Close to the end now. August has proven an even crappier month personally than July, so these posts have been short and to the point. With my previous diatribe against Blu-Ray I started thinking: not that my entertainment is *THAT* important to me anymore (thus the upcoming end of this blog) but what is important to me when it comes to the media I watch my movies and shows on? Obviously DRM is important, thus DVD over Blu-Ray, but what about my DVDs? What is important when considering to buy or even keep certain things on DVD? I am assuming of course that I like whatever it is I am considering.
Well, my wants have changed over the years. Back when I first started this blog, for example, extras were very important to me. Given the choice between a bare-bones edition DVD and a Special Ultra Limited Edition with 50 making of features and an audio commentary I was never going to listen to, I was going to choose the amped up version every time. Nowadays I don't really need that for every movie I own, in fact I only need that for a very small percentage of the stuff I have because obsessing on entertainment and how it's made is now less important to me. I recently re-bought some of my favorite anime movies because the picture quality was supposed to be better than the versions I already had. Also, when it came to Wings of Honneamise and the Patlabor movies they were supposed to take up less space than the behemoth boxset versions I had on my shelves. Well, the picture quality on the two Patlabor films was much better than on the old deluxe boxsets, while Honneamise looked exactly the same - but still took up less space, thus I kept it over the old one. The two huge Patlabor boxsets I had were superior to the new release in every other way - they had theatrical trailers and documentaries as bonuses on the discs, they had super-informative booklets and even the complete storyboards for both movies. But in the end the picture quality was vastly superior on the new DVDs, and I refuse to own two versions of the exact same movie (not counting Director's Cuts, etc), so I weighed my options and chose to get rid of my once beloved Patlabor boxsets. Why? Because picture quality trumps everything else. All the extras are just icing on the cake, and the cake itself is more important to me anymore. I also repurchased Vampire Hunter D (which I knew would have vastly superior picture quality seeing as how the quality on the old 2000 DVD was really poor - I was right) and again, the new release does not have as many bonus features but video quality is what counts the most. A lot of VHD fans are up in arms about the new DVD having a new English dub rather than the old Streamline dub, but I have always watched it in Japanese anyway so I don't care. Yes, it would have been nice to have both dubs as an option but again picture quality trumps all.
Now that I have my priorities straight when it comes to buying DVDs I feel that it easier to purchase movies and TV shows than in the past. Life is all about priorities. If you can learn that you'll be golden, instead of wasting time on a crappy movie blog that nobody reads.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Friday, August 28, 2015
Stooges Eternal - A Quick Musing
Can something be both timeless and dated? One would seem to contradict the other, right? I started wondering this whilst watching a bunch of Three Stooges shorts lately (friendly advice by the way: when you are going through a shitty time watch the Three Stooges). See, the original Three Stooges shorts ran all the way from the 30s to the 50s and a lot of the stuff in there is going to be obviously dated. Beyond the obvious superficial differences between then and now (the cars, the fashions, the politics, no television in the thirties, etc) there are some things that are almost alien to the modern viewer. Many viewers today for example would wonder what the hell an "icebox" is and why Curly would have to haul a huge block of ice up three flights of steps to deliver it to one.
I know what an icebox is because I study history and it is actually one of the easier ones to figure out... even I however had to look up what a letterpress is (definition: Three Stooges torture implement).
But you know what? Even with all of the dated pop culture references and facets of everyday life no longer in existence - which fascinate me, actually, as a student of history - the Three Stooges are still timeless. Not just because physical comedy itself is timeless but because of the themes and common human experiences inherent in the Stooges' scenarios. The Stooges as doctors will always be funny and a little bit sad, because unfortunately incompetent physicians will always exist.
There will always be courts and trials so the Three Stooges goofing off in a murder trial and wrecking a court room will always be funny. The Stooges wrecking a snooty rich person's house will always be funny as long as there are rich people who look down on us proles... and it gets even funnier every time the economy takes a downturn. Speaking of which, the Stooges as homeless and/or down-on-their-luck guys will always be relevant because so many of us are either or both of those things. There will always be love, greed, hate and laughter.
