Thursday, 29 July 2010

My childhood journey, Harry potter.

I love Harry Potter.

There I said it, so that's what you in the future can ever exspect from me when talking about these books. yeah, the books, not the movies. anyhow.

I love Harry potter so much, it is litteratly the first book i ever read and I remember it well.
It was my 11 year old birthday (no really) I got a heavy present from my mom, it had the shap of a VHS tape, so I hoped it would be Pocohontas or something, I don't know, anyhow, I was really dissapointed in getting a freaking book, I hated reading my own books!
My mother pointed a finger at me and told me firmly, if I just read the first five chapters and still did not liked her present, I could go trade the book for any VHS I liked.

All right! read chapters and go get a disney cartoon, if not for anything else then to please my mom.

Holy shit that witch! I don't know how, but somehow she knew, I was enthralled by that book, I divourvered it and was stunned by it. my little child heard almost burst with all of the magic going on and I started beeping out of the window in hope of an owl appearing with a letter so I could go to Hogwarts.
Just to give randomn information, my birthday is December th 16 and I managed to wish me the remeaining allready published books before christmas, and even got Harry potter 2 and 3. at the time only the first four books had been published.

I was there as the first movie was announced and all ready a fan of the books, and I was excited as hell and pain, I loved that first movie as it came out. The second and third one as well, how ever by the time the fourth one came out I had started being old enough to actually being aware what made a good movie and what didn't so the other movies in retro spect weren't that great either.

Damn me did I have it all, at Halloween I was dressed as Draco Malfoy with my hair slicked back with hair gell to match his hair dude in the first movie, my natural color is the same as his, so figure. I had the computer games including "Quiditch" the game, which was my favorite one. I had wall posters, I had secret boxes with drawings on them and still have the magical coffe mug with the magical appearing picture on it which only appears when something hot is in the mug!
safe to say, since of me being a nerd showed themselfs on a early age.

Is it really allready three years ago that that journey ended?
honestly it's hard to phantom as Harry potter indeed was my childhood journey, I was there at the mid night openings at the book stores of Harry potter, all dressed up and nerdy, I was looking so much forward to it, and I kept imagining myself in the wizarding world of Harry potter. I would be a Gryfindoor of cause, as I am stupid as hell in school and coul never be a Rawenclaw, I am one of the good guys so of cause not Slytherin, and what the hell is a Hufflepuff anyway?
There's probably no book I have read more times, There was once were I could proudly announce how many times I had read each of the books.. honestly I can't remember now.
There's even a news paper article with me because I was such a great harry potter fan, I believe it was made because of ther release of fifth or sixth book. I still have that news paper article, it's pretty big. and features little me with my wild yellow hair pocking in all directions sitting exited with all my harry potter books and all sorts of other related crap. I always were and always will be a media hore.

The amazing thing about these books is that as they got published, I didn' grow from them, they grew with me. the last book which was released three years ago, was released when i was 17, and the main characters were 17 as well.. huh.. what a coinciden.. I read the first book when I was eleven, though that is due to evil plotting from my mom, and the last book came out when I was 17. holy shit. something above must be watching me oO;

anyway, not only did the characters grow in simply fictional age, but their mentality as well as the themes of the book kept on growing. the first book is litteratly a childrens book well suited for eleven years old, the last ten chapter of the fourth book is not and it kept on getting grimmer from that point on.

If anyone is a fan of Harry potter, and have bothered enough to read this far which must mean you are fairly interested in my and what I have to say. I am guessing you are sitting with one big question on your mind, it's at least the question I have been asked the most when people figure that I am a potter fan.
What did I think of the seventh book? the reason why it have been asked so much is because a lot of people don't like the book, a lot of faithfull readers and fans even claim to hate it.

well.. I like it. and this was not the point of this post, but I am just writing in sort of a flow, I really like the seventh book. And I know people are going to shoot me for saying stuff like this, but I kind of fell, that all those faithfull fans who have been on the ride all along but hate the seventh book, it's not because the books have grown for smart, or dark or adult for them, not at all. It's because they have become to grown, smart and adult for the book.
They can still accept the old books because of familiarity, but it seems to my they had analytical glasses on while reading the books and thus have been unable to accept it.

people have said the book did not make any sense what so ever, and they used magic as a plot solver one to many times... well.. we are living in a magical world here where you can make stuff apear out of thin air with a puff and a swing of a wand. litterately.

That the thing supposedly made "perfect sense" in the beginning was not at all what made me fall in love with it. It was the picture filled discription of how aunt Petunia looked like a horse and uncle vernon like a prune, how incredible fat and cartoonish Dudly were and how many presents he got for his birthday while Harry didn't get any. in a very cartoonish and fairytale kind of way, non of it seemed for real, but like a really good story. and then the letters started appearing everywhere and someone was going on. I was sold.
We entered the castle where the threat of the evil dude was always present, but it was okay because Harry was the hero. the teachers were all characters who were described very destinquedly and I could picture them all. it was really magic for my little childish mind.

Seriously, how stupid is it to devide the students into four different colouges based on personality in the first place? I mean think about it, a kid comes off the Hogwarts and is raised by an "evil" family, so he goes to Slytherin, he would never even stand a chance to reconsider his ways as non of the people that would exspand his view would talk with him, because he is a slytherin, he would talk by no other people than other Slytherins, and no one likes them. That's a down right stupid system. but it made up for fun intriqes, and when the book were still in it's childish age. it fitted perfectly with the mood and the at that point childish atmopshere of the book. Later it evolved to an important plot point. everything regarding the book grew. which is kind of sad, but neccesary, and just because the book grew away from the childis dream does not mean I can't go back and read the first books again. I own them, I can read them how ever much I like.

though, reading the later books is a horrible feeling. the first books sat up this nice childish fairy tale world, and then after building the sand castle, J.K. Rowling totally started smashing it by presenting the cruel world as how it was. as revealing all of the grant magical characters for who they really were.
It all started slowly in the third book where within the book we had presented Sirius black as a dangerouse murderouse criminal, who very much diserved to die. Lupin as the only nice grown up in the world without alterior motives, just a really nice fellow and Peter Petigrew as a tragic victim of surcumstances.
By the end of the book we figure that Sirius the sad victim, Lupin is a werewolf and Peter Petigrew is a traiter, but yet Petigrews is not evil. just a slimy scarred little worm. That is totally crashing the sand castle right there.. just for randomn facts, the third book is my favorite book in the series, and Lupin my favorite character.

the four book where we are running the theme of Rita Skeeter putting up realities in the paper which are not true. Hell, that theme appeared all the way back in the second book as that is all the character of Gildory Lockheart is about.

And Rowling went on exsposing characters in the fifth book where Voldemort was starting to be revealed as an actual person with a past as a school student.. all though that started in book two but got ellaborated, Nevielle is revealed to have parents and a sad past. the character who for five entire books had been comic relief and the "clumsy guy" suddenly was exposed and he had depth. which was always there, we just didn't see it. Harry's own parents were revealed to only have been human beings and had one or two dushy moments.

And here in the seventh book, Rowling made the biggest exsposion of them all. I never saw any of these exposions of characters come, with exception of Gildory Lockheart, but I believe that was on purpose by Rowling. but this more than all else came a shock.
She exsposed the big man as a human character. The merlin and Gandalf of the story. the untouchable Yoda Master... She exsposed Dumbledoor as a human being, as having a youth where he made mistakes and many wrong things.

Holy shit, did she just do that? yeah she did. I can understand why some people were upset by this, I was upset the first time around, so was Harry as a character. But it made sense to me, it had been going on in the book all over.
Though funny how the one book Dumbledoor was not in, because he was bloody dead, was the most about him. only works because he was so important in the other six books. but for me it does work.

