Sketchy Details

Midnight Rec: I Bury the Living (1958)

I don't know how the weather is by you, but it is absolutely freezing in my neck of NJ. It's cold enough that I've called off plans to take a trip into NYC for research and a movie. I have two schools of thought on dealing with inopportune conditions: watch something that takes place in far greater conditions, or watch something that makes me realize things could be a lot worse. Today is the day for the latter.

I Bury the Living is a polarizing B-Movie classic from director Albert Band. You hear stories about producer interference in films all the time. Sometimes an ending is too dark; other times, too confusing or otherwise off-putting. With this film, all three have been cited as reasons why the original ending of the film was changed. 

I Bury the Living is the story of man who discovers he has the ability to cause anyone to die with the use of a funeral plot map. It's an effective device within the film that results in a very nice build of suspense. Originally a purely supernatural tale, the film's ending was changed to offer a logical explanation for everything that occurred. Some hate the hackneyed twist ending, claiming it makes no sense (it doesn't); others embrace the film for its style and performances (they're good). There are some very disorienting and unnerving visual effects used in what's mostly a one-room film. The transformation from cemetery office to psychological landscape is slick and stylish. The constraints of the budget do not show.

Sadly, this is a horror film that often gets dumped into 5/10/25/50/100 Scary Movie collections with a poor transfer and unexplained cuts to the running time. You could do much worse than this YouTube upload, but I'm sure there's a better quality torrent available. The problem is how the film lacks an actual DVD release by itself. 

The trailer is available after the jump.

Side by Side by Susan Blackwell

What is Side by Side by Susan Blackwell? It is an entertaining online talk show at Broadway.com wherein Susan Blackwell--star of the wonderful, sadly closed, but not forgotten, Broadway musical [Title of Show]--interviews Broadway stars in intimate locations, like a corner table at Hooters or the upper deck of a Times Square tourist bus. The joy comes from how off-beat the questions are and how willing Susan Blackwell is to invade their personal space (for fun, not malevolence) to hilariously awkward effect. Some of the stars really embrace, others are game but end up with a hundred yard stare as Susan licks them on the cheek. Yes, as in, her tongue to their cheek.

Susan has a great presence in person and on film and was the perfect choice to become a correspondent and host on Broadway.com. For fans of musicals, this show is a treasure chest of references to shows, well-known and obscure alike.

I have a feeling, even if you don't know who half these people are (though you might recognize some for playing a doctor, lawyer, hooker, drug addict, or murder victim on a Law & Order or CSI, as most working NYC actors are practically required to), you'll still find the show entertaining. It's almost like rediscovering reality TV for the first time. Your apprehensive about what is going to happen and why you should care about total strangers, then get sucked into how ridiculous the scenario is. Just bask in the beauty of an online talk show where a conversation can include diversions on "handj's" and Equus or breast pumps and Cher.

There are only two episodes so far, but with the amount of stars in the opening credits (including "Hey, wasn't that chick on CSI?" and "That's the music director from that Legally Blonde reality show, right?"), I don't see this going away anytime soon. I've embedded the first episode after the jump to give you a taste of how this works Hmmm...there's embed code that I've inserted properly, but the video says it's unavailable. Episode 1: Sutton Foster, Jonathan Groff & Laura Benanti. You should watch the second episode to see the full potential.

Film Review: Red (2008)

I would consider myself a fan of Lucky McKee. This is the writer/director that brought forth some of the more engaging horror films of the 2000s, including May, The Woods, and Roman. He's the type of director I like to see do well in the industry because he genuinely cares about the collaborative aspect of filmmaking. He surrounds himself with a talented cast and crew and remains loyal to those he really worked well with. Angela Bettis, for example, has collaborated with him on four projects, including a jump from actress to director in the role-reversal scenario of Roman. However, McKee seems to be struggling to actually break into the studio system. His film The Woods went from being so protected and cherished M. Night Shyamalan had to change his film title to The Village to being dumped straight to DVD with all special features erased from the disc. More unnerving is his role in the 2008 drama Red.