We don't get to solve our problems by poking a dude in the eyes or completely demolishing someone's house, so we will always look up to the Stooges as well as down on them. Wish fulfillment is always timeless. Oh, and until the day we invent water pills and laser toilets, the Stooges being plumbers will be really relevant... and really, really funny.
So the answer to my query is yes, something can be both dated and timeless. The Three Stooges, The Odyssey, Jimi Hendrix, Star Trek... actually combining all those would make the most awesome show in existence. Someone needs to do a Homeric, Jimi Hendrix scored Stooge Trek.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Feeling Blu
Last December I wrote that I got a Blu-Ray player for Christmas. Well, you may have noticed that I haven't reviewed any blu-ray releases on here, and there's a simple reason for that:
Blu-Ray sucks.
Oh, not in picture quality. The picture quality is awesome. So is the data capacity. No, the problem is summed up in one acronym: DRM. Digital Rights Management. Look, there's DRM on DVDs. Back when they first came out I railed about them because a) I thought it was all a plot by the entertainment companies to take our money by forcing us to upgrade our already existing VHS and LD collections (I was right, but at least DVDs have one million times the picture quality of VHS and are 50 times cheaper than Laserdiscs) and b)they had region encoding, which prevents people in one part of the world from buying discs from other parts of the world. I was right on that one too - the companies did it to prevent reverse importing from cheaper countries but in the process it means that a large number of foreign movies will never be legally released in the US. In fact it still pisses me off, but at least you *can* get a region-free DVD player if you look hard enough.
Blu-Ray is a hundred times worse. First, I can't even get screengrabs from the discs to put on this site, so that nixed any chance of me reviewing the original Star Trek series on here. Second, the player software NEEDS updates, or it won't even function at all. Not even to play a DVD. And I can't play BD's with Media Player Classic or any other free software. You have to buy one of two officially sanctioned players if you want to watch Blu-Ray discs on your PC, and you NEED to have an internet connection in order to update them, no matter if you don't have internet (still a possibility these days in some remote areas or if you can't afford it) or have spotty internet (which is more of a possibility).
In the end it's the increasing corporate control over everything. They NEED to control everything you see and hear - you are now in the Outer Limits. Personally I do not like being dictated to by the corporations how to entertain myself. I can watch my DVDs, even with their level of DRM - at least I can grab screenshots if I want or use a free player to play them. And you know, it's really sad because I *wanted* to like Blu-Ray, I had wanted a BR player for a long time... as I said the picture quality was tremendous. I enjoyed watching Star Trek on it but I can't use it anymore. I'm actually going to have to "downgrade" my Star Trek collection to DVD. Fortunately that is the only thing I got, so I didn't invest too much in this ultra-corporate-controlled format.
See, thinking positive!
Blu-Ray sucks.
Oh, not in picture quality. The picture quality is awesome. So is the data capacity. No, the problem is summed up in one acronym: DRM. Digital Rights Management. Look, there's DRM on DVDs. Back when they first came out I railed about them because a) I thought it was all a plot by the entertainment companies to take our money by forcing us to upgrade our already existing VHS and LD collections (I was right, but at least DVDs have one million times the picture quality of VHS and are 50 times cheaper than Laserdiscs) and b)they had region encoding, which prevents people in one part of the world from buying discs from other parts of the world. I was right on that one too - the companies did it to prevent reverse importing from cheaper countries but in the process it means that a large number of foreign movies will never be legally released in the US. In fact it still pisses me off, but at least you *can* get a region-free DVD player if you look hard enough.
Blu-Ray is a hundred times worse. First, I can't even get screengrabs from the discs to put on this site, so that nixed any chance of me reviewing the original Star Trek series on here. Second, the player software NEEDS updates, or it won't even function at all. Not even to play a DVD. And I can't play BD's with Media Player Classic or any other free software. You have to buy one of two officially sanctioned players if you want to watch Blu-Ray discs on your PC, and you NEED to have an internet connection in order to update them, no matter if you don't have internet (still a possibility these days in some remote areas or if you can't afford it) or have spotty internet (which is more of a possibility).
