Quantcast
Channel: Cult films and the people who make them
Viewing all 770 articles
Browse latest View live

Horror

$
0
0
Director: Tim Hogg
Writer: Tim Hogg
Producer: Tim Hogg
Cast: Jon Davey, Patrick McNamara, Nik Green
Country: UK
Year of release: 1997
Reviewed from: screener VHS


Buried away at the back of various shelves in Simpson Towers are assorted VHS tapes that I was sent by indie film-makers in the late 1990s when I was writing for SFX and Total Film. I’ve kept them these ten years or more gone by in the hope that some of them might turn out to be rare early work by successful directors. Every so often I dust one off and take a look.

I don’t recall watching Horror before although I’ve seen it on my shelf plenty of times. The sleeve is plain white with the word ‘Horror’ on it - ironically distinctive amongst all the monsters and bloody carnage on most of the stuff in my collection. I don’t know why I didn’t watch this. It’s copyrighted 1997 so I may have received it in 1998 just as I was leaving Future Publishing. And it’s taken me ten years to get round to viewing it.

Horror is a half-hour mockumentary, proving that the subgenre was alive and well even then although interestingly it had less relevance. This was before every single tiny indie film came with a Making Of. Let us remember that 1997 was also before DVDs, before internet marketing - the web was only five years old and looked very, very different - and before all the desktop edit suites and suchlike malarkey which have completely changed the face of low-budget film-making. This was a time when ‘digital’ meant you operated it with your fingers.

I would love to report that Horror is a forgotten gem. A quick Google (a verb which didn’t exist in 1997!) reveals passing mentions on various sites of a few other short films directed by Tim Hogg but Horror seems completely undocumented. However it also turns out to be largely unmemorable (so perhaps I have watched it before!) and though there is a nice idea at its core, it just goes nowhere and does nothing.

Patrick McNamara and Jon Davey play brothers Patrick and Jon Jones who live in Bristol with their mum (seen only briefly from the neck down, played by Harry Davies!) and their Grandad (Mike Fortune). Their hobby is making low-budget B-movies, something which was not nearly as common in 1997 as it is in 2008. Nik Green and Mick Scott are Nick and Mick, two thirds (director and sound man) of a BBC documentary crew assigned to follow the Jones brothers around for a few days; the unseen, unheard camera is the third member of the team.

Apart from a prologue in which Grandad plays a plumber and Jon plays a vampire, disrupted when Grandad’s ‘decapitated’ head starts coughing, we never see any actual film-making. Instead Patrick explains the merits of various types of tomato as fake blood and demonstrates to the BBC guys how to achieve horror sound effects by hacking fruit and vegetables with an axe or hammer - which gets them all thrown out of their local greengrocers. On the way home they meet Jon who has been down the pub instead of writing the script, prompting Patrick to attack his brother with a hammer then run away when Nick and Mick restrain and disarm him. Jon seems unfazed by the whole affair.

A visit to Bristol Royal Infirmary in search of human body parts from the operating theatres turns instead into a search for medical equipment in an apparently deserted ward (Mike Fortune doubles up as a heavily bandaged patient; Claire Wright is the nurse who calls security). Outside, a rummage through the hospital bins leads to an argument between the horror director and the documentary director.

After a night of heavy drinking, they all visit a butcher’s in search of offal but are summarily thrown out when hungover vegetarian Nick vomits over some chicken breasts. Finally, after a gag about Patrick catching Jon wanking when he should have been writing, the brothers receive a visit from Deaner (director/writer/producer Tim Hogg), a morgue worker who supplies them with an arm and some kidneys in exchange for (presumably) drugs. These are put in the fridge where Mrs Jones discovers the severed arm and feints. After taking their mum to hospital, the Jones brothers return home to find that Grandad has cooked them a steak and kidney pie using the kidneys which he found in the fridge...

There is lots of potential for humour here but none of it is developed. Despite being evidently intended as a black comedy, Horror turns out to be entirely devoid of actual, well, comedy. I never laughed once. I never even smiled. Sorry. Everything was a jokoid, not a joke.

For some reason the film was shot in black and white with colour reserved for clips from previous epics such as Blonde Bimbos with Big Guns and its sequel Blonde Bimbos with Even Bigger Guns (Melissa Bishop is the actress in both clips). There is also black and white footage of an incident on a previous film when an actress (Lucy Waller) refuses to be covered in two buckets of pig’s blood - which of course completely destroys the conceit of this being all footage shot by Mick and Nick.

Making indie films was a lot harder in those days and God bless Tim Hogg and his pals for making Horror but it really doesn’t work. They needed to sharpen their script considerably (it doesn’t have the improvisational appearance of This is Spinal Tap) and make sure that it had genuinely funny bits, not just stuff that had the same shape as funny. The closest it comes to comedy is the prologue, with Grandad (although we don’t yet know he’s a relative - it’s just an old actor at this point) coughing as he sticks his head through a hole in a table. Patrick hurls abuse and obscenities at the poor old git who gives it one last go and just as Patrick calls “Action!” Grandad gives an almighty cough that actually knock the table over and prompts the director to scream “Oh, for fu-!”

That’s almost funny; there’s timing there. I think it’s significant that this is the only actual ‘film-making’ on show. Perhaps if the ‘documentary’ had actually been about a film getting made there would have been some scope for comedy. As it is, the BBC crew are filming these young film-makers during a period when they’re not making a film, which seems pointless - but no comment is made about this.

Judging by the blurb on the back of the VHS sleeve, I think this was originally intended as a black comedy about two brothers who make horror films but are actually psychos themselves. There’s the curious moment when Patrick attacks Jon with a hammer and they clearly have no qualms about accepting stolen human body parts (which raises the question of why they bothered visiting the hospital and the butcher’s). But if this was the narrative intention then it’s nowhere to be seen (except on the back of the video box). The BBC crew display no horror or shock, just mild - but increasing - irritation. The whole film gives the impression of not being what its makers thought it was going to be, as if they made it with no clear idea what was going to happen.

A minimalist crew consisted of Hogg (writer, director, producer, camera, editor, music), Green (camera, music, production assistant), McNamara (production assistant), Mick Scott (production manager, editor, camera) and Davey (camera, production assistant and - in defiance of what I wrote earlier - ‘digital editing and SPFX’). The effects in question are merely muzzle flashes from a guns but that would have been very impressive and quite groundbreaking back in the heady days of 1997). Scott, Davey, Green and McNamara all get ‘additional material’ credit. The cast also includes Clare Brett, Dave Blow, Jon Wisby (who now broadcasts on Bristol Community FM) and Jacky Pranski.

Tim Hogg’s other films as director include a couple of sci-fi short: Room Service (2001, seven minutes) and The Marvellous Handshake (2003, four minutes). Also in 2003, he and Patrick McNamara co-wrote a four-minute short called The Spirit Moved, which was directed by Neil McCann and Owen Martell. He has also worked at Aardmaan in the story department on Chicken Run, in the camera department on the Creature Comforts TV series and possibly other stuff too.

And that’s about it. Not a lot else to say really. I’ve recorded the existence of Horror as a film for future generations but I can’t in all honesty recommend it because while it’s not bad - in fact the acting and direction are both quite decent - it’s simply not funny. And I very much doubt it was funny in 1997 either. Sorry.

MJS rating: C-
review originally posted 21st August 2008

Horror Net

$
0
0
Director: Ma Hwa
Writer: Ma Hwa
Producer: Pyng Gwo-Huei
Cast: Suen Yaw-Uei, Lei Yen-Yang, Chen Yea-Huey
Year of release: 2000
Country: Hong Kong
Reviewed from: VCD


Sometimes I like to give myself a surprise. Browsing through a selection of VCDs in a shop in London’s Chinatown, I came across one which appeared to be some sort of supernatural tale but which had no English title on the packaging. A sort of Hong Kong lucky dip.

Many months later I eventually got round to slipping the disc into the old DVD player and discovered that I had bought something called Horror Net. Fortunately, it was subtitled. Unfortunately, the subtitles were very hard to read as they were not only badly translated but also frequently disappeared into a white background. The film itself proved to be very difficult to follow and features the absolute cheapest, tattiest ‘special effect’ ever seen. I mean, straight up, if you can show me any attempt at a special effect which is as woefully cheap and stupid as this, then I will buy you a very large drink.

Chen Yea-Huey (‘introduction new star’) is Chang Pao Shan, wealthy teenage orphan whose millionaire parents stare down from photos on the wall of her expensive home. She is looking for Mr Right, relying on the predictions of internet fortune teller Dr Wei (the very western-looking Lui Yu Yeung aka Simon Lui, credited as ‘Lei Yen-Yang’, whose prolific genre CV includes ICQ Ghost, Cyber War, the lengthy Troublesome Night series, New Dead Project I and II, Last Ghost Standing, 24 Hours Ghost Story and Nightmares in Precinct 7 plus Raped by an Angel III: Sexual Fantasy of the Chief Executive(!) and Viagara Madness(!!) - and he also dubbed one of the voices for the Chinese release of Monsters Inc!).

Distracted by the attentions of his flirty bimbo wife, Wei makes some sort of error which matches Pao Shan up with Wu King Yuen (also identified in the inconsistent subtitles as ‘Wu Ching Yuen’ and ‘Chin Yuen Wu) played by pop star Suen Yiu Wai aka Eric Suen (Deathnet.com, Freaking Spicy Killer) credited here as ‘Suen Yaw-Uei’. He is the son of one of Hong Kong’s ten richest men but it’s only later, when Pao Shan and King Yen have got together, that Wei discovers that the young man was actually killed in a car crash five years earlier, so he has matched the eligible Miss Chang up with a ghost. He later blames this on the millennium bug...

The credits boast a ‘special appearance’ by Ngai Chau Wah (Last Hurrah for Chivalry; credited as ‘Wey Chiou-Huah’) who plays another ghost, dressed in a Peking opera-style red costume. I think she has been unleashed from the afterlife along with King Yuen and in one sequence - shown twice, though both occasions seem out of context - we see her torch his car. Being a rich young man, he drives an expensive looking vehicle and the shoestring production could never afford to scratch it, let alone set it alight. So first we see the car though foreground flames, which is cheap but we can see what they’re trying to do. Then, as the viewer’s jaw hits his chest, we see that they have cut to a fake car - I’ll just say that again because I’ll probably never have another chance: a fake car - made from sheet metal.

Frankly it looks like cardboard but card or wood would burn quicker than that. It’s basically several sheets of metal, bolted together to make a box and crudely painted with a windscreen, doors and radiator. Even the wheels are simply four circles of metal bolted on underneath, which might work if the car was shown only in profile but they’ve shot it from a front angle so that it is balanced on ‘tyres’ which are clearly only a centimetre or so thick. What the hell were they thinking? Did they imagine anybody would be fooled for a nanosecond? Is it meant to be ironic? It just beggars belief. When you think you’ve seen everything...

Anyway, back in the plot, Pao Shan’s personal trainer, gym owner Ma Chi, carries a torch for her but she just wants to be friends. Descending into a spiral of drinking and gambling, he embarrasses himself in a nightclub where Pao Shan and King Yuen are dancing with Pao Shan’s best friend A-Mei (Miss Asia 1990 runner-up Yeung Yuk Mui aka Strawberry Yeung - I Will Eat You, Something Incredible: Blood Curse, The Floating Body - credited as ‘Yang Yu-Mei’) and her beau Pen Wei. Ma Chi borrows money from his friend, hairdresser Lee Shu, but this is not enough to prevent a beating from those to whom he is already in debt. There is also a subplot about Pao Shan’s Filipino maid Dina Hwa (who looks about as Filipino as I do), who sees her employer talking to herself, realises that King Yuen is a ghost, and quits. Oh, and there’s a long-haired tramp who chases Pao Shan through a park and later sneaks into her house to gorge himself in her kitchen, though he seems harmless enough.

Dr Wei confronts the female ghost and his spying wife thinks he’s having a supernatural affair. The ghost wants to take King Yuen back to the Netherworld with her but is prevented from doing so when she becomes enveloped in a large glowing ball of energy which battles against a similar ball containing the spirits of Pao Shan’s parents, who have stepped down from their photographs.

One bizarre thing which I haven’t mentioned is that, when Pao Shan and A-Mei are throwing a masked party in Pao-Shan’s house, a bunch of people apparently step out of her computer screen, don masks and join in, stuffing themselves with food. They all stalk around with their arms out in scary claw-poses, apart from a couple of little kids made up in Peking opera costumes, and nobody notices them; as the party winds down, they go back into Pao Shan’s bedroom and into her computer. What on earth is going on there?

Eventually, and without explanation except that Dr Wei has told her that King Yuen is a ghost, Pao Shan is discovered dead on the beach, apparently murdered by Ma Chi, who is found hanged in his gym. Then there is a romantic montage of earlier Pao Shan/King Yuen scenes - and, um, that’s it.

This does not make a jot of sense and parts of it almost seem to have wandered in from another film. There’s no real horror and the only way that the internet is involved is that Dr Wei uses it for matchmaking research, so the title - even after I had found it - proved to be supremely irrelevant.

Also in the cast are Hwang Wei-Der, Lin Yea-Jing, Lu Cherng-Shyang, Luo Chyi, Hwang Guan-Shiun, Su Sheau-Lan, Hei Long, Lin Ming-Liang and Chen Yea-Chyan, and the credits include someone listed as ‘procucer manager’ which looks like a simple typo for ‘production manager’ until you find there’s two of those listed as well. The film was made by Kingshop International Motion Picture Co. Ltd and distributed by Gold Yes-Shen (Hong Kong), for what it’s worth. I can find out nothing about writer-director Ma Hwa at all.

The picture on this VCD - which is dubbed without removing the original voices - is pretty bad and makes me think that this was shot on video.

MJS rating: D
review originally posted 29th November 2004

The Horror of the Dolls

$
0
0
Director: Shane Davey
Writers: Shane Davey, Andrew Tomlinson
Producer: Shane Davey
Cast: Lucy Chalkley, Richard Brinkmann, Jessica Rudd
Country: UK
Year of release: 2010
Reviewed from: screener


Life’s like that, isn’t it? (As the great Vivian Stanshall once smoothly murmured into a microphone.) Exactly one year ago I added a review of a short film called Slight Complication which was made and sent to me (on VHS) in 1998 and had sat on my shelf ever since.

A few months later, I was contacted by that film’s director Shane Davey (he probably has a Google alert set up for his name - who doesn’t?) who is now a successful director of music videos. Turns out he was finishing up his debut feature film, which had the love-it title The Horror of the Dolls. To cap it all, the cast included my mate Jenny Evans from Evil Aliens.

So now I’ve had a chance to watch the film which premiered at the ICA in London after winning the ‘28 Days Later Feature Film Challenge.’ And it’s a very hard movie to review fairly. Not least because it was made as part of this challenge, in which film-makers were given an individual title and a month to make a film (of at least 70 minutes length) from scratch.

This shows in the improvised dialogue, which sometimes works well (mostly monologues or two-hander scenes with little actual dialogue) but sometimes seems stilted and artificial - which is kind of ironic. I’ve never been a fan of improv or even semi-improv (can’t stand Mike Leigh films, for instance) although it can sometimes work in a mockumentary format, as per This is Spinal Tap, Take Me to Your Leader or the interview segments of I, Zombie. But it’s clear that the best way to make improvised dialogue work is to shoot enormous amounts of footage and then spend weeks editing that down to something feature-length with a narrative structure. Clearly neither of those processes is viable with a four-week film limit.

There is also a tremendous amount of slow-motion in The Horror of the Dolls, which is I suppose an artistically viable way of filling a 70-minute slot (it actually runs about 85 minutes). What there isn’t is a truly coherent narrative or fully developed characters, but then that’s the territory of speed-film-making, I guess. It’s easy when you’re making a short film under a time restriction. A short film just needs a concept. There’s an old observation that most people who “have an idea for a film” don’t have an idea for a film, they just have an idea for a scene. You can turn an idea for a scene into a short film, even when you’re under the gun. But a feature, that’s a different matter.

So what is The Horror of the Dolls about? Well, it’s about a tower block and is set in a real location, called Balfront Tower. This is a hideous concrete monstrosity, a brutalist hymn to absolutely everything that was wrong with post-war architecture. It looks like it was designed using sticklebricks with the intention of housing as many of the city’s undesirables as possible. I bet it has vending machines that sell heroine. I imagine that when applying to live there the form has a section called ‘occupation’ which offers two choices: ‘crack whore’ and ‘other’. This is all totally unfair of course but architecture makes statements and the architecture of the Balfront Tower makes the following statement: “Give me your watch and your phone, man, or I’ll cut you.”

It was designed in 1963 by a fellow actually named Erno Goldfinger. Hello! There’s a clue there! No good can come from employing someone with the same name as a Bond villain. I mean look at the thing. It’s abundantly clear that if you key in the correct sequence on the lift buttons the roof opens up and it launches a nuclear missile straight at Paris.

