Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts

Friday, August 31, 2018

Irish Horror: The Lodgers (2017)

The Lodgers is a 2017 Irish film directed by Brian O'Malley, stars Charlotte Vega, Bill Milner and Eugene Simon, and was filmed almost entirely at the infamous Loftus Hall in County Wexford, a real-life source of many urban legends and the location of much legend-tripping.

I first heard stories about Loftus Hall while I was was in college. Many of my colleagues from the southeast side of the country knew of this place. Today it has been reinvented as a tourist attraction (dark tourism, I guess) but back then it was dilapidated, rotting, and hella spooky. Pretty much everyone who spoke to me of the place had visited with their friends upon a dark night on a 'dare.' There are myriad local legends about the place, some of them unique to Loftus Hall, others seeming to be the kind of generic myths that get attached to any spooky old building. In particular, it was most often said that a gentleman visiting the Hall centuries ago was revealed to have been the Devil himself (he revealed a cloven hoof when a lady bent over to pick up a dropped playing card), upon which he disappeared through the roof in a pillar of fire. The patch where he burst through the roof was said to be still visible. Suffice it to say that Loftus Hall is a unique location in which to set a period ghost story movie, and I heartily approve. 

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Off The Wagon: The New Barbarians



















During the 80s, the Italian movie industry went crazy imitating certain big-budget movies. Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior somehow earned more Italian rip-offs than most, so to learn more about this bizarre fixation, Cian and Ali decided to check out 1983's The New Barbarians. If you dream of a post-apocalyptic future in which bands of 'Templars' in tight white uniforms drive around quarries wielding awkward weapons from tinfoil vehicles, then this might be the film for you!

Listen to the podcast here.

Friday, February 24, 2017

Off The Wagon: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

In the late 80s, legendary egotist William 'Captain Kirk' Shatner finally got his chance to direct a Star Trek movie, to the horror of the rest of the Trek cast. For years he had tyrannised them on the sets of the original TV show, and had barely held back his frustration that fellow cast member Leonard Nimoy was getting to direct the Trek movies that followed! Now was his chance to show them all what he could do - and he had a typically bold and ambitious story to tell, too. The result was one of the most hated of all the original crews' cinematic adventures. Join Cian, who still has some love for this mess of a movie, and Donal, who really doesn't, as they find out exactly what went wrong during the making of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

Listen to the podcast here.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Off The Wagon: Conan The Barbarian

WHAT IS BEST IN LIFE? The Off The Wagon podcast crew bring you the answer to this age-old question in this big-budget, large-cast, epic-length extravaganza of a review. It all began in the very early days of 2017, in the age before the oceans drank Atlantis, when four movie fans gathered in snowy Toronto to have a few beers and discuss 1982's Conan The Barbarian.

It soon became clear that this movie meant a lot to most of them, and the discussion took many an unexpected turn: the career of right-wing gun-nut director John 'Red Dawn' Milius, a comparison of the careers of both Schwartzennegar and Stallone, religion, philosophy, Niezche and Ronald Reagan. Whether or not you're a fan of Conan, there's much to enjoy here, as this seminal movie turned out to be ripe for more analysis than anyone thought possible!

The participants: Cian, Donal, Matt and James. Check out James' amazing band Villainest by clicking here!

Check out the podcast here.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Off The Wagon: Fatal Deviation



For the first time in a long time, Cian is joined in person for a podcast by messrs Ali and Tom to take down Ireland's first (and only?) homegrown martial arts movie, 1998's Fatal Deviation. There's no shortage of kicks, punches, Londis tarts, elderly gangsters or kung fu druids in this epic. A film made with considerable heart and effort. I think it's fair to say that not every punch landed, so to speak, but clearly everyone involved gave it their all. If you've ever wondered why winning a local fighting tournament would automatically give you control over a small Meath town ... well, you won't really find out exactly why this is. But when Jimmy Bennett goes head-to-head with unscrupulous drug runners in the fabled Bealtaine Tournament, he soon finds that there's everything to fight for!

Listen to the podcast here.

And, for the brave, find the movie here.

Monday, September 12, 2016

Another Michael Crichton Podcast: Congo (1995)
















Join Cian and Chris for (they finally have a title) 'We Need To Talk About Michael,' a podcast in which they watch the movie versions of Michael Crichton novels and compare them to the original books, if they can remember anything about them, at least.

