Category: Reviews

  • ‘Vlad’ was a big idea that comes out small

    'Vlad'
    ‘Vlad’

    This was a difficult review to write. After watching Vlad — due out on DVD September 21st — I had to really sort through my feelings to figure out exactly what I thought of it. In the end, I was left with a rather ambiguous, it’s not bad… but it’s not exactly good, either.

    Basically, the concept of the film has four college students embarking on a research project about Vlad the Impaler. However, their trip is threatened by a mysterious group who wish to get their hands on a mystical necklace, which one of the students has in their possession. The necklace’s powers soon bridge the past and future, by bringing Vlad the Impaler into the present day where he quickly sets out to wreck havoc.

    Let me just say right now that the best thing I can say about this film is the acting. Surprisingly, it’s really not bad. I’ve seen my fair share of bad movies. In fact, I often revel in them. And many of them feature some really bad acting. But this film is actually well acted, with only one minor exception. Kam Heskin, who plays Alexa, hams her part a bit. Not a lot, but it’s a clear case of over acting. Otherwise, everyone else turns in a fine performance that really surprised me.

    Unfortunately, I cannot give the rest of the film much credit. The story is unfocused and rather slow. There is virtually no character development, which hurts the film more than anything else. You just don’t care about any of these people. And without that emotional involvement, you really don’t care whether any of them live or die.

    The uneven writing contributes to this factor, as well. When we’re introduced to the four students, Justin (Nicholas Irons) is a rude, obnoxious Brit who comes off clearly has the jerk of the group. Yet, halfway through the film, his character does a complete 180 and is suddenly this sensitive, caring person. This lack of focus affects several elements of the story, damaging the film.

    Much of the story surrounds the power of Vlad’s mystical necklace. The trip by the students is arranged by Brad Dourif, a university professor. He and Billy Zane’s character are interested in getting their hands on the necklace, supposedly to protect people from its dangerous powers. However, we never really learn much about who they really are or what exactly they plan to do with the necklace.

    Plus, several unnamed people also try to get their hands on the necklace. This is the weakest part of the tale. One sequence has Billy Zane being attacked by these men, but we never really learn who they are or what they want the necklace for.

    Billy Zane was in the film for only a brief amount of time, but his presence elevates the movie. He’s a talented actor, and delivers an understated performance. But, his character dies halfway through the film, and he only pops up from time to time before that. Brad Dourif, the only other notable actor in the film, appears for only a few scenes at the beginning and never appears again.

    The only other recognizable talent in the film is the unexpected voice of John Rhys-Davies — who many may know has Gimli from the Lord of the Rings trilogy. He acts as a narrator in the opening sequence of the film. While I could listen to Davies read stereo instructions, his role here is rather odd. There is no real reason for his narration, since he does little more than describe the action we’re seeing on screen. Plus, his narration never comes up again.

    The film also features a few moments of gratuitous nudity, a requirement in such fare. The first time is actually understandable. It doesn’t come off as being out of place. The actress, Romanian-born Monica Davidescu, is one of the highlights of the film. A talented actor who delivers a strong performance.

    However, later in the film there is a sex scene between her and the film’s male lead, Paul Popowich. This scene, while generally entertaining for the obvious reasons, is completely unnecessary. With the context of the story, it has no purpose. Of course, sex sells, so I get why it is there. But the story makes no effort to even try and justify it.

    And while the producers touted how the creators were steeped in the legend of Vlad and Romanian culture, none of it really impacts the film. The use of Romanian culture is interesting, but doesn’t have anything to do with the story. And at the end your left wondering how much of the Vlad history is based on fact, and how much is pure fiction.

    Visually, the film has a nice style at times. The flashbacks are rich with color and texture. However, it falters often with editing problems and the poor DVD transfer. The locations are also impressive, but completely underutilized.

    The DVD’s behind the scenes footage is also not very revealing, as it simply consists of footage shot on the set. But none of it is tied together with cast and crew interviews. It’s basically like watching a home movie or vacation video.

    In the end, I very much wanted to enjoy this film. At the least, I was looking forward to viewing a fun B-movie. Sadly, fine acting aside, I just couldn’t get myself to enjoy this film. Ultimately, Vlad was long on concept but way too short on story.

    *UPDATE*

    Just wanted to note that while the original copy I received of the Vlad DVD did not have the director’s commentary — which had been noted on the back cover — I was recently sent a new version which did.

    While the commentary is a little dry at times, the director, Michael D. Sellers, does express the difficulty he had due to budget constraints and time limitations. These cornerstones of low-budget filmmaking did cause me to feel for Sellers more than I had initially. I’ve experienced those problems myself, so I could understand his dilemmas.

    At the same time, his commentary explains scenes and story points much clearer than the film actually does, making me wonder if perhaps he was too close to the project. That maybe it would have benefitted from someone else taking the helm, or at least a few more pairs of eyes to review the script and help rein in the scattered storytelling.

  • ‘Raising Victor Vargas’ is a little, indie miracle

    ‘Raising Victor Vargas’ is a little, indie miracle

    Victor Rasuk and Judy Marte in 'Raising Victor Vargas'
    Victor Rasuk and Judy Marte in ‘Raising Victor Vargas’

    Raising Victor Vargas is a little, indie miracle; an urban, coming-of-age, teen drama that avoids the clichés of those genres. Like a documentary produced by a crew with unlimited access, the film observes its characters with such intimacy viewers may feel less like they’re watching a movie and more like they’re peeking through a keyhole. And though the film contains a fair amount of realistic, foul-mouthed dialogue, this city-set love story proves as optimistic about romance and family as an MGM musical.

    From the outset, writer-director Peter Sollett committed to casting unknown actors for his feature debut. Thank God. The movie’s untrained cast brings such a natural charm and spontaneity to each scene that it’s hard to believe the filmmakers worked with a screenplay at all. And it’s an attractive cast, too; one that reminds us of the beauty of ordinary faces.

    Shot on 16mm film by George Washington cinematographer Tim Orr, Victor Vargas sports a warm, summery palette that translates gorgeously to DVD.

    For this reviewer, the only down side to the production is that at 88-minutes, Raising Victor Vargas ends way too soon.

    The seeds for Victor Vargas sprout from an earlier project by Sollett, the multi-award-winning, autobiographical short film, Five Feet High and Rising (Short Filmmaking Award, Sundance 2000, Cinefoundation Award, Cannes 2000, among others). In a bit of non-traditional casting, white, middle-class Sollett auditioned kids from every racial and socioeconomic background imaginable. Of the many bureaus included in his search, Sollett was most impressed with the kids on the Lower East Side, a predominantly Latino community.