When will you architects learn?!

Anyway, some sort of evil corporate entity wants to clear out the residents in some way and for some reason, although this is clearer from the synopsis than the actual movie, where all we get is a French woman in a red coat and an older woman with frizzy hair (Kari Frette and Anna Savva). They’re up to no good, that’s for certain.

On the top floor of the tower lives an old guy called Frank (Joerg Stadler: Mrs Meitlemeihr, Hannibal Rising) who is a bit weird but harmless. He collects dolls and his flat is basically full of them, mostly in states of damage and disrepair. The film opens with Frank’s murder by a creepy young bloke (Richard Brinkmann, who played various roles in a little-known CITV series called Captain Mack) something which is subsequently discovered by a council worker sweeping the walkways who has found a doll and takes it up the the old guy.

An off-duty policemen (I think) who lives in the building starts investigating the situation and contacts Frank’s daughter Jess (Jessica Rudd) who comes back to the tower and hitches up with and old flame. Or something. Meanwhile local resident Lucy (Lucy Chalkey, who plays the stepmom in CBBC fantasy kidcom Jinx) is trying to drum up support for her campaign to stop the evil corporate entity from doing whatever it plans to do, although her girlfriends seem largely disinterested or even keen to sell up and move out. Most of them seem to be artists for some reason, although one plays the cello. Jennifer Evans plays Lucy’s room-mate in an early scene that doesn’t really do anything except introduce us to the character, although she does get to reappear briefly, silently and dramatically later on.

One of her pals is Hannah, played by Hannah Farmer, who looks a bit like Sally Phillips from Smack the Pony, only with a permanent frown and lots of tattoos. After some further deaths, the film’s climax is a quite brutal fight between the never-named killer and Hannah who turns out to be not just really, really angry but also an adept kickboxer.

In among all this is a recurring motif of a creepy doll. In probably the cleverest (and certainly the most original) scene of the film, a police forensics officer (Mostyn James) carrying a crate of evidence from Frank’s flat accidentally drops it off a walkway and, on recovering the items from the ground below, finds that one large envelope has burst open and the contents are nowhere to be seen.

The contents was evidently a doll, subsequently found by Jess who recognises it from her childhood. This doll crops up, usually unnoticed by people, in further scenes and there is one absolutely superb, literally blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moment which shows us that this is (probably) more than a doll. More than that, neither the film nor the filmmakers are telling.

The thing about The Horror of the Dolls is that it only works if you approach it in the right way. If you just want a horror movie, then you’ll think it’s a load of pretentious, half-arsed twaddle. But if you (a) consider its provenance and genesis and (b) are yourself pretentious enough to use words like ‘provenance’ and ‘genesis’ then it is possible to consider the film as considerably more avant-garde than it might at first appear.

This is not a movie which sets out to tell a story with clearly defined characters and a coherent, cohesive narrative so don’t look for those things. This is an impressionist film, as much about style as substance. For example, Shane Davey has a distinctive fondness for letting the soundtrack of a scene run in real time while jumping backwards and forwards in the visuals so that often people are speaking while not speaking (if you see...). There is also, at one point, and for absolutely no reason that I can see, an extraordinary sequence of three young woman, covered in blood, writhing in terror on the ground. Fabulous imagery: no obvious connection with anything.

Given the same premise but much more time to develop a script, I have no doubt that Davey and co-writer Andy Tomlinson (also credited as production designer and who may be the standby props guy from Tormented if the IMDB can be believed) could fashion a more satisfyingly structured plot and flesh out the characters. If they wanted to. Maybe they don’t.

Nevertheless, The Horror of the Dolls proves to be an intriguing - and, in a curious way, satisfying - entry into the British Horror Revival. It has that grimy, gritty, urban milieu that was managed so well in the criminally undervalued Wishbaby and which harks back to such 1990s horrors as Urban Ghost Story and Downtime.

Many of the characters are unnamed and the credits, though arty, are utterly unreadable. Working from the IMDB, cinematographer Sara Deane has DPed a bunch of other indies and was part of the camera crew on big pictures including Bend It Like Beckham, United 93 and that bizarre 2007 BBC modern-day version of Frankenstein. Visual effects are credited to Eren Ozkural who has various credits on Beyond the Rave, F and Forest of the Damned 2.

I always try to judge films on how well the filmmakers achieved what they set out to do bearing in mind what they had available. That’s somewhat tricky for The Horror of the Dolls because what the filmmakers had available directly affected what they set out to do. This film won the competition for the purposes of which it was made, so I believe it can be considered a success but I do also have to take into consideration the movie as a movie and what audiences can get from it who neither know nor care about the 28 Days Later Feature Film Challenge. Hence...

MJS rating: B
review originally posted 1st November 2010

House of the Damned

$
0
0
Director: Bosco Lam
Writer: Bosco Lam, Jessica Chan
Producer: Lee Siu Kay
Cast: Wan Tin Chiu, Teresa Mak, Chapman To, Law Lan
Year of release: 1999
Country: Hong Kong
Reviewed from: HK VCD (Universe)


Here’s a reasonably entertaining ghost story from the director of A Chinese Torture Chamber Story. Kiki and ‘Big Bust’ are two friends who move into a scuzzy but cheap bedsit, owned by a creepy, wheelchair bound old lady. What they don’t know is that the previous occupant was a prostitute who was raped by an invisible ghost then thrown out the window to her death.

Big Bust, being something of a naive bimbo, invites a self-proclaimed ghostbuster, Chow Tung, back to their room and consents to have sex to help ward off the ghost she senses there, but Chow Tung scarpers when he realises the room actually is haunted. Kiki, being a practising Christian, is unaffected by - and doesn’t believe in - ghosts.

The two girls are actresses, which gives us a chance to see them filming a horror movie. As they shoot a scene where they run from a hopping vampire (played by their nerdy friend Chak, who also claims to know about ghosts) who is in turn chased by a priest (played by Chow Tung), a driverless car hurtles towards them and Chow Tung is killed. Fortunately, despite Chak and Chow Tung’s bullshit, there is a genuine ghostbuster on hand - the unit driver, Chiu.

It turns out that, in a reversal of Psycho, the old lady keeps her son’s rotting body in the house. He committed suicide after being betrayed by his wife, and now his ghost punishes loose women.

For the most part, House of the Damned is a comedy, with topless female nudity and sex-mad nerds making it almost like Confessions of a Chinese Exorcist. The acting is passable, the direction workmanlike and the English subtitles barely literate, although the effects - largely limited to spooky lighting and handheld POV shots - are nicely effective. The last twenty minutes or so, in which Chiu and Chak attempt to save the girls, up the effects quotient and the tension, leading to a denouement which is both scary and fun.

MJS rating: B
review originally posted before November 2004

Koi... Mil Gaya

$
0
0
Director: Rakesh Roshan
Writers: Sachin Bhowmick, Honey Irani, Robin Bhatt, Rakesh Roshan, Javed Siddiqui
Producers: Lester John Watkins, Shammi Saini
Cast: Hrithit Roshan, Preity Zinta, Rajat Bedi
Year of release: 2003
Country: India
Reviewed from: UK theatrical screening


Here it is at last, folks! An actual, genuine Bollywood sci-fi movie! There have been a very few Indian SF flicks in the past - there’s a tantalising still in the index of The BFI Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema from a 1967 film called Waham Ke Log - but I’m confident in saying that this is the first modern, effects-filled SF blockbuster from India.

As is traditional in Bollywood (though not obligatory, as Bhoot showed) it’s three hours long and stops fairly frequently for a song and dance number. The first half is essentially a remake of Close Encounters and, when the spaceship departs, it leaves behind a little alien and we get a completely blatant remake of ET. With songs.

It’s great!

In a prologue we see Dr Sanjay Mehra (director Rakesh Roshan), an Indian scientist working in Canada, who has devoted his life to trying to contact extraterrestrials, sending out a sequence of notes from his computer. One night he receives a signal back, but when he tells the folks at the Space Research Centre they laugh at him. Driving home with his heavily pregnant wife Sonia (the versatile Rekha, who played the witch doctor in Bhoot) beside him, they see an alien spaceship fly overhead. Mehra loses control of the car, which crashes, though fortunately Sonia is thrown clear.

The widowed Sonia returns to India with her son Rohit, but by the time he is eight he has a mental age of only two and a half. A doctor explains to her that this is due to brain damage sustained when she fell on her stomach from the crashing car. In a terrifically clever bit of editing, we move forward about 15 years or so. Rohit is a young man (Rakesh Roshan’s real-life son Hrithik), a tall, geeky beanpole, but still has a mental age of about ten and hangs around with a bunch of kids (four boys, two girls). They play cricket, whizz around on their micro-scooters, and have a great time. (Anuj Pandit, Mohit Makkad, Jai Choksi, Omkar Purohit, Hansika Motwani and Pranita Bishnoi are the child actors - credited as ‘The Super Six’. All are aged eight to ten and they’re very good indeed.)

Into the mix comes Nisha (the gorgeous Preity Zinta) - the daughter of an old friend of the town magistrate Harbans Saxena (Prem Chopra, also in recent horror hit Dhund/The Fog and more than 150 other films, including a 1979 version of Ali Baba) - who has moved back to Kasauli, the town which the family left when she was little. She falls for Raj (Rajat Bedi), the magistrate’s son, a handsome, motorbike riding bully who takes delight in taunting Rohit. Rohit and Nisha get off to a bad start - he has a child’s naivete and she doesn’t understand his mental condition. But when Sonia explains, Nisha befriends Rohit and makes Raj and his friends apologise. The two start to fall in love, but Rohit is still just a big kid who will never grow up - can this ever work out?

Hold on, you’re saying, apart from the prologue this doesn’t seem much of a sci-fi movie. Well, about an hour in Nisha and Rohit discover his father’s old computer in the shed and after a bit of playing around with it, they make contact with the aliens through that same musical sequence (based on the Hindu word ‘aum’). A damn great spaceship - a terrific effect courtesy of Mark Kolbe and Craig Mumma (Godzilla, Independence Day) - flies over Kasauli and is reported in the news. Police chief Khan (Mukesh Rishi) discovers a large, charred circle where the ship must have landed. There are three-toed alien footprints around the area, but one more set leading away from the ship than back to it - which means one of the aliens is still in the area...

From here on this really is ET: The Extra-Terrestrial redux, except not nearly as patronising or pretentious as that massively over-rated movie. This is like ET but fun! The alien is a little blue fellow with a fabulously expressive animatronic head, designed and created by James Colmer of Bimmini FX in Australia. He has telekinetic powers, derives his energy from sunlight, and befriends first Rohit, then Nisha and Rohit’s little chums. They call him Jadu, which means ‘magic’ (that’s how it is spelled in the English subtitles, but on the website it’s Jaadoo).

Through his pseudo-magical powers Jadu turns Rohit from geeky, retarded beanpole into super-intelligent, super-strong hunk. Since it turns out, when he takes off his shirt, that Roshan really is a hunk (one year he received 30,000 Valentine cards from female fans!), it’s a testament to the make-up, hair and costume departments that he passes so believably for a lanky weed in the earlier scenes. And the transition is made gradually, hence all the more believably. Things come to a head when Raj challenges Rohit to a basketball game, and Rohit fields the four little lads as his team. With Jadu’s magical help, they beat Raj’s champion team, the kids flying around the basketball court in some very effective wirework.

There’s still the question of the authorities looking for the alien, and there’s a tense stand-off, a great chase sequence, and a rather unnecessarily over-the-top rescue when the still-learning Rohit becomes an all-out action hero. Of course Jadu has to return to his own people when they come for him, but there’s a poignancy that’s completely missing from the over-sentimental Spielberg movie: when Jadu goes, Rohit will return to how he was before. In this respect, the movie seems to owe a debt to Daniel Keys’ story Flowers for Algernon (filmed as Charlie) about a retarded young man developing highly advanced intelligence then losing it again. That may be coincidental, though the general ET theme certainly isn’t - there’s even an homage to the ‘bike across the moon’ scene. Mind you, there’s also a scene where Jadu drinks Coca-Cola, which may be the world’s first homage to Mac and Me!

Though there’s nothing unexpected in the film, and the very last scene is a bit of a cop-out happy ending, nevertheless this is hugely enjoyable in every respect. The acting is good, from both kids and adults, especially Hrithit Roshan who is simply superb as Rohit before, during and after his transformation. Direction, music and cinematography are all top-notch and the effects are as good as anything you’ll see come out of Hollywood. Plus there’s no chance of this being re-released with the cops’ guns replaced by walky-talkies! The cops here have guns and they use them, and there are some quite violent fights between Rohit and Raj too. There’s also some broad but very funny comic relief from Johnny Lever (from Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, the first Bollywood film to be a major theatrical hit in the UK, whose stage name stems from his previous job working for Unilever!) as a local policeman.

And then there’s the songs. Only Rohit and Nisha actually sing, though occasionally accompanied by the kids - and once by Jadu himself! Despite everything but the prologue being set in India, the dance numbers were shot in Canada so whenever the orchestra breaks in, the location shift to the Rockies for no real reason. But that’s part of the charm of Bollywood. (Watch out for a truck at the edge of one shot, owned by a Canadian fisherman who simply refused to move it!)

One of the oddest aspects of the film is that Hrithik Roshan, a genuine Bollywood megastar, has two thumbs on his right hand! Apparently this is a genuine deformity, never referred to in the film, though the alien race also have a double thumb, subtly suggesting that Rohit’s mother may have somehow picked up some alien DNA during her initial close encounter.

Rakesh Roshan was a leading man in Bollywood (he was in the serial killer thriller Haveli) before becoming a producer and, from 1986, a director. His first film, Khudgarz, was a hit and more recently Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai, which launched his son Hrithik as a leading man, was the most successful Bollywood film of the new millennium. His very similarly named brother, musical director Rajesh Roshan, has scored more than 130 films since he started in 1973, including several directed by Rakesh, and has won numerous awards. Songs and music are very important in Bollywood films, and the music director is almost on a par with the actual director; it’s a similar situation to the standing of the effects director in Japanese movies.

Though it wears its influences very much on its sleeve, I have to say that I definitely enjoyed this movie more than either the pretentious CE3K or the saccharine ET. And the children, though they may be straight out of an old Children’s Film Foundation movie, are nevertheless much more like real kids than you’ll find in any Spielberg movie. The title means ‘I found someone’ and with its parallel themes of tolerance and understanding - both for Rohit and for Jadu - this is a moral, but never preachy, film. Definitely one to see if you get the opportunity.

(Koi... Mil Gaya was followed in 2006 by Krrish, in which Rohit’s son, also played by Hrithik Roshan, becomes a superhero!)

MJS rating: A-
review originally posted 14th June 2006

Krrish

$
0
0
Director: Rakesh Roshan
Writers: Rakesh Roshan, Robin Bhatt, Honey Irani, Sachin Bhowmick, Akash Khurana
Producer: Rakesh Roshan
Cast: Hrithik Roshan, Naseeruddin Shah, Priyanka Chopra
Country: India
Year of release: 2006
Reviewed from: UK theatrical release


Here’s a trivia question for you: name three epic, effects-filled superhero movies released in British cinemas in the summer of 2006. Well, there’s Superman Returns, obviously, and X-Men III. And, erm...

Not many people noticed him and he certainly didn’t make the cover of Empire or SFX, but inbetween those two Hollywood heroes came this Bollywood hero.

Now, it would be nice to claim that Krrish is the first Indian superhero and I’m sure some of the less well-informed critics will do just that. But as any fule kno there are Indian superhero TV shows like Shaktimaan (sic) and Karma, not to mention creaky old movies like Mr India and a notorious Indian rip-off of Superman.

What marks Krrish out as different is that this is a lavish, big-budget epic with Hollywood quality special effects. That’s ‘big budget’ in terms of the subcontinent of course, where things are slightly better value for money. Krrish is the sequel to Koi... Mil Gaya and, like that film, employs the talents of Australian visual effects supervisors Craig Mumma and Marc Kolbe, who previously worked on the likes of Mystery Men, Dungeons and Dragons and Spy Kids.

Rohit Mehta, the idiot savant from the first film, and his wife Nisha are both dead, leaving their son Krishna in the care of Rohit’s mother Sonia (a powerful performance from the ever-reliable Rekha). When he is five, she finds that he has incredible artistic talent and is helping children two years older than him with their homework. The Christian school which he attends conducts an IQ test from which his grandmother takes him because he is doing so well. (Alas, it seems that none of the film’s five scriptwriters know what an IQ test involves as Krishna is merely answering questions by reciting facts.)

Sonia takes the boy away to a remote mountain village for twenty years where he grows up into a hunky and handsome young man, played by Hrithik Roshan, who played Rohit in the first film. Krishna has inherited his father’s ET-given powers including amazing strength, speed and agility (he can outrun a horse, leap across wide rivers and scale tall mountain) as well as great intelligence and the ability to communicate with animals. But his propensity for accidentally throwing things for miles while playing cricket (for example) renders him friendless, even though his grandmother constantly urges him to hide his superhuman powers. His only confidante is comic relief Bahadur (Hemant Pandey: Bandit Queen) who owns the only telephone in the village and has the catchphrase “Just imagine.” Like his father, Krishna has seven small children as friends but they feature only in one scene, when they spot something which they believe to be a giant kite but which is actually someone paragliding.

