Приказивање постова са ознаком SF. Прикажи све постове
Приказивање постова са ознаком SF. Прикажи све постове

5/04/2014

Mutant sex and horror (NSFW)


Here is a gallery of recent works by Serbian artist and director Vanja Čanković. As can be seen, his main inspirations are H. R. Giger and Carpenter's THE THING. Enjoy – if you can!
If you want to buy his prints or just tell him how sick he is, or something, here's his mail: vcankovic at yahoo dot com

Click on each pic to see it bigger!
































8/28/2013

TEENAGE HOOKER BECAME A KILLING MACHINE (2000)


Country :
South Korea

Genre:
SF / Action

Running Time:
60'

Director:
Gee-woong Nam

Cast: Lee So-Woon, Kim Dae-Tong, Bae Soo-Baek, Kim Ho-Kyum, Yang Hyuk-Joon

GHOUL RATING:
0 (ZERO)

Story: The first 7 minutes, out of the 60, are made of opening credits. Nothing interesting whatsoever happens during them. In the following 32 minutes, a hooker (I'm not sure if she's teenage, but she's certainly nothing to write home about) is impregnated and killed by her 'teacher', revived by hack-saw 'scientists' and turned into a poor man's cyborg. She is unleashed upon her wrongdoers in the 39th minute of this mess (that's only 17 minutes before the end credits). Of course, nothing interesting whatsoever happens during the entire 49 minutes of the film proper. The end credits are mercifully shortened to mere 4 minutes, and, of course, just like in the opening 7, nothing interesting whatsoever happens during them. 

Review:  TEENAGE HOOKER BECAME A KILLING MACHINE is not a movie but a terrible cheat: don't be fooled. Avoid at all costs! TEENAGE HOOKER BECAME A KILLING MACHINE is not a movie but a terrible cheat: don't be fooled. Avoid at all costs! TEENAGE HOOKER BECAME A KILLING MACHINE is not a movie but a terrible cheat: don't be fooled. Avoid at all costs! TEENAGE HOOKER BECAME A KILLING MACHINE is not a movie but a terrible cheat: don't be fooled. Avoid at all costs! TEENAGE HOOKER BECAME A KILLING MACHINE is not a movie but a terrible cheat: don't be fooled. Avoid at all costs!
 
I'm not against opening credits: they can be an art-form in themselves. They prepare you for the film, introduce the mood, the setting, the atmosphere, they can be enjoyable in themselves, like a short movie of a kind... But, those you get in REAL cinema. The opening of TEENAGE HOOKER BECAME A KILLING MACHINE perfectly announces the insipid time-waster that follows by showing 7 worthless minutes of a girl roaming around the city streets, accompanied by a forgettable, stupid music and the endless crawl of names no one should ever bother to read or remember.

TEENAGE HOOKER BECAME A KILLING MACHINE is not a movie. It is a title that never bothered to provide a substance to be attached to. And by 'substance' I do not mean a profound meditation on human condition and the plight of raped schoolgirl hookers around the world. No, I mean the kind of substance one can reasonably expect from something that advertizes itself as a TEENAGE HOOKER BECAME A KILLING MACHINE. Rape, tits, perversity, mayhem, slaughter, gore, body parts, imaginative death scenes, weird cyberpunk imagery. Stuff like that.
 
None of that will be found here. The only 'sex' scene consists of repetitive close up shots of a guy's ass (luckily, in trousers) pumping at the 'teenage hooker' against the wall. Cyberpunk imagery? How about a group of giggling 'scientists' with a hack-saw, whose overlong 'operation' is intercut with a pointless opera singer? Their creation is surrounded by cheap plastic tubes. GHOST IN THE SHELL, eat your heart out! Gore and mayhem? Gotta be kidding me. A tit blown-off, a few splashes of red, and that's all. Here's a free advice: if you're after sleaze which, unlike this crap, actually delivers, try GUTS OF A VIRGIN and ENTRAILS OF A VIRGIN for a change. They ARE stupid, but at least they do not cheat you with endless nonsense. They deliver on their promise.