    Sollett was so inspired by that neighborhood’s enthusiasm that he went home and designed Raising Victor Vargas around his Five Feet High cast. Once the cast was in place, Sollett set the film in the actors’ own neighborhood, borrowing details from their lives to inform his story. Most of the leads, for instance, use their real first names for their characters.

    As was the case with Five Feet High and Rising, actors Victor Rasuk and Judy Marte play the leads in Victor Vargas. Watching their natural, un-affected performances, it comes as quite a surprise that neither teen considered acting before Sollett’s auditions. In their roles, the two are brilliant, carrying the drama and humor of their love story without once compromising the film’s documentary feel.

    Victor Rasuk and Judy Marte in 'Raising Victor Vargas'
    ‘Raising Victor Vargas’

    Unfolding on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, Raising Victor Vargas tells the story of its title character, a Dominican teen. With a muscular physique, handsome face and roguish grin, it’s easy to believe that young Vic has come to take for granted his reputation as a ladies man. It’s the nail on which all the teen’s self-esteem hangs. So, it’s more than unfortunate when he’s busted in the bedroom of ‘Fat’ Donna Santiago, an unpopular girl in his building. It’s the end of his world.

    As with most tight-knit communities, news — especially bad news — travels fast. In no time Victor becomes a laughing stock among his peers. Determined to save face and regain his playa status, Victor recognizes a shot at redemption in ‘Juicy’ Judy Gonzalez, the most lovely and inaccessible girl in his neighborhood.

    It’s a testament to the filmmaker’s sensitivity that ‘Juicy’ Judy isn’t the bombshell her nickname implies. As played by Marte, Judy is a lean, boyishly-thin waif blessed with just enough beauty to invite innocent crushes and offensive comments alike. Hassled daily, Judy gets so much of the latter she’s got no interest in the former.

    When a local teen chides Vic about sleeping with ‘Fat’ Donna, Victor is shamed into action. With his best friend Harold in tow, Victor approaches Judy and her friend Melonie on the deck of a public pool.

    —————

    “Yo, how you ladies doin’?” Victor grins, kneeling next to Judy. “My name is Vic. This is my associate right here, Harold.”

    The girls roll their eyes. Victor speaks only to Judy.

    “Me and my man just wanted to know if you wanted to double-date one of these days or somethin’, you know…”
    Pouring on the charm, Vic’s undaunted by Melonie’s claim that Judy has a boyfriend.

    “Oh,” he says, smiling at Judy. “What are you gonna do, ignore me now?”

    “Vic,” Melonie interjects, sweeping her arms between him and her friend. “Do you see the wall of isolation?”

    When that fails to send Victor on his way, Judy stands abruptly, taking his arm and leading him to the edge of the pool.

    “Look at that,” she tells him, pointing to his reflection. “Does that look like God’s gift to women? I don’t think so.”

    —————

    Some of the film’s most memorable scenes play out in Victor’s family life, which Sollett gives a full third of the film’s running time.

    At home, Victor fights constantly with his kid sister, lives in the shadow of his squeaky-clean younger brother, and regularly disappoints his strict grandmother -– the family’s sole guardian — with his headstrong behavior.

    —————

    “Promise something to Grandma,” she begs him, her accent thick. “Be good, and then the rest is gonna be good, too.” Clearly Victor’s heard this before. “S’posed to be example for the family,” she reminds him.

    —————

    It’s a responsibility Victor doesn’t takes to heart, as evidenced when he blows off church with grandma and his sibs to sneak Judy back to their empty apartment.

    —————

    “This is where all the Victor love happens,” he boasts playfully, offering Judy a beer (which she refuses), showing her a portrait of his father (which he poses in front of to prove his resemblance), and showing off a make-out tent he’s fashioned over his bed, “for privacy.” When Victor attempts to make his move, Judy heads for the door.

    “Listen,” she scolds. “You’re my new man. But I’m warning you, don’t fuck with me.” Victor’s speechless. “G’head,” she says, walking out. “Tell your little friends.”

    —————

    And tell he does. In no time Victor’s getting “pounds” (congratulations) from the local boys, and his playa cred’ is re-established, it would seem, for life. Little does Victor know, Judy has her own self-centered plans for Victor; plans that don’t include romance.

    As the two work from their separate agendas, the teens are drawn to each other in ways that neither sees coming. Sollett’s wonderful screenplay and talented cast make Victor and Judy’s romance spark with potential without ever feeling guaranteed.

    Additionally, Sollett takes the high road throughout his urban love poem, avoiding the clichés a less talented filmmaker might have piled high. You know the list.

    “I find that stuff really boring,” Sollett sighs when the subject is raised. “Guns and drugs and abortions and violence aren’t the central aspects of lives,” he says. “So why should they be central aspects of a film relating to their lives?”

    Raising Victor Vargas rotates between Victor and Judy’s romance, and the courtships of their younger siblings, and best friends, each of which is played for laughs. Victor’s friend Harold — played with rakish charisma by Kevin Rivera — and Judy’s friend Melonie — the adorable Melonie Diaz — begin their romance with a pitch-perfect bit of comic foreplay, complete with fake violence, flirtatious insults, and childish double-dares, making their scenes the most accurately observed teen courtships in memory. Sollett struck comic gold with the chemistry between these two.

    Despite the bottomless charm of its young cast, Raising Victor Vargas is all but stolen by its oldest cast member, Altagracia Guzman. Guzman plays grandma, the Vargas family’s stern and devoutly Catholic matriarch.

    “She’s a 74-year-old first-timer,” Sollett says. “There aren’t too many 74-year-olds who are doing anything for the first time, let alone making movies.” Despite her tiny size and world-weary eyes, Guzman proves a loveable, formidable presence. As the only adult left the teens, grandma is quick to lay down the law and take decisive action, even if it means putting a bad influence out of the house. “She has a massive personality and she is very enthusiastic,” Sollett says. “When she walks into a room, she owns it, and everybody is one of her grandchildren.”

    Raising Victor Vargas is a must-see for indie film lovers, and a must-have for aspiring filmmakers everywhere. Sollett’s feature debut is a virtuoso study of compelling moviemaking at rock bottom prices, proving the axiom: story is everything. And in this case, great casting and smart direction don’t hurt, either.

    The only downside to Columbia Tristar’s first release of VICTOR VARGAS is that it’s completely naked. Completely! No trailers. No commentaries. No extras. No making-of documentaries or above-the-line interviews.

