Tremors

Remember a time when Tremors was on Channel 4 at least once a year. It was the same time that heathers, Mystic Pizza and Raising Arizona shared the same status. But those heady days are gone, and the modern take on the cheesy 50's B-movie has all but dried up in favour of some guy with a brain disease playing deadly versions of Kerplunk with his victims, or something like that.

Tremors is one of those films that may be perfect! Yup I said it. The guys behind it just get cheesy, creature feature horror. From the quick build up of the opening scenes, with some disturbing little scenes, through the brilliantly tense action set-pieces that make up the rest of the movie it just oozes class. The ideas on show are fantastic. And I'm not just talking about whole Jaws on dry land thing, or the scenes where the characters are trapped on rocks or on roofs and have to think of a way off without touching the ground. No I'm talking about the visual flair. This is a low budget film and so the idea of popping your monster underground is a great one. It's a terrifying idea, but it also covers the monster up, making it more scary. The unseen is better, or worse to be specific, than a crappy rubber monster, just ask Speilberg. The problem is is what that leaves you with is a bunch of people running about bolting from nothing. So queue some ingenious little effects that show where the monsters are, such as the scene where Val and Earl run alongside a fence and the posts fall as the creature passes under them. Cheap as chips. it also means copious amounts of Sam Raimi's finest achievement, outside of beating up Bruce Cambell with gay abandon, the cheapo glider cam thing. Want to show the creature's point of view but need the camera to move quickly and glide unnaturally but don't have the money for a steadicam? Pop your camera on a plank of wood and run. Of course I'm guessing this was used on Tremors but i wouldn't be shocked.

But all that would be for nothing if you didn't have the characters. You care about this lot. They're funny, and just like the creatures, a bit dumb, but learning as they go. There are some wonderfully over-the-top performances, none more so than Mr. 84 degrees of himself; Kevin Bacon. then there's the ever-brilliant Fred Ward, who really should have had a more prominent career, seriously the guy's great. The interplay between the two is great fun.

What makes Tremors so great is that it fully understands how ludicrous movies like Them! are, that their central concepts are really dumb and that the movie is as much about enjoying the experience as being terrified by it. So the treatment gently pokes at the conventions, and the stupidity without ever tearing the stuff down. It's actually a very intelligently constructed and tightly scripted movie passing itself off as a B-feature.

Tremors; the cleverest dumb movie ever made.

Teeth

So I was reading this book on horror films the other day, called "Horror Films" originally enough. In his introduction the author James Marriott at one point claims "... for all of horror films' often formulaic nature, the genre throws up a kind of wild creativity that just isn't seen anywhere else". Let's pluck some random clunker to prove the point. How about Virus starring Jamie Lee Curtis? Totally humdrum horror film, but the monster was cool! Friday The 13th? Rip-off of Halloween and Black Christmas but the deaths were brilliant in their ingenuity. When I first heard of Teeth's premise it got me thinking about this kind of thing, before realising that although the idea of a woman who has molars down there (or if you want me to go all colloquial on yo ass she's got a fanny wae teeth) sounds like an original idea for a horror movie, the myths of such a creature have existed for what seems the entirety of humankind.

The originality in Teeth's case doesn't even come from the fear of dismemberment that pervades our nightmares, and thus many horror films, or even the old tenet that sex = death. Rather it is in the way that these things occur. The dismemberment is a particularly male related one that thanks to some graphic prosthetics will definitely cause some psychological problems for at least half of the audience. As for meeting your maker after getting your end away it is the act itself that causes you harm, not some lunk in a hockey mask stabbing you in the spleen after having a romantic knobbing around the back of the school disco. The monster is the female sexual organ on a physical level. On a meta-physical one it is female sexuality that creates the beast. But even that isn't something new. The myths about Vagina Dentata are entirely about that, and the masculine fears brought about by it. The difference here is that rather than the female being some monster to be conquered, thus restoring the norm, Teeth's monster is a teenage girl coming to terms with what her own body is becoming and what it can do. In this respect director/writer Mitchell Lichtenstein has inverted the myth, and by telling it in a contemporary setting has tailored it to modern sensibilities. Dawn's problem isn't something for man to tackle and defeat, rather it has been created exactly because of this attitude. This isn't simply another Ginger Snaps where the transformation can be a solely credited to burgeoning sexuality, but rather it occurs thanks to the oppression imposed by society. Men's sexuality is weak and so men in the movie attempt to exert themselves over females. This leads to the female sexuality becoming suppressed, as it going unburdened frightens males and is seen to be like horror films themselves, an affront to social order. But in Teeth the woman with the power to reverse this situation is the, slightly troubling, hero.

