PSYCHO

Psycho

4/5

Alfred Hitchcock's: Psycho. Picture courtesy of: http://dogmatics.wordpress.com

Cast & Credits

……………………………….......

Anthony Perkins: Norman Bates

Janet Leigh: Marion Crane

Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock

Screenplay By: Joseph Stefano

………………………………........

I consider myself quite the horror buff, anything that falls into the category of the macabre is usually right up my alley, which is why it came to me as quite a considerable surprise that I have never seen one of motion pictures’ most touted and indeed for its time most controversial movies’: PSYCHO. This revelation occurred to me when I saw the movie in question resting idly in the bargain bin at my nearest DVD outlet. Selling for a mere $7 I snapped up the opportunity to purchase, what is to my knowledge, a great classic, and to my delight, upon closer inspection of the box I was pleased to note that it was a two disc edition containing another movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock: VERTIGO.

As I inserted the movie into my laptop and prepared myself to watch the movie, I glanced over the back cover of the DVD and was stunned to note that PSYCHO is 50 years old! Indeed the movie was first released in 1960 an entire 28 years before I was even born. Suddenly I felt like an archaeologist meticulously brushing dirt away from a fossil, as the film progressed I noted with considerable whimsy the contrast of watching such a movie on a laptop created, and the fact that PSYCHO is shot entirely in black and white did little to hide such a contrast.

The movie started typically enough and progressed as one would expect such an old film to do so; clever if not somewhat antiquated dialogue delivered rather tepidly by wooden actors, indeed I felt my critics tongue readying itself to deliver lashings of discontent at how such a mundane movie could be considered one of cinemas’ most influential, but then something happened. Anthony Perkins entered as the deeply troubled Norman Bates, and the movie from that moment on was never the same His portrayal of Norman Bates is at times thoughtful and charming, and at times menacing, haunting, and a little too convincing for comfort.

PSYCHO was originally billed as a suspense movie, but is surprisingly chilling and macabre, and of course when it came out in 1960, the suspense was still intact, but 50 years on, it’s hard to define this film as suspenseful. Tireless references of PSYCHO in television and movies alike has meant that anyone not living in a cave is fairly acquainted with the famous shower scene and by large the nature of the title character Norman Bates and of course the plot itself, but don’t be discouraged, even if the movie does seem familiar it is worth watching and highly recommended to any horror enthusiast.

One cannot talk about this film without mentioning the genius behind the camera; Alfred Hitchcock. This movie is highly regarded as his best effort and it’s easy to see why, even as you look at more recent films it’s easy to see his influence in the horror/ thriller genre, largely emulated in Wes Cravens’ SCREAM franchise PSYCHOS’ influence seems paramount, even Tobe Hoopers’ TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE bears some familiarity to PSYCHO.

However, aside from its influence, PSYCHO was groundbreaking in the sense of its gore. In its time, it was a highly controversial film for it is depiction of violence and sexuality. Although by today’s standards the violence is remarkably tame, the fact that this film pushed the boundaries of onscreen violence elevates into cult status and finds itself on par with other groundbreaking films such as PULP FICTION, which is also a film that pushed the boundaries of onscreen violence. In fact one could make the argument that this is perhaps the best horror film of all time, due it’s major impact and vast influence which undoubtedly helped mould modern horror, and in my opinion horror sorely needs to learn from the fundamentals that are exemplified in this harrowing and dare I say epic film delivered unflinchingly by one of the all time greats and master of the macabre; Alfred Hitchcock.

are you talkin' to me?

Are you talkin' to me?

By: Craig Fish.

TAXI DRIVER : 4/5

Gods’ lonely man: Travis Bickle is the Taxi Driver (picture courtesy of: http://thisdistractedglobe.com/2007/02/22/taxi-driver-1976/)

Cast & Credits

………………………………...........................

Travis Bickle: Robert De Niro.

Iris: Jodie Foster.

Sport: Harvey Keitel.

Betsy: Cybil Shepherd.