    ———————————————

    REPORTER’s NOTE: Columbia Tristar has since released a Special Edition DVD of the film that includes most of these things in addition to writer—director Sollett’s wonderful short film, FIVE FEET HIGH AND RISING. More in a follow-up review.

    ———————————————

    If Raising Victor Vargas weren’t such a brilliant stand-alone film, this would be a deadly blow. Not since the DVD release of Columbia-Tristar’s Adaptation has a film inspiring so much behind-the-scenes curiosity left its fans so high and dry when it finally hit the streets.

    In a FilmFreakCentral.net interview, Sollett mentioned that Altagracia Guzman got so absorbed in her role as grandma to her on-screen teenage family that she’d often improvise spontaneously, turning to off-screen crew members to complain: “Look what I have to put up with!”

    Now that would have made for a golden Easter Egg.

  • John Carpenter’s ‘They Live’ is an underappreciated classic

    John Carpenter’s ‘They Live’ is an underappreciated classic

    Roddy Piper kicks ass in 'They Live'
    Roddy Piper kicks ass in ‘They Live’

    This film is quite simply one of the most underappreciated John Carpenter films ever made. It’s been several years since I’d seen it, and was pretty excited when I saw the DVD on sale for $10 at Best Buy.

    It’s funny, it’s fun, it’s smart sci-fi. More idea that flash, it puts Roddy Piper center stage in the starring role as a drifter who stumbles upon a deadly secret: our country has fallen victim to a hostile take over by a corporate-like breed of aliens.

    No big ships, no massive explosions. Instead of laser guns and starships, they used our own failing to enslave us.

    And we don’t even know it.

    They Live is probably the most cynical of any of Carpenter’s films. Here, humanity falls victim to its own failings. Its own greed, ambivalence, selfishness. Some simply struggle to survive as jobs dry up, while others collaborate with the aliens in exchange for money.

    We’re introduced immediately to Piper as John Nada — catch that name? — who arrives in Los Angeles looking for work. Finding no help from employment services, he talks his way into a gig at a local construction site. There he meets Frank, played by the always awesome Keith David.

    Frank helps Nada find a place to stay, which is basically a makeshift community living in an empty lot. The community consists of other people similar to Nada, people who have lost their jobs and are struggle to make a few bucks in a country that seems to have become disgusted and disinterested in the lower class.

    Aliens in 'They Live'
    Aliens in ‘They Live’

    Nada soon begins to discover that something else is going on in the small community he’s come to call home. That some of its residents have uncovered something, and are struggling to get the truth out. With the use of special sunglasses, Nada learns that the world is not what it seems.

    Secret messages are everywhere. Messages geared towards controlling humanity. Twisting them to worship money, buy goods, own big cars and fancy homes. Nada also discovers that people are also not what they seem.

    When he wears his glasses, he sees that some people are really hideous aliens in disguise.

    Like many kids in the 80s, I watched the World Wrestling Federation (now World Wrestling Entertainment). And while “Rowdy” Roddy Piper was the head bad guy back then, he was a character I liked. His “redemption” and retirement from the WWF was classic. As John Nada, I thought he turned out an strong, understated performance. His dialogue is pretty limited, but that one was of the elements of the character I really liked. And he delivered his one liners with precision. They may have been a bit cheesy, but always good for a laugh.

    Keith David as the reluctant friend is also terrific. The fight sequence between him and Piper is fun as heck. The two just beat the snot out of one another. Two massive, muscular guys going at it, and the mixture of a few classic wrestling moves were perfect. Meg Foster, who appears as a cable station employee, is as creepy as always. Her bright blue eyes were also captivating.

    The music is also subtle yet dead on for the film. John Carpenter has made a habit of creating — or co-creating, as in this case — the music for all his movies. Simple guitar riffs make up the bulk of music and the simplicity of it sets the right mood for the film.

    One of the things that I like the most about Carpenter’s films is his often unexpected endings. You never know what to expect with his films, because the main character may not survive. Or may do something that will destroy all technology on the planet. Or the bad guys may not really be dead, and return to kill everyone. His unconventional endings are part of what make his films extremely entertaining.

    One of the things that I love the most about the DVDs to some of Carpenter’s films is his commentary. Sadly, this DVD has nothing.

    And I mean, nothing. Not even a trailer. It’s just a throwaway DVD that doesn’t do this film justice. The transfer quality is fine, but I would love to see this move get the commentary treatment. Listen to Carpenter talk about the process he went through to make the film. See the trailers, and maybe even a documentary or two.

    Do you hear me Universal? Give us a better DVD of this classic sci-fi movie!

    Anyone out there in cyberspace?

    Hello?

  • ‘Zulu’ is one of the all time greatest war films ever made

    ‘Zulu’ is one of the all time greatest war films ever made

    Stanley Baker (right) and Michael Caine in 'Zulu'
    Stanley Baker (right) and Michael Caine in ‘Zulu’

    When I was a kid, my father introduced me to a lot of things I still love to this day. They include Johnny Cash, “Dr. Who”, and the classic British war film, Zulu. And that movie is still one of my all-time favorite war films.

    The film is about a small garrison of British soldiers in Africa who face off against thousands of Zulu warriors at a lonely outpost in the middle of nowhere called Rorke’s Drift. Armed with rifles, they struggle through a day of battle as wave after wave of warriors descend upon them.

    Made in 1964, it lacks much of the gritty realism seen nowadays. But the heart of this movie doesn’t rest in the style of the battles — which feature little blood — but in the heart of the characters. Through the writing, and their performances, this film truly comes alive and gains most of its power.

    The main character is Lieutenant John Chard, played by Stanley Baker — who was also one of the producers of the film. An engineer thrust into command when the Zulu attack, Chard is unsure of himself since he has never actually led in battle before. He must also stand firm against the arrogance of Michael Caine’s brash Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead (This film was Caine’s first starring role in a feature film). Bromhead thinks little of Chard at first, believing that he should be the one to take command. However, Chard outranks him — largely on a technically more than rank itself.

    Chard, the working class officer; Bromhead, the pompous nobleman. The relationship between these two men works beautifully, as the performances are brought to life with strength and realism.

    Then there’s Private Henry Hook, the corrupt anti-hero, disillusioned with the war who milks his questionable injury to remain out of the fight and in the infirmary. His conscience, however, is heckled by another soldier who has descended into madness.

