Because Todd doesn’t know he’s a werewolf, even though the slightest amount of pubescent cleavage or school related stress is enough to throw him into a glowing eyed, Vader voiced, sweaty hissy fit. But all that changes during one fateful dance when Todd cups the ass of the hottest piece of Georgia peach at Hamilton University. Hormones hit hard in Todd. The claws come out as they say and without much warning Todd is grabbing a hold of fat guys and pushing down old women in an attempt to hide his hairy shame.
It seems the only person unafraid of Todd’s hidden side is Nicki, a doe-eyed biology major in one of his classes, full of masochism and suffering from sever father issues. She isn’t afraid of the animal within Todd (or the flower within herself,) even when he verbally assaults her in the library, throws some books at her, and talks down to her. Nicki is a glutton for this Teen Wolf Too’s mantic abusive love.
Soon enough Todd is pushed into the ring for his first match on the Hamilton University boxing ‘team.’ It is about here that Todd’s life changes into something a little more familiar: Scott’s life. After a few too many blows to the face Todd ‘wolfs out’ and pummels his opponent in a blur of hair and pulled punches.
Exit light. Enter montage. Todd is swept up into the fast paced life of competitive college boxing and all the perks it has to offer- most notably high hipped 80s women, fat timesless sidekicks, and fast flashy cars. With all these things Todd is also accompanied by the Wolf, who is fast becoming the high jumping, Frisbee catching, orgy hosting, Motown singing mascot the schools needs. Quickly Todd’s story devolves into a series of the training, fighting, and flirting montage with more Wolf than Todd and more hotter girls than Nicki than Nicki.
Lucky for Todd he has friends like Chubby and Stiles, who enjoyed being outperformed so much by Scott in high school they felt the need to room with less impressive cousin in college. After slowly pushing him into the wolfy limelight Stiles and Chubby come to the realization that Todd’s hormonal other side is much worse than they ever thought it could be. Not only is he more likable than them Todd also works far less. Through bitter jealousy, or maybe true friendship, Stiles shows Todd what he has become: “A jerk.”
Enter redemption montage. After seeing how out of hand he allowed his life to get after turning into the Wolf, Todd has a heart to heart with his uncle Harold as Scott’s father once again substitutes in for his nephews absent parents. After learning the old one-two of bowing from his over weight and over aged uncle Todd rushes over to the library to make amends for the way he’s been treating Nicki. As always Nicki is more than hhappy to accommodate Todd and as soon as he lets loose with the big “I’m sorry I hurt someone I really love” line the two spiral into a cramming session to prepare Todd for his biology final.
Enter cramming montage. Between piles of books Todd learns a whole semester of biology, taking short study breaks to pound Nicki into a sex coma all to the accompanying classic Send Me an Angel by Real Life.
Needless to say Todd aces the test and wins his last match of the season without wolfing out. I guess one night of light training, hard studying, and awkward sex can make up for nearly anything.
Also needles to say this movie has a few problems. It’s no Never Ending Story 3, but than again what is. However there are a few mistakes that go beyond forgiveness. One such mistake is the story and casting. While it’s obvious that Teen Wolf Too is a half-assed remake of Teen Wolf they try to stay as true to the initial story as possible. So much so that much of the story and characters are exactly the same- but not all. Though James Hampton returns as Uncle Harold and Mark Holton as Chubby other characters are not as well remembered, like Coach Finstock and Stiles who both reappear in Teen Wolf Too with new faces.
Anther problem with this movie is the pace. The array of montages do little to speed along the plot and instead last much longer than most of the dialog scenes. The dialog scenes are also incredibly slow. The amount of dead time (silence) in Teen Wolf Too is more uncomfortable than Todd and Nicki’s lab partner flirtations.
But perhaps most bothersome about Teen Wolf Too is how it destroys the forth way time and time again. Through out the film sighs, Frisbees and t-shirts continue to appear with the wods TEEN WOLF TOO printed on them. Its almost as if the students of Hamilton University are all aware of Todd’s cousin Scott and are clever enough to think of calling him ‘Teen Wolf Too’ as an homage to the legendary Beavers player.
The only part of this film which can honestly be commended is its excellent depiction of the werewolf as a serial rapist. Just like other movies in the same genre, like Lon Chaney, Jr.’s the Wolfman of Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, Teen Wolf Too properly conveys the absolute boner-rage and forceful lust which all werewolves are driven by.
All and all Teen Wolf Too is an awful film. It’s a poor remake and worse sequel. Parts of it can be considered ‘good awful’ but it’s too slow and awkward to watch to even be enjoyed on that level. The best thing someone interested in watching this movie could do would be to watch Rocky II (2 not too) and Teen Wolf (one) side by side. Maybe the only good thing that Teen Wolf Too has going for it is that it’s a stepping stone to a better film- like Temple of Doom before it or Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation after it, Teen Wolf Too is the middle child in a three part series of excellence. What’s next? Teen Witch of course.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Wall•E (review number 2)
As much as I had started this hoping to write a review of a clever kids film I find it now to be, just as the film itself, much more. This is than not a review but an in-depth reflection. Also, I’ll assume you’ve already read either Matt or Paul’s review or seen the film and forgo any plot synopsis.
Wall-E is a special type of movie¬¬– it is science fiction for children. Not only that but Wall-E is sci fi in its purest state, reflecting on human society and condition from the outside; and this time through children’s eyes.
This movie stimulated in me what so much science fiction has overlooked: my heart. Lo, in little Wall-E all the short comings and pity I’d ever felt at the realization each time I watched Star Wars that R2-D2 and C3-PO were programmed AI machines were washed away and I saw a robot as human being and more. And that is the essence of appear for this film, a story which not only lights up neurons in the intellectual mind but touches and wrenches at the lover’s heart as well. A movie about love, love of life and love of freedom, from when Wall-E longingly looks from his isolation on earth at the wonderment and grandeur space to the realization of a few choice and lucky human souls that there is a world beyond their own egocentric existences. Wall-E and Eve, Mary and John, even the Captain and Mo, all took that first step away from their individual solitude and duty, and, like stepping out across the sea of tranquility, realizing that though they had never been told they could, there was a whole world beyond their track willingly opening itself to them. Most stunning to me about the character and action of the film was the purpose which Eve, the robot of Wall-E’s affection, ultimately serves and represents: she is the birth, or re-birth, of life on earth. Eve, like her namesake, is sent to earth to become the first mother, again, with the intention of finding and harboring the slightest sign of green life returning to the desolate surface of the planet. (Slight spoiler) I was dumb struck by this, both the implication and the incredible, yes I’ll say it, cuteness of the whole thing- Wall-E presents Eve with a plant, a plant she holds within her very ovarian looking body, a plant which means the future of all life on earth. Wow, now that is good story telling.
