Some Assembly Required

With all this recent talk of ol’ craggy faced Robert Redford invading the UK (with his Sundance Film Festival), it got me thinking about other, truly independent films and filmmaking. Specifically I mean two, rather interesting independent filmmakers. The first being a Brit lad by the name of AD Lane, whose unique approach to funding is getting a lot of attention.

What is unique about AD Lane is ability to drum up support for his completely fan funded film trilogy. He has a vision and he’s not afraid to use Twitter to access it. Admittedly self-publicity is far from a new concept but by using a social media network such as Twitter, he has gained a devout following for his film cause (which is itself, completely funded by film fans).

Its inspiring stuff for anyone looking to finance either their first feature or short film and from experience (during my university years as I studied and backed my own shorts) this is incredibly difficult to achieve at times. It truly is a testament to AD’s determination to have his trilogy finished and independently distributed via his own means. Its brave, bold and most certainly should be commended.

The second truly independent filmmaker who instantly gains my appreciation (along with all the talented crews who start out with him) is the infamous Troma founder, Lloyd Kaufman. Anyone who has witnessed one of the many varied and unique features they have churned out, know the true extent of film madness. Just looked at the legendary Toxic Avenger (currently due to film it’s fifth feature), the mad and bad (but totally brilliant) Terror Firmer. Oh and let’s not forget the most recent Poultrygeist or Fathers Day. Two of their newest features all individually financed.

It’s pretty impressive when you also consider that Kaufman and Co have been going for around 40 years. For a small independent company they have truly stood the test of time. They make movies for those who enjoy interesting and diverse filmmaking. And for 40+ years they have been inspiring a generation of new filmmakers. Much like Roger Corman did all those years before (Kaufman himself has quoted and is friends with Corman).

I think what I’m trying to get at, is that if you are genuinely passionate about making a film, why would you need to care about being part of supposedly independent film festival (such as Sundance). Not every good film has to be so independent that it gains Oscar nominations or critical acclaim.

Being distributed by a film star and financially backed by them, won’t necessarily garner you with fame and fortune. Make the film your way under your rules and look that even now people like AD Lane and Lloyd are inspiring either new talent or old. And in such a cynical world as we live in at the moment people continue to be pioneers in such a difficult field as Filmmaking.

So continue to support independent film pioneers (a term I do not use lightly) such as these guys. This is what true independent film is about, fingers crossed more switched on filmmakers continue in this vain. With this in place, cult film will continue to flourish with talented individuals who are not seeking to win awards. One can only hope.

 

 

Images copyright AD Lane

Images Copyright Troma

For more information check out their websites here (Invasion Of The Not Quite Dead) and here (Troma)

Horror From The Heart

It seems of late that I have become rather bored of the same ,stale tripe that gets churned out for what passes as modern horror these days. After recently posting a tweet regarding the state of modern horror, I asked myself; when was the last time I watched a genuinely good horror film that really stirred my soul?

The answer took a lot longer then I thought, as it seems all modern horror is just the same repetitive thing over and over again. There have been films such as [REC.] and its sequel which have given me an enjoyable thrill ride through both of its tightly constructed running times. While others that I have found enjoyable (but not genre defining) include House Of The Devil.

All of this adds up to one thing; most seem to be missing a sense of charm and inventiveness. Has the horror renaissance of the early 00s finally succumbed to a lack of ingenuity? Ask yourself this (and to expand on my own tweet), when was the last time you bothered to sit and watch a recent horror film and thought; yea that’s something special, I must let more people know about this. It seems that this is now an all to rare occurrence within this genre (and its subsequent sub-genres).

But then I look at future films such as Ti West’s The Innkeepers (which looks suitably creepy and interesting) and realise that there might be life in the old horror hound yet. Very few films might be creative enough in recent times, but directors such as West, Paco Plaza et al are at least trying to bring something interesting into the mix (its just a shame it isn’t innovative enough for my horror needs). Maybe I’m just getting jaded, but it seems that only classical horror (Universal and Hammer Horror) along with low budget 70s/80s horror, really provokes a reaction out of me.

