Roger Corman has produced over 350 films and has helped launch the careers of many of Hollywood’s biggest name directors such as Francis Ford Coppola, Jonathan Demme, James Cameron, Ron Howard, and Martin Scorsese. This became known as the “Roger Corman Film School”, and in a way was the test of a director’s talent. These filmmakers were all given a limited budget and shooting schedules to make films that would normally be produced much more extravagantly. Many of these “B movies” turned out to be just as good, or in some cases much better than their A-list counterparts. The name Katt Shea might not be as household as the aforementioned directors, but she sure as hell passed the test.

It is known that Roger Corman was split down the middle. Half artist, half business man. This, I believe, is the way he wanted his directors to be as well. In her early films Shea displayed a perfect balance of delivering the genre goods and creating strong characters. This way they were both marketable and have substance. Her films managed to be gritty, funny, sad, and even existential.

In 1992 Shea wrote and directed POISON IVY, which was a Sundance hit. Again applying the same experimentation. The film opens with a voice over of a young girl over a black screen. Our first image is a young and beautiful Drew Barrymore swinging from a rope tied to a tree, hanging over a fall that would kill. Seductive and dreamlike, with a narration that turns this erotic thriller into a coming-of-age confession. The audience knows within seconds that this isn’t going to be run-of-the-mill.

Although this is the chronology of her career, it wasn’t necessarily my order. My first exposure to Katt Shea was in the theaters opening day of THE RAGE: CARRIE 2. I was only twelve years old at the time of its release and already a fiend for horror movies, the original CARRIE ranking high on my list (and still to this day). This usually leads to disappointment, but when the credits rolled I ended up more than pleased. I watched enough teen horror films of that time to know that this one was unconventional. Even though it was supernatural, it was strikingly realistic in it’s portrayal of the different social classes that divide high school cliques. From that point on I was a Katt Shea fan.

It was recently announced that she would be climbing back into the director’s chair after a nearly ten-year hiatus. Her new film, THE LIST, is set to go into production this summer.

I’m thrilled to conduct this interview of a filmmaker I so admire.

DAVID GUGLIELMO: Let’s start at the beginning of your directorial career. STRIPPED TO KILL: Did you have any film experience prior to this? Did you do any short films?

KATT SHEA: No I didn’t, I was just writing. I shot a little bit of second unit on a movie that I was [acting] in for Roger Corman in the Philippines.

D: Did he approach you with the idea or did you have the script ready?

K: I came up with the idea. I made a bet with my ex-partner about muscles. We were having dinner, and he said that muscles were poisonous at a certain time of the year and I never heard of that before and I thought he was just yanking my chain. So I said I don’t believe you and he said let’s make a bet, and the biggest punishment he could think of for me if I lost the bet was that I had to go to a strip club. So that’s how it happened. I lost the bet, and went to the strip club, and I sat there watching the acts and I just loved what they were doing. It wasn’t like any strip club you could imagine; they all came out with costumes and they had stories. It was just really cool. I sat through both sets, even after my partner said we can leave I said no, I wanted to sit through the next set and see what they do next. I said nobody knows that a strip club could be like this and I want to make a movie and show that because it’s crazy and I love it.

D: That’s very funny. It must have made quite an impression because STRIPPED TO KILL, STRIPPED TO KILL II, and DANCE OF THE DAMNED all deal with stripper protagonists.

K: Yea, but that was not my choice. I was done with strippers after STRIPPED TO KILL, but Roger Corman said he wanted to continue. The whole stripper thing became so huge after STRIPPED TO KILL that he wouldn’t let me do anything unless it had a stripper in it. So I was kind of stuck with strippers, because STRIPPED TO KILL made a lot of money for him.

D: Well I just watched STRIPPED TO KILL again and boy does it hold up. It’s so stylish and the dialogue is really sharp. What interests me is how Corman would approach you with a project. Would he come at you with a certain genre and allow you to develop the story?

K: He didn’t approach me. In the beginning I stalked him! Because I had acted in a couple of his movies I knew his habits, I knew when he went to lunch, so I would just wait in my car and when I saw him walking down the street I’d get out and pretend I’d accidentally ran into him. And then I said “Roger I got this great idea for a movie and it involves strippers!” And I’d describe how the poster would look, with a girl’s leg up a pole.

D: I love how the pole is a blade.

K: Oh yea, but I didn’t know at the time that it would be a blade. He said come into my office at eleven o’clock Monday morning. It took me a year to really convince him to do it because the idea was that a guy would have to pull off being a stripper, and this was long before THE CRYING GAME. He wasn’t convinced that a guy could pull off playing a [female] stripper. It took me a whole year to convince him to do it, and I kept sending him crank mail. I would send him pictures of a girl and then a guy who was pretending to be a girl in very skimpy clothing and I’d write “which one is the real girl?”

D: Did he ever get it wrong?

K: I don’t know I never heard back. The other thing is, I was acting in PSYCHO III and my makeup artist was Mike Westmore who did RAGING BULL, so I got Mike to write Roger a letter that he would make the prosthetic breasts. Mike offered to do that, which was so nice. It was incredible. That went a long way.

D: Although your films feature women as protagonists, they are in genres that cater to a mostly male demographic. Did your gender ever play an issue in getting a job? Did you ever have to prove you were right for the job?

K: I think you always have to prove it, but I don’t think it had to do with gender, no. Roger loved to hire women because he could pay them less.

D: Your film DANCE OF THE DAMNED has gained a cult following over the years. With the recent vampire craze in pop culture, has there been any more attention given to it?

K: No. (a moment of silence, then laughs) I’m sort of surprised because I see a lot of the influences in other people’s work and I’m surprised nobody mentions it.

D: Yea sure, TWILIGHT and TRUE BLOOD-

K: Oh I especially see the influence on TRUE BLOOD. Not TWILIGHT. But in TRUE BLOOD I see a lot of stuff I did.

D: It was remade in ’93 as TO SLEEP WITH A VAMPIRE. Did you have any involvement in that?

K: Not at all. See this is the thing; When Roger does a contract, he then owns your work so he can remake it whenever he wants and bring in other people.

D: So he didn’t ask you to write it?

K: No he didn’t. He just wanted to use the script. He probably didn’t think I’d be interested in remaking my own movie.

D: But you wrote RUMBLE IN THE STREETS didn’t you?

K: No I didn’t. They just used the script. Wait, was it STREETS that they used for that?

D: I haven’t seen RUMBLE IN THE STREETS but it’s listed as a remake of STREETS

K: Ok, It must be a remake of STREETS. Every time he remakes one of my scripts though I hear they’re terrible. It’s very funny because the script is really important, but for some reason they don’t work out too well for other people.

[STRIPPED TO KILL was also remade this way in '92 as DANCE WITH DEATH]

D: One theme you consistently portray very honestly is alienated youth. STREETS, POISON IVY, THE RAGE, and SHARING THE SECRET all center around teenage women who are in many ways “outcasts”. They are lonely and above all looking for a connection because they can’t find it within their families. Forgive me if this is too personal, but do you draw upon your own life to create these characters?

K: I think you always draw from your own life, but I don’t create characters that are me. They are people I know, or they’re composites of people I know. You use yourself but you also use a lot of other people…and just life. There are certain similarities in my characters though. I do kind of write the same character over and over again, and I see that so I guess it has something to do with me.

D: In my research I found this, and I think it’s really interesting. You’ve stated that your favorite film is DOG DAY AFTERNOON, and that you didn’t know it at the time, but that all your films were influenced by it. You said “I was always trying to write characters that you shouldn’t like but learn to love because of their humanness, their human frailty.” I think this is especially true of POISON IVY. What I find so great about the movie is how sympathetic Ivy is throughout the whole film. We don’t like what she is doing, but we understand it. And she never comes across as malicious. There are no clear-cut good guys and bad guys.

K: No there aren’t.

