Flavours of the Month: June/July 2021...

Adventures in Nouvion, squealin' Italian wheels, and many a trip into the printed word are just some of what's been setting the tone of my June/July 2020, if you know what I mean and I think you do...

Click "READ MORE" below to see this month's looks, sounds, vibes & flavours...

Thriller: A Cruel Picture (Bo A. Vibenius, 1973) DVD Review

Find more exploitation reviews here.

“You better start praying, One Eye.” Perhaps better known under the title They Call Her One Eye, Bo A. Vibenius' stripped-back revenge thriller is an unusual sight to see come from Sweden, where serious art house cinema is more the norm. Mixing overt stylistic flourishes with hardcore sleaze, the tale of Frigga – a mute young woman recovering from a horrific ordeal in childhood – proves to be a tough but rewarding viewing experience, wrought from highly charged emotion and brutality...

Click “READ MORE” below to continue the review and see more screenshots…

Flavours of the Month: January 2013...

How time flies! Before I knew it, it was 2013, and now we're already cranked out January - it's onwards to February already! Anyway, here's what was influencing the tone of my January...

Click "READ MORE" below for the looks, sounds, vibes, and flavours of my January 2013...

August 2009 Flavours of the Month Pt. 1: Censorship...

I've ranted on so long for this second "flavours of the month" blog, that I've split it into two parts.

"Friends" censorship on E4...

As I'd said on a previous blog post a while back, I got back into Friends as it was showing from the beginning just when I got back from the hospital and began my (slow and painful) recovery - I was in need of something comforting and genuinely funny (fuck the haters, Friends is a great sitcom).

Anyway, it's been showing on E4 here in the UK, and this channel has been showing Friends on an endless series-in-entirety repeat from start-to-finish over-and-over since the show ended in 2004. At the moment they're getting through a season every 8 days pretty much, but what has really struck me now that I've been re-watching many of these episodes so consistently - is the sheer amount of censoring that E4 does to Friends nowadays.

There have been a whole list of examples over the past couple of months that I've been consistently watching these repeats of cutting the completely innocuous - and sometimes REALLY BADLY.

It is common for such an edit to leave a scene ending without a joke at all, indeed this sometimes leaves a scene falling flat, or in one recent example, leaving Monica apparently laughing AT Joey for no reason. Instead of a gag, it just seems like she's deliberately mocking him, due to the cut re-contextualising that whole section. Other times they skip the scene-ending gag and just cut awkwardly to the laughter - but what on earth are the audience laughing at?!

Well, comparing the E4 repeats to the uncut versions of the episodes, it's astonishing how in-offensive the excised content is, regardless of what time of day it is (these repeats are shown anywhere between 5pm and 10pm) ... some examples are:

Joey saying "no, I had sex in high school" - with that cut out, the scene ends with Chandler asking a question in a somewhat dismissive manner - no laughter - cut to the next scene.

Joey & Chandler's apartment gets robbed - this is the worst editing I've seen from E4 in these past weeks, truly awful. We don't see Joey being locked in the entertainment unit - instead the puritanical, censor-crazy morons at the E4 edit suite do a hack-job fade-in/fade-out quickly, horribly butchering the scene as if a child had been let loose with an Avid. Then when Chandler comes back home, he bizarrely teleports - thanks to yet another pointless edit - across the room in a split second - truly, truly awful censorship.

Joey also can't exclaim "you got porn!" to Rachel, nor can she lunge at him saying "sex me up, Joe".

Ross can't call Joey "V.D. Boy" when they get into a fight over a girl, nor can he say "gonorrhea".

Nor can Monica giggle and say "plus everyone's gonna see your thing!" when Joey discusses a potential nude scene he'll have to shoot - nor can we see a handful of frames of a blurry pink-ish faux-foreskin fall between his legs during the closing credits (although this is the best example of censor-crazy editing exhibited in these last few weeks - the cut works well, but still - the cut footage is completely innocuous).

These are just a few examples that spring to mind right now, but believe you me there have been many, many such pointless and puritanically sensitive cuts from these episodes. It really is ludicrous - in fact it's offensive - what's being cut isn't offensive, but E4 seem to think that the public - most of whom will have seen every single one of these episodes at least three times by now - can't handle dialogue you could easily hear during lunch time television.

It's also really odd coming from E4 - part of the Channel 4 group - who a few weeks ago did a week-long special of lunch time art programmes featuring long, uncut, static shots of nude people for the purpose of those at home joining and drawing. I was all for that show, and thought it was a genuinely good idea - that went off without much of a hitch, not even the Daily Mail got exceptionally riled up about it like you'd expect them too ... but still, E4 insist on butchering the totally inoffensive from a family friendly sitcom.

