Evil Aliens: Bodily Fluids Abound

•November 26, 2010 • Leave a Comment

I need to start this review with a caveat: I love bad movies. Really, really bad movies. MST3K level bad (or Rifftrax now – quick shoutout to the Troll 2 Rifftrax. Hilarious!). Especially bad horror movies. I can’t explain why I won’t sit through a second of Ron Howard-esque emotional manipulation, but I’ll pay to see Dead Silence in the theatre. I never seem to consider that time wasted, no matter how ridiculous the story or stupid the characters.

Keep that in mind as I go through Jake West’s Evil Aliens (2005).

Synopsis: A disreputable cable show investigating the faux world of the weird receives information regarding a UFO sighting, and goes to film blah blah blah… does it matter? There are aliens and they’re evil. That’s basically what you need to know.

This movie is very difficult to encapsulate briefly, mostly because it’s a bit batshit insane. To get an idea of what I’m referring to, here are a few of the notes I scribbled while watching it:

Worst. Anal probe scene. Ever.

Satanists! Alien Satanists? Oh, Satanist hillbillies. Nope, incestuous Satanist hillbillies. (sidebar: when I said “alien Satanists?” during the movie, my hostage aptly pointed out, “well, they are evil aliens.”)

Sexy alien stripper dream – 3 boobies!

Are the stones of Avebury known for their wish-granting power?

Semen! Unnecessary!

Pulsating brains hooked up to electrodes are never good.

If the aforementioned lines make you feel revulsion or roll your eyes, you will hate this movie. If, on the other hand, what you read made you giggle or intrigued you (sicko), then you’ll probably find some entertainment value in this flick. This pseudo-recommendation reminds me of when I wanted to go see City of the Living Dead, and thought that the best way to entice people to join me was to rave about the fact that a woman VOMITS UP HER OWN INTESTINES!! Strangely, this was not the selling point I thought it was. Thankfully I was able to locate one kindred spirit as intrigued as I was in witnessing the debacle (and it was gloriously, disgustingly worth it – check out the scene here and marvel at the fact that this woman was willing to ingest warm sheep entrails in order to get the shot. That’s commitment to your craft!).

However, unlike City of the Living Dead, this movie is trying to do more than just gross you out. It is really trying to make you laugh. Can I stress trying? I’m not being fair; it is successful at times. West clearly had his tongue firmly in cheek when he goes for the obviously-paper-plate UFO. And these are likely the most inept group of aliens ever to master space travel; two (TWO!) manage to knock themselves out by running into various objects, like a tree branch. Seriously. The aliens look like their masks are attached with duct tubing, and they wandered out in their black pajamas. The problem is that all these things are funny for the wrong reasons. Or, if you’re me, the right reasons, but not the intended ones. Evil Aliens is trying so hard to be Braindead, but it’s more Poultrygiest: Night of the Chicken Dead (a movie title much better than the movie itself).

There’s some good gore, a few laughs, and more than a few repulsive moments. If that sounds like your bag, this movie probably is.

Favourite Scene: Are you kept up at night, tossing and turning over who would win in a battle: aliens vs. incestuous hillbillies (astronauts vs. cavemen)? Toss no more.

Key Quote: “Nobody fucks with a UFO enthusiast!”

Best Kill: The second most disturbing impaling I’ve ever seen (#1 goes to Cannibal Holocaust. *shudder*)

La Dolce Vita: If you like talking . . . . .

•November 22, 2010 • Leave a Comment

Good day all,

I did not like this movie. If that has you overcome with the vapors for my slapping an artist then leave now. I can acknowledge that the film looks really sharp, and that the editing and music and such that Ilsa the Shewolf of the SS on the other page puts a lot of stock in are done well, but the wrapping don’t mean much if the box is empty. I shouldn’t say empty, there was some class stuff that I saw, but nothing ever really happens that gets to a point. If you just said “that’s the point” you’re probably a prick and most people don’t really like you; you should go to the nearest bathroom in your home and slap yourself as you look in the mirror. The actors all give solid performances but Marcello, the smooth pimp reporter of our ordeal, takes the cake. This guy cruises the high life with wanton abandon, and every, single function he shows up at has another fine, European lady that knows him and wants to bang him. I know you’re thinking “Dude, Heaven”, and I agree it sounds awesome, but we don’t get to see any of it. This film is like a three and a half hour version of my grade eight prom date with Jenny Mickleson; a whole bunch of flaunting and lead in with a frustratingly solid stone wall of denial. Jenny came around a few years later, but this film never does.

