You've got to love a bit of action/horror exploitation from Italy, haven't you? It may not have the absolute onslaught of grue that Cannibal Holocaust displays (also from 1980), and it may not have the pervading sense of sleaze that the likes of The New York Ripper revels in, but it's actually a pretty decent flick.
More "Cannibal Skirmish" than Apocalypse mind you, as the build up is measured (bar a sudden jump into a violent stand-off at a flea market spurred on by a flesh-ripping attack in a cinema) and the scale the title promises never really shows up. However, it's still a good ride with an intelligent performance from John Saxon and an enjoyable wide-eyed turn from John Morghen (seen a year later in Umberto Lenzi's grotty Cannibal Ferox getting his knob hacked off, fact fans). Is it the best of Italian exploitation movies? No. Is it the worst? Certainly not - so over-the-piece fans of such fare should be plenty happy with a viewing, especially when the third act kicks in with guns, grue and gas-masked coppers pursuing the protagonists through the streets and sewers of Atlanta, Georgia.
What's more the DVD features a 50-odd minute featurette boasting a range of interviews with key players - such as Saxon, Morghen, and the director Antonio Margheriti (name-checked in Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds ... the Italian guise of Eli Roth's basterd in the third act) - which stretch beyond the remit of the film itself, allowing the interviewees to chat freely about their careers on the whole and Cannibal Apocalypse itself, making for fascinating viewing for the genre fans.
Showing posts with label basterds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label basterds. Show all posts
Thursday, 25 February 2010
Saturday, 29 August 2009
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.
"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.
Friday, 28 August 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