Krishna races to catch the ‘kite’, scaling tall trees and then leaping through the forest canopy. When the aircraft crashes into the trees, he is there to rescue its pilot who turns out to be a gorgeous young woman, Priya (Priyanka Chopra, who has been rumoured as a possibility for the title role in the forthcoming Wonder Woman movie). The sequence in which they descend the tree is nicely funny and has a great punchline.

Priya is on a sort of outward bound course with a bunch of twentysomethings from Singapore which also includes her bimbette friend and colleague Honey (Maaninee Mishra). Bahadur is acting as their guide and the group is lead by a military type (Punit Issar who - get this - played the title role in that Indian Superman rip-off which I mentioned!) who looks uncannily like an Indian Windsor Davies. When Priya talks about the boy who rescues her, Bahadur spins a tale about a local legend of a ghost and suggests that Priya is the reincarnation of the spirit’s lost love.

Smitten Krishna appears to her several more times and at one point she runs into Sonia who takes her home - where she sees a photo of Rohit, garlanded with flowers to indicate that he is dead, which seems to be conclusive proof that she is seeing a ‘bhoot’. Eventually Krishna gets to talk to her and explains that he is human and there is a montage of the expedition having fun with Krishna’s strength and speed, as when he single-handedly beats them at tug o’ war.

But a few days later, after Priya and Sonia have been properly introduced, it is time for Priya, Honey and the others to return to Singapore where the two girls work for a TV company run by the fiercesome ‘Boss’ (Archana Puran Singh: Kuch Kuch Hota Hai). On the point of being sacked for extending their 15 days of leave to 20, Honey thinks on her feet and promises Boss that she can bring to Singapore “an Indian superboy” whose feats will make great TV. Priya is persuaded to call Krishna and tell him that her mother will marry her off to somebody else if he doesn’t come to Singapore.

He is delighted but Sonia is unhappy and the grandmother/grandson relationship - they are all that each other has - looks set to crumble. Sonia then tells Krishna about his father, starting with a brief flashback montage of shots from Koi... Mil Gaya. After the alien Jadu left (we are shown in newly shot flashback footage, with Roshan recreating his role from the first film), Rohit went to work for the head of the world’s biggest IT corporation, Technotronics, based in Singapore. This is Dr Siddhant Arya, magnificently played by Naseeruddin Shah as a cross between Sir Alan Sugar and Scaramanga. The marvellously charismatic Shah was in Monsoon Wedding, a 2002 British version of Hamlet and allegedly a Hindi version of The Time Machine directed by Shekhar Kapur (though I have my doubts about the reality of that last one). He was also Captain Nemo in The League of Extremely Bad Special Effects, where he was saddled with a godawful Hollywood version of an Indian accent - plus one of the worst scripts ever written and a special effects budget of about $4.50 of course...

When Nisha (Preity Zinta recreating the role as a ‘special appearance’ cameo) goes into hospital to give birth to their child, Sonia phones Rohit and finds him anguished. Soon after, they discover that he died in a fire when the computer he was working on exploded.

A computer which was designed to... foretell the future!

Dr Arya, outwardly charming but secretly blackhearted, sold Rohit on the idea of “combining astrology, astronomy and technology” in order to help mankind by, for example, predicting floods and earthquakes. But what he really wanted, as told to camera in occasional soliloquies by Dr A that all start, “Breaking news...”, was to rule the world, to “be God.”

Having completed these flashbacks, Sonia acquiesces to her son’s travel, realising that she cannot keep him in the village all his life. She gives him his father’s long coat and he sets off for Singapore.

Don’t worry, there is some superhero stuff coming up. But this first half (literally - three-hour Bollywood movies come with a five-minute interval) is more Smallville than Superman.

On arrival in Singapore, Krishna gives Priya a ring but she has to go with Honey so he is left to explore the city alone, allowing for the first of many sequences showcasing the delights on offer to tourists (the Singapore Tourist Board having been closely involved with production). He sees a young man named Kristian Li (Xia Bin) busking a martial arts demonstration to raise money for an operation for his wheelchair-bound little sister; when Kristian falls and hurts himself, Krishna takes over, raising a hatfull of cash and gaining a friend. Kristian works at the nearby Bombay Circus and invites Krishna to come see the show. This leads to a big song and dance number in the circus ring with lots of dancing clowns and acrobats.

Not all Bollywood movies have songs (think of Bhoot for example) but most do and it’s a curious state of affairs. There are only four songs in the 175 minute running time of this film and three of them are simply Priya and Krishna dancing around singing about how much they are in love; only the circus sequence offers a big production number. The problem with the other songs is that (a) two people dancing on a hillside or in a street can be pretty boring, and (b) the songs don’t even make sense because it’s only at the end of the film that the two characters admit their love for each other.

Previously when I have seen Indian films they have been on TV, in festivals or at afternoon screenings in barely populated cinemas. This was the first proper Bollywood screening I have been to (the young guys next to me were amused and amazed at a white guy watching an Indian film) and I discovered something interesting: a lot of Indian people don’t like the songs either. Maybe the mums and dads do - cinema-going in the Indian community is much more of a family thing - but many of the young folks chat to each other or check their mobile phones until the singing and dancing ends. The situation reminded me of Max Geldray and Ray Ellington onThe Goon Show: however good the artistes may be, it’s not what you’re there for and you just find yourself impatiently waiting for the plot to restart.

Anyway, in an interesting bit of digesis, during the circus number a fire breather accidentally sets light to some gas canisters which explode (just as the song ends, fortunately), leading to a stampede of audience and performers. As the flames lick across the big top, there are cries of “My daughter!”, “My son!” and “My sister!” People are trapped inside - and Krishna is trapped on the horns of a dilemma. He might be able to save them, but he has promised his grandmother that he will keep his powers hidden. As a solution, he turns his coat inside out - fortunately it has a neat-o black leather interior - and picks up a broken mask discarded by one of the performers.

In quick succession, running through flames and making impossible leaps, he rescues a trapeze artist and two children, then returns for another small girl. Bringing her out, she asks his name and he replies, “Krrish...” before catching himself. He hands the girl to a surprised Priya then, quicker than you can say “Clark Kent”, disappears and reappears sans mask and with his coat flipped.

Naturally, the blaze and the rescue is the talk of Singapore and ‘Krrish’ becomes the idol of children everywhere who makes themselves masks to look like their hero. The little girl has a piece of the actual mask which broke off and a cash reward for bravery is offered to Krrish if he will step forward and prove himself in a sort of Cinderella manner by presenting a broken mask which fits the missing piece.

Prior to this, Honey and Priya tried to shoot footage of Krishna’s amazing feats, believing that he would welcome the chance to become famous, but, mindful of his promise to his Gran, he tricked his way out of each set-up. Now Priya suspects that Krishna might be the mysterious Krrish.

Well, duh. Apart from the fact that he’s six and a half feet tall with rippling pecs, a pointy chin, Kenneth Williams-style flared nostrils and, oh yes, two thumbs on his left hand, who else could have jumped and run like that? (Incidentally, the Williams-esque nostrils etc do not stop Hrithik Roshan from being really good-looking and the double thumb is a real genetic oddity. Interestingly, neither of the actors who played Krishna at two different ages in the prologue were given a prosthetic third thumb. I look out for these things. Anyway...)

Priya stages a fake mugging of the two of them, in the hope that Krishna will reveal his powers but when he spots hidden TV cameras he allows himself to be beaten up by the fake thugs. Except that, predictably, Honey then calls Priya to say that the stuntmen she hired will be a bit late. When Krishna realises that the thugs were real - and that they have stolen Priya’s ring - he goes on the warpath and, two hours in, we get our first great action sequence. Togged up in cool black coat and mask, Krrish tracks the five motorbike-riding street toughs to a deserted warehouse where he royally and entertainingly kicks their arses.

One name which I haven’t yet mentioned is Tony Ching Siu Tung, stunt arranger and fight choreographer whose recent credits include Hero, Shaolin Soccer and House of Flying Daggers. Over the years he has also worked on Witch from Nepal, A Chinese Ghost Story I and III (but not II apparently), A Better Tomorrow II, New Dragon Gate Inn and The Heroic Trio. Because of him, the fights betray a definite Hong Kong influence and incorporate lots of slow-motion shots. You can also see that Roshan performed many of his own stunts although of course there is extensive use of (digitally removed) wires.

I won’t go into too much more detail about the plot - I’m tired writing this and you’re probably tired reading it, plus I want to retain some mystery in case you get the chance to watch this movie. But it should come as no surprise that the film climaxes with Krrish, who is mad as hell and not going to take it any more, facing off against Dr Arya. There is another flashback about what really happened to Rohit, including a clever use of the other side of a phone conversation which we have already seen, and some interesting philosophical questions raised by the idea of a computer which can foretell the future are completely ignored. Mention must also be made of Dr Arya’s Head of Security, Vikram Sinha (played by Sharat Saxena, who was in House Number 13 and Mr India!) who has a surprisingly significant role.

Krrish is a much more adult film than Koi... Mil Gaya, or at least less of a kids’ film (the BBFC passed it 12A). Although it betrays the clear influence of Spider-Man, Superman and especially The Matrix (and possibly even Night Falcon, though I could be reading too much into that), this is more of an original story, whereas the first film was basically clones of two Hollywood films stitched together. It’s a film of two halves, the first a romantic comedy, the second an action film. The fight sequences are well-directed and the special effects are mostly top-notch, with just one brief shot of Krishna climbing a mountain sticking out as a touch below par.

Although there is a predictable happy ending, it’s much more than just Krishna and Priya finally getting together. And it is noticeable that towards the end of the film people do die, and not just anonymous goons working for Dr Arya but sympathetic characters that we have grown to love. This is an emotionally powerful film which has a lot to say about one of the over-riding themes of Indian cinema: the importance of family. That said, the plot does suffer from a few deus ex machina moments, one of which, involving Kristian, is probably the most unsubtly convenient and unexplained coincidence I have seen on the big screen for years.

The cinematography - credited to Piyush Shah (China Gate) and Santosh Thundiiayil (Kaal, Kuch Kuch Hota Hai) - is terrific, ably showcasing both the mountains and the city. Production designer Samir Chanda also worked on Dil Se and Makdee: The Web of the Witch. Salim and Suleman Merchant (Darna Zaroori Hai, Kaal, Bhoot) composed the score while Rajesh Roshan, brother of producer Rakesh and uncle to star Hrithik, provided the songs. (The Brothers Merchant also worked on a film called Shock which is apparently a Tamil remake of Bhoot!) All five of the credited writers also worked on Koi... Mil Gaya.

Above all, Hrithik Roshan is magnificent as both the costumed superhero and the ordinary guy blessed with extraordinary powers. Complemented by the solid performances of Naseeruddin Shah and Rekha, he carries this movie on his broad shoulders, demonstrating a truly remarkable acting range as both the son and the father.

If you’re prepared to sit through - and maybe even enjoy - the romcom fantasy first half, the great second half of this corking superhero epic will repay your patience.

MJS rating: A
review originally posted 27th June 2006

Krrish 3

$
0
0

Director: Rakesh Roshan
Writers: Rakesh Roshan, Honey Irani, Robin Bhatt, Akarsh Khurana, Irfan Kamal
Producer: Rakesh Roshan
Cast: Hrith Roshan, Priyanka Chopra, Vivek Oberoi
Country: India
Year of release: 2013
Reviewed from: UK theatrical release
Website:
www.krrish-3.com

Seven years after Krrish, the first big budget, effects-filled Bollywood superhero blockbuster, here is Krrish 3. And I know what you’re all thinking. You’re thinking: what happened to Krrish 2? And the answer is: there wisnae one.

The direct sequel to Krrish is Krrish 3. Why? Because Krrish itself was a sequel to Koi... Mil Gaya, so the 2013 film is the third one in the series. There is a sort of precedent to this in that the sequel to Rambo was Rambo 3, because Rambo itself was actually called Rambo: First Blood Part 2. But I don’t see why they couldn’t have just classified Koi... Mil Gaya as Krrish Zero, especially as it’s a very different film. That 2003 picture was a heart-warming science fiction tale, whereas Krrish was a superhero film.

Well, partly a superhero film. Rewatching Krrish on DVD, I found I had forgotten quite how long it takes to pull its cape on. The whole of the first half is a romance between Krishna (Hrithik Roshan) and Priya (Pryanka Chopra), and even when they get to Singapore after the interval, there’s a lot of stuff before the circus fire that gives birth to Krishna’s alter ego.

But don’t worry, because Krrish 3 is a full-on, non-stop, action-packed superhero film. And as the poster makes clear, Krrish isn’t the only superhuman in this one. It looks like he’s got a whole team with him, a sort of Bollywood X-Men. In fact, posters poses notwithstanding, those other characters are the bad guys, which is not to say that there isn’t a very clear X-Men influence.

Krishna and Priya are now married and living with Rohit (also Hrithik Roshan, under excellent make-up), Krishna’s father who was believed dead for most of the previous film. Rohit is a sort of quasi-autistic super-genius working in a Government laboratory while Krishna is stumbling through a series of low-paid jobs - waiter, security guard - constantly being fired for taking unauthorised time off because of his need to don the mask and coat and go save someone. Priya is a TV journalist.

Our villain is Kaal (Vivek Oberoi, who was in a 2005 film actually called Kaal), a sort of cross between Professor X and Magneto. Paralysed from the neck down, fortunately he has telekinetic capability over metal objects. Which makes one wonder why he is stuck in his high-tech wheelchair. Why doesn’t he just make himself a metal exoskeleton and then use his telekinesis to move his arms and legs. I mean, I would do that? Wouldn’t you?

Kaal is the head of a huge pharmaceutical corporation, making himself even richer by creating artificial viruses, then coming to the rescue by ‘developing’ the antidotes which he sells to national governments. But his real goal is finding a way to cure his paralysis and for this purpose he has been fusing his DNA with that of various animals, producing a range of half-human, half-animal beings. It’s not clear entirely how he thinks this will cure him, but it does raise the noteworthy point that this makes Krrish 3 a sort of unofficial adaptation of The Island of Dr Moreau. He calls these beings... ‘manimals’ ... which of course brings to mind a cheesy 1980s TV show and is even cheesier now. Actually, that term is only ever used once and after that they are always called mutants, which is technically incorrect but hey, if it’s good enough for Brian Singer...

His muse is Kaya (Kangana Ranaut: Raaz: The Mystery Continues, Once Upon a Time in Mumbai), a sexy woman with chameleon DNA in her cells, enabling her to shapeshift (like Mystique, but without the scaly blue default setting). Since her clothes change too, that means the PVC bustier-catsuit she wears is actually part of her body, as is any other garment when she’s impersonating people. Although if it’s part of her body, why does she need those obvious flesh-coloured straps to stop it falling down embarrassingly when she’s jumping about.

Either the producers weren’t sure about chameleons or they just weren’t bothered about limiting her powers, so Kaya also does a weird stretchy, blobby thing in a couple of scenes (which, to be fair, could be a variant of shapeshifting). Not only that, she is also able to pass through solid matter like Kitty Pryde. This leads to one shot which must win a prize as the single most gratuitous use of a super-power ever, when Kaya walks through a curtain. I mean, really? We can all walk through curtains, love. You alter your molecular structure, and the rest of us just brush them out of the way. Kaya’s long hair is a single, big, thick ponytail which in one shot arches over her head, leading the inattentive viewer to think there is also a Scorpion Woman. But there isn’t. (Although perhaps there is, as Wikipedia lists Shaurya Chauhan as playing ‘Scorpion Woman’. But if there is, she’s never seen again and isn’t on the poster.)

There is a vaguely cat-like female mutant, credited as Cheetah Woman (Nazia Shaikh) and a couple of generically strong male mutants, Rhino Man (Daniel Kaleb) and one who looks feline but is apparently Ant Man (Sameer Ali Khan). None of these three do very much, to be honest. Most of the action is reserved for Striker (Gowhar Khan), who has frog DNA which gives him an absurdly long, prehensile tongue - exactly like Toad in the X-Men films. He also has the briefly seen ability to walk up walls so actually he’s probably not part-frog, maybe he’s part gecko instead. The film really milks the whole tongue thing, including one scene where he uses it to steal people’s ice creams from a distance.

Having tried out his deadly virus in Namibia, Kaal introduces it to Mumbai where Rohit notices that neither he nor Krishna are affected (Priya is also immune because she is pregnant and therefore has some of Krishna’s DNA inside her). Rohit manufactures an antidote from his own blood which Krrish is able to spread around the city super-quick. This angers and confuses Kaal, who used his own blood to manufacture the antidote he was hoping to sell to the Indian authorities. Which must mean that Krishna, Rohit and Kaal all share the same DNA...

