Showing posts with label Remake. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Remake. Show all posts
Monday, 10 September 2018
A STAR IS BORN - Review By Greg Klymkiw - TIFF 2018 - Horrid, Unnecessary Remake of Classic Tale
A Star is Born (2018)
Dir. Bradley Cooper
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Lady Gaga, Sam Elliot
Review By Greg Klymkiw
I have absolutely no problem with remakes. Taking a great story and creating a new adaptation within a different cultural/societal context can yield considerable fruit. A Star is Born has several terrific incarnations. It also has a couple of abominable ones.
It all began in 1932 with George Cukor's marvelous What Price Hollywood? in which a waitress (Constance Bennett) is swept off her feet and turned into a star by an alcoholic film director (Lowell Sherman) who eventually commits suicide after shaming himself, and by extension, the woman he loves.
Producer David O. Selznick though, finally perfected the story in 1937's A Star is Born when the script, co-written by Dorothy Parker and directed by William A. Wellman, paired a big movie star on his way down (Frederic March) with a burgeoning actress (Janet Gaynor). They fall in love naturally and the fading star turns Gaynor into a huge star, but his battles with booze eventually create a situation wherein he realizes that he is dragging down the woman he loves. He commits suicide, not so much out of self-pity (though there's considerable self-loathing on his part) and his death is a sacrifice to "save" the career and life of the woman he loves. The movie is just about perfect and is still one of the most vivid portraits of the Hollywood studio system ever made.
1954, however, brought the greatest version of the film to life when George Cukor returned to the story he first made in 1932. Here he paired James Mason as Norman Maine, a big movie star in serious decline who meets aspiring singer/actress Esther Blodgett (Judy Garland), makes her a star and eventually, sacrifices himself via suicide when his alcoholism not only drags him down, but threatens to destroy the woman he loves. Oh, this version is wonderful! It doesn't get better than Judy Garland and James Mason and Cukor at the peak of his powers.
Alas, 1976 brought us the Frank Pierson-directed abomination starring Kris Kristofferson, a boozing rock star who meets Barbara Streisand, a burgeoning singer. Same deal. They fall in love, he makes her a star, and eventually he dies. The problem with the story is that there's no sacrifice. He gets boozed up and dies in a car accident. That's not the only problem, though. The movie is miserably written, virtually non-directed and little more than a showcase for Streisand. The picture stinks to high heaven.
Though Bradley Cooper's 2018 version of A Star is Born pretty much stinks, it's a masterpiece compared to the dreadful 1976 version. Director Cooper plays an alkie rock star who meets the execrable Lady Gaga, falls in love with her, makes her a star and eventually commits suicide in an act of sacrifice.
This new version of the film does offer a decent performance from director Cooper, but his skills as a director are woeful. Most of the movie is shot in dull closeups and not even the musical numbers have a sense of scope or sweep to them. Lady Gaga is a supremely mediocre actress and it's almost impossible to listen to her thudding dull monotonous line readings. Even worse is the music in the film. It's so mediocre, I'd not even dare to call it music. (At least the horrendous 1976 version had genuine songs written by real songwriters like Paul Williams.)
How anyone could even begin to enjoy this new version of the film is beyond me. It's incompetently directed, has a dreadful score and a complete washout in female lead Lady Gaga.
Look, there are three great versions of this story. Do yourself a favour and watch them instead. And if truth be told, the soundtrack for the awful 1976 version offers some decent tunes worth listening to (as opposed to Cooper's growling and Gaga's caterwauling).
THE FILM CORNER RATING: * One-Star
A Star is Born is a TIFF 2018 Gala Presentation.
Labels:
*
,
2018
,
Bradley Cooper
,
Greg Klymkiw
,
Musical
,
Remake
,
TIFF 2018
Tuesday, 20 September 2016
THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN - Review By Greg Klymkiw - Solid Kurosawa/Sturges Remake
![]() |
| Seven new samurai with six-shooters!!! |
Dir. Antoine Fuqua
Scr. Nic Pizzolatto, Richard Wenk
Starring: Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke,
Vincent D'Onofrio, Lee Byung-hun, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo,
Martin Sensmeier, Haley Bennett, Peter Sarsgaard
Review By Greg Klymkiw
Akira Kurosawa's epic 1954 Seven Samurai weaves the stirring tale of a group of ronin defending a town of simple folk in 14th Century Japan from hordes of bandits. It is indeed a classic, a masterpiece and quite easily one of the greatest action movies of all time. When John Sturges remade the picture as a western in 1960 with Yul Brynner taking the role originally played by Toshiro Mifune, he didn't quite craft anything in the tour de force department, but he gave us an oater that's as iconic of the old west as it is a rip-snorter.
Antoine Fuqua's 2016 remake might not match the Sturges picture, but it's still a solid, kick-ass western and in its own way gains a bit on the delivery front by peppering us with an almost ludicrous body count, all very efficiently directed by the skillful Training Day helmer.
| A bit of Lee-Byung-hun goes a long way. |
![]() |
| A babe with a gun. A babe hell-bent on vengeance. Always win-win. |
Fuqua and his team definitely go the distance with the humdinger screenplay and serve up several truly spectacular action set pieces, not the least of which feature horses and their riders thundering across the plains of a big old American west.
There's really nothing new under the sun here, but goddamn, it's a lot of fun.
THE FILM CORNER RATING: *** 3-Stars
The Magnificent Seven was a Gala Presentation at TIFF 2016 and will be released wide by Paramount Pictures.
Labels:
***
,
2016
,
Antoine Fuqua
,
Greg Klymkiw
,
Paramount Pictures
,
Remake
,
TIFF 2016
,
Western
Tuesday, 30 June 2015
DA SWEET BLOOD OF JESUS - Review By Greg Klymkiw - Spike Lee Remakes Glen & Randa
Da Sweet Blood of Jesus (2014)
Dir. Spike Lee
Scr. Lee & Bill Gunn
Starring: Stephen Tyrone Williams, Zaraah Abrahams, Elvis Nolasco, Rami Malek
Review By Greg Klymkiw
If Spike Lee went knocking on Studio doors (maybe even a few smaller companies and/or, God Forbid, a European country or three), I can't for a second believe he'd NOT be financed for Da Sweet Blood of Jesus.
