filmandcinemapuritans

CGI or the Cerebral? It’s know surprise that audiences have changed in the past decade. Moviegoers are going to see big Hollywood blockbusters just because the fact that the special computer effects in the trailer looks amazing. We’re in dark times my friends. To contradict my last statement, I do awe and drool at incredible special effects: Star Wars three, the final battle scene was incredible and the Sandman in Spiderman 3, was one of the best CGI effect ever (I am actually surprised that they didn’t win the academy award because of just that character). I do think the advancement in computer technology in film had definitely helped filmmakers solve challenges more easily and effectively, especially with the invention of blue, green, pink and red screens. But, some of this technology is also a hindrance. Instead of dealing with issues of the practical a completely Computer Generated background or situation takes away from the story. Audiences are expecting the effects that they pay less attention to the story. For example in STAR WARS ONE, there was a massive pod race scene, which really didn’t have to be there. That scene was to inject some excitement into the picture but as a whole it’s distracting and in the end forgettable. My own pleasure is to watch films that use CGI and a bit of the practical. For me using a practical model helps me believe the story more. Instead of just watching light on the screen the practical makes me believe the story more and make me participate rather than being strapped into a chair being fore fed junk (ala Clockwork Orange). Writers need to help fulfill the cerebral and stimulate the brain rather than films that just stimulate the senses. A lit match underneath someone’s foot can do the same.

Creates this lavish colored, textured film starring Barry Sullivan (television famed character actor). Mario Bava’s basic use of composition is his use of color. The film Planet of the Vampires is about a crew of space travelers who get trapped on an alien planet to some catastrophic events. This film is celebrated because of its use of color; many shots contain splashes of color and uses of different lighting techniques. The costume design is actually unique to mention as well, all the actors are dressed in black and yellow leather. As for the story, it might have been one of the first films at the time to focus on the psychology at the time. The movie shows paranoia and confusion perfectly without showing any monsters. That’s an amazing feat, I know what you’re probably wondering: If it’s the Planet of the Vampires, where are the vampires? That’s a good point; there aren’t any vampires on the planet of the vampires. The “monster” or beings is an alien presence that drives the human inhabitants crazy. The reason why the word “vampire” is used because it being a foreign film, the Americans needed it to sell it and what was a popular at the time were the “Hammer” vampire flicks. So to exploit the name of foreign horror they just categorized the space adventure into the vampire category. I actually haven’t really spoiled the film; this film has a great ending and was probably the inspiration for MANY films. This is film, one of many Mario Bava films; I encourage you to check out. Is it campy? Yes, today’s standards where are suspensions of disbelief is hard to obtain; this is a difficult film for modern audiences of keep interest with. But if you can get past the leather outfits and the dicey science this is a real cinematic treat. Planet of the Vampires is a available at www.netflix.com

On a side note:

John Carpenter’s “Ghosts of Mars,” might almost be a remake of this film.

Dear reader. My name is Carl and welcome to my blog. I am a Film Puritan. And to restate my mission statement: I want to talk about the world of film as art rather than as popcorn entertainment. True, most of the films I have reviewed so far are horror films and less than considered classics (Death Wish), but as the blog gets further on I will discuss all sorts of film. My pleasure is horror films of the like because I feel that they are an art form that if done well can be the most memorable cinematic art ever. Even if you’re a mediocre film fan you probably will never forget the ending to a Psycho or a King Kong. My other goal on this blog is the nasty dissection and destruction of any of the main stream media that deems itself to be “popular.” My own personal opinion finds the kind of media that has less a script too it just simply awful and non-artful. You will see me attacking sequels, remakes and defiantly anything that’s been obviously made to make nothing but to make a quick dollar. There is a reason why there are some films that get revisions, re-releases and criterion editions DVD’s. These are the films I will primarily speak about. Again, I welcome anybody to challenge me about my film purist ideas; I openly welcome it.

            Now I do have guilty pleasures, since I am a horror movie fan, I do have some less than acclaimed titles on my shelves. I admit I have a couple of the TROMA releases (Toxic Avenger, Class of Nuke’m High) and some other titles that might need justification. But that’s okay, because I’m not flawed. I’m just very enthusiastic about film. So please, read my blog and hopefully we can both open each other’s mind about things new and old.

Thank you. Carl, Film Puritan

Remakes suck. My question is why do they suck? Is it because of lack of originality? Is because there are no writers so that the Hollywood machine looks back to see what did work? Or are they quick and easy to churn out because they were already made before.