Wall-E has all the special touches a science fiction fan would like to see from Pixar. Just like the “Binford” tool box in Toy Story stood out to any self respecting Home Improvement fan, this film didn’t miss a chance to make homage to the classics of sci-fi films and literature. And the film is full of these little nods and notices as it mixes ideas from some of the greatest science fiction conceived with out allowing the knowledge or obviousness of the influences to feel pretentious. The story has elements of Huxley’s Brave New World and its Pavlovian conditioning. Bradbury’s conception of a age of humanity subject and witness only to video screens and cheap media as he wrote of in Fahrenheit 451 is perhaps less present in the story but still adds some eeriness of disconnect and inhumanity to the ambience of the films human race. I think Matt Bias said it best when he wrote “Dressed up in all these pretty colors is a dystopian world that would make Orwell proud.” It isn’t an Orwellian story, but it has an adversity to totalitarianism and concept of dystopia that any one can recognize and appreciate. Visually the movie is a stargazer and futurist’s dream. In no small way are 2001: A Space Odyssey’s influences on the film hidden, including not only the visual and character traits of Hal that appear in the film’s Auto-Pilot but also in the architecture and acoustic atmosphere of Wall-E. Both a knock at her role as the computer repeating crewmen in Galaxy Quest and a modest bow to her status as a living science fiction icon, Sigourney Weaver could be heard as the ships voice. Perhaps though what I found most impressive was to see that the animators had properly rendered the moon landing site as it sands today, something which even Futurama was unable to do and is an amazing example of the attention to detail and scientific accuracy under which the entire film was produced.
I must, as I’m so sure many have, breath a sigh of regret and sorrow for all those other movie patrons I saw that night buying tickets and walking blindly into canopies of darkness only to be met by some other story about someone who was not the little robot, Wall-E. It is in every respect a dazzling and binding film, out weighing any prior animations and I can only hope will someday stand among other science fiction films as a rare and unlikely classic; not a children’s toy rocket like Ewoks the movie but a fully realized and appreciated Saturn V titan of a film.
Sometime in our childhood we each sat down to a movie and had no idea that the seeds of a classic were about to be planted through our eyes and into our hearts and minds. Last night, I saw such a classic, and being fully realized to me I allowed myself to once again slip away to the land of my youth on magic carpets and rocket ships which embellished me with winds in my eyes and exhaust in my throat so strongly that tears were easily welled up in my eyes the whole night long. It is a wonder why anyone would like this film, it seems at first thought so alien, so far removed from anything recognizably emotional or human, but, as does all good science fiction, it is a retrospect through which we may see our true selves, both our inhumanity and our compassions.
Caleb Michael, go see Wall-E.
This movie stimulated in me what so much science fiction has overlooked: my heart. Lo, in little Wall-E all the short comings and pity I’d ever felt at the realization each time I watched Star Wars that R2-D2 and C3-PO were programmed AI machines were washed away and I saw a robot as human being and more. And that is the essence of appear for this film, a story which not only lights up neurons in the intellectual mind but touches and wrenches at the lover’s heart as well. A movie about love, love of life and love of freedom, from when Wall-E longingly looks from his isolation on earth at the wonderment and grandeur space to the realization of a few choice and lucky human souls that there is a world beyond their own egocentric existences. Wall-E and Eve, Mary and John, even the Captain and Mo, all took that first step away from their individual solitude and duty, and, like stepping out across the sea of tranquility, realizing that though they had never been told they could, there was a whole world beyond their track willingly opening itself to them. Most stunning to me about the character and action of the film was the purpose which Eve, the robot of Wall-E’s affection, ultimately serves and represents: she is the birth, or re-birth, of life on earth. Eve, like her namesake, is sent to earth to become the first mother, again, with the intention of finding and harboring the slightest sign of green life returning to the desolate surface of the planet. (Slight spoiler) I was dumb struck by this, both the implication and the incredible, yes I’ll say it, cuteness of the whole thing- Wall-E presents Eve with a plant, a plant she holds within her very ovarian looking body, a plant which means the future of all life on earth. Wow, now that is good story telling.
Wall-E has all the special touches a science fiction fan would like to see from Pixar. Just like the “Binford” tool box in Toy Story stood out to any self respecting Home Improvement fan, this film didn’t miss a chance to make homage to the classics of sci-fi films and literature. And the film is full of these little nods and notices as it mixes ideas from some of the greatest science fiction conceived with out allowing the knowledge or obviousness of the influences to feel pretentious. The story has elements of Huxley’s Brave New World and its Pavlovian conditioning. Bradbury’s conception of a age of humanity subject and witness only to video screens and cheap media as he wrote of in Fahrenheit 451 is perhaps less present in the story but still adds some eeriness of disconnect and inhumanity to the ambience of the films human race. I think Matt Bias said it best when he wrote “Dressed up in all these pretty colors is a dystopian world that would make Orwell proud.” It isn’t an Orwellian story, but it has an adversity to totalitarianism and concept of dystopia that any one can recognize and appreciate. Visually the movie is a stargazer and futurist’s dream. In no small way are 2001: A Space Odyssey’s influences on the film hidden, including not only the visual and character traits of Hal that appear in the film’s Auto-Pilot but also in the architecture and acoustic atmosphere of Wall-E. Both a knock at her role as the computer repeating crewmen in Galaxy Quest and a modest bow to her status as a living science fiction icon, Sigourney Weaver could be heard as the ships voice. Perhaps though what I found most impressive was to see that the animators had properly rendered the moon landing site as it sands today, something which even Futurama was unable to do and is an amazing example of the attention to detail and scientific accuracy under which the entire film was produced.
I must, as I’m so sure many have, breath a sigh of regret and sorrow for all those other movie patrons I saw that night buying tickets and walking blindly into canopies of darkness only to be met by some other story about someone who was not the little robot, Wall-E. It is in every respect a dazzling and binding film, out weighing any prior animations and I can only hope will someday stand among other science fiction films as a rare and unlikely classic; not a children’s toy rocket like Ewoks the movie but a fully realized and appreciated Saturn V titan of a film.
Sometime in our childhood we each sat down to a movie and had no idea that the seeds of a classic were about to be planted through our eyes and into our hearts and minds. Last night, I saw such a classic, and being fully realized to me I allowed myself to once again slip away to the land of my youth on magic carpets and rocket ships which embellished me with winds in my eyes and exhaust in my throat so strongly that tears were easily welled up in my eyes the whole night long. It is a wonder why anyone would like this film, it seems at first thought so alien, so far removed from anything recognizably emotional or human, but, as does all good science fiction, it is a retrospect through which we may see our true selves, both our inhumanity and our compassions.
Caleb Michael, go see Wall-E.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Movie Review: Wall-E
Title: Wall-E
Director: Andrew Stanton
Released: June 27, 2008
Runtime: 103 min.
Where Pixar found the cajones to make this movie I have no earthly clue, but they managed to conjure up the ghosts of Brave New World and 2001: A Space Odyssey and create an animated children’s movie the likes of which I have never seen, and truly doubt I will every witness again. Wall-E is, on the surface, a kid’s movie, but I’m hard pressed to fun much beyond the animation, the soft colors and cute robotic protagonist that is aimed at them. Oddly enough, this film is really for the very few adults who will actually give it the chance it deserves instead of snoozing while their kids stare at the wonderful animation.