Charles Palantine: Leonard Harris.

Directed by: Martin Scorsese.

Written by: Paul Schrader

Running time: 109 min

………………………………...........................

Nominated for four 1976 Academy Awards, TAXI DRIVER stars Robert De Niro, and chronicles the mental deterioration of a man driven to violence by loneliness and desperation.

This startlingly brilliant film, directed by Martin Scorsese and written by Paul Schrader, follows the life of Travis Bickle(De Niro), an anti-hero taxi driver who’s inability to form normal lasting relationships with those around him, culminates into an obsessive desire to save a young prostitute named Iris(Foster) from her sordid life and contemptible relationship with ‘Sport’, (Keitel) her pimp.

Travis Bickle, is a taxi-driver who works the night shift, and despises the urban decay which he sees around him, as he drives around the streets of New York

Travis’s inability at human interaction is exhibited at a seamy diner which serves as a meeting point for other various taxi-drivers; lost in his own world he stutters out vague responses and relates a story of violence to his co-workers before dropping an antacid into a glass of water, and watches it bubble and foam, symbolising the inner disturbances of Travis’s mind, lingering beneath the surface of his everyday visage.

Amid all this Travis exhibit’s a love interest , through the narration of his diary we learn that he has been observing a young blonde woman named Betsy(Cybil Shepherd) who works as a political volunteer for presidential hopeful Charles Palentine(Leonard Harris). He views Betsy as an untouchable dream girl, yet he approaches her, and is able to secure a date. On one of these dates we once again see his inability to relate to others as he attempts to take Betsy to a porn theatre, which inevitably provokes her to break up with him.

This pushes Travis over the edge as he tries desperately to reconnect with the world that has alienated him, he begins to feel that it is his duty to save Betsy and Iris from what he feels are oppressive father figures in the form of ‘Sport’ and Palantine and a life of sordid degradation.

By the end Travis is completely alone . it is this isolation that prompts the climatic and violent ending which inevitably leaves the viewer with a sense of unease.

Indeed TAXI DRIVER is a brilliant yet disturbing movie that looks at the effects of urban detachment, isolation and mental deterioration, with brilliant acting performances, particularly De Niro’s, and a mesmerising melancholy saxophone score provided by Bernard Herman, there can be little doubt that this film is one of the best in cinematic history.

click here to view gallery and trailers of Taxi driver as well as more info.

READY FOR SOME OF THE OLD ULTRA VIOLENCE

A Clockwork Orange

4/5 ****

……………………………….................................

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Stars: Malcom McDowell, Patrick Magee, Adrienne Corri, Mariam Karlin.

Screenplay: Stanley Kubrick, Based on the novel By: Anthony Burgess.

Length: 131 minutes

Age Restriction: 18 v s n l

……………………………….................................

READY FOR SOME OF THE OLD ULTRA VIOLENCE?

( this review may contain spoilers)

picture available from:http://www.graphicshunt.com/wallpapers/images/a_clockwork_orange_gang-1654.htm

This movie, released in 1971 and set in England, is probably one of the most disturbing I have ever seen, and that’s saying something if you consider the level of violence and depravity that seems so prevalent in today’s society, or at least in the media, violence in various forms is endlessly paraded before our eyes like some kind of sideshow, producers of content seemingly in a bid to out do each other in a war of immorality. Of course when I was younger I revelled in the gore portrayed in video games and the cheaply made horror films of the day, it seemed so “cool” to me in those days. Now that I’m older, and considerably wiser, it all seems a little…….tedious……..senseless.

As I watched this movie, with the opening sequences chronicling the life and times of the narrator and star of the movie, Alexander DeLarge (Malcom McDowell), we quickly learn that he is one sick individual. Violence, rape and theft all seem, to him and his followers , a game. They dress in strange attire and stalk in the shadows of the night preying on the weary, but unassuming public, and after which, they congregate, among other things at a place called the “Korova Milk Bar” which sells milk laced with psychedelic drugs.