D: It’s my personal favorite of your films, and I keep going back to it and finding new things. Like the production design for instance. I just recently realized that Georgie’s bed is surrounded by bronze Ivy-looking plant decorations, and the blankets on her bed have vines and leaves on them. This is so foretelling. What is your relationship like with the art department?

K: Oh it’s really close. Really, really close. I paint my scripts for them so they know what colors I want to use. We talk about how the camera is going to move and all that stuff. Before I start shooting, the production designer knows exactly how I want every detail to look.

D: What did going to Sundance with POISON IVY do for your career?

K: It got me a lot of attention. I met with everybody in the town. It was very positive.

D: There are two versions of the film. The R rated and the unrated. Which do you prefer?

K: I worked much longer on the R rated version, to really get it perfect, and the unrated version was really quick. They just threw a lot of stuff back into the movie that I didn’t get to finesse…which version do you like better?

D: Well the reason why I ask is because the R rated version has the hairpiece scene and I was wondering why it was omitted from the unrated.

K: I didn’t know it was.

D: Yeah, the scene with the toupee. I really like that scene.

K: You know what, I’ll tell you something; I don’t think I did the unrated version. I think New Line did that. They took it away and did that themselves. I would have never taken out that scene, it’s my favorite scene.

D: Do you think that POISON IVY has had an influence on other films of the genre?

K: Oh I know it has. I see it all the time.

D: After the success of POISON IVY you went back to do another movie with Corman, LAST EXIT TO EARTH. What made you decide to do that?

K: As popular as it was, I didn’t get offered another film after POISON IVY.

D: Why do you think that is?

K: That’s a good question. A lot of people would say it has to do with being female. That’s what a lot of people did say, in fact. I don’t know why. Maybe I just wasn’t ready. I don’t know.

D: It says on IMDB that you directed an episode of JOE BOB’S DRIVE-IN THEATER. What is that and why can’t I find it?

K: That’s not true. IMDB has a lot of mistakes. They don’t know my birthday, there is a lot of stuff wrong with IMDB. I never directed that. I don’t even know what it is to tell you the truth.

D: I didn’t know until I listened to the commentary how quick the pre-production process was for you while doing THE RAGE: CARRIE 2. [ Shea was called in last minute after the original director was fired] What I find really interesting is that the script feels like one that you would pen. All your themes are present. Even the Tattoo Rachel has is reminiscent of Ivy’s tattoo, and they share similar symbolism.

K: The writer was really influenced by my movies. He told me that. He said he was trying to emulate things from my movies. Interestingly enough they didn’t ask me to direct it (laughs). Not until the other director was fired.

D: Did you change the script at all? Did you have a relationship with the screenwriter while shooting?

K: Yes. I did a quick pass on the script before shooting. I think I got there on a Thursday and was shooting on Monday. So it was a really quick pass. The kind of thing where you’re just staying up all night and working on it. Then I did some things while I was on set to improve it. Luckily the writer was there so he could participate too.

D: What does Brian De Palma think of it?

K: He was very supportive of me, so that was nice. I know that Sissy Spacek really liked it. I never got a real comment on it from De Palma but I wouldn’t have because I’m not really in touch with him

[Shea had a small role in SCARFACE]

D: Has he been an influence at all in your career?

K: Oh yeah, I think so. I love DRESSED TO KILL. STRIPPED TO KILL is named after it. Definitely.

D: Who are some of your other influences?

K: Don’t you think you’re influenced by everything in a way? (thinks for a moment) Well, obviously DOG DAY AFTERNOON. Sam Fuller movies, he’s always been an influence. Certainly Brian De Palma…nobody’s asked me this in a really long time. It’s hard for me to answer it well…I love Martin Scorsese. I grew up on foreign films so I certainly was influenced –

D: Which ones?

K: Fellini.

D: That’s interesting because in STRIPPED TO KILL II I can definitely see Fellini.

K: (laughs) People say the wildest things about STRIPPED TO KILL II. They say Ingmar Bergman –

D: It’s the dream sequences.

K: I didn’t really think about that. It’s another case where I had about two days prep. You’re really flying by the seat of your pants, it’s all subconscious. I don’t know about all these influences they give me credit for, but it’s very flattering. It really is. My God, being compared to Bergman and Fellini! I’ll take that any day. How lucky am I? …Crazy. Thank you for saying that.

D: You’re very welcome. It’s funny you mentioned Sam Fuller as an influence too, because you were actually asked to remake SHOCK CORRIDER. So what made you turn that down?

K: It’s very hard to do remakes. There is something very special about that original. I felt like it would be pretty impossible to do a good job, that’s all. I tried. I thought about it. It’s not like I instantly said no. I really thought about how I could do it…I think I might be more capable to do that now actually.

D: When was this in your career?

K: After POISON IVY

D: Going back to THE RAGE, if the situation was different and you had more time. Would you have changed things?

K: Oh yeah. It would have been different. No question about it, but it’s impossible to tell you how.

D: Of course. I understand that.

K: Yeah, you write and direct, you know. When you write and direct there is so much influence from other people’s comments and notes and things like that, and it’s not like they are writing it, because they aren’t, but the criticism you get in the screenwriting process can really change things a lot. It might not change the basic heart of it, but it will change a lot of the details around it. So much depends on what your basic idea is, what your point of view is. What do you want to say? That initial seed that drives you to want to write that script. That is the core of it all. All the details around it can change but if you’re a strong writer with a strong point of view and you know what you want to say, the core isn’t going to change. The script I have now that I’ll probably be shooting this summer I’ve been working on for five years! That’s just because it’s gone through different companies, and different producers were involved, and there are all kinds of notes that you get but the very core of the idea that I wanted to develop, and what I wanted to say, is still completely there. That is pure. The details surrounding it are all very different than the original treatment.

D: Sure, it’s the backbone.

K: Yeah, it’s like the trunk of a tree, but the branches are different.

D: I like that analogy. After THE RAGE you made SHARING THE SECRET, which was a made-for-TV movie. Is this because you didn’t like working on a big studio movie or is it all the same to you?

K: It’s all the same. [THE RAGE] was the number two movie at the box office but then I didn’t get another movie.

D: Again?!

K: It’s been very consistent in my career. POISON IVY was a big hit movie for its budget, and then I didn’t get a movie. I waited like ten years or something. Then Jeff Kleeman who was a huge fan of mine and never forgot, asked me to take over a movie that was in trouble, and that was THE RAGE: CARRIE 2 and then it started all over again. Luckily I was recommended to Robert Greenwald for SHARING THE SECRET and I really liked the script so I did a couple of TV movies.

D: I think SHARING THE SECRET is excellent, Alison Lohman is terrific. Congratulations on your Peabody Award.

K: Oh thanks. I really liked Alison Lohman

D: She’s been doing very well lately, have you seen DRAG ME TO HELL?

K: No I haven’t but I’m sure she’s great in it.

D: She is, both the movie and her are great.

K: I really fought for her. CBS didn’t want her because she didn’t have any credits. She came in for an audition and I just loved her. Actually the head of casting came to the set, after I fought for her and got her, and he thanked me for doing it, because they thought she was so good in it.

D: You’ve worked with some of the biggest cinematographers in the industry. Wally Phister and Phedon Papamichael.

K: Janusz Kaminski.

D: Oh right he was your gaffer wasn’t he? [second unit DP]

K: Yeah but he also shot a lot for me. He shot a lot of STREETS.

D: Did he shoot the action scenes?

K: He shot pretty much all the stuff with the cop.

D: Oh okay. Can you talk a little about your relationship with the DP? How do you go about choosing who is right for what project?

K: It’s all about the chemistry. It’s like picking a boyfriend. Your communication has to be really really good. It’s like a dance, it’s almost psychic. Then you can just get amazing things, when you have that kind of communication. Like the stuff in CARRIE 2 is really out there because we had such trust and communication. It was pretty surreal actually.

[THE RAGE: CARRIE 2 was shot by Donald Morgan]

D: Let’s talk about your new film THE LIST.