In the end it's the increasing corporate control over everything. They NEED to control everything you see and hear - you are now in the Outer Limits. Personally I do not like being dictated to by the corporations how to entertain myself. I can watch my DVDs, even with their level of DRM - at least I can grab screenshots if I want or use a free player to play them. And you know, it's really sad because I *wanted* to like Blu-Ray, I had wanted a BR player for a long time... as I said the picture quality was tremendous. I enjoyed watching Star Trek on it but I can't use it anymore. I'm actually going to have to "downgrade" my Star Trek collection to DVD. Fortunately that is the only thing I got, so I didn't invest too much in this ultra-corporate-controlled format.
See, thinking positive!
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Spoiled Beefcake
I figured after watching Hercules In The Center Of The Earth that I would want some more Greek mythology action, so on a whim I picked up a cheap $2.95 copy of the 2000 miniseries Jason and the Argonauts at a thrift store - a title I had never seen before. Well, I'm glad I only paid 2.95 for it, I couldn't imagine paying full-boat MSRP back in the day, because this thing sucks.
I'm not going to spend much time on this. First, the good (there is actually some): Frank Langella and Derek Jacobi are decent. The guy doing Hercules is almost okay. I like the fact that Atalanta is in it (she is in some versions of the original myth). I like that a *few* things are closer to the original myths compared to the 1963 Harryhausen movie. Speaking of which, I like the fact that this version actually has an ending; the '63 version kinda leaves you hanging.
Now to the bad. The acting, with the previous exceptions, is atrociously awful. Keep in mind that the '63 version does not have the world's greatest thespianism, but the 2000 miniseries makes that one look like Shakespeare in comparison. Jason is wimpy. Medea is just creepy. Pelias (played by Dennis Hopper) is absolutely execrable. The minor roles are mediocre at best. The direction is cheesy. The music is lazy and just plays the same stupid theme over and over again (definitely nowhere near Bernard Hermann's Jason score). The story itself is drawn-out, and while a few things are true to the myths, other things just seemed to be pulled out of the writers' asses. The part about Hercules being a servant of Hera is the worst offender - in the original myths, she is his mortal enemy continually plaguing him with woe and misfortune. Look, I know that some shows or movies take a lot of liberties with the source material, but at least I know that Hercules: The Legendary Journeys or Disney's Hercules are total bullshit because they toss almost everything established out from the word go and don't even pretend to be accurate. They can actually be entertaining as a result. The problem with Jason 2000 is that it wants to have it both ways and thus can't decide what it wants to be. You can argue that the '63 classic isn't all that accurate either but a) it's still more accurate than the '00 version and b) it has a sense of wonder... and the MOST AWESOME SKELETON FIGHT EVER COMMITTED TO CELLULOID. The bottom line is that this version is not really worth seeing, just see the 1963 classic; it has its flaws but it is miles better. You know the drill about pictures.
I'm not going to spend much time on this. First, the good (there is actually some): Frank Langella and Derek Jacobi are decent. The guy doing Hercules is almost okay. I like the fact that Atalanta is in it (she is in some versions of the original myth). I like that a *few* things are closer to the original myths compared to the 1963 Harryhausen movie. Speaking of which, I like the fact that this version actually has an ending; the '63 version kinda leaves you hanging.
Now to the bad. The acting, with the previous exceptions, is atrociously awful. Keep in mind that the '63 version does not have the world's greatest thespianism, but the 2000 miniseries makes that one look like Shakespeare in comparison. Jason is wimpy. Medea is just creepy. Pelias (played by Dennis Hopper) is absolutely execrable. The minor roles are mediocre at best. The direction is cheesy. The music is lazy and just plays the same stupid theme over and over again (definitely nowhere near Bernard Hermann's Jason score). The story itself is drawn-out, and while a few things are true to the myths, other things just seemed to be pulled out of the writers' asses. The part about Hercules being a servant of Hera is the worst offender - in the original myths, she is his mortal enemy continually plaguing him with woe and misfortune. Look, I know that some shows or movies take a lot of liberties with the source material, but at least I know that Hercules: The Legendary Journeys or Disney's Hercules are total bullshit because they toss almost everything established out from the word go and don't even pretend to be accurate. They can actually be entertaining as a result. The problem with Jason 2000 is that it wants to have it both ways and thus can't decide what it wants to be. You can argue that the '63 classic isn't all that accurate either but a) it's still more accurate than the '00 version and b) it has a sense of wonder... and the MOST AWESOME SKELETON FIGHT EVER COMMITTED TO CELLULOID. The bottom line is that this version is not really worth seeing, just see the 1963 classic; it has its flaws but it is miles better. You know the drill about pictures.