It seems that rediscovering horrors of yesteryear are what genuinely flicks my filmic switches nowadays. This has both its good and bad points; for starters discovering long forgotten or only recently released cult horrors gives me a sense of both excitement and wide-eyed wonderment (if the film is a lost classic). It’s that sense of euphoric elation that is missing from recent features and is one of the reasons why these features are enjoyable. Whereas the bad points seem to be that you do play a game of roulette, as some features really should stay hidden (but this is a small price to pay).

For instance I can remember the first time classics of the genre were played in front of my young, impressionable eyes. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre still resonates with me now, its badly acted and a difficult watch at times, but then that’s part of its charm. The first time I ever watched Tobe Hooper’s classic was on a late winters eve (by the way this isn’t intentionally for dramatic effect, but it helps). So engrossed (and grossed out) was I by the events that unfolded (its use of sound is still amazing and unique) that it genuinely stayed with me for days after.

The same can be said about William Friedkin’s The Exorcist, a prime example of how to build tension and effectively chill the audience to its very core. The Exorcist is still one of the only films that gives me the creeps with subsequent viewings (along with The Exorcist III, which is supremely underrated). It contains so many expertly crafted shots and top class performances that I feel almost insulted when people say it didn’t scare them or they found it boring (but that’s a whole other kettle of fish).

I think what i’m trying to say is that modern horror that provokes a response from me is a rare thing indeed, it certainly has yet to reach the levels of amazement that I first encountered with films like The Exorcist or TCM. Honestly that saddens me, especially when I walk into supermarkets or DVD shops and see buyers pick up the latest horror or direct-to-DVD pap. But then like a friend of mine said, “if you pick up shit you deserve to watch shit”. I think deep down he had a point.

So what was the last good modern horror that you watch? Was there even one? Or could you recommend any I might have missed. Sound off in my comments section and let me know.

Annoying Cinema Habits aka Sit Down…Shut Up Part II

Well it has been a while (some two months to be exact) since I last blogged or ranted about anything film related. That is not to say I have not been writing, on the contrary I have been writing for a few websites. Finally I have been given a chance to put my love of film into reviews and retrospectives. It also seems that for the first time in months I have finally made it to the local multiplex as I stupidly agreed to watch the latest Fast & Furious film (aka Fast Five aka The Fast & Furious: Rio Heist aka I doubt the PR knows what film they are promoting), which soon after ending it allowed me to come to the conclusion that said film was utter tosh. Admittedly I have no ground to stand on with this argument, as these type of films are produced for the masses and as such appeal to a specific crowd. But I thought its a chance to at least view something mindless for a short time.

Barring the fact that what I witnessed was both too long (the film clocked in at a ridiculously long winded 130 minutes) and that it felt like a sequel to the Italian Job remake, it was in all honesty one of the worst cinema viewing experiences I have ever had.

Now I may sound a bit old fashioned (hell I might even come off as boring) but no matter how bad a film is I would never do one of the several actions which are about to be listed; Burping, farting , rustling sweet bags , talking , texting , running up the aisle , arriving 10 minutes late and blocking the screen and finally shouting to friends on the other side of the auditorium. I have said it once in a blog and once again I mention it, but it seems that British cinema-goers have no concept of cinema etiquette or at the very least respect for fellow audience members. All of which made a particularly boring and uninteresting viewing experience all the trying.

Thankfully I remembered that mature cinema audiences were blessed last year with Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo’s Wittertainment Code of Conduct, which points out all of the reasons why cinema should be enjoyed. So for your viewing pleasure and presented below is the video in question.

Relax, enjoy and take in these wise words you cinema misbehavers. While those that do not do any of the misdemeanors give yourself a pat on the back, turns out you (like myself and many others) respect film for what it is….An art form to enjoy and absorb.

FREEDOM!!!

Now I know that this blog centres on cult film of all genres, but for a change I thought I would ramble about something a bit different. Ten months ago I thought to unleash some of my creative frustrations of working weird shift patterns, in the incredibly unexciting environment of the local pub. What started out as merely a creative release to help me write and rant about cult film and the like, slowly formed into an enjoyable and less labour intensive regular blog.

It turns out I quite enjoy ranting and raving about film to either my own friends (those that read this thank you) or utter strangers. Now I have never used this as a crutch but being dyslexic writing is one of the last things that come naturally to me. In particular grammar and spelling, but through some friendly guidance and understanding I have trained myself to write at least semi-coherently.