The short version is this: about halfway through filming, McKee was removed as director of the film and replaced with Trygve Allister Diesen. Rumors of tension between producers and director abounded over the web and it was unknown how much or little of Red would actually be taken from McKee's filming. Thankfully, the finished project not only bares his credit but a clear indication of his influence on the production.

Red, based on the novel by Jack Ketchum, is the story of Avery Ludlow, a kind old man whose best friend in the world is his dog Red. One day, while fishing, a group of teenagers attempt to rob him at gunpoint and eventually shoot Red at point-blank range to punish the old man. Avery decides to seek an apology from the boys, but it seems their families have a bit too much power and skill at lying for him to resolve the issues in a civilized manner.

McKee's fingerprints are all over this film and have never been used to greater effect. Instead of exploiting the violence against Red, the film focuses on the interactions between characters. The dialog moves at a natural pace with realistic responses. There is no overacting even when the film should be reaching made-for-TV level histrionics. The film is natural. McKee's skill as a director lies not in an innovative vision, but execution so believable that any last act twist or turn he can toss at you feels like the only conclusion. This is not meant to downplay the abilities of Diesen as a director. Obviously, replacing someone on a film shoot is a difficult position to be in and the fact that the film comes off as cohesive as it does is a testament to both directors' capabilities.

The cast is a great mix of veterans and newcomers that work well off of each other. Brian Cox, as Avery, would have been in consideration for the Best Actor Oscar if this was a higher budgeted film with a wider theatrical release. His performance is likable and gruff at the same time. This is a beautiful portrait of a man who loses everything he has yet still chooses to be a good outstanding citizen. As the trio of wayward teens, Noel Fisher, Kyle Gallner, and Shiloh Fernandez accurately portray the dynamics of a group of young people knowingly acting out just because they can. From the remorseless ringleader (Noel Fisher) to the reluctant whipping boy (Kyle Gallner) to the thrill-seeker (Shiloh Fernandez), the commitment to realism in their rebellious mindset makes the circumstances of the film all the more disturbing. Also noteworthy is Robert Englund as one of the fathers, riding on the coattails of the richer family to upgrade his home at the price of silence.

The only thing that seems to be out of place in the film is the score. It's a bit too predictable for this type of film. It's almost like someone wanted a very standard score for a thriller that didn't actually watch the film. The film is quieter than that, more subtle. It did not require pounding music cues and sudden bursts of melodramatic orchestrations to get its point across.

The line of believability is blurred when the action sequences begin. As far as I'm concerned, all of the major stunt set-pieces of the film could have been achieved with a very light hand and crafty editing like the murder of Red. However, the film jumps from nuanced drama to explosive action film and back again all throughout the climax. This film didn't need all the bells and whistles of your standard high-octane thriller and the ending suffers for it. It's not that these big scenes aren't well-executed; they are simply out of place in what could have been a quiet, powerful film.

Red is an upsetting film in the best way possible. It's very easy to grow attached to Avery, making the entire arc of the story that much more important. If you are in the mood for a well-acted drama with clean execution, Red is a great choice.

Film Review: The Butcher (2007)

Warning: The reviewed film is so stupid and poorly made that a potential viewer must not approach the content lightly. Caution must be exercised to preserve your brain power.

Even with the diminished expectations that come from a fake snuff film, The Butcher serves as an example of everything that can possibly go wrong in modern low budget horror. Four average citizens are kidnapped, gagged, chained, and fitted with helmet-cameras for their direct to video debut as victims in a snuff film. The film randomly jumps from the perspective of the director and staff to the victims. The camera inexplicably shakes as if anyone with a viewfinder is constantly seizing. The quality is grainy, the color washed out, and the sets as drab as oatmeal on dry white toast.

Anyone going into a fake snuff film knows not to expect high production values. But there is a difference between a film with a shoestring budget and a film that doesn't know what it's doing. The Butcher is clearly the latter. From the quality of sound to the believability of the effects, the film fails at every possible angle of technique. I'm almost willing to say the film would have been improved if they left the lens caps on and forgot to turn on the mics.