Here's the pitch:
- A contemporary remake of cult horror classic Ganja & Hess.
- A passionate supernatural love-story between two insanely attractive people who are afflicted with a blood-sucking form of vampirism rooted in an ancient African ritual sacrifice blade.
Hess (Stephen Tyrone Williams) is a suave, sexy anthropologist and multi-millionaire African art collector living on a sprawling, gorgeous estate in Martha's Vineyard. Lafayette Hightower (Elvis Nolasco), a colleague from the museum Hess presides over, pops over for a visit, but after some erudite conversation he reveals how mentally unstable he is and stabs Hess with the ages-old sacrificial blade. Hess fights back and kills Hightower, then disposes of the body in his basement freezer. Rich people do things like this.
When Hightower's gorgeous wife Ganja (Zaraah Abrahams) comes a calling in search of her husband, she and Hess hit it off and soon the smouldering turns to a drillin' and a soderin' in the master boudoir. Mmmm, they make some sweet, crazy lovin' and it's not long before they seal their union with marriage.
What Hess doesn't tell Ganja is that he's now a blood-sucking vampire, thanks to being stabbed with the grim Ashanti Blade by her estranged, dead and frozen hubbles. When she discovers the body, she goes a tad bunyip, but Hess calms her down with his mellifluously sexy voice and suggests she join him for eternal life as a vampire. That this offer provides as eternal prongin' with the schwanzen de Hessen, Ganja is prime. Lots more fornicatin', blood suckin' and killin' follows.
Eventually Hess seeks redemption for his actions, in spite of how much fun they've been. Ganja understands, but wants the party to continue. A mutually satisfactory agreement is arrived at.
- That's the long and the short of this pitch, baby. Sex, vampires, lotsa blood, more sex, more killing, more blood and to top this ice cream sundae off with a nice, juicy cherry, there's gonna be some mighty fine lezbo action - all of this shot with Spike's visual aplomb and dappled with cool, young, up-and-coming musical artists for a song score, plus the styling of a Bruce Hornsby jazz score throughout.
So seriously, who wouldn't be financing this movie? Spike could have pieced the dough together tout suite, but no, he made a big deal about not even bothering to try and instead, turned to crowd funding via Kickstarter. Hell, he could have saved up his per diems from his gun-for-hire gig on the dreadful Hollywood remake of Old Boy, but instead, he went cap in hand to his movie-loving fans and raised $1.4 million (USD) in exchange for "perks", but giving him complete ownership of the film and not having to divvy up any shares of the sales, nor, for that matter needing to recoup the cash used to make the film. (One hopes his cap in hand is a "Forty Acres and a Mule" ball cap.)
I wouldn't hold this against Lee if I didn't doubt his belief in not being able to finance the picture through the usual channels. Most of all, I'd especially not hold it against him if his remake of Bill Gunn's classic Ganja & Hess was actually worthy of fan support. Lee's film is slick, to be sure, and his cast is first rate, but given that the movie is an almost blow-by-blow remake with only the most cursory updating (so much so he had to give Gunn a co-writing credit), it's a shame Lee's picture has no discernible tone, none of the mordant wit of the original, none of the genuine creepy-crawly and most of all, bereft of Gunn's strong political, social and historical context. I'm sure Spike thinks his picture is not sans the items that made the original so great, but here's an eye-opener for you, Spike: it is.
His movie isn't bad, but it's no work of art and certainly no classic. That's what Bill Gunn achieved over forty years ago. What you owe yourself, however, is to buy both Ganja & Hess and Lee's soulless remake. Watch them both (Gunn's first, and Lee's second). It'll make for an engaging evening of movie-viewing, though the bottom half of the double bill will definitely be Spike Lee's version.
THE FILM CORNER RATING: **½ Two-and-a-half-stars
Da Sweet Blood of Jesus is available on a gorgeous Anchor Bay/Anchor Bay Entertainment Canada Blu-Ray transfer, sans any extras which might have offered some illumination.
Labels:
**1/2
,
2014
,
Anchor Bay
,
Anchor Bay Canada
,
Anchor Bay Entertainment Canada
,
Bill Gunn
,
Blu-Ray
,
Greg Klymkiw
,
Horror
,
Remake
,
Spike Lee
Tuesday, 21 October 2014
THE TOWN THAT DREADED SUNDOWN (2014) - Review By Greg Klymkiw - TADFF14
The Town That Dreaded Sundown (2014) Dir. Alfonso Gomez-Rejon
Scr. Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa
Starring: Addison Timlin, Veronica Cartwright, Anthony Anderson, Edward Herrmann, Ed Lauter, Denis O'Hare
Review By Greg Klymkiw
Nobody, has ever accused Charles B. Pierce of actually making a good movie out of the Texarkana true-crime tale of the "Phantom Killer." Released in 1976 to solid box-office and an eventual cult following, the impact of Pierce's documentary-like approach to the otherwise creaky and somewhat clumsy The Town That Dreaded Sundown was, in spite of its shortcomings as cinema, felt the world over. Its influence has, in fact, lasted to this very day. Not that the subject matter was at all uninteresting, but it was Pierce's approach to telling the tale of a mysterious lovers' lane killer which superseded the mystery - one that never really had an ending as the killer had never been apprehended.
There had, of course, been earlier "fake" documentaries, most notably Jim McBride's 1967 groundbreaker David Holzman's Diary, but none of them were absorbed into the public consciousness as widely as Pierce's through-the-roof money-makers. A prolific regional independent filmmaker, he first brought his unique style of faux-documentary to bear in The Legend of Boggy Creek, the smash 1972 hit which focused on the Fouke County, Arkansas lore of Bigfoot.
