DVD REVIEW: VIDEO NASTIES: THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE 2.

The Amazon review.

Well, here we are again horror fans and enemies of censorship for anyone over 18. And it does indeed seem like we've been here before. Of course it's a good place to be, no doubt about that, but the fact remains that it's a familiar place.

I may be wrong but this feels very much like the material, the content, was compiled at the same time as this DVD's predecessor and omitted simply for space reasons. The locations of the guest reviewers are the same and, though I haven't checked, I wouldn't be surprised if they were wearing the same clothes. The story does, of course, continue with the films that the powers that be thought were video nasties but probably couldn't get a jury to convict them so, fuzz, confiscate any you think you can get away with. It also highlights idiots like David Alton MP instead of Mary Whitehouse and the stupid fuss over Child's Play 3.

The best parts are the critics' perceptive and witty introductions to the films themselves and they usually contain so much footage it's hardly worth watching the actual trailers.

I loved the original documentary, this one I just liked quite a bit. But then we all know about sequels, don't we?

 

Further comments.

 

If find issues of censorship to be fascinating because censors are almost always invariably wrong, particularly in the case of the so-called video nasties. The original furore was superbly analysed in the first documentary which is essential viewing for anyone interested in censorship, not just in film. This sequel takes the story on a little further which looks at the films which the authorities couldn't ban because they'd already been passed by the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification/Censorship) albeit often with cuts, but which the authorities had decidedly uneasy feelings about so encouraged the fuzz to confiscate stock from video stores. Films like John Carpenter's The Thing. The reaction of anyone who has seen this film is -you what? Yes, it is scary and gruesome but it's fantasy violence. There is no way on earth that it could deprave or corrupt anyone. There are no women in it so no sexual violence. Quite often, as the reviewers point out, a film was nicked because they either didn't like the title, the way the distributors publicised it (emphasising horror that just wasn't there) or without even watching it all the way through. 

It's worth noting that most of the original video nasties have now been released uncut in the UK. One, Contamination (contains mild unsadistic disembowelling) with a 15 rating. The few that remain either banned or noticeably cut involve either animal cruelty or hard sexual violence (or both). And yet civilisation hasn't crumbled. How strange.

Now I should come clean here and state that I haven't seen most of the original nasties or those included in this second volume and that despite being an avid lover of horror movies. The reason for this is that the type of horror I prefer contains elements of science fiction, fantasy, the supernatural, but, most importantly, monsters. While I've seen a few slasher movies, most of them didn't do much for me. I certainly don't like films which have explicit sexual violence or violence against women (like many of the cannibal movies do).

Glancing at a couple of shelves of DVDs near me, all I can see in the horror genre are The Evil Dead Trilogy and a couple of movies by cult Italian director Mario Bava including his superb and still scary as heck 60s anthology film Black Sunday (not to be confused with his Black Sabbath his 1960 b/w scary almost as heck vampire movie).

What gets me about would be censors, such as David Alton MP and James Ferman of the BBFC, is their arrogance and elitism. Their attitude is: I have seen these films and while they have not affected me (superior middle/upper class person that I am) they could clearly affect lower class and lesser intelligent adults who lack my ability to discriminate between fiction and reality, therefore I must protect these inferior beings (not that I'd ever admit to thinking of them as such) in order to prevent their baser natures becoming inflamed by the violence and sexuality as seen in these films. An attitude to which I can only respond by saying, "Fuck you, asshole!"

Sorry about that, just my baser nature coming out.

Another reason to get this DVD is because of the informed, perceptive and often witty and lengthy introductions to the trailers by critic, writers, and academics such as Alan Jones (who seems to have known everyone in Brit Horror for the last forty years) and the always congenial Kim Newman, though there are several more and all very good too.

Oh all right, let me lay my position on the line in case I haven't been clear enough: FUCK THE CENSORS! (As painfully as possible.)

DVD REVIEW: CLOUD ATLAS (2012)

I actually bought the Blu-ray months ago but for some reason, possibly its length (172mins), possibly it's assumed complexity, I kept putting it off.

