News
|
Written by Maureen Beavers
|
|
Wednesday, 17 March 2010 20:59 |
|
Weirdest vampire movie ever.
A town rises up and kills their evil mayor and his wife, then bury them at the crossroads. They celebrate by looting his mansion and drinking his alcohol.
The next day, a young man, Vlad, who left town to pursue a cooking career in Italy but failed, is back. He expects life to be the same as when he left, but things are not the same. An old, hated man has died, supposedly by accident, and everyone is keeping the required three day vigil over his dead body (to be sure he’s not a strigoi).
But Vlad suspects foul play. There are bruises around the old man’s neck. So, he gets the police involved. Then truly strange things begin to happen. The policeman is attacked when he visits the mayor’s home. The mayor acts strange when Vlad visits with him. The mayor’s wife is eating everything in the mansion. And everyone in town is confused and uneasy when Vlad says he talked with the mayor.
The policeman shows up, looking worse for the wear and smoking cigarettes like a chimney. Vlad keeps trying to figure out what happened.
What it boils down to is this: whatever they were craving when they died, the strigoi crave with an out-of-control need when they come back. The mayor’s wife eats every bit of food in town. The policeman smokes every cigarette he can find. And the mayor wants to prove that he owns all the land in the village and around it.
But it’s up to Vlad to kill the strigoi. He has to cut out their hearts and burn them. Except he’s a pansy and gets sick at the sight of gore. So, he works to overcome his weakness and starts by killing the policeman, who was the closest thing he had to a friend in town.
Acting as strangely as he has, most of the town thinks Vlad is a stragoi and plan to kill him as well. Somehow, Vlad talks his way out of being killed. He then sets his sights on the mayor and after learning that the mayor does in fact own everything, he confronts the townspeople who shrug and say the mayor got what he deserved. Then Vlad goes to meet the mayor at his grave at dawn to kill him.
Very strange movie. There is a plot, but I fear it’s overshadowed by the vampire mayhem. The sub-plot is that after the war, no one had any money and while some wily people kept their papers for their property, most didn’t and all the land got auctioned and bought by the mayor. There were two supposed hold-outs and one actually sold his land, but kept his papers. The other was killed by the mayor for his papers. So, the greed of the mayor was his driving force and his need to prove that he did own everything is what dragged him from his grave.
I suggest drinking before watching, it might be easier to follow.
|
|
|
Written by Maureen Beavers
|
|
Wednesday, 17 March 2010 19:46 |
|
What form does evil take? Is it your conscience following you around? Is it crazy personified? Is it the devil himself?
When Stephen finds himself sitting on a bench, talking to Mr. Jack, he asks the question, is this how it’s going to be from now on?
The answer is: yes, it is. Once the crazy sets in, that is how it’s going to be from now on. But at least you’ll never be bored.
As Stephen moves through the rest of his life, Mr. Jack moves with him, to a porn store, to a bar, to a hotel with a bar waitress. And Mr. Jack keeps talking, the whole time, about right and wrong, about fate. All the while, Stephen has crossed the line from pissed off boyfriend, to committing murder, to stone cold murderer.
Throughout the movie, we are subjected to a daytime talk show about young children who murder their parents, leading us to question, does Stephen approve of all murder (or Mr. Jack) or was he actually a child murderer himself?
But the biggest question of the movie is, who exactly is Mr. Jack? He seems to be a real person, people interact with him, but all who do are crazy in some regard. He talks about being balance, he talks about fate. He talks and talks, in a horrible English accent for some inexplicable reason. (I’m surprised that Stephen doesn’t try to kill Mr. Jack, I would’ve by the end of the movie).
But in the end, Stephen saves Mr. Jack’s life (if he actually has one, unless he’s Stephen’s crazy half or voice in his head) and kills the talk show host for being an ass (which I completely agree with).
But whatever you surmise of Mr. Jack, it’s a thought-provoking movie.
|
|
Written by Maureen Beavers
|
|
Tuesday, 16 March 2010 18:53 |
|
Never give a crazy chick a gun.
