I Spit On Your Grave - Before I See The Remake

I Spit On Your Grave – Before I see the remake


I really wanted to write on this movie before I see the remake tonight. The original 1978 version is very near and dear to my heart. I probably hold it in too high esteem. I’m so nervous about seeing the remake tonight. I figure there are two ways the remake could go that would make this an absolute cinematic abortion.

#1: By focusing too much on the graphic violence of the rape scenes in a misleading fashion. What makes the original what it is, is that it wasn’t pure schlock, 70’s grindhouse sexploitation. I think this is likely in the remake because the original is always put in that category. During its original release the title was changed from Day of the Woman to I Spit On Your Grave, and further along it was double-featured with such masterpieces as Redneck Zombies. The world erroneously took this movie and degraded it into what most people think it is today.

Yes, the rape scenes take up around 11 minutes, that’s 10% of the full running time. And if you’ve seen it, you know how utterly vulgar and downright disturbing those scenes are. After all, they caused Roger Ebert to get the movie banned in Chicago and go on a furious tirade against violence towards women in the media. He was so close, yet so far from understanding the movie.

Turning the remake into a remake of the sensationalized sexploitation flick, instead of a remake of the original idea for I Spit On Your Grave would be a tragic mistake. It would be dishonest to the movie itself, to Meir Zarchi, and to his poor, miserable muse.

#2: By not focusing ENOUGH on the graphic violence of the rape scenes. I know, I’m walking a thin line here. This is why I didn’t think the film should be remade in the first place. But merely glancing over the gory details is going to make this movie into something it isn’t, and it’s going to turn it very run-of-the-mill. My press pass touts graphic violence and that the theater will be carding people, but that remains to be seen. After all, I watched - in this same theater - a woman march past a giant sign that said “No Children Admitted” right into a screening of The Exorcist with her two-year-old and infant in tow. Is it a marketing gimmick? I guess we’ll find out.

What makes the original the artistic experience that it is, is the graphic violence. I cannot stress this enough. GRAPHIC. It has the most realistic rape scenes I’ve ever seen on film. When Roger Ebert said that it “sensationalized” violence and rape, I don’t know what the hell he was smoking but it must have been good. There is nothing sensationalized about it. There is nothing about these scenes that will make someone decide that raping a woman looks like a good time. I appreciate this film because it shows rape for exactly what it is, and yes I think it should be shown in such a light. Roger Ebert should have listed a dozen other movies in his crusade but left this one alone, as it basically proves his point but he wasn’t smart enough to see that. I’m sure, as most people are, he was overcome with emotion while watching these scenes. I’ve seen people react in a myriad of ways; I’ve seen people cry, get physically ill, even nervously laugh. THAT’S THE POINT.

If you watch this movie, I encourage you to watch it in the following way: first, watch it. Easy enough, right? Don’t you dare fast forward through the rape scenes. If you feel you’re experiencing them enough, YOU’RE NOT. This movie is going to grab you someplace no other movie has grabbed you, and you aren’t going to like it but you need to experience it. After that, watch it again with Meir Zarchi’s commentary track playing. Trust me, you won’t want to, but it’s important. Pay special attention to his dialogue during the rape scenes, when he tells you why he made this movie. It will change your whole perspective. Then, come back here and tell me how much you hate me for making you watch that movie. But be forewarned. It’s not for your average horror movie fan; it’s not even for your seasoned horror movie fan. This movie is going to HURT YOU. But I think it’ll be worth it.

I guess I’m a little touchy. I wrote my undergrad thesis on this movie. Oh dear Lord, please let them do it justice.


***If you read this, thanks. I'm going to be editing it a lot in the next few days. I just can't get the words to come out right at the moment. ***

Devil

Whorticulture.com movie review of Devil

Devil

Back in July, the New York Daily news said of Devil:

“…its release comes at a pivotal point in Shyamalan's career. His infamous plot twists have become increasingly criticized as convoluted, and his works as a whole have met significant resistance from critics and audiences over the past few years.”

I’d like to congratulate M. Night Shyamalan this time, because the “twist” (if you can even call it that) is far from convoluted. In fact, this time it’s about as obvious and contrived as you can get!

