Change Your Image
Pjtaylor-96-138044
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againRecent Check-Ins
Reviews
Hellraiser: Evolutions (2015)
Too long for what it is, but fairly fun nevertheless.
'Hellraiser: Evolutions (2015)' is a documentary which focuses on the 'Hellraiser' franchise, with particular focus on the impact of the series. Featuring talking-head interviews with various people involved with the production of these movies (as well as some journalists and famous fans), most of the piece is dedicated to different interpretations of why the movies are so liked by so many different people. The problem is that none of this is insightful in the slightest. After all, I know why I like (some of) these films. I know that they centre on sadomasochism, that they include iconic imagery, that they play on the push-pull dynamic of pleasure and pain, that they hint at a darkness that's desired by all of us deep down, that Pinhead has pins in his head. Pretty much everyone who enjoys these films knows all that, too. Most of the people involved give very basic responses to these types of question and they all tend to repeat one another. There's very little in the way of interesting analysis, let's put it that way. There's not all that much actual behind-the-scenes content, either. Even though the documentary is mainly about the post-'Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996)' pictures, it only uses footage from the first three films (save for a few brief stills) and it doesn't really give you a sense of anything specific about any of those efforts. It all just feels a bit odd, really, and it borders on being boring on occasion due to its rudimentary and somewhat repetitive nature. It doesn't include enough insight to justify its runtime. However, it's not all bad. There are a few interviews, mainly towards the beginning, that are rather interesting. A few moments delve into the reasoning behind some choices made in certain entries, such as the decision to redub most dialogue in the first film or to recast Pinhead in the most recent one at the time of recording (Doug Bradley basically turned the script down because he didn't think it was particularly good and he didn't like the fact that the flick was being made mainly to keep hold of the franchise rights). While it may seem like faint praise, snippets such as these make the piece worthwhile if you're a fan. Plus, the people involved all talk with a fair amount of passion and it's nice to hear from people usually not given the spotlight in these kinds of thing. The range of interviewees is suitably eclectic and includes some relatively big names, and the documentary is well put together on the whole. It's somewhat disappointing and it gets less compelling as it goes on, but it's a fairly enjoyable effort that includes a couple of stand-out moments.
Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996)
Movie studios are just like cenobites: they'll tear your film apart!
Like one of the series' iconic cenobites, 'Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996)' has been viciously pulled apart and haphazardly put back together as something altogether different, reminiscent of its former self but barely recognisable to anyone familiar with its non-mutilated version. While directing his first and only feature film, prolific special effects/ makeup artist Kevin Yahger decided to remove his name from the credits due to studio-mandated reshoots (done by a different director) and a forced recut of his original vision, meaning the third sequel to Clive Barker's iconic 'Hellraiser (1987)' carries the damning mark of "directed by Alan Smithee". Although you can certainly see the chasm between initial intent and ultimate execution, the film isn't as bad as you may expect considering its director chose to scrub his name from it. In fact, it's a relatively ambitious affair that's actually better than its direct predecessor, 'Hellraiser III: Hell On Earth (1992)'. Although it isn't especially good, per se, it's definitely enjoyable and has quite a solid sense of style, featuring some of the most atmospheric images of its antagonist ever put to film (the stand-out shot harshly lights Pinhead from the top, allowing the tips of his pins to be highlighted as the features of his face ominously sink back into inky black darkness). The flick takes place in three time periods: 18th century France, late-20th century America and 22nd century space. It tells the tale of the Lament Configuration from its naïve creation to its intended destruction, pitting the ancestors of the box's maker against the creatures it's used to summon. Although the transitions between the three settings are clumsy to the point of being confusing, the overall story is fairly interesting and somewhat unconventional - or, perhaps more accurately, it has the potential to be those things. Likely do to the studio's meddling, the end result often settles back into a more mundane rhythm that places emphasis on oddly paced set-pieces and conventional 'monster at the end of the hall' scares. It's clear that someone was nervous about the more measured and cerebral approach the piece was taking, and that they forced a pivot into more traditional but less compelling territory. It does nothing other than hurt the picture, as the end result focuses the most on its least intriguing aspects. A prime example of this is how the film initially seems to set up another main villain, but then throws her by the wayside to reintroduce Doug Bradley's extreme acupuncturist because that's apparently what fans expect. Even when Angelique turns up in her glorious full-blown cenobite form (she has one of the best designs in the series), she's just treated as part of the scenery and never really given her moment to shine. Still, there's plenty to like here and it's genuinely quite fun on occasion. Its less conventional elements are certainly admirable and it has a strong sense of atmosphere throughout. Its cinematography is really satisfying, its special effects are suitably grisly and its score - while a step down from Christopher Young's work - is surprisingly effective. It's far better than you may expect it to be given that it carries the Smithee name. It isn't a patch on the original, but it's a decent effort that's survived what most movies can't even dream of enduring. In a meta way, that kind of makes it a perfect addition to this sadomasochistic series.