An attack by the mutants on the family’s house ends up with Gecko-Man captured and Kaya impersonating Priya, who is being held in a secret location by Kaal. Krrish shows up at the house to fight the mutants and still nobody twigs that Krishna might actually be Krrish.

In a subplot, Krrish has become an idol to the people of Mumbai, who have erected an enormous statue of him, the opening ceremony of which is a big, fancy song and dance number. There are two other songs in the film: a big production number fairly early on at a surprise birthday party for Krishna, and a romantic duet filmed in the desert. The music (once again by Rajesh Roshan’s brother Rakesh) is a lot better than in the first (or second) Krrish movie and the dance routines a lot bigger and more entertaining. Having now made my own very tiny contribution to Bollywood by helping with a dance sequence in Yamla Pagla Deewana 2, I can very much appreciate all the extras standing at the back of the big routines, waving their arms.

Eventually Krishna realises that Priya is not Priya but by then Kaya has seen the error of her ways and realised that love is better than hate or somesuch. So the two set off to Kaal’s mountaintop lair to rescue Priya and the now-kidnaped Rohit. In the ensuing set-piece battle, we briefly see one more mutant, a chap with a big spike on his arm. He was not in the earlier introduce-the-manimals scene and didn’t make it onto the posters either. The credits reveal that he is Swordfish Man (Amrit Pal Singh), possibly introduced to make up for the absence of Scorpion Woman. I guess there is a level at which supervillains become too ridiculous, even for Bollywood.

However, this rescue isn’t the film’s climax because Kaal has used Rohit’s bone marrow to create an antidote to his paralysis, revealing in the process their connection and his own origin. And while that’s pretty damn obvious, it’s actually slightly different to what I was expecting. Once he has regained the control of his limbs, only then does he decide to use his telekinesis to create a metal exoskeleton, ripping up the floor and walls to make the sort of punk-Robocop affair in the poster.

The film’s real climax is a big set-piece between Kaal and Krrish whose powers have been vastly expanded due to something that happened back at the lair. As the two flying superbeings smash their way through skyscrapers, the influence of Man of Steel is obvious except that, unlike Superman, Krrish shows genuine concern for all the ordinary folk being killed and injured through collateral damage as he goes mano a mano with Kaal. Krrish 3 scores over Bladder of Steel in another important way: it’s about as long but has a convenient ten-minute toilet break halfway through.

Despite the high level of action, Krrish 3 also has plenty of time for morals and relationships, with a strong theme of ‘family’ running through it (as indeed had the two earlier films). There is also a theme of community, with Krrish telling a little boy that he is part of ‘Team Krrish’ and giving him a wrist-band which other characters also wear. A stand-off between a crowd, led by Priya and that same little boy, against over-confident Kaal (before Krrish shows up) owes an obvious debt to the scene in Spider-Man where ordinary New Yorkers stand up for Spidey. The action and the non-action is well-integrated throughout Krrish 3 in a genuinely fine script.

It goes without saying that the effects are even better than they were in Krrish: genuine state-of-the-art stuff which stands comparison with most Hollywood blockbusters. This has undoubtedly contributed to the global success of this film, which took over half a million pounds in its first week in UK cinemas and about half that again the following week. In India itself, Krrish 3 took more in its second week than many of the year’s other big films have taken in their opening week.

It does have a good story, it does have terrific effects, it does have cool (if derivative) supervillains, it does have fantastic action sequences, but at the heart of Krrish 3’s success are three superb performances by two actors. Oberoi is magnificently wicked, especially in the first three-quarters of the film when he is trapped in his wheelchair and can move nothing except his head and two fingers (dude, build an exo-skeleton... oh, what’s the point?). And Roshan is just extraordinary, playing both gawky, naive, brilliant Rohit and determined, anguished, powerful Krishna/Krrish. Brilliant direction by his father Rakesh Roshan combines with adroit use of doubles, invisible green-screen composites and world-class editing by Chandan Arora to convince us entirely that these are two separate people, despite their many scenes together. Dual roles in so many movies are played as novelties - ‘Hey, wouldn’t it be great if he met himself?’ - but here it is expediency. I doubt that Roshan pere et fils set out ten years ago to make a movie where Hrithik would spend much of his screen time talking to himself (in a very different role) but the narrative development of the first two films has led inexorably to this one.

One other thing also counts towards the film’s box office success, I suspect. Hrithik Roshan, now 39, has been working out and looks even fitter and hunkier than he did when he was 29 or 32. There are a couple of shirtless scenes where his pecs and six -pack will have all the girlies swooning.
I’m pleased to report that there is a British contribution to Krrish 3 with prosthetics designed by Mike Stringer and supervised by Mike HG Bates, both of Hybrid Enterprises. They have previously worked on Outpost, Creep, Kill List, awful sci-fi shitcom Hyperdrive and the Ray Winstone version of Sweeney Todd, as well as another big Bollywood picture, thriller sequel Dhoom 2. Indian effects house Red Chillies provided the visual effects and Hong Kong legend Tony Ching siu Tung choreographed the real actors as he did on Krrish.

Unless you have some pathological aversion to Bollywood, Krrish 3 is a must-see film. A handy repris of the first two pictures at the start ensure that you don’t even have to have seen them to enjoy this one. It’s a belter of a superhero film which I enjoyed a lot more than several Hollywood superhero flicks of recent years, and I can’t wait for Krrish 4.

MJS rating: A

How to Make a Monster

$
0
0

Director: Herbert L Strock
Writers: Herman Cohen, Kenneth Langtry
Producer: Herman Cohen
Cast: Robert H Harris, Gary Conway, Gary Clarke
Year of release: 1958
Country: USA
Reviewed from: UK (Region 0) DVD (Direct Video Distribution)

This is one of my favourite 1950s B-movies for several reasons. It’s a bizarre semi-sequel to two bona fide classics - I was a Teenage Werewolf and I was a Teenage Frankenstein - and it features props from several other AIP productions. But mostly it’s just a stark raving wacky storyline played deliciously straight.

Teenage Werewolf was probably the single most influential horror movie of the 1950s - even more so than the almost contemporaneous Curse of Frankenstein. It opened up the previously untapped teenage market, coinciding with a boom in car ownership among young people that made drive-ins a major distribution sector, and with the release of the old Universal monster movies to TV for the first time. The launch of Famous Monsters of Filmland didn’t hurt things either!

Werewolf was followed by Teenage Frankenstein, then Blood of Dracula - which was I was a Teenage Vampire in all but name. Herman Cohen couldn’t get enough of the title: even Konga was originally pitched as I was a Teenage Gorilla!

How to... isn’t a direct sequel to Werewolf or Frankenstein, it’s a movie about the making of a sequel to Werewolf and Frankenstein! It’s set on the lot of American International Pictures (producer/writer Cohen makes a cameo appearance in a screening room scene and there are AIP posters on various walls) where Teenage Werewolf Meets Teenage Frankenstein is in production. The make-up is by Philip Scheer who had worked on both the original films as well as Attack of the Puppet People and Invisible Invaders. But the actors underneath it are different: the Teenage Frankenstein is played by ‘Tony Mantell’ who is played by Gary Conway (Land of the Giants) while the Teenage Werewolf is played by ‘Larry Drake’ who is played by Gary Clarke (Missile to the Moon) making his feature debut. I hope you’re following this because there will be a test later.

Robert H Harris (The Invisible Boy) stars as make-up artist Pete Dumond. Short, balding and starey-eyed, he’s a sort of TK Maxx Donald Pleasance and consequently makes a great villain by looking oddball but harmless. Paul Brinegar (Wishbone in Rawhide, later seen in the godawful 1980s SF comedy Spaceship) is his oddball assistant Riviero.

Dumond may be loosely based on Jack Pierce, a master craftsman of make-up unappreciated by the new owners of the studio. They have decreed that monster movies are a passing fad and that once TWMTF wraps they will concentrate on rock’n’roll movies, so Dumond and Riviero can pack their bags. But Dumond has discovered a formula which, when added to make-up, makes the wearer totally subservient to suggestion. He mixes this in with the make-up for the two teen stars and sends them out to kill the movie execs. He also - and this makes no sense at all - slaps the make-up hurriedly on himself at one point to commit murder.

Just over an hour into the 73-minute feature the lovely, crisp print quality - showcasing the excellent work of cinematographer Maury Gertzman (She-Wolf of London, The Brute Man, The Creature Walks Among Us) - shifts down a noticeable grade. This is because the final reel is shot on Technicolor stock and bursts into glorious colour a minute or so in. Dumond has creepily lured the two teenagers back to his home where the wall are adorned with his ‘children’ - horror masks. Most of them are generic, possibly early home-produced efforts by Paul Blaisdell. But prominent among them are an alien from Invasion of the Saucer-Men, Beulah from It Conquered the World and the She-Creature. Fantastic!

The great Morris Ankrum (Earth Vs the Flying Saucers, The Giant Claw etc) and Walter Reed (Missile Monsters) are policemen, while John Ashley (who made another Frankenfilm in 1958 - the completely loopy Frankenstein’s Daughter - and later became a staple of Philippines-shot exploitation fare) plays himself in a rehearsal for a rock’n’roll flick. The lovely gals dancing around him are choreographed by Lee Scott who had the same unlikely credit on Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla!

Co-writer Langtry is actually Aben Kandel whose horror CV goes back to uncredited work on 1935’s Werewolf of London. He wrote this and I Was a Teenage Frankenstein as Langtry, and I Was a Teenage Werewolf and Blood of Dracula as Ralph Thornton. Credits under his own name include Berserk, Craze, Konga and Trog. Cinematographer Maury Gertsman also photograaphed the final two Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce Sherlock Holmes pictures, Terror by Night and Dressed to Kill.

Extras include a 50-minute audio interview with Samuel Z Arkoff recorded at the NFT, plus nice poster-reproduction postcards and tatty trailers for nine AIP films: Voodoo Woman, Blood of Dracula, Day the World Ended, The Brain Eaters, War of the Clossal Beast, The She-Creature, The Undead, Earth Vs The Spider and this one. This is a great presentation of a glorious film. DVD Ltd slipped up slightly by calling the main character ‘Paul Drummond’ on the sleeve, but I won’t penalise them a grade for that.

MJS rating: A-
review originally posted 8th May 2005

Hunch

$
0
0
Director: Jiraeit Naepong/Manton Nakpong
Writer: Jiraeit Naepong/Manton Nakpong
Cast: Nantawat Arsirapojjanakul, Kamolchanok Weroj, Sritrai Jullanun
Country: Thailand
Year: 2004
Reviewed from: Thai VCD


Over the past couple of years I have probably watched a dozen or more Thai movies, both modern films and old ones, and I have enjoyed them all to a greater or lesser extent. But there's a first time for everything and I have to report that Hunch is complete rubbish. No national cinema is perfect and every country that makes films makes both good ones and stinkers. No reason why Thailand should be any different.

Hunch is a bog-standard tale of five teenagers going off to stay in a holiday home and messing with the supernatural. The expected stereotypes are here. The slightly slutty one, her boyfriend the slightly dense jock, the sensible boy, the sensible girl and the bespectacled nerdette. They're staying in a frankly palatial home in the middle of the Thai countryside. For some reason.

First we get a very lengthy sequence of the drive there, including a stop at a garage where Nerdette goes to use the ladies' toilet. While this is shown to be unhygenic and unpleasant, no amount of spooky music can convince us that a girls' loo is actually a scary place. Nerdette hears a noise in another cubicle, investigates, and finds - a cat. Then something really scares her! Except no, it's just Slut larking around.

So they all get back in the car and drive off, with Sensible Girl telling Slut not to be such a prat. It may be that this sequence, including lots of dialogue which means nothing to me on this unsubtitled VCD, is full of scene-setting and character development. But I doubt it.

On reaching the house, all five jump out of the car and leap fully-clothed into the nearby pond (apart from Nerdette who lowers herself tentatively down from the short wooden jetty). They then spend a good five minutes splashing around, and there is no way that this constitutes scene-setting or character development. Like most things in this movie it's just there to pad the flimsiest of stories out to feature-length.

As the soaking wet youngsters head into the house we glimpse, for exactly one second (I counted the frames) a pale girl's face in a gap in the trees. This is the solitary spooky or unnerving or - to be frank - good bit in the whole film. Hopes of an atmospheric ghost story are however quickly dashed as we see the shot again, in flashback, in slow motion. And then lots of other shots of the same ghost (who at least doesn't have hair hanging over her face like every other post-Ring spookette).

That night, because there is nothing better to do in this huge, luxurious house with a fully stocked larder and a wide-screen TV, the quintet play with... a ouija board. Oh my word: teenagers alone in an isolated house experimenting with a device for contacting the dead which starts out as a joke but then becomes terrifyingly real. Well, we’ve never seen that in a film before.

Weird things start to happen, including both the inexplicable (Sensible Girl has visions of people dancing in a bar) and the explicable (Nerdette is frightened by something in the shower, which turns out to be a gecko on the wall). At night, Nerdette tries to seduce Jock, presumably because she is possessed, but Sensible Boy intervenes. Throughout all this we get cutaway shots of the pale girl either in ghost form or floating underwater, and occasionally a pair of eyes superimposed over a shot of trees, looking like a bad 1980s video sleeve design.

The next morning Sensible Girl wakes up and finds that Nerdette, who was sharing the room with her, has disappeared. She and Sensible Boy wander around the garden and the surrounding woodland calling for her, but to no avail. Meanwhile, Jock and Slut decide to drive into town but veer off the road when a pale figure appears before them. Another car was going the opposite way - though it's not clear if that contributed to the near-accident - from which emerge two blokes who ask for Jock's driving license so are presumably some sort of policemen, though they're not in uniform.

Jock and Slut drive back to the house, followed by the two blokes (who we'll call Cap and Moustache for ease of reference) who then start searching the house, presumably for drugs. While this is going on, Sensible Girl looks out of the window and sees Nerdette walking, transfixed, along the jetty and about to fall into the pond. She sees this scene illuminated by the full Moon which shines down from a cloudless night sky.

Hang on a minute, wasn't it 'the next morning' only two paragraphs and about ten minutes ago? Indeed it was. Unless the search for Nerdette took the best part of ten hours, then it has become the middle of the night only an hour or two after Sensible Girl woke up and had breakfast. This cavalier attitude to day/night continuity permeates the entire film, to the extent that it is completely impossible to determine over how many days and nights the action takes place.

Anyway, Sensible Boy and Sensible Girl run down to the pond and dive underwater where, of course, everything is brightly illuminated by daylight streaming in from the surface. Nerdette is located and brought up onto the jetty, but Sensible Girl is still underwater where she has been grabbed by the panda-eyed, not particularly water-logged corpse of ghost girl. She sees images of the girl dancing in a bar with friends, being watched by Cap and Moustache, then drugged, brought to the house and raped and murdered, before Cap dumps the body in the pond, attached to a heavy stone.

Sensible Boy extricates his friend from the corpse's grip, where she seems to have been for at least five or six minutes, and brings her to the surface. She recognises Cap as the guy from the vision, then Sensible Boy and Cap fall in and fight underwater where once again no thought is given to the amount of time that people can normally hold their breath. The corpse grabs Cap and doesn't let go as Sensible Boy leaves the bastard to his grizzly fate.

On the jetty, Sensible Girl is approached by Moustache and she realises that, although Cap dumped the body, the actual rapist/murderer is this other guy. He pulls a gun on her, but Sensible Boy surfaces, grabs a gun from somewhere and shoots Moustache. It's all very confusing, but the basic gist is that the spirit of the girl who was raped, murder and thrown into the pond has achieved revenge. One is left wondering how the five teens are going to explain the two dead bodies to the authorities and also how come, given that the corpse is weighted down with a boulder that Cap could barely lift and is therefore right next to the jetty from which it was dumped, nobody noticed her during the lengthy period of splashing around, all within a couple of feet of the jetty, when the group first arrived.

Hunch is not only thoroughly formulaic and predictable, it is also very poorly directed and edited. If this isn't the work of a former pop video director then I'm the Secretary General of the United Nations. It's all style and no substance, and often descends into really, really lengthy scenes that make their point and then drag on and on and on, whether it's the early sequence in the garage toilet, the endless shots of Sensible Boy and Sensible Girl looking for Nerdette, or a softest-of-softcore 'sex' scene between Jock and Slut which must last a good six or seven minutes and in which we don't even see a naked breast. If it's not going to advance the plot or illuminate character, you would think it could at least be a turn-on.

'Mercifully short' is the kindest thing that can be said about this pile of Thai tosh. And no, I have no idea why it's called Hunch.