So the basic plot of Devil is this: 3 men and 2 women are trapped in an elevator as two security guards watch via security camera. The elevator inhabitants fall, one by one, each victim to moderately gruesome murders. One of the security guards, Ramirez (played by Jacob Vargas) – your typical Latino Catholic – serves as narrator while telling the audience a story his mother told him as a child. The story goes something like “The devil walks among us, taking human form. It starts with a suicide, and that opens the door for the devil, and it ends with someone watching the person they love the most die.” It’s really quite obtrusive, and serves to tell the audience what’s going to happen 5 minutes before it actually happens, thus ruining the whole element of surprise.

The audience wonders about the killer’s identity throughout, until the “shocking” climax when you find out who it is and blah, blah, blah.

Let me tell you. I had to have a little talk with myself in the very beginning as the opening credits were rolling. I knew this movie was going to be bad. At that point everything was upside down (literally) and I was getting very annoyed. It was all so film school. “You want to make your audience uneasy right away? Film everything upside down!” It was cheap, and it felt cheap. But I managed to quiet my inner voice and keep an open mind.

That all changed when Vince (played by Geoffrey Arend – best known for his role in Super Troopers, let’s be frank) said to another character “why don’t you suck a butt?” At that point I knew that nothing was sacred, and this movie was willing to sacrifice anything – even dialogue – to keep its rating. And horror movies too concerned with keeping a low rating are NEVER good. I, quite audibly, said “really!?” which made the people next to me laugh, and this was the highlight of the film.

There was so much wrong with this movie. The storyline was painfully obvious; to its credit I will say I did not know who the Devil would be until it happened. It was incredibly self indulgent. In fact, I felt like I was 20 miles deep in M. Night. Shyamalan’s ass. It took itself so seriously it became unintentionally funny. None of the performances were great. Most of them were put on way too thick. The scares were cheap – mostly loud booms after moments of silence. The death scenes were merely decent. Most of them were only shots of the corpses after a moment or two of darkness on screen. There was a lot of irrelevant and unnecessary information passed around. The film was under 90 minutes and had a startling lack of character development, so it definitely could have gone farther and it probably would have helped the film immensely. You couldn’t care about any of the characters, even when they tried to make you.

I give it a 3 out of 10. The few redeeming qualities just weren’t enough to save it from the ridiculous and obvious JUNK that it was.

Now for the spoilers. I told everyone I would spoil this movie only if it sucked. If you don’t want this movie spoiled for you, please stop reading NOW.

*******

Okay, I’m going to be quick. The devil was the old woman. She was the only one who died with no physical injury, and OF COURSE it would be the old woman. She’s the one you’d least suspect because she is, in fact, an old woman.

In the beginning you’re inundated with the partial backstory of this police officer – his wife and son were killed by a drunk driver and now he is a drunk himself…or used to be, as he’s been sober for a little while now. His sponsor in the beginning tells him he has to find forgiveness or he’ll go back to drinking. Wow, way to give it away in the first 5 minutes. There’s a lot of other bullshit involved, like an odd little flirtation between him and a forensics officer, which goes nowhere. Anyway, you find out that one of the guys in the elevator is the same drunk driver who killed his family! Shock and awe! Everyone in the elevator is a sinner in some way, but it’s all pretty petty stuff.

And so, the old lady devil kills everyone except him, then arises from the dead and has the most pathetically obvious conversation with him, and he decides to come clean. This makes the devil not want him anymore, and she actually says “Damn, I really wanted you” or something to that effect. Not kidding. And then she disappears. Literally. She's just gone. Maybe I like to think of the devil as a little more of a bad ass than that, but that was just sad. Then the cop tells him “That was my wife and son you killed, but I forgive you” and the movie is over. It stinks of the movie Signs in so many ways.

The whole thing is so goddamn preachy. I don’t think I’ve ever rolled my eyes so hard in my life. I saw this movie for free and I still feel like M. Night owes me something. If he could just stop making movies, that would be a great start.