    The characters are highlighted against the beautiful African background. Surrounded by speckled green mountains, the lone fort should be an easy target for the Zulu. And while it may be easy to assume that the ultimate success of the British soldiers is mostly movie magic than real world resolutions, what makes this movie all the more powerful is that it is based on a true story.

    Zulu takes place in January of 1879. The Zulu who attack the fort had, the day before, slaughtered 1,500 British soldiers in a massive battle. Marching onward, they target the small outpost at Rorke’s Drift. With less than 100 soldiers to its credit, along with a dozen or so wounded men, the fort struggles desperately to beat back the Zulu.

    The movie is 2″ hours long, but doesn’t feel like it. And the DVD transfer is the most beautiful version of the film I’d ever seen. In fact, when I first watched the DVD, it was the first time I’d ever had the pleasure of seeing this movie in widescreen format. The stunning vistas are made even more beautiful by the bright colors. The blue sky and bright red coats of the British solders are vivid.

    The musical score by John Barry — one of the industry’s best composers — is given Dolby treatment and sounds incredible. Sadly, this film warranted only a single special feature, the original theatrical trailer. And, regardless of what’s stated in our recent DVD article, this is one of those rare occasions where the trailer does prove interesting.

    Zulu was made in 1964, and the concept of how trailers looked was completely different. Today we have fast cuts, slick music. They try to sell you the film in about 30 seconds in MTV style. But, in the 1960s, trailers were much longer and hosted cheesy voice overs and titles that literally jumped out at you to get your attention. I always find it interesting to see these old trailers because they are so dramatically different than what we see today.

    In closing, let me just say that Zulu is, without a doubt, one of the all time greatest war films ever made. Great characters, great story, terrific action. It’s what all war movies to aspire to be. Yet, this film is often ignored or forgotten, which is a great tragedy.

  • ‘In the Blink of an Eye: A Perspective on Film Editing’ is a must read

    'In the Blink of an Eye: A Perspective on Film Editing,' by Walter Murch
    ‘In the Blink of an Eye: A Perspective on Film Editing,’ by Walter Murch

    During my 12-week stint at the New York Film Academy it was recommended that we read this book. Written by Walter Murch, editor of “Apocalypse Now,” it is an insightful and fascinating look at the art of film editing.

    Editing is what I find to be the most exciting part of making a film. Selecting the shots, picking the tone. It’s just you and the editing machine — be it a Steenbeck or an AVID system. No other people to deal with, personalities to entertain, or orders to bark. Just a dark room, a cool drink and many hours staring at a small screen as weeks of work spills out before you.

    Murch not only takes you into his experience in editing films, he also describes the aesthetics of editing. The art of editing. And, as the title suggests, cutting on the “blink.”

    Although there are technical issues to deal with while editing, such as cutting action consistently and avoiding jump cuts. But, as Murch explains, there are some basic theories as to why film editing works.

    He discusses the link between films and dreams, and how a good editor is recognized by… not being recognized.

    Good editing is one of the few parts of filmmaking that is designed not to be noticed. A visual story is told, and the viewer should never consciously be aware of the cuts from one shot to another.

    Murch does a terrific job expressing the challenges and purpose of the editor. If you are interested in this field, I would highly recommend picking up this book.

  • ‘Making Movies: The Inside Guide to Independent Movie Production’

    'Making Movies: The Inside Guide to Independent Movie Production' by John Russo
    ‘Making Movies: The Inside Guide to Independent Movie Production’ by John Russo

    I recently moved, and was able to unpack several of my books which had been tucked away for awhile. I decided, since I was putting the book out for display, I should read it.

    The book, as you can see by the image, is called “Making Movies,” by John Russo. A former cohort of George Romero (director of “Night of the Living Dead”), he has worked as a director and screenwriter, and wrote several books on filmmaking.

    In this book, he really gets into the nuts and bolts of making films. From information and tips on how to get started in the business, to how to raise money, budget, market and promote your film.

    Unlike most books on making movies, this one is rooted in real-world ideas and solutions. It also features stories from other famed writers/directors such as Sam Raimi (“Evil Dead,” “Spiderman”), to Oliver Stone (“Platoon,” “Natural Born Killers”). However, since the book was written in the late ’80s, it discusses film and video, but the information was compiled before the “digital revolution.”

    Still, while the technological aspects of the book are slightly dated, the information the book offers is useful.

    This same reason is why I did not really like “The Mummy Returns” as much as the first film.

    I highly recommend Russo’s “Making Movies.” But, I should add that it may be quite difficult to find as it is out of print. However, Amazon.com does appear to have it, and you may also be able to get it through Barnes & Nobel’s website.

  • ‘Rebel Without A Crew’

    'Rebel Without A Crew: Or How a 23-Year-Old Filmmaker with $7,000 Became a Hollywood Player,' by Robert Rodriguez
    ‘Rebel Without A Crew: Or How a 23-Year-Old Filmmaker with $7,000 Became a Hollywood Player,’ by Robert Rodriguez

    Written back in 1996, Rebel Without A Crew is probably one of the finest books about filmmaking that I’ve read. Written by Robert Rodriguez, it charts his process of making his first feature film, El Mariachi. It reads very honestly, giving a great portrayal of true guerilla filmmaking. Written as a series of journal entries, Rodriguez discusses virtually everything – from selling himself to medical research to raise funds, to getting deals with Kodak for film.

    There is something to be learned here. Rodriguez basically details the whole process of how he made things up as he went along. Filmed efficiently, cut costs on actors and locations, in other words did everything on the cheap. It’s inspiring and funny. I can’t imagine that anyone who comes away reading this book isn’t filled with enthusiasm to run out and make their own $7,000 film.

    Of course, I hadn’t actually seen El Mariachi when I read this book. And if you haven’t seen the film, then I’d highly recommend you read the book first. When you read the book, and learn how he tried to sell his film to Mexican producers, but later landed a distribution deal with Columbia Pictures, you’re filled with an image of a film that is actually good. This is not the case, at least in my opinion.

    El Mariachi is actually a really bad film. Badly shot, badly acted, badly written. It looks like a $7,000 film, and that ain’t a compliment.

    What’s good about the film is the concept, and that’s how it was sold. It wasn’t so much a film, as a $7,000 pitch to produce a film – that film being Desperado. While considered a pseudo sequel, it was basically a remake. With Desperado, we’re treated to a highly stylized action film I think was pretty good. It’s El Mariachi with a real budget.