I am just writing this as a stream of thoughts, and it's starting to get late, so I am just going to wrap up... I don't even remember why I started writing.

Loving harry potter is the only thing you will ever hearing coming out of my mouth when talking the books. movies is another matter, though that is also for me a very different subject. The books are brilliant and have so many subjects and layers to them. I just find them to be a very good read.

Monday, 26 July 2010

The bright side of Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde, from then to now

"Unleash your inner desires, and got a laugh out of it!"

My obsession with Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde have taken me far and wide, and in my search for Jekyll and Hyde related stuff I have stumbled over tons and tons of Spoof’s and comedies.
I don’t think any tale have been spoofed more, and why should it not? The possibilities for spoof’s are endless. The reason why a character would want to turn into somebody else, equally endless and doesn’t necessarily have to be dark. I sincerely believe that we all have an inner smuck we just yearn to try and unleash, just one, we all have tried situations we hated and wished we could trash and crash with no worry for consequence, further more we all have people we don't like we wish we could trash down in the trash can, but our better self restrain us. or at least that happens a lot to me. I am never allowed to be as rude or mean as I kind of want to be once in a while, if there was just some way I could unleash my mean rude side without consequence....

There is even a wonderfully opportunity for farce and all sorts of crazy stunts, on that same note, it’s also really easy to make a fail in this, especially since it have been done so many times, and often instead of create new unique stories, people tend to try and copy what have been done before. I personally can think of numerous way to do a Jekyll and Hyde Spoof right now I haven’t really seen before, so why is it so hard for professional writers? I really don’t know. but lets have a look on some of the truly great doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde spoofs through time. Again, I will just pick does I like, there’s lots of suck out there.

Dr. Pyckle and Mr Pryde silent film from 1925. Starring Stand Laurel from before he started partner ship with Hardy.
Boy, this film is a pearl! You can watch it legally for free on the classic movie archive on the net, and I implore people to do so. It’s the oldest spoof movie I have ever seen, and it’s hilariously funny, its only consistent of classic slap stick, and uses the Jekyll and Hyde story as a back drop for tons of physical gags. It’s such a illuminating experience to watch Stand Laurel in this were you realize how talented the guy is, the acting in this is nothing like his Laurel character, but is so diverse and all over the place yet very funny and just great.
It is literately a spoof, it’s spoofing the 1920 silent movie I talked about in my previous article, and boy is it a pearl, a must watch for horror fans, comedy fans or just plain movie fans. As it’s only 23 minutes long and free to watch, I don’t think it’s to much to ask.

Abbot and Costello meet Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde, a 1953 black and white movie.
Now, Abbot and Costello was one of the many favoured comedy partner acts back in the day, though their act was mostly that the two incompetent people cut stuck in one of their many movie adventures, their biggest movie success and what is considered now a classic is the movie “Abbot and Costello meets Frankenstein” which does not only have Frankenstein in it, but Dracula, the wolf man, the mummy and the invisible man as well. Now the reason that movie today is considered a classic is not because of Abbot and Costello, but because the movie managed to collect such people as, Bella Lugosi, Lon Chaney jr, and Vincent Price to reprise the monster characters they became so famous for in the first place in a funny movie and a tribute to their prime days. And that movie was a giant hit, so it only made sense they would make other “meet monster movies” and one of does was “Meets Jekyll and Hyde” now, the movie is silly let me tell you that right away. It’s camped and silly but does manage to force some laughs for me, the truly epic thing about this movie is horror legend “Boris Karloff” in the part of Jekyll, he is an evil Jekyll who very deliberately turns himself into a monster, sadly when he turns into Hyde it’s not Boris Karloff anymore, but a stunt guy with a rubber mask. What a shame, because Karloff was a master of playing evil, and have in his carriers given evil a great deal of different faces and different personalities. So again, shame that they did not use him probably.

Doctor Jekyll and Mr. mouse 1947/ Hyde and Hare 1955
I put these in the same category as they are both funny short animation. And they are both stuff I remember fondly watching several times in television doing my childhood.
Doctor Jekyll and Mr mouse is a tom and Jerry short where Jerry discovers a portion that can turn him into a strong mouse and he then miss uses this new strength to beat up Tom, most noticeable about the episode is the scenes where Tom or Jerry mixes the poison and sparks are flying everywhere as things combusts around them, again it’s slap stick humour, and as it’s Tom and Jerry it’s really good slap stick humour, good go oll Tom And Jerry.
Now, Hyde and Hare which is a bugs bonnie short scared the hell out of my when I was a kid, the cartoon genuinely frightened me, then again I do believe kids likes to be frightened, it’s about Bugs bunny suddenly finding himself in the home of the nice gentle spirited Doctor Jekyll, of cause Jekyll eventually starts to turn into the monstrous Hyde and scares the life out of Bugs who cannot figure where Hyde’s keeps coming from and where the nice doctor went. A classical Looney toons cartoon, and very scary for small kids.

The Nutty professor, Jerry Lewis version from 1963.
This is probably the first spoof to actually have a message in it, the very obvious message by being yourself, the film is considered a cult classic by many and is considered Jerry Lewis best film ever.
In this Doctor Jekyll, or professor kelp as he is called in this movie is a little nerdy guy who gets picked on and kicked around by everyone, he develops a mixture which transforms him into the handsome yet ruthless Buddy love. Often it happens that the story steps away to focus on the gags, but that is okay as the story and the gags compliments each other well. I really love to see and actor doing something very different than what they are known for, and Buddy love is so far a stray from what you would expect of Jerry Lewis while Kelp is all you normally get from Lewis that it’s a joy to watch. He is literately playing his own counterpart.
The movie is a long run of madness that ends on an actually quite beautiful speech delivered by Jerry Lewis as his character slowly reverses to Kelp from being Buddy love, exposing who he really is to everyone.

The mask, from 1994.
Okay, this is not officially a Jekyll and Hyde movie, nobody have ever said it’s a Jekyll and Hyde movie, but it really is a Jekyll and Hyde movie. It truly is.
Also, it’s the spoof Hyde the most like a prober Hyde in my head.
Meaning, I think Hyde’s are peoples madness unleashed, when Jerry Lewis turned into buddy love a cold restraint which we don’t normally see with him comes above him, when Jim Carrie turns into the mask, he is unleashed in wild madness!
Meaning he turns into a human Looney Toon, which he always were so I guess that’s just perfect casting.
This is a fun movie, very bright and very colourful, on the same time as it spoofs lots of movie themes, it carries the obvious message of “being yourself” but never over exposés it as the movie just want to move on with the funny plot, the imaginary scenes and other less used themes.
An inventive aspect of the movie as that the Mask unleashes a persons wildest desire, the character of Stanley which Jim Carrey’s plays is just such a to the heart nice guy that went he puts the mask on, he at best turns into a wild maniac and sort of a revenging bully, but no one really gets hurt when he have the mask, because his heart is just that pure, so the main issue of the movie is keeping other people away from the mask, who knows what might happen when they put it on, real bad things indeed.