Yes indeed this movie is deranged to say the least, with its frank and graphic depiction of rape, murder and theft it does seem rather senseless, but it’s all working to a point; DeLarge is eventually incarcerated, but becomes subject to an experiment designed to re-programme criminals into law abiding citizens, known as the Ludovico Technique. The movie portrays this technique as some sort of alternative to a lobotomy, it takes away the subjects freewill, and instils a sense of nausea and revulsion in response to any violent act, or thought. It’s censorship taken to a new extreme.

Suddenly the violence, we realise, was a means to an end, it didn’t consume the movie but rather eased it toward the point of the movie, which is a social commentary on state control and it’s imposition to our rights as an individual, Clockwork Orange, I suddenly realised is a sort of cautionary tale in the same vein as George Orwell’s epic book: 1984.

Indeed this is a political satire, and it makes it’s point clear: the state cannot and should not exert it’s control to the individual and his freedom of choice, or expression, no matter how unsavoury that maybe.

But lets get back the content of the film. This film is considered a classic, and is often ranked among other classics such as The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, and Taxi Driver, just to name a few, and it’s easy to see why, but my own initial reaction was to ponder whether it’s as brilliant as people make it out to be, I wonder if it isn’t just the violence or the queer uniqueness of the film that makes people think it’s brilliant, and then I quickly realised that is exactly why it is so brilliant.

As the movie progressed and as I witnessed how Alex, after the treatment received from the Ludovico Technique, had transformed him into a shell of his former self I found my self, sympathising for him. BUT HOW COULD THIS BE!!!??, the guy is a degenerate! and then it occurred to me that the reason that the audience roots for Alex is because he has been wronged, he has been robbed of his freedom of choice. It’s a right so ingrained in us that when it is taken away, it invokes such emotional responses that we can actually sympathise with a degenerate, and if you don’t believe me just watch this movie and I can guarantee you, that by the end you’ll be rooting for Alex to emerge victorious. (I personally feel this is another aspect of the film which makes it so brilliant).

Now to get back to my point about violence in the media today, and it’s a simple point. Today violence is used as a flashy gimmick it is senseless and thus inevitably meaningless, it depicts violence as “cool” and I must admit I was one of those suckers who basked in it’s cheap thrill, but this film makes a point about violence; it can be meaningful, it doesn’t have to be about who can be the goriest of them all, violence can drive a story, instead of just being the story itself, Saw and it’s subsequent sequels seem to me, to be about outdoing the one before, it’s seems to be about “how can we kill someone this time?” Or “how can the contraptions be more depraved?” Horror films such as Wrong Turn seem to drive the notion of glamorising violence, “how can we make this horror more disgusting than the last?”………..senseless.

If you want another film that makes a point about violence and the media, then I urge you to watch: NATURAL BORN KILLERS

BONUS: Craig’s Top 5: ANTI-HEROES OF CINEMA.

5: Tyler Durden (Fight Club, 1999)

4: Mickey & Mallory ( Natural Born Killers, 1994)

3: Erik Draven ( The Crow, 1994)

2: Alex DeLarge ( A Clockwork Orange, 1971)

1: Travis Bickle ( Taxi Driver, 1976)

Only King of Horror? ………..or much more?

• 

  picture available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2007/aug/20/week

I know that by now, you know that I’m horror fan but I feel like I’ve beaten that topic to death…………just a little bit, so I’m going to compromise I’m going to talk about one of my many favourite horror writers: Stephen King, but I’m not going to talk about any of his horror film adaptations, I’m going to talk about his more mainstream stuff, and their subsequent movies.

I doubt it’s a secret these days, but once upon a time Stephen king was only known for his horror, or rather renowned for his horror, but actually Stephen King is pretty adept at spinning a good tear jerker, and these tear jerker’s are the best Stephen King adaptations. I mean who here can actually say they thought movies like Desperation, Sometimes they come back, and Pet Semetery were actually any good?