Astonishing.

...

"Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious"...

The Americans got their panties in a bunch over the title of Kevin Smith's "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" - but us Brits had no issue with it, but then in a bizarre case of inversion, the British advertising gang got really hot & bothered about a low-grade, mis-spelled swear word in the title of QT's latest offering.

Not on bus shelter adverts they say, and certainly not on television until after 10pm (the watershed is at 9pm) - you can say "fuck" repeatedly on Mock the Week which starts at 9pm, but you can't say "basterds" until after 10pm. Clearly, the moronic lack of common sense and joined-up thinking espoused by the Labour government since 1997 has truly infected our society further than any sensible person would have hoped...at least in my view, but you all should know by now how much I loathe Blair, Brown & their gleefully-dumb-but-dangerous gaggle of hypocrites extraordinaire.

However, at 10pm you can only show "Basterds" on the screen (rather than it being censored by bullet holes punctering the poster), you still can't say it - the name remaining "Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious" on the voice over.

Stupid ... really bloody stupid ... and to think us Brits laughed in exasperation at the Americans after Janet Jackson popped a nipple out.

Inglourious Basterds...

Some people have a problem with Tarantino - I don't. Some people didn't like Kill Bill 1 or 2 - I really enjoyed both. Some people also hated Death Proof - I absolutely loved it.

Likewise, some folk haven't taken kindly to Inglourious Basterds, but I can't understand why. You know what to expect from Tarantino, so you shouldn't be all that surprised, and it possesses QT's best dialogue since Pulp Fiction.

On top of that, you've got Brad Pitt playing the endlessly entertaining Aldo Raine (although I would have liked a bit more of him, and the other Basterds too), and unknown-to-most-until-now Christoph Waltz playing QT's best bad guy since ... well ... ever, in the guise of Col. Landa - "The Jew Hunter". Oh, and Til Schweiger does a great job as Hugo Stiglitz, if only there was more of him in the Basterd sections (but he does get a superb introduction). Previously I'd only ever heard of him via the trailer (as seen online) for FarCry (yes, the sure-to-be-shitty-like-all-the-others Uwe Boll movie).

Ahead of it's release, the inclusion of Eli Roth created a bit of a storm online with fanboys groaning in anticipation - I was one of them - I always found his cameos to be clumsy (such as Death Proof, or his own Thanksgiving trailer - but not Cabin Fever, actually) ... however, Roth does pull out a good performance.

In the words of Total Film, Roth isn't given "enough rope to hang himself with", which makes sense when you see the movie. The Basterds, while providing the title, are really only one third of the whole movie itself - it is them, Shoshana, and Col. Landa, and their interweaving plotlines.

I do feel though, that Tarantino could use a bit more discipline these days - although interestingly he himself addressed this issue in an interview he did with Charlie Rose (it's a good interview too, and it's nice to hear him talk at length about the film). QT talks - a lot - about his movies, but I feel that some critics use this as an excuse to ask of QT certain things without seeking a direct answer, or they demand certain things when they're not face-to-face with him ... or they simply don't bother to see what QT himself has to say about his own film, in an interview such as that with Charlie Rose, which covers a lot of ground.

Back to the discipline issue though - while I was glad to see QT is aware of it, and even addressed it in the aforementioned interview, he really does need to regain more of it.

A couple of times during Basterds (or just "Inglourious", as the lame-ass UK-but-no-US advertisers would prefer), I found myself waiting for the protagonists to get to the punchline of their (gripping) war of words. I get it, he's a spy, the other one thinks he might be a spy, but they're both pretending to assume the opposite of what they think to each other ... now can we get to the crux of the scene, please?

Increased discipline from QT's part - at a script stage - would solve such an issue. While the dialogue is excellent, it could have easily been boiled down a bit to get to a purer form of the same thing without compromise - indeed, it would improve the already rather bloody great dialogue-heavy scenes.

It would also help redress the balance of chit-chat-to-action. While it was suitable for Death Proof to have a lot of talk (many such exploitation flicks would be loaded with dialogue - which was nowhere near as good as QT's - but would advertise on the basis of the few action scenes throughout). Also, while I really enjoyed Kill Bill Vol. 2, it was too wordy at points - great flick, but a bit on the too-wordy side. My point being, since Vol. 2, QT has been getting wordier and wordier - he needs to reign himself in and pull back slightly, because it would actually improve things.