Doctor Jekyll and Mrs Hyde, 1995.
Okay, this is by no means an overly good movie, but it presents an issue I just real badly needs to address. It’s something that have been done tons of times, but never in a good way, especially not in spoofs, and this just happens to be the best try, though that is not saying much.
Sex change.
Now, I love the idea of a female Jekyll and Hyde, I am female and I would love to play that part, I mostly love the idea of a female Hyde, a female savaging beast unleashed, which is the one thing I am never ever getting in any movie nor television show, no one simply dares to write a savage female character without grace, we are never allowed to be Looney without maintaining some grace, which is basically why I started doing my own stuff in the first place. I am to weird for any female character I could get otherwise.
Also this lady Hyde is a restraint graceful lady, who of cause is evil, again, stuff like that was only fun the first ten times, now it’s old. I need over the top.
The most laughable in this movie and what I find that’s the trouble with lots of this kinds of movies is the ending quite, as Hyde for the finale time have turned into Jekyll, Jekyll states, and I quote
“the only way I could ever understand a woman was to become one”
Yeah, that is true. I believe that, but hers the laughable thing, the movie had three writers and non of them was a woman. Please, it can’t be that difficult, when writing a film dealing with this sort of stuff, bring in a woman.
It’s actually policy in Hollywood than we you write about black people, just bring in a black guy to write, why is it not the same with this sort of stuff? I really don’t understand. If you want to write about women bring in a woman, you guys have no idea what we are doing when we are alone with each other. …. Even know I believe the guys who read my last sentence is thinking very wrong and kinky thoughts, if you didn’t do then you do know. You bastards.
btw, when is it gonna be a womans turn to turn into a man? it's always a man turning into a woman not virsa versa.

The Nutty Professor, Eddie Murphy version, 1996.
Yep, this is a remake of the Jerry Lewis film. Though made with Jerry Lewis blessings as he actually did act as executive producer.
It has an interesting idea, now the good hearted professor is over weight and that is what makes him insecure.
Almost all Jekyll and Hyde spoofs features a kindly hearted insecure doctor, but normally he just seems very scrawny and geeky, this is the only place where I have seen them dealing with the mentally of somebody being over weight, that is a very brilliant idea. Being over weight is a horrible feeling and state, even though I have never been down right over weight, I was slightly fat as a kid and teenager, I can very much relate and his early scenes are very emotional for me really, very subtle and very sad.
Then he invents a poison that is supposed to make him loose weight rapidly, and it works as it turns him into the very thin “buddy love” though the split personality comes as a side effect rather than the intent. Though again to my delight, buddy love comes across as the inner beast released while Klump is a very subtle and quite character.
Thankfully the good execution makes an story that have been made a thousand times before very enjoyable and nice. It’s far from being my favorite version of the story, but it’s a nice add to the story.
Sadly, the same thing cannot be said for the sequel, “The Klumps” which is from the era where Eddie Murhpy really went down hill as an comedian, actor and writer. The movie is real bad and has little to do with “Jekyll and Hyde” on the same time of completely lacking the heart that made the first movie stand out for me, and made it worthwhile.

This was my pick of best, most influential and most enjoyable spoofs, probably also the most well known.
I do firmly believe that Doctor Jekyll and Mr.H yde will be around forever, I firmly believe the main idea will be used forever, in comedy and drama alike. Even the drama is best when it’s dark comedy.
The mentality of a multi facaded is somewhere inside of all of us, there is somebody we see ourselves as inside, and then someone we show to the world. I think we would all would love to try and unleash the person we would love to see ourselves as inside of ourselves. That is what I am occasionally trying to do in my videos.
And I also think anyone would love to try and be somebody else for a day or two.
Though, the message the story brings still stands, no matter how much films try to undermines it the message will still be present.

“You don’t need to be someone else, you are good enough!”

Sunday, 25 July 2010

Sketch; Pirates 4, On Stranger tides reactions.

Oh god, I think we need to kind of celebrate, my first sketch for the blog and it even have a fun story to go with it.
I both posted this and the original Jack Sparrow vidoe footage on my youtube channel, within 3 hours Disney bloody contacted me and took the original footage down, but actually took their time to watch my sketch and said it was all right I kept it on my channel, how freaking awesome is that?

Me, shamelessly using Jack Sparrow footage

Saturday, 24 July 2010

Pirates of The Carribbean on Stranger tides Viral video

Well, I am dreading this next sequel as much as anyone. but god dammit made this video me smile.

It's just Jonnhy depp sitting there talking for two and half mintes as Jack Sparrow.... best teaser trailer ever. And I actually laughed, how awesome was that?

god dammit, I am probably going to watch this movie no matter what happens anyhow.

Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, from then to now.

and it was as an ordinary secret sinner that I at last fell before the assaults of temptation

My relationship with the story of doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is not bound in unconditional love, it's bound in unconditional fascination that have captured me in its net and have evolved to down right obsession which demands me to see everything that have to do with the franchise, and boy do I have my work cut out for me, I have seen so much doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and there keeps being more. both stuff that is long time lost and really difficult to dig up, or just pops up out of nowhere and there keeps being made more all over. how sweet is that!?
or not sweet, because if there is something most Jekyll and Hyde interpretations does, it's sucking. There are enormous amounts of suck in the history of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde interpretations, in fact only one tenth seems to be any good, luckily when it does work it is extraordinary good, sexy, dirty and so extremely fascinating. The movies I am going to pick out are the ones I personally find to be any good, which is probably also the most well known films anyhow. but let's have a look shall we.
Jekyll and Hyde is about the good man and honorable doctor, Doctor Jekyll who finds away to separate his bad side from the good by taking a drug, and then turns into a whole other person "Mr. Hyde" who ad the beginning is nothing but Jekyll's lustful side and just acts as a stupid bully, until it all eventually gets out of hand as Hyde gets out of controls and literately kills people, while Jekyll can do nothing about as he is now turning into Hyde without the drugs, and it all goes up in a point.

This book sucks, never in my life have I been more disappointed as when I read the original Jekyll and Hyde book or "the Strange case of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" as the actual title is, as a fifteen year old. okay, the book is okay I guess, but it is just not what you would expect from this tale. Exactly like the original books of "the Scarlet Pimpernel," and "The Phantom of the opera" the novel is written as bloody mystery novel where we see everything from the point of view of the lawyer mr Utterson who tries to find the connection between doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, not before the very last page is it revealed that they are actually the same person, and so the book never ever deals why the Psychological aspect, nor the characters made journey from point a to be, boring boring disappointing book, and it saddens me. Robert Lewis Stevenson who wrote the book also wrote stuff as "treasure island" which is in fact a very good book. thank god for the adaptations, lest have a look at those.

Okay this might come as a surprise to you, as I guess no one is aware of its existence, it haven't even been released on DVD, but my experience regarding this movie is so unique and kind of awesome that it needs telling. "Den Skæbnesvangre opfindelse" or just English titled "Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is a 22 minute long silent movie from 1910. it's probably the first movie adaptation ever made of Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and it's Danish... hey I am Danish!? the fuck O.O
I so marveled when I found out about this, as I said earlier the movie haven't even been released on DVD anywhere, but the raw print still exists in the archives of the Danish movie institutes as a national piece of treasure, and I actually called the instituted and asked if there is somehow I way I could watch it? They were surprisingly happy that I seemed this interested and invited me over for a private screening, which I attended to, and I went to their private cinema in Copenhagen and watched the movie. So I am probably one out of around a hundred people to have even seen this movie. haha awesome story, beat that James Rolf.. the film is okay, it's what you would expect from such an early silent movie and the print was in a really bad shape, it's interesting how they at that early stage managed to shoot a scene where Jekyll and Hyde was in the same room, though actually being played by the same actor, in 1910 guys! I have bloody no idea, but extremely inventive for its time.
the experience was absolutely awesome, and the hunt was on to be the most knowledgeable Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde fan in the world.. though my travels may be far from over.