At this juncture then it is interesting to note that Marriot's assertion about the horror genre comes about because he realises that many people think that the genre is "unsavoury". He decides that this occurs in relation to Robin Wood's theory that horror's main concern is realising those things that are repressed by the individual and oppressed by society at large. And if cilvilisation is a form of repression then creativity and imagination are considered dangerous, thus horror's position in society. Teeth may be one of the most perfect examples of Wood's theory we have seen. Not only is Dawn's mutation brought about as some form of evolution thanks to years of oppression, but it then causes her to subconsciously repress herself sexually thanks to joining a chastity group.

On this level Teeth is a very interesting film that raises a lot of issues. And in its hero figure it becomes very grey. Is Dawn a hero? Or is she really still just the monster of the myths of old, one that males cannot conquer? As for the attitude to males, they are either pathetic or rapists. It's a very pro-feminist movie but one written by a male. As such it may be felt that some issues may be simplified thanks to this. The film is well directed and suggests Lichtenstein may be one to watch. He is assured behind the camera and creative in his writing. He has created a film that is morbidly funny, although this is at the expense of it being even remotely scary. It's probably more horrifying than terrifying. It's pacing is also a tad slow for the first half, although a sense of dread is built it takes a little too long to get going. At least the characters it takes the time to establish are interesting, although maybe not likable, as opposed to, say, Cloverfield which spent an age establishing shallow sketches with nothing going for them whatsoever. The performances are on the whole good, with Jess Weixler as Dawn proving to be a very promising talent. She is definitely the best thing about the film with a very mature performance as a sexually innocent woman adjusting to the changes in her body. Then the second half is pretty much relentless penis dismemberment, yeah you read that right! The problem is that while the first half sets up a pretty sombre exploration of the themes I've talked about it becomes a comic B-horror from the Gynecologist scene onwards. It's very amusing and pretty sick and manic, but it's an almighty swing from what has already happened. It's like watching two separate movies. It seems that Lichtenstein may have been unsure exactly where to go with his initial premise. It's a bit of a shame but that two halves are both decent to good movies that, although don't quite work as a whole, are still at turns interesting and entertaining.

The best way to take Teeth is as a very dark comedy about female empowerment. If you can do this then you may find a lot to like in this film. It is flawed, but it is interesting and a lot more complex than the initial premise may suggest.

CT: Legacy Of Blood

If you've heard of Legacy Of Blood, and why the hell would you have, then you'll know it's one freaky mama-jama of a movie. You'll also know it's effin' awful. Made about the same time as that great "worst movie ever" candidate Manos: The Hands Of Fate, Legacy Of Blood is similar in the sense that the acting's terrible, the camera work severely flawed, the audio is out of sync and the script is all over the shop. Oh, and it's trippy and you know for a fact that the guys who made it thought it was deep and edgy.

Realistically it's mind-numbing and nauseating. This is the type of film that introduces a character to have made a lamp out of skin and has a thing for Nazi memorabilia purely so you suspect that he's the killer, when in a way he's actually the hero. Mind you that's probably because he's the closest to a likable character, and trust me when I say he isn't. The rest are conniving bags of shit who appear to maybe be doing each other whether they are related or not or the victims of the big Daddy's sex games.