It's almost impossible to review a film like The Butcher. There is a clear audience for this type of film and they only care about the gore, not the film quality. Even at this The Butcher fails. The effects are cut away from with a jump to a different camera every time something interesting happens. The most you see is a puddle of blood or low-rent bruising/cuts in a reflection. I normally am against gratuitous unjustified gore, but in this sub-genre that's the name of the game. If nothing else, the room should be a hazard to the actors from the amount of goo pumped onto the floor. Karo syrup and food coloring aren't so expensive as to require a delicate hand and moderation. Toss in some dish soap and clean-up is no longer an issue.

Perhaps most offensive of all is the ending. The implausibility reaches unforetold heights as the conceit of the production of a snuff film told from multiple perspectives is rendered impossible by the last ten minutes. If the footage primarily used during the film is removed from the rest of the footage, how can it possibly have been pieced together for what the viewer sees? It can't. I'm willing to accept a pig-masked muscle-man raping his victims in any hole, natural or carved out, in a warehouse with big open windows completely surrounded by a business district, but I can't get past this ending.

Even die-hard snuff fans should avoid this film. There's a reason the film lacks DVD distribution: it doesn't deserve it. I can't imagine what possessed Netflix to carry it at all.

Cannonball Read 2: Book 10: The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria

Still on the back list of Cannonball Readings. If I posted more than once a week on it, I'd probably catch up. Oh well. Onwards.

I understand that Non-Fiction is a very broad market with lots of competition. Bookstores can fill an entire display table with the month's new releases on current politics, World War II, or scintillating new biographies of Baroque musicians. It becomes essential to nail a great title that stands out amongst the clutter. The Post-American World is a great title, but it's also my biggest issue with Fareed Zakaria's excellent book. It's misleading at best, attention/anger baiting at worst. The title would imply that Zakaria believe America no longer has power in the world or will no longer exists. Thankfully, that's not his argument at all.

Zakaria provides a thoughtful, well-researched look into what he refers to as "the rise of the rest." This means that many other nations that previously struggled to establish themselves in significant political, economical, and social ways on the international scene have not only gained a foothold, but are rapidly expanding in ways that starts to quickly shift the balance of power in the world. Zakaria basically argues that globalization, that four letter political word that has traditionally been viewed as a destructive failure, has finally started to come around to the original goals. We, as a nation, can no longer survive doing the same kind of politics and economics we have used for the past sixty years to be a dominant force in the world. It has become essential to begin collaborating with other nations on international policies or risk being left behind. 

For some odd reason, compromise scares many Americans. It's almost like revealing a sign of weakness to say we might need help once in a while. Zakaria argues that this attitude can be very damaging. He predicts that the US will face more and more opposition in international relations if the country continues to act alone on international matters. It was one thing when many of the nations America worked on were newly established after long colonial periods or post-war establishment; it's quite another when the nations have clout in international politics and have established their own political and economic culture. What was previously viewed as helpful is becoming increasingly viewed as hostile. 

Zakaria spends much of the book discussing rising superpowers like India and China, comparing their achievements to US achievements on superficial levels before exploring how and why they've achieved the growth they have, what they've learned from America, and where they can possibly go in the future. 

If you want an interesting read on how the world's political climate is changing, I doubt you can do much better in an easily approachable text than Fareed Zakaria's The Post-American World.

Midnight Rec: God Told Me To (1976)

Director/Writer Larry Cohen has helped create some very strange films in his lifetime. While there is much to love and much to hate in his filmography, as far as I'm concerned, 1976 cult classic God Told Me To stands above the rest.

A random wave of mass murders has hit New York City. The only connective thread is the killer claiming "God told me to" before committing suicide. A Catholic NYPD detective is running the case, and all logical thoughts are pushed to the wayside as he begins to see signs of a Christ figure possibly influencing the erratic behavior of the killers. The result is a twisted journey into the power of faith and the danger of obsession.