K: What do you know about it?

D: I know close to nothing about it, but from what I read, you should be getting into production now. Are you?

K: Where did you read that?

D: I forgot but it said shooting in Chicago in June.

K: That’s interesting it said June, it’s actually July. Has been for a long time. There was an actor who got involved that wouldn’t be available unless we did it earlier so they were trying to move the start date up but it just refused to happen.

D: So this is a “provocative teen drama”?

K: …yeah.

D: And you’re trying to keep it very mysterious I see?

K: (laughs) No, you don’t want to talk about something too much until it really goes.

D: I understand that

K: It’s really good. It’s really twisted and dark and subversive.

D: Will you be casting unknowns?

K: No they aren’t unknowns, they’re pretty known even though they’re young. Haley Bennett [THE HAUNTING OF MOLLY HARTLEY], Evan Peters [KICK ASS!].

D: Your reputation is very much that of an “actor’s director”. Actors who have worked for you have spoken up about their great experiences, and you always get such raw performances from mostly newcomers. Then they seem to blow up after working with you. You also teach an acting class in California. What are your methods and techniques when it comes to coaching actors?

K: I really get them out of their heads. So they’re not thinking about it so much. So they’re coming from a really gut level and its not cerebral.

D: So you keep the classes small?

K: Yes they’re small.

D: And do you use the same approach on set?

K: Yes. I’m very direct with actors. I’m really kind and I love actors and I want them to do their best. I’m really protective of them but I’m really direct with them too and they like that. They know what I want and what I want for them and from them. They are very relieved when they get my input. I’m not result-oriented. I try to help them to get to it.

D: Is this mostly in rehearsals?

K: Yes. Mostly in rehearsals. Sometimes if they get in trouble on set I’ll go into acting class mode and we’ll get it worked out. That works really well. Sometimes you have to stop everything. Take a break for five minutes and do a little acting class.

D: Would you say your approach derives from any school of acting?

K: No. I use these exercises that look really crazy but they work really well and it really frees the actor up. I can’t say it comes from a certain school of acting. Much of it is based on Viola Spolin exercises though. Viola Spolin was a pioneer of theater exercises and it’s come a long way since that but that’s the core of it.

D: What film are you most proud of?

K: I’m really proud of them all for different reasons. POISON IVY is obvious because it was so successful and I jumped into a bigger arena with that. It was only a three million dollar movie but that was a fortune for me, coming from fifteen-day shoots. But STRIPPED TO KILL was a huge thing. I told you how that came about. I really pursued that so relentlessly. It was so hard to make. Those are the two films that are most important to me. But I also love CARRIE 2. I didn’t write it so it’s not as close to my heart but I’m really proud of the fact that I was flown in on Thursday and started shooting on Monday. I look at that and I go “wow, how did I do that?”

D: That must have been hard working with the actors when they have already made decisions about the characters and here you are wanting to change things.

K: The actors hated me. They loved their director, and they saw me as the studio person who came to take over.

D: Did they already start shooting?

K: Yeah, they shot two weeks of footage and I threw it all away.

D: But they ended up warming up to you?

K: Yes they did. I just threatened them. (laughs) It ended up being really good, but it was rough. It felt like I was being thrown into a beehive. When they flew me in he [the original director] was still shooting. They hadn’t even fired him yet. It was craziness. Absolute insanity. The situation was they were going to fire him. I couldn’t save his job. I tried, and they said you either take this job or we’re shelving the movie.

D: Was he going over budget?

K: I think he was behind, but they just didn’t’ like what he was shooting. And I tried to help. I said why don’t you get him a new DP, maybe that’s the problem? It just wasn’t going to happen. So rather than having them shelve the movie, I went in. I’d rather see everyone get a movie made. I’d rather see those actors and that crew have a finished movie. It’s good for everybody when a movie gets made. It’s good on so many levels that you don’t want it to be shelved. They didn’t give me any more time. They wanted me to use the footage they were firing him for. I said no, you’re firing the guy for it and you want me to match it? So I had to reshoot everything and stay on the schedule with the loss of two weeks. So it was back to my old stomping ground of doing everything fast and well and cheap. And making it look like much more.

D: Like I said before, you really put your stamp on it.

K: Thank you. I think I did too.

D: Although Corman is still producing, his days of discovering new directorial talents seem to be behind him. Unfortunately, there isn’t anybody to fill his shoes. What would you do now if you were just starting out?

K: Oh boy. Well, there’s a lot more opportunity in many ways. There have been people who have shot some really great original stuff and it gets discovered on Youtube. There are opportunities because of the internet.

D: Do you think that’s the best place for filmmakers to put their stuff?

K: Do you think so?

D: I don’t know. I’m trying to figure that out myself. I’m still doing the festivals.

K: I think that’s wise. You should be doing festivals. One of my students was in the movie THE MYTH OF THE AMERICAN SLEEPOVER and it got into the Cannes film festival, and it caught a buzz there. It was shot very inexpensively, no names whatsoever. It got into South By Southwest first then it made it into Cannes. Pretty amazing. The critics’ circle. So these things happen.

D: You don’t think the festivals have changed at all since you were at Sundance? You don’t think they’ve gotten more commercial?

K: When I see something like this little movie getting into Cannes I think it’s possible. I think it was always difficult. I forgot how many entries Sundance saw, the director told me at some point and it was something unbelievable. It wasn’t easy then either, but it’s possible. If you make a movie that touches a nerve. That speaks to people. If there is something special about it, something really original. If you cast it well, if the acting’s really good and you direct it with a lot of heart, I think those are the key elements. There really are very few movies that are made well.

D: That leads me to my next question: what have been some of your recent favorites?

K: JUNO. I love VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA. HURT LOCKER! I kind of liked KICK ASS! (laughs). I haven’t been seeing a lot of movies. The movies that the Academy sent out last year weren’t great. I loved this movie called CASANEGRA. It was a play on Casablanca, a foreign film. Really fantastic but nobody saw it. I loved it.

D: You’ve done a lot of genre films. So do you feel that there is a stigma attached to them, that they aren’t taken seriously enough as art?

K: I live in my own little bubble. I don’t really care about that. I’m sure it’s probably true. I know the directors are quite different. They are usually really down to earth, more blue-collar directors. They don’t have the arrogance, they are really amazing people. I think there has been a crossover though. A lot of the genre directors have become very respected. Look at Quentin Tarantino.

D: Who are your friends in the industry?

K: Mostly horror directors. Practically anybody in the horror world. We have dinner together every so often. We call it the “masters of horror dinner” The most famous horror directors on the planet show up and it’s amazing.

D: Do you still keep in touch with Roger Corman?

K: I do. I spoke to him right after Christmas

D: Does he go to the dinners?

K: No he actually doesn’t, but he certainly should, shouldn’t he? I will suggest that he be invited. That would be cool.

I couldn’t help but feel sad when asked to review the book DENNIS HOPPER AND THE NEW HOLLYWOOD. I am certainly a fan, and I’m thrilled that he just received the Hollywood star, but it is in the public knowledge that he is terminally ill with cancer, and Hollywood is known to give artists their due when it looks like they might soon be knocking on heaven’s door. Robert Altman got his Lifetime Achievement award the same year as his death. At 84, Roger Corman just received his. Lets hope he has more healthy years ahead. With that being said, this is not a eulogy. It’s just a review of a book.

Up until his diagnosis, Hopper wasn’t exactly what you would call a “movie star”. Only a couple of performances from the last three decades stick out in my mind. BLUE VELVET being the top of the list. Then there is SPEED and that one great scene in TRUE ROMANCE opposite Christopher Walken.* Yes, there was the Best Picture winner CRASH but he was overshadowed by a large ensemble. He starred in at least one movie a year up until he got sick (and he still has two awaiting release). He also did television (the CRASH series), and video games (GRAN THEFT AUTO). The man worked; but he mostly did independent films. It is hard to imagine a more different career than that of his long-time buddy and collaborator Jack Nicholson. I wouldn’t be surprised if Jack popped up as the male lead in the new Jennifer Aniston rom-com. It’s not that Hopper isn’t as good looking as Nicholson, it’s that Hopper is too dangerous of an actor to star in a Nancy Meyer movie. He can’t phone a performance in like other actors, he has too much going on behind his eyes. He would make everybody feel nervous. Hopper has always been a rebel. His spot has always been a bit on the outskirts of Hollywood. Which is appropriate since he was one of the key artists of what we now call “The New Hollywood”.

