Here's a Klaus Kinski that I hadn't yet seen, for some obvious reasons.  The vintage (1988) is hardly Kinski's prime after all.  It looks like a pretty cheap rip-off "sequel" to the Herzog film.  And the film is absent any notable creative names, in fact I believe that soon after Kinski usurped the director's chair himself that the producer had to step in to complete the film.  (side note: it was never actually "completed")  In addition to all of that, Kinski notoriously sexually assaulted pretty much all of the actresses, including in scenes left in the final cut.

So...the film is a bit of a garbage fire, although it manages to look respectable for an hour or so when it's relying on old pros like Christopher Plummer and Donald Pleasence.  Probably not a coincidence that they stepped out after that.  Kinski swishes like some kind of dwarf Fabio (refusing to cut his wind tunnel coif this time), but at least everyone else's terror is very real.  Some people seem to like this film, probably because they haven't seen enough Rollin yet.

5/10





As we all know (or should), Creem was America's only Rock'n'Roll magazine, and here's the servicable doc to tell the tale.  Started as a low-budget start up out of Detroit, Creem would eclipse Rolling Stone as the more relevant rock journal by the mid-70s out of sheer gumption, jive and 'tude.  Unlike Stone, Creem was iconoclastic, not afraid to mock rock star hubris, compare Freddie Mercury to Bugs Bunny or challenge Lou Reed to quizes on amphetamine quality during interviews. 

Like most docs of this ilk in this day, it serves as an inticing introduction.  Some writers, like Lester Bangs and Dave Marsh, have readily available collections of their writing in print.  But, besides there being a handsome coffee-table book from about 15 years back dedicated to the full spectrum of the publication, it would really be nice if they were to follow the RS route and just release a digital archive of every issue from their prime era (1969-1980) in order to truly appreciate just how anarchic and unapologetic this publication could be in the wilds between post-counterculture America and the emergence of punk rock.  Also (unlike Stone), the doc makes sure to point out that, although clearly marketed to (and somewhat dominated by) adenoidal teenage boys, Creem enjoyed steady creative contributions from dedicated fangirls (the original rrriot girl 'ziners) like Jaan Uhelszki, Robbie Cruger and Susan Whitall.  Plus lots of good insider footage and photos.  Where can I get a copy of this local Detroit TV talk show with Marsh and Bangs holding court?

8/10

(Also, I appreciate the unintended "cough-high" blurb.  Lester Bangs was once gifted a small Christmas tree ornamented with bottles of Robotussin.)

Ill-conceived take on the homoerotic resentment from Knowles' Separate Peace which turns into spitefully impotent class commentary.

5/10
 

You absolutely do not have to see Rebel Moon. It’s mostly pretty boring.

As far as his stated personal politics go, Snyder says that he votes Democrat, and at least posted a pro-Biden video leading up to the 2020 election. Obviously that can differ from the politics in his art, but there is a centrist Democrat desire for bipartisanship in Dawn of the Dead, in which the Democrat-coded characters and Republican-coded characters bridge their animosity to work together.

I think he’s very obviously attracted to physical strength, which you can see in his depiction of Superman, and 300 as well, although in the latter case I think he’s just carrying over the politics of the source material. I think the distrust of authority is a good point, but I think that’s a common theme in a lot of cinema. I don’t know how many movies are pro-establishment. But I suppose his trust in superheroes over institutions is libertarian. Really I think he’s just kinda dumb and is attracted to certain imagery, but hasn’t really thought through the implications.

I think you’re offering a fair read of his politics and making a good faith attempt to parse them. What I was alluding to (without elaborating, which I probably should have done) is that his work has been caught up in culture war stupidity. Marvel is seen as lefty and woke, so DC is in contrast seen as right wing, and as a result you get certain fanbases gravitating towards both franchises, both of whom froth at the mouth labelling the other franchise as politically objectionable in terms that suggest they haven’t actually seen the movies. A lot of Snyder’s reputation as a fascist comes from Marvel fanboy types rather than nuanced readings like you’re offering here.