Green Mile:4/5 Green Mile is a good story. Initially released in a series of novella’s, Green Mile wasn’t one of Stephen Kings best selling ventures, but I feel it’s one of his better efforts, And certainly one of the best films I have seen, it follows the life a large African American named coffee(like the drink) who is accused of a double murder, and is placed on death row, it’s a touching story of mistaken identity and wrongful arrest, as we learn that coffee isn’t what you’d expect……………….bring on the tissues

for more info on this film click here

Stand By Me:4/5 This story appeared in a collection of novella’s called Different Seasons and was titled: The Body. I remember reading this story when I was 12 years old and instantly falling in love with it, indeed I picked it up just the other day and re-read it, and was startled to find that it was better than I remembered and you know what?…….. The movie was pretty decent too. This story will definitely tug at your heart strings, it follows the lives of four friends who venture to see a dead body in the woods, it may sound macabre but don’t be fooled, it’s a coming of age story that looks at changing friendships, mortality and life.

for more info on this film click here

The Shawshank Redemption:5/5 Is another story that can be found in Different Seasons, and is definitely the best story in the book, and without a doubt one of the best Stephen King film adaptations, this is probably the only story that has made me come close to crying……………..what the hell, it did make me shed a tear……….or two. I read it and loved it, it is another prison story but follows the escape of Andy Dufresne who didn’t commit the crime that put him there, it’s about redemption (Duh), friendship and most of all hope. As I said it’s one of the best films derived from Stephen King material and I personally feel it should have won the Oscar in 1995 . . . . . . . . Damn you Forrest Gump!

for more info on this film click here

BONUS : Craig’s TOP FIVE STEPHEN KING……………….

Horror Films adapted from Stephen King:

1. The Mist

2: Carrie

3: The Shinning

4: 1408

5: Secret Window

Books written by Stephen King:

5: Night Shift

4: Pet Semetery

3: The Shinning

2: Carrie

1: The Stand

Craig’s TOP 5 Horror writers:

5: Ray Bradbury

4: Clive Barker

3: Edgar Allan Poe

2: Stephen King

1: H.P Lovecraft

BLADE RUNNER

Blade Runner.

5/5

………………………………...........................................

Director: Ridley Scott

Writer: Hampton Fancher; David Peoples

Stars: Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young, Darryl Hannah, Edward James Olmos

Released: 1982

Length: 116 minutes

Blade Runner Poster Courtesy of: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7a1V_80lDT1O7-dinvt96hyphenhyphenpIrbAb63T_0-EziXvebJDz94il8UANbZ7SEAMWl958Lvt2KDossvuKHfHJm3ui8cKE_EeXD7wNoCui-9prtvDozHxV9PgaNaYt0IGu2KtCHT_MD84-ZiS1/s1600/1280X1024_BR_09.jpg

Replicant

replicant [répplikənt] (plural replicants) n

Half-human, half-technological being: especially in science fiction, an imaginary being that has been constructed from organic and computerized components to look like a human being. See also cyborg

PLEASE NOTE: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I’m a big fan of popular culture and I think it’s a fair reflection of the movies I’ve been reviewing lately. And as such, I feel obliged to talk about this particular film. Blade Runner, is in my opinion, vastly superior to any Star Wars film and I regard it as the best science fiction movie to date.

Set in 2019, Los Angeles, Deckard (Harrison Ford), is a Blade Runner, (A Blade Runner is a member of a special unit whose only objective is too hunt down replicants), who is called out of retirement to track down and terminate 4 replicants, who hijacked a ship in space and have returned to earth seeking their maker. The replicants are sentient robots of extremely high intelligence and superior strength, used as slave labour in aid of man’s quest to colonise outer space.

This brilliant film was directed by Ridley Scott and, was in 1982 released to an unreceptive audience who condemned it as overly cerebral. But like all cult classics, history has been decidedly kind to this brilliant film.

The four replicants have journeyed to earth in search of their maker, for you see the replicants are nearly indistinguishable from human’s save for their lack of empathy, and their status as replicant can only be determined by a test known as a Voight-Kampff, which tests pupil dilation in response to various hypothetical Questions designed to evoke certain emotions.

