Dennis Hopper Dies of Cancer Aged 74

In a streak of celebrity deaths, Dennis Hopper's death from terminal cancer, may have been less of a shock but is, for my money anyway, the most affecting. Gary Coleman may have his legacy and recent cancer victim Ronnie James Dio certainly will be missed but Hopper is a man who I always looked up to as a true original and an inspiration.

...so it comes with some pain that the last thing I saw him in was Hell Ride - I knew there'd be a price to pay, and it is this disrespect to his memory! So let's remember his finest hours as I'm sure we'll be marathoning a few Hopper joints - so to speak - over the next few days.

How many of my favourite films is he a part of? Well, let's start with the daddy - Easy Rider. I can't sing this film's praises enough, especially when people don't understand it's power and significance. As I've often said, Easy Rider is a counter-cultural cornerstone of cinema. What makes it more remarkable is its lineage, before Rider, biker movies were mindless tales of violence and machines and here we have a film that's cool as hell in terms of music and machines but has a depth to it. It harsh grittiness, in a philosophical sense as opposed to a physical one of films like The Glory Stompers that Hopper was a part of is its power, and it's scathing depiction of America is an enduring one - and it's portrayal of the drug culture certainly came along way from Fonda's earlier outing in Corman's The Trip. A simple yet intricately crafted film. And as my dad always says "Dennis Hopper directed it and he plays the stupid character" - how's that for acting chops?

Hopper's best performance? For my money it's Blue Velvet. Hopper's portrayal of Frank Booth anchors the darkness and sinister tone of the film and as we know he was probably the only man brave enough to play the character, he relished it. Just chilling but darkly enjoyable - probably because you know it's a master at work. I'm not sure what else to say, I guess it's that sort of film.

At this point I start to realise the impact of his work, and it's starting to kick a little that he's gone. Whether it's the fact that he's there at so many key moments of cinema - Rebel Without a Cause, Easy Rider, Apocalypse Now - or his hellraising contribution to the world of film and the school of rum-acting, Hopper made such an impact and seems to be a part of all the great things film has to offer for me, from a great character to a revolution. Rest in Peace.

Films That Make Me Do Strange Things

Here's a few films that have had a little too much influence on me...

1. Dogtown & Z-boys (2001)

One of my very favourite films and ground-breaking in the way documentarys were made. Unfortunately the story of the pioneers of modern skateboarding is a bit too inspirational as I can't watch it without going out and skating, broken bones or not. It's brought me out of retirement many times.

2. On Any Sunday (1971)

Similarly, On Any Sunday is a classic cheesey documentary on the world of motorcycling, in the 1970s, and features Steve McQueen. The combination of slow motion racing, beautiful vintage machines, flamboyant characters, ludicrous but lovable theme music and a sprinkle of comedy made me beg my dad to teach me the family sport.

3. Into the Wild (2007)

Though if you've seen it you may expect it would put you on a downer I was already sold before the denouement. Whilst planning ahead for a road trip to get out there and live life I made do for the night with a rather pathetic bike ride in the dark that resulted in pushing home a flat tyred bike through the spooky woodland but man I felt... ALIVE!

4. Planet Terror (2007)

The romanticised view of grindhouse cinema made me wanna make my own homage to cheap crap. Funnily enough, I actually began work on this preposterous idea and will hopefully finish a good cheesey trailer soon with my film buddies and maybe a short slasher film to boot.

5. Rocky (1976)

No prizes for guessing what this film made me wanna do, let's just say I now have a good punch bag, gloves and weights in my loft that haven't been used in a while. I even contemplated drinking raw eggs like Sly did... ewww.

Honorable mention... The Mummy (1999) made me wanna go to Egypt, and probably helped my grades in history as a kid and The Motorcycle Diaris (2004) (and maybe Easy Rider also) is still pushing me in the way of an epic two man cross country journey.

Latest Crazes

I'm an obsessive kind of guy, so when I find something interesting or what have you I get hooked... and more importantly for those around me, I don't shut up about it. This has been the case, for instance, with my possible overall favourite film The Warriors, many times.

Currently I'm nurturing two new ones. Firstly, Charles Bronson. Big time man-crush mode. What can we say? It's a bizarre thing, often he isn't acting great and he's in bad films - I guess the guy just defines screen presence. Either way I've managed to boost my experience from merely The Great Escape and Once Upon A Time In The West to around 13 titles in the past few weeks. So it's not unusal for me to have Charlie on the brain - I found my self inventing a little graphic novel called "Bronze Man" in psychology the other day.