This time around it's 1995's Congo, a tale of diamonds, killer apes, and sesame cake. Listen in to discover why you never want Jimmy Buffett to fly your plane, why Tim Curry should never play a Romanian, and whether a pound of sugar is more expensive than a primatologist.

Like the movie itself, this 'cast had something of a troubled birth. Recording issues plagued the episode, so Chris, being a tech wizard, used some supercomputer thinking machines to piece the audio back together. Though there are still some audial oddities throughout, the banter is worth listening to, so click below, journey in search of the lost city of Zinj with us, and STOP EATING MY SESAME CAKE.

Click here to listen to the podcast.

Click here to watch the trailer.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

Off The Wagon Reviews: Name Of The Rose (1986)


If you've ever asked yourself, 'I wonder what Sherlock Holmes would have been like if he was a medieval monk played by Sean Connery,' then you've come to the right place! Cian and Eoghan don their robes to get medieval on 1986's The Name Of The Rose. Along the way, Cian gets schooled on historical matters and Eoghan learns the shocking truth that Hollywood likes to change the endings of your favourite books. Stay tuned for medieval murder mystery madness.

Listen to the podcast here.

Watch the trailer here.

Monday, July 18, 2016

Off The Wagon Reviews Jurassic Park Part 2













Cian and Chris return to finish off their T-Rex-sized rant about Jurassic Park, and they once again spare no expense in bringing you the analysis that was so big it needed two podcasts! Revel in the trivia; discover exactly what Dennis Nedry keeps on his desk, why Chris wanted to run like a Gallimimus, and choose your side in the infamous 'Tyrannosaur paddock moat debate.'

Listen to the podcast here.

As promised, we've now added some show notes. Below is a pretty good map showing someone's idea of how the Rex got out of her enclosure. Click here for a pretty good discussion about the confusion people have experienced watching this scene.
And here is Chris' map of the same scene. This is how we both imagined it went down when we were kids. Don't say we aren't good to you!



Friday, July 1, 2016

Off The Wagon Reviews: Jurassic Park (1993)


Well, it sure is nice to review a good movie for a change! I'm joined by long-time JP devotee and all-round good guy Chris Joyce to look into this seminal movie from our childhood. We take Spielberg's dinosaur opus apart to see what makes it tick in intense, scene-by-scene detail. Discover where I now keep my battery-operated screaming raptors, why Hollywood doesn't know what an eagle sounds like, how much Jurassic Park scientists earn, what the name of the amber-digging guy is, why you should never hire a single disgruntled employee to run your entire security system, and a whole lot of other things you've never wondered about!

Listen to the podcast here.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Off The Wagon Reviews Podcast: Ghoul School (1990)



This week, Ali gets misty-eyed reminiscing about kindly New York broadcaster Joe Franklin, Cian gets confused by plotlines that make no sense (underage janitors? mysterious zombie gas?) and the listening audience learns why the Blood Sucking Ghouls never hit the big-time of 80s hair metal bands.

Listen to the podcast here.

And if you're brave, watch the movie here!

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Off The Wagon Reviews: Night Train To Terror


Here's a new podcast in which I'm joined from across the Atlantic by bad movie expert Ali Keane to discuss our personal history with bad movie-watching before we tackle the 1985 mess of a movie Night Train To Terror. Podcasting via Scype is presenting some difficulties with keeping background noise down, but the quality is not bad! A hand injury is still keeping my artwork at the level of a preschool child, but I'm doing my exercises and I promise that you can look forward to some quality illustrations as soon as I can produce them. Take a listen here.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Off The Wagon Reviews: The Martian


It's my first-ever podcast! I'm still learning how to do it, to be honest. Lots of room noise and such in this. But check it out anyway here.

Saturday, December 28, 2013

The Patriot (2000)

Some bad things get worse the better they're executed- and I think that propaganda is one of them. And I'm sorry to bring up some pretty heavy examples, but Birth Of A Nation and Triumph Of The Will are both all the more terrible for being particularly well-made movies. Nobody takes a bad movie seriously; in particular, nobody takes the message of a bad movie seriously. So when a movie that had a dubious message is well-made on a technical level, it becomes all the more troubling. Which brings me onto The Patriot, which, while not as reprehensible perhaps as those two movies, is still pretty problematic.