Idiot!

Okay, I was confused somewhat by it at first but it wasn't long before it clicked and I got it. It actually isn't that complicated it's just a matter of understanding the structure. There are six individual narratives presented in chronological order of the their internal events. These narratives are intercut with each other so that, while the stories are very different, each sheds light on and affects the others. The intercutting is one of the things that makes this film so amazing and if it didn't it should have got masses of awards for editing. 

The acting is outstanding. Tom Hanks gets the best of it because he's in it most, or it seems like it, though it's very much an ensemble piece. He plays a vile seagoing rogue in the historical slavery sequence, a London gangster turned author in the present, a sleazy hotel owner, a primitive with a guilty secret living in the aftermath of worldwide collapse, and more. Hugo Weaving appears as a recurring villain most notably in the contemporary comedic sequence as the brutal (female!) nurse of an old peoples' home from which Jim Broadbent is trying to escape. We all know that Halle Berry is a good actress (still underrated in my opinion) and she delivers the goods as a crusading journalist in the early days of feminism (the 70's) in an almost Shaft-noir type thriller and in the farthest future setting as a woman from a dying but high tech society trying to contact extra-planet colonies; again, and more. And all that is just the tip of the iceberg.

A weakness is that it can too easy to be distracted by trying to work out who the actor is under layers of makeup -Hugh Grant playing a 70-something and a heavily tattooed and scarred future savage cannibal, for example, and in the latter case, I assume, for no reason other than it's a very good joke (though the two characters are not as dissimilar as it might appear). 

Characters can play variations of their nature throughout their different lives and, for at least one, there is a final salvation.

The dialogue is literate which is no surprise coming from a complex literary modern novel as it does. The technical aspects and the photography are exemplary.

Am I stating the obvious when I say that I loved this film and intend to watch it again soon in the expectation that I'll enjoy it even more?

But it is a film which polarises people. For everyone who, like myself, find it bold and daring and a near-masterpiece there will be others who consider it boring and a case of the Emperor's new clothes -they're wrong of course- but give it a chance and find out for yourselves.

(I've come to the end of this review and I haven't mentioned directors Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski, and Lana Wachowski who created this fascinating original film. Shame on me.)

I could go on.

THE ANNOTATED VIEW FROM MY COUCH

For absolutely no reason whatsoever other than my own amusement (I've an odd sense of humour) I decided to take a series of photos of things I can see when sitting on my couch today at 7.00pm. I may do a followup of things I can see from my computer chair (it swivels round so there'll be more than just the computer screen).

My young cat Emma sitting in the bay window. If it wasn't her it would be one of six others.

My fireplace. I'll comment on certain items in later photos. I like cream painted walls. Cats can't scratch paint like they can wallpaper, though they can be hell on gloss.

 

Computer, desk, and CD shelving unit. Is that stating the obvious?

The conservatory with kitten. Intended as a place for me to sit in the sun and either doze or read, it has been permanently taken over by kittens to be re-homed and by fostered cats (ditto). I've never used it for anything else.

The next few photos are closeups of things previously seen.

Comment superfluous.

My mantlepiece which I'm in the process of re-organising. Far left is a figurine of Gollum from vol 3 of the Lord of the Rings de luxe box set which was previously on the hearth. I moved to counterpoint the newly acquired figurine (with several points of articulation) of Godzilla modelled on the 2014 film. It cost £25 and if that seems a lot you should look up Godzilla figurines on Ebay and prepare for a shock. The film itself was reviewed a couple of posts ago in this blog. Here's a closeup.

There's something odd about this fireplace. I didn't realise it until a friend pointed it out a few weeks ago.

The painting are Japanese. They actually belonged to Susan but I liked them so much she let me have them when we split up. No, they aren't lopsided, it's just the way you're sitting.

So that's my living room where I spend much of my time. Amateur psychologists can start psychoanalysing me- NOW!