This begs my next question: do you like talking? Talking about parties, or drinks or, well, the vapid pursuits of the fabulously wealthy? If so, then you will want to take this movie out behind the middle school and get it pregnant (whoop, whoop Mr. Jordan). There is all kinds of hot women running around and the closest we get to payoff are the hairy-pitted women in bikinis four minutes in. There is another scene where some woman is rolling around the floor at a public party, and you can almost smell the group sex debauchery on the horizon, and we cut to some, you guessed it, talking the next morning. Even the “let’s find a hooker in the middle of our date so we can get down at her house” is G-rated. I’m not saying a movie needs nudity, but if you’re going to run me up to a buffet it’s cruel, I said it cruel, to not let me have a taste. I finally understand why Ophelia had to eat one of the thin man’s grapes; thanks Felinni! There’s a seven second car chase that almost bumped my pulse over fifty-eight, but it immediately cuts to people in the car TALKING ABOUT NOTHING (apologies, ptsd from all of the bloody talking). No blood, smatterings of individual violence that never boil down to a real showdown, no obscenity but the difference in life for haves and have nots; powerful stuff but it’s not Bruce dropping Hans Gruber off a building or anything. The snobs out there are rolling eyes derisively, I can hear you, but even you must admit nothing happens that shows you the point. Get as artsy as you want with the point, in fact dress it up and give it the greatest makeover in history, but get to a bloody point!

To conclude, I get it. It’s art. It’s The Wire instead of CSI Miami. It’s Deadwood instead of Little House on the Prairie. But all of those great shows had shit going on around the talking, and that shit made the point pretty bloody clear (except Deadwood, the lady did a lot of explaining there, but Al was worth it). I recognize the quality of this film and understand its place in the pantheon of greats, I just did not enjoy it. I can watch Lady Gaga go classical on SNL and say “man, she’s got a great voice and plays well”, but it doesn’t mean I have to enjoy the crazy garbage that she usually does. Unless you are a film school student, a stuck up jagoff (you know because you slapped yourself earlier) or a guy looking to impress a lady you’d like to gear down with (check!), spend your time elsewhere; the equivalent would be spending an afternoon with your face pressed against the sneeze guard at your local Country Kitchen Buffet and never getting to eat the fried chicken behind it.

Until I work the chain off the radiator again,

The Vocal Hostage

P.S. If any of you out there are lawyers, or partners whose wives subjected you to this film, I’m starting a class action suit against Fellini’s estate for the PTSD I mentioned earlier. If you’re interested, or if I’m living a pipe dream, comment and let me know.

When it was a Game: The Good Ol’ Days

•November 22, 2010 • Leave a Comment

Do you remember the good ol’ days? Back when a family was a family, and a man could smack his wife if she defied him; back when lynchings were in style and young girls were dying in back alley abortions… back when we had morals and standards (insert incredibly sarcastic eye roll here).

I don’t mean to make light of these tragedies; it’s just that these thoughts flow through my head whenever anyone talks about how good things used to be. I wonder, “When? When was this glorious time that was so much better for people?” I can understand that a certain subset of the population was better off, but that was at the expense of numerous powerless and disadvantaged people. I recall Jon Stewart’s interview with Bernard Goldberg, who expounded on the decline of modern culture, claiming that 50 years ago, the drunk in the bar wouldn’t have dared to say “fuck” in public. Stewart’s glorious reply: “Well Thomas Jefferson used to fuck slaves. I think things have improved.”

I had a similar feeling while watching When It Was a Game (1991), an HBO documentary chronicling baseball for the years 1934-1957 using strictly film taken by fans and the players. I should point out that I am an voracious baseball fan. I learned the game 4 years ago, and have become more enthralled and in love with it with each season. In fact, we were thrilled when this DVD arrived, as playoffs had just finished and my hostage and I were in need of a baseball fix. I just don’t think this was it.

I understand the nostalgia for the time. A time before free agency, which, while a marked improvement for players and necessary in a lot of ways, ran out of control (in my opinion). The steroid scandal had just broken, leaving many fans disillusioned with players and the game. Baseball was in trouble. I completely sympathize with the need to see the game as we once imagined it was: this pure, honourable sport filled with heroes, playing for the love of baseball and relishing every moment. I just don’t understand how a film can portray this particular time period of baseball as the ideal, since it requires that one ignore the treatment of African-American players and the Negro league. Which is exactly what happens in When It Was a Game. I did not expect the film to dwell on it or make the discrimination of black players the central focus, but I did expect more than an off-the-cuff remark about how Jackie Robinson overcame great odds and won the people over.

