Back Again...

So, I decided to continue blogging afte roughly a...5-month absence. I'm not really sure why. I'm positive no one reads it (and if they did happen to come across it, that was probably a long time ago). I was feeling bored and lonely this weekend, and I think writing again on a daily basis in a journal-type format might rejuvenate my creative self and put an end to this vapid aimlessness I've been feeling the past few weeks. So here goes nothing.

Underrated Terrors from Masters of Horror

Undisputed masters of horror George A. Romero, Tobe Hooper and Wes Craven have directed wildly popular horror classics: “Night of the Living Dead,” “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and “Nightmare on Elm Street.” But these are not the only gems in these filmmakers’ treasure chests. All three have created other masterpieces, from early in their careers, that have been sadly overlooked by horror fans.
Here are some lesser known but chilling works from the horror triumvirate of Romero, Hooper and Craven. You won’t find any big-name actors or pricey special effects in these early movies. You will discover some truly unnerving films that deserve a second chance and (for some of us) a first look.

George A. Romero’s “Martin” (1977) is a horror film with a twist. You are never certain if the title character is truly the vampire he claims to be, or simply a mentally disturbed killer. What makes it so hard to decide is the way the film subtly blends classic vampire mythology with small touches that suggest Martin might in reality be an all-too-human psychopath. Like a traditional vampire, Martin has a taste for human blood, but in this film he has to resort to razor blades to retrieve it (because he lacks fangs.). Unlike other movie vampires, daylight, garlic, and crosses don’t bother him. So is he or isn’t he? Romero slyly never allows us to definitely answer that question. From its extremely disturbing and bloody opening on a train to its harrowing finale, Romero’s take on the familiar vampire genre is truly unique. Although ”Martin” is definitely worth a look, watching this graphic film right after dinner might not be such a good idea.


Wes Craven’s “The Hills Have Eyes” (1977) is in broad strokes similar to Tobe Hooper’s classic “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” (Both were also remade into inferior films in the last few years) Like “Massacre,” “Hills” features a group of people who are stranded in the middle of nowhere while being stalked by a weird family of psychopaths. Despite its derivative-sounding plot, “Hills” is actually surprisingly innovative and darkly funny. The film takes place in the sweltering hot Arizona desert which gives it a distinctive and other-worldly atmosphere. The ironic comment at the end of the film is that in order to survive one of the protagonists has to become a killer himself. Craven’s intense and gritty film is on par with his later bigger-budget work.

For those who thought the Bloomsburg Fair was scary, prepare to scream even more loudly at the horrors on display in Tobe Hooper’s “The Funhouse” (1981). This delightfully ghoulish film is about the mayhem that occurs when four teenagers decide to sneak into a funhouse after hours. Unfortunately for them, a crazy deformed killer also happens to live in the funhouse. Although the film’s plot is pretty standard stuff, the unique production design is what makes this film special. The funhouse itself, with its array of creepy mechanical puppets, is unsettling and truly creepy. Also surprisingly good is the monstrous make-up design by renowned make-up artist Rick Baker. Add some clever homages to “Psycho” and “Frankenstein” and some off-center supporting performances, and you’ve got an underrated classic.

Perhaps what is most impressive about these three little-seen films is that they are proof that when it comes to horror, less can be more. Much more. All three are examples of how innovative filmmakers can overcome tiny budgets, bare-bones special effects, and a lack of brand-name stars to create unique and powerful films. Finding these forgotten treasures was not easy. I had to sneak into a cemetery after midnight to unearth these forgotten films, as ghouls shrieked, zombies lurked, and werewolves howled at the luminescent moon. Luckily, now that all the hard work has been done, all you have to do is go to your local video store and rent these truly underrated terrors for yourself!