Some consider Pierce the real father of true-crime reality TV, a dubious achievement at best. Better yet, he's also credited with inspiring the "found footage" horror film craze that began with The Blair Witch Project in the late 90s and has unabatedly kept generating new product each and every year since.
This vaguely post-modern reboot has a screenplay by Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa that is not initially without interest or ambition. We're introduced to the contemporary town of Texarkana and the yearly ritual of screening Pierce's film at a local drive-in.
The famed killer appears to be resurrected and begins to commit heinous murders in the tradition of those detailed in Pierce's film. There are all sort of interesting elements involving the God-fearing citizenry of Texarkana and their decidedly un-Christian need to extract bloody revenge upon the killer. This all takes back seat eventually to a dull mystery and slasher movie-styled murders until we're not surprisingly introduced to the real killer.
Television director Alfonso Gomez-Rejon handles the proceedings with all the skill of a competent camera jockey, but does little more to enhance the proceedings. It's fun seeing old pros like Veronica Cartwright, Edward Herrmann and Ed Lauter strut their stuff, but their screen time is limited compared to the bland, young leads. There's also one interesting subplot involving a character based on the son of Charles Pierce, very well played by Dennis O'Hare, but sadly, this thread eventually goes nowhere.
In fact, the whole film is a whole lot of nowhere.
THE FILM CORNER RATING: *½ One-and-a-half-stars
The Town That Dreaded Sundown enjoys its Canadian Premiere at Toronto After Dark Film Festival 2014.
Labels:
2014
,
Alfonso Gomez-Rejon
,
Charles B. Pierce
,
Greg Klymkiw
,
Horror
,
Remake
,
TADFF 2014
,
Toronto After Dark Film Festival 2014
Tuesday, 22 July 2014
COLD EYES - Review By Greg Klymkiw - Stunning Korean remake of Johnnie To HK cop hit @FantAsia2014
![]() |
| "Mmmm. I want whatever that gentleman has in his mouth in my mouth." |
![]() |
| All Cops in Korea are Ultra-Babe-O-Licious! |
Dir. Jo Ui-seok, Kim Byung-seo
Starring: Sol Kyung-gu, Jung Woo-sung, Han Hyo-joo, Jin Kyung, Lee Junho, Kim Byung-ok
Review By Greg Klymkiw
Whenever I see a slam-bang, supremely stylish and rock-solid Asian action thriller like Cold Eyes, I always shake my head and wonder why so many ludicrously-budgeted American studio pictures of a similar ilk are poorly directed and stupid? Who are the morons? The filmmakers or the audiences? I suspect both are equally deficient. The American directors have no real filmmaking talent and American audiences are bereft of brain. Since Americans are too stupid to watch anything in a language other than their own, the prospect of an American remake seems even more idiotic since they'd manage to take a terse, simple and intelligent script and just make it lugubrious, unnecessarily complicated (not complex, either - that word isn't in the American vocabulary) and just flat-out dumb. Astoundingly, Cold Eyes IS a remake of Johnnie To's solid meat-and-potatoes (or, if you will, BBQ pork and white rice) 2007 Hong Kong thriller Eye in the Sky. Given that To is no slouch, it's especially cool that co-directors Jo Ui-seok and Kim Byung-seo deliver a picture that blows his off the map (and most every American cop thriller from the past twenty-or-so years).
There are elements of Cold Eyes that are tried and true - a young cop (and, happily, a major BABE), has a lot to learn, but is still hand-picked by a tough-as-nails senior detective who knows that the "heart" is there in spades. After all, having the right stuff - in his books - trumps by-rote technical proficiency in the field. When she joins the team of high-tech surveillance detectives, a vicious and heretofore unidentified group of bank robbers led by a high-tech criminal mastermind, have successfully committed one similarly-styled job too many and the team is pumped to take the filth down.
Set against the energy-charged labyrinth that is Séoul, Cold Eyes is a tense, edge-of-the-seat cat and mouse action thriller that's replete with astonishing chases on foot and in moving vehicles, daring stunts, superb hand-to-hand fight scenes, shockingly blood thirsty violence and all the requisite and compelling cop/criminal dualities that any action aficionado will enjoy. The "cold eyes" of the title is an especially rich visual and emotional motif and refers to the ability to see everything in such detached detail on surveillance missions (and in the case of the villain. on a major heist), that one's mind becomes a sort of picture-perfect databank to supplement the gadgetry with the human element.
The surveillance sequences themselves have the kind of William Friedkin French Connection-styled doggedness that lets you see and feel the pulse of the streets and the monotony (without being a dull watch) of the days, weeks and even months of eyeballing as the most effective form of detective work. Much of the film is charged with the kind of short shots, quick cutting and hand-held work that just seems sloppy and noisy in virtually all contemporary American films and here demonstrates the genuine artistry of its filmmakers since there is never an unnecessary shot, virtuoso compositions and cuts driven by dramatic thrust as opposed to pure visceral propulsion.
Cold Eyes makes for a glorious big-screen experience and I'd urge viewers to do what they can to enjoy the movie that way. If not, try to watch it at home on high-def Blu-Ray (fuck streaming, digital downloads and DVD).
Cold Eyes recently screened at the 2014 FantAsia International Film Festival following a premiere at TIFF 2013.
Labels:
****
,
2013
,
Crime
,
FantAsia 2014
,
Greg Klymkiw
,
Jo Ui-seok
,
Kim Byung-seo
,
Korea
,
Remake
,
Thriller
,
TIFF 2013
Friday, 11 April 2014
SORCERER (New Digital Restoration of the 1977 Classic, Supervised By Director William Friedkin) - Reviewed By Greg Klymkiw in his Colonial Report on Cinema from the Dominion of Canada in the super-cool movie mag in the UK, "Electric Sheep - a deviant view of cinema".