Perhaps this omission was highlighted even more so by two other baseball related documentaries I’ve watched recently. The first is Babe Ruth (1998), another HBO offering, and similarly neutered. I greatly respect Babe Ruth as a baseball player, and believe he was a genuinely kind person, but I also know that his behaviour wasn’t always kind. While Babe Ruth somewhat acknowledges his transgressions, it’s much in the same way a grandparent will criticize his/her grandsons; very affectionately, with a “boys will be boys” attitude. Such whitewashing is in direct contrast to what is found in Ken Burns’ Baseball: A Film in 9 Innings. Beyond the fact that Burns provides us with 18+ hours of baseball history, stories, footage, and commentary, he does not shy from the faults and injustices people involved with the game have perpetrated over the years. He spends considerable time on the exclusion of black players from the major leagues, yet he does not allow it to diminish his adoration of the game; it is merely a historical fact that must be acknowledged in order to truly comprehend where baseball came from and where it is going. Ignoring it reminds me of funerals – how no one seems comfortable in recognizing the deceased person’s flaws. I know many people would think, “well they’re dead, why dwell on the negative?” To me, it has always seemed that to only speak of the good is not to respect and honour the person as who they were, but who we wanted them to be. It’s disingenuous. We love people, flaws and all, while they are with us; why do they not deserve the same respect in death?

And ultimately, that’s how I felt coming out of When It Was a Game. It felt as though the filmmakers were ashamed themselves of how baseball has treated people in the past, and wanted it to be better than it was. And that comes across as disingenuous to me, especially in a film intent on portraying this as a golden age of baseball.

That’s not to say that there isn’t plenty of good film and wonderful quotes in the documentary. The home movie footage is extraordinary, giving you a more personal view of the players, and allowing you to see a side most people would never get a chance to observe. Where else can you witness legendary players in action? Pepper Martin juggling baseballs? The Gashouse Gang’s “colourful” antics in general? It is great fun to catch a glimpse of Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall in the stands. And there are fantastic bits of trivia; for example, all the players used to leave their gloves on the field when taking their turn at bat. In general, the film is incredibly well done and vastly interesting for any baseball fan. I suppose my negative reaction is in part to the potential I think When It Was a Game had to be a truly remarkable piece of baseball filmmaking, had it not erased a significant and important part of that era.

Mostly, it just whet my appetite to rewatch Baseball. I think I’ll do that.

K

p.s. I recognize that the 18+ hours of Burns’ work permits greater exploration of this issue, but even if we were to break it down to the percentage of each devoted to the discrimination, Burns greatly outweighs HBO’s attention to the matter.

La Dolce Vita – Jumping in the Deep End

•November 14, 2010 • Leave a Comment

Wow. So apparently, we’re starting with the big guns: Federico Fellini’s La Dolce Vita.

Synopsis: Journalist and man-about-town Marcello struggles to find his place in the world, torn between the allure of Rome’s elite social scene and the stifling domesticity offered by his girlfriend, all the while searching for a way to become a serious writer (credit to Jeff Lewis).

To date, my vast Fellini exposure consists of viewing 8 1/2 thirteen years ago. What do I recall? Some strange circus visuals (is that even right?), and the sensation that I had no idea what was going on. Granted, I was still a teenager and just beginning to expand my cinematic horizons (I think watching 8 1/2 validated my status as a newbie film buff in my adolescent mind). It’s not that I didn’t enjoy it; it’s just that I wasn’t sure what I was supposed to take from it.

So, thirteen years older, wiser, more experienced… we can imagine La Dolce Vita was a more enlightening experience, right? Yes and no. Yea and nay. Here’s the thing – does anyone completely understand a Fellini movie on first viewing? Or on 12th viewing? Is that just a rationalization to save my fragile ego?