The new craze would be Hammer horror films, and we're starting gentley but with the experience of being me I am willing to wager this is about to get out of hand too. Especially with the possible advent of a box set on the cards. I have just watched Dracula Has Risen From The Grave and a messy little review is available on Youtube by yours truly, though I'm clearly still getting to grips with the spoken word! Next I shall probably be checking out Plague of the Zombies and then ... every single other one most likely.

Review: The House of the Devil (2009)

Ti West’s throwback horror surpasses expectations for the sub-sub-genre by not only capturing the spirit of the era but being a refreshingly smart and atmospheric video nasty. The 80’s setting allows director/writer/editor Ti West to kick the retro into overdrive – incidentally this film was also released promotionally on VHS... I’m impressed. He starts with a classic story. The film opens telling us of peoples fear of satanic cults in the 1980’s and tells us it is based on true accounts, although I’m near certain that this is just the kinda tripe you’d get in a nasty 1980’s horror. Then we meet Samantha (Jocelin Donahue) who is a college gal looking to make some money to move out of her dorm accepts an ever increasingly odd baby sitting job on the night of a lunar eclipse.

Very shortly into the film the 1980’s feel gets going strong – including a short cameo from horror star Dee Wallace (The Howling (1981), Rob Zombie’s Halloween (2007)) as the landlady of the house she pining for. This is followed by a super title sequence, that admittedly almost comes across as a 70’s cop show with it’s freeze-frames and cheesey music, but was certainly enjoyable with it’s ghastly yellow font, and when a title like “House of the Devil” comes up I’m already sold on a couple of levels.

I bought this film impulsively on a glowing review from my man Mark Kermode. The next thing I heard about the film however wasn’t as encouraging – people complained about the slow pacing. This was what I’d heard was so effective in the film, but some genre fans didn’t seem to be having it. I was a little concerned. It soon became obvious that it was a slow burn and I pondered that this may be due to the director also editing the film. However, in my humble opinion it is definitely the the smart crafting of the build up that makes this film work.

West builds up a sense of uneasiness long before we even get to the creepy house, before we find out that she’s not being asked to look after a child… but Mr. Ulman’s (Tom Noonan) mother. Once left alone in the house the film really shows us how it’s done. Although I was surprised at the length of time the film took before anything “happened” I was glued to the screen for the middle act of the film, as little dialogue played and skilled cinematography created a fantastic tone around the scarce jump scares luring you in as we start to realise that this is not going to end well. Without giving anything away when we do get to the nasty – it’s fucking nasty. I feel that it wouldn’t be so effective without the impressive pacing beforehand.

The masterful work in the build up (perhaps a good two thirds of the film) has been compared to the early work of Polanski (eg, Rosemary’s Baby (1968), Repulsion (1965)) and interestingly for a movie capturing the 80s mood so well it did feel a lot like these films in elements of its tonal quality. The dread we feel, as the film shifts gear continuously, is what you look for in the 70s/80s films but is rarely delivered and the grimy nastiness that ensues is straight out of the DPP list – if not truly disgusting it does the film a bloody slice of justice and compliments the rest of the film with a satisfying contrast. What’s more, the ending which at first seemed odd to myself is, after a few minutes late-night pondering, in fact perfect for a film of that era.

The film looks fantastic, reminiscent of a whole cannon of classic horror films, but hardly derivative to my mind. Jocelin Donehue looks perfect for an 80’s college girl as do her co-stars and Tom Noonan is the kind of shudder inducing character you’re sure you’ve seen before but can’t place, from the moment we hear his voice on the phone to his gangly and wrought presence in the house. However, look out for one character who, in my opinion, looks like Rocky Dennis from Mask (1985). Whereas films like House of 1000 Corpses (2003) and Grindhouse (2007) play on the more over-the-top elements of these exploitation-horror films, West’s throwback horror film is much more subtle in how it cranks up the terror. It stays strongly nostalgic whilst making a fresh horror, that has clearly impressed the crowds looking for a decent modern horror. It is rare to see this kind of film so well paced allowing genuinely effective and enjoyable scares – don’t you ever feel conned by cheap jump scares? Evidently, people expecting a video nasty throwback may be a bit disappointed by the fact that this is a well made, skilfully executed and masterfully paced film. This probably isn’t going to get the gore-hounds going but if you like proper horror films you need to see this. My bet is you’ll be impressed.