The first disc opens with trailers for schoolgirl horror movie May, overblown comic-book adaptation Spawn, some Thai zombie comedy that I couldn’t identify and (oddly) the heart-warming, Michael Caine-starring, coming-of-age saga Secondhand Lions. The second disc closes with trailers for the Bollywood movie Market, tasteful disease-based Hong Kong comedy City of SARS and the truly abysmal video game spin-off Mortal Kombat: Annihilation which really does give the impression of being the worst film in the world and may simply be there to make the Spawn trailer looking interesting.

The cast of Hunch, from what I can determine (the closing credits have the names in English script but in an almost unreadable font), consists of: Nuntawat Ardipapdeul/Nantawat Arsirapojjanakul (The Poison, Lhob Pai Tang Ar-kard), Hamonchanug Waroand/Kamolchanok Weroj (Love Story,Why Not Seven), Sritrai Jullanun/Chutilsarn Junlanan, Surachai Sangargard, Darwan Singvee/Dawun Singhawee, Eetapue Traipoke, Arnusore Daychapunya and Witid Lad from Ngoo Keng Kong.

MJS rating: D
review originally posted 20th May 2005

Hypnosis

$
0
0
Director: Masayuki Ochiai
Writers: Yasushi Fukuda, Masayuki Ochiai
Producers: Shibata Touru, Harada Toshiaki
Cast: Goro Inagaki, Miho Kanno, Ken Utsui
Year of release: 1999
Country: Japan
Reviewed from: UK DVD (Artsmagic)


This is a real horror movie. I mean horror. Not repulsion (although if you don’t say “Eurgh! Gross!” at least half a dozen times you’re not human) and not fright. Just real terror at what can happen to people.

Veteran actor Ken Utsui stars as Police Chief Sakurai, investigating three curious suicides which all occurred on the same day. Apart from all being bizarre deaths - an old man who jumps out of a window, a bridegroom who throttles himself and an athlete who literally runs herself to death - there is one other link. All the victims were heard to mention something about “the green monkey” before they died.

Sakurai teams up with a young psychoanalyst named Toshiya Saga (Goro Inagaki) who is convinced that the victims were all influenced by post-hypnotic suggestion. A TV hypnotist looks a likely suspect.

From this intriguing premise, the plot builds, and though it drags a little during the second act which is a bit too much police procedural, the final half hour will have you gasping for breath. There are some hideous deaths, depicted via some briefly-shown (but all the more effective for it) prosthetics and the occasional CGI effect. There’s a tense scene in a concert hall, which is astounding in its audacity but pulled off with aplomb - something that wouldn’t be out of place in a Naked Gun movie is here made genuinely gripping. And the finale - I won’t spoil it by saying whether the resolution is psychological, supernatural or science fictional (in fact I’m not entirely sure myself). But it’s terrific.

Director Ochiai (Parasite Eve) is a real artist with the camera - helped by cinematographer Osamu Fujiishi (Evil Dead Trap 2) and there are some beautifully framed shots: overhead, through doors, and a stunning play on the English word ‘terror’. A Kubrickian fondness for symmetry shows up occasionally, and in fact there’s a nod to A Clockwork Orange towards the end. Though the plot, based on a novel by Keisuke Matsuoka, is quite convoluted and confusing in places, it rattles along and never lets up.

A fantastic film, with the usual impeccable transfer from Artsmagic, though the extras aren’t up to much, with not even a trailer. Nevertheless, a mind-bogglingly good film which is wholeheartedly recommended. (The film’s US title is The Hypnotist and in Japan it's Saimin. The American Psycho-style image on the sleeve has no connection with the film.)

MJS rating: A-
review originally posted 11th May 2005

Zombie Hood

$
0
0
Director: Steve Best
Writer: Steve Best
Producer: Susan Hayes
Cast: Richard Lee O’Donnell, Jade Blocksidge, Edward Nudd
Country: UK
Year of release: 2013
Reviewed from: festival screening (Day of the Undead)
Website:
http://st3518.wix.com/zombiehood

The title of Zombie Hood, which was produced in and around Nottingham, is a reference to Robin Hood although there’s no real connection apart from some people taking refuge in some woodland and a few shots of the Robin Hood statue outside Nottingham Castle in the film’s climactic scene. On screen the two words are run together, suggesting Zombiehood might be etymologically similar to Noel Clarke drama Kidulthood (or Steve Martin comedy Parenthood!). I suspect most US viewers will think it means ‘zombies in the hood’.

There’s nothing obviously startling or innovative about Zombie Hood - at heart it’s a pretty generic zombie - but on closer inspection there are a number of interesting elements which are rarely seen in this over-milked subgenre. More importantly, everything that Zombie Hood does, even the stuff that we have seen done before, is done well. This is a solid, gripping, skilfully crafted zombie feature and an impressive debut from writer-director Steve Best.

Shot over two years, the film feels very fragmented, but that works in its favour. Time and again we are presented with new characters, some of whom swiftly meet gruesome ends, a few of whom become central characters and eventually meet up with others. We have no way of knowing, as each scene opens, whether we are watching an important part of the main narrative or a self-contained vignette which serves only to reinforce the randomness and helplessness of the immediate post-apocalypse. And that actually works brilliantly in conveying the sense of chaos that would ensue from a zombie outbreak. (Some of these short, unrelated scenes were apparently filmed by other people and submitted as part of a competition.)

The entire movie takes place over only a few days, beginning at a pub gig where local indie rockers In Isolation are performing. Likeable Rik (Richard Lee O’Donnell, who played a paparazzo in Kill Keith) is chatting up Candi (Jade Blocksidge) when it all kicks off and the two escape the city together, later re-encountering Candi’s mate Kelly (Alexandra Lyon). One of the things I really, really liked about Zombie Hood is that most of the characters are working class. The protagonists of most zombie films - heck, most horror films generally - tend to be thoroughly middle class, perhaps representing the social groups from which film students are traditionally drawn. When we do get any working class representations, they tend to be Danny Dyer-style Cockney thugs. Few and far between are the horror movies where we meet, and are expected to root for, ordinary British working class folks.

Class conflict provides character conflict in Zombie Hood as middle class Dermott (voice-over artist Edward Nudd) becomes the de facto leader of the small group of survivors but runs up against Sam (Tom Murton), a swaggering cocky youth who thinks he’s a big man because he has got a gun. Rounding out the party are old geezer Bill (Harry Keeling) whose legs are not what they once were and who spends part of the film, somewhat impractically, in a wheelchair. Plus ten-year-old(-ish) Melanie (Alice Joyce), whose initial meet-up with Bill raised some unintended chuckles from the audience that the characters really don’t deserve.

There‘s not a great deal to the story: debates about whether the city or the countryside is safer, a raid on a pub for supplies, and a number of escapes (or not) from ravenous zombie hordes. Alongside class representation and constantly wrong-footing the audience with narrative dead-ends, the other clever aspect of Zombie Hood is the innovative way it addresses the great schism of the zombie subgenre. Fast or slow? Steve Best has his cake and eats it by using both types of zombies (without explanation) and having the characters discuss them: the slow ones present little threat, except to Bill (“They’re still faster than me.”) or en masse, but the fast ones are a danger that requires weaponry.

The 200 or so zombies on view were trained up by Steven Uden and Adelle Overton of Zed Events, who organise live action zombie events. Overton (who was an exec producer on Slasher House) also has a role as another survivor, Ella. Jayne Hyman (Devil’s Tower, Wasteland) was in charge of the zombie make-up team (and also co-producer), with visual effects by Steve Askey. Cinematographer was David Wayman, director of various shorts including a Tomb Raider fanfilm (in which Alexandra Lyon played Lara Croft). Quite a number of the cast and crew have worked on Wayman’s various pictures as well as some shorts by my old mate David Lilley (The Hand, Vespers, The Wailing Well etc). Token name value, if you can call it that, is provided by some bloke who was in Big Brother.

The whole thing is held together by Best’s direction (and editing) which turn what could have been a jumble of scenes and a collection of unsympathetic characters into an impressive, enjoyable, thrilling zombie film with plenty of action, plenty of gore, a smidgeon of humour and a satisfyingly nihilistic ambience.

I’m going to type that again because I’ve just thought of it and I like the way it sounds: a satisfyingly nihilistic ambience. Oh yes.

MJS rating: B+

interview: Trent Haaga

$
0
0
Trent Haaga wrote the script of Citizen Toxie: The Toxic Avenger Part IV and told me all about it in August 2000 in one of my almost legendary six-question interviews. This originally appeared on the old SFX Network site. Trent went on to write Hell Asylum, and produced and starred in Dead and Rottingamong other work. Recently he also starred in Dr Horror's Erotic House of Idiots.

How did you land this gig, and what sort of stuff have you written previously?
"I was one of the actors in Terror Firmer, the latest Troma release and had been working at the Troma offices since completion of that film. Lloyd Kaufman knew my interest in writing and my deep and profound love of Troma films. He also knew me well enough to trust me when I told him I could deliver a script in two weeks. I had submitted a script to Troma a long time ago called The Power of Ten - a ludicrously hyper-violent action flick - in the hopes of getting the writing gig on Terror Firmer. Needless to say, I didn't get the gig, but Patrick Cassidy was working for Troma at the time and he read The Power of Ten and enjoyed it. It was a combination of having written a few scripts before (just for fun, but it showed I was familiar with the format, etc.) and Lloyd being familiar with my work ethic - Toxie 4 was the first script I've written to actually be produced.

"I was given the project right after returning from the Cannes premiere of Terror Firmer in May 1999. Lloyd had been planning on shooting Toxie 4 since completion of Terror Firmer and he had finally received a script from someone else which was unacceptable. He needed a completed screenplay as soon as possible, as the film was slated to shoot in September! The investors needed something concrete to see before they would cut the cheques, so Lloyd called me in and asked me to write the screenplay.

"Incidentally, my trying to get the writing gig on Terror Firmer and ending up being one of the leads in the film were totally unrelated. Lloyd didn't even know I had auditioned for the film and Will Keenan, the casting director for Terror Firmer, didn't know that I had submitted writing for consideration to Lloyd - I guess it was pure fate for me to become involved in the film company that had such a heavy influence on my formative years."

In writing a Troma movie, what instructions or rules are there about things like: how much gore you should show; how many women with melon-heavy breasts you should include; how fat the fat slob eaten by the elevator should be, etc?
"I was given a few basic plot points (if you could call them that):
1) A plastic surgery sub-plot
2) Toxie's wife gets pregnant
3) An abortion sub-plot
4) A Columbine-like high school shooting incident
5) There had to be good and evil versions of Toxie, Kabukiman, etc.

"Other than these few directional pointers, my main instructions were to hurry up and turn in a complete script! I turned in the first draft of Citizen Toxie (then called A Tale of Two Toxies) in twelve days.

"Luckily, I had grown up watching (and loving) Troma films. I was also heavily involved in Terror Firmer, so I knew where we needed to take the film. In essence (especially if you've seen Terror Firmer) there are no limits! I was familiar enough with the Troma style and the mythos of the Toxic Avenger character to be able to put in enough boobies, ultra-gore, social commentary, and slapstick to (hopefully) please the fans. Hell, I'm nothing but a slightly glorified Troma fan, so I just went with my gut(s). My primary goal in writing Toxie 4 was to not repeat the second and third Toxie films (which I, and a lot of fans, don't dig). When in doubt, you should always include more of all of the above elements. Troma has a standard to uphold, after all!"

How many drafts did the script go through before shooting, and how much has it changed during shooting? In fact, does the finished film bear any resemblance whatsoever to what you set out to make?
"Oh, man! The script went through about ten or twelve re-writes (which we did during pre-production!). I'm actually pleasantly surprised at how much of the skeleton of the first draft remained intact, even after all the re-writes. Nevertheless, the script went through many permutations. Actually, when I was first assigned Toxie 4 I was told that it would be a $2-3 million project, so I really didn't hold back - lots of explosions and grisly FX set-pieces and kung-fu-style fighting, etc. There were also more locations. We ended up bringing Toxie 4 in for about $300,000, but still managed to make a $1.5 million-looking film for that amount! The first draft was more ‘superhero spoofery’ with some Tromatic elements. The re-writes were done to accommodate budget and to continue to push the envelope in regards to gore, sex, and all of the other elements that make Troma what it is."

The credited screenwriters on Citizen Toxie are yourself, Patrick Cassidy and Uncle Lloydy: how is the actual writing divided up between you?
"Every Monday-Saturday I would work in a producer capacity at the production office. Every Sunday, Patrick, Lloyd and I would meet at Lloyd's house for an all-day script meeting. Basically, Patrick, Lloyd, and I would re-read the script and kick around new ideas. After the meeting, saddled with a ton of fresh notes, I'd go home and re-write all night until we had another draft with the requested changes. I have to admit this was extremely gruelling, so Patrick ended up doing two or three of the re-writes. Lloyd and Patrick had lots of input into the story (as did the ever-decreasing budget), but I (unfortunately) had to do most of the actual ‘pen to paper’ writing for the film."

How did you end up being First Assistant Director on the film too, and did seeing the production from that perspective influence the rewrites you did during production?
"I ended up being First AD by default. We had an AD who just wasn't working out - a nice guy, but he was used to making films for other companies, where the AD has a very specific job. A Troma AD has to know the script inside and out and has to operate as more than just a guy who calls out the shoot. Since I had been so heavily involved in the project from day one, it was natural that I should be the AD (a truly hellish job, let me tell you). I know that there can't be that many instances where the writer is also the AD - the two jobs are at odds, really. The writer wants everything to be beautiful, perfect. The AD's job is to bring the film in quickly and efficiently. It was a weird experience, but once on set, I took my AD job more seriously - words on paper don't mean anything if you can't get something in the can."

As well as writing the movie, you also appear in it. Did you write that role specifically for yourself, and have you resisted the temptation to give yourself all the best lines?
"I actually had no intention of being in the film - I was way too busy trying to write, produce, assistant direct, etc. Lloyd asked me to take a role in the film because he apparently liked my performance in Terror Firmer. While my acting skill, in my opinion, is negligible, one thing I can be relied upon as an actor is to hit my marks and not need more than one take. This is important to a Troma film, as the film stock itself is the priciest item on the budget line! I took the part of ‘Tex Diaper,’ a gun-toting maniac and leader of ‘The Diaper Mafia.’ I picked Tex because he gets killed off (thereby limiting my acting time to just a few days, giving me time to concentrate on other production issues) and he's a bad guy. I got to carry around a giant M-60 machine gun and kill a slew of students and then Toxie disembowels me (very bloody!). I always liked Tex, but didn't write him specifically with myself in mind - he does have some pretty cool lines, though. It was tough trying to be taken seriously as an AD while wearing a pair of adult diapers and a baby bonnet, but we managed."

What are the best and worst aspects of making a Troma movie?
"The best aspect of making a Troma movie was the lack of egos. These movies are pure, man. The people that make the movies don't do it because they want a lot of money or because they want to be famous, etc. They are truly unique films that bow to no system, made by people who simply want to make movies. Knowing that I'm making a movie that someone like myself can truly enjoy is the ultimate reward. It may sound hackneyed, but I didn't sleep two hours a night on a cold, hard, concrete floor away from my wife for thirty-five days in a place with no shower (those are some of the worst aspects of making a Troma film) for the glory - I did it for love. And so did everybody else who made it through the film (we did lose over 50% of the original crew before production was even half way over!). I think that this is part of the reason for Troma's success over the years - they may not be great films, they may not be the most expensive films, they may not have the best acting, but their spirit is infective."

When will we see a finished print of the film?
"The picture locked about a week ago. Total running time (with credits) is about 105 minutes. Now we go into sound design and drop in the original score/soundtrack. After that, we strike prints. If all goes well, projectable prints should be in theatres and festivals as early as November 2000! I hope everybody enjoys it!”

website: www.trenthaaga.blogspot.co.uk
interview originally posted 11th January 2005

interview: Piers Haggard

$
0
0
I interviewed director Piers Haggard by phone in 2003, one of several interviews conducted for a Fangoria retrospective feature on Blood on Satan’s Claw.

How did you become involved with Blood on Satan’s Claw?
"I had done a film, my first film which I don’t show on my CV any more, which is called Wedding Night. It had Dennis Waterman and Tessa Wyatt in it, it was written by an Irishman called Lee Dunne and produced by a man called Philip Krasne and it disappeared without trace. It was a story about sexual repression set in Dublin. I can’t remember the details now but I had an agent at the time and I guess we had a screening. Or maybe the producers, who were Peter Andrews and Malcolm Heyworth, had talked to my agent. But anyway, I remember there was a screening - and they came, and perhaps two other people - in a little theatre in Soho and they seemed to like it and said we’re doing this thing, would you be interested?

“So basically they saw my previous film. They had up to that point been talking about doing three stories. They’d done a short. For some peculiar reason they thought that to do a triple-bill - three stories, all low budget and with linked themes - would somehow be cheaper, or something. They could take the cost of their short and do it times three and it would all come out cheaper. They’d got this young guy Robert Wynne-Simmons to write the stories. All the key sequences, all the really meaty, good sequences, were in those three stories. But they had already decided, and I certainly did everything I could to persuade them to make it into one film, one story, just to allow it to breathe and be more ambitious and have more impact.