Repo! The Genetic Opera

Whorticulture.com movie review of Repo! The Genetic Opera, directed by Darren Bousman & starring Alexa Vega, Anthony Head, Bill Moseley, Paul Sorvino, Sarah Brightman, and Paris Hilton

Repo! The Genetic Opera Review

Repo! The Genetic Opera is one of my favorite movies of all time. There is so much resistance with this movie. I had to basically BEG my friend MogulArmy to watch it, and she was 100% sure she was going to hate it.  I think a lot of the resistance comes from the fact that Paris Hilton is in it, but I am not ashamed to admit that she is my favorite character and I find her performance outstanding.

It’s a futuristic goth opera.  You need to know what it is when you go into it.  It’s directed by horror phenom Darren Lynn Bousman of Saw fame (his upcoming Mother’s Day looks freaking amazing, too).  The story centers around a sick, young girl (played wonderfully by Alexa Vega), and her tumultuous relationship with her father (Anthony Head), who is also secretly a “legal assassin.”  The world seems run by an evil corporation, GeneCo, which harvests organs and leases them for a price.  However, if you can’t pay, the Repo Man will soon be paying you a visit, and it ain’t pretty.

The movie enjoys seriously skillful performances from such greats as Bill Moseley (House of 1000 Corpses, The Devil’s Rejects) who, I’d like to add, is one of the friendliest celebrities I’ve ever met, as well as two opera powerhouses Paul Sorvino and Sarah Brightman (best known from her Broadway run as Phantom of the Opera’s Christine).  Skinny Puppy’s Nivek Ogre, Terrence Zdunich, and Paris Hilton round out the cast.

Sarah Brightman’s superior soprano voice lends a gravity and sincerity to the movie, and is hilariously juxtaposed with Paris Hilton’s merely mediocre voice.  However, Paris’s character – Amber Sweet – is a spoiled heiress who is obsessed with plastic surgery and back alley Zydrate, “the 21^st century cure” drug.  She forces herself into the spotlight with her singing and her antics.  Come on, you can’t tell me the irony is lost there.  She deliberately out-Paris’s herself and takes the piss.  I have loads of respect for her for it.  But each character is admirably unique.  You can even overlook Bill Moseley’s…rare singing voice. Each character is perfectly developed and the actors involved succeed at bringing them to life.

It’s an odd mix of comedy, tragedy, and the best soundtrack I’ve heard in a long time.  In my undergraduate career I argued that it was modern day Shakespeare.  I must have done a pretty good job, too.  This movie takes the place where Shakespeare dealt with power struggles, class struggles, old grudges and scorned lovers, and a level of gore paralleled by his (in my opinion) greatest work, Titus Andronicus.  I think the most apt comparison overall however is Shakespeare’s The Tempest.

The overall appearance of the movie is visually stunning.  The dark, bleak future is contrasted with bright, appealing comic strips of the past.  They did wonders with the special effects, which must have just SCREAMED cheesy on paper.  It all works gloriously to the film’s advantage.

This movie battles two main misconceptions.  First, that it’s either going to lack emotion, or the emotion is going to be pallid and boring.  It is neither.  The scene accompanying the song “I Didn’t Know I’d Love You So Much” is overflowing with sadness and pain.  Secondly, many want to classify this as the next Rocky Horror.  IT IS NOT.  I have seen this movie shadow-casted and it is NOT GOOD.  Please don’t put this movie in the same category as Rocky Horror.  There’s nothing wrong with Rocky Horror, mind you.  It’s a fun, frisky good time.  THIS MOVIE IS NOT.  So stop it.

Great writing, strong cast, and fantastic direction (even if Bousman and I kind of got into it at one of the Road shows because I was too eager to discuss House of 1000 Corpses with Bill Moseley.  Suck it, bro).  Shut up and give this movie a chance.  I give it a 10/10.

And by the way…my friend MogulArmy loved it.  AND I’M NEVER GOING TO LET HER LIVE IT DOWN.  ♥

 

I asked my boyfriend’s brother-in-law who his favorite character was.  His answer: Giles (referring obviously to Anthony Head’s character in Buffy the Vampire Slayer), whose character Nathan is a dichotomy of a loving, caring, and often melancholy father  - and the vicious, crude, and often vulgar Repo Man.  If you’ve seen the movie I’d like to know who your favorite character was and why.  And, as always, I want to hear your opinions.