It is one thing to try something, and fail. But it is a completely different, and most despicable affair when a product (I refuse to consider this a movie) does not even try. TEENAGE HOOKER BECAME A KILLING MACHINE is a spiritless affair whose makers were assured there would be enough morons in the world to buy or rent a DVD solely because of its title, cover and basic plot. Since the director Gee-woong Nam was too lazy and talentless to even bother trying to develop the concept into something resembling a movie, he decided to stretch scenes way beyond the running time they require, so as to forcefully fill the 60 minutes. Other than the 11 minutes 'worth' of credits, you're also treated with a 2 minute long wailing of a granny who hates the noise in the streets. Two minutes of an ugly crone thrashing on the floor: "Why are they making all this noise? Why don't they leave an old woman like me alone? Why, oh, why? etc." Other memorable scenes include the 5 (five!!!) minutes of the hooker's single uniterrupted close up in which she slowly mumbles insufferable platitudes about her love to her teacher, willingness to leave the job for him etc. Whatever could be stretched – was stretched. Emptiness had to be filled somehow. With no budget, no imagination, no spirit, no inventiveness, no care, no regard for the audience – all they could think of was: prolong everything. This may be 'only' 60 minutes long – but if you're foolish enough to watch it, it'll seem like eternity. 

Because this thing is not a movie, it does not deserve to be treated as one. That's why this is not a movie review, but a warning: TEENAGE HOOKER BECAME A KILLING MACHINE is not a movie but a terrible cheat: don't be fooled. Avoid at all costs! TEENAGE HOOKER BECAME A KILLING MACHINE is not a movie but a terrible cheat: don't be fooled. Avoid at all costs! TEENAGE HOOKER BECAME A KILLING MACHINE is not a movie but a terrible cheat: don't be fooled. Avoid at all costs! TEENAGE HOOKER BECAME A KILLING MACHINE is not a movie but a terrible cheat: don't be fooled. Avoid at all costs!

6/04/2012

PROMETHEUS (2012)

Ghoul's rating: 3/5

PROMETHEUS is pretty far from what it could and should have been, and from what we had the right to expect from Ridley Scott and his premise. However, despite all its problems, it still represents a very rare, almost unique breed of filmmaking which definitely deserves to be enjoyed in the cinema theater, not at home. That which is undoubtedly great - pompous scenery, spectacular space ships, alien landscapes, special effects and the like - can be experienced only on the big screen. If you should see one movie in the cinema in the coming days / weeks, it's definitely PROMETHEUS. But do not forget to enter the cinema with reduced expectations. Try not to be influenced by the hype machine and, if possible, to forget the heights achieved by ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER some 30-35 years ago. PROMETHEUS is a decent, intriguing, somewhat exciting film, but it's far from a masterpiece.
It is good enough that it shouldn't be spoilt for you, and I certainly don't want to do that. This is the reason why, instead of a thorough analysis, at this point I offer only the listing of the film's major qualities and faults, without arguments, examples and spoiler material which would be inevitable if I were to illustrate my points with examples from the film.

So, these are the best elements of the film:

+ A good concept, intriguing ideas, more (sporadic) intelligence displayed than in the average recent American blockbuster.

+ Excellent visual component, especially in areas based on the designs by H. R. Giger.

+ Exceptional visual effects, excellent make-up efx and creatures.

+ Intriguing character of David (the android) and wonderful acting by Michael Fassbender portraying him.

+ At least one "mystery" from ALIEN is now clarified: the nature and purpose of the "Space Jockey", and indirectly, those of alien xenomorphs themselves.

+ Good pacing, no boredom; a fluent and entertaining film.

On the other hand, these are the film's main problems:

- Viewed as a prequel to ALIEN (which it definitely is), PROMETHEUS is unsatisfactory both in terms of ideas and overall effect.

- The plot is designed as if this were a pilot episode for a series, not a separate film; too many crucial issues at the core of the plot remain vague, underdeveloped and unsatisfying.

- A number of illogical situations and unmotivated behavior, inadequate to the context, including an amazingly chaotic disregard for basic procedures appropriate for such an expedition (security, weapons, quarantine, the principle of subordination, command line, etc).

- Blatantly unfounded and unconvincing motivation for the trillionaire Weyland to jumpstart the entire long, complicated and expensive expedition, which motivation remains unchallenged even when the hostile nature of the planet's environment and the Engineers themselves become more than apparent.

- Ambivalent, vague motivation for the android.

- Too much freedom in the departments of physics and physiology of both human and nonhuman organisms; credibility and physical probability are dramatically stretched almost to the realm of miracles and fairy tales.

- Lack of clear and firm rules regarding the "anything goes" liquid in the alien vessels; haphazard modes of reproduction and life cycles of different creatures resulting from contact with it.

- The conclusion is too rushed, with plenty of action, sound and fury, but with progressively less and less sense, tension and emotional involvement towards the end.

- A terribly bad ending (the last five minutes).

- Not enough Giger: they re-used his old, well-known designs for ALIEN, but they did not hire him to produce anything really new and unseen. The non-Giger visuals are okay, but far from memorable and unique like Giger's.