“The New Hollywood” is hard to explain. It differs from other film movements like the “French New Wave”. This is because the artists were not DIY directors like Jean-Luc Godard. Most of these filmmakers went to film school. The movies they made were funded and distributed by major studios. The difference was that they were young, and were tapped into a counter culture. Their films followed anti-heros, they were open about their political beliefs as well as their sexual freedom and recreational use of drugs. Hollywood knew that they could use these fresh-minded artists to connect to a young audience.

Although this is where Hopper might stand on his own. EASY RIDER is said to be the only truly independent film of this movement.

DENNIS HOPPER AND THE NEW HOLLYWOOD was an art exhibition in France, and eventually made it’s way to Australia. After looking at the book I wish it would have found its way to New York. I knew Hopper dabbled in other art forms such as photography and fine art, but I am surprised at how good he was! It turns out his talent really shines throughout all these mediums. His photography is excellent, usually in a rich black and white, either portraits of his friends/other famous artists, or just capturing what seems to be candid moments in 1960′s America. While not as realized as his photographs, his abstract expressionist paintings aren’t too shabby. I found myself a couple of times checking the caption, expecting to see the name of a famous artist, and being surprised that it is a work of his own.

Speaking of famous artists, He has acquired millions upon millions of dollars worth of art throughout the years, most of which were personally donated by the artists themselves who are friends of his. He owns pieces from Warhol (he once fired a gun at one while he was high, and you can see the bullet holes!), Franz Kline, Rauschenberg, Robert Irwin, Basquiat, the list just goes on. It is probably the most impressive personal art collection I’ve ever seen. Inevitably, there is controversy as to who will inherit said collection. In recent news, his current wife, Victoria Duffy (whom he is in the middle of divorcing), disappeared with a good portion of his collection.

DENNIS HOPPER AND THE NEW HOLLYWOOD is a nice book, and beautifully put together, but I must warn the reader that it is a coffee table book. You won’t learn much about Dennis Hopper the man. It is an overview of Dennis Hopper the artist but offers no critical analysis whatsoever. It is a glossy picture book peppered with a chronology and short selected interviews with Hopper. It lets you make your own judgments, and hopefully will encourage you to seek out or revisit his film work, because the screen clips really can’t do justice to this man’s extensive and unique career.

*Allow FIR’s editor to mention a few more: APOCALYPSE NOW, THE RIVER’S EDGE, and RED ROCK WEST.

BAD BIOLOGY marks the comeback for Frank Henenlotter, the unique director behind such cult classics as BASKET CASE (and it’s sequels), BRAIN DAMAGE, and FRANKENHOOKER. As with most cult classics, those titles either mean a lot to you, or you just laughed out loud that there is actually a film called FRANKENHOOKER.

Jennifer (Charlee Danielson) is born with seven clits. Her biological excess makes her a nymphomaniac. She takes home a different guy every night looking for sexual fulfillment. Being that she is something of a superwoman, she also conceives, gets pregnant, and gives birth within an hour or two. She leaves her newborns to die in the dumpster, insisting that they aren’t “real babies”, but “unfinished freak babies”.

She is convinced she is a step forward in evolution and that God made her this way because He eventually wants to have sex with her.

Meanwhile, Batz (Anthony Sneed) a shy young man, has a problem of his own. His penis has become a monster and has taken on a mind of its own as a result of shooting it up with steroids when he was a teen. Now he pumps it full of the most powerful drugs he can find just to get it to stop swinging around in his pants. He also communicates with it telepathically.

Oh yea, and it can detach itself and run amok.

I was really loving BAD BIOLOGY when Jennifer was our protagonist. I was hooked from the beginning. It didn’t matter how far over-the-top her story went, I bought it. Not only did it make me laugh and gross me out, but it also disturbed me. I had never seen anything like it before.

…Then the Batz segment started.

Everything that works in Jennifer’s segment falls flat in Batz’s. When Jennifer delivers her voice over it’s intriguing. Like a silly variation on Cronenberg’s body horror themes. When she breaks the fourth wall it’s challenging. She involves us in her decisions, which makes it all the more disturbing, while still maintaining a sense of humor. Not an easy feat.

When Batz’s story is explained, It feels like forced exposition coupled with lame jokes. I didn’t buy it for a minute, and unlike Charlee Danielson, his acting doesn’t help sell it.

Eventually the two characters meet, and it’s another blown opportunity. We don’t get nearly enough time with these two freaks of nature because a good portion of the final act is occupied by a montage of the penis crawling around the city breaking into women’s homes. It starts off amusing but after the third victim it grows tiresome (I think there are five). I never thought I’d say this, but once you’ve seen one woman getting screwed by a detached monster penis, you’ve seen them all. (Although the women were all of different races, which makes me wonder, is this Henenlotter’s way of being politically correct?)

Unfortunately, the movie seems to be loaded with prolonged scenes in order to meet feature length running time. There’s a conversation between Jennifer and her boss which should be on the cutting room floor, as well as a scene in which a crackhead (Eleanor Hendricks) crawls around the living room of a drug dealer’s apartment looking for something…Incidentally, this bit part was one of the best performances in the whole movie, and seems to be improvised. Still, it’s obvious filler.

I have to give credit where credit is due. Henenlotter has not gotten soft during his sixteen-year hiatus (that wasn’t intended as a pun, but what the hell). While not nearly as tight and endlessly entertaining as BRAIN DAMAGE (1988), I can definitely say it’s more bizarre than anything he’s ever done, and above all its heart is in the right place. He even shot on 35mm as opposed to digital, and used mostly stop motion special FX over CG. For a low budget horror movie in the modern age, this is almost unheard of (although BRAIN DAMAGE also has better stop-motion)

BAD BIOLOGY is the closest you’re ever going to get to the old school exploitation days of yesteryear. And for that, fans will be pleased. There are a couple of scenes that stand out, mostly with Jennifer, but there is also a great bit with Batz and a prostitute where she can’t stop having an orgasm hours after sex.

The DVD is decent. As mentioned before there is a commentary by Henenlotter and co-writer/producer RA the Rugged Man Thorburn (he’s a rapper) that is pretty informative. After listening to the stories of the production, I was surprised to find that even though he is a director with many credits to his name, he’s still ditching permits and shooting guerilla, casting friends and people off Craigslist, and shooting in their own houses. Any film student or independent filmmaker can relate to this.

Aside from the commentary there are a couple of music videos for RA the Rugged Man. one of them is directed by Henenlotter and manages to be even more vulgar and repulsive than BAD BIOLOGY. I wonder if they even bothered sending it to MTV? If so, they should have added the response letters in the special features.

Despite its inconsistencies, I can recommend this film to anybody who enjoys extreme cinema, “midnight movies”, or comedies that push the boundaries of bad taste. Fans of John Waters will have a lot of fun with it. Watch it with friends and see their jaws drop. I had to pick mine up off the floor a couple times, and for me that always counts for quite a bit.

BEST OF THE DECADE By FIR’s Editor Roy Frumkes

I chose twenty. Sorry. Couldn’t help myself. But as you’ll see, some come from diverse new media.

JENIFER – Dario Argento paves new ground on cable TV, where you thought filmmakers had already gotten away with just about everything, and on the DVD release he seems genuinely confused that two major cuts were made in his treatise on men’s fatal obsession with female flesh over all rational thought. The two scenes exist on the DVD, and you can splice them in (though with sound problems) via computer.

