophiliac porn... My MMC History:
10/30: Flesh for Frankenstein (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1973): 3/5 10/30: Eyes Without a Face (Franju, 1960): 3.5/5 10/30: Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960): 5/5 10/29: Onibaba (Shindô, 1964): 4/5 10/14: Near Dark (Bigelow, 1987): 3.5/5[/url] 10/13: Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932): 5/5[/url] 10/06: Daughters of Darkness (Kümel, 1971): 3.5/5[/url] [/size]
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Oct 31, 2010 3:27:23 GMT -5
MVZ MMC: October 2010Blood for Dracula (dir. Paul Morrissey & Antonio Margheriti, 1974) Blood for Dracula, made just after Flesh for Frankenstein (reportedly because the earlier film was under-budget and finished shooting earlier than expected), has earned itself a reputation as a cult classic due to it's vulgar, tasteless humor. But this film, much moreso than Flesh for Frankenstein, is a weird anomaly in that it's a trash film that's literary and complex - a lingering sadness lurks throughout every frame as the filmmaker mourns the passing of an era. While it still has it's share of laughs, the political and social complexities are startlingly married with the absurdity of the dialogue and the over-the-top performances. In the film, an aging, crippled Count Dracula travels to Italy as he needs virgin blood and Romania is without virgins. It turns out that Italy is largely without virgins as well, and on the occasions in which he is fooled into drinking impure blood he vomits repulsively. The corrupt youth is literally killing the Count. Our sympathies lie with Dracula throughout as his opposition, a young, womanizing Marxist, has tainted the women of the manor through his abuse and rape. While the young working class character fantasizes about an overthrow of the aristocrats, it's clear that this change of power doesn't necessarily represent the working class putting an end to corruption, rather it's a simple exchange of tyranny. The film is funny, too. The most graphic gag of the film is undoubtedly the inspiration for the Black Knight scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which was released a year later. And the young Marxist, as violent as he is, is played by the absurdly dreadful Joe Dallesandro, who in an inexplicable New York accent delivers hilariously vulgar, matter-of-fact lines like, "The count says he only wants virgins. What's he doin' with you two whores?" If it were taken seriously, Blood for Dracula had the potential of being an enormously important horror film for it's era. As it stands, though, it's too good to be bad and too bad to be good. But as a rare piece of highbrow trash, it's unlike anything you've seen before. Also interesting to note is that both Vittorio De Sica and Roman Polanski have speaking roles in the film. My MMC History:
10/30: Blood for Dracula (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1974): 4/5 10/30: Flesh for Frankenstein (Morrissey & Margheriti, 1973): 3/5 10/30: Eyes Without a Face (Franju, 1960): 3.5/5 10/30: Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960): 5/5 10/29: Onibaba (Shindô, 1964): 4/5 10/14: Near Dark (Bigelow, 1987): 3.5/5[/url] 10/13: Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932): 5/5[/url] 10/06: Daughters of Darkness (Kümel, 1971): 3.5/5[/url] [/size]
|
|
|
Post by AD on Oct 31, 2010 10:19:37 GMT -5
Kwaidan (Masaki Kobayashi, 1964) “Kwaidan” is among the most visually striking movies I’ve ever seen. The film features a gloriously vibrant color palette, gorgeously surrealistic set designs, moody expressionist lighting, and bizarre canted camera angles, among other tricks and treats. But, this is not just a gratuitous display of filmmaking artifice. The visual style (along with a memorably strange score) is what provides the film with it’s hypnotic power. The style is the substance, in a manner of speaking. It’s not just eye candy, it’s “eye protein,” to borrow a term from Guillermo del Toro. Masaki Kobayashi was a filmmaker that spent his career subverting traditional Japanese values. His masterful “Samurai Rebellion” (1967) was a deconstruction of the samurai film, and an overt attack on a rigid social structure. He’s also remembered for his “Human Condition” trilogy (not seen by me), which chronicles the life of a conscientious objector in the Japanese army during World War II. With this history in mind, an anthology of ghost stories may seem like an odd choice for this auteur, but if you’re looking, you can spot his political bent sneaking through in his choice stories. “Black Hair” can be seen as an allegory about the dangers of choosing social status over personal happiness. The existence of a female ice spirit who freezes men and steals their blood in “The Woman in the Snow” certainly has it’s share of sexual political implications. “Hoichi the Earless” could possibly be viewed as a metaphor for the aristocracy living off the figurative blood of the common man. The final story, “In A Cup of Tea” doesn’t seem to contain any discernable message. It strikes me as a not entirely successful attempt at turning the film into a study on storytelling itself, and not just a loose collection of stories. It’s not a perfect movie, the placement of the weakest story at the end of the film is highly problematic, but there’s something to be said about a three hour film that plays like a two hour film. It certainly ranks among the best horror anthology films available out there. For the most part, though, this film is best enjoyed as an atmospheric experience, and an influential masterpiece of art direction. If you ever get the chance to see it on the big screen you need to take it!