Introducing the plot feels hallow to me after experiencing the spectacle first hand, but Wall-E is the story of the last robot running on earth, who spends his days building skyscrapers of compacted-trash. He does his job tirelessly and efficiently, but with a little lunch pail. He is a collector and a lover, who befriends the cockroaches because they are the only things left to befriend. Everything changes when he meets a girl (but then, doesn’t it always?) and fall heads over heels for her. From there the plot takes off until we meet Auto, who reminded me a lot of HAL, though not quite so disturbing of a character. For the rest, though, you’ll just have to go see it for yourselves.
From the opening shots of Earth, to the panning across the cityscape of some unnamed American city, we are given a view of the dusty-brown corpse of industrialization. Skyscrapers of trash jut into the air next to actual high-rises, a thick layer of age covering everything. With the interjection of Wall-E this landscape becomes a dichotomy of desolation and happiness. This will be repeated throughout the movie, but it really hits home here. Even in the worst places, the most barren and depressing wastelands there can be good, there can be happiness.
The amount of depth in the film is staggering, but what is more astounding is that it is woven so seamlessly and subtlety into the fabric of the story that it’s so easy to miss. Dressed up in all these pretty colors is a dystopian world that would make Orwell proud, for humanity has long ago polluted Earth beyond habitability and gone off to the stars for a sort of millennia-long cruise. There, they eat, sleep and let their entertainment rot their brains until they are less human than those pod-people from The Matrix. And stealing center stage from all of this is the idea that one little robot can be more human than any left alive. While the human cattle are being driven along by their robot servants, or would it be better to say masters, Wall-E is following his lonely heart with a self-sacrificing drive of a true hero.
Wall-E is the best movie I have seen in a long time, and it’s a shame to think that so many went to see Wanted instead of this masterpiece. Just go see it. A movie about a little junk collector robot managed to make me question what it truly means to be human. I am still sitting here, my head spinning, wondering how that is even possible. It is a disturbing look at the future if you really want to open your eyes and see, but above all else it is hopeful that humans and robots alike can progress if they are willing to sacrifice.
Rating: 5 stars
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Movie Review: The Strangers
Title: The Strangers
Director: Bryan Bertino
Released: May 30, 2008
Runtime: 90 min.
I work at a movie theater, thus I get to see movies for free. Sometimes I even get paid to watch movies. This review should be the first in a long line of movie reviews this summer. I hope to see as many movies as I can, but these reviews will most likely be mostly positive, because I’m going to see movies I want to see, not just anything. The following review will be the exception.
I got to screen The Strangers on Thursday night, which was a pretty good gig, really. Instead of doing any real work, I got paid to watch a movie for a little over an hour and a half. While I would have preferred a better movie, I can’t really complain. It certainly was better than tearing tickets.
The Strangers is a horror/suspense film, coming from a long line of movies that I don’t care about at all. I never saw The Ring or any of the Saws, or even Friday the 13th (though I should see that one, if only because it’s a classic) so I’m definitely not in this movie’s wheelhouse. I suppose it does get the suspense aspect down, but the horror is a little lacking.
The basic premise is that random woman (Liv Tyler) and random guy (Scott Speedman) come home late at night to their cottage in the middle of nowhere and some weird woman knocks on the door asking for “Tamra” (which you’d hope is relevant to the plot or something, but not… it’s not at all) several times and mostly just freaking the two random people out. Eventually some crazies (including the first woman) start making loud noises and breaking things. And that’s basically the movie, spoiler free.
Before ripping the film apart, I’d like to speak to the few things that the movie did get right. The acting was pretty good and as realistic as can be given the fact that these people are constantly getting scared shitless and almost getting killed. There weren’t too many “why the hell are you doing that, you stupid idiot?” moments in the film, but there were a few. The side-plot was interesting enough, though not explored much. I really wish the movie had been about a guy proposing to a girl and her rejecting him because she isn’t ready to marry. I’m pretty sure I would have enjoyed that more, but probably not by much. Secondly, It was scary, just not scary enough in my opinion. Someone could have gotten the same reaction out of me by jumping out from around the corner and yelling “boo!”, but I’m not looking to be scared by movies anyway, so it doesn’t matter much to me. Finally, it does create suspense, but I’ll talk more about that later.
If you don’t want the movie ruined for you, stop reading here… I’m going into spoiler territory, which I don’t really like to do, but it’s sort of necessary.
My biggest problem with the film is that it has no plot to speak of. A bunch of whackos run around a house banging on it with axes and whatever else, bust up cars and break into the house. Inexplicably they manage to destroy random girl’s cell phone and steal the battery out of random guy’s phone. I have no idea how. Are they even human? How did they manage to get through a locked door? They even open a locked door somehow at one point in the movie… and can apparently withstand shotgun blasts from close range. Seriously, am I supposed to believe that random guy is that bad of a shot? The hooded whacko is like two feet from him, how does he miss? He’s not Greedo.
And that’s just it, none of your questions are even answered, not even the ones that the director obviously wants you to ask. Who are these people? Why are they doing this? Who is Tamra? How is Liv Tyler alive at the end? Is random guy alive too? Good villains have motivations, they have history, they have depth… these guys are cardboard cutouts. They’re faceless nut jobs who we’re to assume are torturing to people just because they can. The only explanation given at all is “you were home”.
The film is also as cliché ridden and predictable as can be, which I suppose is fairly common in this genre. The worst offense is the death of random guy’s best friend, which can be seen from the moment he appears on screen. Worst of all, it got to the point where I didn’t feel as if random couple had any chance against these masked whackos, which allowed me to become detached from their fate. They were going to die, it was inevitable (except not, because… people can survive being stabbed in the stomach and bleeding profusely for hours without any medical treatment) and there really wasn’t any point in seeing the damn thing.
I don’t go to movies to be scared, just like I don’t go to movies to see cool explosions, car chases and gun fights. I watch action movies for their plots, and enjoy the random explosions and other miscellanea because it is cool and fun. It’s the same with horror movies and this film left me annoyed. I’m sure people will gobble it up, but I say just go to an Amusement Park if you want to be scared, there doesn’t need to be a plot there.
In the end, this film is Signs devoid of any intelligence, plot, sentimentality or sense. Honestly, its one redeeming quality is that I got to see Liv Tyler for an hour and a half straight, and in the end, I guess that’s not a bad thing.
Director: Bryan Bertino
Released: May 30, 2008
Runtime: 90 min.
I work at a movie theater, thus I get to see movies for free. Sometimes I even get paid to watch movies. This review should be the first in a long line of movie reviews this summer. I hope to see as many movies as I can, but these reviews will most likely be mostly positive, because I’m going to see movies I want to see, not just anything. The following review will be the exception.
I got to screen The Strangers on Thursday night, which was a pretty good gig, really. Instead of doing any real work, I got paid to watch a movie for a little over an hour and a half. While I would have preferred a better movie, I can’t really complain. It certainly was better than tearing tickets.
The Strangers is a horror/suspense film, coming from a long line of movies that I don’t care about at all. I never saw The Ring or any of the Saws, or even Friday the 13th (though I should see that one, if only because it’s a classic) so I’m definitely not in this movie’s wheelhouse. I suppose it does get the suspense aspect down, but the horror is a little lacking.