THE KITE RUNNER – An insightful, novelistic, deftly directed study of cause and effect. Provides an understanding of international rifts and mistrust where compassion and trust are needed.

TAKEN – A great exploiter, partially from the guy who gave us LEON: THE PROFESSIONAL. Unfortunately the girl in the story doesn’t generate much excitement, either as a performer or as an teenage sexpot (a la Natalie Portman), and the final car/boat chase should have been trimmed. But Liam Neeson is marvelous, and the script has some terrific payoffs. As you can see, I have mixed feelings about it, but I’ve had mixed feelings about every film I’ve seen since NOTORIOUS.

RAMBO/ROCKY BALBOA – A profound nostalgic experiences. Stallone triumphs in both, and the third act of RAMBO, CGI’d by STREET TRASH alumnus Scott Coulter, delivers possibly the largest amount of unmitigated, cathartic gore in a non-horror film since THE WILD BUNCH. (One could clump GRAN TORINO into Cinema-Nostalgia as well; it’s not as directly obvious, but certainly resonates with Eastwood’s career. Differences here are that a) Eastwood has not had to make a comeback, which greatly empowers the Stallone films, and b) GRAN TORINO closely emulates THE SHOOTIST, which was John Wayne’s fantasy-persona cinematic-immortality-wish, whereas Eastwood’s would have been HONKYTONK MAN.)

THE MELTDOWN MEMOIRS – I know. I know. It’s my film. Well, if you saw it, I’m sure you would agree. (And please do: on the STREET TRASH double-disc release)

BUSH VS. ZOMBIES – An internet parody of a Bush White House lawn press conference, in which the topic of zombies comes up, and the President expresses great concern about this ever-present threat to humanity.

THE PIANIST – Polanski’s best film. And exactly the right balance of story (someone else’s) and memory (his).

SHREK – It changed everything in the animation biz, as much or more than the introduction of Pixar, because it was a shift in the realm of ideas rather than technology.

DEADWOOD – The profane, addictive cable series took us back to a time in our history when the new West was operating on the level of The Decameron or The Canterbury Tales. I enjoy wondering how Pasolini would have done helming an episode or two…

Episode 10 of The Sopranos, 5/5/01. Directed by Steve Buscemi.

OUR LADY OF THE ASSASSINS – The first feature shot in Hi Def, according to director Barbet Shroeder, who told me that if he hadn’t had the mobility and reduced presence of that camera, without question both he and the crew would have been killed.

(TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE – I have to see this again, but as I recall, it was one of a few films to challenge STREET TRASH’s democratic offensiveness, and like ST, all in the service of good, not necessarily wholesome, entertainment. The DVD has a prime moment restored, which pushes it merrily over the edge, where it belongs.)

PARANOID PARK – The new millennium’s REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. Important in exactly the same way, and this time with realistic age-casting.

JAR CITY – A noir from Sweden, dripping with mise-en-scene, that tells us much about that country’s damaged psyche.

IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH – The best use of applied research since 1974′s THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123.

THE LIVES OF OTHERS – A beautiful study of political paranoia and the human tragedy in its wake.

AMERICAN DREAMER – The best main-stream experimental film of the decade.

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE – Compare it to near-miss EASTERN PROMISES to see just how right Cronenberg got this one.

MY VOYAGE TO ITALY – Scorsese’s wonderful and personal 3-hr. documentary enlightens us about Italy and Italian cinema.

BAD EDUCATION – Almodovar is my pick for the best director of the 00s. TALK TO HER equally deserved to be on the list. I tossed a coin. Mark Gross picked the other.

Continue to Guglielmo Anthony’s Choices…

Nikkatsu, Japan’s oldest film studio, started to worry around the time of the late 50′s, that American and French crime pictures were drawing audiences away from Japanese movies. This is when they decided to make their own hard-boiled productions.

I AM WAITING (1957)

The first film featured on Eclipse’s NIKKATSU NOIR box-set is the directorial debut of Koreyoshi Kurahara. You may know him from directing the 1983 film ANTARCTICA, about sled dogs in Antarctica, in which two of the dogs went on to win Japanese Academy Awards! (I wouldn’t think to make that up). America recently remade it as a Disney film (live-action) starring Paul Walker. Unfortunately, the dogs didn’t receive as much acclaim.

I AM WAITING stars Yujiro Ishihara and Mie Kitahara who also starred together a year before in CRAZED FRUIT which Kurahara assistant directed. (Criterion released this film as well). Joji is an ex-boxer who accidentally killed somebody in a bar fight. He saves an ex-opera singer Reiko, who is being forced to work in a cabaret restaurant against her will by gangsters. Joji has been writing to his brother in Brazil for the past year, awaiting a response, until one day he gets back all of his letters. He soon realizes that the same gangsters might be the reason why his brother never made it to Brazil.

It is rather conventional in its storytelling, but the character development and strong performances make the movie stand out. The camera work and lighting lend themselves to the overall melancholic tone. You can see the French influence in the style and music. I was particularly impressed by how much the camera moved. Very stylized for its time. Although I guessed the turns in plot before they happened, it didn’t take away the enjoyment of watching it unravel. The climactic fight-scene seems to be a common thread among all the films in the collection. This one is very cool, but it only gets crazier as the titles go on.

RUSTY KNIFE (1958)

Guilt, alienation, and loneliness were the main themes in I AM WAITING, and this can also be said about the next film in the collection RUSTY KNIFE. Both were written by Shintaro Ishihara and also star the same two actors, which make it a perfect double bill.

Tachibana (Ishihara) and Terada (Akira Kobayashi) play former hoodlums who have gone straight and now work at a bar. But when the police seek them out to act as witnesses to a murder, their old lives come back to haunt them. RUSTY KNIFE is a much darker film than I AM WAITING, The criminals seem more dangerous, the heroes are flawed with bigger demons, and the overall subject matter is much more provocative. For instance, Tachibana went to jail for stabbing the man who he believed raped his wife, which ultimately led to her suicide. Later he finds out that the man didn’t act alone.

RUSTY KNIFE was the first film by Toshio Masuda, who became one of Japan’s biggest hit-makers. After this we went on to direct 51 more films for the Nikkatsu company making him their top director. He is probably best known in America for his work on TORA! TORA! TORA! in which he collaborated with the late Kinji Fukasaku (YAKUZA PAPERS, BATTLE ROYALE) after Akira Kurosawa was removed from the project. He also made the infamous LAST DAYS OF PLANET EARTH.

The tone is consistent, the film never drags, and the performances are strong all around. Toward the end, when things heat up, they get really exciting. Most of the film takes place at night or in dark rooms. The few scenes that do take place outside seem overexposed and can be a bit jarring. Regardless, for a debut feature shot in two weeks (you never get the feeling it was rushed), it’s no surprise that this director went on to be successful. Another nice thing about the movie is that it is presented in “NIKKATSU-SCOPE” which is a cool way to say it was shot widescreen.

TAKE AIM AT THE POLICE VAN. (1960)

Very cool title, but a bit misleading. The name refers to the very first scene. A prison truck (not really a police van) is shot up and a convict is murdered. Daijiro (Michitaro Mizushima), the guard on duty, is suspended for negligence. Instead of taking this as vacation time, he decides to track down who is really responsible.

I was looking forward to TAKE AIM AT THE POLICE VAN very much. Besides the awesome title, it is directed by Seijun Suzuki (BRANDED TO KILL, TOKYO DRIFTER). One of the reasons this film proved misleading is because it is less a noir than it is a “whodunit”. It packs enough twists and turns to keep one interested but it moves at a pretty slow pace. (This is not necessarily a flaw. If it was fast moving there wouldn’t be much mystery to it.) But most of all, being used to Suzuki’s later work, I expected more of his trademark style, which he himself said he did not develop until three years later with YOUTH OF THE BEAST. You get hints of it here, but it just isn’t fully developed yet.