Speaking of action though - when you get it in Basterds, it is often swift - but brilliant. Speaking of action, that means violence, and speaking of violence, that means special make-up effects, and Nicotero & Berger return to provide the grisly - and man alive, it is some of their best work. Whenever the violence would erupt (especially two shots towards the end of the movie), my eyebrows would leap up my forehead. Bloody good work from the KNB boys.

Oh and yes, the choice of music throughout (especially the key set piece tracks, such as Bowie's "Putting Out The Fire") is great. QT's choice of music is always great, and it often introduces the mainstream audience to something new - which is no bad thing, is it?

All-in-all, I really enjoyed Inglourious Basterds, and I do hope it gets the proper coverage on DVD. Both Kill Bill movies were stuffed on DVD with sod-all extras, which was a damn shame ... however, his first three flicks, as well as Death Proof, have all been given solid double-disc treatments.

As such, a double disc treatment with plenty of interest, making ofs, and behind the scenes stuff please!

Finally - I've read that Tarantino has a bunch of scenes shot, which were removed with the intention of putting them into a second movie - that sounds cool-as-hell to me. I most definitely want a sequel (and please, take note of the discipline issue), and I would quite like one that filled in those three years we don't get to see in this flick.

Jackie Brown...

Back in the day I rented this from our local video store, having already seen Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction (both of which are great flicks, obviously), but much to my dismay - I did not dig Jackie Brown. Sure, this was a decade ago (back in the fun days of VHS rental, ahh the memories), so this is why I figured that at four quid I might as well get the DVD.

After all, having recently re-watched the entire X-Files saga (said episodes of which I'd not seen in at least several years, and at most a decade), and subsequently gotten even more out of it now that I'm a decade older (it's now my new religion, ha!) I thought this might be the case with Jackie Brown.

Well...I loved The X-Files originally, and I've adored it further now that I've had my marathon of it ... I didn't love Jackie Brown originally, so having just seen it the whole way through in one sitting for the first time in a long time (if not ever), I cannot say I now adore it. I certainly don't hate it anymore, I can dig it, but I still maintain that - for me at least - it is Tarantino's weakest flick. Perhaps this comes from the fact that he adapted the script from an existing book, so perhaps it's not the truest Tarantino out there.

So aye - I like it better (or a good deal better) than I originally did, but I remain un-bowled-over ... but it is nice to now have all of QT's flicks on DVD...onwards to the extra features!

The "Death Proof" Theory...

Having just watched Death Proof for the fourth time (same amount of times for the equally rocking Planet Terror), I thought I'd sit down and actually blog out my theory regarding one aspect of Death Proof, a theory which I've held since I first saw the film.

Right at the beginning of the flick you get a split second of the title, the 'real title', which is "Thunderbolt" if memory serves, but it obnoxiously cuts to a rough-as-a-badger's-arse white-text-on-black insert with "Death Proof" printed on it.

Now indeed, in the true nature of grindhouse cinema, many films would go by many names - flicks such as Last House on the Left or The Living Dead At Manchester Morgue would have a slew of names at different showings as they toured the country, seemingly seeking for the best, audience-pleasing moniker.

However - I have another theory, which links to this title change. In the world of 'the filmmakers who made Death Proof', or rather the filmmakers who rest somewhere between our reality (as we sit there and watch Death Proof, which was one half of the fantastic Grindhouse experiment) and that of the characters in the film (i.e. Stuntman Mike and so on).

In this world, there were at least TWO Stuntman Mike movies - most likely made a few years apart, considering the sheer volume of print damage to the first half of the flick (everything from the titles to the last frame of Earl McGraw's exposition-spouting hospital-walk).

Now, "Thunderbolt" - featuring the girls in the bar - was the first Stuntman Mike movie, but it would have only been quite short, most likely somewhere between 70 and 80 minutes. This film would have gone on to be quite successful, and obviously got a lot of wear and tear on the circulating prints.

Then - a new Stuntman Mike movie (perhaps simply "Thunderbolt 2") - featuring the girls from the set of the movie being shot in Lebanon, Tennesse. This second half of Death Proof, features far, far less print damage - so it's a brand new flick practically (maybe only touring a handful of states at this point).

So - we come to one particular exhibitor, and he fancies getting one over on everybody else, and creating what he'd class as some sort of third Stuntman Mike movie, which is actually a mish-mash of the two actual Stuntman Mike movies.

The second half of Death Proof, as I've said, barely features any print damage - except in the first few minutes (this is in the extended cut that you and I have been treated to by Tarantino). Why might this feature more print damage? Repeated viewing of this transition from first flick to second flick, by this phantom exhibitor who has spliced the two Stuntman Mike movies together into his own creation - titled "Death Proof".