3 Coming of Age Films to Check Out

Wondering which movie to rent this coming weekend? Tired of the same old, same old? Well, as a service to the Bloomsburg community, I’ve scanned my vast vault of DVDs to uncover several sadly overlooked films that share a common theme: the trials and tribulations of young people who are coming of age. No, we’re not talking about Porky’s or American Pie here; we’re talking instead about three films that treat the coming of age theme from refreshingly intelligent, offbeat perspectives.
The topic of the alienated and confused young adult has been a cinema staple for years – from James Deans’ iconic performance in Rebel Without a Cause (1955) to Dustin Hoffman’s generation-defining The Graduate (1967), to this year’s dark horse hit, The Garden State. There have been several fine recent films in this genre, however, that did not make much of a splash at the box office, but which are definitely worth a look. In the three films I’ve chosen you’ll find emotionally satisfying, complex stories about the hardships of being a young adult and how the central characters learn to accept themselves for who they really are.

The first film is Ghost World (2001) which is probably one of the best movies ever adapted from a comic book. Ghost World tells the story of Enid, a confused 18 year old, who has just graduated from high school. Enid doesn’t know what to do with her life and spends most of her time making fun of and mentally torturing people with her best friend Rebecca (Scarlett Johansen). When they zero in on a 40ish oddball loner, Seymour (Steve Buscemi), looking for Miss Right, their friendship begins to dissolve as Enid grows to like and become friends with Seymour. At times funny, sad, and tragic, Ghost World is a great little movie which features a fine lead performance by Thora Birch as the sarcastic Enid who hates the “commercialized, synthetic” world around her (hence the title). Unique character actor Steve Buscemi is also perfect as the music obsessed loner who takes a liking to Enid. From its hilarious beginning to its ambiguous end, Ghost World is a movie which shows what real friendship is all about and wonderfully captures the confusion and aimlessness that many teenagers feel after graduating high school.
The next movie also deals with the friendship between a young and old person. In R

Rushmore (1998), Jason Schwartzman plays Max Fischer, a sophomore at the prestigious prep school Rushmore Academy. While Max is involved in every extracurricular activity imaginable (including the play director and bee hive keeper), his grades have been terrible and so he is expelled from the school. It isn’t long before Max and his unlikely steel tycoon friend, Mr. Blume (Bill Murray) both fall in love with Miss Cross (Olivia Williams), the first grade teacher at Rushmore whom he helps out after school. The rest of the movie concerns Max and Blume trying to get the attention and love of Miss Cross. While Max and Blume look very different on the outside, they are both basically little boys on the inside. Schwartzman is perfect as the smart and cunning Max and Murray gives his best performance as the self-loathing Mr. Blume who likes Max more than his own sons. For those who enjoy smart and well-written comedies that don’t have to resort to bathroom humor to get laughs out of the audience, Rushmore will definitely fit the bill.

The last movie on my list is the least realistic of the three. In fact, if you look for it in a video store this film will probably be filed away in the science fiction section. It’s Donnie Darko (2001), a one of a kind movie and a very promising debut for young writer-director Richard Kelly. The movie takes place during October 1988 and is told from the POV of Donnie (Jake Gyllenhaal), a disturbed high schooler who one night wakes up to find a “reptilian bunny” (no, I’m not kidding) tell him that the world will end in a month. When Donnie wakes up, he finds that during the night a plane has crashed into his house. I won’t reveal any more of the plot but it does involve time travel and leads up to a truly surprising and thought provoking ending. Jake Gyllenhaal gives a creepy performance as the disturbed young man who communicates with giant bunnies. Drew Barrymore, as a hip new teacher and Patrick Swayze, as a smarmy self help guru also stand out in the uniformly excellent cast. For those who enjoy mind-expanding and genre-bending movies, you’ll probably love Donnie Darko!

Well, I hope I’ve persuaded you to check out some of these films: they’re all available on DVD. So the next time you’re looking for a good flicks at the video store, pass by the latest dumb teen comedy and instead check out one of these thought-provoking coming of age movies.

The Real Master of Thespians

Hey everyone..while this deals with media overall, rather than specifically movies, I thought it worthwhile to post it here...these are two videos I did as a presentation about media effects for my mass media class. Although the'yre pretty goofy, I think they're pretty entertaning, especially the "War of the Worlds" one where I go nuts...By the way, I'm the bearded one who can't act to save his life. Enjoy...

Bill Murray: From Comedian to Master Thespian

When 27-year old Bill Murray, a talented young member of Chicago’s “Second City” comedy group, joined the cast of the wildly popular “Saturday Night Live” in 1977, he probably did not foresee the eclectic and unpredictable career on which he was about to embark. Murray quickly became one of the funniest and most popular cast members in “SNL” history, providing millions of people with uncontrollable belly laughs.