In this movie, Mel Gibson again reminds us how much he loves a bit of Brit-bashing. As you probably know, that's the kind of thing that usually plays well to Irish audiences. This is something else that I find problematic. No matter how enlightened we may think we are, for some if us there's always a bit of us that enjoys seeing the dirty Brits get their comeuppance, even if it's only in the form of a stupid and obviously cartoonishly patriotic Hollywood shlockfest. We tell ourselves that it's just a bit of a laugh and that we don't mean anything by it, and that it's no reflection on our attitudes towards the British today, but I think it says something about our inner nationalist side that we enjoy this stuff so much. As it happens, I have no idea why Mel Gibson likes having the British be the villains in his movies.  

The Patriot is certainly no Braveheart, but in terms of sets, cinematography and the ordinary nuts-and-bolts of movie-making, it's pretty good, and it should be, as it's made by people who know their craft. Jerry Bruckenheimer was the producer on this, and though he may be something of a schlockmeister, he sure knows how to make movies that look great. The Patriot aims at being a historical epic, and it definitely looks like one. The colours are lush, the landscapes are beautiful, and the action sequences are tense and thrilling. Mel doe a pretty good job directing too, which must have been difficult as he's in pretty much every scene. As someone who likes history, I sometimes enjoy even bad historical movies as I love seeing an era I'm interested in realised with a decent budget, and The Patriot doesn't disappoint in that respect.

Cup of Earl Grey?


So what's the plot? Well, it's 1776, and Mel plays Benjamin Martin, a character who seems to be based on various real-life guerrilla militia leaders who fought in the War of Independence. At first, all we know about him is that he did shameful but unspecified things back in the French & Indian War, and therefore has no interest in getting involved in this new war against the British. He's got about a million kids to look after, including a young Heath Ledger, and a conveniently-dead wife (convenient for her predatory sister, that is, played by a very hot Joely Richardson, who was no doubt dreaming of her days on board the Event Horizon). So when a bunch of South Carolina powdered wig-wearers get together to debate whether they should join the rebellion, Martin is all like 'nu-uh, I don't do that shit no more, besides I gotta mind the kids, no matter how much of a dick King George is being, and no matter how much shitty tax he's putting on our tea.' This is important as it allows the screenwriters to have their cake and eat it too: Martin is show to be a pacifist, but later events (vis the eeeevil British) will force his hand and make him take up arms. He's a nice guy when he's allowed to be, but he's a badass when he has to be. These early discussions about when/if it's morally okay to use violence for political chance are kind of interesting, but they get dropped after this scene and don't really ever come back.

'Benjamin Franklin?'


The requisite events occur at the hands of Colonel Tavington (Jason Isaacs, also dreaming of his days aboard the Event Horizon), who is the most moustache-twirlingly cartoonish villain this side of Jafaar. He probably enjoys tying girls to train-tracks when he's not out committing atrocities in the South Carolina countryside. Tavington kills a bunch of unarmed prisoners, including one of Martin's kids, therefore filling our hero with righteous rage and usefully providing him with a guilt-free reason to go on his own rampage. Martin grabs the rest of his family and teaches them how to kill British officers, pretty much declaring a one-man war against Tavington. Martin comes to be known by the British as "The Ghost," due to his almost supernatural ability to kill large amounts of their soldiers. As far as I can see, the only special ability Martin has is being able to ignore soldiers who are not in shot during tight camera angles. But that's just me.

 Tavington gets chewed out by his superior, Lord Cornwallis (who's appeared on this blog before), for being too brutal. Apparently, Tavington's cruel tactics are not sanctioned by the British army and are not representative of their behaviour during the war. This again is a ham-fisted ruse by the scriptwriters that allows them to have their hateful, eeeevil villain, but not seem like they're implying the British were all bad. Too bad they stuff it up by having even the other, slightly more sympathetic officers be snooty, arrogant and disrespectful to the American soldiers every time they appear. They aren't decentl professionals who happen to be on the other side to the protagonist, they're twits and cowards. Some soldiers occasionally seem horrified at Tavington's actions, but they're pussies and don't follow their conscience. And just in case you hadn't got your fill of stereotypes, Tavington himself is effeminate and foppish.

Martin gathers a group of rag-tag militiamen and sets up camp in the swamps. A French officer joins his squad, resulting in much hilarity (sic). If you figured that there'd be jokes about the Frenchman overdressing and being vain, well, award yourself a beer. They organise more attacks on the British, leading to a climactic final battle in which Martin finally faces down his nemesis and gets to wave an American flag around in slow motion.