Time with Terri (2015)
Terri time.
This interview with 'Hellraiser III: Hell On Earth (1992)' star Paula Marshall is an enjoyably relaxed experience in which the actor recalls her time working on her very first movie. She goes into some nice detail surrounding how she got the role and how she wanted to get things right, even going so far as to practice smoking (which she hates) in order to appear natural at it on screen. Her dedication is fairly impressive and you get the sense that she was passionate about building her career. She seems as though she is happy to have been involved with the film, even if she does make some easy-to-miss comments suggesting she doesn't hold the horror genre in too high esteem. The conversation doesn't get too much into the nitty gritty of the filming process, even if it does touch on Marshall's actual process a little more than expected, but it's still a wholesome chat that's open, honest and should prove a treat for fans of the film.
Under the Skin: Doug Bradley on Hellraiser III - Hell on Earth (2004)
It provides brief but enjoyable insight.
The third and final interview in its series of chats with Doug Bradley about the first three 'Hellraiser' movies focuses on 'Hellraiser III: Hell On Earth (1992)'. As usual, Bradley talks about his time working on the movie in a relaxed and fairly informative way, even if the overall conversation doesn't go beyond a certain level of depth and feels fairly surface level on the whole. However, there are plenty of nice bits of information here and there, including insight into the original idea for the movie (which might have not even included Pinhead) and the reason for the three year gap between the second and third entries in the series. There isn't all that much behind-the-scenes type stuff in terms of production, but it's all enjoyable enough to hear. Bradley ends the interview briefly discussing how many times he's played the character and what it means to him, and it's rather wholesome to find out that he isn't tired of people talking to him about the role; it seems he's perfectly happy to be forever associated with cinema's premier sadomasochist.
Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992)
Who you callin' Pinhead?
'Hellraiser III: Hell On Earth (1992)' constantly encourages a single thought: how the hell/ on Earth did we get here? It feels far more like a lesser 'A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984)' sequel than a follow-up to the excellent 'Hellraiser (1987)'. It's significantly worse than 'Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)', which itself is significantly worse than the first film, and it's honestly a bit baffling. I mean, who thought it was a good idea to turn Pinhead into a slightly more well-spoken Freddie Krueger, complete with maniacal cackling and sardonic quips? No longer beholden to the Lament Configuration (or the realm it acts as a doorway to) for vague and fairly limp reasons, the agony-obsessed antagonist regresses into total slasher villain territory and sets out on a bland mission to take over the world. He aims to show humanity their supposed true desires by torturing and/ or killing people in increasingly horrific ways, which is theoretically in character but is actually emblematic of the screenplay's total misunderstanding of what makes him such an iconic baddie. Although I can understand why one might think that giving him access to - and the desire to hurt - everyone on the planet will increase his scariness (after all, now he can get you), doing so only undermines the key aspects of what made him so unsettling in the first place: the fact that he must be summoned and can only ever turn up only when invited (unwittingly or otherwise), that he does his violent duty in a totally nonchalant and dispassionate way which we could never truly understand, and that he will not leave until he takes what he came for with him (or a suitable substitute). Perhaps it was inevitable that putting him at the centre of the piece would lead to a dilution of his necessary impartiality, but I'd like to think that there is a way of having him be the sole antagonist without reducing him to a shadow of his former self. He's incredibly difficult to take seriously, but the movie kind of wants you to. At any rate, it isn't some sort of tongue-in-cheek horror-comedy that purposefully makes its villain into a bit of a goof, albeit a nasty one. No, it seems to have done that entirely by accident, and is therefore not even funny.