When a happy couple plans to go away for the weekend, you know that something bad is going to happen.
On day Sara realizes that she can’t go outside. Something is trying to get her if she goes out, whether the front yard or the back.
When Sara’s husband disappears, she’s not sure if he’s really gone, if she’s going crazy (she doesn’t think so), or if some sort of foul play is afoot. The longer the movie goes, the stranger things become. One room of the house is locked. She thinks she sees her husband out back, but when she goes out, the unknown tries to get her. Her bird dies. Every time she tries to bury it, she’s terrified of something. She has no idea how much time has passed. It seems like days, but months have gone by.
Police come and ask her about her husband’s disappearance. They wonder why it’s taken her so long to report it. One thinks she’s guilty. The other gives her a gun because he finds that she’s going to inherit $2 million and thinks she’s being set up to look crazy.
Sara’s sister comes to visit and talks Sara into talking to a psychiatrist. After a few visits, Sara thinks the psychiatrist is in on the plot to make her crazy. She sees her husband go into the locked room. She can’t leave the house. She shoots herself in the head and misses. Then she decides to break into the locked room. After entering, she remembers the car wreck she and her husband were in when he died. She’s sad, but with this news, she believes she’s cured.
She’s not. She still can’t leave the house. She wants to see the psychiatrist’s notes on his computer. He won’t let her. She accuses him of not helping her. She’s angry and wants to leave.
Then she shoots the psychiatrist.
Only to learn from his computer that the car accident left her in a coma, where she’s been for months. Everything that has happened since then is in her head.
After the initial shock, she puts her mental affairs in order and walks outside, into the unknown.
I definitely liked the twist at the end. Not knowing if the chick was crazy or someone was out to get her was a lot of fun. Definitely a must see for suspense fans. Especially if you think you know what will happen.
|
|
Written by Loretta Beavers
|
|
Monday, 08 March 2010 23:32 |
|
Thompson wasn't the creator or owner of Clean Flicks or its successors, but he became the face for them for being willing to talk to the press. It also didn't hurt his bottom line. Especially after he started cutting corners in duplication. Clean Flicks had a very strict policy: one sanitized version exchanged for one official version. Thompson didn't seem so picky. Bigger people than Thompson have cracked under public scrutiny, especially when it involves strict morals. Thompson definitely did. Solicitation of a minor, and a huge stash of porn, tsk, tsk. It's "The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg" every time. Moderation, people.
Clearly the film industry is also at fault. If they can get directors to approve sanitized versions for airplanes, prisons, and television, they ought to be willing to make money off those who want to buy that version. If I can choose between widescreen and fullscreen views on a DVD, why not have the choice of original or sanitized as well?
|
|
Written by Loretta Beavers
|
|
Monday, 08 March 2010 08:46 |
|
How big a stretch is it for an actress to play her own type in a movie? Danish actress Paprika Steen is known for her ability to chew scenery. In the film she plays aging star, Thea Barfoed. We see clips of Thea playing the penultimate of that type, Martha in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"
Offscreen, Thea's not much different, albeit trying to change. But how much change does Martha really make in the play? Thea's hopes to clean up her drinking and attitude enough to regain custody of her two sons. But change doesn't occur as quickly offstage as on. Especially when it involves regaining trust. Perhaps the biggest "change" Thea can succeed with is realizing the type of person she is and accepting it.
My impression is that this film is supposed to be the film equivalent of the acting challenge of "Woolf" for Steen. To some level it succeeds, however, it would be more successful for me if I knew Steen better. I kept trying to juxtapose Kathleen Turner in the role of Thea, because I saw Turner's performance of Martha. It just doesn't seem like Thea's character would have such young children.
This picture was chosen the Maverick Spirit Winner for Cinequest 20. |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 12 |
Feed Display
|
Alliance for Community Media
|
| In order for democracy to flourish, people must be active participants in their government, educated to think critically and free to express themselves. |
|
|
|
|
News