I know I have my own interpretation of the final scenes of God Told Me To. I know others have a conflicting interpretation of those very scenes. The only thing certain about this film is its ability to leave the viewer with a strong sense of something, even if that sense is confusion or hatred. To call it a polarizing weird film would be a great disservice. Cohen crafted something special here. He allowed nothing to get in the way of memorable scenes, such as a cop (played by Andy Kaufman) losing it at the St. Patrick's Day Parade, actually shot at the NYC St. Patrick's Day Parade without a permit.

God Told Me To is a public domain film. It is available for streaming on Netflix. If you want to hunt around for a copy to download or stream through a free web service, please try to find a good looking copy of the film. The subtlety of colors is beautifully handled and the detail is lost all too often in these quick uploads of the film.

The trailer is posted after the bump. Point of warning: the voice over makes it seem like the film is very cut and dry in its interpretation, but that's a gross oversimplification.

Game Time: Paradox Embrace

I feel like I was teethed with an NES controller. Some of my earliest and fondest memories of my family involved us all sitting around the living room TV and taking turns playing Super Mario Bros and Duck Hunt. While my brother moved on to extremely difficult games involving stealth and gun play, I stuck to puzzle games, platformers, and bizarre peripherals (I still love my intermittently working Samba de Amigo maracas for the Dreamcast (my favorite console)). That means I've played a lot of puzzle games. When kids at school would invite me to their video arcade birthday parties, I would be quite satisfied to deposit a few of my tokens into a Tetris machine and play until they'd have to drag me away for pizza and laser tag. When I got a GameBoy and (later) a GameGear, I had Disney platformers and every puzzle game I could get my hands on. 

So what does this have to do with another game on Newgrounds? A lot. Paradox Embrace is everything I love about puzzle/platformers. At this point, swapping out costumes for different abilities is nothing new. Neither is the necessity to swap abilities to traverse difficult terrain. The strength of Paradox Embrace is presenting a clean, stylish puzzle/platformer game with a challenging, but not unreasonable, difficulty level.

The story is minimal. You are confronted with a shadow monster who taunts you, claiming he took your treasure but since you don't know what to do with it anyway you haven't learned to miss it yet. You are then thrust into a fantasy platform maze where you can transform from your normal action hero form to a wizard and a scientist to start. You have to collect items, such as beakers for the scientist, to open new paths that only other characters can actually get to. It's almost like an elaborate version of a pen and paper logic puzzle that requires a lot of trial and error to get right. Then you move on to the next stage, and the next, and the next, until you complete the game. The gameplay is not repetitive, a common fault in online puzzle/platformers. There is enough variety in the action and well executed gradation of difficulty to keep you involved.

Best of all is how the game saves itself with each stage completed. I recommend giving it a try. Maybe play the first level or two. Then you'll find yourself coming back later for the third, then the fourth, then the fifth...

Cannonball Read 2: Book 9: Take Me Back to Afghanistan by Said Hyder Akbar and Susan Burton

Still playing catchup with the reviews. This one's the last from November, then we hit the December batch. Joy.

I'm not opposed to memoirs. I've experienced some that are rather engaging. Part of what draws me into a memoir is the quality of writing. It seems in many cases a good story can somehow trump the ability to craft a convincing narrative. But that's what a good ghostwriter/co-writer is for, right?

Come Back to Afghanistanby Said Hyder Akbar and Susan Burton, the aforementioned book fixer if you will, should be a compelling read. This is a first person look into the reconstruction of Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. Akbar's father worked directly under current president Hamid Karzai as the nation building began. Indeed, there are many intriguing moments. The one that sticks out the most to me is Akbar noticing a man with no credentials constantly in the building interacting with politicians, taking notes, and making phone calls. When someone finally confronts the man, they realize he had no authority to be in the building and may have been spying for a terrorist organization. That's unsettling.