In 1980, he left “Saturday Night Live” after a surprisingly short three year stint. Murray, like many other “SNL” alumni, had his eyes set on tinsel town. After starring in such blockbuster hits as “Caddyshack” (1980), “Stripes” (1981), and “Ghostbusters” (1984), Murray became one of the biggest comedy stars of the 1980’s. His dry, deadpan delivery and sarcastic sense of humor struck a cord in audiences everywhere. Unlike many comedic actors who would have been happy simply to get big bucks and star in a dozen variations of the same premise, Murray was never satisfied with simply making people laugh. “The Razor’s Edge” (1984), which Murray also co-produced, was a serious film about a World War 1 veteran who returns to America looking for the meaning of life. Although the film failed at the box office, it foreshadowed Murray’s loftier career ambitions.

After the disappointment of “The Razor’s Edge,” Murray concentrated mainly on comedic films throughout the late 80’s and early 90’s. One of the best films from this period, “Groundhog Day (1993),” about a cynical weatherman who lives the same day over and over again, featured Murray in fine, hilarious form with a smart, witty script to boot.

However, it was Wes Anderson’s “Rushmore” (1998) that proved to be the turning point in Murray’s career. Although Murray had played cynical characters before, he had never done so with as much emotional depth and sadness as he brought to the supporting role of lonely business tycoon Herman Blume. Murray garnered much critical praise for his performance and won several acting prizes. Although, Murray did not receive an academy award nomination, “Rushmore” served as a transition from his past roles as a smart, laidback funnyman to his future roles as a complex, sympathetic lead actor.

Murray’s next great performance came in 2003, with his poignant and nuanced portrayal of fading movie star Bob Harris in Sofia Coppola’s beautiful “Lost in Translation.” Once again, Murray received many accolades for his surprisingly vulnerable performance. However, this time, Murray did get nominated for an Academy Award—for best actor. Although he lost to Sean Penn, “Lost in Translation” proved to audiences everywhere that Murray had crossed over to being not only one of the funniest actors alive, but also one of the best.

In his most recent film, Jim Jarmusch’s quirky “Broken Flowers” (2005), Murray plays an over-the-hill bachelor who receives a mysterious letter claiming that he has a 19 year old son. He then sets out on a journey all over the country to visit the four possible women that might be the mother. As in the two roles previously mentioned, Murray plays a sad, lonely man searching for someone with whom to connect. Also present in all three films is Murray’s sly, deadpan humor. Many of the funniest moments in “Broken Flowers” come not from dialogue, but from Murray’s physical movements and subtle facial expressions. Although he says not a word in many scenes, we know instantly what he is feeling.

Working with independent auteurs like Wes Anderson, Sofia Coppola, and Jim Jarmusch has challenged him to create deeper, more complex characters than the ones he played in the 80’s. Murray has recently announced he is leaving the limelight for some time to get some much needed relaxation. Let us hope it is not for too long though, for who knows where Bill Murray’s brilliant and unpredictable career will take us next.

We're all "Living In Oblivion"

Discussing Director Davd Russell's outburst last week reminded me of Tom Dicillo's vastly underrated 1995 comedy "Living In Oblivion," perhaps the most honest movie ever made about the both frustrating and exhilirating filmmaking process. "Living In Oblivion" stars character actor extraodinaire Steve Buscemi as Nick, the consistently tense director of a low budget film (called of course "Living In Oblivion"). Unfortunately, the film set seems to be haunted by Murphy's law; as everything that can go wrong during the film shoot, does. The movie only covers the filming of three pivotal scenes, but there's enough, panic, mayhem, acting problems, camera mess-ups, and everything in between for one to seriously consider if the film is cursed. The movie uses a unique color scheme. For the first part of the movie, everything seen through the lens of the camera is in eye-popping color, while the behind the scenes footage is in grainy black and white. The second segment of the film, centered around the vain Brad Pitt-esque star of the film (played by James Le Gros) does the reversal, with the black and white seen through the camera and the behind the scenes in color. It's an odd technique which makes the film visually very interesting.