I can’t say I understood La Dolce Vita. I understood parts of it. Obviously, there were prominent themes of love, but that’s akin to saying there are themes of salvation in The Shawshank Redemption. Thanks, Captain Obvious. Every so often, a character spouts off about the virtues and importance of love in a full life. We get it Fellini, love is the best. I was much more intrigued by the exploration of reality and fantasy (if I remember correctly, also present in 8 1/2). For example, Steiner’s speech regarding the illusion of happiness in his perfect life, and the value in a miserable existence. Fellini provides a stunning visual example, when Marcello and Sylvia have a moment with the lights and beauty of Trevi fountain serving as a dazzling backdrop, only to have the fountain extinguish; the camera pulls back to reveal the mundane life going on about them, including a pizza delivery boy watching their interlude.We also see the theme play out in Marcello’s endless pursuit of female playthings, each of whom he loves dearly while he is with her; as pointed out by Emma, he imagines women are love (or in my interpretation, lust is love). In reality, Marcello is not genuinely connected to anyone.  Apparently, Fellini also cast real-life counterparts for the background characters, from nobility to drag performers, blurring the boundary between fantasy and reality in a practical sense.

I didn’t expect to fully comprehend La Dolce Vita after one viewing. In fact, I didn’t expect to comprehend it at all. The power of Fellini, as I discovered, is that the dialogue and “narrative” is often overshadowed by the compelling visuals. I am staunchly pro-subtitle (*shudder* I detest dubbing), but this was a rare case; I found myself wishing it was dubbed so I didn’t have to continually peel my eyes away from the screen. His work is visual art. The placement of every person in each frame is so meticulously staged, the use of the camera so precise. And let’s not forget the people. Fellini stocked his film with stunning individuals, particularly Anita Ekberg. I love my hostage, but I’d totally tap that. Wow. Swedish women in the 60s knew how to rock some curves!

Overall, I found La Dolce Vita to be remarkably accessible. Perhaps my memory is tricking me fiercely (always a significant possibility), but I recall 8 1/2 as much more surreal and confusing. La Dolce Vita seemed downright linear! Keep in mind though, I mean that relatively. The narrative still seemed almost stream-of-consciousness to me. Often we find our protagonist floating through the film, going along with whatever action is unfolding on screen. A good example of this is near the end as Marcello is looking intently for Maddalena, but is easily swept up on the ghost hunt and diverted onto a new path. I had a similar experience while watching The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie; it seemed as though the characters were following the movie rather than the other way around.

Thus ends my experience of La Dolce Vita… for now. I’m sure repeated viewings will  inform my current theories regarding the film and reveal new themes I did not initially consider. Not being a religious person myself, I’m sure the mounds of religious imagery and references went over my head. I mean, the film starts with the transportation of a giant statue of Jesus; it’s safe to say religion plays a prominent role. There were also many references to and scenes involving food. Seeing as food is one of my all time favourite things, I’d be interested in exploring what food means to Fellini and how he uses it in his films. Mmmmm… food.

Favourite Scene – The trumpeter and his balloons, for the sheer whimsy

Key Quote – Transvestite: By 1965 there’ll be total depravity. How squalid everything will be.

WTF Moment – Sylvia’s faun-esque friend (who also reminded me of the devil) and his ridiculous dancing at the party

Till next time,

K.

I’m the vocal hostage.

•November 12, 2010 • Leave a Comment

Good day all,

First, a little about me. I’m an oilfield worker in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. I have the esteemed honour of being engaged to the creator of this site and love her passion for movies. I’ve always loved movies, but more as something to relax to after a long day at work; chill out and watch something stupid or gory to pass a couple of hours. I think Will Farrell is a genius, I think a college campus is the prime setting for ribald fun and I think stupid, high school kids deserve to die horribly (and that it’s perfectly logical for the hot chick to shower after finding her boyfriend skewered to the wall with a patio umbrella). I can tell you if a movie looks good or not, but I won’t tear up describing the symbolic glaven of the crane shot and how the edit cuts to heart of the characters’ plight. I’m the foil to the artistic musings of my kidnapper, Rick to her A.J.

Second, a little about the lady.  My lady and movies are a double-edged sword; on one side is a woman willing to sit through any horror film and love every second of it, on the other a woman who wants to watch and indie film about the importance of water for child prostitutes in Bangladesh (I am officially in favor of these unfortunate young women getting water, and out of the life, but I don’t need to spend my Saturday watching it). I think the Stockholm Syndrome has set in because I enjoy all of the movies we see on some level, even if it isn’t what I’m looking for in a film. I have a tendency to exaggerate, so my complaints may come across a little more harshly than I actually feel. I love the lady dearly, but some of the stuff I’ve watched with her borders on gay guys sitting around eating pudding. I’ll watch anything and try to recognize its quality, but I will (vocally) point out my criticisms  along the way. I won’t post on every film she does, but I will stand up for the little man and speak up when things get out of control.

Until I work the gag off again, happy viewing,

The Hostage