I viewed The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, at a quaint Long Island movie theater. It was the first time I saw the film on the big screen. The film blew me away, Texas Chainsaw is the kind of film I could recite every bit of the sound effect track. The film was just so powerful that it actually made me pissed that Michael Bay’s production company produced two god-awful remakes. There’s nothing scarier than that film then it’s mastery of the unseen. The ending is bizarrely twisted and emotional that the ending seems to be not true to the film. I feel the end of that movie (happier ending) had to be made because if not the audience would’ve died of a heart attack due to the intensity. The remake was stale, uninspired, not scary, not cinematically memorable and just down right boring. It affirms to fact that sometimes, given a re-release, the same old-fashioned film can be just as scary. Another example, The Exorcist and Alien were both terrifying in their re-release.

So I implore you before sitting down to watch a horror movie, make sure it has validity and if it is a REMAKE, for pity’s sake watch the original.

Another bland entry in today’s films without a soul is the Diane Lane action flick Untraceable. A wise playwriting professor told me the worst kind of criticism is anyone who says EITHER ‘that was the worst thing I’ve ever seen” or “That was the best thing I’ve ever seen.” Well I’m about to break that rule: this film was awful. The movie should have been called Unwatchable. It was film that tried to take a premise from Saw and use a Silence of the Lambs type treatment; it fell flat on its face. Diane Lane who plays a cyber detective tracks a killer who uses a website to kill people. Exciting premise, which just didn’t have the script to match. We find out the identity of the killer half way through the film so that subtracts ALL the suspense. Then some clichéd character flaws lead to said character’s demise, and a lack luster ending with some EXTREMELY POOR acting by the killer.

My advice again to Hollywood is if you’re going to blend a couple of films together expect to get pulp instead of concentrated juice. Poor show.

If anybody is Pirates of the Caribbean fan, did anybody understand the third film? At Worlds End, was a movie where the producers complicated the plot so much with the convoluted story that they in fact ruined the original? They lost sight of the fact that they were making a film for kids and having a three hour movie where the characters have four meetings and several double crosses would confuse anybody. And not to mention the fact that they lost sight that the film was based on a theme park ride, which wasn’t as gruesome as some of the violence in the two previous films. This is my direct argument with “three-quels,” it has nothing to do with the writing it has all to do with the endorsements and the bottom line, they don’t care what they put up on the screen. Another example would be Spiderman 3, the producers knew that it would make “X” amount of dollars, so the script was less their concern. That’s why it didn’t matter to them that they produced one of the worst films of all time. My plea to Hollywood is if you continue this trend of lack of a good script with these films, your franchise will end up like the old Batman series(Michael Keaton, etc.), where people will find them corny and adults will refuse to pay money for them.

Let’s rewind on the Film Purist’s blog to a classic such as 1974’s Death Wish. If you have stopped reading my blog right now and question my judgment, I don’t blame you.

A violent film with questionable motives is what the film’s reputation was built on. However under recent review of the film I find it a thought provoking, very involved character turn film by Charles Bronson. Forget the four sequels that followed (and the question of can old guy still lift a machine gun?), but focus on the story itself. And now if you look at the films and see how there have been actual remakes and homage’s to the film most recently Kevin Bacon’s Death Sentence and a similar subway scene in the Jodi Foster vehicle, The Brave One.  I bring this little gem up for discussion for one reason, according to the IMDB.com; they are about to remake this film. My question for dispute is how are they going to make a film like this, which was very original back in 1974, fresh, poignant, watch-able, and memorable in this upcoming year? This new film I could see being contrived and formulaic and the moviegoer’s not interested in all. My whole issue with remakes is when somebody notes a film and asks you if you have seen it, you have to turn around and ask the person which one: the original or the remake? A casting note, which I found on IMDB.com, is the fact that they consider Jack Lemmon originally for the role of Paul Kersey, that’s an interesting choice. Do you think it would have been a better film or a worse film?

My question for today’s blog is do you know of any good writers out there that have currently wrote a great movie? I’ve been flipping through some old flicks from the early era, the thirties and forties and was just impressed by the amount and the dexterity of the writing of those films. For example a film like Casablanca, Casablanca’s characters are so vivid (with a play written by Murray Bennett and Joan Allison, and the adaptation for screen by the Epstein brothers and Howard Koch), that the film could’ve been made with no-names at the time and it would’ve still been a good script. My complaint is I don’t feel there is that much emphasis in the Computer generated image era, Hollywood seems to focus on the Oooh and Aaah rather than the emotions of film viewer. My own personal opinion I feel that well written film of 2007 was both the Cohen brothers No Country for Old Men and Diablo Cody’s Juno. What’s your opinion?