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Love Stinks
Well, I said I'd give you beefcake, So I'm givin' you beefcake. This one's for the laaaaadies (and some of you guys). To conclude my reverse-chronology Mario Bava trio you get some *beefcake*
It's funny, Mario Bava is usually associated solely with straight-up horror films and some would be surprised to see him directing a sword-and-sandals movie but Bava is actually perfect as the director for this for a few reasons: 1)he's just that awesome and he actually could do different genres, see Danger: Diabolik and Erik The Conqueror, 2)he had directed segments of and did the cinematography for the 1955 Kirk Douglas movie Ulysses and most importantly 3) he had done the cinematography for the two Steve Reeves Hercules movies. So I guess he basically just graduated to director for this Hercules effort.
And what an effort it is! This one blends the traditional Hercules swords-and-sandals stuff with horror and surrealism to make a great film, my personal favorite of all of Bava's movies. The story is simple but not stupid - Hercules and Theseus along with their friend/comic relief Telemachus (?) go to Hades to retrieve a flower that can cure a curse put on Hercules' girlfriend Deianira by the eeeeevil King Lico.
While there Theseus foolishly falls for and absconds with Hades' daughter Meiazotide (who interestingly enough in the English language version is called Persephone, who was Hades' wife, not daughter), thus causing a Curse Upon The Land once the adventurers reach the land of the living. Can Hercules persuade his hormonal buddy to give up his girl for the sake of the kingdom? Can he defeat the evil and necrotic Lico and put an end to his reign of terror? Will he throw yet another giant rock? Watch and find out!
This movie is gorgeous - Bava's mastery of color is on full display, which is notable seeing as how this is the first color film he directed. Yeah the sets look like sets but they ain't half bad. The rock monster threatening Theseus and Telemachus is goofy looking and obviously fake but still has some menace.
The surreal imagery is what really makes this movie - this is unlike any Hercules film before or since, with an atmosphere that sometimes borders on an art film.
The acting is okay. Reg Park as Hercules doesn't have the raw charisma of Steve Reeves, but does well enough. He does sometimes come off as more friendly and lunkheaded than intense and conflicted (as Reeves usually was) but this is not completely out of character.
Christopher Lee of course does an excellent job playing the villain, which is an accomplishment considering that you never hear his voice - in both the Italian *and* English dubs he is voiced by someone else (so is Park, actually). It is a testament to the recently departed Mr. Lee that he can still give a convincing portrayal even when voiced by another, using his face and body.
Speaking of convincing portrayals, this movie is one of the power of love, for both good and evil. Hercules' love of his longtime sweetie Deianira inspires him to go all the way to the underworld and perform great deeds, while Theseus rashly endangers everyone by refusing to give up a girl he met and became infatuated with about twenty minutes ago. Theseus is quick and passionate with his emotions, while Hercules is a little more stoic and oh shit I'm starting to go into Star Trek crap so I'm gonna stop now.
Suffice to say the main theme of the movie is this: love is an awesome thing as long as it's gradual and genuine, not some instant infatuation. Also, for the love of the gods, if there is a plague on the land and the only way to stop is to give up the pussy, just give up the pussy.
But this isn't just film student fodder - it's also the most fun Bava movie I have seen outside of the aforementioned Danger: Diabolik. Cheesy rock monsters, hellish polenta pits and a demigod squashing zombies with Stonehenge rocks makes for an awesome experience, folks. Actually if you want to have an interesting time, try this little drinking game: every time Herc throws a rock at something or someone, take a drink (make it two drinks for a non-lithic object). By the end of the movie you will be drunk off your ass, 'cause there is a lot of rock chuckin' to be had in Hercules In The Center Of The Earth.