Suzuki was later fired by Nikkatsu for making “incomprehensible films”. Most of these can be found on Criterion and are special works of art from one of Japan’s most unique filmmakers.

CRUEL GUN STORY. (1964)

Joe Shishido stars as Togawa, an ex con who immediately after being released from prison jumps right back into criminal life when a mob boss coerces him into robbing an armored car carrying racetrack money. A bunch of criminals are gathered to work together, but as we have come to expect from these stories, some of the men have plans of their own.

Once again we are given the guilt-stricken antihero. His sister was in an accident and lost the use of her legs. By going to prison he feels he had abandoned her. He agrees to the job in an attempt to pay for an operation. Surprisingly this doesn’t weigh the film down with sorrow. Instead, we have a fast moving thriller with double-crosses galore. Shishido has such an interesting looking face that your eyes go directly to him whenever he graces the screen. He started acting in the mid 50′s but only in bit parts (he is in the beginning of RUSTY KNIFE). Afraid he would never land a star role, Shishido actually underwent surgery to puff up his cheeks, giving him his trademark chipmunk face. He later became a Suzuki regular, appearing in six of his films.

This is a dark, tightly paced thriller about greed and betrayal with a very shocking ending.

A COLT IS MY PASSPORT (1967)

This is by far my favorite film in the collection.

Shishido stars again as Shuji Kamimura, a hit man, hired by the Yakuza to kill a rival gang’s boss. He does his job, only to be hunted down by both gangs! With nowhere to run, he and his sidekick find a hideout in a hotel where a lonely waitress cares for him.

The plot sounds pretty basic, but what makes this movie amazing is the melding of popular genres. It is a mash-up of Spaghetti Westerns, Yakuza films, and Film Noir. All these styles and it never once feels messy. What makes it really special is that there is nothing tongue-in-cheek about it. Such a blend of genres would be almost impossible to do now without it being somewhat of a spoof.

The cinematography is breathtaking. Shigeyoshi Mine was one of Japan’s best DP’s. His filmography includes TAKE AIM AT THE POLICE VAN, TOKYO DRIFTER, GATE OF FLESH, THE RED HANDKERCHIEF and CRAZED FRUIT. Pretty impressive. COLT is shot in a beautiful lush B&W and is infused with energy, lovely zooms, and experimentation. It’s just as stylized as a Suzuki film (but distinctively different) and although it drags a bit in the middle it makes up for it by having one of the coolest endings I’ve ever seen! I’m amazed that COLT is so obscure. It has classic written all over it.

Shishido says this is his favorite out of all the films he’s done.

Eclipse is a spin-off of The Criterion Collection, who are the creme de la creme of DVDs. Eclipse is sort of like Criterion Light. The transfers aren’t nearly as impressive and the features are sparse (in this case, none at all). Nevertheless, Bravo to Eclipse for putting out titles that would normally not see the light of day. Each disc is presented in their own thin plastic case with informative liner notes by Asian cinema critic Chuck Stephens. The NIKKATSU NOIR set is a great time capsule of film history and a lot of fun to watch.

For some reason, as I’m sure you are aware, vampires are having a cultural comeback. Vampires became popular in the 80′s largely due to the AIDS crisis, and were more targeted towards adults (Anne Rice as opposed to Stephanie Meyer). Whereas with the TWILIGHT SERIES and CW’s new show THE VAMPIRE DIARIES, the general audience is made up of teenagers. But TRUE BLOOD and 2008′s LET THE RIGHT ONE IN are also hits among adults – so the question remains, ‘why now are vampires more popular than ever?’ I don’t know the answer, and I’m not sure if it takes time in order to look back and understand its relevance. It is well known that during times of economic stress people seek out escapism with anything fantastic. It could be that vampires just worked and producers are squeezing all they can out of the genre. Needless to say, certain people are becoming annoyed with this recent trend (myself included) and the thought of another vampire movie can be unappealing to say the least. But leave it to Park Chan-Wook to breath new life into what is quickly becoming a tired genre.

THIRST is about a priest, Sang Hyeon (Song Kang-Ho from THE HOST) who is so concerned with helping others that he volunteers to be a lab rat for an experimental vaccine to cure a deadly disease infecting thousands in Africa. The vaccine fails, and he becomes victim to the disease. He is given a blood transfusion in a desperate attempt to save his life, and it works! The only problem is this blood causes him to return back to life as a vampire. He doesn’t realize this at first, only that he has a thirst for human blood. When malnourished the blisters from the disease start to form again on his skin, and he once again is close to death. He realizes he needs the blood to stay alive. As you probably already realized, THIRST treats Vampires as a disease and has more in common with the AIDS-relevant vampires than with the mythic TWILIGHT/TRUE BLOOD vamps.

It is not explained what was wrong with the blood, or if people were aware of the existence of vampires in the past. Sang Hyeon uses the term vampire, but it is never established whether he is aware of this term because of myth and pop culture, or their actual existence in reality. Nevertheless THIRST does not play by your typical vampire rules. There are no silly cliché’s here. They still need to sleep during the day, and they do possess a superhuman strength (and the ability to leap through the air) but there are no fangs or mention of garlic. Nor are they afraid of crosses (remember, he is a man of the cloth).

Sang Hyeon returns to Korea only to be hailed as a saint, and he is mobbed by people who want him to heal them and their sick relatives. He is taken in by Lady Ra, who wants him to heal her imbecile son, Kang-Woo, who she says has cancer.

Kang-woo is married to Tae-Joo (the incredibly talented, not to mention breathtakingly beautiful, Ok-Vin Kim. Where has this woman been all my life??) She is mistreated by Lady Ra and is forced to be a slave in her marriage where she acts as full-time nurse to Tae-Joo.

Sang Hyeon takes an immediate liking to Tae-Joo, but it is only when he smells her menstrual blood that he can no longer restrain his desires.

This is actually where the film’s true plot starts. Everything mentioned beforehand is just setup. Most people’s problems with THIRST are in it’s pacing. Not only is the setup long, but I’ve heard others complain that the film’s final act feels like an extra act added to a film that could have ended. I actually agree with these comments but don’t think of them as detrimental. Sure, the film could have ended before the final act (and the first time I saw it I was predicting it to do so), but the final act only layers an already complex human drama, therefore making it a much more interesting film. At 133 minutes THIRST does feel long, but I personally prefer a film that is rich in ideas rather than one that is conventionally paced. It was only after watching it a second time (which I not only recommend, but urge you to do no matter what your initial feelings might be) that I started to pick apart each scene and ask if it needed to be there. The answer was always yes. Each scene is important to the overall film. It may not always move the story forward, but be sure it is doing something else.

The rest of the review will include spoilers. I am usually reluctant to do this, but I feel THIRST is such a great film that it requires a more in-depth review than the average thumbs up / thumbs down routine.

Tae-Joo tells Sang-Hyeon that Kang-Woo abuses her, and even has the (self inflicted) wounds to prove it. The three of them take a trip on a boat in a plot to murder him. Interestingly enough Park Chan-Wook has mentioned in interviews that his main inspiration for THIRST was not of the vampire genre at all, rather a 19th century novel by Emile Zola called “Therese Raquin”, about a woman tapped in a bad marriage, who arranges with a lover the murder of her husband. I never read the book, but the subplot this inspired, and the manifestation of their guilt after the deed is done is portrayed quite brilliantly in the film, and could be my favorite segment. Park’s films, as cinematic as they are (he is an extremely visual filmmaker who rarely needs dialogue to explain what is happening) have always reminded me of classic literature, especially OLDBOY (although based on a Manga) which feels like a modern Greek Tragedy.

Sang-Hyeon finally turns Tae-Joo into a vampire (also giving her the deadly virus). This is the final act mentioned previously. From here on the film becomes about the repression of its two main characters. Sang-Hyeon’s self imposed repression, and his guilty conscience as opposed to Tae-Joo’s externally imposed repression and how the two lovers ideals eventually clash. Sang-Hyeon, up until this point, has been “getting his fill” by taking just the right amount of blood from comatose people at the hospital (he drinks directly from the I.V.). He is not hurting the patients by doing so, and says there is plenty for the both of them. Tae-Joo thinks there is no fun in this method, and kills for her blood. She (an atheist) doesn’t believe this is a sin, rather a way of life (“is it a sin for the fox to kill the sheep?” she says).