But I think what I enjoy most about writing this particular blog (other then it allowing me to get a bit more creative and unleash my own views and opinions) is that you have the ability to freely write whatever the hell you feel like at the time. How amazing is that, that everyone has the creative freedom (and I am quite aware I am stating the bleeding obvious here) to do, write and /or express literally anything and everything.

A lot of people say blogging either say it changed their life or rant in diary form personal info for attention etc, but for me to be able to write freely anything I want in a field such as film (because journalism within said field is extremely difficult) instantly makes me feel on top of the world. Having my own written words read by absolutely anyone at anytime fills me with a sense of purpose and achievement even if it is the crazed ramblings of my utterly bonkers mindset.

By knowing that my blog is read just spurs me on even more to get better at writing and allows me to improve all aspects of own peculiar writing style. If Times writer A.A Gill (who is heavily dyslexic) can publish and write such well constructed articles, which I gather probably, takes a bit longer then most, what is to stop anyone writing in their chosen field?

I have now found a new passion for writing which as taken me completely by surprise as I always hated writing. How I can’t stop and feel I need to tell people my opinion of all the cult films out there (along with a few more well known films). So my point is thank you to those that continue to read this and giving there own opinion. If it was not for a few select friends to gave the idea to me in the first place who knows how bored I would be by now.

The Freedom to Blog , The Freedom to Express

The Greatob.

Is this the Death of the action film?….Wait…Hold it, I can see a Sequel!

Having recently viewed “Gamer” it got me thinking about the current state and lack there of anything genre defining about present action cinema. Now if I were talking about DTV action films which now eventually star the long lost heroes of 80s action cinema (Van Damme, Lundgren, Snipes and Seagal) then formulaic action films still have a home market and subsequently made to order. But it seems as though any big budget films being made within the studio system at the moment seem to be harking back to the 80s heyday such as Sylvester Stallone’s Rambo follow up or the much anticipated “The Expendables”. Barring those particular entries the action genre seems to be on a downhill slide and when anything potentially different or possibly seen as a genre change it seems to be shunned by the public or in the case of most of Neveldine/Taylor’s input it tends to fall apart into a mess of a film. But these films are not without their original moments if a little over the top for some audiences tastes and when compared to the output of other genres such as horror (which itself is not without a fair share of rehashes and dulled down remakes) does seem to redefine itself through experimentation. Something which I wholeheartedly agree is down to the new wave of French horror filmmaking which is trying to break boundaries (both through taste and subject matter) but again this is something which aside from the Crank series and possibly the Bourne films very little of the action genre seems fresh or exciting.

But the action film genre still feels as though it is lagging behind ,granted “Crank” and “Crank 2” is a step in the right direction even though admittedly they are in fact self-referential and parodies of the action genre but is it enough to be considered genre defining? Well it is certainly not short on moments of complete and utter insanity which works for its favour but also partially against it at the same time. For instance the first “Crank” is almost new wave “High Concept” filmmaking, it contains references to 80s platform video games along with the use of projecting footage onto passing objects (an almost inventive use of split screen technology) and colourful slide shows to represent the more technical side of the human body which add a quirky tone to the rest of the film.

“Crank 2” seems to provide off the wall quirkiness and kinetic chase sequences in abundance, but where the first was a little rough around the edges its fresh take on the action film never felt forced. So at times with the sequel (and what seems to be the case with most reoccurring entries) it becomes too much of a good thing. It parodies the use of “Bullet-Time” where now even after all of the pretenders have had their shot, it still seems like old hat. It relies on to much puerile humour when injecting comedy into the mix while the use of a “Godzilla” delusion is personally a step to far, but with the context of the film allows it to partially work although not as successfully as hoped. It is almost as though both Neveline and Taylor have thrown everything but the kitchen sink (but to be honest I do think a kitchen sink appears at some point) in the film hoping that some of the quirky and more surreal moments help to boost it past the extreme excesses that the first “Crank” achieved albeit better its follow on.

The Bourne trilogy seemed to redefine the spy thriller, so to speak with its intense style, use of handheld stedi-cam techniques to heighten the unfolding action with bit editing to keep the thriller fast paced and edge of your seat. And although all three films are indeed great pieces of filmmaking, there is still the feeling of been there done that with the style towards the end of the series. It does truly make me wonder for a series of films to keep pushing the boundaries what lengths could they go to where it feels refreshing, exciting and new.