    Getting back to the book, one of the best elements of it is how it charts Rodriguez’ climb from a “nobody” to a “somebody”. This was what I liked most. Not the nuts-and-bolts of how he got the film made, but what happened after he finished it and suddenly he started to get a lot of attention. The best moment is when he was a panelist at – I believe – either Sundance or the Toronto Film Festival. When asked if he were given a big budget to direct a Hollywood film, would he do it, Rodriguez answered honestly: “Of course!” This was in contrast to the other panelists, all of which apparently said they’d refuse.

    Give me a break.

    I liked Rodriguez’ candor and honesty. He tells his story in a fun and real way, where you feel like you’re taking the wild and crazy trip with him. If you’re looking to make your film on the cheap, this is a must read, if only to serve as inspiration for what is possible.

  • ‘Friday the 13th’

    Tuesday the 5th. Doesn’t sound very interesting, does it?

    Think again.

    On October 5th, 2004 Paramount will release the first ever Friday the 13th box set, which includes the first eight films (New Line owns the rights to the more recent films). Not interested? I can understand… the franchise gets trashed all the time. It’s rare that anyone says anything good about it. Well, The Horror Guru has taken it upon himself to show you the positives in this series. Over the next two months, I’ll review one entry of the series each week, leading up to the release of the box set in early October.

    Come on… it’ll be fun!

    Opening the same day as Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, the original film in the Friday series is actually quite good… arguably the best (so good, they made it nine more times!) The first ten minutes give you a good background to the story that follows.

    In 1958, two camp counselors were brutally murdered while doing… well, what camp counselors in movies do best. The killer was never found. There were numerous attempts to reopen the camp after that, but each time something strange happened preventing the camp from operating (arson, contaminated water). More than 20 years pass and the camp’s new owner, Steve Christy, drops a good deal of money to get the camp up and running again, despite warnings of a “death curse” on the area. The carnage begins as the curse proves true, putting the lives of the camp staff in mortal danger.

    Long story short, the camp staff consists of six counselors, a cook and the owner. The cook, Annie, never quite makes it to the camp, as she is viciously slain by an unseen assailant with whom she got a ride. The other six — Alice (Adrienne King), Brenda, Jack (a young Kevin Bacon), Bill (Harry Crosby, Bing’s son), Marcie, and Ned — are soon left alone at the camp as Steve Christy leaves for an urgent errand in town. The counselors basically hang around until they get spooked by the local town crazy, Ralph. “You’re all doomed!” he warns.

    Hey, kiddies… for future reference, when a crazy person tells you that you’re doomed, listen to the guy!

    Soon enough, the requisite slasher-flick thunderstorm arrives. Marcie and Jack seek shelter in a cabin, while Alice, Bill and Brenda decide to play a rousing game of strip Monopoly. Marcie and Jack, thinking they’re alone, have a little “play” time. 

    STRIKE!

    Folks, pre-marital relations with a member of the opposite sex in a slasher will get you killed! Sure enough, once Marcie leaves for the bathroom, Mr. Bacon gets an arrow through the neck. Outstanding moment! Marcie, while washing her face, hears a noise in the showers. Of course, despite the better judgment of most people, she goes to see what’s going on and gets a splitting headache from an axe for her trouble. We’re about 45 minutes in at this point, so they’re dropping like flies now.

    Meanwhile, a gust of wind blows open the main cabin door, interrupting the currently non-nude Monopoly game. Brenda conveniently remembers the windows to her cabin are still open, so she leaves… alone (a.k.a., big flippin’ mistake!). From her cabin, she hears a child’s cries for help, and… yep, goes to investigate. She reaches the archery range which is suddenly illuminated brightly, with Brenda standing directly in front of one of the targets. Hmm… I wonder what happens here… Alice and Bill investigate an apparent scream (detecting a pattern yet?), and happen upon a bloodied axe in one of the cabins. At this point, they realize something is wrong.

    They try to use a phone but it’s dead (obviously). They try to start the truck but it won’t start (obviously), so they decide to go back to the main cabin. All the while, Steve, the camp owner, is stranded on the side of the road in the driving rain until a police officer kindly gives him a ride back to the camp. Steve, upon arrival at the camp, is greeted by someone off-screen who he recognizes… and gets a pleasant stomach-stabbing.

    Right on cue, the power to the camp goes out, and Bill goes to check the generator. Alice decides this is a good time for a nap. Hmm… yeah, I can buy that. She awakens to realize Bill is still not back, so she goes to look for him. As expected, she finds Bill. She returns to “home base” and hides. That is, until she sees lights from a Jeep outside and, thinking it’s Steve, runs out to say, “Hi.”

    Turns out it’s Pamela Voorhees, an “old friend of the Christy’s.” Pammy tells Alice about the boy who drowned in 1957 because the two counselors who should have been watching him were too busy gettin’ busy. The boy, Jason, was her son. As it turns out, it was Pamela who has been trying to all these years to prevent the camp from reopening. Resorting, ultimately, to murder.

    Alice and Pamela duke it out in an old-fashioned cat-fight. Harry Manfredini shines here as the score brings the intensity of the picture to a whole other level. The “chi-chi-chi, ma-ma-ma” theme has become cemented in horror movie music history.

    The acting is… typical early 80’s fare: a tad weak and very cheesy. Considering the genre, however, it’s really not that bad. Betsy Palmer, as Mrs. Voorhees, is amazing. Her innocent, smiling face masking her total madness… eyes sunken into her sockets… she was arguably the most terrifying villain of the time. Palmer was profoundly and truly terrifying because she can be equated to any sweet older woman that you know. It’s something you can relate to.

    As a slasher, you’ve got your required guilty pleasures… although not as graphic as some of the sequels. The gore, though shocking for the time, is relatively tame by today’s standards. Nudity… well, there’s a little something for everyone here… Kevin Bacon’s rear getting squeezed, and one of Jeannine Taylor’s (Marcie) breasts.

    This Friday film possesses something a lot of its sequels, and other slashers, don’t: Ambiance. The shots of the calm lake, the clouded moon, and its amazing score add volumes to an otherwise average flick.

    Bottom line, this is one of the best slasher movies ever created, and to this day, has one of the most creative endings in the genre. The quality of the film can be debated. Many say you’ve got all your typical slasher stereotypes here (having sex = death, naked girls, lots of blood, idiotic characters, thunderstorms, etc.). The Guru doesn’t refute this point; and while it didn’t necessarily invent the slasher concept – John Carpenter’s Halloween generally gets that credit – it does perfect them in a way no other horror series ever did.

    To this day, Friday the 13th remains one of the most influential films of all time.