SORCERER
*****
*****
(1977)
Dir. William Friedkin
Starring
Roy Scheider
Francisco Rabal
Bruno Cremer
Amidou
Reviewed By Greg Klymkiw
In 1977, my virginal plunge into the sweaty, nerve-wracking maw of this insane jungle thriller about four desperate men transporting nitroglycerine across the most treacherous topography imaginable, was, for me, an epiphany. During a myriad of subsequent viewings, and now, with this brand new digital restoration overseen by director William Friedkin, Sorcerer was always, still remains and always will be a movie that repeatedly whacks you with a two-by-four across the teeth.
My review of this new restoration can be found in my column "The Colonial Report on Cinema from the Dominion of Canada" in the ever-so-cool UK-based movie mag "Electric Sheep - a deviant view of cinema".
My full review of SORCERER can be read HERE.
The Toronto International Film Festival’s TIFF Bell Lightbox will be screening the all-new digital restoration (supervised by director William Friedkin) of the 1977 remake of The Wages of Fear, Sorcerer on 12, 15 and 18 April 2014 as a TIFF Cinematheque Special Screening. This is part of a grand spring series that includes a new 35mm restoration of Joseph Losey’s The Servant, new 35mm prints of Robert Bresson’s A Man Escaped, Nagisa Ôshima’s Boy, Alain Resnais’s Je t’aime, je t’aime, Michelangelo Antonioni’s L’Avventura, a new digital restoration of the 248 minute ‘roadshow’ version of Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s Cleopatra, new 4K digital restorations of Roberto Rossellini’s Voyage to Italy, Nobuhiko Obayashi’s House/Hausu, John Sturges’s The Great Escape, Elio Petri’s Investigation of a Citizen above Suspicion, and 35mm Archival prints of Humberto Solas’s Lucia and most excitingly, H.G. Clouzot’s The Wages of Fear.
Anyone planning to be in Toronto for these screenings is well advised to order seats in advance. For dates, tickets and further information, please visit the TIFF website HERE.
Labels:
*****
,
1977
,
Action
,
Blu-Ray
,
Electric Sheep - a deviant view of cinema
,
Greg Klymkiw
,
Remake
,
Thriller
,
TIFF Bell Lightbox
,
TIFF Cinematheque
,
Warner Home Entertainment
,
William Friedkin
Friday, 14 February 2014
ENDLESS LOVE - Review By Greg Klymkiw - Masterpiece of American Lit destroyed a 2nd time in 33 years.
![]() |
| The TURD |
LOWEST RATING: "The Turd discovered behind Harry's Charbroil and Dining Lounge"
Starring: Gabriella Wilde, Alex Pettyfer, Bruce Greenwood, Joely Richardson, Robert Patrick
Review By Greg Klymkiw
Each time a song was insultingly coughed up into my face like some lump of technicolor phlegm by one of the infinite number of contemporary performers on the soundtrack of this horrendous 2014 film adaptation of Scott Spencer's magnificent novel, all I kept thinking was how much these gibbering gibbons had less collective talent than an infected cyst lodged deep inside Lionel Richie's ass-crack and a snot-tangled nostril hair poking out of the proboscis of Diana Ross. They were, of course, the duo du jour who crooned a number-one-with-a-bullet duet of the execrable (Oscar-nominated!!!) theme song "Endless Love" from Franco Zeffirelli's abominable 1981 picture which, like this 2014 version, also butchered the same great book. The intrusive pop tunes become so annoying - wedged, as they are into scenes like unwelcome music videos or worse, cascading noisily over dialogue - that they make Christophe's Beck's whiny instrumental score seem just this side of a lobotomized Bernard Herrmann as rendered by the 101 Strings Orchestra.
However, let it be said now, that the 1981 Endless Love which, was a sludge heap of immense proportions, must now surely be considered one of the greatest movies ever made compared to this 2014 bowl of Charles Manson's anal drippings. If Zeffirelli created a cinematic equivalent to an aborted foetus served up on a dollar-store paper plate, then it's clear the idiot-sans-savante, Shana Feste (she of the abysmal Country Strong) and who purportedly directed this version, must surely have outdistanced the cinematic abortionist styling of Zeffirelli and bloody well ripped a foetus from a womb with a rusty coat hanger, then stomped upon the gelatinous blob with the abandon of a lead performer in a crack-fuelled performance of "Lord of the Dance", then took a huge, rancid crap upon it and finally, with a hearty "Voila!", called it a movie.
I really have to ask: Why bother making this movie if the goal was not to improve upon Zeffirelli's? If the goal was to improve upon it, the manner in which its makers went about doing so suggests they must surely be afflicted with (what Borat might call) "the retardation". And, of course, the more pressing question is this: Why even bother to adapt a great book that, given its vivid characters, political subtext, emotional landscape, rich setting and superb story structure - all of it sitting there for even the most unimaginative filmmakers to take advantage of - why, oh why, oh why, butcher and/or patchwork quilt everything that makes the story great in the first place? If any book seemed movie-ready, it was this one and yet, it took not one, but two sets of brick-heads to screw it up within the course of Christ's rather short lifespan, 33 years.
At least Zeffirelli, in his addled fashion, attempted (albeit badly) to inject the movie with something resembling genuine passion and even vaguely acknowledged elements of Spencer's book that anyone with half-a-brain would have to do. Such is not the case here. The gaggle of morons leading the 2014 charge upon Spencer's fine prose appear to have been interested in crafting little more than an innocuous machine-tooled teen romance aimed at a Valentine's Day opening to sucker in as many undiscriminating female viewers as possible. I have no doubt the brain dead little ladies will get exactly what they paid for.
While it is true that every single person involved in the writing, direction and production of Endless Love 2014 is clearly a moron, even they must be bloody Rhodes Scholars compared to the brain-bereft slugs at Universal Pictures who hold all the remake rights to Spencer's book and chose to green light this utterly detestable piece of work in just the manner in which it's been wrought.