I truly do miss the days of the original “Lethal Weapon” and “Die Hard” both of which managed to achieve interesting stories, great characters that you rooted for, great scripts and faultless action sequences. It seems as though the action heyday was in fact the late 80s early 90s and with the exception of “The Matrix” which threw in a touch of religious debate and mysticism into the mix, very few action films now seem to provide something truly groundbreaking. The invention of “Bullet-Time” even lead to its eventual over use both in parodies and within the Matrix sequels. It seems as though the action genre realises that once they have a good thing, it is inevitably over used to the point of dullness. What is needed is an action film for the noughties and if ever there was a moment when Shane Black could unleash a new action beast among us it seems as good as anytime. But until that moment comes I will wait with baited breath, feet bloodied with half a smoked cigarette hanging from my lips with a dirtied vest sitting in the corner muttering “Yippie-ki-yay”

“To 3D or to not 3D, that is the question”

"Just because the film is 3D, doesn't mean the characters are"

So the year 2009 has come and passed with some truly amazing films shown during the lowly twelve months we call a year, but what was the biggest draw of last year? Yes that would be the increased popularity and funding by Hollywood and the subsequent studios to jump on the 3D band wagon, a sort of retro active resurgence in old technology. I have always believed that 3D was and forever shall be a marketing gimmick for the masses, ok yes they have been pushing the bar with the projections of film and mostly eradicating that annoying motion blur along with the awful blue and red hue which was ever present on the old 70’s and 80’s 3D extravaganzas. But are they really pushing the envelope much further then before, in all honesty and likelihood it seems doubtful. For if you get rid of one issue there is always another one lurking around the corner and in this modern age of 3D centric films it’s the loss of 20% (I think that is the percentage but it might be higher) of colour, which in some respects impairs the intended look of the film, particularly if said film is in high definition. But it also begs the question is it really worth the loss of colour to get a little more immersed within the film it self, my answer would be no its not. The basic 3D idea intrigues me that I could be more immersed within a film appeals to my geeky film obsessed sensibilities, but another part of me thinks what truly got me hooked in a film to begin with, what made me fall in love with the medium (and for this I thought all the way back to my first viewing of Labyrinth) and the answer was simple. It was because the story hooked me, there were no gimmicks involved the fantastical element of the land and characters draw me into their make believe world.

Now I have not yet seen Avatar and in all honesty I don’t plan to it just does not appeal to my current film sensibilities, granted it looks luscious vivid and downright gorgeous, but it looks like every other good sci-fi film before it and I don’t need 3D to enhance my viewing experience and loose some of the colour that has been lovingly crafted by the master technicians. All films are immersive in my eyes, if the film can hook me with a well crafted story, good performances with impressive use of both style and substance then that is truly a worthy viewing experience without an ounce of 3D gimmicks anywhere included.

I thus agree with Mark Kermode in this respect and disappointment in 3D, because I believe for a film to be truly immersive it needs to be embraced in the best way possible, a darkened cinema, surround sound to grasp the audio soundscape of the film and without 3D to impair the vision. So I very much agree with the good doctor:

The futures bright, the future is 2D.

Wheres my TV Boxset gone!!!….AHHH! Damnit!

Well just another quick post and has you may have gathered a bit of a rant, so I apologise for my rampant outburst. I have just witnessed the “Teaser” trailer for The A-Team that was recommended to me by a friend who was getting all nostalgic over the 1980s but all I can say is:

WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT!

Now I have never been a fan of Hollywood’s supposed “Re-imagining” of anything older then 20 years, nay anything older then 5 years seems to be the new trend (i.e. the supposed remaking of the Spider-Man franchise what is that all about, I mean are they actually serious…oh wait…yes….yes I think they are) but I digress this is rant of a trailer not the final product (which could well surprise….or maybe not) and as such really does little to make me warm for 80’s nostalgia other then to stop the trailer and put my old TV series boxsets on.

