It's Halloween, Isn't It?

Last night, Rachael and I watched quite a bit of Signs, which (like hundreds of the discs piled up behind me right now) I hadn't seen since I first bought the DVD. Not that I want this observation to reflect badly on the film, mind, because there's some brilliant, brilliant stuff in there. The scene in which Graham and Merrill run around the house shouting is particularly great, and if I'd have written and directed as much stuff like that as Shyamalan has I'd probably suffer from ego problems myself. (Come back in a few years to check on my progress in this regard).

We didn't make it to the end of Signs, however - perhaps it would have been more appropriate for tonight, the one night of the year Rachael seems more susceptible to scary fare. I even got her two thirds of the way through Dawn of the Dead a couple of years back (but how she ended up watching Hostel with me on Valentine's day, not to mention walking out of it before it was over, is another story altogether).

So, today being what it is, and all, the horror films are out in force. 30 Days of Night hits the UK today; Saw IV has been around since last weekend and is doing very well, it seems; the BBC are trotting out Carpenter's Halloween once again tonight - though I bet they ingratiously crop it down to 16:9, so don't bother - put the DVD on instead; and there's even a new, splattery clip from Aliens vs. Predator Requiem up for grabs. If you want to download it directly, I can offer you a WMV version, or my preferred Quicktime encode. Exploding heads and acid spurts to the face abound - and this version doesn't have th annoying IGN badge.

Paul W.S Anderson's involvement in this film has probably put most people off, and indeed, I'm epxecting little or nothing from the film. I certainly didn't think much of the first. I've gone into some detail about my feelings for Anderson already, and they haven't changed: he's a pretty capable hack who sets fairly easy targets and hits them sort-of-squarely most of the time. And that's not a bad thing, really - it just isn't a particularly good thing. While I haven't seen There Will Be Blood, I've seen all of PT Anderson's other features and I'll stick with his schlockier namesake, if I may - a fraction less ambition, a great deal less botchery.

I saw the third Resident Evil a week or so ago, and I did enjoy most of it, if only at a pretty low register. The odd bit here and there was even very interesting - the opening sequence that sets an Alice clone loose into a recreation of the first film's opening riffs quite enjoyably on the videogame mechanic of multiple lives/continues and repeatable levels (things we take for granted, they're so commonplace in games - but they didn't have to be). I liked the wireframe transitions from location to location again, which reminded me of nothing so much as negotating the map screen on a latter-day Metroid game. And the end of the film, which saw multiple Alices, ready to awaken and each try to defeat the evil Umbrella Corporation across the world seemed resonant with the myriad players of the games, globally controlling their identical avatars in identical missions.

Probably the film that best speaks to my experience of playing videogames in eXistenz, though this Resident Evil run a fairly close second (though, obviously, in this one respect only - I'm definitely not comparing Anderson to Cronenberg on any other terms).

So, I briefly mentioned the box office success of Saw IV. Looking at those opening weekend grosses, I'd say that every dollar over 20 million was worth another hearty laugh at Nikki Finke and her delusions of having halted the commercial success of so-called torture porn. That's over 11 million laughs, and I'll join you in every one.

On the other hand, each of those dollars is also worth a tear. How can a spiritless film like a Saw be so massively outgrossing Hostel Part 2? It was the angriest, smartest, most worthwhile horrror film since... er... well, at least Hostel Part 1 and it's getting trumped by the latest repetition of boring, witless carnival show.

And here's my prize Halloween link: The living horror of the looming strikes has studio execs and producers running hither and thither trying to put together their slates and sharpish. Variety's round-up does a good enough job of explaining which studio pictures are set to roll in time, so I won't paraphrase it here. Of specific interest to long time film ick readers, however, might be that Wolverine is getting a rewrite from Jamie Vanderbilt and Scott Silver. I say good. Very good. David Benioff's original script was as bad a script as I've ever read. I was concerned about this one because I've really been enjoying Gavin Hood's work so far - Tsotsi and Rendition - and now I'm just glad he looked past Benioff's, ill-structured, cliche stricken, senseless draft in order to sign on to a basic set-up that could so easily soar.