Maybe that's the real theme of this movie: whenever life serves you lemons, chuck a giant rock at it.
'Til next time!
1961
Director: Mario Bava
It's funny, Mario Bava is usually associated solely with straight-up horror films and some would be surprised to see him directing a sword-and-sandals movie but Bava is actually perfect as the director for this for a few reasons: 1)he's just that awesome and he actually could do different genres, see Danger: Diabolik and Erik The Conqueror, 2)he had directed segments of and did the cinematography for the 1955 Kirk Douglas movie Ulysses and most importantly 3) he had done the cinematography for the two Steve Reeves Hercules movies. So I guess he basically just graduated to director for this Hercules effort.
And what an effort it is! This one blends the traditional Hercules swords-and-sandals stuff with horror and surrealism to make a great film, my personal favorite of all of Bava's movies. The story is simple but not stupid - Hercules and Theseus along with their friend/comic relief Telemachus (?) go to Hades to retrieve a flower that can cure a curse put on Hercules' girlfriend Deianira by the eeeeevil King Lico.
 |
| Well, less cursed and more stoned. |
While there Theseus foolishly falls for and absconds with Hades' daughter Meiazotide (who interestingly enough in the English language version is called Persephone, who was Hades' wife, not daughter), thus causing a Curse Upon The Land once the adventurers reach the land of the living. Can Hercules persuade his hormonal buddy to give up his girl for the sake of the kingdom? Can he defeat the evil and necrotic Lico and put an end to his reign of terror? Will he throw yet another giant rock? Watch and find out!
 |
| "Don't worry, Herc! I'm sure that Deianira totally WON'T get jealous and put centaur blood on your clothes, causing you to die a miserable, agonizing death!" "Wait, what?" |
This movie is gorgeous - Bava's mastery of color is on full display, which is notable seeing as how this is the first color film he directed. Yeah the sets look like sets but they ain't half bad. The rock monster threatening Theseus and Telemachus is goofy looking and obviously fake but still has some menace.
The surreal imagery is what really makes this movie - this is unlike any Hercules film before or since, with an atmosphere that sometimes borders on an art film.
The acting is okay. Reg Park as Hercules doesn't have the raw charisma of Steve Reeves, but does well enough. He does sometimes come off as more friendly and lunkheaded than intense and conflicted (as Reeves usually was) but this is not completely out of character.
Christopher Lee of course does an excellent job playing the villain, which is an accomplishment considering that you never hear his voice - in both the Italian *and* English dubs he is voiced by someone else (so is Park, actually). It is a testament to the recently departed Mr. Lee that he can still give a convincing portrayal even when voiced by another, using his face and body.
 |
| "No, I am totally NOT an evil... oh, who the fuck am I kidding? I'm muthafuckin' Christopher Lee." |
 |
| A literal roll in the hay. |
Suffice to say the main theme of the movie is this: love is an awesome thing as long as it's gradual and genuine, not some instant infatuation. Also, for the love of the gods, if there is a plague on the land and the only way to stop is to give up the pussy, just give up the pussy.
 |
| Also, never trust a naked woman! (see also: The Shining) |
But this isn't just film student fodder - it's also the most fun Bava movie I have seen outside of the aforementioned Danger: Diabolik. Cheesy rock monsters, hellish polenta pits and a demigod squashing zombies with Stonehenge rocks makes for an awesome experience, folks. Actually if you want to have an interesting time, try this little drinking game: every time Herc throws a rock at something or someone, take a drink (make it two drinks for a non-lithic object). By the end of the movie you will be drunk off your ass, 'cause there is a lot of rock chuckin' to be had in Hercules In The Center Of The Earth.
Maybe that's the real theme of this movie: whenever life serves you lemons, chuck a giant rock at it.
'Til next time!
Saturday, August 1, 2015
100th Post!
July was a weird month. I went through a very strange time personally and had to examine other human beings and my relationships with them and myself. Friends I thought were close ended up not being that close and friends I thought I shared an honest relationship with ended up not being honest with me (and I fully realize that not every human relationship can be 100% honest or society would not function). Don’t get me wrong, last month was not the first time I have lost a friendship or had someone distance themself from me, but everything seemed to hit hard in July for some strange reason. Here’s hoping August is a much better month for me.