The basic premise is that random woman (Liv Tyler) and random guy (Scott Speedman) come home late at night to their cottage in the middle of nowhere and some weird woman knocks on the door asking for “Tamra” (which you’d hope is relevant to the plot or something, but not… it’s not at all) several times and mostly just freaking the two random people out. Eventually some crazies (including the first woman) start making loud noises and breaking things. And that’s basically the movie, spoiler free.
Before ripping the film apart, I’d like to speak to the few things that the movie did get right. The acting was pretty good and as realistic as can be given the fact that these people are constantly getting scared shitless and almost getting killed. There weren’t too many “why the hell are you doing that, you stupid idiot?” moments in the film, but there were a few. The side-plot was interesting enough, though not explored much. I really wish the movie had been about a guy proposing to a girl and her rejecting him because she isn’t ready to marry. I’m pretty sure I would have enjoyed that more, but probably not by much. Secondly, It was scary, just not scary enough in my opinion. Someone could have gotten the same reaction out of me by jumping out from around the corner and yelling “boo!”, but I’m not looking to be scared by movies anyway, so it doesn’t matter much to me. Finally, it does create suspense, but I’ll talk more about that later.
If you don’t want the movie ruined for you, stop reading here… I’m going into spoiler territory, which I don’t really like to do, but it’s sort of necessary.
My biggest problem with the film is that it has no plot to speak of. A bunch of whackos run around a house banging on it with axes and whatever else, bust up cars and break into the house. Inexplicably they manage to destroy random girl’s cell phone and steal the battery out of random guy’s phone. I have no idea how. Are they even human? How did they manage to get through a locked door? They even open a locked door somehow at one point in the movie… and can apparently withstand shotgun blasts from close range. Seriously, am I supposed to believe that random guy is that bad of a shot? The hooded whacko is like two feet from him, how does he miss? He’s not Greedo.
And that’s just it, none of your questions are even answered, not even the ones that the director obviously wants you to ask. Who are these people? Why are they doing this? Who is Tamra? How is Liv Tyler alive at the end? Is random guy alive too? Good villains have motivations, they have history, they have depth… these guys are cardboard cutouts. They’re faceless nut jobs who we’re to assume are torturing to people just because they can. The only explanation given at all is “you were home”.
The film is also as cliché ridden and predictable as can be, which I suppose is fairly common in this genre. The worst offense is the death of random guy’s best friend, which can be seen from the moment he appears on screen. Worst of all, it got to the point where I didn’t feel as if random couple had any chance against these masked whackos, which allowed me to become detached from their fate. They were going to die, it was inevitable (except not, because… people can survive being stabbed in the stomach and bleeding profusely for hours without any medical treatment) and there really wasn’t any point in seeing the damn thing.
I don’t go to movies to be scared, just like I don’t go to movies to see cool explosions, car chases and gun fights. I watch action movies for their plots, and enjoy the random explosions and other miscellanea because it is cool and fun. It’s the same with horror movies and this film left me annoyed. I’m sure people will gobble it up, but I say just go to an Amusement Park if you want to be scared, there doesn’t need to be a plot there.
In the end, this film is Signs devoid of any intelligence, plot, sentimentality or sense. Honestly, its one redeeming quality is that I got to see Liv Tyler for an hour and a half straight, and in the end, I guess that’s not a bad thing.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Movie Reviews: Blade Runner
Title: Blade Runner
Director: Ridley Scott
Released: 1982
Runtime: 116 min.
Do Androids dream of electric sheep?
Maybe I'm not the best one here at BSD to tackle this one, but I've been on a sci-fi kick lately and this is the movie that began my summer of trying to watch science fiction movies. I'd already seen the movie, but my girlfriend hadn't, so we popped it into her DVD player (which strangely enough looks as if it was made by Fisher Price) and watched.
While I may not ever be able to forgive it completely for starting that damn cyberpunk fad, this movie stands completely on its own. Sure it's science fiction, but it's not Buck Rogers or Star Trek. I've always believed that at it's purest level, Sci-Fi is an amazing avenue for writing because it gives the writer a way to explore human nature without the reality of the future getting in the way. The reader or viewer can just sit back and truly think about themselves and their own society. I think, perhaps, that 1984 by George Orwell did this the best.
From this perspective, Blade Runner is a complete mindfuck. If you really watch, the view of humanity through a Replicant's eyes is not a pleasant thing. That is the true heart of the movie. These are human creations, human slaves and their actions are our responsibility. I could go off on metaphysical tangent about the rights of artificial sentient creatures, but I won't right now. I will sometime down the line, I'm sure, but I think that it's best that you watch this movie first.
Tyrell CorporationBased on the novella Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Phillip K. Dick (which I haven't read, but Caleb has), Blade Runner is an exceptional film in every aspect. The basic plot outline is that humanity has created artificial intelligence that looks and behaves just like humans, or close enough. After a rebellion of these "Replicants", they are banned from Earth and special police officers "Blade Runners" are trained to find and kill any found on the planet. The protagonist, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) spends the movie seeking them out and trying to "retire" them. This journey reaches a crescendo on a roof top with one of the most moving soliloquies in any movie I have seen by Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer).
One of the most striking aspects of the movie is the background. Set in the Los Angeles of 2019, the city is dark, polluted and awash in a neon glow that would make todays metropolises green with envy. Cars fly, the streets are teeming with people and the black market thrives. It is a beautiful picture of a city that feels real unlike many of the genre. Even the ziggurat of the Tyrell building seems real in this world, despite it's massive size and rather alien appearance.
All the actors playing Replicants do an admirable job, as does Edward James Olmos as a sort of sidekick/driver/adversary to Ford's Deckard. These characters all have life of their own, even down to the little black market eyeball salesman. It is charming in its own dark and gritty way, and will no doubt leave you with the impression that this world is as vibrant and real as our own.
Do Androids dream of electric sheep? I'd like to think they do...
Other Reviews
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Beowulf: Worst Movie Ever
Somehow, Beowulf received a 70% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I can only assume that they are very easily distracted by shiny objects...
The movie I watched was a clusterfuck of blind drunk Norsemen, zombies, blood, gore, rape and stilettos made of golden ooze. And while that sounds like a pretty kick ass movie, it wasn't, and I'm not even positive why. It wasn't the fact that they totally disregarded the epic poem the movie was supposedly based upon (they followed the plot loosely up until the fight with Grendel and then I think they might as well have been going off of A Handmaid's Tale for how well it followed form), because they totally just said screw that shit.
Perhaps they were just too busy to staring at how pretty the animation was to actually write an adequate script, perhaps it was written after the writer's strike began, maybe they just figured people wouldn't care. Obviously, I'm the only one who did from the glowing reviews the movie has gotten.
I'm not even sure how they fucked up this movie. It's the greatest hero of all times fighting monsters and then sacrificing himself in a blaze of glory for his people. How do you mess that up?! Oh, that's right... by not following the story, ripping off every action movie ever made (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, 300, Braveheart, etc, etc), having a bunch of actors put together wooden performances with an awful script. Was anyone inspired by Beowulf's speeches? I've never been less inspired in my life. The entire movie can be summarized in one scene where Beowulf is swallowed by a sea monster and jumps out through the creature's eye, sword slashing, dripping with gore and yelling "I am Beowulf!". There, I saved you the pain of seeing it yourself.