    Flick figures: 10 dead bodies; stomach-knifing; throat-slitting; face-splitting; arrow-sticking; head-hacking; frying pan to the head; snake-slaying; 1 breast; 1-½ butts.

    Next Week: The Horror Guru takes a gander at the sequel: Friday the 13th, Part II.

  • David Mamet’s ‘Glengarry Glen Ross’ is a masterwork not to be missed

    David Mamet’s ‘Glengarry Glen Ross’ is a masterwork not to be missed

    Jack Lemmon and Kevin Spacey in 'Glengarry Glen Ross'
    Jack Lemmon and Kevin Spacey in ‘Glengarry Glen Ross’

    Even as Quentin Tarantino continues to ride a tide of popularity for his witty, self-consciously hip banter, there is still one undisputed, heavy weight champion of brilliant screen dialogue.

    David Mamet.

    Mamet’s been perfecting his trademark patter since his theatrical hits Sexual Perversity in Chicago and About Last Night in the mid-seventies, through his work on Hill Street Blues for television, and his successful film adaptations of The Postman Always Rings Twice and the Paul Newman classic The Verdict, for which he was nominated for his first Oscar (Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, 1982).

    Mamet’s career has been checkered. For every popular hit like The Untouchables, there are several critically acclaimed works like House of Games and The Winslow Boy, or woefully under-appreciated efforts like The Edge that struggled to find an audience. Even after rising to the level of Hollywood royalty, Mamet’s work remains an acquired taste; a full meal, heavy on red meat and bitter vegetables served to a population weaned on a diet of comfort food.

    Mamet’s most talked about film to date is the cult favorite Glengarry Glen Ross. And for good reason. Set in the arena of real estate sales, Glengarry is Mamet at his finest; an unflinching, foul-mouthed journey into the lives of desperate men fighting for their jobs, and by extension, their lives. Based on Mamet’s Pulitzer Prize-winning stage play of the same name, Glengarry Glen Ross contains some of the most memorable and quotable dialogue in the author’s long career. For those unfamiliar with “Mametspeak,” Glengarry is a fine introduction.

    “You’re talking about what?” asks a superior of his sales staff. “You’re talkin’ about — bitchin’ about that sale you shot, some son of a bitch don’t wanna buy land, somebody don’t want what you’re sellin’, some broad you’re tryin’ to screw, so forth? Let’s talk about something important.”

    Classic Mamet — terse, profane and in your face. Mamet’s dialogue doesn’t strive for realism, it rises to the level of working-class poetry. Characters interrupt themselves and restart their sentences mid-thought, speak in telling fragments, etc. It’s precise, musical, driven as mush by rhythm as language.

    “The good news is, you’re fired,” the superior barks at his subordinates. “The bad news is you’ve got — all of you’ve got — just one week to regain your jobs, starting with tonight, starting with tonight’s sit!”

    A former real estate salesman, Mamet fills Glengarry with the language of the game. A “sit” is a business meeting. A “closer” is someone who sells, or, more literally, closes deals. “Leads” are just that, vital information about potential clients. It’s the leads that matter. Give your sales force bad leads and you’ve tied their hands.

    “The leads are week,” one worker protests.

    “The leads are weak?” barks the superior. “You’re weak! You can’t play in the man’s game? You can’t close ‘em? Then go home and tell your wife your troubles! ‘Cause only one thing counts in this life — get them to sign on the line which is dotted. You hear me, you fucking faggots?!”

    Get the picture? An acquired taste, to be sure. If you like your characters sympathetic, and your storytellers guided by a moral code, then you’ve wandered into the wrong mall.

    Shot for twelve million and given a limited run, the film grossed less than eleven million dollars, despite rave reviews. Since its release on video, the film has enjoyed a second life, earning a cult following that it still enjoys today.

    For those brave — or strong — enough to hang on for dear life, Glengarry Glen Ross is a masterwork not to be missed. Working with little more than two interior locations, Glengarry proves that less can be more (much more!), that well-written conflict is more engaging than an hour of special effects, and that smart, dialogue-driven films — like the great films of the 40’s and 50’s — can still blow you away, even when there’s little more going on in the frame than conversation.

    In addition to Mamet’s writing, and helmer James Foley’s unobtrusive direction,Glengarry‘s success is due, in no small part, to the brilliant performances of its stellar cast. Attracted by Mamet’s work, and eager to work in collaboration with each other, Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, Kevin Spacey, Alec Baldwin, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, and Jonathan Pryce all cut their rates to be a part of the production. Of these, Pacino was the most instrumental in getting the project to the screen.

    According to Foley, Pacino saw the play, loved it, and got his hands on Mamet’s screenplay adaptation. Pacino’s intention was to play Ricky Romer, the highest rated salesman in the lowly rated pool (Baldwin gives a different take on Pacino’s commitment to the project in his audio commentary in a bit of telling gossip — telling, that is, of Baldwin). It was Pacino, says Foley, who suggested casting Lemmon.

    “This was a time when Jack Lemmon’s was very dicey,” Foley recalls in his audio commentary. “He was still a vital, vibrant actor in the scheme of things, but he had not been in a successful movie in a couple years. So to suggest that he be one of the stars of this movie with Pacino — who was riding high — was not met with enthusiasm.”

    While Lemmon’s involvement in the project didn’t light anyone’s fire at New Line, the actor’s commitment meant the world to his peers. With both Pacino and Lemmon attached to the property, the other actors eagerly signed on, and the rest is history.

    Each actor brings a unique voice to the production. Pacino is cunning and seductive as the company’s best salesman. Baldwin is eviscerating in his one, show-stopping scene as the condescending superior. Arkin, as always, is solid as the group’s least committed member. Harris is the epitome of the seething professional desperate to re-establish his manhood. Spacey is strong as the cold-hearted company shill with a mean streak, and Pryce delivers the film’s most subtly tortured performances as a fly caught in the web of the company’s biggest spider. But it is Lemmon — the man the studio didn’t want from the get go — that turns in the film’s most heartbreaking performance as an unprincipled salesman unraveling at the seams.

    On his commentary, director Foley recalls that the Glengarry Glen Ross set was the least tense set of any film he’d ever worked, despite the on screen acrimony… with one exception.

    “I remember that I would come in,” Baldwin says, “and they were all around the coffee urn having coffee and laughing and I walked up, and all the laughing stopped.” Foley recalls the same. “They treated him like shit, which was great,” the director tells, “because it motivated him to treat them back as shit. It wasn’t about Alec at all,” Foley clarifies. “It was about his character.”