“We started then a non-stop process, which didn’t stop right up to shooting, of smoothing out the bumps. There are still a few bumps, like: what happens to Auntie? And you can sense it’s episodic, in the sense that the rape is the climax of the middle film and so on."

There are three well-defined acts which don’t really link properly.
"It’s rather overclear, yes. But anyway, we did our best. Seeing it recently, my saddest thought is that the ending doesn’t pull out the stops, it doesn’t top the rape."

It’s quite abrupt.
"It is quite abrupt, yes. It’s not really well handled, that. It’s narrowed down in a sense to the issue of Ralph. There’s another way in which we didn’t succeed in pulling it together. I wasn’t experienced enough at the time; I would know how to do it now. Making sure that all the strands come together. They don’t, they jump and suddenly you’re telling the story of Ralph and his leg. You kind of assume that the thing is all going on off-screen but you don’t really see it. So it’s not a continuous and flowing build, although it’s a pretty good continuous, flowing build to the end of act two, really. Because you see the kids involved and that’s getting nastier. But we did what we could and what we were able to do."

You get an ‘additional material’ script credit. How closely did you work with Robert Wynne-Simmons?
"Very, very closely. All the powerful, imaginative sequences of horror are Robert’s invention. Nothing was taken away in the credit from him for conceiving that sequence of experiences and images and the whole story. My writing contribution is entirely in the area of character, of character subtlety, trying to make family relationships resonate. Some of the non-action stuff is mine, like the kids wandering through the woods and you’re haunted by fears and anxieties and so on. That stuff is mostly mine, so that was my contribution, to try and thicken the texture, to make the characters more interesting."

How familiar were you with the horror genre when you worked on this?
"Not at all. That’s quite interesting. I had barely seen a horror film. I was frightfully serious. I had come out of the theatre, my background had been the Royal Court Theatre, National Theatre, and then I got into television in the middle 1960s. I had done quality television, Plays Department and things. I was fairly earnest and arty so I wasn’t really into genre. We didn’t talk about genre so much in those days anyway; everybody talks about genre now. But I wasn’t really into genre. I loved movies, but I love Satyajit Ray and Antonioni and so on."

Didn’t you work with Antonioni yourself?
"Yes, when he did Blow-Up in 1966 I was his assistant, in the sense that I was a sort of translation and dialogue assistant. He hired me to be his ears to the English acting, but I ended up translating for him a lot, explaining what he wanted to the English actors. He’d talk in French and I’d talk to them in English. So I had an absolutely fascinating job for about ten weeks of filming in the summer of 1966. So anyway, he obviously became a hero so I was very serious.

“I was offered this job and I thought, ‘I’d better find out,’ so I went to a few horror films and figured out what seemed to be essential. But I was determined to make it as it needed to be made. I didn’t want to breach the genre but I didn’t want to follow it under any sort of enslavement. I guess I was trying to make the thing seriously, as if it was real. Also, to me the countryside was terribly important. I grew up on a farm and it’s natural for me to use the countryside as symbols or as imagery. As this was a story about people subject to superstitions about living in the woods, the dark poetry of that appealed to me. I was trying to make a folk-horror film, I suppose. Not a campy one. I didn’t really like the Hammer campy style, it wasn’t for me really."

In many ways, Blood on Satan’s Claw is more like a historical drama than a horror film.
"That’s exactly right. I made it seriously. Mind you, it never made much money. It wasn’t a hit. From the very beginning it had minority appeal. A few people absolutely loved it but the audiences didn’t turn out for it."

Malcolm Heyworth remembered an NFT screening as ‘the most under-rated film of the year’.
"Yes, that’s right. I think I remember that. We got a wonderful review in the New York Times - Vincent Canby gave us a rave. When I went to work in the States in the late 1980s I met Jonathan Demme. In fact he signed my Director’s Guild of America application; it was signed by Jonathan Demme, Martin Scorsese and Alan Pakula. I’d done Pennies from Heaven just before. But Jonathan Demme remembered the film, Blood on Satan’s Claw. So it had its followers but it was never a mainstream audience hit."

What was your preferred title?
"It was initially The Devil’s Touch and then Satan’s Skin. I think Satan’s Skin is the best title. When it was sold to America, this wonderful old showman Sam Arkoff of AIP bought it and they released it as Blood on Satan’s Claw. Tony Tenser then changed the title and I thought that was a bit infra-dig, a bit naff. So I think Satan’s Skin was my favourite."

How involved was Tony Tenser with the production?
"Oh, correctly really. He was interested in the package. I remember meeting him early on. Apart from that he turned up twice on location. I don’t think he always saw the rushes, because we didn’t have video rushes then. I don’t remember him being any sort of problem. He set up the framework and one did one’s thing within the framework. But Malcolm would know more. They would have talked to him, I just got on with the film."

How did you choose your cast?
"Linda Hayden was under contract to Tony Tenser so she was part of a package really. The other people we just auditioned. Simon Williams was just a young actor. Tamara Ustinov, I thought the name would be useful; I think she’d done a couple of things. They had a tiny, tiny bit of marquee value, they were promising young actors. But Patrick Wymark was a big TV star, in The Plane-Makers and so on. He had been in Witchfinder General which had just opened, he had a small part in that. Every time I watch the film I’m more struck by his contribution. I just think that he did a wonderful job because he was able to give it, with his presence, a kind of philosophical resonance and a kind of dread. Scary possibilities and dark imaginings which it absolutely needed."

Was he difficult to direct?
"Not at all. Absolutely not. I don’t remember any problems at all. The whole thing was actually huge fun. I don’t remember any problems apart from working flat out and being tired. It was one of those projects that clicked and came together very nicely."

Shooting in the middle of nowhere must have been a pain.
"Some credit to the producers - they bit the bullet. We were based in Pinewood. Journey time always affects you and it was similar then, it was probably harder then because the limitations were probably stronger. You have your Pinewood base then your travel time to the location is calculated from Pinewood and even from Pinewood Henley is over an hour. And it’s a tricky location because you couldn’t get the whole unit in; we had to have a base down the road and ferry people in. Do you know that area? It’s called Bix Bottom. It’s a nature reserve which is why it’s unspoiled. It was quite a small budget film, not huge, but there was always stuff to organise. So most of the locations were there. Obviously the house interior is in the studio. The schoolhouse interior’s a studio. The barn is very near Pinewood, then there’s a bit of Black Park which is the lake."

One of the film’s strengths is Dick Bush’s marvellous cinematography.
"I told you that I was really in love with nature and filming nature was always important to me but he certainly taught me a lot. The basic imagery was that he used a lot of very dark foregrounds, trees and so on, and then the action was set away in light. That motif comes up a lot. He was a tricky chap actually, but perfectly nice. He made a huge contribution and taught me a lot and deserves much credit."

The music is also fabulous.
"It is a great score. Mark Wilkinson I had worked with at the National Theatre. He did an absolutely famous and outstanding score for a production of the Peter Shaffer play The Royal Hunt of the Sun about the Aztecs and Atahualpa in 1964-ish. So I knew him from the National Theatre as somebody who had a wonderful command of strange sounds. He wasn’t somebody who would ever give you a stock sound. And I think he absolutely excelled himself. It’s certainly one of the best scores I’ve ever had for a film. Every time I hear it you can see the contribution it makes."

When did you start to realise that Blood on Satan’s Claw was developing a cult following?
"I can’t remember - except that dotted around those years, the 1970s and 1980s, one would bump into people or read something. Then it started popping up every two or three years late at night on ITV in a horror season. People would say, ‘Oh, I saw your film again.’ But the real cult thing is really only in the last year or two. They’re doing a DVD; I’ve just done the commentary track for the DVD. DVD is actually bringing a lot of films back to life which is great, it’s really nice. I did both DVD tracks, one for that and one for a film I did called Venom, on the same day at the same place so they’re both part of the same package."

Is there anything else going on the DVD apart from commentary and trailer?
"No, I don’t think there was ever a ‘making of’. It was a very small, modest operation. I think that’s all they have, as far as I know. But we had Robert Wynne-Simmons and Linda Hayden and me doing the commentary."

After Blood you seem to have gone back to TV for the rest of the 1970s.
"Yes. I was talking about doing another horror film with David Niven Jr who was a film executive who has since left the business and gone into restaurants in Hollywood - but he was an exec, an independent, in London at that time. He saw Blood on Satan’s Claw and he loved it. He had another project, another horror film, which we talked about for a while but nothing ever happened. And it was just about then - I’m sure the figures will confirm this - in 1972 that all the Americans packed up in Wardour Street and went home. They had been here in force from the late 1960s with the renaissance of British cinema. They had all been here and a lot of product had been made. It was in the 1970s, it may have been something to do with the pound-dollar ratio."

Didn’t the Edy Levy finish around then?
"Maybe that’s it. Anyway it was also in the 1970s that Hollywood really came on with some really interesting, contemporary, location-set films. They started making movies about society in a direct, vivid way. So they all just left and that particular project fell and nothing else came up. I guess because my film hadn’t been a mainstream hit, it was rather specialised. So I went back to the telly, that’s quite right, and I had a very interesting 1970s in television. I finished with Pennies from Heaven and immediately after then Quatermass."

That must have been daunting because there had been a very long gap since the Quatermass serials of the 1960s which were watched by just about everyone in the country.
"I had seen some of those. I didn’t feel overawed - perhaps I should have! - by that particularly. It was just a rather interesting project and intelligent. I like science fiction. That was a genre, I suppose, that I’ve always had more affection for. There were some good ideas."

Were you involved in cutting the TV series down to the feature version?
"We did the two at the same time or one then the other. It’s quite interesting that Nigel Kneale - Tom Kneale - who is a really professional writer, he had worked this out. There were two scripts so we didn’t just do it in the cutting room. He had worked out how we could leave out a whole strand of story. I think it’s a trip to London though I haven’t seen it for years. You could leave it out and get down to our 109 minutes from the original 200. It was quite a strain though. Without that we would have been completely stuck but even with that it was still a strain. But we just did one then the other."

Then you did one of Peter Sellers’ last films.
"I did his last film."

Wasn’t The Fiendish Plot of Fu Manchu made after Being There but released before it, or vice versa?
"I would be surprised. I think that Being There had come out. It was made after Being There and that was part of the problem because Being There was such a good film and it was serious. He wasn’t being funny at the time: the darkness, that lugubrious comedy of Being There which worked so well.

“It was a very disagreeable experience on that film. I was brought in on an off-chance. He’d agreed to do a fairly stock Hollywood comedy thriller, similar to The Pink Panther really, playing a detective and a villain. And he’d fallen out of love with that project and didn’t want to do that script. They said, ‘Okay, what do you want to do?’ and he said, ‘Let me go off and do a bit of rewriting.’ So he went off with a Hollywood hack and turned it into a series of Goon Show sketches. The executives were absolutely appalled. They thought, ‘Oh my God, we thought he had a picture and now we’ve got a development situation.’ I knew one of them, so they said, ‘Maybe this guy Haggard could do something with this.’

“So I got three weeks’ work to supervise a rewrite, which we did. We made Peter’s script much more coherent, turned it into something with a bit more of a beginning, middle and end. And they were very pleased with that so I got the gig. But then unfortunately within about two weeks my love affair with Peter Sellers was over but I had to soldier on. I did soldier on but it was no fun, absolutely no fun. Then just towards the end of the shooting he decided, which had been obvious, that either he would go or I would go so they got rid of me. I didn’t have much choice. So I was retired and he directed for the last week or so. It was pretty much a disaster from beginning to end."

After that came Venom with Oliver Reed.
"After that came Venom which I also took over. I took over that at very short notice. Tobe Hooper had been directing it and they had stopped for whatever reason. It hadn’t been working. I did see some of his stuff and it didn’t look particularly good plus he also had some sort of nervous breakdown or something. So anyway they stopped shooting and offered it to me. Unfortunately I had commitments, I had some commercials to shoot. But anyway I took it over with barely ten days of preparation - which shows. It doesn’t become my picture, it’s a bit inbetween."

How was Oliver Reed to work with?
"Scary at first because he was always testing you all the time. Difficult but not as difficult as Klaus Kinski. Because Oliver actually had a sense of humour. I was rather find of him; he could be tricky but he was quite warm really. He just played games and was rather macho and so on. Klaus Kinski was very cold. The main problem with the film was that the two didn’t get on and they fought like cats. Kinski of course is a fabulous film actor and he’s good in the part, the part suits him very well. They were both well cast but it was a very unhappy film. I think Klaus was the problem but then Oliver spent half the movie just trying to rub him up, pulling his leg all the way. There were shouting matches because Oliver just wouldn’t let up. None of this is about art. All the things that you’re trying to concentrate on tend to slip. So it was not a happy period.”

interview originally posted 5th June 2008

Wasteland

$
0
0
Director: Tom Wadlow
Writer: Tommy Draper
Producer: Chrissa Maund
Cast: Shameer Madarbakus, Jessica Messenger, Gavin Harrison
Country: UK
Year of release: 2013
Reviewed from: festival screening (Day of the Undead)
Website:
www.lightfilms.co.uk

Wasteland is, for the most part, a fine modern zombie picture: bleak, depressing and - what was that phrase I coined in the Zombie Hood review? - satisfyingly nihilistic. Here’s a film for everyone who watched Before Dawn and thought well, that was good but perhaps just a little too effervescent.

Sadly, Wasteland doesn’t quite have the courage of its convictions and gains confidence in the third act, giving the audience a degree of hope which this audience member (and maybe it’s just me) really doesn’t want in a film like this. When I watch a depressing zombie movie, I expect to leave the cinema depressed. That’s how I know I enjoyed it. Still, this is an impressively made, well acted and well photographed British zombie feature and comes thoroughly recommended.

Shameer Madarbakus carries the film with a superb performance as Scott, a survivor of the zombie apocalypse who lives alone in a little stone shed in the middle of the Peak District. He has a supply of tins of beans and a short-wave radio but his biggest problem is water. It hasn’t rained for weeks and the nearby rivers are polluted because of the numerous dead bodies floating in them.

For the first half of the film, Madarbakus basically is the movie, his solitary life filmed in an interior set in director Tom Wadlow’s garage. For much of the production there was no-one around except Madarbakus, Wadlow and cinematographer Chris Newman, isolated from the world in their own little environment. We see Scott’s hopeless life as he survives from day to day. Nowhere to go, nothing to do except forage for any remaining foodstuffs and fight off occasional zombie attacks. He’s not living, he’s just not dying. It’s the sort of solitary post-apocalyptic existence that we have seen in (or at least, at the start of) films like The Eschatrilogy and The Vanguard.

Breaking up this one-man show are flashbacks to Scott’s earlier life: meeting, wooing and settling down with his girlfriend Beth (Jessica Messenger). He also has radio contact with a couple somewhere, George (Gavin Harrison) and Barbara, but even that ends badly.

Scott is waiting. Waiting for Beth to come back. Determined to not move from his shed until the love of his life returns. I’m not going to spoil the film for you by revealing whether or not she ever turns up. What I will say is that in the third act Scott leaves his little shed and sets out across country, eventually encountering another couple: Max (Mark Drake) and teenager Lolli (Rachel Benson). While some sort of development was needed at this point, having spent so long getting to know Scott I felt that Max and Lolli were sketchier characters. Their motivations seem unclear and their actions don’t seem to have any clear narrative justification. I’m simply not sure why they did the things they did.

Yes, we finally get character conflict (which regular readers will know I believe lies at the heart of any film) but it’s difficult to see quite how or why this conflict originates or what it hopes to achieve. The film builds to a climax which is almost action-packed by comparison with the languorous pace of the first two acts, and finishes on a notion of hope which sort of undercuts the bleakness of the overall movie.

It’s an okay third act, but it sits incongruously with the first two. I’m sure I was not the only audience member looking for things to get worse and worse until eventually everyone we cared about was dead, and I feel slightly short-changed by the change in tone.

That said, this is still a good zombie film. Shot for the now-traditional tuppence-ha’penny of these things with fine zombie make-up designed by Deborah Bennett and applied by Jane Hyman (Devil’s Tower, Dave Lilley’s The Wailing Well) among others. Sophie Black pulled triple duties as production designer, art director and costume designer while Dave S Walker (Entity) provided the score and Joe Parcell contributed often unnoticeable visual effects (including, for example, digitally creating parts of Scott’s shed when there wasn’t room in Wadlow’s garage to get the required angle). Scriptwriter Tommy Draper previously collaborated with Tom Wadlow on short comedy Shelf-Stackers and also contributed to Neil Oseman’s time travel fantasy Stop/Eject. Wadlow himself has a bunch of shorts under his belt going back to 2007 and here makes the transition to feature length adroitly and confidently with highly laudable results.