The message of the whole ordeal is something along the lines of "don't think with your dick", instead of the ideals of courage, arrogance and excellence that the poem is based upon, but even that message is muddied. Beowulf messed up and fucks Angelina Jolie (who the hell can blame him?), but never really gets punished for it in the end. His son goes crazy and almost kills some of his loved ones, and maybe kills some random soldiers or something and breaks a stone bridge, but so what? Beowulf sacrifices himself to stop the dragon, but it's too little too late... the whole mess is Beowulf's fault anyway and we're supposed to believe he got a raw deal for dying at a ripe old age as a king? It just doesn't mesh. The Norse ideals make for a much better movie, anyhow.
I could go on and on ripping this film apart over historical inaccuracies, literary inaccuracies, things that defy physics and common sense, awful acting, bad writing, but in the end none of that even matters all that much as long as the movie is exciting. But, that's the thing... it's not. There are fight scenes, but they aren't very intriguing... there are a couple of battles, but you don't really see much of what is going on. The saddest part is that I could forgive this movie all it's sins except for the simple fact that it's not fun. It has to be to work. It's simply sad when the best part of a movie is the fat man behind you yelling "Go get 'em Gay-owulf!".
The movie I watched was a clusterfuck of blind drunk Norsemen, zombies, blood, gore, rape and stilettos made of golden ooze. And while that sounds like a pretty kick ass movie, it wasn't, and I'm not even positive why. It wasn't the fact that they totally disregarded the epic poem the movie was supposedly based upon (they followed the plot loosely up until the fight with Grendel and then I think they might as well have been going off of A Handmaid's Tale for how well it followed form), because they totally just said screw that shit.
Perhaps they were just too busy to staring at how pretty the animation was to actually write an adequate script, perhaps it was written after the writer's strike began, maybe they just figured people wouldn't care. Obviously, I'm the only one who did from the glowing reviews the movie has gotten.
I'm not even sure how they fucked up this movie. It's the greatest hero of all times fighting monsters and then sacrificing himself in a blaze of glory for his people. How do you mess that up?! Oh, that's right... by not following the story, ripping off every action movie ever made (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, 300, Braveheart, etc, etc), having a bunch of actors put together wooden performances with an awful script. Was anyone inspired by Beowulf's speeches? I've never been less inspired in my life. The entire movie can be summarized in one scene where Beowulf is swallowed by a sea monster and jumps out through the creature's eye, sword slashing, dripping with gore and yelling "I am Beowulf!". There, I saved you the pain of seeing it yourself.
The message of the whole ordeal is something along the lines of "don't think with your dick", instead of the ideals of courage, arrogance and excellence that the poem is based upon, but even that message is muddied. Beowulf messed up and fucks Angelina Jolie (who the hell can blame him?), but never really gets punished for it in the end. His son goes crazy and almost kills some of his loved ones, and maybe kills some random soldiers or something and breaks a stone bridge, but so what? Beowulf sacrifices himself to stop the dragon, but it's too little too late... the whole mess is Beowulf's fault anyway and we're supposed to believe he got a raw deal for dying at a ripe old age as a king? It just doesn't mesh. The Norse ideals make for a much better movie, anyhow.
I could go on and on ripping this film apart over historical inaccuracies, literary inaccuracies, things that defy physics and common sense, awful acting, bad writing, but in the end none of that even matters all that much as long as the movie is exciting. But, that's the thing... it's not. There are fight scenes, but they aren't very intriguing... there are a couple of battles, but you don't really see much of what is going on. The saddest part is that I could forgive this movie all it's sins except for the simple fact that it's not fun. It has to be to work. It's simply sad when the best part of a movie is the fat man behind you yelling "Go get 'em Gay-owulf!".
Friday, November 30, 2007
Beowulf… more like “Gay-owulf”…
Beowulf is very redundant movie. A very action packed, intense, thrilling, exciting, fierce, powerful movie; with one ripping, tearing, slashing, gouging talon and teeth filled scene after another. Also, the movie has Jesus in it, and golden boobs.
Watching this movie was like being transported into another world, an ancient world that still had the plague and where rape ran rampant in the streets. This effect was so strong that even the movie theater was transformed into the Roman Forum for a time and ideas and opinions were voiced aloud to the public. I’m thinking of course of when the big dark man behind me lectured his young child about the science of buying pop at the multiplex and followed up with a detailed explanation of the chemistry of sugar and caffeine in relation to the size of an extra large movie-soda bucket. Or when a particularly articulate bright woman voiced her dismay over the metaphor in the film that related a goblet with a vagina. Though, I must admit, this is one comparison I myself found confusing- one is a totalitarian object, the other is a drinking cup, the similarities are few. Or perhaps it was the voice of reason in the theater that called for “More titties!” and urged the hero further in his battle with a supportive shout of “Go get em Gay-owulf!” which completed this feeling of time travel for me. All I know is that for a time I was an artist and an aerator, seated with the greatest minds of my time observing a drama I supposed would rival those of Sophocles and Ennius. But alas, this film’s greatness, like it’s moral message, must have been in 4-D while the glasses they gave me could only see 3.
Full of fight scene, naked men and golden women Beowulf seems to have everything going for it: George McFLy in a screaming tantrum, a shinny Laura Croft, a five and a half foot tall Gimli. How could it loose? How could so much nudity and blood become excessive so quickly? How could the amazing 3-D effects feel so gimmicky? Beowulf is the ultimate concept combining all the glory and imagination of the two greatest legends to be placed on celluloid in the past twenty years, Shrek 2 and 300. And yet, with all it’s superb dialogue (“I…Am…SPARTA! Er…I MEAN BEOUWULF”) and it’s dazzling cinematography (Zemeckis is a master at playing hide the salami) Beowulf still fell flat on it’s face.
As a side note to anyone considering doing anything in 3-D. Yes, I know we live our lives in 3-D, but seriously, I don’t go to movies to feel like I’m in real life, I go to them for the exact opposite reason. All 3-D does is remind me of how horrible everything is, and how much better war and politics and famine would be if they were only in 2 dimensions. As for the 3-D effect in Beowulf, if the title character is going to spend the whole film naked it makes sense to put it in 3-D, but not if you aren’t going to show his massive war wrought penis even once. Come on, even Bart Simpson gave it up for the pedophiles and closet geeks and he’s a yellow cartoon. Anyways, William Castle’s “Illusion-O!” beats out 3-D any day of the week.
Caleb Michael, in dedication to John Denyer
Watching this movie was like being transported into another world, an ancient world that still had the plague and where rape ran rampant in the streets. This effect was so strong that even the movie theater was transformed into the Roman Forum for a time and ideas and opinions were voiced aloud to the public. I’m thinking of course of when the big dark man behind me lectured his young child about the science of buying pop at the multiplex and followed up with a detailed explanation of the chemistry of sugar and caffeine in relation to the size of an extra large movie-soda bucket. Or when a particularly articulate bright woman voiced her dismay over the metaphor in the film that related a goblet with a vagina. Though, I must admit, this is one comparison I myself found confusing- one is a totalitarian object, the other is a drinking cup, the similarities are few. Or perhaps it was the voice of reason in the theater that called for “More titties!” and urged the hero further in his battle with a supportive shout of “Go get em Gay-owulf!” which completed this feeling of time travel for me. All I know is that for a time I was an artist and an aerator, seated with the greatest minds of my time observing a drama I supposed would rival those of Sophocles and Ennius. But alas, this film’s greatness, like it’s moral message, must have been in 4-D while the glasses they gave me could only see 3.