Endless Love tells the tale of teen lovers David (Alex Pettyfer) and Jade (Gabriella Wilde). He's poor. She's privileged. He's unsure about his plans after high school graduation. She's headed for university. She's going to be an eminent doctor just like her Dad, Hugh (Bruce Greenwood). Pater is, to make things interesting, protective and controlling to almost psychopathic extremes (with more than a few Oedipal peccadilloes). He clearly disapproves of Jade's boyfriend. Eventually, he places a restraining order against David. Jade moves on, unhappily. Their love, however, is endless. David comes to Hugh's manse to claim the woman he loves. Dad knocks a candle over. The house is soon ablaze. David saves Hugh's life. Hugh comes to accept David. Jade is happy. David is happy. Their love, you see, is endless.
Ugh.
None of this has anything to do with Scott Spencer's novel - a book so romantic, it hurts, literally. The book slashes, scourges, stabs, cuts, saws away at the bone and greedily sucks out the marrow. There isn't a wildly romantic beat that doesn't alternately soar AND emit pain. The novel brilliantly fucks with everyone's notions of romantic love, but does so in a way that we begin to question if its portrait of aching love is really as aberrant as we've been told to believe. Instead we accept, nay - we EMBRACE - that THIS is what love, in fact, MUST be.
Romantic love in its purest state MUST be a sickness. If it doesn't hurt, and hurt BAD, how can there be joy?
Spencer's tale of obsession, familial dysfunction and love is so excruciating, so aching, so debilitating that we, as readers, are plunged into an emotional landscape that's scary beyond belief - mostly because it's so true, so familiar, so real and finally one of the few literary depictions of love to have the courage to proclaim that the purest, most intense form of love borders on the aberrant, the antisocial and yes, even (at least in the eyes of society), the criminal. Spencer's story begins with pain and destruction, with fire - one that rages literally so that we never forget what burns beneath the flesh.
The movie that resides in Spencer's book continues to remain untapped - dormant. Zeffirelli missed the boat, but Feste jumps aboard and just sinks it without even trying. Casting Gabriella Wilde and Alex Pettyfer is the height of stupidity. Both actors are so insipid that neither of them feels like they're in a movie based upon one of the greatest works of literary art in the history of American letters. Instead, they both come across as if they're hitting their marks on some TV soap opera. They're as bland as Wonder Bread and on that basis alone, there's very little reason to care a whit about these people as characters. There is one fine performance in the film and one only wishes that the stunning malevolence, yet odd humanity displayed by Bruce Greenwood could have saved itself for another and better screen adaptation. Alas, he's wasted here.
The best thing about Endless Love, the movie, is the freedom to just skip it.
Just skip it and read Spencer's book. It's so great you won't be able to put it down and after you've read it once, you'll want to go back to it again and again. God knows, I have. For 35 years it's been a book that I am always happy to revisit and experience at various junctures of my life and, most importantly, at ever shifting stages of my life experience. It grows with you and constantly offers its own form of endless love - the ability of art to reflect life and, in turn, give you the sort of nourishment you need to survive - to fill your head and heart with truth and beauty - neither of which are EVER on display in this utterly abhorrent, despicably repugnant and contemptible pile of trash.
See Endless Love at your peril. I can pretty much guarantee the screen will be full of buzzing flies, all seeking resting points to devour the stools deposited by its filmmakers.
"Endless Love" is playing theatrically via Universal Pictures.
Labels:
2014
,
Greg Klymkiw
,
Literary Adaptation
,
Remake
,
Romance
,
Scott Spencer
,
Shana Feste
,
TURD
,
TURD DISCOVERED BEHIND HARRY'S CHAR BROIL AND DINING LOUNGE
,
Universal Pictures
Thursday, 31 October 2013
WE ARE WHAT WE ARE - Review By Greg Klymkiw - Toronto After Dark Film Festival 2013 - Transplanted Gothic
The patriarch (Bill Sage) of a small American family unit becomes unravelled when his wife (Kassie DePaiva) dies. It now falls upon the eldest daughter (Julia Garner) to cook all the family meals, but she really has no stomach for the unconventional food and its strict ritualistic preparation. When the local doctor (Michael Parks) performs an autopsy on Mom, his findings suggest her death is consistent with that of those who also die from the steady consumption of human meat. It's only a matter of time before the family is discovered engaging in a centuries-old tradition rooted in abject generational poverty, superstition and Christian fundamentalism.
We Are What We Are (2013) ***
Dir. Jim Mickle
Starring: Bill Sage, Michael Parks, Julia Garner,
Ambyr Childers, Kassie DePaiva, Jack Gore, Kelly McGillis
Review By Greg Klymkiw
I'm not prone to knee-jerk negative reactions towards movie remakes, but sometimes, the originals are so damn good that the mere notion of a redo is enough to induce apoplexy (of the "nervosa" kind). Jim Mickle's well directed 2013 American version of the identically-titled 2010 Jorge Michel Grau shocker from Mexico is just such a film.
Grau's picture was a knockout, a genuine revelation to me. Then again, so too was Mickle's astounding 2010 release Stake Land (not to mention his terrifying 2006 first feature Mulberry Street). Hearing Mickle would be handling the remake allayed my concerns somewhat. What Mickle has wrought here is a good picture and a fine take on its progenitor, but I have to admit that the transference of Grau's original tale, doesn't quite make the sojourn out of Mexico to the Gothic American White Trash territory as imagined by Mickle and longtime screenplay collaborator Nick Damici. Not that it doesn't try. It tries hard and often succeeds.