And..er... that's that. That being my first attempt at finding a new way to do this.

Marc Forster Gets The Bond Gig

Nikki Finke has a very brief story revealing Marc Forster has indeed been given the controls for Bond 22.

I'm not happy about this.

Nikki Had A Little Lamb

Remember the scene in Heathers where Winona Ryder's character places her fingers in her ears and sings Mary Had a Little Lamb so loud that she can't hear what is being said to her? So she won't have to face the reality she's being confronted with?

This story will probably remind you of that.

It started when Nikki Finke called Hostel 2 disgusting without ever having seeing it. This blatant display of prejudice stoked my ire, so I posted the following:

Why not be outraged and e-mail her a challenge? Such a venomous spitball of reactionary hate deserves some kind of rebuttal.

She then e-mailed me, and I replied - both parts of which can be read in a previous post.

And of course, the conversation went on from there. She e-mailed me saying:

[EDIT: I have deleted the content of her e-mail as it was offending some readers that I had included it (they'd rather her replies be deleted and replaced only by my comments on them. Weird). Suffice to say, she accused me of failing any mature dialogue between the two of us and remarked that she was amazed by my inability to believe people are offended by torture porn. Of course - her mistake there is twofold: one, I can most definitely believe it; two: she has categorised Hostel 2 as torture porn. Which is a daft label for any mainstream horror film at best, innacurate at worst and - definitely - applied without her even having seen the film. You can infer the rest of what she said from my reply e-mail which follows in a few lines]

And as far as I'm aware, I can reproduce the above as I please because, frankly, relevent excerpts are valid reportage. [EDIT: So I did reproduce her e-mail until people wanted it gone, so I removed it rather than offend readers]

I replied to her e-mail with the following:

As far as I can see it, Nikki, you are most definitely free to do the following:

a) be offended by torture porn
b) urge people to not reward that kind of disgusting moviemaking

What you have done, and have (here at least) damaged your reputation by doing, is

a) declared a film 'disgusting' and insinuated it is without merit, without even seeing it first

b) attempted to prejudice other people similarly

Go see Hostel 2, then review it however you wish. That simply won't be the same thing as slurring a film you haven't even bothered to watch before slamming it with a very serious label.

And some (many? most?) would say, slamming it with this label most innacurately.

The end to this I would recommend is your actual review of Hostel 2 based upon a viewing of the film and an admission that all of your previous comments were not based upon the film at all, but rather your prejudiced assumptions.

Meanwhile, one reader of this site sent her the following:

Dear Nikki Finke

I'd like to submit my future review of the last ever Harry Potter film. It's not yet finished, but it is disgustingly magical. Almost magic porn. I've not seen it, but it is amazing. It puts me in mind of Hostel 2 save the violence is swapped with fluffy owls, the blood with magic dust and the boobies with pulsating long wands. I hope Warner don't mind my advance review, but it seems that you don't mind reviewing films before they've been seen. You've lost all credibility in our eyes.

The final e-mail - so far at least - has come from Ms. Finke. Here's the important bit:

[EDIT: Of course - I deleted this also. She said it was shameful that I reproduced her e-mail - seems that she too would simply like me to report her opinions without actually allowing her a quote. Then she said that her reputation was 'fine' - well, not (as I said) with me. I don't presume to speak for anybody else. And then she announced that she'd filtered my e-mail address so that anything I sent her would go staright to her trash folder. And... er... as far as any of you know she could have called me a motherf*cker, threatened death to Muslims/Christians/Hindus everywhere (delete as appropriate) or implied that anybody with homosexual urges should be gutted, turned inside out and worn as a hat - but you'll never know exactly what she said, only my version of it, because the world has voted and that was their preference. Anyway... the key bit was her trashing any correspondance from me, ensuring my e-mail went straight to her trash]

But, readers, your e-mails will not. You can drown out Mary Had a Little Lamb. But please, please don't spam her or send her anything thoughtless. This is only worth doing if you argue your case logically and sensibly.