Full of fight scene, naked men and golden women Beowulf seems to have everything going for it: George McFLy in a screaming tantrum, a shinny Laura Croft, a five and a half foot tall Gimli. How could it loose? How could so much nudity and blood become excessive so quickly? How could the amazing 3-D effects feel so gimmicky? Beowulf is the ultimate concept combining all the glory and imagination of the two greatest legends to be placed on celluloid in the past twenty years, Shrek 2 and 300. And yet, with all it’s superb dialogue (“I…Am…SPARTA! Er…I MEAN BEOUWULF”) and it’s dazzling cinematography (Zemeckis is a master at playing hide the salami) Beowulf still fell flat on it’s face.
As a side note to anyone considering doing anything in 3-D. Yes, I know we live our lives in 3-D, but seriously, I don’t go to movies to feel like I’m in real life, I go to them for the exact opposite reason. All 3-D does is remind me of how horrible everything is, and how much better war and politics and famine would be if they were only in 2 dimensions. As for the 3-D effect in Beowulf, if the title character is going to spend the whole film naked it makes sense to put it in 3-D, but not if you aren’t going to show his massive war wrought penis even once. Come on, even Bart Simpson gave it up for the pedophiles and closet geeks and he’s a yellow cartoon. Anyways, William Castle’s “Illusion-O!” beats out 3-D any day of the week.
Let’s all get naked and go watch Beowulf.
Caleb Michael, in dedication to John Denyer
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Me, a Swimmer, and The Creature From the Black Lagoon: An Unnatural Love Affair
What’s wrong with the Creature From the Black Lagoon is everything that is wrong with science and religion. Love.
I can still remember when I first saw this movie. It was a long time ago. Throughout six and seventh grade I spent many Friday nights with my best friends Joshua and Nathaniel. We’d stay up “late” at Josh’s, sitting on his floor watching old movies his father had rented for us. We’d watch the classics: Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man, Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy, Abbott and Costello Battle Racism and Oppression in White Hollywood. And we’d watch the creature features, like The Creature From the Black Lagoon.
Remember when you were little, and you were never sure whether something was going to be really scary, or just exciting and funny instead? Watching The Creature From the Black Lagoon is very much like that. When you’re young so many things that shouldn’t be scary are scary, like dead bodies, and missing links, and girls. But when we get older the really terrifying stuff in the night comes out, like loneliness, and lose, and woman. And if we’re lucky those things can still be funny too. But what was nice was that back then they always were funny and scary. Back when we were little everything scary had the possibility of being funny, and that’s the way it should be. We should be able to laugh at ourselves over the stupid stuff we get torn up and freaked out over. I remember hiding in Josh’s closet, wound up in a curtain, waiting for Nathaniel to come out of the bathroom so I could jump out at him. And remember that feeling you used to get, that feeling when you’re trying to scare someone, and you’re so tied into it, so excited and young and funny that you’re scared too? Scared of your own tricks, of your own jokes, of how young and stupid and sublime you are. I had that felling. And it was wonderful, wonderful to be scared.
That’s what The Creature From the Black Lagoon is like. You don’t know if you should be scared or laughing. And usually it changes every time you watch it. Just like when you’re trying to scare someone else, if you want it to be scary, if you’re willing to let yourself go, let yourself be a part of it, it can be as scary and exciting as anything in life can be.
The last time I watched The Creature From the Black Lagoon I decided to get a professional opinion on the movie. So I went to Wynston Rose McCreary- The Swimmer. And right away she hit it right on the head:
“I don’t get it…is it supposed to be funny?”
Wynston is completely right, sometimes you can’t tell! The Creature From the Black Lagoon doesn’t always make sense. The character himself…its self, really is a contradiction between science and religion. And no, not like the way Nightcrawler is a Catholic, or John McCain is a Republican, but the way Jesus is the son of God, or Orion is the son of Darksied, or Luke is the son of Vader.
You have to understand; the level of weirdness in this film is of that like you’ve never seen before. It isn’t a horror film, or a slasher, or a thriller; it’s a creature feature. The villain isn’t evil, or demented, or a Dracula, they’re just weird. They’re blobs and flies and gillmen. The Opening scene of Creature is the creation of the heavens and the earth…and then all of a sudden WHAM! they cut to the primordial sands of evolution and start talking about how all life evolved out of the sea, pulling itself up from the dregs and the muck and pretending to be man. They even say the world is over 15 million years old. See? They’re coming at us from all angles!
The Main character, The Creature, Gillman, is no less confusing when you think about him. He’s a sort of missing link, part man, part fish. Have you ever watched a fish in a tank? They’re fucking crazy! And so is Gillman. Fish are like retarded hairless dogs that can breath underwater. They go all over the place, eat all sorts of stuff, chase and roll and scrap with one another, and what do they do at the end of the day? Die on you. And Gillman is the same way.
In the film a group of scientist travel to the Amazon searching for The Creature. And, of course, they have to bring along a young, pretty, she-scientist. And of course, Gillman falls in love and tries to kidnap her. Which makes no sense! I’m not sure what he wants with her, he has no penis. So why is he kidnapping her if he can’t rape her? What, is he going to wait for her to drop her eggs and swim up stream so he can then fertilize them? Or, of course, maybe he’s just a little curious and wants to dry hump her a bit.
Honestly though, I find it pretty upsetting that the science crew and I totally expect Gillman to rape the girl. Why can’t he just kidnap her? Why can’t he just want someone to talk to, some company? Why is that so unbelievable? Oh yeah, because he’s a fish man. And that is exactly what makes Gillman so tragic: He’s a fish that is in love with a woman… not even Shakespeare could have written a story that compelling. Gillman, the eunuch child of creationism and evolution, is in love with a white woman in 1954. And, in the end it isn’t tragic, or cute, or anything lasting, it’s just unnatural, unreal, unbelievable. But, like any good love affair, totally frightening and worth dying for.
Sitting there in my room watching the movie for the first time in years with The Swimmer I had to consider our own unnatural love affair and how deep and weird and wet it was. I had to think about how long I’d known Wynston, how I’d met her, and how we’d gotten where we were, sitting there across my bed. When I first met Wynston I was all over her, just like Gillman. But unlike Gillman, her and I are really good friends now, and I didn’t get shot and lit on fire and drugged and killed for loving her.
I really do love her; she’s my best friend. And it really is weird and wet and deep, but it’s also real, and like any good friendship totally frightening sometimes and absolutly unnatural.
I think in the end what is most upsetting about The Creature’s story is that the very people that came looking for him kill him. They chased him down, they cornered him, they made him fall in love. And isn’t that the way it always is? We ask for it, we want it, we know the score and the price, but we still fall in love, we still go looking for it. That’s the point though. We fall in love and risk the weirdness of it all, the possible pains and growths and fears, but we still do it. And like we’re being transported through the Amazon or back to childhood we’re struck with the sudden fear and excitement and thrill of being scared. And it’s that thrill, that horror, that funny feeling that makes us laugh out loud when we know we love someone and are scared as hell that we do. And it’s that laugh that makes the search and the pain and the black waters all worth the while.