I don’t particularly like him as an artist (I’ve said it before that his Dawn remake is the only one of his films I like without reservations), but I think there are a lot of bad faith readings of his work. Also he seems like a chill an d nice guy, and is attempting to make blockbusters with some amount of personal vision, even if that vision is mostly bad.

I took the -ahem- liberty of watching the first half of part one of Rebel Moon.  I didn't bail exactly, I just was busy packing for the holiday.  Now, I'm not going to defend this film or act like it isn't as big, dumb and contrived as most critics are pointing out.  It certainly is.  But, honestly, is it really more so than most of the glut of these post-Avatar CGI blockbusters, regardless of franchise?  I feel that some critics might be compensating for their previous undue enthusiasms.  Taking the standard criticism, that Rebel Moon is basically empty eye candy with a story made up of copy/paste Star Wars tropes - well, that sounds a lot like Force Awakens to me.  Are critics taking it out on Snyder because they got duped back in 2015?  Anyway, I noticed over at rogerebert.com, they had a one-star review of Rebel Moon right next to a three-star review of Aquaman, and I have no idea how such a disparity between them could even be possible.

(Also, I read Justine Smith's review of Aquaman off of Rock's Letterboxd feed, and....ouch!)
 

It became evident early one (the title scene) that I already have a copy of this film under the name Deathouse,which made me slightly relieved to have ignored it for years, confusing it as one of the many Silent Night Deadly Night movies.  So having said that, it's still a seminal and well-made slasher which happens to innovate many of the tropes which were used by Black Christmas (POV stalkng, creepy phone calls) which were also passed on to the "first" slasher, Halloween.  Lots of Warhol hangers-on as well, including Mary Woronov and with Candy Darling and Jack Smith in cameos.

7.5/10





After watching the completely worthless 2019 re-remake of the 1974 classic, I figure it was time to finally catch the similarly maligned 2006 remake.  I suppose trash needs to be graded on a curve.  I didn't particularly like this movie, but, sure, I can say that at least it seemed to have been made by someone actually competent in the genre.  Inspired by Rock, I decided to look further into the production history, and I'm prepared to blame the Weinsteins conveniently.  It appears to be their idea to add a second killer, which is just stupid even if it didn't involve an inbred woman played by a male linebacker.  Unlike Rock, I wasn't impressed with the more excessive gore.  I thought the motif with the eyeballs was just silly and gratuitous.  Although occasionally, there's some nice stylistic flourishes to the carnage, such as the symmetry between a car's brake lights on snow with a splash of blood across its windshield.  Generally, the film looks good enough, most of the time, and it's paced well despite some obvious red herrings and way too many endings (which also apparently appears to have been the Weinsteins' idea).  Knocked a half-star because Mary Elizabeth Winstead wasn't the final girl.

5.5/10
 

For some reason, you motherfuckers told me that this film is some kind homage to Argento or Fulci.  Maybe it is, if James Wan had only seen Stendhal Syndrome and The Psychic or something and just went from there.  Giallo =/= occasional mood lighting.  Best to stick with the Astron-6 satire The Editor for a more accurate and affectionate, and ironically far less ridiculous, giallo tribute.

4/10
 

Rock wrote:

I looked up my review and I compared it to 2000s horror. So don’t blame me lol

What's really baffling is that some critics are complimenting Wan's stylistic gestures - allegedly giallo - while criticizing what they see as an absurd ("Fulci-esque") conceit.  What's odd to me is that I didn't mind the conceit, as absurd as it is, but Wan's execution is what made it totally stupid.  A Frank Henenlotter or a Stuart Gordan could have made it work wonders, but, again, whence this giallo presumption?  Anyway, barf.  I hope you hated it.

Hey ladies.  "Fun enough".
 

That sounds nastier than I intend it.  My ire is with Wan.  Nothing against anyone who enjoys a good women's drunk tank massacre.  I just wish that Wan paid more attention to Franco and D'Amato here, but whatever.

I see where Wan's company just got bought out by Blumhouse in some kind of demonic, twitch-glitch edited ceremony.