Category: External Movies (Page 260 of 336)

The lost art of opening credits: “Mad Monster Party”

I love traditional opening credit sequences, something that has literally been slowly going out of style since at least the early sixties and “West Side Story. ” Aside from occasionally providing a bit of final cushion for latecomers, just as I like to know the author of a book I’m reading before I read it, I’d like to know who’s made the movie I’m watching before I see it, not after. Mainly, I just love the way they give us a minute to kind of enter the world of the film in some sort of interesting way.

That’s all well and good, you say, but why lead off with the opening of an obscurity from my childhood like this?

Because I can?

“Laugh? I Thought I’d Die!” 15 Funny (?) Vampire Films

Vampires are often painted as dark, sinister characters with a penchant for gothic fashion and a taste for blood that can never be fully quenched. Granted, their nature doesn’t necessarily lend itself to being a laugh riot, but once in a while, we’re gifted with bloodsuckers who can see the funny side of their affliction…or if they can’t, then at least the viewers can. (For instance, “True Blood” sure as hell isn’t a comedy, but if you caught the Season 2 premiere, you saw a truly hilarious scene where a new vampire took a blood taste test to determine which type she prefers.) Bullz-Eye decided to take a trip back through the mists of time to reinvestigate some of the more comedic explorations into the curse of vampirism, skipping over a couple of ostensible classics – neither “The Lost Boys” nor “From Dusk ‘Til Dawn” are here – in favor of some interesting obscurities that may not have crossed your radar.

Here’s a taste:

“Vampires Anonymous” (2003) – A few years ago, Bullz-Eye chatted with Michael Madsen about how many of his films end up going to DVD, and he explained the situation thusly: “People will promise you the fucking world, they’ll promise you anything to get you in the movie…and then, seven times out of ten, it’s not that way.” Although Madsen only has a small role in “Vampires Anonymous,” we like to think that he’s at least relatively pleased with this small obscurity from his resume. Vic Weller (Paul Popowich) is a vampire who’s found himself unable to curb his urges, so he calls up the organization known as Vampires Anonymous, which quickly finds him a new location in a small North Carolina town, where he can feel free to gorge himself on sheep until he gets into the habit of staying clean of human blood. Predictably, he falls in love with a local girl (Carolyn Lawrence) and has to keep his murderous nature in check around her, even though he has feelings for her. A bearded Madsen plays Geno, Vic’s sponsor in VampAnon, who’s never more than a phone call away, even though he’s usually pretty grumpy with his charge. (“I was not aware that I was wearing my Mr. Know-It-All hat today.”) It’s not a consistently hilarious flick, and the recurring gag about redneck “sheep shaggers” may make you feel queasy, but Madsen’s always good for a laugh, and the VampAnon meetings and 12-step title cards are funny enough to make you imagine the possibilities of a sitcom based around the organization.

Surely this one bite hasn’t fully sated your appetite for vampiric comedy, so why not head over to Bullz-Eye and check out the full piece by clicking either here or on the image below?

Oh, and just as a bonus, here’s a trailer for one of the films that didn’t make the cut. Believe us, with Dean Cameron – best known as Chainsaw in “Summer School” – playing the titular character and a supporting cast which includes Toni Basil, Bo Diddley, and Thomas Dolby, we really, really wanted to include it, but we just couldn’t get our hands on a copy in time to do so…and after watching this trailer, we just can’t imagine we could do the film justice without seeing every last second of it.

Good News, Bad News

* Some of the best, or at least most interesting, news I’ve heard in a while regarding the film business is the announcement, as reported by Indiewire‘s Eugene Hernandez, of the formation of DF Indie Studios. Presumably named for the project’s two chief executives, Mary Dickinson and Charlene Fisher, the group’s press release says the company plans to release 10-12 “multi-genre” films annually with a budget of $10 million or less. The group’s slogan is “Indie Style – Studio Dependability,” which I think a lot of filmmakers might describe as something like heaven on earth, relatively speaking. Among the big names who’ve become publicly involved with the project are indie mainstay producer Ted Hope, whose associated with most of Ang Lee’s films, among many others, and “Michael Clayton” Oscar winner Tilda Swinton (also “The Chronicles of Narnia,” and numerous indie productions you’ve never heard of).

Personally, I think most mainstream films are way too costly, and I’d like to see a variation of this idea applied to all kinds of films, not just traditional indie subject matter. So, I like the idea that they say they’ll be doing “multi-genre” films that will be, of course, “commercially viable.” (They still need investors.) Personally, I’m hoping that they take a fairly loose approach and include a bit of the old wild and wooly Roger Corman ethos alongside more refined productions. If they’re a success, maybe the big studios might want to copy them. They copy everything successful.

* This simply stinks.  Whoever’s responsible for releasing the material (which I haven’t seen and absolutely won’t be linking to) should be ashamed. As for those who’ve raised moral/health objections, I ask: Would we critize straight show business types and call for the sexual responsibility police like this? All around very not cool.