The American silent hour long "Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" movie from 1920 is probably the silent version most people are familiar with. And it's also put legally up for free on several internet sites including youtube, plus have been released on DVD in numerous times.
Like all the classic silent movies I need to give my usual rant that you need to go and buy a prober version of this with a prober soundtrack if you are ever going to see it, don't see the free youtube version or any free internet versions. just find one with a good well balanced soundtrack, the experience will be completely different.
And with the right soundtrack, it's an awesome movie. So creepy and so dream like, like a nightmare.
There is no other Hyde who looks like this one, he is sort of indescribable, but he looks great, really creepy and scary and I can even trace and evolution throughout the movie that Hyde looks worse and worse every time he appears, he kind of goes bold actually.
One pretty cool transformation scene Jekyll is just laying in his bed sleeping, and a ginourmus spider crawls up in the bed and immerges with him as he transforms into Hyde, and that is probably the best way to describe this Hyde, he looks like a human spider. no really, he does. and very inhuman, which is great. absolutely a movie worth checking out.

The 1931 is differently my favorite version that tries and stay as true as possible to the book. this movie is really incredible awesome.
It's dark, edgy, sexy and does not compromise but carries out it's dark themes perfectly, plus it's entertaining.
Frederich March delivers a superb performance as both Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Jekyll as the young ideal doctor, but not mr goodie perfect as he is rather brash and is put down by his own class who tells he what he can't do, which is really the issue he wants to deal with. And Hyde unleashed which is a bundle of energy, he looks and moves like a freaking monkey, not ever trying to maintain any kind of dignity as he is just raging through the world doing whatever the hell he likes. that is bloody awesome.
As Hyde becomes a growing menace and eventually rapist and downright murderer Jekyll sinks deeper and deeper into hysteric and panic. this movie have no shame but at the same time maintains a sense of class. it is freaking great.
In 1941 the movie was remade with Spencer Tracy in the title role, and I mean that literately as dialogue, sets pieces and plot is exactly the same. only not nearly as daring, sexy. in other words, really boring and not worth checking out when you got the other much cooler version, which even predates it by ten years, sloppy work people, real sloppy.

The British horror company horror productions actually managed to make three different Jekyll and Hyde adaptations, all really unique and stands on their own. one is, "The two Faces of Doctor Jekyll " "Doctor Jekyll and sister Hyde" (no really, it is "sister" he turns into a blood thirsty woman, and no, it's not a comedy either but goes straight for dark horror feast) and "I'Monster"
My personal favorite of does are "I'monster" which I find to be a real good credible Jekyll and Hyde adaptation, in any case Christopher lee in the main character, you can't go all wrong. plus it follows the idea I have of doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde most closely, and have lots of unashamed horror.
"The two faces of Doctor Jekyll " is just such a weird movie, if not for anything else it is absolutely creative written and doesn't quite end as all other adaptations, plus handling the Jekyll and Hyde persona quite different then I have seen other places.
"Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde" is equally weird to watch, mostly because I keep expecting some kind of lame pun regarding Jekyll turning into a woman, but it never ever comes. Hyde just goes on a murderous rampage as in any other Jekyll and Hyde movie as Jekyll realizes how dangerous she is and decides to kill her.
one thing that is plainly obvious in this movie though, that kind of really bothers me regarding female villains is that they are never any fun. Hyde as a character is often really grotesquely funny as he is a rampage and a savage beast all in himself, but women are never allowed to act that way, for some reason women monsters must have beautiful grace and dignity, which was pretty cool the first couple of terms where it was in sharp contrast to their murderous actions, but now it's just boring, I see a woman villain and I now precisely what she is going to give, zero surprises there. and Mrs. Hyde is no different.

"Mary Reilly" from 1996 (get the anagram, Mary Reilley, Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein, anyway). I did not think I would like this movie, after all, it does not take the approach you would usually take for a Jekyll and Hyde movie, but we see everything from the perspective of his servant girl. that's right, Mary Reilley. it is a classic tale of Jekyll and Hyde, only we see all from her point of view as the plot develops. it's a surprisingly good and moody film, it actually manages to deal with the psychological of Jekyll and Hyde as a character, even though we don't spend to much time with them. the growing unsuddenty in the household leaves a mark at the viewer and a sense of claustrophobic helplessness is ever growing as the household is seeing their master slowly growing more and more insane as the manically Hyde appears more and more to terrorize them. The movie does not hide that they are the same person, and it seems like the staff all kind of suspects it, especially Mary, only they don't want to believe it, and so the truth is tearing them slowly down inside of their own mind. a really unique and special movie, but well worth checking out.

the 1997 musical.. I know I know, musicals. I'm sorry, but I just need to.
I have seen this musical three times in three different productions, plus the recorded version with David Hasselhoff.. and they were all tremendlessly different! It's four completely different musicals, even using very different music despite them all kind of being the same score and says its "Frank Wildhorn's" the man have just written so many alternative versions of it, so how the hell am I supposed to talk about this? I don't know, but I tell you something, and that is that I love this musical, again its one of the things I want to really make into a good movie. I own three different soundtracks and I listen to them and I see precisely how I want to make it. The score is great and the song is changing between being brutal and cruel to beautiful that again contrasts the savage murderous things that is going on. Frank Wildhorn the creator of the musical also wrote the Scarlet Pimpernel musical, which I just plainly love. so he is in my mind a very capable and good author and composer. songs like "This is the moment" and "Someone like you" are actually considered huge classics as standalone songs between classical singers, and even if the musical doesn't life on, does songs absolutely will.

in 2007 a six part British television series simply called Jekyll come out, written by Steven Moffat the current head writer of doctor who it's a modern interpretation of the classic stories. actually it only uses the idea of a man turning into a savage beast and uses the tale of Jekyll and Mr. Hyde more as a back grounds story than anything else, actually even the back ground story reminds me more of "Mary Reilley" than anything else related to doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the real story takes place in present day and is more of a psychological thriller with some hardcore action in it to.
Now, they are a lot of divided opinions about this, some people seems to hate it as they find it to complicated. I personally plainly love this!
It was such a treat for me as all modern interpretations of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde I have seen so far other than this sucks. and this is just such an exciting hardcore disturbing thriller which is not afraid of really digging down and going deep in the psychological exploration of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and his two personalities, on the same time as being a adrenalin pumped ride Die heart still. Hyde as a character is a total show stealer and is as disturbing yet fascinating as any Hyde character I have ever seen, despite he doesn't have disturbing make, he simply doesn't need to as he is disturbing enough as it is, you just don't know where you have him, and keeps expecting him to do something truly horrible. he truly is a psychopath or largest degree.

Well, this must be this for new. as I said, new adaptation keeps popping up everywhere, right now I have two whole major adaptations to look forward to, one is set to be released in 2011 with Keanue reeves in the title character. I don't care much for him, I think he have the emotional equeliant of cardboard, but maybe we actually will see him being released in a mad rampage as Hyde! I would love to see that! I don't think I have ever seen Keanue reeves being unleashed in any emotional way, at all. neither in the Matrix movies.
The other one is that freaking Guillermo del Toro is going to make his version of the story.
I love Del Toro as a director, I love his art directing and his heavy emotional style, Pans Labyrinth is easely one of the most disturbing fantasy films I have ever seen. and Guillermo Del Toro and Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde seems like a match made in heaven for me, my heart is singing clear and loudly and I am crying tears of joy.

So, that is probably how it will keep on going with Jekyll and Hyde, lots and lots of crappy adaptation with great shinning lights in between. I would not want it in any other way.