Shameeer Madarbakus has had small roles in EastEnders, Casualty and Calendar Girls but this is his first feature lead and first horror role; it should get him serious attention. Jessica Messenger on the other hand already has quite a horror-heavy CV, mostly through Philip Gardiner stuff like One Hour to Die, Dark Watchers: The Women in Black and Awesome Killer Audition (which has now apparently been retitled One Hour to Die 2!). She is also in Devil’s Tower (another Derbyshire frightflick) and Anglo-American virus horror Psoro, a film which looks like it has disappeared completely. Mark Drake was in Ali Djarar’s non-MR James-ian A Warning to the Curious, yet another missing title in the British Horror Revival. Among the undead on screen are Dean Sills (Dark Walkers: Rise of the 4th Reich, Exorcist Chronicles, Blaze of Gory, The Eschatrilogy), Sandy Kate Slade (also in Dead Walkers and Exorcist Chronicles), Rich Creedy (Cockneys vs Zombies) and John Shelton, host/creator of 48-minute anthology Halloween Creep Tales.

I really enjoyed Wasteland. It’s not quite the film I wanted it to be but then I didn’t write or direct it. Nevertheless, as a reviewer, it’s my job to make these observations. However, it’s also my job to recommend this to anyone looking for a solid, well-crafted contemporary British zombie flick. In a subgenre where standards are often so low, Wasteland stands above much of the rest, not least thanks to a cracking central performance by young Mr Madarbakus.

MJS rating: B+

interview: John R Hand

$
0
0
After my attempt to review the apostrophe-free oddity that isFrankensteins Bloody Nightmare, I knew that I needed to find out from the writer/director/producer John R Hand precisely what was going on in the film. He sent these detailed answers to my e-mailed questions in November 2006. (John subsequently directed the equally bizarre Scars of Youth.)

What were you trying to achieve with this movie and how well do you think you managed it?
“I'm not exactly sure how to answer those questions because obviously I set out with numerous goals in mind and I probably wouldn't let the film be seen if I didn't think I'd achieved what I wanted to make on some level. Ultimately I would like FBN to be viewed as a kind of descent into the madness of this one person, Victor, who may or may not be a doctor and he may or may not have a lab or a girlfriend/wife/love interest or anything really. It's ultimately hard to tell, because the audience is viewing the entire film through the weird, skewed perception of Victor's mind and it's almost as if he's on this faraway planet that exists in its own space and time, a little too bright and fuzzy, never quite coalescing into something which could sustain someone enough to live a normal life. So there's this inner journey which he goes through and the film is basically about kind of excavating this artefact of his broken consciousness and trying to find out all these things in his life that are weighing him down, his unusual relationship with his family and how he sees the world.

“That is basically what the film is about, but the concept started out more as a conventional film about a series of murders linked to a mysterious medical facility and there were far more noticeably horrific production elements on display throughout the film - more of everything and basically just more ‘explicit’ in its design on a fundamental level. Then certain things began to happen, like I realised very early on that I just couldn't build the sets I wanted and get the actors I needed so everything began to become more pared-down and cerebral and smaller as I realised this whole scenario is playing out within the dark, black hole of Victor's brain. Also I chose to play the Victor character myself so I was constantly getting into the psyche of that character in a very direct way and it was influencing the film. Eventually the film took on some very autobiographical touches but I still think it's a fairly accessible movie in many ways.

“One of the elements of this film which I think survived my first rough outline all the way to the finished product was this concept of starting the audience out in a conventional mode with this very standard scenario of mad doctors, murder and grave-robbing and then by the mid-point taking a blowtorch to that crystalline structure and letting the whole thing evaporate because the whole scenario is presented through the filter of Victor's warped brain, a downward spiral into oblivion. That always stayed there, but I think in the end I didn't have the means to really build a conventional first act so the film is pretty strange all the way through, though I did manage to fortunately set up a lot of conventional things very early on in order to have them pay off on far more stranger level later on, so in that sense I was happy about with the structure.

“So from a standpoint of achieving what I set out to do with FBN I think the film works in its own way but it is a kind of square peg in a world of round holes. I guess I'm fooling myself and it's always been a round hole world. I think one thing which has gotten me in trouble with this movie is that the title very subtly announces that this film is going to be a round peg and most people don't like this kind of weirdo false advertising, especially a film which very early on in the narrative announces to the audience that it's not going to be easy going (which is again a problem with that first act) but I stand by the film's structure and tone and I think that if you took something out of the equation and tried to make it different it might lose some of its resonance, but obviously I'm very biased about it.”

What is Cinechrome 70 and what were your ideas behind the way that the film is lit and shot?
“I guess the entire film in some ways grew out of my interest in Super-8 film. Years ago I'd bought tons of S8 gear at thrift stores and junk sales and then as I went to school and moved on I just shelved all that stuff because there really wasn't anything I could do with all this garbage as a little kid with no place to process or buy film. Then last year a friend of mine conned me into transferring some of his old home movies to mini-DV - nothing fancy, just simple off-the-wall transfers from an old projector - but something about the quality of the film and how well it looked put me back in touch with the format and I thought to myself very quietly, ‘Gee, there's something to this.’ So I got back from this guy's place and I resolved to put together a tiny horror film around the concept that I would shoot it in Kodachrome Super-8 in order to give it ‘a vintage feel’ because I immediately recognised that quality in S8, the fact that anything you shot on it immediately looked ancient, especially using an outmoded colour process like Kodachrome which is actually similar to Technicolor in the sense that the colour isn't in the film because the film itself is basically three black-and-white films. So Super-8 became a vehicle to use in order to tell a very worn-out story in a different visual way.

“As the film progressed a number of things changed however. As I said earlier the budget and time didn't really allow me to track down all the production elements I thought I needed and then I realised that given my camera I couldn't exactly shoot things with the degree of precision that I wanted because all those old plastic Super-8 lenses weren't very exact and Kodachrome 40 is a 40 ASA reversal stock so lighting that at night with all the jerry-rigged work-lamps I was lighting the film with wasn't going well, so I eventually shot most of the night scenes on video. So here I am, stuck between two formats and suddenly realising that I couldn't exactly make a pure ‘Super-8 film’ so stylistically it began to push me more in the direction of thinking about a tonality and granularity as opposed to a pure format, and I guess this way of thinking also pushed toward my already-developing abstract concept of this mad scientist who had no lab, no patients and no monster, or did he? It suddenly began to be less about making a Jess Franco film and more of just surrendering to the grain. For me it wasn't about style over substance but more like style becoming substance because as it developed it became an integral part of the film's world.

“Cinechrome 70 (or Vistachrome 70, I've also used that name) was just an invented name on my part because I didn't feel right slapping the ‘Super-8’ moniker on the film because I'd already moved away from being a pure S8 film and I also got caught up in all those cool lab process names you might see in the title credits for European films. So in a way, ‘Cinechrome 70’ was my own dumb way of retro-homage and at the same time telling the audience that there was something different and unique going on with the visual style.”

Why is the main character named Karlstein instead of Frankenstein?
“One of the things that I definitely wanted to do with this film was mess with the preconceived notions of the audience, because as I said earlier I wanted to kind of switch horses halfway through and totally get the audience confused to a point where they would just let in all this weird pathos and imagery in the second half and it might hopefully affect them on some strange level. Using ‘Frankenstein’ in the title was definitely part of that set-up and it was directly inspired by Sam Sherman's US retitling of Paul Naschy's Mark of the Wolfman as Frankenstein's Bloody Terror. FBT isn't about Frankenstein so I thought I would make a movie which didn't really have anything to do with Frankenstein as a weird kind of homage to that title. Actually I originally came up with something like Frankenstein's Blood Orgy or ...Bloody Orgy but ultimately I think using the term ‘nightmare’ played perfect given the film's dreamlike concept.

“Also I thought that the Frankenstein family was always changing their name so it made sense for me to switch it to something else. I think I considered writing some dialogue for Victor at some point where he explains this but it just didn't feel right and I think those moments of clarity eventually fell by the wayside and were replaced by far more symbolic elements like the moments with the telephone and the little baby floating in the weird blue world, stuff like that, because I thought stuff like that was a little more universal than this little bratty kid who's coasting off his family name. I think for every strange scene I could've put in three or four scenes to explain what was happening with this one character but then it would be a totally different film because in a way you're not supposed to be sure exactly what's happening because Victor's not even really sure where his sick mind is going so you're almost violating something if you stretch out beyond the character for too long to observe what's happening outside.

“The name ‘Karlstein’ is from Lina Romay's character in Female Vampire but I also wanted to pay a vague homage to the Karnstein vampire family from Hammer because Peter Cushing's Frankenstein character was a big inspiration for me, especially the last Hammer Frankenstein film he made where he spends the entire film hiding under a false identity, screwing everything up with this weird ‘monster from hell’ and then at the end he just goes, ‘Oh well, I'll get it right tomorrow,’ and walks off into the sunset. That film really inspired me. Something inside tells me that any mad scientist movie needs to be kind of weird and anticlimactic in a sense in order to ring true.”

How well has the film been received (and indeed, understood) by those who have seen it?
“The reaction to my film has been very mixed on a very diverse level and it's hard for me to really contain all those reactions and regurgitate them because it's all been very surprising to me. In hindsight I wonder if I should really be surprised by it given that I've made a film with very few easy answers so why should I expect easy answers back from the audience?

“The thing with the title Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare is that it calls out to an audience like that old kindly book-keeper in Neverending Story and tells them in this gentle, grandfatherly voice: ‘This book is safe.’ Then they get into the screening room and they're hit with the film and suddenly they realise two minutes into it that: ‘Hey, this book isn't safe.’ Whether they enjoy the film or not I've played a game on them. If the film was sold to a different crowd with a more pretentious title I'm not sure if I'd get all these polarised reactions but who can tell really. The bottom line for me is that I think we should be playing in a much larger sandbox and ultimately the most important thing is to make something interesting or entertaining or something which uncomfortably falls inbetween those two.”

What plans do you have for your next project?
“I have a few films right now which I want to make but it's all up to how I can get them funded. I think before I do anything else I have to make another underground film in the style of this one, which is going to be painful because this film only cost $2,000 (actually closer to $1,500) and it bankrupted me, but I can deal with it.”

Finally, what's the deal with the missing apostrophe?
“The film's title originally had the apostrophe included, but when I was laying out the title graphics in this nice Eurostile font it just didn't look right with this thing hanging between the ‘N' and ‘S’ so I took it out and it looked better. Also I started thinking about it and the possessive nature of ‘Frankenstein's’ really bothered me because often I think it's used in film titles to suggest some authorship but it's authorship in a rather vague manner because the movie is so switched around from the original source material and the audience has no idea what that apostrophe really means. Sometimes you've got Bram Stoker's Dracula and then you've got John Carpenter's Vampires but wait a second, shouldn't it be John Steakley's Vampires (or Vampire$) because it's based on Steakley's source material? This whole concept of authorship and film titles is often more about name recognition than anything so I thought in a world where this could occur I would just take the apostrophe out and make it my own little stylistic thing like all those ‘S’s in Sweet Sweetback's Badassss Song or the exclamation marks at the end of Russ Meyer films.”

website: www.jrhfilms.com
interview originally posted 20th November 2006

interview: Alan Harris

$
0
0
Alan Harris was the British producer of Anglo-Kiwi horror The Ferryman. In August 2007 he kindly answered one of my e-mail mini-interviews.

How did you become involved with The Ferryman?
“I have known and admired writer Nick Ward’s work since he wrote Kiwi film Stickmen. I heard he was writing a horror (not usually a genre usually associated with Atlantic Film Group) and this coupled with a desire that I have held for sometime to set a project in New Zealand (where I was brought up) made me interested in finding out more.

“Co-Producer Matthew Metcalfe and I began to talk about how we could make the film an Anglo-New Zealand co-production and take advantage of various financing opportunities in both countries. We worked hard to structure the project and secured the funding from a combination of sources in NZ and the UK.”

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a UK/NZ co-production?
“Any official co-production brings with it inherent issues and challenges. There are various restrictions that are in place that limit your spend in each country and your choices of cast, creative and technical crew and as a producer you need to weigh these up against the benefits that you can gain from a funding point of view.

“Atlantic have been specialising in the utilisation of co-production treaties and conventions for many years and the structuring of The Ferryman fell into a fairly natural construct whereby we spent around 70 per cent of the film’s budget in NZ where we shot in and around Auckland and 30 per cent in the UK where we post produced it.”

Why, in your opinion, is horror such a viable genre in British films nowadays?
“As long as you respect the form and function of the genre and try as much as possible to give the audience a new feel and take within the rules that are generally accepted within horror films, the audience for the horror genre is an extremely loyal one. Of course the converse is true and if you patronise them or try to go too far outside of the conventions they hold dear then watch out!

“Also the online horror community is extremely strong which helps with word-of-mouth marketing – a hallmark of this type of project. During production and post-production we purposely tried to keep the information about The Ferryman to a minimum so that we could have some semblance of control of its output but amazingly the hardcore fans found stuff out. Various forums and notice boards were rife with speculation and discussion; not always accurate but it certainly demonstrated a thirst for information and a real desire to be included.”

Where has The Ferryman been shown and how has it been received?
The Ferryman received its premiere at the Brussels International Festival of Fantastic Film and opened to a sold out crowd of over 1,200. The festival is renowned for being extremely vocal and a real litmus test for a film. The Director, Chris Graham, and myself attended and we were really amazed at how well it played - the audience really got into the ethos of the film. It is fairly unrelenting once it gets moving and to have the reaction that we did was awesome.

“The film then opened at the Seattle International Film Festival in the US and again received great reviews. It is lined up for the Puchon Film Festival in Asia this October. It is to be released theatrically in New Zealand and Australia in October and the UK later this year.”

What other films do you have in production or development?
The Ferryman co-producer Matthew Metcalfe and I are producing another Anglo-New Zealand co-production entitled My Talks with Dean Spanley written by Alan Sharp (Rob Roy) starring Peter O’Toole and directed by Sundance audience award winner Toa Fraser (No.2). We are set for principal photography in November in and around Norfolk.

“Atlantic Film Group are also developing a novel by Julie Myerson entitled Something Might Happen, a project about the first boat load of female convicts to be transported to Australia called The Floating Brothel and a Canadian road movie entitled Mile Zero.”

interview originally posted 27th August 2007

interview: Amy Harvey

$
0
0
Amy Harvey played Leanne in Julian Richards’ filmSummer Scars. I interviewed Amy on set in South Wales in August 2006.

What can you tell me about Leanne?"Leanne is a ballsy tomboy who hangs around with all the lads. Mugsy’s her cousin who introduced her to the lads and she has a big crush on another one of the lead roles which is Bingo and they end up getting together. She’s quite reserved but she’ll stick up for anyone who gets bullied. She’s always sticking up for Mugsy and Jonesy when they’re getting picked on. She’s just a general, all-round tomboy, I think."

How old are you and how old is Leanne?"I’m fourteen and the character is fourteen. It’s the first time I’ve actually played my age.”

How did you get the role?"I went for an audition with my agency, with Ryan Conway. I didn’t hear anything for a while but then I went for a call-back with Kevin and the director Julian. We did a bit of improvisation and a couple of scenes from the film. Then I didn’t hear anything for ages, like six weeks, then they gave me a call and told me I’d got the part so I was very pleased."

What sort of stuff have you done before?"I haven’t done a hell of a lot of acting but I’ve done adverts for the NSPCC, I’ve done an episode of Casualty, I’ve done some work with BBC Jam and a bit of Welsh theatre work."

Is acting something that you want to pursue?"Definitely. I love acting."

How are you finding being the only girl in the cast?"Brilliant. I think it’s wicked! It gives you time to get into the tomboy role. First of all, all the boys treat you like you’re china or glass but now they’ve all got to know me and know that I am a bit of a tomboy anyway so I just fit right in with everyone."

When I got here this morning, you were shooting the scene where you steal the moped."We went for a lesson on the moped, which I wasn’t the best in because I crashed into a bush. But I got used to it and Kevin the stunt co-ordinator, he helped me with a lot of it. I had Ryan, who plays Mugsy, on the back and it was brilliant. We had the quad bike in front of us with the camera and I had to try and say a line whilst riding the moped. So it was good, it was brilliant."

You seemed to be well padded up."Yes, they were 100 per cent safe. And Kevin was running at 25 kilometres per hour in front of the moped just to make sure that if I fell off he was going to catch me. It’s been a brilliant experience."

interview originally posted 19th November 2007

interview: Anthony Head

$
0
0
Okay, Buffy fans - how many of you can name the American telefantasy series that Anthony Head starred in before he was Giles? It was a short-lived thing called VR.5, starring Lori Singer, and it was the subject of this phone interview on 4th October 1995 (by which time it had already been cancelled). A short version of this ran in SFX but the full version has never been published. (NB. At this time Buffy the Vampire Slayer was just a 1992 movie starring Kristy Swanson so there’s no mention of it here. Sorry.)