Basically it's a sleazy mess of a movie that actually has one of the most standard plotlines you could hope for, the "spend the night in a haunted house to gain your inheritance" one. This time it's a mad murderer going about instead of a monster/ghost, although the "ghosts of the past" are haun...oh fuck it. This movie's abysmal and doesn't deserve the word count afforded it so far. It may even have been fun if it wasn't so wrong in so many ways. Of course it being terrible plays right into the hands of the Titans as the movie serves up straight fastballs over the plate time and again for them to pummel all hell out of.

The riffing on this one is pretty brilliant. The Titans are getting more slick, although there are still the odd wooden deliveries in there, and the writing is getting stronger with each film. As I said the film helps as it serves up many things for them to savage, such as a severed head in the fridge, incest, Johhny in a fish tank, skin lamps, old women trying to be sexual, young women unable to stop being sexual and John Carradine. Plus there's oddball servents, wispy back hair, death by bees and a shocking series of twists neither twisty nor shocking.

As I said it's sleazy, and a wee bit gory and violent as well. It's a gear shift from the dull Wasp Woman film, although to be fair to that it is the best film featured on CT so far thanks to Corman actually having some ability as a director. It's closest in tone to Oozing Skull which was also a grubby little micro-budget production and highlights that CT's main concerns may be the absolute arse-end of cinema, delving even lower than MST3K ever did, mainly because it can thanks to being a DVD/download show.

All in all this is another excellent installment of Cinematic Titanic. At this point the show has really found its feet and is delivering some very strong, hilarious material. Also the less is more approach, the opposite of Rifftrax which has been labouring a bit thanks to a hectic release schedule, has certainly helped to keep things fresh. At this point each installment is worth the wait.

You can order Cinematic Titanic: Legacy Of Blood here.

Hang on! I've just realised, Legacy Of Blood's meant to be a comedy! I mean look at it. You telling me that's a serious film? And if you do read it that way then it's...er...still bloody awful, so who really cares.

Dodgy wink to camera, and out.

Halloween

That's right. It's a week until Halloween and so Splice will begin counting down by looking at a ton of scary stuff. It'll kick off with the new Cinematic Titanic offering Legacy of Blood before a look at some films that could make for a great Halloween marathon come the 31st, including a review of one just out on DVD over here and the latest of my Greatest 90's films as well.

Enjoy, or not. In fact don't. Because it's halloween so it's aw horrible n that!

BWA HA HA!

PG Porn

Ever thought while watching a Porn film, "wow this plot is really gripping and the acting's really great" and then BAM! the people start riding and it just spoils your enjoyment. Well now James Gunn, director of the wonderful Slither, has the thing for you, PG Porn. It stars some people you may know from movies and TV and others who you'll claim not to know from the "adult industry".

Here's episode 1 featuring Nathan Fillion and Aria Giovanni:


Nailing Your Wife

Burn After Reading

So while trying to write a plot synopsis of Burn After Reading I realised that I really just shouldn't bother. Why? Well if you've seen earlier Coens like Big Lebowski or films that have influenced them like the 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon you'll know, it ain't about the plot. The plot is ultimately so tangled and pointless that to try and follow it would cause headaches. Rather Burn After Reading is about reveling in its own ridiculousness, in its own stupidity. And that's an appropriate word given the nature of the characters and events on show here.

You see no matter how smart those involved are in the making of this film, everyone in it's a bleeding moron. From the lowly gym worker to the CIA's best, no one knows anything. And it's actually this stupidity that drives the increasingly complex plot onwards. Everyone makes bad decisions because they're not smart enough to do the right thing. And the overriding feeling is confusion. It's summed up best by J.K. Simmons' top CIA man who in two scenes steals the show as the voice of the audience when he questions everything that's happened and then basically just gives up trying to work out why any of this means anything.