To conclude: it is fine to see a film brave enough to be playful with big questions and occasional nihilism and blasphemy, but it's a pity that nothing much is really done with those, probably leaving a lot for the sequel which may or may not happen. The film's main problem is trying to merge an ALIEN-like horror film with a concept which would've been better off without the forced links to ALIEN mythology. The result is neither a gripping, suspenseful horror nor is it a very clever Sci-Fi film of big ideas: PROMETHEUS is middling in both departments. Still, it is not entirely a failure, there is some courage and cleverness amid the silly clichés and forced scenes, and PROMETHEUS deserves to be seen – but, like I said, with lowered expectations.

10/18/2011

DONNIE DARKO by Geoff King


Wallflower Press, 2007
118 pp
 
Review by Dejan OGNJANOVIĆ
 
I guess I was subconsciously expecting this book to be a letdown. The first two in the Cultographies series were excellent and very much to the point: so, at least one had to be somewhat behind, right?  Rarely does one find a series made up entirely, and with no exception, of excellent books. And yet, the third Cultographies book is another sure-fire winner.
            This accomplishment is even greater if we consider that it deals with the most difficult title of the three. THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW and THIS IS SPINAL TAP (previously reviewed here) are both universally liked and popular. They've been with us for several decades, they had the time to grow its cult following, while numerous articles, essays and whole books have been devoted to their meticulous analysis. Not so with DONNIE DARKO. Devoting a book to the most recent among the titles (released only 7 years previous to writing), Geoff King did not have the advantage of piles of literature to rely on. Although DONNIE DARKO became an "instant cult" phenomenon, it remains to be seen whether its cultdom will last for decades as the case is with THE ROCKY HORROR and SPINAL TAP. But, King does not shy away from the difficulties of his task, and overcomes them masterfully.
            He deals with the fact that DONNIE DARKO was hard to categorize, which is a cult-worthy credential, but one that made industry figures tread warily. He goes on to narrate the history of troubles the film had to overcome to find the finances, then to find a distributor at Sundance and ultimately to reach its audience. The latest trouble had to do with the unfortunate release date, immediately after the 9-11 tragedy. Still, there are telling details to be known about the theatrical and TV trailers for the film, as they unveil how the makers wanted their film to be perceived. 
 
As the matter of fact, Geoff King stresses the role of the audience in creating a cult phenomenon – provided that the makers structure their work in such a way to make it cult-friendly: "A major qualification for some texts that generate 'fan' activity, as John Fiske suggests, is that they are 'producerly', by which he means texts that generate more than usual amounts of interpretive and other activity by their followers; 'they have to be open, to contain gaps, irresolutions, contradictions, which both allow and invite fan productivity.'" 
            In other words, one of King's key arguments in this book is that the originally released version of DONNIE DARKO – with all its gaps, irresolutions and contradictions, with its intentional ambiguity between a symbolic (psychological) and literal (science fiction) reading – invited fan activity and various interpretations that had a good deal in obtaining the film a cult status. It is a bit unorthodox, but in this particular case quite necessary that King devotes some time to analyze fan response at the 'customers section' of the sites like Amazon and internet forums at the IMDb, and they strongly support his case that DONNIE's openness to various readings was among the crucial factors which made its cult. King compares the theatrical release and 'Director's cut' and convincingly argues that the latter version has actually diminished DONNIE's cultdom by over-explaining the ambiguities of the original version and by explicitly using 'The Philosophy of Time Travel' as the guiding light in interpreting all the mysterious events of the film. This may be the key reason why many fans prefer the earlier (ambiguous) version.
            Some devoted fans may be angered by King's very objective assessment of the film's merits, especially when he places it among the 'light-weight' variety of cult film, made such more by blurring the generic distinctions than (as is more common in cult movies) by transgression, provocation, shock and excess. DONNIE "seems a very safe and unthreatening form of cinema", and it had received prominent mainstream reviews upon its release, mostly positive and approving. It did not take numerous years to crawl from obscurity and attain recognition: it became an instant-cult classic, embraced by the majority. As such, it "remains very much a part of the commercially oriented indie-sector rather than its more marginal realms."  
            Yet, it is precisely the objectiveness of his approach which makes this a reliable, well-researched and convincing study of a complex film and the attendant phenomenon of cult films in general. Very readable and intriguing, the book made me want to see DONNIE DARKO once again, and that's an additional quality: it makes you think, and makes you want to argue with it, too.
            Since all three books of the first series of Cultographies proved to be such a success, we can impatiently await the upcoming titles, which should include books on films such as BAD TASTE, THE EVIL DEAD, BLADE RUNNER etc. Keep up the good work!