Sorry about all the personal stuff, imaginary reader. But it DOES tie in to today’s (very special 100th) post! See, I have decided after doing Planet of the Vampires to dedicate a couple more posts to famed cult director Mario Bava, for two reasons: 1) Every movie blog needs to have something on Bava and 2) Why should Herzog get all the glory? Thus I selected his possibly most famous and influential film, The Three Faces Of Fear (otherwise known by its English-language AIP version title Black Sabbath) which is all about… human relationships and deception.
What? An Italian sixties horror film actually being about something? Surely not! But yes, brutish reader, and let me explain. Three Faces Of Fear is an anthology film, and all three short films therein are united by that theme. It’s interesting that when AIP dubbed the film in English and shuffled the running order around for their release, they also (in addition to dropping the lesbian subtext) changed “The Telephone” to being a ghost story instead of a straight-up thriller, figuring that since the other two shorts had supernatural themes, “Telephone” was the odd one out without one. Well, they were wrong because the link between all of the shorts is not the supernatural but the relationships between human beings (and fear, hence the original Italian title) and dishonesty both with others and oneself. Let’s go through each short film one by one Kwaidan style and illustrate my point (without being to spoilerrific for those of you who haven’t seen the movie):
"The Telephone" – This is the one with the aforementioned lesbian subtext. A high class call girl gets home one night and starts getting threatening phone calls, supposedly from her ex-boyfriend Frank, who she helped put in jail. Turns out though that the calls are coming from her ex-girlfriend Mary, who is making the calls to try and get closer to her. But what will happen when Mary comes over to “comfort” her ex/victim? And is Frank truly out of the picture?
The deception in this one is fully evident – Rosy is a victim of Mary’s gross effort to manipulate her and both women pay the price for it. Mary’s deception of Rosy is borne out of an obsession with her (not real love) and is ruinous. This is the lesson of “The Telephone”: if you love someone don’t try to get her back by scaring her or you might find yourself being strangled with your own stockings by her ex-pimp. Oops, I guess I spoiled it… sorry sorry sorry but you should still see it anyway, I haven’t given away the complete ending.
Ooh, the family dynamics in this one are fucked up. Usually in movies espousing “family values” the basic family is held up as the core unit of society, and that the love of family members for each other is an unshakable virtue, possibly the highest belonging to the human race. Bava takes that concept and craps all over it, showing how destructive family bonds and obligations can be. The patriarch’s power over this family is so great that even after it becomes apparent that HE IS ONE OF THE BLOODSUCKING UNDEAD his family obeys him unfailingly even as they *know* that HE IS ONE OF THE BLOODSUCKING UNDEAD. Even the normally sacrosanct relationship between mother and child is shown as being something destructive. The wurdalak’s daughter-n-law is shown being completely irrational and threatening to kill herself should her newly-dead child be decapitated (to prevent him becoming a vampire) merely because it would disfigure him. Her demands are foolishly met and she later kills HER OWN HUSBAND (you just learned where you rate, dude) just to be reunited with her newly-undead kid when he shows up at the door crying. Motherhood is not always beautiful. There are more examples but I don’t want to give away everything. Lesson: sometimes rational thought takes precedence over family bonds and obligations. Also, don't deceive yourself over your undead, bloodsucking dad.
“The Drop of Water” – A nurse is called to deal with the corpse of a newly-dead psychic medium. She sees a ring that she just HAS TO HAVE and takes off the dead body and you can see where this is going, can’t you?
I’m not going to lie. This segment scared the shit out of me. I am a 33 year old man and after watching this movie I had to sleep with the lights on for the first time since I was 6. I am a rational being and I do not believe in the supernatural but HOLY CRAP THAT DEAD LADY LOOKS RIGHT INTO YOUR SOUL AND ANNHILATES IT AND OH MY GOD SHE COULD BE SITTING IN THE CORNER OF MY ROOM RIGHT NOW ARRRRRRRGH I WON’T BE ABLE TO SLEEP FOR WEEKS!