My big problem with the book is the quality of the writing. I respect Burton for trying to capture Akbar's voice as best as she could, but I feel like Akbar doesn't have much of a voice. His knowledge and insight is fascinating, but how it's presented is not. Everything is a simple matter of fact. As far as I can recall, there are no subtleties in the text. If Akbar's going to talk about road construction funding being diverted to Al-Queda to ensure the safety of the construction workers and locals, he will talk about road construction funds. His personal experience and reaction is almost a moot point in the book. These are some of the more engaging moments of the book. I had fun reading about his apprehension riding on a luggage carousel to get into an airport under the suggestion of people authorized to grant him access. When talking about his personal political heroes in Afghanistan, I feel like I could really like him. Come Back to Afghanistan just doesn't focus on those great personal moments.

I almost feel like Akbar had the opportunity to write this book too soon. Maybe with a few more years to reflect on his experiences, this could have been a powerful read. As it stands, the book offers insight into a tumultuous political situation and not much else. It's educational for certain, but very dull.

Film Review: Shrooms (2007)

It never ceases to amaze me how someone can come up with a novel idea for a horror film and drag it straight into the ground. It’s rarely a matter of execution. The problem often lies in a doubt that sets in. A good film can become a forgettable film through unnecessary inclusion of clichés just to better meet audience expectations and genre standards.

Shrooms starts as a promising small horror film. Five friends from the US visit an Irish friend for a drug filled vacation. Their target is a rare hallucinogenic mushroom described as one of the strongest that can be found. While gathering their crops, one friend consumes a poisonous mushroom that can either kill a person through organ failure or imbue mystical psychic properties on a survivor. This friend begins to have horrific visions of each of the friends dying. Is any of this really happening or is it merely a side effect of the drugs?

That would have been a unique horror film. The narrative might not have held up for a full feature leading to a satisfactory conclusion, but it would have stood out as something different in the realm of modern horror. Too bad writer Pearse Elliott began laying the clichés on thick. The friends get into a car accident early on that puts them on edge. Backwoods rednecks (their Irish equivalent, at least) show up to eat road kill and wander off with menacing grimaces. A long-haired ghost is spotted toying with the friends in an impossibly jerky, jumpy style of movement. A killer with a strange weapon and a cloak appears to torment the friends. Worst of all, a mysterious abandoned home for wayward boys looms in the distance with a dark secret history. Instead of enhancing the narrative, the clichés act as a distraction to the interesting psychological elements in play.

All of this is a terrible shame. The cast is great. They all sell some very tricky emotional shifts on top of a convincing hallucinatory haze. The cinematography is great for being shot with mostly natural light. Colors are used to great eerie effect in gorgeously composed shots of natural and artificial landscapes. The music cues are a bit generic and some of the effects editing is a bit derivative, but the placement and execution are solid. Director Paddy Breathnatch was rightly nominated for Ireland’s biggest film award in direction. Even if the film falls short of greatness, Breathnatch’s direction is superb.

When the film is allowed to breathe in its own fumes, it’s quite startling. The problems all lie in the clichés. This was not a film that needed added familiarity. It’s well established in horror film history that drug abuse and sexual activity will lead to bad things. Even if placed in a whole new context, these temptations will send out a signal that the characters will suffer for their behavior. I could look past the clichés if the twist ending was anything different; it’s not. In fact, it’s so well tread and out of place in this film that I feel it necessary to discourage others from watching this film. It is essential to have a high tolerance for very predictable, uninventive horror films to get any joy from Shrooms; everyone else will see the film drift away into a numb cloud of cluttered memories.

Full Post Later, Stupidity Rampant Now

I always forget that professors rarely keep students the full session on the first day back unless they really hate themselves. As such, I left my notes on a handful of recent film viewings at home. For at least one of them, Shrooms, twenty five minutes would be ample time to long hand, edit, type, edit, and post the review. Even if it wasn't, I would have had at least another twenty minutes to type and edit after the next class.

As it stands, I'll get a full post up later today. Much later. As in, class till 1, review material for rehearsal till 2, rehearsal till 5:30. So, 7ish?