I’m perhaps a little extra mad about this because back in 2003 I interviewed Dustin Lance Black for this way-geeky piece. (It’s got a very long set-up, explaining my personal connection to the very good documentary Dustin had just finished at the time, the actual interviews starts here.) The guy couldn’t have been nicer or more unassuming, we had a great talk, and I’ve been rooting for his success ever since. (He even mentioned to me, post interview that he was starting work on a script about Harvey Milk, to which I said sagely, “good idea.” Now, I ask: Where’s my profit participation?!) He does not deserve this.

On the other hand, when was the last time anyone was interested in a writer’s sex life?

Department of Retractions…Of Other People’s Mistakes

One benefit of being the kind of blogger who in no way makes news, but merely repeats and expands/bloviates upon it is that, as long as I get my ducks in a row through my links and don’t confabulate anything, if somebody reports something false, it’s theoretically not my fault. Of course, if I don’t follow-up and mention the correction, I suppose I am guilty of spreading a false rumor.

So, anyhow, according to Variety, the rumors I discussed on Friday about a supposed disastrous screening of “G.I. Joe” and some kind of firing or demotion of director Stephen Sommers are false. Of course, for all I know, Variety could be wrong, too.

In any event, I’m still expecting this one to kind of stink up the universe. Let’s call it a hunch.

Break out the Bloody Marys, “The Hangover” Lingers at #1

As I was too chicken to more than implicitly predict last time, “The Hangover” held on to its #1 spot with a cool $33.4 million. Variety reminds us that this is only a 26% drop, very rare in today’s opening-weekend-centric turn-’em-and-burn-’em movie world. The star-free ensemble farce is clearly benefiting from excellent word of mouth so that folks who might ordinarily avoid an R-rated comedy about a Vegas bachelor party gone off the rails are being attracted. Good work.

Also Pixar/Disney did fabulously with its unbeatable, yet rare, principle that if you work really hard and imaginatively to provide quality family entertainment with a heart and soul as well as a bit of show-biz razzle-dazzle, people will actually show — you should pardon the express — “Up.” The CGI 3-D animation-fest with a cranky elderly protagonist that no sane executive would ever have greenlit were it not for Pixar’s unprecedented track record, earned $30.5 million and dropped a low 31%.

Denzel Washington, Meanwhile, in star-driven product land, “The Taking of Pelham 123” met the rather modest expectations for a lavish, all-star, action-remake and hit $25 million, while the Eddie Murphy family flick, “Imagine That,” netted a sad $5.7 million for the #6 spot on its opening weekend at over 3000 screens.

Now, I want to add that, while trashing movies I haven’t personally seen is against my religion (for all I know, I’ll end up sorta liking Tony Scott’s “Pelham” — stranger things have happened, I’m the guy who liked “Domino”), even more against my religion is trashing the concept of remakes, though on the whole they tend to be less good than earlier successful versions.  True, it doesn’t exactly scream “originality” to take on a property that’s been previously successful, but no one says, “Oh God, not another remake of ‘Romeo and Juliet.'” There is absolutely nothing wrong with restaging an old concept, as long as you have something of your own to say with that property and are not simply going with something that looks likes a safe bet in a business where safe bets don’t exist. Lack of “originality” is not the problem; abject creative cowardice is.

Movie remakes go back to Hollywood’s youth. Probably my single favorite little-known Hollywood factoid is that the 1941 “The Maltese Falcon” starring Humphrey Bogart and directed by John Huston was actually the third adaptation of Dashiell Hammett’s great detective novel made over a period of about ten years. I also happen to think that Philip Kaufman’s 1978 version of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” is arguably even better than the rather great original version directed by Don Siegel in 1956. And, moving to TV land for just a second, is there any human being on the planet who thinks the recently concluded “Battlestar Gallactica” (don’t tell me how it ends!) isn’t a million times better than the unbelievably awful original? As Roger Ebert likes to say, movies are not what they are about but how they are about it. If you have something fresh to say by revisiting an old story, by all means say it, just make sure you’re not kidding yourself.

Anyhow, returning to this weekend’s b.o., what I think harmed both “Pelham” and “Imagine That” was that, as far as was visible from either the marketing or the response to it, these were movies that offered not one thing fresh or exciting or in any way of a great deal of interest other than the services of its stars. That’s good for something — big stars are the closest thing on the planet to a certain level of guarantee of public interest and sometimes that’s all you really need. But if you really want to hit it big, you’ve got to gamble a little bit that the audience is more interested in being genuinely entertained than lulled by the presence of name entertainment brands.

On the other hand, “Terminator Salvation,” which nobody seems to like too much, is actually doing very well abroad and the very honestly entertaining “Drag Me to Hell” isn’t exactly burning up the U.S. box office. So, who knows?

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Premium Hollywood

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