Fortunately, (I think because of the vampire craze) THIRST is getting a wider release than I predicted. It is playing in various multiplexes and not only in major cities. THIRST won the Jury Prize at Cannes this year tied with FISH TANK. Apparently the award was met with a mixture of applause and boos from the crowd, which always seems to be the rumor at Cannes and I personally find the concept of booing extremely rude and immature no matter how much you dislike a film. But I digress. What upsets me is that THIRST is not a candidate for this years Academy Awards. Instead South Korea picked MOTHER. I haven’t seen this film, but I’m sure its more Oscar “appropriate”. THIRST has a strong R rating for violence and sex. It actually has one of the best sex scenes I can remember in recent history. Even better than LUST CAUTION, which got an NC-17 for theirs. As much as I love THIRST, I wouldn’t expect it to be Oscar-bait in any country, It is far too extreme for that, but I would love for Ok-Vin Kim to get a nod. I have yet to see a female performance more worthy this year. It is also my pick for best cinematography.

It is easy to dismiss Park as a director whose intention is to shock. He certainly has a knack for violence. Fellow violent filmmaker Quentin Tarantino has spoken of his admiration of Park’s work. Although THIRST is certainly gory, I do not think it is gratuitous (it’s a vampire movie!!). Like Tarantino, (INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is another one of my favorite films this year) Park’s films have a pulpy quality to them, and they manage to deliver the joys of the genre (violence being one of them), but at the same time they go above and beyond the genre conventions thus creating something that is truly original. I almost hesitate to call THIRST a vampire film, because with the stigma that is attached, I feel it would be selling it short. It is a film wherein the main characters are vampires, but they are also painfully human, and that’s what you are ultimately left with.

Ronnie Barnhardt is a mall security guard (or “head of mall security”). He is in love with Brandi (Anna Farris), a shallow airhead from the makeup department, even though she thinks he is a creep. When Brandi becomes victim of a flasher, Ronnie makes it his personal duty to Rid the mall of corruption, and bring the flasher to justice over Police Detective Harrison (Ray Liotta), who has been assigned to the case.

There is a scene in OBSERVE AND REPORT where Detective Harrison is explaining to Ronnie why he is being denied from joining the police force (He failed the psychological exam). Mid scene one of Harrison’s police partners exits from the closet where he was secretly listening in. He says “Sorry, I thought this would be funny, but it’s sad”. That sums up the movie pretty well, and it is one of the reasons why I enjoyed OBSERVE AND REPORT. In fact, I enjoyed the hell out of it.

This isn’t to say that the movie doesn’t have funny moments. Only this comedy has more in common with TAXI DRIVER than PINEAPPLE EXPRESS. The filmmakers are aware of this. There is a montage in OBSERVE AND REPORT where Ronnie is training and delivering a voice over, expressing his need to act as a hero. During this, he stops and says “Let me start that over”, and he delivers the same line from the beginning. This is taken directly from when TAXI DRIVER’s Travis Bickle is arming himself with weaponry and delivering his voice over. “Listen you f*ckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. Who would not…let-” (Jump cut: back to beginning of shot) The same voice over starts again.

Even the cinematography (by David Gordon Greene regular Tim Orr) is reminiscent of a Scorsese movie, with frequent steadicams and slo-mo shots set to rock music. (Orr also does a great job with the color schemes and lighting.)

I missed OBSERVE AND REPORT when it was in theaters. At the time I didn’t have much interest in watching it. I guess I wasn’t the only one. It didn’t do very well at the box office, which is surprising for a movie starring Seth Rogan. I think it might have to do with everything I just mentioned. Not only is the movie sad, but it’s subversive, and very dark. I do remember a controversy breaking out over one of the movie’s sex scenes. Ronnie takes Brandi out on a date. She throws back shots all night and even takes a handful of his prescription anti-depressants. Ronnie stays sober. He takes her home, she throws up and they kiss. Then they have sex, while she is passed out! When he realizes this he stops, worried about her, and asks if she’s okay. She says (without moving or opening her eyes) “Why are you stopping, motherf*cker?!” He continues. This sparked quite an outrage, and I can see why. He clearly date-rapes her. Just like Travis Bickle, we are dealing with a morally ambiguous character, already established as mentally unstable. He is also, like Bickle, a racist. Therefore it is up to the viewer to decide what is funny and what is not. The whole film takes this uncomfortable tone. For instance, there are scenes with Ronnie’s mother (Celia Weston), an alcoholic who passes out drunk on the floor every night. Her lines are clearly written for laughs, but may also offend. Many times I wasn’t sure if I should be laughing. I personally enjoy that feeling of unease.

Seth Rogan does a good job in the role, but he falls into habits we have seen before. He doesn’t hinder the film’s power, but he had room to search deeper into the character, and didn’t take it. The opposite can be said about Farris. She has so much acting capability, but is constantly restrained by the simple characters she is given. Anna, it’s time to fire your agent, because you are better than these dumb blond roles.

The real star of this movie is writer and director Jody Hill. A newcomer who also created the television show EASTBOUND AND DOWN which is just as politically incorrect. George Carlin once said “I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and deliberately cross it”. Jody Hill is not afraid to take this advice.
!!! SPOILER BELOW !!!

In TAXI DRIVER, Scorsese shows restraint by building his character up until the very breaking point, which is at the end of the film. This causes the ending to be much more shocking and effective. Perhaps OBSERVE AND REPORT should have followed this structure. My only real problem with the film is that Ronnie loses his cool many times and beats the crap out of delinquent skateboarders, abusive managers, ghetto crack dealers, and even police officers. If these scenes were limited, the ending (a great scene where he finally shoots the flasher in the chest) may have been all the more powerful and cathartic.

This review will include spoilers. I usually refrain from doing so, but being that the film was made in 1965, and has since become a “classic” I figure some sort of statute of limitations must apply. My suggestion for those who have yet to view the film is to stop reading now. Just know that I give it high praise and that the Criterion DVD is the only way to watch this film unless you know of a film print. For those of you who have seen it; I invite you to continue reading, and take a journey through “the shocking reality of a virgin’s worst nightmare”.

This sleazy tag-line, along with the original poster makes the film out to be an exploitation horror movie. It probably has to do with the fact that it was made by Compton Productions, which at the time specialized in exploitation and softcore porn. REPULSION does feature one of the sexiest actresses to ever grace the screen (Catherine Deneuve, at the tender age of 22,) and it is about sex. There is also a fair share of violence. So advertising it this way doesn’t come as a complete shock, and I’m sure it got those extra people into the theater seats.

Carol (Deneuve) is a shy Belgian immigrant living in London with her sister Helen. She works at a Beauty salon and it is clear she is unfulfilled by her job. She catches the attention of Colin, a man interested in taking her out on a dinner date, and although she politely refuses (she is eating rabbit at home), her social awkwardness immediately tells us that men make her uncomfortable. That’s putting it lightly – she is repelled by them.

At night she is forced to listen to her sister and her sister’s boyfriend have sex through the walls of her bedroom, and in the morning his razorblade and toothbrush are left out in the bathroom, invading her personal space. Helen decides to take a vacation and, like a child, Carol begs her not to go. Once alone in the house Carol experiences hallucinations and delusions of men raping her. The walls of her apartment start to crack and mutate into men’s hands that feel her up while she walks down the hallway. The aforementioned rabbit was never eaten; instead she leaves it out in the kitchen while her sister is away. The rabbit rots more and more as the film progresses. This is both a clever device used to show the passing of time as well as a symbolic portrayal of her descent into madness.