Replicants however have a flaw in which they develop their own emotional responses and thus due to lack of empathy and experience they may become violent and unstable, thus designers implemented another aspect; they can only live for four years.

As I mentioned earlier this film was underappreciated in it’s time, the original was hampered by an inane voice over narration and a typical Hollywood ending, but as I said, time and an original and unedited director’s cut and omission of the narrative have allowed it to be fully appreciated in all it’s glory, this movie is brilliant for many reasons, from it’s stylistic and visually stunning depiction of the future to its ground breaking storyline, but for me the best aspect of this film is it’s unresolved question: Is Deckard a human or a replicant? There is plenty of evidence to support either side, and the debate rages on to this day between hardcore fans of the film such as myself( I believe Deckard is a replicant, in case you were wondering).

Another aspect of this film I find endearing is the fact that Deckard is portrayed as a human right until the end of the film and thus the audience connects and sympathises with him, the replicants are portrayed as emotionally unstable and evil, thus we root for Deckard to kill them, but at the end the replicant saves Deckard, the very man who is trying to kill him, this raises questions about our own humanity over that of the replicant, and of course when the ending reveals to us, although not entirely, it is more implied that Deckard may be a replicant himself, raises even more questions about our perceptions of reality.

Indeed this is an EPIC film that has been regarded by many experts in the genre as the quintessential science fiction movie of all time and is certainly a favourite of mine.

I urge you to watch it yourself, and answer this question: is Deckard a replicant himself, or is he human?

for information click here to visit Imdb (internet movie database)

Ten things you can learn about the future from this film.

1. In the future despite man’s huge strides in A.I., transport and weaponry, we are yet to invent a better alternative to a simple umbrella.

2. Ceiling fans are still in use too.

3. The earth is home only to replicants and degenerates, and will be indistinguishable to a landfill.

4. Strange aliens feel that the planet earth provides a better home than their own planets, which raises the question, why colonise other planets? Imagine how horrible they must be if earth is a better alternative.

5. Coca-cola will still be around, and so will Budweiser…………Hooray!

6. Almost all the earths’ creatures are near extinction, but pigeons will still be in abundance. ……….. It figures

7. The future will sport an eighties-retro charm. I guess styles do go around in a cycle. The Bon Jovi look will be back in style. You may shed a tear.

8. H.D T.V. and cell phones seem to have fallen out of style and relevance.

9. We will have talking traffic lights though. . . . .

10. The replicants are more human than the humans are, if who you think are humans are actually humans, and not replicants, I guess it is a confusing film.

Bonus: Craig’s Top 5.……………

Horror Films

5: The Exorcist(William Friedkin)

4: Rosemary’s Baby (Roman Polanski)

3: The Shining(Stanley Kubrick)

2: Dawn of the Dead (George A. Romero)

1:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre(Tobe Hooper)

Science Fiction Films

5: Star Wars: New Hope (George Lucas)

4: 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick)

3: Alien (Ridley Scott)

2:The Matrix( The Warchowski Brothers)

1: Blade Runner (Ridley Scott)

General Interest Films

5: Lost Boys( Joel Schumacher)

4: American Psycho(Marry Harron)

3: Fight Club(David Fincher)

2: The Machinist

1:Memento(Christopher Nolan)

War Films

5: The Pianist

4: Jarhead( Sam Mendes)

3:Platoon(Oliver Stone)

2: Full Metal Jacket(Stanley Kubrick)

1: Apocalypse Now( Francis Ford Coppolla)

the film aficionado

The film aficionado

About me: my name is Craig Fish I am 22 years old and am currently studying journalism

About the Blog: this Blog will cover current movies, movie news, and will be updated weekly with reviews of new and old movies and movie news.

Inception

5/5

………………………………........