    From the beginning, all the actors agreed to do Mamet’s screenplay word-for-word; the author’s idiosyncratic dialogue would never work as a whole if any one actor tried to paraphrased it. “We had a script supervisor on the set,” Arkin recalls. “If I had a line that was, “uh…uh…uh,” and I only did two of them, I would get stopped. ‘I’m sorry, there are three of those.’ It was the most exacting work I’ve ever done in my life.”

    In addition to the brilliant film, the ten-year anniversary edition DVD is loaded with extras. Compiled after Lemmon’s death, the 2-disc set features a loving tribute to the actor in the form of talking heads interviews with professionals who worked with or knew Lemmon personally. Fittingly, Chris Lemmon, the actor’s only son, begins and ends the tribute titled “Magic Time”, an expression the senior Lemmon often used before shooting his scenes. The similarities between Chris and his father are startling, and the adoration he expresses for his dad is quite moving.

    As universally loved and admired as Jack Lemmon was, it does feel odd that more people weren’t brought in for the tribute, most notably the muscle-bound, African-American actor Ving Rhames who, after winning his Best Actor statuette at the Golden Globe Awards three years earlier, tearfully called Lemmon to the stage and gave it to him in exchange for the veteran’s influence on his career. Too bad.

    The DVD also features commentaries from director Foley, Alan Arkin, Alec Baldwin, cinematographer Juan Ruiz Anchia, and production designer Jane Musky. An odd detail to note is that none of the commentaries is feature-length. Each commentary jumps abruptly to scenes later in the film, making one suspect their DVD might be damaged. Perhaps the editors of the commentaries felt as DP Anchia did.

    “A lot of times you see a book about a photo and how captured it,” Anchia shares, his Spanish accent thick. “And he’s so — intellectual. And you say, well, sometimes you just got the picture. Why to talk more about it? And in films it’s the same. It’s the nature of the moment. You just got it. Why intellectualize the moment?”

    The DVD also includes a clip of Jack Lemmon on “Charlie Rose” discussing Glengarry, and a second clip from “Inside the Actor’s Studio” featuring Kevin Spacey interacting with a second year student during that show’s Q&A.

    Jeff Margolis, the student in question, has to go down in history as the poster child for hutspa. The previous year when Spacey appeared on the program, Margolis convinced the two-time Academy Award-winner to perform a line from Glengarry. This time around, Margolis convinces Spacey to play part of a scene from Glengarrywith him. It’s a moment that brings down the house, and tickles Spacey — an actor who, by his own admission, jump-started his career with a series of profoundly shameless overtures. In the end, Margolis not only plays the scene with Spacey, but he gets his brass balls moment immortalized forever on the anniversary DVD!

    Extras also include a second talking heads documentary featuring lifelong sales people titled A.B.C. (or “Always Be Closing,” the Baldwin character’s command at the head of Glengarry), and a short, 1947 documentary on zealous, Pennsylvania furniture salesman J. Roy. More than A.B.C., Roy’s footage gives viewers their best glimpse into the kind of charismatic, sincere personality that happily chooses a lifetime in sales.

    Other features include wide and full screen options, DTS and Dolby Digital sound, English and Spanish subtitles, production notes, cast & crew biographies and an odd little Easter Egg. Go to the Special Features page, highlight the Main Menu option and click the Left button to highlight the bar sign in the Chinese restaurant. Click that and you’re lead to a series of unknown actors taking Baldwin’s abusive monologue out for a spin. Though a case can be made for the difficulty of performing Mamet’s dialogue, it seems mean-spirited to martyr hopefuls obviously out of their depth to make the point.

    The one genuinely entertaining moment comes at the end of this extra. One of the actors, an Asian-American, turns to the camera and begins the monologue again in Japanese. Rather than going big with the line, as Baldwin did in the film, the actor delivers her reading with ice in her voice. Though obviously tagged on as a hoot (the moment begins and ends with a gong), it’s a great, telling bit that demonstrates just how chilling Mamet’s intention can be in any language.

  • Guillermo Del Toro’s ‘The Devil’s Backbone’ is an unsung masterpiece

    Guillermo Del Toro’s ‘The Devil’s Backbone’ is an unsung masterpiece

    Fernando Tieve gets creepy in 'The Devil's Backbone'
    Fernando Tieve gets creepy in ‘The Devil’s Backbone’

    When the opportunity presented itself for me to return to journalism, I pounced on it. Years after my self-imposed retirement, I began writing DVD reviews for this site because I knew it offered the perfect opportunity to do something I really love to do: champion movies — great movies — movies that slipped under the radar of even the most film-savvy cinephiles. Case in point, The Devil’s Backbone.

    During my brief stint at a local Blockbuster, it didn’t surprise me that most customers hadn’t heard of the film. Chain store consumers tend toward mainstream, star-driven fare; indie, alternative and foreign films have little interest to them. What did surprise me was that most of my friends — screenwriters and filmmakers, all — hadn’t heard of this amazing film either.

    The Devil’s Backbone opened in the shadow of The Others, exactly the kind of mainstream, star-driven vehicle that swallows all the smaller films around it. Both Backbone and The Others were set in the past. The latter starred Nicole Kidman. The former featured a trio of well-known actors. Well-known to Latin audiences, anyway, but unknowns in the U.S. Both films featured a break in the delicate fabric separating the worlds of the living and the dead, spilling one into the other until the border disappeared. Alas, when it comes to the box office, horse races like these aren’t always won by the best film. More often they’re won by the first film released.

    Of the two, The Others received modest reviews. The Devil’s Backbone got raves. The Others hit theaters August 14th in 2001, raking in a whopping $14,000,000.00 plus in three days. The Devil’s Backbone opened in November of that same year, grossing just under $35,000.00 its opening weekend.

    The race wasn’t fair by a long shot. Kidman’s film opened three months before and was pumped by the Miramax war chest. It didn’t hurt that Kidman’s film was produced by husband Tom Cruise, or that the film played on 1,674 more screens than Backbone. And then there’s the issue of subtitles. Americans hate them, andThe Devil’s Backbone had ‘em from beginning to end. With only four screens in the entire U.S. playing the film, it’s little wonder Backbone fell into obscurity after its release.

    I missed it when it played in theaters. You probably did, too. But I’m here to tell you, it’s not to be missed on DVD! The film is a masterpiece.