On other words it's typical Coens, and it's a further stride after No Country For Old Men to putting those dark rubbish years behind them. Of course this means that anyone not enamoured by the Coens' way with a story, and the emotional distance they tend to employ, won't be won over by this. Similarly any who came to them through No Country may be left scratching their heads, probably in the same way fans of Blood Simple were flummoxed by Raising Arizona. But for anyone who loves the Coens' work, and especially the more madcap comedic moments, then this is brilliant.

What was interesting about the showing I went to were how many young people were there, I'd imagine tempted by the Oceans reunion of Pitt and Clooney. And gaging their reaction to it it seems to be a film that goes down well. I was shocked as I felt that the Coens' style might not have went down well with the Disaster Movie crowd, and yet the audience I was in were laughing like mad. Like Lebowski it's a bloody hilarious film, full of over the top performances, clever dialogue and absurd situations. Plus it ends up becoming fucking dark. And then there's that cast.

The teenagers may have come for the Pitt and the Clooney, and both do a great job of subverting their images with turns that are wonderfully dumb and terribly sleazy, but they probably stayed for the cold, harsh Tilda Swinton, the incredibly aggressive John Malkovich, the best he's been in, like, forever, and Frances McDormand. Her character's no where near as lovable as that in Fargo but she brings so much to it that she's pretty much the only one you can root for. She's...adorable even when being a bitch. What's interesting is that the Coens are often criticised for not being "actor's directors" and yet they are the only ones that ever mine anything of worth from Gorgeous George. And the rest haven't been as good in anything else of late. Coupled with No Country's masterclass that's pretty impressive for guys who can't work with actors.

For those not charmed by the Coens' style of doing things, avoid as it's the Coenyist thing they've done since O Brother, Where Art Thou? If, on the other hand, you love them then you know what to expect. It's the brothers doing what they do best and doing it damn well. Hilarious, dark, confusing, absurd and, thanks to its cast, beautiful to look at Burn After Reading confirms that No Country wasn't just a blip in the downward slide but a full scale reversal. It's almost as if The Ladykillers never happened!

Consolevania Is Back

Rab and Ryan are back doing what they do best, generally fuddin' about and being a bit fat. Bloody yes!



Series 4 is go so go to their website and get watching. You can also check out their earlier stuff too. HUZZAH!

Igor (I think that's how it's spelled)

So remember how Rat-A-Too-Ee (sorry for the crappy quality video, shot on old camera) was sold with the ol' phonetic spelling because it was a French type name so little kids wouldn't know how to pronounce it? Fair enough really but it now looks like this is something that's going to catch on. Check out the poster I noticed in a local bus stop for the latest computer animatothon, Igor:Look at that! EEEE-GOR!

So what is this about? Well it's one of two things, and either way it's studio executives treating the general public like arseholes. It's either:

a) That people are really so stupid that that 'I' at the start of the title will completely throw us and we'll mis-pronounce the two syllable name of a very famous character as eye-gor.

or,

b) They think we are so stupid that we'll go "Oh look, that film's got one of those pronunciation guides like that brilliant little film Ratatouille, I'll take the weans to see that as it must be just as good".

Now I have no idea if Igor is any good, it may well be, but this is a new for movie executives, whichever it is.

My Name Is Bruce

Since it's the month of All Hallows Eve and everything:



OH FUCK AYE!

Paul Newman

I'm gutted, I loved this:



I apologise, I've just been informed that Paul Newman was probably the most under-rated actor ever. Supposedly he was one of the finest but James Dean died, Brando hammed it up and Deniro, Pacino, Hackman and Hoffman will now do anything for the money keeping them in the public domain. I'm informed his films were great and he was amazing in them, yet many may not have been the biggest hits and such he's gone kind of ignored at times. Turns out he's also done tons of great work for childrens charities and all the proceeds from, what I am informed is rather excellent, sauce is donated to them. I'm also told he was a bit of a smashing chap.

Sounds like he was awrite eh?

I went and typed the proper name into Youtube and got this:



R.I.P.