The point has been made now and Nikki Finke has had her prejudice exposed. She is a woman with a platform from which her opinions of films and filmmakers are broadcast far and wide and, as far as she's concerned, it's okay for those opinions to be nothing more than unsubstantiated attacks. Her perjurious rants can spread and discolour public opinion of a film and, sure, most people won't see anything wrong with that but I'm afraid I do.

If Ms. Finke requests, I think I will remove all of the content of this post that comes from her e-mails. Instead, I'll just paraphrase her comments and print my recounting of her points instead. Maybe she'll go that way and sacrifice her own voice in this debate, let me substitute a second-hand version of her reactionism. Perhaps she thinks that will in some way undermine my argument.

Back to the real issue: readers, why not go see Hostel 2 when it opens next weekend and form your own opinion after you've actually seen it? According to those that have seen it, it's really very good. I've seen the first one and, as I'm sure you know, I found it to be one of the best films of 2006.

Rat Finke A Boo Boo

I asked you to e-mail Nikki Finke about her comments regarding Hostel 2. I don't know if anybody did, but I do know she e-mailed me. Here's the full text of her mail:

[EDIT: Except, actually, it is apparently preferable for me to paraphrase her comments rather than repeat them verbatim - that's what people leaving comments and sending e-mails have told me. So I have delted the text Nikki Finke sent, as requested by the baying hordes, and will tell you instead just what it was she was going on about.

Her evidence for Hostel 2 being 'disgusting' (applied as a clear perjorative) consisted of two easily dismissible points - one, that the first film was thoroughly 'miscreant' (which is debatable, anyway, but at least appears to be based upon her viewing of the first film - unless anybody knows better and can tell me she hasn't even seen that one); and two, that Eli Roth has commented on how the second film is more violent. Well, Ms. Finke - Hamlet and Macbeth are more violent than a touring stage production of Scooby Doo and his Amazing Van-Lovin' Gang but that doesn't render either of them disgusting.

She commented on Roth being proud that Hostel 2 is disgusting. I dare say he is: he wouldn't want to make a film about such suffering, pain and cruelty without these things disgusting the audience. That's very different, of course, than the film being disgusting in a negative way. And if Roth says 'disgusting' there's his Barnum-and-Bailey hyping of the film to take into account too... he's certainly not taking an uninformed pot-shot at the film from some morally questionable viewpoint.

She calls the film unreasonably violent and misogynist. I question how misogynist the first film was, and certainly the second, as I have yet to see it - but I'm sure that Hostel, part one, is not unreasonably violent at all. In fact, I think it was rather reasonably violent. What's unreasonable about torture and murder being painful, visceral and stomach churning? Would she rather it was dressed up like mass murder in less searching and responsible films - The Matrix, Die Hard 2, Lake Placid?

Finally, Ms. Finke says she will support the induglence of a creative vision but not necessarily like it - which, of course is fine. The problem is her blind condemnation of this vision and it's fruits without any evidence or genuine knowledge]

So, of course, I had to reply. Here's my reply:

If you haven't seen it, you simply cannot say it is disgusting.

You can say that you expect it to be disgusting, even that you'd bet your life on it being disgusting, but you cannot say that it IS disgusting.

How a film about torture can be described as 'unreasonably violent' I'll never know; and, of course, violence and torture are as valid a subject matter for a film as anything else.

'Torture porn' - please.

I'd love to see your comments after you've seen Hostel 2. I've no doubt they'd be the same but at least then you'd have something substantial to base your case upon. And should your case still not be based upon the film, you'll have given us another good flash of your true colours.

I suspect the film itself will never play much of a part in forming your opinion.

And, so far, that's that. Please do add any further comments you have by e-mailing them to Ms. Finke (nikkifinke at deadlinehollywood.com) and why not add me to the cc field? (brendonconnelly at yahoo.co.uk)