“Why is a movie about a black lagoon so reflective to me?”
“I wonder what color their clothes are.”
-Caleb, The Eunuch Child of Creationism and Evolution + Wynston Rose, The Swimmer
I can still remember when I first saw this movie. It was a long time ago. Throughout six and seventh grade I spent many Friday nights with my best friends Joshua and Nathaniel. We’d stay up “late” at Josh’s, sitting on his floor watching old movies his father had rented for us. We’d watch the classics: Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man, Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy, Abbott and Costello Battle Racism and Oppression in White Hollywood. And we’d watch the creature features, like The Creature From the Black Lagoon.
Remember when you were little, and you were never sure whether something was going to be really scary, or just exciting and funny instead? Watching The Creature From the Black Lagoon is very much like that. When you’re young so many things that shouldn’t be scary are scary, like dead bodies, and missing links, and girls. But when we get older the really terrifying stuff in the night comes out, like loneliness, and lose, and woman. And if we’re lucky those things can still be funny too. But what was nice was that back then they always were funny and scary. Back when we were little everything scary had the possibility of being funny, and that’s the way it should be. We should be able to laugh at ourselves over the stupid stuff we get torn up and freaked out over. I remember hiding in Josh’s closet, wound up in a curtain, waiting for Nathaniel to come out of the bathroom so I could jump out at him. And remember that feeling you used to get, that feeling when you’re trying to scare someone, and you’re so tied into it, so excited and young and funny that you’re scared too? Scared of your own tricks, of your own jokes, of how young and stupid and sublime you are. I had that felling. And it was wonderful, wonderful to be scared.
That’s what The Creature From the Black Lagoon is like. You don’t know if you should be scared or laughing. And usually it changes every time you watch it. Just like when you’re trying to scare someone else, if you want it to be scary, if you’re willing to let yourself go, let yourself be a part of it, it can be as scary and exciting as anything in life can be.
The last time I watched The Creature From the Black Lagoon I decided to get a professional opinion on the movie. So I went to Wynston Rose McCreary- The Swimmer. And right away she hit it right on the head:
“I don’t get it…is it supposed to be funny?”
Wynston is completely right, sometimes you can’t tell! The Creature From the Black Lagoon doesn’t always make sense. The character himself…its self, really is a contradiction between science and religion. And no, not like the way Nightcrawler is a Catholic, or John McCain is a Republican, but the way Jesus is the son of God, or Orion is the son of Darksied, or Luke is the son of Vader.
You have to understand; the level of weirdness in this film is of that like you’ve never seen before. It isn’t a horror film, or a slasher, or a thriller; it’s a creature feature. The villain isn’t evil, or demented, or a Dracula, they’re just weird. They’re blobs and flies and gillmen. The Opening scene of Creature is the creation of the heavens and the earth…and then all of a sudden WHAM! they cut to the primordial sands of evolution and start talking about how all life evolved out of the sea, pulling itself up from the dregs and the muck and pretending to be man. They even say the world is over 15 million years old. See? They’re coming at us from all angles!
The Main character, The Creature, Gillman, is no less confusing when you think about him. He’s a sort of missing link, part man, part fish. Have you ever watched a fish in a tank? They’re fucking crazy! And so is Gillman. Fish are like retarded hairless dogs that can breath underwater. They go all over the place, eat all sorts of stuff, chase and roll and scrap with one another, and what do they do at the end of the day? Die on you. And Gillman is the same way.
In the film a group of scientist travel to the Amazon searching for The Creature. And, of course, they have to bring along a young, pretty, she-scientist. And of course, Gillman falls in love and tries to kidnap her. Which makes no sense! I’m not sure what he wants with her, he has no penis. So why is he kidnapping her if he can’t rape her? What, is he going to wait for her to drop her eggs and swim up stream so he can then fertilize them? Or, of course, maybe he’s just a little curious and wants to dry hump her a bit.
Honestly though, I find it pretty upsetting that the science crew and I totally expect Gillman to rape the girl. Why can’t he just kidnap her? Why can’t he just want someone to talk to, some company? Why is that so unbelievable? Oh yeah, because he’s a fish man. And that is exactly what makes Gillman so tragic: He’s a fish that is in love with a woman… not even Shakespeare could have written a story that compelling. Gillman, the eunuch child of creationism and evolution, is in love with a white woman in 1954. And, in the end it isn’t tragic, or cute, or anything lasting, it’s just unnatural, unreal, unbelievable. But, like any good love affair, totally frightening and worth dying for.
Sitting there in my room watching the movie for the first time in years with The Swimmer I had to consider our own unnatural love affair and how deep and weird and wet it was. I had to think about how long I’d known Wynston, how I’d met her, and how we’d gotten where we were, sitting there across my bed. When I first met Wynston I was all over her, just like Gillman. But unlike Gillman, her and I are really good friends now, and I didn’t get shot and lit on fire and drugged and killed for loving her.
I really do love her; she’s my best friend. And it really is weird and wet and deep, but it’s also real, and like any good friendship totally frightening sometimes and absolutly unnatural.
I think in the end what is most upsetting about The Creature’s story is that the very people that came looking for him kill him. They chased him down, they cornered him, they made him fall in love. And isn’t that the way it always is? We ask for it, we want it, we know the score and the price, but we still fall in love, we still go looking for it. That’s the point though. We fall in love and risk the weirdness of it all, the possible pains and growths and fears, but we still do it. And like we’re being transported through the Amazon or back to childhood we’re struck with the sudden fear and excitement and thrill of being scared. And it’s that thrill, that horror, that funny feeling that makes us laugh out loud when we know we love someone and are scared as hell that we do. And it’s that laugh that makes the search and the pain and the black waters all worth the while.
“Why is a movie about a black lagoon so reflective to me?”
“I wonder what color their clothes are.”
-Caleb, The Eunuch Child of Creationism and Evolution + Wynston Rose, The Swimmer
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
"Check it out… he’s a DRACULA!!”
So, you know the Universal Monsters? Yeah. Me too. And, for a while, I thought everyone did. But no.
I’m not even going to get into Frankenstein (that’ll come another time), but Dracula; aw boy. He’s a pimp, that’s a fact. Not only does he live in a castle swerving game all over some nasty vixen , dress to impress rockin’ a cape, and suck on necks like it ain’t no thing, but he’s also been the father to more horror stories and creations than any other of the Universal Monsters. Don't believe me, check it out: Blacula, Count Von Count “the Count”, Dr. Acula, Alucard, and any guy that whore Buffy ever got down with. Oh, and about a googolplex of porno characters. Yeah boiiiiiii! Oh, and Batman. Oh, and Nelson too.
But honestly, Dracula, he’s taking a beating. I kind of feel bad for him. No, I really do feel bad for him. Bram Stoker wrote him as a caricature of evil, a stereotypes of the dark and the dirty and the incredibly sexy. Dracula was those things that go bump in the night, who actually could go bump in the night, and did.