So I assume everyone knows of the original A-Team (and if you don’t catch a repeat and see some class 80’s television brilliance) a high concept action series that a whole family could sit down and watch on a Friday or Saturday night. It was so popular that (like most things in the 80’s) had a release of action figures, which in all honesty are actually quite freaky to look at. So it was an action television series which did not shed a single drop of blood or profanity and used weapons to suppress enemies rather then dispose of them and the highlight of this was watching to see what types of modified weaponry they could produce from any scraps they found from whatever their particular pickle placed them. Basically it was a huge blast and is still great fun even now, although the later series diverged into a little to much stupidity it still contained a brilliant cast, the late great George Peppard as Hannibal, Dwight Shultz as Howling Mad Murdock, MrT as BA Baracus and Dirk Benedict as Face. Hannibal always had some kind of make-up appliance on him, BA would always pity the fool , Murdock was quite frankly mental and Face was always the suave and sophisticated it was always fun if a predictable romp.

Now on evidence of this new trailer for the film version there seems to be little that associates it with the series, Murdock does not seem mental but rather quite stable, and quite frankly there is an air of try hard wafting passed my nasal passages. Granted there seems to be some interesting action sequences but without giving too much away the tank element seems a little too outlandish for its own good. I mean where is making of improvised weaponry or the air of fun that punctured the original series, from evidence of this teaser there is none of what made myself enjoy the series in the first place. Not to mention the lack of the complete theme tune but only a slower more downbeat version which only adds to my dissapointment.

What it needs to have in the next trailer if they release one sooner rather then later, is some better excerpts from the script, because quite frankly if the banter between the cast does not work this film will fail miserably. Granted I am being a tad pessimistic as this is only a slight teaser and it could well prove to be like the series in an entertaining romp kind of way. And I do enjoy Joe Carnahans films (I personally quite like Smokin’Aces granted it is flawed but it is still enjoyable) but each of the two he has made are a little uneven. Check the trailer and make a judgement for your self see if my rambling rants ring true like nuggets of filmic wisdom. Let me know what you think.

Cinema Etiquette : Sit Down, Shut Up!

Now I do not usually feel the need to launch into rant for no reason, but in this case I actually feel justified as I have had several conversations with friends and family recently about films they have all seen within the last few months and one thing became abundantly clear, what I like to call the CCG’S (or crap cinema goers to people who do not know me). I recently saw Sherlock Holmes right in the heart of central London and found it a thoroughly enjoyable experience, what annoyed me (apart from the constant establishing shots of house 221b) was the instance of two people behind me to talk loud enough to describe what just happened on the screen a moment ago (hang on I have just watched that bit, do we really need to be told again in a less articulated way?).

It would not have bothered me that much if the ticket price was cheap and cheerful, but at £10.20 that was the cheapest ticket going, and yes this was in fact my choice while in London to see the film with a friend, but surely the extra price does not get me audio descriptions from the rather loud gentleman and his inane partner from behind, when I and several other viewers are perfectly capable of deducing what is in fact unfolding on the screen. It just ruins the experience for other people. Now this seems to only happen in the mass multiplex cinema chains and I kind of thankful it is, because although cinemas such as the Curzon Soho and there chains respect the audience enough to allow them to have alcohol within the screening , they trust that people will, for all intensive purposes, behave themselves to put it bluntly. Now this is not a promotion for those cinemas but rather a compare and contrast of the differences, this might well make me seem like a film snob (and you would be correct) but if you spend your hard earned cash on a film you have waited to see, you do not expect added unwanted additions which disrupt your viewing pleasure. Just some of the things I have encountered (and heard from other people) include: texting while watching a film giving constant updates as to what they think of the film, believe it or not we can actually see that blinding bright blue light within this pitch black auditorium. Answering your phone during a screening and talking louder then the film (which is a talent) again disrupts the viewing experience, and then they get an attitude because you have told them several times to shut up.

Basically what I am trying to get at here is there used to be some kind of cinema etiquette within cinemas, I remember when it was always exciting to go to a cinema with my dad and sister, the smell of the popcorn (and the sticky floor), the feeling that your where entering a magical place (stay with me it will have a point) of fantasy, and the old fashion ticket offices they still had within the cinema, and these where just the experiences from a local cinema when I was a child before all of the trendy refurbishments happened mid to late 90’s.

I appreciate film and the experience and this could be because I just adore the medium, it is a great feeling when you walk into a cinema excited to see a highly anticipated feature and it is unfortunate when other viewers can ruin it for you.

If you have had any similar experiences it would be interesting to know

Enjoy film and the experience

The Great OB.