Current Events: Friday, September 3rd 2010

Tonight (and Tomorrow) at MADCAP Theater:
Zack Attack's Camp Cinema Presents Sleepaway Camp!

It's the only 35mm print known in existence!  Plus it's preceded by a collection of rare Roger Corman slasher trailers!

Showings are at 8 & 10, Friday and Saturday night.  It's only $8, people.  Come show your support!

MADCAP Theater
730 S. Mill Avenue
Tempe, AZ 85281

(480) 634-5192 begin_of_the_skype_highligh              (480) 634-5192      

The Walking Dead Trailer

Today someone showed me the trailer for the The Walking Dead, a show premiering Halloween night on AMC.  I seriously can't wait.

Check out the video, plus other info, here. 

Seriously, how good does this look?  Especially for TV.  I'm stoked.

I read the graphic novel for a while.  It's pretty much the only one I've ever read.  I don't really like the format of graphic novels (that's my Literature degree kicking in) but I freaking LOVE The Walking Dead.

I wish I could set this to record on my TiVo right now.  Do want.
 

The Last Exorcism - My pre-screening review

Whorticulture.com movie review of The Last Exorcism, directed by Eli Roth

The Last Exorcism

The Last Exorcism was introduced to us by a theater employee who asked for a show of hands: “How many of you saw The Blair Witch?” he asked. I raised my hand begrudgingly, while many seemed to raise their hand eagerly. “Now, how many of you did it scare the pants off of?” I quickly lowered my hand. “So now, how many of you saw Paranormal State?” I re-raised my hand. “How many of you did it terrify?” I took my hand down. “Well,” he concluded, “this movie is like The Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity had a baby.”

“Great,” I thought. “This is a sign that it’s going to be terrible.” I imagined writing this review with my tail between my legs, sad at myself for not getting the hint.

Then Eli Roth came on the screen, informing us that we were some of the first in the world to see this movie. He explained that it was driven entirely by word of mouth, which isn’t really true, because I’ve seen way more commercials for this than I did for Paranormal Activity (which was known for being entirely driven by word of mouth), and I only heard about it via the commercials. He asked us to tweet about it, and tweet him personally (as well as Lions Gate) and tell them what we thought. Don’t worry, Mr. Roth, I most certainly did.

So the basic plot of the movie is this. You have this preacher named Cotton. Cotton was raised to be “touched by the holy spirit,” so much so, that he doesn’t even really know if he has genuine faith or if it’s just that indoctrinated into him. Cotton is a showman. He readily admits that he’s basically a fraud, and that most of what he does is all for show. That adds a sadness to him, but he’s a pretty funny, likable character all around (even if he is a fraud). He decides to get out of the exorcism business after seeing an article about a 10 year old boy who was suffocated during an exorcism, and he can’t in good conscience continue to do what he does, in the chance that he might hurt someone. What you have, then, is a movie about a film crew filming (you guessed it), his last exorcism.

And off he goes. He has no idea what he’s in for.

This movie has comedy much on par with Bill Maher’s Religulous. The audience exploded in laughter quite often in the first half of the movie (the second half having a much more serious tone).

It also touts some of the best horror-suspense I’ve seen in a long, long time. I was literally grabbing onto my boyfriend, balling my hand into a fist so tight that my knuckles and wrist began to ache, and chewing on my thumb nail. This just does not happen to me. I’m far too jaded for that to happen, and yet there I was, jumping and cowering with the rest of the crowd.

It’s not easy for a movie to combine horror and comedy. I can really only think of one other movie I feel accomplished this so seamlessly, and that’s Shaun of the Dead. But I digress.

Here I am, 95% through the movie and incredibly excited about writing this review. I have two friends on twitter to whom I can't wait to proclaim my love of this movie…

And then, it happened. A terrible, cliché, and downright disappointing ending. Horror fans will recognize it right away as cliché. In fact, they’ll immediately think of the other, more famous movie that already did it in the 1970’s. I can’t really go into what was wrong with the ending without giving too much away, but I can say this in very loose terms. The ending makes a lot of the rest of the movie questionable at best (in the sort of “so wait, if that’s the case, how did this happen?” kind of way), and it’s WAY too abrupt. I mean, is this the new vein in movies? It seems like I say this a lot, that it ended too prematurely. All this serves to do is open up a ton of questions with the viewer, but it feels like maybe Eli Roth and the other makers of this movie were just too lazy to give it a better ending. “No, it’ll leave ‘em guessing.”