Review: Zombi 2 (1979)

Claiming to know a little bit about cult, horror and extreme cinema, it would be something of a conundrum why I haven’t seen Zombie Flesh Eaters. The title always attracted me but I was probably most delayed from watching due to the possibly ethically questionable nature of one of the film – and genre’s – most bizarre scenes, involving an underwater zombie and a shark…

Getting back on the horror scene I decided to check it out. I had never seen a Lucio Fulci – legendary Italian godfather of gore – film, but had some idea of what to expect – thinking mostly that it wouldn’t be for me, myself not being that much of a gore-hound. Probably what spurred me on the most was hearing the incredible theme tune by Fabio Frizzi. At the very least I would get a kick out of the music. However, I went in with low and grimy expectations, thinking I may not even make it very far into a morally bankrupt and poorly made exploitation horror.

The film was marketed as a sequel to George Romero’s classic, Dawn of the Dead (1978) (Dawn being marketed as “Zombi” in europe)but as a fellow “nasty” reviewer, Lampyman101, once pointed out “if it’s Italian and it’s a sequel, chances are it’s probably not a sequel”. The story is straightforward, as is most of the plot development. It opens with an apparently abandoned sail boat floating into New York. When investigated a policeman is attacked by a big fat zombie. The daughter of the owner of the yacht is informed and her and a group (of not fully developed but functional enough characters) head off to the island of Matool, from whence it came, where it turns out a voodoo curse is returning the dead to life as her father’s doctor buddy struggles to work out what’s happening and cope with the plague of the zombies.

Okay, from here on in I might as well just list off the things that impressed me in Lucio Fulci’s Zombie Flesh Eaters. Initially, the gore wasn’t working for me. The fat zombie at the beginning – reminiscent of the big fellow in Shaun of the Dead (2004) or the arcade game House of the Dead III (2002) – looked fairly mediocre, and as the infamous eye scene approached I was scared to watch but when it came to it I was presented with a rather unimpressive, and silly death scene. However, as the film progressed it went from strength to strength as I started to get into the films own world and set of rules. The zombies soon turned out to be some of the best I’d seen on screen. I can’t say I’d ever seen zombies with worms in their heads, and saying that, it isn’t as stomach churning as you’d expect, but it looks about right for the dead returned to life. The make up isn’t in the league of some films, such as Day of the Dead (1985) but the overall impression works really well – they come across as an X-rated version of Michael Jackson’s Thriller. What most impressed me, however, was the zombies rising from the earth. This for me is a key part of the appeal of zombie mythology, and as far as I can remember, is omitted in Romero’s genre staples, and many others who focus on the epidemic of zombies rather than their initial appearance. Moreover, as the film continued I found myself fairly enjoying some of the gore scenes, truly gross but as in the general tone of the film, although explicit, the violence doesn’t come across as as traumatising or malevolent like the majority of films in this field, and makes it seems a little less bannable (the film being a video nasty in the UK) than I would have expected.

The cinematography was very impressive – I expected most of the films creative efforts to be in the make up effects, but very early on the way it was shot really stood out, although I did of course have low expectations. The scale and variety of locations was refreshing given the closed and claustrophobic nature of most films of the genre and meant the general look was great to see. Lush island scenery, and comic book zombies.

Of course I can’t review this film without mentioning the shark scene. A girl goes scuba diving – topless of course – it’s Italian! Whilst hiding from a passing shark she encounters an underwater zombie – WTF!? She escapes but the shark takes on the zombie. Uh-oh! On the surface level it’s a pretty amazing scene but for myself you can’t help but wonder about the treatment of the animal here. The zombie was the shark’s trainer but with Italian’s horrors bad record for treatment of animals we can’t be too certain how ethical the training was. But certainly it is something to behold.

To conclude, the film is of course ropey in places (often the editing diminishes the quality of the cinematography) and has many questionable moments (be it sexism, dodgy animal treatment or just general nastiness) but the tight pace means it all keeps moving along nicely enough and keeps it fairly harmless overall, considering its constituent parts. My mind is nudging me to say, in a top ten zombie films list, this would rank closely after George Romero’s films, this sounds impossible but this is a strange case, and yes I’m pretty impressed. Zombie Flesh Eaters, at least, certainly lives up to it’s name. It delivers the guts but is not of the calibre of its rivals. Whereas Dawn is a film, this is a movie – and a fairly sleazy one a that, but not as depraved as you may expect (in fact probably less squeam-inducing than Romero’s Day of the Dead) and if you enjoy zombie films I’m sure there’s definitely an enjoyable, if lonely, night’s viewing in here.