Was it planned in advance that you would come in on episode four of VR.5, or was it something that was decided during production?
"No, I think it was basically that, after the pilot, they realised that the professor character was great up to a point. It helped establish (a) that she's vulnerable, (b) that what she's doing is very dangerous. But there was very little antagonism between them, and once they had established that they were both coming from the same place, there needed to be another character introduced who would stir things up a bit. It was planned after the pilot. The pilot set up these basic characters and from there on in, it transpired that you need to go somewhere else. For the theories to have a stronger line and for the committee to be more imposing.”

Did you have to audition for this?
“Oh yes."

What did they tell you about the role?
"Very little. There were keeping it extremely hush-hush. Then on my second reading - my first call-back - they started to explain roughly what it was about. The general description of the characters was that he is 'more Armani than Brooks Brothers' and he's a bit like a Svengali figure. You can't work out whether he's taking care of her or usurping her."

Have they told you stuff about the character that they haven't revealed to the audience?
"Oh, yes. Well, it gradually becomes revealed as the series progresses. You find out why he is such a strange, guarded chap and what dark secrets are locked in his past. They did say at the interview that initially he gives very little away, and it's exasperating because of that. Eventually you do start to discover that he does have dark secrets. We find out what makes him tick. It's a very interesting part. It's not your ordinary run-of-the-mill series, and it's not your ordinary run-of-the-mill part. In terms of American episodic TV it was very different from anything else I'd ever seen or been up for."

Was the series doing quite well when it was dropped?
"It was doing extremely well. It was very controversial, it was extremely well critically received. There are still discussions about its future - it's by no means dead - and in fact I'm going out there next week for negotiations. It's something that has developed an enormous cult audience. So much so that people have gone to Canada to get pirate copies of the shows that didn't get shown on Fox."

How many episodes did they make altogether?
"Altogether we made 13, which will all be shown on Sky, but they only showed ten on Fox because it was a mid-season replacement. We had extremely good viewing figures but they were up and down, they were all over the place. It wasn't obvious; one week we'd be up there, the next week we'd be down. So the overall viewing figures were not stunning, but the general response was brilliant. You had TV critics in the New York Times praising it hugely. It was all very good. But I wasn't expecting it to be received like any other American TV programme. It requires more work than they are normally used to. The audience has got to work quite hard to suss out who's doing what to whom."

Did you do any of the sequences in VR?
"Couple of times, yes."

Was that an unusual filming experience?
"Yes. One of the things they were very specific about was that they wanted to do most of the effects on camera, rather than relying on a lot of post-production. So for instance there's a court scene that we did that was shot in the hotel where Bobby Kennedy was shot. We did it in this enormous lounge, a bizarre courtroom setting. All the uprights supporting the balustrade were perspex pillars, so when you shine light through it, it's the most beautiful, extraordinary effect."

What's Lori Singer like to work with?
"She's very, very good indeed. The thing that I think she's exceptional at - and that I don't think your run-of-the-mill Hollywood actress would have been able to cope with - was the transition that she goes through from her 'normal life' persona, which is a bit geeky, very shy, very reticent, to this stunning charismatic beauty that she becomes in virtual reality. This is why she enjoys going into virtual reality, she can't keep away from it because she suddenly becomes incandescent. She's very good. It's nice to be able to talk through dialogue and work out things that aren't working and be able to bounce ideas around. She's very up there for ideas and things. It was very interesting, very good."

Whilst it's a very interesting show, the basic premise of VR.5 is complete hokum. What was the feeling towards the scientific aspects of the show on the production?
"Hokum inasmuch as you can't take someone into a virtual reality set-up on the telephone, you mean?"

Yes, that's this big leap of believability, that's not really what virtual reality is. It's a nice idea, but there's a lot of technobabble in the series.
"I think there were certain rules that they set up within the boundaries of what they'd elected to generate. There was always a key that she would touch to get out. The virtual reality set-up to which she would go would always be something set up by herself on the keyboard. it wasn't just something that she leapt into and out of like a time machine. At the same time, it's not that far removed from possibility. If you think what people would have thought about virtual reality ten years ago, in terms of commercial uses, and people are now using virtual reality to walk into buildings that are just on a piece of paper. So (a) I don't think it's going to be long before virtual reality using all five senses is attainable, but (b) I also don't think it's that far removed from the possibility that you will be able to access people's subconscious thoughts. It's all feasible, that's as far as it goes. No, it's not available in the shops, but it's not that far removed from possibility. It has to be an extrapolation, it has to be what happens next, because we've got this far and we all know about that. You can't really make TV programmes about that because we're already there. What we do want to make programmes about are the uses of VR and how it shapes our lives from the next generation on. I think in terms of those extrapolations, it's quite an interesting hypothesis."

Does it bother you that you are still 'Anthony Head, that bloke from the coffee ads'?
"No. Not remotely, it's been very good to me. Why should I deny it? I don't get people ribbing me and giving me a hard time about it. I get people smiling and saying hello. It was a good thing to have done. It had a good vibe about it, it was well shot, it was intelligently written, as much as you can in an advert. Humorous, witty, romantic, it was just like doing quite a good little mini-series every six months for forty seconds."

How many did you do?
"We did twelve here, and I think we're on number twelve there, and we've just shot two more."

So the American ones are shot separately?
"Oh yes. The story has gone on, and has changed. They've taken a different line. But whatever you do that achieves some sort of fame or notoriety, you are then going to be known for that. Trevor Eve - Sharon's husband - is still known for Shoestring, and he's done a lot of extremely interesting things since then. He will always be 'Oh yeah! Shoestring!' but that's not a big deal. The bottom line is that Gold Blend is something I'm proud of. It had an effect on doing TV and film here for a while, but then it opened up a market in America so I was able to go over there. It also made me box-office over here for theatre, so I was able to do lots of theatre that I might not otherwise have done. Life deals its cards, and it's the way you deal with them, or the way you learn from them, that makes it interesting or exceedingly boring."

You were Frank N Furter in The Rocky Horror Show. That's tremendous fun, isn't it?
"Wonderful, wonderful. I did it four or five years ago at the Piccadilly, and I had such a good time. They've asked me a few times if I'd do it again, but it always meant touring. This time they said, 'Do you want to do six weeks in the West End and I said, 'Yes!' Because he's wonderfully wicked and very dark, and a great little spirit to play. He's fab, just fab. Where else do you get that much vibe off the audience?"

Were you aware of the amount of audience participation?
"When I first did it? Well, they told me about it, but you're never quite prepared for it. The first Friday night that you do is like: 'Jesus!' But then when you get it right, you get incredible power off them. Not so much at the Duke of York, but at the Piccadilly, which is a fifteen hundred seater. To be able to stop somebody dead with just a look, because you couldn't always put them down verbally, otherwise the play would never get on. But you could just flash somebody a look in the back of the circle and they'd shut up. It was great. Great power. My own little virtual reality set-up."

Do you prefer doing stage work or TV work?
"It isn't a question of preferences. They're so different, and there are so many different excitements in both of them, that you can't compare. I've been very lucky to flip about between one and the other, and musicals as well. They're another thing again, not like doing a straight play. When I've wanted to sing somebody's said, 'Would you like to do Rocky Horror for six weeks?' It's like: 'Whoa! Yeah!' Then I think, 'I've done some theatre, I want to do a bit of film,' and suddenly something crops up. The more you put into life, the more you learn from life."

You were in an episode of Highlander: The Series. What did you play in that?
"I was about 38 or so at the time; I had to play it older than myself because I had a 24-year-old son in it. I played an American ambassador whose son has raped a local girl, whose father just happens to be an immortal. And so the guy lays siege to my chateau, and old Highlander turns up and helps me out. It was a good little episode, one of those at the end of the series when they have to stay in one set because of they've used their budget up. So you've got to have a reason to stay in one place, and so it happened to be a chateau surrounded by fog. It was a very good episode actually."

Did the guy kill you at the end?
"That was the only sad thing. I got shot with a semi-automatic weapon with bullet-holes across my chest. They cut to me croaking on the settee, and people saying 'We must get him to hospital...' In real life, you shoot someone with a semi-automatic weapon across the chest and they don't make it to the settee. Unfortunately this is what we teach our children happens. I don't know; I'm very confused about the argument about TV violence. I think it does have an effect on children. Depends how much you let them watch I guess."

What's this new thing you've made for the BBC, The Ghostbusters of East Finchley?
"It's a series starring Jan Francis, Bill Paterson, Ray Winstone, Joe Melia, it's got a whole list of people in it. It's written by Tony Grant, and it's about 'ghosts' who are people who don't really exist in order to avoid paying taxes. Bill Paterson plays a tax inspector. I'm part of the sub-plot. Ray Winstone has some odd deals going on the side, and I play this sort of East End wide-boy who sells cars to Ray Winstone in Spain. I come back to pick up some cars and waltz into their life. It's beautifully written, very funny.”

website: www.anthonyhead.org
interview originally posted 3rd December 2005

interview: Lena Headey

$
0
0
I grabbed a very quick interview with Lena Headey on the set of the Hallmark mini-series Merlin, in which she played Guinevere, on 11th February 1998. This has never been published.

How’s it going from your point of view?
"It’s very cold. I’ve only been in it for about a week; all my stuff’s been squished into the last week, really."

Why was that?
"Because they had so much to do. Merlin and Arthur are the main guys anyway, along with Mab, so they did all that first. All my stuff is in the studio, although I was in Wales for a couple of days, which was gorgeous. I’d never been out there and I loved it. But then I spent most of my life in here, in this dark, dingy studio."

How did you get this role?
"Just through an audition, really. I went along, met them. They went, ‘Do you want it?’, I went, ‘All right.’ That was it."

What did you know about the production before hand?
"Nothing. They didn’t have a script and it was real last minute casting; I think they kind of panicked. Luckily I didn’t have any spots that week so I got it."

Have you done a production of this size before?
"Not really. I did The Jungle Book about four years ago, with Jason Scott Lee, which was quite big, but nothing with this much weird stuff going on."

Is it quite daunting, being on a production this size?
"It’s not, actually, it’s kind of more fun. It’s still stressful, but everyone seems to be not so much into heavy drama; everyone’s having a bit more of a giggle. So it’s not at all stressful. It’s a big ensemble piece anyway."

As queen, have you got to wear some pretty spectacular costumes?
"Yes, that’s been quite a nice aspect. There’s my wig, obviously. I’m usually in red because I’m a scarlet woman."

Has the make-up and hair been a pain?
"No, not really. Having long hair has been nice actually."

Does your character age at all?
"No, she doesn’t. It’s so brief, this role. I have about three scenes with Arthur and the rest are getting it on with Lancelot. Then I’m called a whore and tried to be burnt and then I fuck off. So it’s so quick."

Do you have to do any horse-riding?
"I was supposed to, but they took that scene out. It’s quite disappointing. This is why it’s crap to be a goody."

What about the burning at the stake?
"That was all right. I suddenly thought, ‘Oh, Michael Jackson incident! I can feel it coming on!’"

Were the flames added in post?
"No, there were actually flames there, but it was fine. That was my most exciting thing."

Has it been a fun project?
"Yes, I’ve really enjoyed it. It’s been very short for me, though."

What’s Steve Barron like as a director?
"Terrible! No, he’s great, he’s just such a lovely man."

Anything lined up after this?
"Yes, I’m going on to do a thing called Onegin with Ralph Fienes and Liz Hurley."

Are you doing location work on that?
"No, I’m again stuck in a studio.”

interview originally posted 3rd December 2005

interview: Lance Henriksen

$
0
0
I interviewed Lance Henriksen twice in 2006. The first time was in April, sitting in the Romanian countryside in the middle of the night. Lance had just arrived to recreate the role of Ed Harley in Pumpkinhead IIIand IV and we found a corner to chat about what he was expecting. This was one of several interviews which were frustratingly lost when a cassette turned out to be defective but Lance very kindly agreed to a phoner once he was back in the United States and this second interview had the advantage that he could talk about his experience on the films, not just his expectations.

What were your thoughts when you were first approached about reprising Ed Harley in a Pumpkinhead sequel?
"Well, I didn’t think it was possible. I was trying to figure out what they were going to attempt. Then when I read the scripts and I realised it’s a ghost and it’s a metaphor, the kind of character that has very little power and all he’s doing is pointing the way, I thought: depending on the directors, this could work. I didn’t think it wouldn’t work, I thought it would. Then, when I met these two different directors, it was a real shock because their enthusiasm was really full out and they knew the movies well. Not the second one but the original one. When I finally got over there I got pretty excited about it."

As an actor, how do you go about recreating a role which you last played nearly 20 years ago?
"Mostly, as life goes on, there is a pathos to this character that I understand really well. The losses are great: he loses his son, he loses his life, he loses his world. And you really can’t be a ghost; what you’re really acting is the pathos of the whole thing, the whole event. Because I remember the event very well, I remember what I used to play that role. It never goes away. It’s funny, every role I do, it leaves its mark on me, it leaves its trail. So it wasn’t hard to resurrect - ha, resurrect - the pathos of the character."

Did you rewatch the original film?
"No, I didn’t."

When we say Ed Harley is a ghost, is he literally a supernatural manifestation or a psychological aspect of people’s thoughts, or is it left vague?
"If anything, what I was using is the area. Imagine in the Ozarks there’s a certain area, maybe a ten-square mile area, that is inhabited by all of this mystery and mysticism. When you get involved in it on a 24-hour basis suddenly you’re immersed in things that you don’t understand and things that are going on. I felt that Haggis was somebody who would live forever, she was somebody that would never die. Like Sybil, who asked for eternal life and finally was living as ash, begging to die. That’s what my idea for Haggis was. The area was the mysticism and had all of that heavy past to it, like the field at Gettysburg: it’s haunted and if you go there, you can still hear them charging."

This isn’t your first film in Romania, is it?
"Oh, the Romanians are great. They’re bright, wonderful people. Especially Castel Films. I love working in Vlad’s studio. I know him and I’m always happy to be there. Unfortunately the hours are long and I don’t have the social life, but I don’t really have a social life. It’s just a little bit isolated when you’re in another country and you don’t know the language, but other than that, it’s great. They’re professionals."

It’s kind of nice that, with you having had a role in a Hellraiser sequel, now Doug Bradley has had a role in a Pumpkinhead sequel.
"Yes, I know - it’s a small world. Hold your breath and we’ll all be in Romania."

Had you seen any of the earlier work by Jake West and Mike Hurst?
"No, I hadn’t. You know, with a lot of this you have to go on trust because what would it do? I couldn’t change anything that these guys are. Also, I wanted to see what they would be. I thought they were very different but both very passionate and prepared in their own ways. Mike was wonderfully prepared and knew what he wanted but he listened to ideas. I felt good about both of them. They’re very, very different but both, I think, very talented."

What are the differences in tone between Part III and Part IV?
"Look, this is my opinion: they’re completely different in their energies. I think that they ought to release both movies on the same day in a theatre in October, for Halloween. Have Pumpkinhead III and IV in the same theatre on the same day. because then it wouldn’t be apologising for having made a sequel, it would be saying: hey, come and have an adventure, come and enjoy yourself. That would work. I slipped around your question but I think it merits it. They’re really working hard, those guys worked their ass off."

Were you ever approached to be in Pumpkinhead II?
"Yes, I was. I was approached in Milan and I read it and I didn’t see anything that I could do in it. I didn’t feel that the script had enough of a concept to have a reason to make it, so I passed on it."

Are you surprised that Pumpkinhead still has a tremendous cult following, although it’s really just one small film from nearly 20 years ago?
"This has happened to me a few times now, because Near Dark is a cult thing and I’ve got the Aliens stuff going. It’s not a surprise to me anymore that somebody in the middle of the night would go, ‘I’ve got an idea. Here Lance, do this.’ That’s the way it is. I think that right now, people like to revisit something they approved of. Or maybe it’s always been this way, I’ve not lived long enough to really know. Sometimes when these things first come out, they get blasted. It goes from being sub-sub-sub-quality to becoming cult quality and then it becomes ... star quality or whatever. Almost as though our memories of our first girlfriends are so idealised that they ought to be canonised."

If these are successful and they made Part V or Part VI, would you be prepared to reprise Ed Harley again?
"I’m always willing. The thing is, I’m willing for the adventure and if it’s a worthy adventure, I’ll go. Remember, I got these scripts ahead of time so I knew what they were. As soon as I know what I’m going for, if there’s something to do and I think it’s worth doing, I’ll do it. Sure, why not? I’m not one of those guys who sits around trying to design a career: my career speaks for itself already! It’s some mishaps, it’s some great stuff: I don’t mean me but the movies I’ve been in. Some have been extraordinarily good and some have been mishaps and others have been fine. I love working though, I really do."

You keep yourself busy. What else have you got lined up?
"At the moment, I swear to you I don’t have anything in my mind. I’ve been offered a boxing movie - not me playing a fighter - but I don’t know what’s going to happen now. There’s a few scripts out there that are moving in my direction, I guess.”

interview originally posted 9th August 2008
Viewing all 770 articles
Browse latest View live