Ahhhhh, ah. Okay. Deep breath. It’s only the CREEPIEST THING YOU’VE EVER SEEN IN A MOVIE IN YOUR LIFE. Okay. (Inhales) (Exhales)
This one is all about dishonesty as well as our relationship to the dead. Just because someone’s dead doesn’t mean that you aren’t in a relationship with them. The greedy nurse treats the dead (CREEPY) medium with contempt and steals from her and it ends up biting her in the ass. Lesson: Be honest and don’t steal. Also, don’t be a dick to dead people.
Well, there you go. My personal experiences of July sort of summed up in one movie. Human relations tested and strained and sometimes broken, but at least I haven’t had to deal with killers, vampires or ghosts.
Now, to kick off August and be a total dick, I end this 100th post of the Pharonic Fantasy Theatre with this image, may it be indelibly burned into your brain as it was mine:
Next Week: Beefcake!
Sorry about all the personal stuff, imaginary reader. But it DOES tie in to today’s (very special 100th) post! See, I have decided after doing Planet of the Vampires to dedicate a couple more posts to famed cult director Mario Bava, for two reasons: 1) Every movie blog needs to have something on Bava and 2) Why should Herzog get all the glory? Thus I selected his possibly most famous and influential film, The Three Faces Of Fear (otherwise known by its English-language AIP version title Black Sabbath) which is all about… human relationships and deception.
The Three Faces Of Fear
1963
Director: Mario Bava
What? An Italian sixties horror film actually being about something? Surely not! But yes, brutish reader, and let me explain. Three Faces Of Fear is an anthology film, and all three short films therein are united by that theme. It’s interesting that when AIP dubbed the film in English and shuffled the running order around for their release, they also (in addition to dropping the lesbian subtext) changed “The Telephone” to being a ghost story instead of a straight-up thriller, figuring that since the other two shorts had supernatural themes, “Telephone” was the odd one out without one. Well, they were wrong because the link between all of the shorts is not the supernatural but the relationships between human beings (and fear, hence the original Italian title) and dishonesty both with others and oneself. Let’s go through each short film one by one Kwaidan style and illustrate my point (without being to spoilerrific for those of you who haven’t seen the movie):
 |
| I know *I* always go to bed with perfect hair and makeup. |
 |
| Either murder or erotic asphyxiation gone very, very wrong. |
 |
| "No, I am totally NOT an evil bloodsucking vampire." |
"The Wurdalak" – The most famous part of the movie, because Boris Karloff is in it. A young count comes across a family that dreads the return of the father (Karloff) after he went out to hunt a wurdalak – a vampire that only feeds on the ones they love. They are afraid that if he comes back he may be contaminated and a wurdalak himself… guess what happens when he comes back? One by one the newly vampirized patriarch starts feeding on his family, and the visiting nobleman must try to escape with the daughter that he has (within the space of two minutes) fallen in love with.
 |
| "Come with me and escape your evil undead family!" "But I just met you - no wait, what am I saying? Okay." |
 |
| "Hello, you have reached the Greedy Bitch Hotline." |
 |
| I know I would TOTALLY risk the wrath of the dead for that ring. |
Ahhhhh, ah. Okay. Deep breath. It’s only the CREEPIEST THING YOU’VE EVER SEEN IN A MOVIE IN YOUR LIFE. Okay. (Inhales) (Exhales)
This one is all about dishonesty as well as our relationship to the dead. Just because someone’s dead doesn’t mean that you aren’t in a relationship with them. The greedy nurse treats the dead (CREEPY) medium with contempt and steals from her and it ends up biting her in the ass. Lesson: Be honest and don’t steal. Also, don’t be a dick to dead people.
Well, there you go. My personal experiences of July sort of summed up in one movie. Human relations tested and strained and sometimes broken, but at least I haven’t had to deal with killers, vampires or ghosts.
Now, to kick off August and be a total dick, I end this 100th post of the Pharonic Fantasy Theatre with this image, may it be indelibly burned into your brain as it was mine:
Next Week: Beefcake!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)