Directed By: Christopher Nolan

Cast: Leonardo Dicaprio; Ellen Page

Tom Berenger; Joseph Gordon- Levitt

Run-time: 148 minutes

Written By: Christopher Nolan

………………………………........

Inception is not only a name that would be fitting for the title of this blog, it is also the name of one of the best and most original films of the past decade. At it’s heart inception is essentially a heist movie, but with a twist, as the tagline aptly states “your mind is the scene of the crime.” Indeed in the world that Christopher Nolan has created, Cobb(Dicaprio) is an “extracter” who enters dreams and steals your secrets, but after a bungled attempt Cobb is forced to do a more difficult task, that of inception; planting an idea in someone’s mind.

What happens next, unfolds as an intricate plot which leaves you guessing what is real. This movie is simply too good to divulge any plot points and I urge you to go see it for yourself.

This movie can only be described as the Matrix meets Memento.

Walking out of the cinema will leave you feeling hazy, like you’ve just awoken from a dream, wondering if you haven’t simply walked into another one , the cast is brilliant, the story original and fresh, and the special effects are second to none, but could you expect anything less from Christopher Nolan who is arguably one of Hollywood’s best directors who has brought you movies such as Memento, The Dark Knight , Batman Begins, and the Prestige.

........................................................

A Nightmare on Elm Street

2/5

Freddy’s back………………….again.

………………………………....................................................

Directed By: Samuel Bayer

Cast: Jackie Earle Hayley; Rooney Mara; Kyle Gallner; Patrick Lumb; Kellan Lutz

Run Time: 104 minutes

Written By: Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer

……………………………….....................................................

Twenty six years after its inception (yes folks it’s been that long), and the blades on Freddy Krueger’s fingers are looking a little dull. The original, crafted by horror maestro Wes Craven, was an instant cult classic. Indeed when I think of the original, fond memories of a fresh faced Johnny Depp float to the surface, Nancy, the sweet innocent girl next door still seems virginal and dole eyed, and who could forget the star of the show: Freddy, a grotesque aberration of molten flesh, firing out sardonic one-liners as he mercilessly hunts down his prey. Of course the success of the original inevetiably spawned a franchise of unnecessary sequels, each more pathetic than the last, thus immortalising Freddy into one of pop cultures most recognisable villains, and as each of those sequels were released giddy teens would flock to the movie theatres for a make out session, and afterward they would jokingly gush to their friends “You better not sleep tonight!” but alas eventually the franchise grew stagnant, and Freddy retired, reserved exclusively for nostalgia and a smile. Now Hollywood, bereft of new ideas and hungry for a big fat payoff, has created what we see here: ANOTHER BORING, WORSE THAN THE ORIGINAL REMAKE, it’s nothing new we’ve seen it before; Rob Zombie’s: Halloween, butchered the original, Tobe Hooper’s seminal Texas Chainsaw Massacre, massacred in the 2003 remake, and teen favourite, Friday the 13^th marred beyond recognition, just recently. Yes ladies and gentlemen it’s horrors’ greatest curse: the remake .

But lets get back to this years latest Remake: A Nightmare on Elm Street, and I must say, not that I haven’t made it abundantly clear already, it’s exactly that a nightmare, the original with it’s airy day scenes and forbidding night scenes created contrast and unease, for this version you may as well buy a set of night vision goggles. The world these haunted teens live in seems to be plunged into perpetual darkness, no wonder it’s so hard to stay awake. The performances are the scariest aspect of the film, with notable exception to Jackie Earle Hayley, his portrayal of Freddy is the only aspect which improves on the original, his mere presence is enough to send chills down your spine. Otherwise the films plot is almost an exact replication of the original: Teens haunted by a man in their dreams with a peaked hat and bladed gloves, all the while trying to unearth a deadly secret from their past which may hold a clue to their salvation, yet the charm and fright from the original is lost in translation, perhaps it’s because we’ve seen and done it all before.

Naturally new comers to the franchise might be caught in the furore of it all, it’s dark, gritty and deeply cynical, but those with fond memories of the original will simply be hoping its all just a dream.