Friday, 23 July 2010

my obsession

There is always one element that have fascinated me above else in fiction.
When I write my stuff it's a theme that pops up again and again, and my best writing is dealing with it.
I don't know if anyone ever notices this when following a specific writer in any medium, every writer have his or her own obsession and it will be reflected in the movie they make. Tim Burton makes movie about the lost child and the outsider, Kevin Smith writes about all the madness that is to be found in everyday people, Christopher Nolan always writes about Reason vs heart, and how emotion easily corrupt, a theme highly present in his highly acclaimed "Batman, Dark knight" Also Steven Moffat current head writer of doctor who clearly have a obsession about people finding meaning via love, which makes him sort of a romantic.. and he love uses his time travel tool. Stephen King is all about the good minority of people in a world filled with madness and cruel blind adults who is most often in power, every single book he have ever written.

point just is, every author have a subconscious obsession that is present in nearly all their work, probably something they fells lacking on the screen, or in my case is beyond fascinated each time it happens I read or see something about it.
yeah if you haven't figured, this article will be a total self evaluation and analysis of what fascinates me, so If you don't like to read about that kind of stuff, fell free to move along, but it might help you to understand my other articles a bit better. And me, as the weird ass attention grapping person I am.
So far I have written large articles about "the phantom of the opera" "The Scarlet Pimpernel" "Zorro" and "The count of Monte Cristo" all having something to do with my great obsession, or at least part of the stories does. though my number one main obsession is lacking from this list as I haven't written about it yet, my number one obsession over them all is "Doctor Jekyll and mr Hyde" I am literately obsessed by this story.
Now, what do all these above mentioned stories have in common? and why are they all part of my unique obsession? Of cause even I can be sure, but I can try and I always do try.
It has a great deal to do about "identity" about how a man can have multiple identities, now my obsession does not lie in how the man is schizophrenic and experience this, but how the world around him is schizophrenic and discovers it.
How a character can walk among people who knows very well, but they do not see the man they usually see.
My up until now highest acclaimed written story, which was published in a adventure magazine last year "November 09" was a Zorro fanfiction, that in the first part dealt with his schizophrenic life and how he coped with being the zapped and disappointment of town by day, but a hero by night, yet his mind is always the same mind, it's only the world who looks at him differently. the second half of my story was about unmasking, where I had three individual unmasking each without having any physical mask to grap a hold on, one time where Diego (Zorro) just plainly tells his father straight out, one where he reveals himself to his girlfriend by first being his foppy self and then changing, and one time to the world where he confronts the enemy in public. though I suck at writing confrontations, I much better like to write about what all these characters are thinking about this unmasking, and I even get so much stuck in it that I often have to delete two thirds of my thinking segments to describe what is actually going on outside of the characters heads, and that's why I would be a bloody awful screen writer, I stink at writing genuinely physical action, though it fascinates me when a plot about masking goes up in a point.
In both Zorro and The Scarlet Pimpernel movies, my favorite scenes is by far when our hero stands around in a room and acts like a total and complete ass fooling everyone around him to believe he have the spine of a eel. and of cause the unmasking is what needs to be shocking and great for everyone, hence, why I find it very disappointing that in The Scarlet Pimpernel, everyone finds out by themselves and it gets sort of nice slow paced kind of revelation with not that more shocking but rather building up the plot as our Hero is walking into a trap and the danger increases as people find out who he is.
That's all very fine and well, I just better like the other obsession.
I swear to god, in no other franchise than doctor Jekyll and mr hyde have a seen more crappy movies, Ive seen a lot of stupid Frankenstein movies, a lot of Stupid Dracula movies and a lot of really stupid and crappy masked hero movies but Jekyll and Hyde really do take the cheese cake. perhaps it's because I am so obsessed by the franchise that I have tracked interpretations down for years, and it's probably the story I own most from, I just counted and I own 17 different Jekyll and Hyde movies, excluding Spoofs and there are is a god damn lots of them to... other than the Nutty professor.. which I like. anyhow.
The Jekyll and Hyde musical.. with David Hasselhoff of all people in the main role (god help me) is not bad at all, it's not my favorite version of the story at all, but it's entertaining.. and dear me, mr Hasselhoff can act oO;
One scene which I love I have not really scene in other places is doing to song "murder" which also kind of serve like an awesome on stage montage, in this interpretation dr Jekyll was pretty pissed from the very beginning at the other rich people because they won't let him go through with his experiments, as we all know he does it anyway. what I love about this sort of montage is that we see him as Hyde kill off all this people he was mad at as Jekyll. the people are asking "Why us, where do you know us from?" and he doesn't really answer as he just kills them joyfully sadistic way leave stage, and then appear as Jekyll in a more and more hysterical, scared and erratic stage before coming back as Hyde and killing someone else. I freaking love that, and I loved the following scenes where Jekyll walk among the remaining surviving rich people, and they all talk about protecting one another not knowing the man who murdered their friends is standing right in the room, Jekyll himself looks incredible unstable and scared. again, a person is standing in a room where no one but him realizes that he is the one that they want. brilliant.
both in the 1931 Frederich March movie, the musical I just mentioned and loads of other interpretations there is often a girl involved, sometimes two girls, but the particular girl I want to take about is the poor waitress who Jekyll finds attractive early one. when he unleashes Hyde, Hyde goes straight for her and forces her to be his woman, it's never really shown, but in many interpretations it's also indicated he rapes her. The next day Jekyll feeling guilty for all this sends her money and ask her to go far away, believing Jekyll is an Angel send from above, this girl instead of traveling away as asked to seeks out Jekyll and begs for help, not knowing she is begging the very same man who did her wrong, and it of cause all ends up in tragedy. I love scenes like that, so much is going on beneath the surface.
I love the entire idea behind "the count of Monte Cristo" when other people talks about this novel, they say it's about a prison break, I could not disagree more, for me the prison break is nothing but a setup for the real story and what is interesting for me, when our main Hero assume a falls identity and walks among the men who did him wrong, acting and pretending he only wants the best of all these rich gentlemen but is in reality planning for their doom in sophisticated ways. his enemies are freely telling him everything, yet he is not what they think he are. amazing story telling, and sadly enough, again I don't quite fell any of the movies I have seen dwell enough on this, the plot must go on.
I guess I just really love the idea of walking down the street and not being what people expect.
Of cause that is complete nonsense, as I walk down the street and no one knows who I am, in fact does who do care to take a glance at me would be surprised to talk to me as I look quite normal and ordinary, but is such a huge geek that I can talk of nothing but movies. that often takes people completely by surprise, but that is not my point.
It would be.. like imagine your an powerful alien, you know that you are this smart intelligent and powerful alien, it's your secret you walk down the street and no one else knows.
Oddly enough.. Doctor who which is my favorite show in the entire universe, have never dealt with this, at all. it have been mentioned now and then, I guess we can kind of find some "unmasking" around in the show where he tells people that he is alien, but it's never really dealt with that much, what is more disappointing to me that has never ever been deal with is the Doctors chance of identity. for does who don't know doctor who, what he is, is basically an alien with a time machine who goes on adventures in time and space, and he can't die, well sort of, when he does die he kind of regenerates, which means change of actor, but for the character means change of identity as well, it is implicated that is what happens, his whole identity changes all though not changes as he is still the same (confusing.. I know.. if you want to check the series out get use to it @_@) but they never really deals with this, they just move on with the stories... which is technically a good thing as a story should move on, that's good story writing. it just bothers me that they never deals with the aspect of a new identity as much as once.
There are loads of potential where the doctor could visit places he have been before that have emotional value to him, but chooses not to give himself away, and we could explore the feelings behind what happens. it just never happens at all.
A story I wrote to a sci-fi magazine was actually a doctor who fan fic, it almost got published but failed with the reasoning that it was too little doctor and too much my original character... looking at it now I totally see their point, the story is about the Doctor being trapped in somebody else's dream, in the beginning he does not realize where he is and tries to figure it out, the story around him evolves to be a conventional romantic Robin Hood sort of adventure, which on purpose almost becomes a spoof on the genre, there he meets the heroine, the dashing Scarlet Fox (yeah, that is homage to Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel) who fights the evil oppression of the poor, this girl seems to be just perfect. beautiful, dashing, funny, strong and agile, brave, admired and all that. and as it turns out she is the person who's dream the doctor is trapped inside, and he needs to convince her that it's all a dream, and she needs to give that dream up in favor of reality. in the end it of cause all works out all right.
The moment I like the best in my Story, and I still clearly see in my head, is when the Doctor and Donna in the end sees the heroine in the real world, and she is nothing but a gray mouse, very shy and silent, and mostly extremely awkward, a little plum always head bowed and so ford.
For does who are curious, the story naturally ends well, what I would mostly have liked it to end with, and what I would call "The real ending" is the doctor taking the gray mouse on board the Tardis so she have a chance to life the adventure she always dreamed off. the "official" ending however which fits into continuity, the gray mouse get really scared as the man from her dreams suddenly appears in her office, and she runs for it, realizing there is little to do, the doctor instead in a good gesture makes sure the book gray mouse have written, and have the same plot as the dream the doctor was trapped in, gets published. One morning she just suddenly finds a published copy with a note inside from the doctor, a rather sweet ending if I might be frank, not as good as the first one, but I am quite happy about it.
It's probably one of the most personal things I have ever written.
all the way back when I was only 15 I wrote my first short story which my Danish teacher had published in her school magazine, and it's kind of still as personal and steal dealing with identities, I don't even dare touch it and trying to rewrite it, despite it being full of stupid grammar mistakes.
The story is seen from two different peoples point of view, a girl called Maria who we mostly spend time with in School, and a girl called Christine, we mostly spend time with at a spare time theater grouped, each one of them knows a red haired girl. the red haired girl Maria knows from class is a shy silent and awkward girl, who is getting picked on and teased by the class.
The red haired girl Christine know from the theater classes is a fun, weird, spontainiuse and absolutely beautiful girl everybody admires. as the story transgresses it becomes clearer and clearer that the two red haired girls are the same red haired girl, she is just like two different persons depending on where she is and who she is with.
in the climax of my short the two worlds collides as the red haired girls class is going to see the very play that she is in, and they discover her on stage to go down in the pause at her sanctuary in the dressing room to tease, but as she panics and hits them hell breaks loose and they break her leg.
The story ends on that the parents immediately removed her from class and forbad her to continue at the theater class, so neither Maria nor Christine knows what became of the red haired girl as she just vanished out of their lives.
I was told in a writing class that an author can write about nothing but them self, the two stories I just mentioned are probably the stories I am the most proud of, but also most emotionally about, just referring the last story brings a tear to my eye because it's so personal. so what is this? am I really just a schizophrenic person? I sure as hell shouldn't release this on the internet, then again, what are the changes anyone is ever going to read this? not much I am sure. the two stories is about the same thing, a girl or a woman with two identities, one is the perfect ideal of who she wants to be, and how the world sees her, the other is who she dreads to be, and also how the world sees her. yet neither of the sides are either falls or untrue, both sides are true for my characters. and both are brimming with unrealized potential.
I kind of wished I was brimming with unrealized potential as well, maybe I am, I sure hope so. all though I doubt it, and sometimes I don't, sometimes I think I could do anything with myself and my life. I am really weird skizo person, but it's also a weird skizo world I am living where nothing makes sense. nothing at all.
And before hit the post button, I need to make aware it's the middle of the night while I am writing this, which probably explain lots of the really weirdo stuff I have just said. thankfully this is my blog, so I can do whatever the hell I want.
maybe one or two actually gained from this, in which guys I am surprised yet pleased, maybe if anyone have thought yourself through all of this thinks I am completely nuts. your absolutely right, I am nuts, but the idealized person in my head I want to be is as well, she is weird and funny, and I aim to be like her.