Colin becomes frustrated by her refusal to pick up the phone or let him in the apartment, so he decides to break in, only to have his head bashed in. She throws the body in the tub.

When the landlord shows up to collect the rent, he catches her in her nightgown and can’t resist. He becomes body number two.

Carol doesn’t reflect on the murders she has committed. At this point she is so far gone that she simply tosses the bodies aside and continues to walk around the house and knit.

REPULSION does have many instances where it can easily become exploitive, but it chooses a different route. It can just as easily become something of a Freudian character study. Polanski veers away from this road as well. Instead, the movie is told completely from this woman’s perspective, and it’s scary because even when it is surreal, it remains believable. The film relies on dread. We never ask what is going to happen. It is quite obvious we are watching a downward spiral where the window to reality shrinks smaller and smaller, and therein lies the horror- in its inevitability.

Barely speaking any dialogue, Catherine Deneuve carries this whole movie. She is far more than a pretty face and to this day I still don’t think she has received the full recognition she deserves.

The comparison of REPULSION to Hitchcock films has been brought up many times. It has even been said that REPULSION is a backwards PSYCHO, whereas instead of viewing the killings from the victim’s perspective, we view them through the killer’s. This is accurate, but I would like to add that while REPULSION can be considered Hitchcockian, the main difference between REPULSION and PSYCHO is in their third acts. At the end of PSYCHO, the doctor delivers a monologue explaining Norman Bates’ sickness, and why he did all of these horrible things. REPULSION is the exact opposite. Carol is never explained. The last shot of the film is of a family picture in the house. The picture appears twice in the film, Carol, as a child, is standing far in the back. The picture seems normal until the camera lingers on it. We can see that something is not right in her eyes even at this young age. The picture suggests that maybe she was sexually abused by her father, but this is a theory we can only entertain as one of several, because the film treats it so ambiguously. In one of the documentaries on the DVD (“A British Horror Film” by David Gregory) the interviewer asks Polanski if this is a valid assumption. He responds hastily by saying that it is a free country, and you can do whatever you want…but don’t ever ask him about his films. Gregory edits this to be the first scene in the doc, and it is a surprising opening.

Aside from that documentary, there is another made-for-TV featurette filmed during the production of the film. It is very interesting to see Polanski direct the actors, and hear him speak about the film while he is in this creative mindset. He also seems a lot more open in talking about his work. I wonder what he would have said if somebody asked him that same question all those years ago…

Criterion does a good job with the disk. It’s hard to believe that before this release the only way to watch the film was through a cropped full frame DVD. Other features include commentary by Polanski and Deneuve as well as the original trailer.

What I find strange is that Amazon has the Blu-Ray listed for cheaper than the DVD. Those who have a Blu-Ray player should jump on this deal.

Peter Klavin (Paul Rudd) is getting married to Zooey (Rashida Jones), the woman he loves. She is so excited that after the proposal she calls all of her girl friends. Peter doesn’t call anyone because “his parents are probably asleep”. This is when she realizes he has no guy friends. When Peter comes home early while Zooey is hosting a “girls’ night” (in a very funny scene where he surprises them with root-beer floats) he decides enough is enough. He needs a friend.

What follows is one awkward scenario after another where Peter goes on “man-dates” looking for the right friend. This proves difficult until he meets Sydney (Jason Segel). The two click, and Sydney seems willing to hang out at the drop of a hat. As their Friendship evolves they start spending more and more time together until Zooey starts to worry. Are they too close? Is she being replaced?

Ever since Kevin Smith started making movies in the 90′s it’s become very popular for modern comedies to tackle the subject of male bonding, asking the question: when do close buddies become just plain gay?

These homosexual undertones have been prevalent in many films since Smith’s, but I LOVE YOU, MAN is one of the few that bases the entire plot around one of these relationships. (I think another might be this year’s HUMPDAY, which I haven’t seen). On the back of the DVD, it describes the film as being a “Bromance”. I don’t know if they coined that phrase, but nevertheless it’s clever, and accurate. That is essentially what the film is. A love story between two heterosexual males, complete with a break-up scene and everything.

Making friends for most people comes naturally. Consciously trying to make a friend when you are older and already settled into your job can be as difficult as finding a date, which the film portrays well. After meeting Sydney and hanging out for a bit, Peter tries too hard to be casual by using what can only be called as “failed buddy slang” ie. abbreviating words that shouldn’t be abbreviated, and even searching for the right nickname to call his new friend by.

This starts out as funny but sadly these jokes are repeated constantly. Uncomfortable/humorous just becomes uncomfortable/frustrating.

Paul Rudd is a likable guy. Or at least, that’s his screen persona. And it works! You’re kind of a jerk if you don’t like him. He is great in his supporting roles (KNOCKED UP) but unfortunately he lacks power as the lead in this one. The same goes for Jason Segel. I didn’t like him as the lead in FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL but I think he is quite good in I LOVE YOU, MAN.

Rashida Jones’ character doesn’t have much meat but she is a very believable actress and has a natural beauty that makes her easy to warm up to. Other supporting characters include Jaime Pressly and Jon Favreau. Pressly is good, and it’s nice to see her in a role where she doesn’t play trailer trash. Favreau’s role is just uninteresting and not funny. About an hour ago he tweeted (tweets are posts on “Twitter”) “I Love You, Man out on DVD tomorrow. Yes, I know I play a prick. Pricks are more fun. Please don’t quote that out of context.” That was funnier than anything he said in the movie.

The DVD sports some decent features such as deleted and extended scenes, a gag real, a featurette and commentary track by the director.

A lot of the jokes miss, and at times it feels like it’s trying too hard. Nevertheless, I LOVE YOU, MAN is a cute movie and even though I didn’t laugh out loud much, my smile was pretty wide throughout.

Did I just use the word cute? Damn that was gay.

I like to view every horror movie that gets released. But after sitting through two of the SAW sequels, I promised myself that I would never watch another. Today I broke that vow, but not purposely. Not unlike the victims of these films – I was tricked! Little did I know they disguised the next SAW under the title THE COLLECTOR.

Sean Penn look-alike Josh Stewart plays Arkin, a handyman who is desperate to pay back a debt to his ex-wife so that she will allow him to spend time with his little girl. Apparently the money has something to do with loan sharks. This is a subplot that seems completely unnecessary. A far more believable situation would have been if he needed to pay child support – but I’m not the writer (thank god) so let’s move on.

Conveniently, Arkin is an ex-con whose specialty is picking locks, and the house he is working on has a great big safe with a valuable stone inside. Even more convenient is that the whole family is going away on vacation this weekend.

Arkin breaks into the house only to find that someone a lot badder than himself already lurks inside. He looks exactly like “The Gimp” from PULP FICTION and he booby traps the entire house like Macaulay Culkin in HOME ALONE. I have no idea why he does this, because there’s no way he could have known that the handyman would be coming back to burgle the house, and he could have easily kidnapped the family without going through such trouble. But once again, I’m not the writer.

In HOME ALONE, we get to see how the traps work. And even if far-fetched, they are quite clever. In this movie tripping over a wire inexplicably leads to a person being catapulted into a giant fly-paper stuck with daggers. I actually can’t tell you how one of these traps is set up. I doubt the filmmakers can either, they are just too anxious to get the people in them. Suspense? Who needs it. All that does is take time away from watching a cat melt in acid (and that’s the real reason why people watch horror movies).

Sadly, the confusing traps are the least of the film’s problems. If you really want to collect something, try gathering up all the failed logic. ( i.e. the killer cuts the electricity so the victims can’t turn on the lights, but the television still works fine).

Even with all that being said, the concept still has hope. I can forgive sloppy filmmaking and see past illogical writing if the movie shows me a fun time, but like the SAW films, it takes itself way too seriously for me to derive any kind of enjoyment.

If I were you, I’d hold off a couple weeks, save the twelve bucks, and get my death fix on the next FINAL DESTINATION movie. Even if it’s no masterpiece, at least those filmmakers are laughing with you.