But for all my kvetching, the movie is very enjoyable. Mel and Bruckenheimer know what they're doing, and even the very well-worn tropes that they're using go down easy. The dialogue is largely enjoyable, the characters are likeable and hateable as they need to be, and everything looks great. Which is the problem, as the movie contains some pretty troubling ideas.

One of the main themes of the movie is that of using violence to solve problems. As I've mentioned, the film toys with going into the ethics of this decision at the beginning, and then dispenses with it altogether, becoming a simplistic glorification of violence instead. It's very black-and-white; us vs them. Which is one thing if a movie is dealing with completely fictional forces (ie, Star Wars). It's quite another when real peoples from history are involves. I feel that if a film-maker is dealing with history, they have much more of a responsibility not to simplify (though I accept that this rarely happens). It's far more irresponsible to have Tavington, as a representative of the British forces, commit war crimes, than to have Darth Vader commit war crimes, because Tavington's actions actually serve to represent how the British behaved during the real war. And, by extension, how the Americans behaved. In reality, atrocities were carried out by both sides, and there isn't currently any concensus that the British were any worse than the Americans.

Also troubling is the movie's treatment of black people. Martin's farm is worked by a bunch of happy, non-slave blacks who are insanely loyal to his family (yeah, right). There's a whiff of Uncle Tom off the whole thing. There's one black man who joins the militia, at first because he's gotta serve a certain amount of days to earn his freedom, but who later sticks around because he believes in the cause. Which is fine, except his final scene is horrifically offensive: he announces that now everyone's building a new world, he thought he'd help rebuild Martin's house first. WHAT? The man has not a single thought for himself? What about building his own Goddam house now that he's free for the first time in his life? Instead, he acts like the Magical Negro who's only around to help out the white folks.

I flip and flop on this movie. I guess overall I like it, because I usually prefer a movie that tries to do something ambitious and fails to a movie that plays it safe. Mel could have made a perfectly ordinary, dumbass action blockbuster. Instead, he made a dumbass action blockbuster that's dealing with ideas it's laughably unprepared to follow through on. It's a movie that annoys me as much as I enjoy it.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Sherlock Holmes (2009)


For all that I bang on about Arthur Conan Doyle, I've gotta 'fess up to the fact that I'm not overly enamoured by his most famous fictional son. Mostly, I guess, because I simply have no interest in crime fiction, of which Sherlock Holmes was probably the most perfect kind. The mystery of a whodunnit always seemed rather paltry to me after an early diet of Clarke, Asimov, and of course, a cornucopia of mind-expanding 19th-century horrors. So what if one mammal kills another- boring. And you expect me to care about who did it? Bring on the Martian tripods, the undead half-breeds and the space-travel, please. I do have a passing familliarity with the Holmesian cannon, more out of a feeling of duty to my favourite author than because I've really enjoyed it. Well, I did enjoy The Hound of the Baskervilles, but it felt to me as though Doyle was somehow repressing his own natural urge to bring a wacky supernatural element to the story, just because, in the world of Holmes (though not, apparently, in the real-life world of Doyle), there has to be a more prosaic explanation.

In any case, I've finally gotten around to a viewing of Hollywood's latest tinkering with a classic, and wouldn't you know, I enjoyed it a lot more than I was expecting- perhaps because I'm not too tied to the original source material. Basically, Guy Ritchie's sort-of made another one of his cheeky-chappie Cockney gangster flicks, except it's happening in the 19th century. Well, there's more to it than that, but still. Robert Downey Jr. and J*** L** play Holmes and Watson respectively. Predictably for a Hollywood adaptation, the movie ups the action and dumbs down some of the original material. But is it any good?

Overall, it's a gorgeous-looking romp that's good fun. Honestly, whatever sins Ritchie has committed by making Holmes into a two-fisted, pit-fighting dandy are more than made up for by the sheer liveliness and speed of the story. The relationship between the two leads has been slightly altered- they are now fast-talking buddy-movie leads, but the dialogue is pithy and hilarious throughout, and there are just enough elements from the stories left in, or slightly misused, to make you believe, at least for 100 minutes, that this is a legitimate interpretation of Doyle's character. Holmes is a flamboyant, over-intelligent misfit who doesn't live in or interact very well with the rest of society. Watson is a lady-killer who loses his patience with Holmes's eccentricities at times. And the two of them do have a brotherly affinity for each other in a kind of hetero life-mate kind of way (if not outright bro-ners) that is threatened when Watson gets married. So maybe Ritchie is stretching this stuff, but it's all there in the books.