    Guillermo Del Toro's 'The Devil's Backbone'
    Guillermo Del Toro’s ‘The Devil’s Backbone’

    The Devil’s Backbone opens in Spain, 1939, during that country’s civil war. After his father is killed, twelve-year-old Carlos (Fernando Tielve) is dropped at an orphanage in the middle of the desert. Behind the high stonewalls of the isolated structure, Carmen (Marisa Paredes), the matronly headmistress, and the gray-haired Doctor Casares (Federico Luppi) nervously watch over the children of the war’s martyred freedom fighters. Leftist ‘Reds’ themselves, Carmen and Casares live in constant fear for their lives and the lives of their charges.

    Like a featured character, death is ever present at the orphanage. Present in the walled courtyard where an unexploded bomb stands planted in the ground, it’s metal heart ticking. Death haunts the edges of the story in the constant threat of Franco’s cruel militia and the summary executions going on a town away. It breathes in the form of a fleeting apparition that appears to young Carlos soon after his arrival.

    The orphanage caretaker, Jacinto — angry and virile — wanders the grounds like a panther walking circles in a cage. Jacinto (Eduardo Noriega) has his own agenda. With one eye on his coworkers, the former resident-orphan turned hateful adult will stop at nothing to get the gold locked in the orphanage safe by the strong-willed headmistress. Secured for the cause of democracy, the gold is a double-edged sword; if funneled to the rebels, it could buy Spain it’s freedom; if discovered by the Nationalists, it would mean certain death at the hands of the Fascists.

    While the characters of matinee idol-handsome Noriega, and veterans thesps Paredes and Luppi get plenty of screen time, the story of The Devil’s Backbone is rooted in the point of view of Tielve’s Carlos.

    Carlos grows even more curious about the ghostly child that appeared to him when he hears the children discussing “The One Who Sighs,” a presence all of them have felt, but only Carlos seems to see. Just who the ghost is, and what he wants is the mystery he determines to solve, even as the cruel Jacinto tries to keep him from the truth.

    “Many of you will die,” the child ghost warns Carlos in the basement, his voice like the sighs of the dying. In an American film, it would be safe to assume that the ghost isn’t warning the children; pre-teens never get hurt in our movies. Before you get too comfortable with that notion, let me remind you — The Devil’s Backbone is not an American movie. No one is beyond death’s reach in the film. There is no moral code protecting the weak and punishing the guilty. As in war, suffering is very democratic. It’s this uncertainty that fuels the films suspense.

    The Devil’s Backbone is that rare piece of popular entertainment that has something for everyone. At a glance, it’s a ghost story. On that level, the film delivers in spades, featuring a number of hair-raising sequences, genuinely horrifying imagery, and top-notch special effects.

    It’s also a drama. In Backbone, director and co-writer Guillermo Del Toro (Blade 2,Hellboy) and co-writers Antonio Trashorras and David Munoz spin their tale with characters so memorable, and conflicts so passionate that the story could have stood on its own without its supernatural elements; the ghost, it turns out, is the “icing” on a cake good enough to eat without any!

    Shot in the classic style of the great masters, Backbone also succeeds as high art. The film is gorgeously photographed, artfully composed, and its dialogue so poetic that the film unfolds with the richness of literature. Yet, for all of its high brow ambitions, The Devil’s Backbone is first and foremost a visceral experience, a thrill ride that grabs the viewer by the throat from its first arresting image, and doesn’t let go till the final fade to black.

    What can’t be overstated here is how well the cast inhabits their characters. The actors are uniformly terrific, with a pair of the film’s juiciest roles going to the children. Tielve, as the story’s sympathetic core, carries the film as Carlito. It’s amazing to learn, as we do in the feature-length commentary, that this is the actor’s first film; he’d come to auditions hoping for a part as an extra. Vets Paredes and Luppi (with over 120 film credits between them) lend gravity to their roles as headmistress and physician, respectively, and provide the film’s bittersweet romance. Irene Visedo finds just the right notes as Jacinto’s naïve, conflicted lover, and Inigo Garcès is excellent as the orphanage bully hiding a few secrets of his own.

    In 1992 Del Torro came to prominence when his gothic, feature film debut Cronos won The Critic’s Prize at the Canne Film Festival. As with most contemporary, foreign directors, Del Torro’s first American effort, Mimic, was…well…not so great. Disillusioned by studio politics, the director returned to his native Mexico, formed his own production company, partnered with Oscar-winning filmmaker Pedro Almodovar and more than redeemed himself with The Devil’s Backbone, a film the director sites as his most personal and rewarding effort.

    Backbone has been available now for two years, and it’s worth tracking down. Whatever you do, ignore the cheesy artwork on the box; the images chosen make the film look like a straight-to-video, exploitation flick, and do nothing to suggest the frightening, lyrical art film within. The quality of the DVD transfer is superb here, with every shadow, skin tone and texture popping off the screen. Director of Photography Guillermo Navarro (Hellboy) paints the tale with bold strokes of color that translate richly, and his use of long lenses give the film an old-school, movie-movie feel. The DVD, thankfully, retains the original’s widescreen format, which is used to great affect throughout.

    As extras go, The Devil’s Backbone proves that less can be more. Special features include a 12-minute, making-of documentary that invites us into Guillermo’s process, and reveals that most of the talent doesn’t look or sound anything like their characters. Warning: DO NOT watch the making-of featurette before screening the film; the doc contains a number of rather nasty spoilers.

    Del Torro’s feature-length commentary with longtime collaborator Navarro is insightful, charming and funny. The director has a wicked sense of humor, which frequently turns to self-deprecation. He and Navarro have been pals since ’88 and their friendship enlivens their dialogue.

    Other extras include the best storyboard comparisons I’ve seen on a DVD. The feature gives viewers the option to view each (oddly cartoony) storyboard panel in sequence with the film’s corresponding soundtrack, or in tandem with the final scene as it appears in the film.

    Regular readers of these reviews will recall that I’ve been particularly hard on the trailers on past DVD’s. Well, I’m delighted to say that the teaser for Guillermo’s masterpiece is as fine a trailer as could have been cut for the film — it’s compelling without giving too much away, visually arresting without being too heavy-handed, and concludes with one of the film’s creepiest moments. Additional trailers include 13 Ghosts (the 1960 original), All About My Mother and Not One Less.

    With scenes of sexuality and violence against children, the film earns its “R” rating, and is probably not appropriate for underage viewers. A final suggestion: if you have small kids, put your Devil’s Backbone DVD in the player after they’ve left the room. The film’s menu screen features the wounded, ghostly child and could give impressionable little viewers restless nights for weeks or years to come.