|
|
|
Post by RyanGoslingFan99 on Nov 1, 2010 1:49:55 GMT -5
Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)- This was the first horror movie that I could remember that honestly scared me as a kid. I watched it with my Dad when I was young and could just make it through the movie. I wondered if watching the movie again would give me the same feeling. In short, it doesn't pack the same punch as the first time but is still very odd and surreal. The final act of the movie is still one of the craziest ending to a movie that I have ever watched. Nothing makes sense and yet in the back of my mind I'm thinking that something like this could happen and isn't that the mark of a truly great horror movie?
Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)- Another classic from my childhood that still sends chills up my spine. The thing that makes Nightmare so great was the dream sequences and the weird imagery throughout the film. After this Freddy became more of a comedic figure, but this first movie is where he was a true boogeyman.
The Thing (1982)- I have re watched The Thing more than once, and I'm still trying to figure out who was taken over by the alien and who wasn't. Everything about this film is near perfect. Aliens taking over people one by one with no one to help you....scary.
|
|
|
Post by Rishlicious on Nov 1, 2010 13:23:58 GMT -5
Hey, nice choice guys! And I would like to point out that I wrote my review in note form on my phone Thursday night and Eric totally swooped in with my empathy ending. GET YOUR OWN WORDS. Les Yeux Sans Visage (Eyes Without a Face) | Georges Franju | 1960Films involving a mad scientist can often become far too much of an unrealistic caricature leading to them being received with a lack of enthusiasm, but Georges Franju manages to overcome that obstacle and present a film full of vivid portraits of both elegance and grotesque. Eyes without a face falls somewhere between horror, French arthouse and a Beauty and the Beast inspired poetic fairytale and while nothing in the film is actually terrifying, nothing really attempts to be. In the age of horror where supposed pivotal moments in films become entirely forgettable, the image of Christiane's eyes peering out from under her porcelain mask will leave you with lasting haunts. Even its most memorable scene - an almost silent skin graft surgery that was incredibly gore-ridden for its time - holds up really well today amongst the likes of the Saw franchise because it possesses substance and meaning to the story; it's a very well done cringe-worthy and queasy sequence. the dreamlike qualities of Christiane almost gliding through the mansion help create a unique kind of suspense and present her as somewhat of a ghost of her former self. The playfully creepy soundtrack accentuate the characteristics of Louise's villainous stalking and Pierre's emotionless performance does separate him as a character so his actions have a stronger impact. His struggle to achieve success and the guilt over what he has done to his daughter could have been explored further, although I'm sure that would have created too much compassion. The one thing desperately holding the film back are the times of necessary heightened emotion that are lacking through the film. One notable scene is where Christiane declares that she wishes to not be alive anymore because her suffering is too much to handle, but her performance is so underwhelming that I wasn't drawn into it and her journey nearly enough as the film warrented. It's a rather surreal and absurd amalgamation of styles, but it certainly works on an artistic level despite there not being a desired opening for empathy towards a character. There is a great tenderness to the film, but one that is never capitalized on due to a considerable lack of emotional connection. Oh, and I particularly enjoyed this sequence a lot! 8/10.----- I have three or four more to come, I'll likely run about 2 and a half months behind everyone else
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Nov 4, 2010 17:23:36 GMT -5
I watched House on Halloween and didn't really care for it.
I suppose it's commendable for the fact that i've never seen anything even remotely like it. It's childlike perspective is absolutely boundless. But I just found the whole experience kind of numbing. It's unsurprising to learn that Obayashi had a history in commercials as it's pop art aesthetic - with it's liberal use of the color wheel and rapid editing - was enormously sleek but unsubstantial.
I'm most certainly in the minority, though. I'd imagine that i'd feel differently about the film had I seen it with a crowd.
|
|