Another thing Ritchie has done is to remind me why I'm fascinated by Victorian London. He makes it seem so fun (which it obviously was, if you lived in the right part of town). He even drags in an occult conspiracy that rips elements wholesale out of From Hell, whether he knows it or not. It's quite possible that he just reckons you can't tell a gothic London tale without this stuff, but the parallels are striking-

-a Masonic-type society that controls the empire
- secrets of the ancients
-a plan involving the occult architecture of London, including a scene with a giant map

What do you think?

Thursday, November 26, 2009

The Devil Rides Out (1968)


It strikes me that there are certain kinds of ‘supernatural’ occurrences or superstitions that most people take more seriously than others. Obviously, few adults are deeply troubled nowadays by movies that feature stock horror elements such as vampires, werewolves and the like. But mention demonic possession, or ouja boards, or satanic worship, and these same people will begin to harden their eyes and quiver their lips.

“Well, I’m not superstitious,” they’ll say, “but there are some things out there that are just not worth messing with, right? I mean, just in case.”

For some reason, these elements are in a vague way treated seriously, and even with some element of real fear, by otherwise skeptical persons. Moreso than other fantastic evils, they seem to belong in some arcane corner of our real world. We all know a spooky story about someone who messed with ouja, and we’ve all noticed those ‘satanic abuse’ scandals which occasionally pop up.

It seems almost like shooting credulous fish in a skeptical barrel to make a scary movie using these elements- The Exorcist, The Wicker Man, and today’s feature, The Devil Rides Out, are all excellent films that gain at least some of their power from the fascination the public has with their esoteric subject matter.

Many moons ago, as a child, I was prevented from watching a movie by my mother. No matter that I gorged myself on daily repeats of taped-off-the-telly VHS versions of Jurassic Park and Terminator 2: Judgment Day. As scary and brutal as those movies are, they seemed to her to be definitely ‘fantasy’, and thus not deeply unsettling. But this old-fashioned, plodding supernatural chiller about uptight Englishmen messing about with pentagrams and goats’ blood, though containing little overt horror, was, for some reason, a no-no. Her reaction left a deep impression on me- that this kind of horror was somehow more serious, perhaps because it was something that actually happened in the real world.

Years later, I was able to track it down using the wonderful ‘I Need to Know’ board on IMDB. Turns out it was The Devil Rides Out, starring Christopher Lee, with a screenplay by Richard Matheson. Now that’s pedigree!

Christopher Lee plays the Duc de Richleau, an upper-class English gent who discovers that his close friend Simon has become involved with the Occult. Eventually, it becomes clear that the somewhat naive Simon, along with the beautiful Tanith, has come under the power of the black magic adept Mocata (played by one-time Blofeld Charles Gray). The Duke and his stalwart companion Rex Van Ryn track down Mocata’s satanic cult, crashing their midnight sabbat and having lots of car chases through the British countryside.

Richleau lives in a 1930’s Britain where the attitudes and class system of Victorian days has not yet entirely faded. He is an aristocratic gentleman of leisure, of the kind that would not survive the next War- his friends are all upper-class, and have servants and nannies for their children. Despite the budgetary constraints of the Hammer studio, the period feel is wonderfully evoked through the use of old country houses, fantastic sets and beautiful 1930’s cars. It’s a fun look at a dying world.

One of the strengths of the film is its restraint- the horror builds through a growing sense of unease rather than through frequent horrific imagery. Of course, in a movie about the occult, the film-makers are going to have to show something supernatural sooner or later. Aside from one early apparition, the film delays doing this for as long as possible- and with good reason, for the special effects are mostly disappointing. It’s really the only element at which the low budget really slaps the viewer in the face. It is strange to hear Lee constantly enthuse on the commentary that the film would have been much improved by the use of elaborate CGI boogies- seemingly missing much of what makes the film so effective.

Lee seems to have been a bit of a Dan Ackroyd for the 60’s, given his intense interest in the occult. He did much of his own research for the movie, making sure that all the Duke’s esoteric ramblings have a ‘genuine’ background in lore. Its something the movie shares with the source material- the 1931 novel by Denis Wheatley- and adds to making the subject seem credible.

All in all, The Devil Rides Out is an entertaining watch for those with in interest in Hammer films, British society in the early 20th century, and of course, those who enjoy performing the age old rite of the sacrifice of the white hen and the black cockrel when the planets are in alignment.

And for real Grand Masters of the Left Hand Path, here’s a link to a documentary about Hammer films.