There's one scene in the film that particularly reminds me of Russell's antics. After a particularly frustrating day of attempting to film one small, emotional moment involving the lead actress (Catherine Keener), Nick goes crazy, verbally abusing the cast/crew in a way not so dissimilar to Russell's encounter with Lily Tomlin. Writer/director DiCillo seems to have more sympathy for the role of the director than anyone else involved in the filming of a movie. If you're a fan of films that analyze the movie-going process, "Living In Oblivion" is right up your alley. At the end of the film, after so many pitfalls and problems, Nick finally films a scene he's satisfied with. and the audience after witnessing all of his problems, shares his enthusiasm for everything finally working out. If anything, the film is a reminder to audiences that moviemaking is one of the hardest jobs in the world with disaster looming at every corner. Luckily, "Living In Oblivion" managed to avoid pitfalls and a result, became the unheralded comedy classic it is today.

Grindhouse: A Fun-Filled, Blood-Spattered Extravaganza or a Self-Indulgent Soiree?

Since the new Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez collabo "Grindhouse" is being released next week, I thought it'd be a perfect time to discuss the film. For those who don't know, "Grindhouse" is a 3 hour long (yup, you read that right, 3 frickin' hours!) exploitation movie homage with 2 full-length blood-spattered flicks back-to-back. Rodgriguez's piece is the zombie infested "Planet Terror," while Tarantino's half is the slasher-driven "Death Proof," starring Kurt Russell. Now, I must admit I have mixed feelings about the film, especialy Tarantino's half. While Rodriguez has spent his whole career trying to perfect his bombastic, over the top style, Tarantino started his career as one of the most promising, visionary writer-directors of all time. "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs" are still considered 2 of the finest films ever made, and while his third movie "Jackie Brown" isn't usually viewed as a classic, it's definitely close to the former two films in terms of quality. That leads us to the little ditty "Kill Bill," slashed into two films by the Weinstein brothers. I am not a fan of "Kill Bill," or as I like to call it, "Overkill Bill." While it's obvious that Tarantino still has an overwhelming enthusiasm for the kung-fu and western flicks he grew up on, the whole epic has always seemed amazingly shallow to me. Amazing since Tarantino's previous film "Jackie Brown" was an introspective nearly three-hour talkfest about growing old. While the film adopted the cool, hip swagger of a 1970s blaxploitation film, that was merely the backbone. What made "Jackie Brown" truly come alive was its natural, realistic, identifiable characters. "Kill Bill" by contrast features cardboard characters that wouldn't be out of place in a saturday morning cartoon. Try to imagine, say, Robert Forster as Max Cherry of "Jackie Brown" in the "Kill Bill" universe, and it becomes clear how painfully artificial that world is. The "Grindhouse" trailers seem to continue Tarantino's style over substance approach he attempted in "Kill Bill." What makes this new chapter in Tarantino's career so disappointing is that the man is so damn good at dialogue; that gift doesn't really come out when his films are endless action sequences, with most of the dialogue merely serving as exposition.

My central question concerning "Grindhouse" is why make an exploitation movie homage? The original movies were such perfect artifacts of their time. In addition to the fact that Tarantino basically covered this ground so thoroughly in "Kill Bill," it's not nearly as much fun trying to watch someone duplicate the 60's/70's shamelessness of the originals, when you can just as easily view the real thing. One element that does have me interested is the fact that several directors (among them Rob Zombie and Eli Roth) are contributing fake trailers to "Grindhouse," recreating the over-top-style of the trailers from the 60's and 70's. This idea intrigues me because most of the 70's trailers are usually much better than the films themselves. I would much rather see "Grindhouse" be , say twelve 4 or 5 minute long exploitation trailer homages, than 2 complete films in the same vein back to back. Of course, all of these points concerning the film are merely speculation since it's not released until April 6th. Who knows? Maybe "Grindhouse" will become a future classic, or maybe it'll be "Overkill Bill: Part Tres..."



One of the "fake trailers" from the film that I mentioned above was just posted on the internet...It's pretty funny and it captures the 80's slasher movie craze well. Just wish Eli Roth's "Thanksgiving" was really being released as a full-length movie this November. Tsk...tsk