As for the black & white chunk, who knows - perhaps there was an interesting story behind that. Perhaps the exhibitor, while cutting away in his fag-smoke-choked projector room, accidentally wrecked that portion of the print, and had to find another print as best he could - only sourcing a black and white version of the clip he needed. Either that, or it was just a mistake in his copy of the print for "Thunderbolt 2".

Death Proof is a film that is very divided, right down the middle. It's one set of chicks, then it's a new set of chicks - but always Stuntman Mike. The tone from one half to the next is different, the chicks are also very different - first half they're pure victims, the second half they're pure ass-kickers, as if they each represent a different era of cinema and female audience attendance.

This is how I like to think of Death Proof anyway. There have surely been cases of exhibitors making their own cuts to movies, indeed I swear I've heard/read such stories.

Also, considering that many of the movies from the era RR & QT were celebrating would focus far more on dialogue, but advertise mainly according to one or two key set pieces. In DP's case the trailers zoned in on the car action - mostly ignoring the chick-chat-out-and-about majority (which is actually in-keeping with grindhouse advertising).

I've always considered Death Proof to be a very shrewd, and perhaps more intricate movie in terms of referencing its source material.

Perhaps my theory isn't the case at all, but I think there's a strong case for that line of thinking, and I fancied sharing that ... it certainly fits the vibe of the film itself at least.

Death Proof - extended

Just saw this recently (I'd seen Grindhouse in it's proper form a while back, downloaded it as such as soon as I heard we in the UK were getting fucked over by the Weinsteins).

Anyway, I dug it then, although after the rather fast paced and violent Planet Terror, it's a real gear change, and probably should have gone first in the double-bill line up. Dug it so much in fact, I'd rather like to see it in the cinema-proper when it finally limps over the white cliffs of Dover.

Anyway, saw the extended cut and I really dug it, more than last time. The new footage doesn't add much more Stuntman Mike, but it does add more - and that's the point, both of Mike but also the girls (mainly the girls I guess). Anyway, the dialogue isn't as superb as Tarantino is known for, but I duno, I think that's become a "buzz argument" over the film, but watching it again I appreciated it more and it did feel like classic Tarantino, and what's more, it pulled me in and I actually got into the vibe of the two sets of girls' stories - night out on the town, and in search of a thrill ride.

One annoying thing though, the first half has a lot of the grindhouse scratches and glitches and reel changes and splices and such - but then this almost completely vanishes in the second half, which is really, really, really odd. Is this just an oversight? Is this to suggest it's two movies about the same psycho-tagonist spliced together? Notice that at the beginning the "original" title for the film is shown before it cuts to white text on black renaming it "Death Proof".

Anyway, aside from that one annoyance, I totally dig the film. Out of DP and Planet Terror, it's the one which feels the most like a true grindhouse film. It's fairly simple things that would be do-able on a lower budget (mainly talking, "normal" car stunts and some gore), whereas Planet Terror has a lot of stars (more than Death Proof I'd say) and has loads of gore, lots of big action set pieces and so on - basically, Planet Terror wouldn't be do-able on a grindhouse budget, but Death Proof feels as if it could be (aside from the odd crane or dolly shot which take it beyond the usual grindhouse constraints).

Basically, take a film like "Don't Look in the Basement", it's mainly talking with little action, but it's entirely advertised around the action...so when you look at the grindhouse flicks of the era, and then look at Death Proof, it really does feel like that sort of experience...whereas Rodriguez took certain ideas and then modernised them, while Tarantino tried to emulate low budget exploitation flicks of 30 years ago.

As for the film itself, brilliantly edited by Sally Menke, it really completes Tarantino's vision (I don't think his flicks would be as good without her on board, and similarly his films are probably the best she's worked on...or at least I could imagine her saying that in an interview). The choice of music is typically Tarantino and really works well within the movie, to the point that you feel "this song was made for this scene", not just picked at random. It feels like a cultural experience, many vibes and styles brought together to accompany the on-screen goings-on.

It could do with the odd improvement, and more Stuntman Mike...but considering the sort of films QT emulating, it makes a lot of sense in how it was put together, almost to nerd-riffic proportions, like a checklist of genre themes, styles, do's and don'ts.

All in all, I really dig it.

All said and done though, I ain't buying squat of either DP or PT until they pimp out a proper DVD, with the film as-it-should-be, including the extended stuff allowing you to view 'as-you-want' (a bit like they did with Sin City) and more extras than the separate discs are offering. I'm not ditching cash only for it to be wasted in favour of a better edition a few months later, and I'm sure other Grindhouse fans think the same thing.