The best element of the picture is how Mickle slowly, painstakingly builds both suspense and grotesque horror. Mickle is a natural born filmmaker and there is seldom a frame or beat that's out of step. In fact there's something very peculiar at work here in just how rich his approach is since there's a genuine attempt to humanize its characters in a way where we often empathize with their situation even when they're engaging in utterly horrendous actions. This is in stark contrast to the original Mexican version where its characters are pretty reprehensible as human beings, and even so, I'd argue that Grau's film is infused with humanistic qualities also.
If you've not seen the Mexican version of this strange tale, you might actually be better off seeing Mickle's film first and then Grau's version. Mickle's version feels quite a bit different than Grau's, but I'm planning to give We Are What We Are 2013 a bit of a rest before I go back to it - just in case my appreciation of it has been too tempered by my love for Grau's picture. Mickle's film is intelligent, beautifully wrought and full of terrific performances. It might actually be a lot better than I'm giving it credit for, so by all means take a look at it in the manner prescribed above.
"We Are What We Are" was an official selection of the Toronto After Dark Film Festival 2013.
We Are What We Are (2013) ***
Dir. Jim Mickle
Starring: Bill Sage, Michael Parks, Julia Garner,
Ambyr Childers, Kassie DePaiva, Jack Gore, Kelly McGillis
Review By Greg Klymkiw
I'm not prone to knee-jerk negative reactions towards movie remakes, but sometimes, the originals are so damn good that the mere notion of a redo is enough to induce apoplexy (of the "nervosa" kind). Jim Mickle's well directed 2013 American version of the identically-titled 2010 Jorge Michel Grau shocker from Mexico is just such a film.
Grau's picture was a knockout, a genuine revelation to me. Then again, so too was Mickle's astounding 2010 release Stake Land (not to mention his terrifying 2006 first feature Mulberry Street). Hearing Mickle would be handling the remake allayed my concerns somewhat. What Mickle has wrought here is a good picture and a fine take on its progenitor, but I have to admit that the transference of Grau's original tale, doesn't quite make the sojourn out of Mexico to the Gothic American White Trash territory as imagined by Mickle and longtime screenplay collaborator Nick Damici. Not that it doesn't try. It tries hard and often succeeds.
The best element of the picture is how Mickle slowly, painstakingly builds both suspense and grotesque horror. Mickle is a natural born filmmaker and there is seldom a frame or beat that's out of step. In fact there's something very peculiar at work here in just how rich his approach is since there's a genuine attempt to humanize its characters in a way where we often empathize with their situation even when they're engaging in utterly horrendous actions. This is in stark contrast to the original Mexican version where its characters are pretty reprehensible as human beings, and even so, I'd argue that Grau's film is infused with humanistic qualities also.
If you've not seen the Mexican version of this strange tale, you might actually be better off seeing Mickle's film first and then Grau's version. Mickle's version feels quite a bit different than Grau's, but I'm planning to give We Are What We Are 2013 a bit of a rest before I go back to it - just in case my appreciation of it has been too tempered by my love for Grau's picture. Mickle's film is intelligent, beautifully wrought and full of terrific performances. It might actually be a lot better than I'm giving it credit for, so by all means take a look at it in the manner prescribed above.
"We Are What We Are" was an official selection of the Toronto After Dark Film Festival 2013.
Labels:
***
,
2013
,
Adam Lopez
,
Cannibalism
,
Greg Klymkiw
,
Horror
,
Jim Mickle
,
Remake
,
TADFF 2013
,
Thriller
,
Toronto After Dark Film Festival 2013
Monday, 8 April 2013
EVIL DEAD - Review By Greg Klymkiw - Another completely unnecessary remake of a great horror classic - all the more depressing since it's produced by the 1981 original's director, producer and star.
Shop Amazon Outlet - Clearance, Markdowns and Overstock Deals
Evil Dead (2013) *1/2
Dir. Fede Alvarez
Starring: Jane Levy, Shiloh Fernandez, Jessica Lucas, Elizabeth Blackmore, Lou Taylor Pucci
Review By Greg Klymkiw
The remake of Sam Raimi's chilling 1981 horror classic merits the distinction of being the best directed loathsome piece of crap made in a decade or so. Fede Alvarez, who delivered a handful of exceptional shorts, makes his feature debut here. It's easy to see why the producers (Raimi, Robert Tapert and Bruce Campbell) hand-picked him to helm a new stab at the baby that put all of them on the map in the first place. It's clear Alvarez has flair and knows where to put the camera for maximum shock impact.
What he lacks (or at least what the script lacks) is anything resembling a sense of humour. I'm not talking about the direction the humour took in Raimi's own sequels Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn and Army of Darkness (Hitchock by way of Warner's Looney Tunes), but rather the grotesque, brutal and viciously black humour that made Raimi's original such a brilliant, subversive and relentlessly terrifying (and sickening) experience.
No, in spite of having Diablo Cody, the glorified sit-com writer of (UGH!) Juno as his co-scribe, Alvarez's picture hasn't a single laugh. Worst of all, aside from several virtuoso shock set-pieces, the remake is also not that scary. It's all surface. None of the scares seem to emanate from the pit of some truly dangerous, malevolent and sadistic place.
The Evil Dead remake commits the most unpardonable sin - it's a lightweight.
The plot (such as it is and always was) remains pretty much intact. Five young people go to a cabin in the woods and unwittingly unleash demons from hell. The big difference is that the kids in the original were all party-hearty hoser-types. Here, they're weighted down by the drudgery of deep, dark secrets from the past and their motive is to get one of their group to detox off heavy drugs. Worse yet, is a hackneyed pre-credit sequence which tries to pathetically set up a back story to the proceedings. This is such a boneheaded move that I'm still agog that anyone felt it was necessary to so clumsily explain why the cabin is haunted. The original needed no such nonsense. The deeper our characters got into the backwoods, the creepier it became.
The detox angle is not a bad one, but it's never fully exploited and explored for the kind of oomph that drug addiction and the genuine horror of drying out amidst an attack from fucking hell demons could have brought to bear. What we're left with is the angst-ridden past of the central characters.