Wednesday, 21 July 2010

Kevin Smith, once a counter Clerk always a counter clerk

in 1994 Kevin Smith as a no name borrowed 27,575$ from the bank, and from these money made a movie with his best buddies. And that became the underground cult phenomena "Clerks" About the two counter clerks "Jeff and Dante" and there to say the least fucked up renting store and all the fucked up people who visit it, everyone is on weed in this movie and it's filled to the brim with disgusting, disturbing and vulgare jokes and most of the comedy lays in the dialogue.

And the dialouge is perfectly written! that would later proof to be Kevin smith's all time strongest point and a feed no one else can copy, perfect over the top funny dialogue.
Tons and tons of comedy film have since tried to copy Kevin smith's obscure vulgar style, and they all fail horrible as they think just because you write "dick" and "pussy" in the dialogue, it's funny. it is not, but Kevin smith can pull it off, and this movie is genuinely funny. disturbing... but funny.

Already in 1995 in cause of the box office hit Clerks had, despite only being showed in few underground special theaters, he made the comedy "Mallrats"

This is by many ways one of his weaker movies, but there is a lot of things excusing this, this was the first time Kevin Smith had to direct while a studio was constantly watching his neck and demanding changes in his on purpose Vulgar and obscure writing, and as a newby he complied and let the studio have to much influenced, and it can be felt in the movie as it seems to be a tamer affair than should have been. There are some few laugh here and there, but what should have been two hours of hilarity is just moderately funny.

In 1997, his widely critically acclaimed movie "Chasing Amy" had its release.
This is one of the two of my personal favorite Kevin smith films. I think this movie is wonderful, it's sad, it's genuinely funny, it's something I can relate to and it have so much heart in it. and you can really fell that.

This movie the kevin smith that have been attempted copies on the most, and they all fail because they miss the heart this story have. The story and the big end dilemma is as obscure and odd as ever, but it fells like a natural evolving of characters from the dialogue, and the dialogue is really beautiful. Kevin Smith's own character "Silent bob" probably makes the best little speech in all of Kevin smith's carrier, and this film is a no brainer and must watch for any film geek who want to trace the latest tendencies of trashy film makers who make trashy pretentious movies. this movie however is not pretentious, it is just very true.

In 1999 the very geekly acclaimed movie "Dogma" came out.

And I tell you why I say geekly acclaimed, it's because critically it was only acclaimed sort of moderately, but all geeks in the universe who knows Kevin Smith and have seen this seems to worship this movies to the sky's. Geeks everywhere is still praising this movie and acclaiming it's mighty awesomeness.
.... I don't get it...
Seriously, I don't. I mean, not to say that I dislike the movie, I do kind of like it and it have lots of cheap laughs in it, but ingenious? I really don't think so, as far as I am concerned it's two hours of harmless fun and no more. If Kevin Smith really wanted to, it could have been a lot more, I do see a lot of potential in the story, but it seems to me Kevin Smith did not even want to make it more than innocent fun, and so it isn't.

For crying out loud it has a "poop monster" in it which is defeated by an deodorant which silent bob carries around with him so he doesn't have to smell to Jay's farts.

And that's this movie, because it's Kevin Smith he can pull it off, other film makers can't, but it's really not that ingenious piece of worship geeks are making it out to be.

"Jay and silent bob strikes back" from 2001.
If people are in any doubt how much Dogma is a piece of unpretentious fun, then you would have to be dim not to realize that that is exactly what his movie is.

two hours of unpretentious fun.
I don't even have anything more to say about this movie, it's just a little snack for the Kevin Smith fan base with reference to earlier work and featuring his two arch type characters of the totally wasted and doped Jay and himself as silent bob who is, as the name indicates, silent.
I got no more, it's just a package of jokes, laughter and fun. I'm empty, it's not a bad movie but there is just nothing more to it. god.

on the other hand "jersey girl" from 2004 is worthy hours of talking and analyzing.
It was a miss step for Kevin smith, the movie is not very good even though it really tries it's very best. When watching this, I do believe Kevin Smith was very honest in his intentions and I see what he tries to do. it just doesn't work.