Review: The Crazies (2010)

You know, giving it some thought, maybe it’s a good idea seeing the remake first. I can see the headlines now… that is if I was a famous film critic – I’ll just expect a scoff from Rory then. Needless to say however, this is a rather controversial viewpoint, that with discussion, I’ve gotten few people to concur with or even continue talking to me afterwards. As I begin this review, I have only a distant memory of the opening ten minutes of the original The Crazies (1973) but don’t worry, thanks to the majesty of written text and the “save” feature on my word-processor I will have miraculously seen it by the end of this page.

As if that wasn’t bad enough walking into a cinema to see a remake of a classic, I have a theory that it may be the right thing to do. Nowadays, it seems nothing sacred with remakes constituting a lot of what is released. Two main categories are most heavily “re-imagined” – foreign horror (the suits evidently thinking the people will not tolerate a film with subtitles) and the golden age of gore, 70s and 80s horror movies. As it stands a lot of my beloved films are set for this treatment, Robocop (1987), The Evil Dead (1981), A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) and most worryingly for me Tony Scott is rumoured to be remaking The Warriors (1979). The justification for this would appear to be that simply there’s only so many “Special”, “Collectors” and “Ultimate” editions people will buy of the originals before they decide enough is enough in their groaning DVD collections. The sad truth is that nine out ten of these movies will disappoint as has been the case – Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), Halloween (2007), Friday the 13th (2009) and the essential reason for this is that often these films are shameless cash-ins on the original films hallowed name. Let’s remember, however, that “remake” shouldn’t necessarily be a dirty word. After all John Carpenters The Thing (1982) did wonderful things with the original 50’s sci-fi film given the advent of mind bending effects work by Rob Bottin, and Cronenberg’s The Fly took the Vincent Price classic to a whole new level with his body-horror stylings. Remakes can bring something fresh and exciting to the mix.

You’re probably thinking this should be in the “Ramblings” category now given I haven’t really mentioned Mr Eisner’s film yet but what did you expect, I’m not Jonathan Woss. The point I’m trying to get at this weary Saturday morning is that sometimes having to much love for the original may blur your judgement of a film, so logically seeing the remake first should be much less prejudicial approach.As much as I would like to have seen all of Romero’s back catalogue at this stage in my life – I’ve seen all the zombie ones, okay? – the fact that I hadn’t seen the original meant I could judge it without my emotions getting the better of me; as happened with Zack Snyder’s remake of Dawn of the Dead (1978) which I hated but many thought was decent enough. So here goes.

The plot of The Crazies is fairly simple, and influential enough for you to be fairly familiar with it. In a small and fairly isolated town, townsfolk suddenly start acting all weird and violent until before you know it the place is out of control. Sheriff David Dutton attempts to work out what is going on while the whole place descends into chaos around him, his wife Judy (Radha Mitchell) and his deputy Russel (Joe Anderson) and the military become a ever more sinister presence, as the nightmare continues.

Watching The Crazies I did still have the original in my head – “I wonder if that was in the original?” – but I was engrossed enough in the film at hand for it not to bother me. Director, Breck Eisner, as is evident in interviews, clearly didn’t want to do what a lot of these painful horror remakes have done in recent years. The changes in tone from the original, the political undercurrent so strong in Romero’s work, seem justified in the updated form this movie is – reflecting modern issues surrounding America. This is obviously a big plus as this is at the heart of many of George’s films – the novelty of zombies in a mall would wear thin in “Dawn” if there wasn’t the back bone of cricism of materialist 1970’s America. The other key change; shifting the perspective to the small group of characters, seems a good choice to make a more intimate and horrifying journey for our group through the film. And one more thing, I shouldn’t have to say it but this horror film has some pretty good scares in it.

So, now I’ve seen the original and I like it a lot but let’s be honest it’s not like it isn’t a film that benefits from a little big budget magic, in many respects. I’m not someone to be put off by low production value but others might and what’s more Eisner’s remake scales up the film and puts a modern spin on it. This could be justification enough but the real reason the film stands up is that its a really solid horror film and that is all too rare – almost as rare as a good remake. I enjoyed this film a great deal because enough thought was put into and well executed and you can tell it what wasn’t made with just the money in mind or without care of defaming the original. It’s no breakthrough in cinema but a surprisingly good night out at the at the movies – too few films of this genre are worth the ticket price. The Crazies (2010) will always be a companion piece to most but for me as a stand alone film it’s an impressive effort. So looking at it in reverse, as I have, it’s almost a shame this film won’t last anywhere near as long as the original but hey, maybe you should come up with your own ideas, eh?