All I’m really guessing at is why you ruined this movie.

I don’t even want to rate it. It’s a 9, maybe a 9.5 until the last 5 – 10 minutes. Then it drops down to a 6, and that’s being generous. I’m so, so disappointed.

The Crazies: 1973 v. 2010

VERSUS



The Crazies – 1973 and 2010

I find very few movies where the remake vastly surpasses the original. In fact, I can’t think of that ever happening before, now that I really think about it. Of course, I saw the 2010 remake before I saw the 1973 original, so I wonder if my opinion would be different if that was reversed. In any case, I was so beyond bored when I was watching the original, and the 2010 version is pretty awesome, especially in comparison.

First I’ll talk about the original, although I have to admit I stopped paying much attention pretty quickly because it was so boring. About half way through my boyfriend said to me “I don’t know why you’re a fan of Romero. He sucks.” And you know what? I couldn’t argue. Out of all of his movies, I really only like a few, like the first three …Of The Dead movies. Coming five years prior to Dawn of the Dead, I feel like he used a lot of the same imagery but it worked so much better in Dawn. The Crazies really feels like Dawn of the Dead at times – not to mention Richard France is in both of them. I feel like the 1973 The Crazies is Dawn of the Dead’s unsuccessful older brother. I was so bored that I didn’t even notice that the couple having sex is father and daughter until I rewatched it (and my girl MogulArmy told me).

So both movies are about a small town that is overwhelmed with a biological weapon “Trixie” accidentally spilled into their water. The government comes in and seemingly tries to quarantine the infected while saving the uninfected. The main message is active distrust of the government. That’s really all the two versions have in common, and they both achieve this in drastically different ways.

Comparatively, the government is much more evil in the remake, and “the crazies” are much scarier in the remake, too. In the original they’re much more stereotypically “crazy.” There’s really only one murder committed by them – in the very beginning when a random farm father kills the mother and tries to burn their house down with their two kids inside. Only one of the children dies, and it’s sometime later after they’re rescued. Once the police show up, the father is laughing hysterically, then seems to understand what he’d done and begins sobbing and screaming to help his family. However, as I said they’re much scarier in the remake. They become almost as zombies hell-bent on killing everything. There’s no reasoning with them. In the remake, the same farm father (who only has a wife and one child in this version) locks both of them in a closet and torches the house. It’s an effective scare. In fact, the remake is filled with effective scares, both by the crazies and the government. Although I do want to point out that the ending of the 1973 version is sad. Even though I wasn’t paying much attention by that point I was still saddened by the ending. But really, do you want a touching ending to a horror movie? I’d much prefer that last scare. It feels more satisfying.

I wasn’t terribly sold on the 2010 version when I first saw it. I thought it was pretty decent, but I didn’t think it was amazing. Then I saw the original. It’s so much better than the original. This might be considered a spoiler, but I’m going to go ahead and say it because it was pretty much given away in the commercials and I find it important in comparing the two. In the original, out of approximately 2,000 residents, they have something like 1,300 survivors – “if you can call them that.” However, in the remake there are only a small handful of survivors.

I don’t really want to give too much away with the 2010 version but I highly recommend it. I wouldn’t even bother with the original if I were you. It left me still wondering why I consider myself a fan of George Romero and wanting to leave him angry tweets for effectively stealing my affection for this long. The 2010 remake isn’t going to keep you up at night, but it’s perfectly entertaining. The gore is decent and the suspense is wonderfully done. I found myself questioning one of the characters out loud through most of the movie. I do have to say, though, that the characters make a lot of stupid, obvious mistakes and it’s fairly predictable. But it was a good ride.

I give the original 3 and a quarter stars, Star Search style, except it’s out of 10 so what does that tell you?

I give the remake 8 stars.

Oh and I should say that this movie was highly recommended by my girl NotSoAnnoyed and she has been hounding me to get the review done. So here. <3