This, alas, is a total bore.
Shop Amazon Gold Box - New Deals. Everyday
It doesn't help that the cast of the remake is completely and utterly bland. The performances are stalwartly professional, but missing are the genuinely cool looks of the actors in Raimi's film. The babes were babes, but they seemed like girls next door instead of bubble-brained contemporary ingenues and the men lack the kooky macho spin delivered in the 1981 version.
And, for a moment, let us consider the rape scene involving branches coming to life in the forest. The original rape scene was so down, dirty and wholly unexpected that it was not just repulsive, but because it was imbued with Raimi's combination of voyeurism and black humour streak that it provided a mixture of uneasy laughs with the scares. There was something subversively sickening about this - and brilliantly so. Here, the branch rape is merely gross and unpleasant. As such, it feels far more exploitative than probably intended.
One of the things that helped, rather than hindered Raimi's original is that it was shot on a shoestring budget and fuelled by the added desperation of Raimi and star Bruce Campbell out on a financial limb throughout the process - Raimi using credit cards an Campbell mortgaging his parents' house. Better yet, the film was shot on glorious 16mm and had to be blown up to 35mm. The process not only added a grotty grain to the visuals, but the film dichotomously looked like it had been processed in chemicals laced with swamp water and toxic waste, but had special visual effects and astounding compositions and camera movement that would have been more at home in a much bigger budgeted film. There was a perverse documentary realism to the movie's look that made it additionally terrifying.
The remake is slick, expensive and completely without soul. Granted, the filmmakers probably wanted a fresh spin on an old cycle, but they might have been much better off taking a cue from the original and tossing the whole lot into a washing machine armed with grey water and generic soap suds rather than fresh, crystal clear spring water and a box of Tide Ultra-Bold.
Evil Dead (2013) *1/2
Dir. Fede Alvarez
Starring: Jane Levy, Shiloh Fernandez, Jessica Lucas, Elizabeth Blackmore, Lou Taylor Pucci
Review By Greg Klymkiw
The remake of Sam Raimi's chilling 1981 horror classic merits the distinction of being the best directed loathsome piece of crap made in a decade or so. Fede Alvarez, who delivered a handful of exceptional shorts, makes his feature debut here. It's easy to see why the producers (Raimi, Robert Tapert and Bruce Campbell) hand-picked him to helm a new stab at the baby that put all of them on the map in the first place. It's clear Alvarez has flair and knows where to put the camera for maximum shock impact.
What he lacks (or at least what the script lacks) is anything resembling a sense of humour. I'm not talking about the direction the humour took in Raimi's own sequels Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn and Army of Darkness (Hitchock by way of Warner's Looney Tunes), but rather the grotesque, brutal and viciously black humour that made Raimi's original such a brilliant, subversive and relentlessly terrifying (and sickening) experience.
No, in spite of having Diablo Cody, the glorified sit-com writer of (UGH!) Juno as his co-scribe, Alvarez's picture hasn't a single laugh. Worst of all, aside from several virtuoso shock set-pieces, the remake is also not that scary. It's all surface. None of the scares seem to emanate from the pit of some truly dangerous, malevolent and sadistic place.
The Evil Dead remake commits the most unpardonable sin - it's a lightweight.
The plot (such as it is and always was) remains pretty much intact. Five young people go to a cabin in the woods and unwittingly unleash demons from hell. The big difference is that the kids in the original were all party-hearty hoser-types. Here, they're weighted down by the drudgery of deep, dark secrets from the past and their motive is to get one of their group to detox off heavy drugs. Worse yet, is a hackneyed pre-credit sequence which tries to pathetically set up a back story to the proceedings. This is such a boneheaded move that I'm still agog that anyone felt it was necessary to so clumsily explain why the cabin is haunted. The original needed no such nonsense. The deeper our characters got into the backwoods, the creepier it became.
The detox angle is not a bad one, but it's never fully exploited and explored for the kind of oomph that drug addiction and the genuine horror of drying out amidst an attack from fucking hell demons could have brought to bear. What we're left with is the angst-ridden past of the central characters.
This, alas, is a total bore.
Shop Amazon Gold Box - New Deals. Everyday
It doesn't help that the cast of the remake is completely and utterly bland. The performances are stalwartly professional, but missing are the genuinely cool looks of the actors in Raimi's film. The babes were babes, but they seemed like girls next door instead of bubble-brained contemporary ingenues and the men lack the kooky macho spin delivered in the 1981 version.
And, for a moment, let us consider the rape scene involving branches coming to life in the forest. The original rape scene was so down, dirty and wholly unexpected that it was not just repulsive, but because it was imbued with Raimi's combination of voyeurism and black humour streak that it provided a mixture of uneasy laughs with the scares. There was something subversively sickening about this - and brilliantly so. Here, the branch rape is merely gross and unpleasant. As such, it feels far more exploitative than probably intended.
One of the things that helped, rather than hindered Raimi's original is that it was shot on a shoestring budget and fuelled by the added desperation of Raimi and star Bruce Campbell out on a financial limb throughout the process - Raimi using credit cards an Campbell mortgaging his parents' house. Better yet, the film was shot on glorious 16mm and had to be blown up to 35mm. The process not only added a grotty grain to the visuals, but the film dichotomously looked like it had been processed in chemicals laced with swamp water and toxic waste, but had special visual effects and astounding compositions and camera movement that would have been more at home in a much bigger budgeted film. There was a perverse documentary realism to the movie's look that made it additionally terrifying.
The remake is slick, expensive and completely without soul. Granted, the filmmakers probably wanted a fresh spin on an old cycle, but they might have been much better off taking a cue from the original and tossing the whole lot into a washing machine armed with grey water and generic soap suds rather than fresh, crystal clear spring water and a box of Tide Ultra-Bold.
"Evil Dead" is currently in wide release internationally. Do yourself a favour, save some dough and just buy the original Sam Raimi pictures on Blu-Ray.