Kevin Smith is an ever growing artist, and you can fell that in his work as he grows in life, his works grow with him, he had just done two pieces of mindless fun and now wanted to do something with steady ground in it. it just falls short and flat but it's a very forgivable miss step and when a movie creator makes a miss step, after only having done good movies, what really do count is how he decides to get back on his feet's?

2004 DVD special release called. "And evening with Kevin Smith"
This is sort of cheating, as the DVD is just a collection of videos of Kevin Smith answering questions and telling stories to his fans on stages around the US, but it is so hilarious to watch, Kevin smith is the born story teller and standup comedian, he is interesting to listen to and most of all, absolutely hilarious, this video can be seen legally for free on Google videos, and I would very much recommend it, and it does not matter if you have seen his movies or not, he is comedy gold. and if for nothing else, he makes the best Tim Burton impersonations I have ever seen.

Thank god for "Clerks II" which was released in 2006, precisely twelve years after "Clerks" it's the perfect way for Kevin Smith to get back on track, because this movie is brilliant. with "Chasing Amy" this is my favorite Kevin Smith movie, I really love it.
As the title might suggest, it's a direct sequel to Clerks. ten years have passed for the two main characters, and yet more importantly, ten years have passed for Kevin Smith as well. "Clerks II" have the obscure vulgar humor from the first "Clerks" film, but also the sophisticated growth of it's creator. it's again a very honest movie with lots of hearts, which makes it so good and unpretentious despite it's quirkiness.

For me, it does not matter if the viewer have seen "Clerks" or not, because this movie stands so well on it's own that anyone can watch it, and they should, because it's a very unique and fresh experience, again the dialogue is just perfect and the characters their own and obscure. a wonderful little piece of movie.

oh crap.. this year 2010 Kevin Smiths latest movie "Cop out" came out. I don't know how the describe the experience of this movie, but I am gonna try.

Anyone remember when Tim Burtons "planet of the apes" came out? well first of all it weren't a good movie, but in my mind more importantly, it did not fell like a Tim Burton movie at all. it was a weird head scratching experience where you just sat there and waited for a little sign of "Burtoniness" and as the Credits came on you tipped your head to make sure Tim Burton really is in the credits and thereby involved in the movie, and when his name did role up you furry your brows and ask yourself... where the bloody hell is Tim Burton is in this movie? I don't see any trace of him nor his still, this just doesn't fell like a Tim Burton film.

That is "Cop out" and Kevin Smith.. I know Kevin Smith directed it, and it is plainly obvious that he didn't write it, as the only film he ever directed he didn't write. but there is no trace of the uniqness of Kevin Smith anywhere in the movie, he is untraceable, and the movie is not very good either. it's pretty bad and is the same kind of movie that we have seen thousands of times before in cop movies, so I am not even going to talk about.

"Jersy girl" was a miss step, but it was clearly a Kevin smith movie, this was not. and it doesn't seem like his next movie will go in his old style either, though at least he wrote it himself, I dunno.

But at least he showed after doing his first real miss step with "Jersy Girl" that he knows how to bounce back stronger than ever with "Clerks II"

Maybe white this major miss step of "Cop out" he is gonna bounce back with the best movie he ever created widely to be acclaimed as a master piece, only the future will tell.

Kevin Smith have stated that there will be no more movies with Jay and Silent bob, and there are many devided thoughts upon that among fans.
Personally, I find it to be a good thing. Kevin Smith have grown as a story teller and a director, he have become older and having two guys in their mid thirties hanging in front of a wall aint as cool or fun as them in their early twenties, the creators and faces of Jay and silent bob have grown away from the characters, it's wisely of Kevin smith to put them to rest, and Clerks II was the perfect way to do it.

Tommy Wiseau takes on the Nostaliga critic... the fuck!?

You don't fuck with the Nostalgia critic bitches
Or he might review you!

For over two years now the Nostaliga critic, aka Doug Walker, have been an ever growing enternet celebraty, his site probably one of the most popular underground geek sites in existence, he takes on all kinds of old movies and makes fun of them for being bad. He have taken on all the major companies. Dreamworks, Warner Brothers, Disney.. bla bla.

Big companies which really have better things to do then even taking notice of him.

Tommy Wiseau, independet film maker and maker of one fictionel movie "The Room" from 2003.
Based on book he wrote which nobody wanted to release and the play based on the same bookwhich no one wanted to put up, so he made it into a movie.
And the movie have a whole cult following, but only because it's so bad.

It is famouse for being bad, private cinema's is screening this thing for entertainment while selling rotten tomatoes and buckets of bad popcorn the audience can throw at the screen, apparently it's that bad, and the only reason why anyone watches the movie.

It's so bad that's it's ingeniousely entertaining.

So last week after several request Doug Walker made a review of it, it is the first review he had to take down because the movie maker himself demaneded it to be removed.. the fuck?

Holy shit, that is absolutly hillariouse! that's gotta be the funniest most entertaining thing to ever happen to the "Thatguywiththeglasses" site.

Today Doug Walker responded to that by parodying Tommy Wiseau himself in a sketch that trashes Wiseau badly, It was ingeniously awesome, but I god damn hope Doug Walker knows what he is doing.

For does of you who dosn't know "the Nostalgia critic" nor his site, go check it out right now, his site is awesome, and what is happening right now could evolve to anything. it could stop right now, but Wiseau could also pursue it, which would be strangely awesome.

the site is called. check it out.

Sunday, 18 July 2010

Warning, Slapstic!

I love good comedy as much as everybody.
And as the dusty movie goer that I am, I love really old comedy as well.

"Charlie Chaplin", "The Marx Brothers", the "Three stooges" and "Laurel and Hardy" are among my favourite comedian acts of all time.

Now, what does all these four acts have in common which is a big "no no" in Hollywood today?

They are all slapstick!

Slapstick gotta be the biggest "no no" in Hollywood today.
You can have a exposed penis in comedy and it's fine, you can do shitty musical movies and it's fine, you do shitty superhero movies and it's just fine, but having a scene where the superhero falls on his bum and it's over for that movie creator, everyone will point it out and hate it.

You put "A slap stick comedy" on the poster, it's a certified flop, it's a no goer... and.. even I would not go watch it.

I who own every single Marx brothers film, every single feature length Charlie Chaplin... the Pink Panther classic box set and love cheap laughs as much as anyone.. would not go watch it at all, the poster would have frightened me away.. why?

Is it because slap stick truly is dead and died with Peter Sellers?
Is it because we as modern smart people (hah) have become to smart for slapstick.. well I watch these old movies, and the slapstick is still just as funny. and you can't tell me that somebody saying. "Mother fucker she totally licked my cork" is any smarter than a man getting a cake in his head.

I sit and watch does old movies and wonder if I just find them funny because I have gotten it beaten into my head with a hammer since childhood that they are classics, but I gotta say no, they are genuinely funny. So I try and wrap my head around this, how could it be done funny then but not now? What is the major difference in sheer execution and performance?
So I started watching both old and new attempts on slapstick to try and figure this out.

The first thing that hit me while comparing these was the simplicity and the economical use of movements in the old one. the camera is used extremely economical and does not ever cut, it just keeps filming the scene for 15 minutes straight, not even moving.
In the recent movies they just keeps cutting back and ford every second. and it spoils the slap stick completely,
Also the actors movements in the old movies is extremely economic, they do not move and arm without reason. And rather than try and highlight themselves they just are, standing around without even trying to be over the top.
The new guys who tries to do slap stick is constantly trying to over sell themselves with movements all over the place, with swining arms and large leg movements. And it does not work, it's stupid and it's silly.