Review: Hell Ride (2008)

Lately, the phrase “Quentin Tarantino presents” has become enough to ward of the canny film enthusiast. However, when the inanity of the title “Hell Ride” keeps staring at you across the Blockbuster floor, sometimes even the hardened critic may, in a moment of weakness, be reduced to watching this straight-to-Dvd bike crash of a movie. The film is the result of a viewing, by director Larry Bishop and Quentin Tarantino, of violent 60s biker movie The Savage Seven (1968) – apparently near-impossible to find. Bishop co-starred in this film in his youth before rising to hand-picked salvation from the world of B-movies by QT for his role opposite Michael Madsen (who joins him here) in Kill Bill Vol. 2. At this viewing, Tarantino decreed that Larry was destined to write and direct the greatest biker movie ever made. No pressure, mate.

The film has a thin plot that merits little explanation – and the director evidently feels the same. Pistolero (Bishop), The Gent (Madsen) and Commanche (Eric Balfour) – a role originally intended for Quentin who ran off for his part in Takashi Miike’s Sukiyaki Western Django. Ouch, It was your idea Quentin! – are members of The Victors, one of your Hells Angels biker gangs so prevalent in biker exploitation films. After this about all you need to know is revenge and gratuity of all orders and appearances by Dennis Hopper (Easy Rider co-star Peter Fonda turned down the film), David Carradine (although reluctantly) and … Vinnie Jones. Right.

Now, I have a limited knowledge of the genre this “homages” having seen Easy Rider (1969), which surpasses the limitations of the low-budget shock sub-genre to be a counter-cultural cornerstone – and for the record a masterpiece in my eyes. I’ve also seen the Roger Corman (so we’re talking proper B-movie exploitation here) film Wild Angels (1966), also starring Peter Fonda. The film does build on these premises, in some visual references, the general style of exploitation cinema in an updated format (which mostly amounts to tits and guns) and in the music which it borrows from and builds on fairly well. However, it soon becomes apparent that Bishop is trying to make Kill Bill Vol. 2 on wheels. The picture is dragged through the desert dirt of Quentin’s back catalogue, and most of all the movie reeks of macaroni, Quentin’s take on the Spaghetti Western is clearly as much an influence as the biker movie genre. Bishop openly admits the scenes that “homage” QT – how many times does that term get used in relation to Tarantino only to disappoint? – perhaps failing to see their cringe-worthy nature. When he isn’t directly ripping on the directors trademarks, the dialogue – consistently dire throughout – jumps and falls at the witty banter of films like Reservoir Dogs (1992) and Pulp Fiction (1994) and the time-line spooning narrative just makes a mess of a simple, stock story.

Though I find it hard now, and immediately after viewing, the experience of watching Hell Ride itself was not a bad one for me. The film managed to keep me entertained by either surpassing my low expectations – bear in mind I had seen the trailer, and the reviews.. and the title – or being so terrible it’s amusing. The film is indeed a strange mixture of knowingly dodgy i.e. trying to be the epitome of 60s biker movies, and trying to be Kill Bill Vol. 2 – and just bad. However, despite the attempts to directorially body-snatch Mr. Tarantino, which pester the entire movie, this isn’t such a crime given that everyone has done it in the last few years and after all at least Bishop is justified to do this. Furthermore, the film looks pretty good and is shot pretty competantly for a newcomer to filmmaking who has given himself the burden of writer (fail), director (fail) and actor (fail). But just as the film knows its roots in poor quality – the only reason I’m not going to pass judgement on its extensive T&A and porno-movie scenes – Bishop seems more than aware that he is just a puppet for a film Quentin would like to see but can’t be arsed to make. At the end of the day this has the excuse “Quentin made me do it” – which is something the man himself can’t get off on.

So, we may be able to justify the reasons the film is bad but is it worth watching? Well put it this way, I think if you’ve looked into the film this much you’re probably going to get something out of watching it and might be pleasantly surprised, but once its over you will never want to see it again. Given that it’s £2.99 on HMV you can’t really complain. Here’s my advice. Watch it as a supporting feature to From Dusk Till Dawn or one of the Grindhouse (2007) movies and you can have a good evening of morally-messed entertainment. Because, let’s face it, real exploitation films aren’t for everyone and you’ve seen QT’s back catalogue, probably way too many times.