Although there is some entertainment to be had when things go hog wild and an entire club's worth of patrons are torn to pieces with just about anything Pinhead has to hand, most of the movie is honestly rather boring. There's no real sense of atmosphere (at one point, the villain shows up in broad daylight, lit totally flat in a static mid-shot) and nothing in the experience is ever even close to being scary. It loses that taboo combination of sex and violence, of lust and revulsion, of pleasure and pain that makes the first film as distinct and effective as it is. There is a fair amount of gore, but gore alone isn't frightening. Nothing here gets under your skin, nothing here plays on fears that run deeper than "I wouldn't like to be killed like that". It's all just a bit silly, really. That isn't inherently bad, I suppose, but silly pictures sort of need to be fun to work. This isn't fun, it's just dull. Plus, it follows two features that aren't silly in the slightest, despite the frankly absurd elements they both contain. It just goes to show that anything can be taken seriously if it's done well enough and is treated with enough respect that it implicitly demands the same from whoever sees it.
I will say, though, that there are some elements here that work fairly well. A couple of the pseudo cenobites introduced in the third act are quite visually interesting and enjoyable in their own way (although Camerahead and Pistonhead are just awful; far too cheesy for their own good). The ridiculousness of some of the violence is kind of amusing, and the goopy special effects are mostly as convincing as you'd like them to be. While there is some terrible acting throughout the affair, there are also a couple of comparatively strong performances. Doug Bradley seems to be having fun chewing up the scenery as this new interpretation of his iconic character. While his work here isn't exactly good, I don't think it's really - or, at least, exclusively - his fault considering that the script really does shaft him. Paula Marshall actually does really well considering this was her first movie. She isn't delivering Oscar-worthy work, but she certainly outperforms her co-stars and is believable in her role (which sadly falls by the wayside after a certain point; a shame considering the character is one of the picture's most interesting).
Ultimately this is a real disappointment. It's a terrible sequel and a below average film. There are some things to like about it and it does provide some limited entertainment, but it lacks any real semblance of substance or style and is fairly dull overall.
Being Frank: Sean Chapman on Hellbound (2015)
He's definitely Frank.
This interview with Sean Chapman is appropriately named, because the actor is unafraid to say how he really feels about 'Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)'. After discussing how he came onboard the project, Chapman openly talks about how he doesn't think the movie is as creative as the original and how it veers more into slasher territory (which he uses derogatively) when it comes to his character. He also recalls not really receiving any direction as it was expected he'd play the character in the same way he had done previously. It's true that Frank isn't developed at all during his cameo appearance and he's very much a snarling monster, but what did the actor expect when he got the script and read his only scene? Still, it's refreshing to see his honesty when it comes to the success of the sequel. He doesn't sound particularly malicious and seems to have had an amicable time during production, even though he does claim that his experience made it clear he no longer wanted to be associated with any future sequels. One thing he does like, and is eager to bring up, is that - unlike in the first film - his vocal track was used this time. Good for him, I guess. Ultimately, this is a fun interview because of how unafraid Chapman is to say how he really feels, even if it seems a little out of place on the Arrow boxset considering it's a collector's item meant for people who presumably like the movies within it.