-“I don’t see nothing wrong with a little bump and grind with a little bump and grind”
Dracula was a frustration and contradiction, and it must have worn on him. He was a lover who could not love, an undead living out death as a man of action who was not a man. And he did it all in the dark… in England…with a bunch of protestants….sort of…for a little while.
But what is Dracula now? As I said, Stoker wrote him as a caricature of other, short sighted fears. But now, he is even a caricature of that, of his once strong self. He’s a joke. A sharp orifice with a widow’s peak. That’s not sexy, that’s not money baby.
And Count Dracula was money baby. He was fresh.
So looking past Stoker and Nosferatu, and Batman and Manbat, and Count Dooku and Saruman and let’s talk about the man, the one that deserves the credit, the love, the cash and the women: Bela Lugosi. The man made Count Dracula, Dracula. Lugosi is the reason some little kids and foreigners and those people I mentioned who don’t know the Universal Monsters yell “he’s a DRACULA!,” and not “he’s a vampire!” Because Dracula’s the only one that even matters! BECAUSE HE’S A DRACULA! HE IS DRACULA!
Bela Lugosi was a holy cross burnt on film. A ghost, so lifeless and empty of anything but evil his character wasn’t a reflection of light on film, but a burn mark or a vacuum. Lugosi was Dracula, he did travel to America from Eastern Europe, and I bet his boat had a few dead crewmen and rats, and he couldn’t really speak very well, and he kind of looked sickly and grotesque, but he was rolling in it. Yeah boiii. Yes boy.
And people don’t know who he is? HE’S A DRACULA!
So that’s it, I’m going to tell them all. A piece for each, of last words, or a eulogy, an epitaph, or a salute, or a shout out; for the biggies, the masters, those monsters, the terrors and inspirations. Who? The Universal Monsters! Those DRACULAS!:
-Frankenstein’s Monster
-The Phantom
-The Mummy
-The Invisible Man
-The Bride of Frankenstein
-The Wolf Man
-And The Creature from the Black Lagoon
…but fuck the hunchback, and his Disney gypsy…
So, if you have no idea who the Universal Monsters are, if you don’t know Dracula's a vampire, or you think that the Invisible Man is the same thing as the Headless Horseman, or that Frankenstein "has bolts in his head an shit...and he's green, right?”, and you have no clue about the Wolf man, or you just think mummies look like “someone wrapped in toilet paper or something... and they walk around with there arms out...or something...no those are zombies right? Or do mummies do that too?”…
Or, if you just think that, well, "monsters are green,” than you might enjoy some of this. Or you might just want to pretend you’re a little kid again, and that all of this is true, and is happening in your neighborhood, and in your closet, and under your bed, and you might just want to enjoy that feeling instead, while you still can. Because one day the only thing that’ll be left to be scared of, will be the really scary things, those things that really are a Dracula.
Oh, and remember, like my good friend Wynston taught me one frightful night:
“Monsters are green…Apples are green. Apples, are green.”
(…and no Biasman, she wasn’t high)
-CML, The Invisible Dr.Glogger’s Monster from the Blacula Lagoon…. Returned….’s bride….
In Black and White
I’m not even going to get into Frankenstein (that’ll come another time), but Dracula; aw boy. He’s a pimp, that’s a fact. Not only does he live in a castle swerving game all over some nasty vixen , dress to impress rockin’ a cape, and suck on necks like it ain’t no thing, but he’s also been the father to more horror stories and creations than any other of the Universal Monsters. Don't believe me, check it out: Blacula, Count Von Count “the Count”, Dr. Acula, Alucard, and any guy that whore Buffy ever got down with. Oh, and about a googolplex of porno characters. Yeah boiiiiiii! Oh, and Batman. Oh, and Nelson too.
But honestly, Dracula, he’s taking a beating. I kind of feel bad for him. No, I really do feel bad for him. Bram Stoker wrote him as a caricature of evil, a stereotypes of the dark and the dirty and the incredibly sexy. Dracula was those things that go bump in the night, who actually could go bump in the night, and did.
-“I don’t see nothing wrong with a little bump and grind with a little bump and grind”
Dracula was a frustration and contradiction, and it must have worn on him. He was a lover who could not love, an undead living out death as a man of action who was not a man. And he did it all in the dark… in England…with a bunch of protestants….sort of…for a little while.
But what is Dracula now? As I said, Stoker wrote him as a caricature of other, short sighted fears. But now, he is even a caricature of that, of his once strong self. He’s a joke. A sharp orifice with a widow’s peak. That’s not sexy, that’s not money baby.
And Count Dracula was money baby. He was fresh.
So looking past Stoker and Nosferatu, and Batman and Manbat, and Count Dooku and Saruman and let’s talk about the man, the one that deserves the credit, the love, the cash and the women: Bela Lugosi. The man made Count Dracula, Dracula. Lugosi is the reason some little kids and foreigners and those people I mentioned who don’t know the Universal Monsters yell “he’s a DRACULA!,” and not “he’s a vampire!” Because Dracula’s the only one that even matters! BECAUSE HE’S A DRACULA! HE IS DRACULA!
Bela Lugosi was a holy cross burnt on film. A ghost, so lifeless and empty of anything but evil his character wasn’t a reflection of light on film, but a burn mark or a vacuum. Lugosi was Dracula, he did travel to America from Eastern Europe, and I bet his boat had a few dead crewmen and rats, and he couldn’t really speak very well, and he kind of looked sickly and grotesque, but he was rolling in it. Yeah boiii. Yes boy.
And people don’t know who he is? HE’S A DRACULA!
So that’s it, I’m going to tell them all. A piece for each, of last words, or a eulogy, an epitaph, or a salute, or a shout out; for the biggies, the masters, those monsters, the terrors and inspirations. Who? The Universal Monsters! Those DRACULAS!:
-Frankenstein’s Monster
-The Phantom
-The Mummy
-The Invisible Man
-The Bride of Frankenstein
-The Wolf Man
-And The Creature from the Black Lagoon
…but fuck the hunchback, and his Disney gypsy…
So, if you have no idea who the Universal Monsters are, if you don’t know Dracula's a vampire, or you think that the Invisible Man is the same thing as the Headless Horseman, or that Frankenstein "has bolts in his head an shit...and he's green, right?”, and you have no clue about the Wolf man, or you just think mummies look like “someone wrapped in toilet paper or something... and they walk around with there arms out...or something...no those are zombies right? Or do mummies do that too?”…
Or, if you just think that, well, "monsters are green,” than you might enjoy some of this. Or you might just want to pretend you’re a little kid again, and that all of this is true, and is happening in your neighborhood, and in your closet, and under your bed, and you might just want to enjoy that feeling instead, while you still can. Because one day the only thing that’ll be left to be scared of, will be the really scary things, those things that really are a Dracula.
Oh, and remember, like my good friend Wynston taught me one frightful night:
“Monsters are green…Apples are green. Apples, are green.”
(…and no Biasman, she wasn’t high)
-CML, The Invisible Dr.Glogger’s Monster from the Blacula Lagoon…. Returned….’s bride….
In Black and White
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)