Labels:
*1/2
,
2013
,
Fede Alvarez
,
Greg Klymkiw
,
Horror
,
Remake
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO - Review By Greg Klymkiw - No reason to exist,
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011) dir. David Fincher *
Starring: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgård, Robin Wright, Joely Richardson
By Greg Klymkiw
2009 saw the release of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, a terrific thriller based on the late Stieg Larsson's bestselling novel - very well directed by Niels Arden Oplev and featuring superb performances from Michael Nyqvist, Noomi Rapace and Sven-Bertil Taube. In a raw, jangly, pulsating and uncompromising style, it told the story of Mikael Blomkvist (Nyqvist), a journalist disgraced in a libel suit who is hired by an aging former industrialist Henrik Vanger (Taube) to solve an ages old mystery. With the help of Lisbeth Salander (Rapace), a brooding punker babe with a knack for computer espionage, a deep, dark, dirty secret is uncovered that involves a serial killer within Sweden's most powerful family.
Fast forward to the present.
2011 sees the release The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, a dull thriller based on the late Stieg Larsson's bestselling novel - poorly directed by David Fincher and featuring mediocre performances from Daniel Craig, Rooney Nara and Christopher Plummer. In a fake, plodding, limp and barely-by-the-numbers style, it tells the story of Mikael Blomkvist (Craig), a journalist disgraced in a libel suit who is hired by an aging former industrialist Henrik Vanger (Plummer) to solve an ages old mystery. With the help of Lisbeth Salander (Mara), a brooding punker babe with a knack for computer espionage, a deep, dark, dirty secret is uncovered that involves a serial killer within Sweden's most powerful family.
For some reason, I am reminded of the title to an old Agnes Varda movie.
You might remember it:
One Sings, The Other Doesn't.
The latter movie has no reason to exist. Even some of the worst Tinseltown remakes of foreign films - and I mean the WORST, utterly godawful (let's try to NOT name them as it's best to repress their existence) - are movies that TRIED (pathetically) to bring something new to the proceedings. David Fincher's abomination does very little in that respect. It's the same plot, roughly the same story structure, the same setting and pretty much the same characters.
The differences? Well, they are both few and many at the same time. Fincher's movie features mostly English-speaking actors, speaking English, but with slight accents. The original was in its mother tongue. The title character in Fincher's picture has a bit more humour, but way less mystery than the original Lisbeth Salander. Oplev's picture seemed rooted in the late 90s and as such had a slight period flavour to it, and stylistically it even had a few dashes of 70s-style magic. Fincher's movie feels like it's set in the here and now, but doesn't bother exploring any of the current political implications of this.
The sexual violence in Fincher's film is shocking, but only because it's the only life the movie has, and as such, is vile and exploitative in all the worst ways. The sexual violence in Oplev's film was also shocking, but rooted in a superbly constructed motion picture wherein it tied directly into the original novel's themes and as such, did not stick out like borderline pornographic nastiness.
Fincher's film is paced like the worst television crime procedural, but on lithium. Oplev's version moved like a speeding bullet, screeching to a halt every so often to engage us in something brooding, tantalizing, horrific or yes, even sexy. Fincher's movie has a running time of 158 minutes, but felt like 851 minutes. Oplev's theatrical cut was 152 minutes, but was so good, it felt like 52 minutes and all I can really remember about it from that standpoint is that I didn't want it to end (unlike Fincher's where I couldn't stop looking at my watch).
Worst of all, Fincher's movie has nothing new or interesting to add to the story - no real point of view and finally, it's little more than a dull re-do of something that was genuinely fine.
I'll need, probably, to admit that I have little use for Fincher. He's pretty much a fake in my books. The insanely overrated Se7en was for me, all sizzle and no steak. Alien 3 is the worst film in the franchise and yes, even worse than the Alien Versus Predator (AVP) pictures since they, at least, had something resembling a sense of humour and a decent trash-mentality instead of Fincher's pseudo-brooding. The Game was watchable, but inconsequential. Panic Room was just noisy and gave me a migraine. Fight Club was surprisingly good until the final third when the cop-out dénouement pretty much negated everything that preceded it.
There are, however, two Fincher pictures I think are not without SOME merit. Zodiac, though ultimately a mess, was strangely compelling and The Social Network was probably the best movie one could make about FaceBook.
Fincher also deserves some credit for fooling a lot of people who should know better into thinking he's more than a marginal talent.
For me, though, one of the worst exemplifications of Fincher's mediocrity is on display at the beginning of his wretched Dragon Tattoo remake. We begin with a cryptic pre-credit sequence that does very little to set the stage for the movie and then it is followed by a ludicrous title credit sequence feature black, shiny, liquid-like images of the lead characters set to the strains of a (I must admit grudgingly) pretty fabulous cover version of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song". My immediate thought was that this was some bone-headed attempt to set the stage for a James Bond-styled credit sequence in the hopes that this and the sequels will have the same sort of franchise value. It's moderately cool to look at, but has none of the charm of Maurice Binder's brilliant (optically, not digitally achieved) title sequences. Hilariously, I have subsequently read that Fincher wished this to represent Lisbeth Salander's unconscious.
Gee, Dave, you're a thinking man, eh?
Good for you, bud
It looked like a rock video to me.
Have a beer, eh.
Hmmm, didn't you used make music videos before you started inflicting us with your lunkheaded, pretentious fakery in the medium of feature film?
And now, you've delivered one of the most appalling, cynical cash-grabs I've ever had the displeasure to sit through.
I think I'm the one who needs a beer. A whole case, followed by a long, hot shower.
There's no reason for this movie to exist.
There's even less reason to bother seeing it.
Labels:
*
,
2011
,
David Fincher
,
Greg Klymkiw
,
Mystery
,
Remake
,
Stieg Larsson
,
Suspense
,
Thriller
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)

