But then there is the classic Monty Python sketch "silly walks" which is hilarious, but is just about people walking in really over the top and silly ways, I went back and re-watched the sketch, and then I realised. Also in this is both the camera and the performer extremely economical, yeas John Cleese walks in a really over the top and silly way, but the rest of him is extraordinary calm and steady. the way he talks and the way he is just so very calm, he is not over selling himself.

I noticed that when comedy really stops being funny is when the actors blinks to the camera and is with that blink say "see see see! did you see that! I ran into a wall!! that's funny!"
well, it might have been, but now it's not.

I also thinks it works best when a movie shows something funny but doesn't comment on it. in the movie "A fish called Wanda" the main character is hitting it off with the female lead, they are snogging, suddenly the female lead's boy friend pops up in the window in the background. and it's absolutely hillariouse, he moves around in the background and eventually disappear to appear in the scene again. it's a really funny scene.
What I noticed is how the camera never ever cuts, the boy friend stays in the background, and editing never tries to sell that he is there, which just makes it all the more hilarious. I have seen plenty of movies with similar scenes, but there they would keep on inter cutting between the two mains snugging and the dude in the window. that is just not very funny.

Weirdly enough, comedy needs to be simple and economic rather than over the top and rich.

I compared the old Peter Sellers pink Panther films, which I love, with the two new Steve Martin Pink Panther films which sucks. And what I detect is the precisely same thing in comedy. Peter Seller just "is" he do the slap stick, and neither he nor the camera and the editing try to oversell it, in fact the camera just keeps rolling without cutting forever.
Steve Martin really tries to oversell every single little gag, and so do the writing and the editing. you can't force funny is what I figured, it needs to flow in the background, and then it suddenly becomes more hilarious.

That is just my take on it, I will start and study more in this, because one of my goals in life is to master "funny"
I have convinced myself that if I as an actress can do "funny" I can do everything.

Friday, 16 July 2010

Frankenstein, from then to now.

Ah yeas Frankenstein.
The man who created a monster out of corpses and thereby defied the laws of nature, which he came to pay for pretty dearly.
All though, how dearly depends on the adaptation you're watching.
The original book was written by female author Mary Shelley when she was only 19 years old, on a dark stormy night all the way back in 1818.
I really love this book, and I never get tired of reading it as I always discover something new even though it's not a heavy large book, it's not even half as long as Dracula but have so much more going on for it, and it doesn't drag me down, as old classic novels often does, I really can't believe it was written in 1818, almost two hundred years ago. that is just incredible.
lots of stage plays were based on the book through the 1800 century, and there have even been made more than one silent movie, one of them is legally free to watch on youtube, which is just a very odd little ten minute long movie, if you wanna put ten minutes aside go ahead, but its really campy old, low in production and just all around weird.

the 1931 Frankenstein movie with Boris Karloff is probably the one most people are thinking about when talking Frankenstein, even though few people have seen it. This movie just created all the mental imprints we have. the look of the lab with all the sparkly light thingies all around, the castle on a hill with lighting in the back ground, the graveyard which just looks so bare, the hunchbacked assistant, the creator yelling "It's alive", villagers charging the castle with hay forks and touches, and of cause the look of the monster.
All of these things is in the movie. Now its important to remember, non of this stuff had ever appeared in a movie before this, this movie doesn't use old clichés. it created them from scratch. And the movie is well checking out for any horror fan of any horror genre, because this is the movie where it all really began. its a cool movie.

The sequel "Bride of Frankenstein" from 1935 is a stunning experience. it doesn't have so many things in it that would eventually become clichés, but it is actually a better movie.
It is just so beautiful, well acted and preformed, well written and all that stuff. it's really a sequel worth its title and time, taking what the first movie brought and taking it a step further, just as any sequel in reality should. one cliché this movie created however was the blind old man with the violin, and the scenes he is in is just so filled with emotion that it's unbelievable, you wouldn't quite believe it, but that's how it is. a really cool and beautiful movie, and this is my personally favourite movie of all the universal classics.

five other sequels have been made, but they are not nearly as good nor influential as these two first movies, and is really only worth checking out for hardcore fans.

In 1957 the british horror company Hammer Productions made their first major horror, which was Frankenstein. through time there were made 7 Hammer Frankenstein films all in all, all with Peter Cushing as Viktor Frankenstein.

These movies are awesome, instead of having the same monster appear again and again like in the universals movies, Frankenstein was the one to reaccure, each time with a growing insanity as his obsession of creating a monster that works grows which each movie, really making Peter Cushings performance the highlight of each movie and the entire film series, non of the monsters have ever hardly anything to do. they are kind of camped and not always visually stunning, but the horror and the mood are always very much present which is what makes these movies so great.

in 1974, Parody maker Mel Brooks made his master piece in both comedy and spoof movies. "Young Frankenstein" this movie is both beautiful to look at, have class, is daring and vulgar and is funny as hell. Both Gene Wilder as Frankenstein and Marty Feldman as Igor, both comedians known for plenty of other stuff delivers the performance of their life, and the performance fans would continued widely claim to be the best they ever gave.

The movie is a love letter to the old universal Frankenstein movies of the 30's as the style is completely replicated and the movie shows nothing but respect towards its origins. its well worth checking out.

in 1990 Tim Burton made the movie "Edward Scissor hands" which is quite a different kind of Frankenstein tale, where the maker is not involved in other but few flash backs scenes, though the themes is very much the same themes as is often used regarding the monster in the classic Frankenstein movies.

I really love this movie, it's one of the movies out of my childhood, and I just love everything about it. It really have an all around fairy tale fell about it, and its just so cute and funny though at the same time developing a serious dark undertone towards the end.

Personally, I believe this movie paints what Tim Burton was all about in his pride, and sadly he have kind of forgotten with his last few movies, though this glimpse of the past is well worth checking into. one thing is for sure, even November as the first snow falls outside of my window, this movie will be popped into my DVD machine.

In 1994 Kenneth Bragath made his version of the Frankenstein "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" and put himself in the main role as Frankenstein. Already as production had hardly started he claimed this to be the definitive version of Frankenstein.
sigh... I can't stand film makers that have the arrogance to call their version of something "The definitive" especially with something with such a big legacy, as pr usual I havn't hardly touched all that that have been going on in this franchise, it's legacy is just huge.

Is it definitive then? well, its a lot more faithful to the original novel than any of the above mentioned films, but that doesn't make it entirely faithful, and I just don't find it that exciting either. It's a bit to pretentious and a bit to bland to me and really trips over itself in the story telling and becomes muddled as it tries to much, all though it really tries, and of cause over ambitious is always better than under ambitious, I just don't fancy this movie that much.
If you want to see a version that rocks that is incredible faithful to the novel watch the two parter television movie with John Huston as the monster from 2006, it's awesome! and unbelievable faithful to the original novel.

And this year 2010 we had "Splice"
I did not exspect to get a Frankenstein film delivered, but that is kind of what it is.. well of for nothing else than.. awesome to go and see a Frankenstien film in cinema! though... really disgusting and disturbing Frankenstein... YUK!
though, how often do I say yuk of a recent horror film? not to often I have to admit, so yeah, applaud.

It really is Frankenstein, the main characters are even called "Clive and Elsa" which is obviously named after Colin Clive, who played Viktor Frankenstein in the 1931 movie, and Elsa Lanchester who played the bride in the 1935 sequel. awesome!

now this isn't a perfect film, but for a horror fan who likes campy, cheap shock evil dead effect horror over things that doesn't even try an be all smart with itself. its a treat, and I throughout enjoyed it. despite a couple of "huh" moments, I was never bored and that counts a lot for me in recent horrors as most horrors bores me to dead.

well, awesome. I went to cinema and expected a new kind of boring Matrix but got a kind of fun Frankenstein, this franchise is just to good to ever really die.