Under the Skin: Doug Bradley on Hellraiser II - Hellbound (2004)
Enjoyable, but not particularly insightful.
This informal interview with Doug Bradley is focused on the actor's time playing Pinhead in 'Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)'. He talks in relaxed fashion about getting involved with the sequel, the process of applying and removing the required make-up and his understanding of a few rumoured occurrences (such as the time a harsh critic of the first film was cornered by Clive Barker during a visit to set and berated for belittling a British horror movie). A lot of the chat is dedicated to describing a scene which wasn't included in the any cut of the film but appeared in still form on the back of the unrated release, giving fans the impression it was too disturbing even to be included on that extended version. The truth is that it was abandoned during production for practical reasons and much of it was never shot (the scene actually appears on the latest Arrow release but has 'scene missing' cards where the incomplete footage would have gone). While interesting, this isn't engrossing enough to be worthy of such a big chunk of the conversation; it means that there isn't time for a deeper dive into other aspects of production. In general, the interview is very cursory and only gives an overview of certain areas of production. You get the sense that Bradley is fairly fond of the movie, but he never truly gets into how he feels about certain things and I wish he was a little more candid at times. Still, it's an entertaining behind-the-scenes peek into what it takes to portray a horror icon in his second appearance.
Being Frank: Sean Chapman on Hellraiser (2015)
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a Sean.
'Being Frank: Sean Chapman on Hellraiser (2015)' is an honest interview with the actor who portrayed Frank in 'Hellraiser (1987)'. Chapman has no qualms with telling the sometimes brutal truth, something which becomes more apparent in the counterpart to this that discusses on 'Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)', and it's refreshing to see an open chat with someone who just seems like a normal, down-to-earth guy. He covers quite a wide range of topics, beginning with how he first got involved with the film and moving on to his experiences during production. He shares a few insightful stories and generally seems to enjoy the movie in which he appeared (as well as his memories making it). The piece allows him to talk for quite a while when answering the questions, which allows him to naturally find his way to moments he deems insightful to share. One sticking point for him is the fact that the filmmakers opted to dub his performance with another actor, likely - it seems to me - so that there would be more consistency between Frank in his skinned and unskinned forms (either that or it was done during the movie's late-game setting swap from England to some vaguely American location). Chapman clearly believes the removal of his original track flattens the character, and feels as though his voicework brought to life some of the grey morality that drew him to the character in the first place. It's interesting that the voice isn't his, as I always assumed it was him dubbing the two versions of Frank, and I do agree that the character's voice sometimes seems a little one note. Nevertheless, he doesn't seem to bitter about it (even if he mentions it a couple of times) and he doesn't let it dampen what otherwise seems like a brief but enjoyable experience. Having such a detailed chat with a relatively smaller player is a really intriguing idea and it's a lot of fun to see. It's informal, loose and highlights how these iconic movies really are created by regular people. It's a solid interview with plenty of nice tidbits for fans of the film it focuses on.
Hellraiser: Resurrection (2000)
Far too cursory, but enjoyable nevertheless.
Although it's undeniably not very in-depth, this relatively brief talking-head documentary offers a peek behind the curtain of 'Hellraiser (1987)'. 'Hellraiser: Resurrection (2000)' presents an insight into the iconic movie's conception, production and reception, featuring interviews from a variety of people who worked on it. The interviewees sometimes only appear for what feels like a few seconds; I would have loved to have heard more from each and every one of them. However, it's nice to get a few words from people often overlooked in this sort of behind-the-scenes stuff. Along the way, we're treated to excerpts from the source novel (read by Doug Bradley himself) and conceptual sketches by Clive Barker. We also get a look at some of the make-up effects in the workshop, along with a discussion of how the actors felt about the process of having them applied, and a nearly shot-by-shot breakdown of the iconic reforming sequence. There are some nice tidbits included in here and the people who appear are unafraid to voice their true feelings (it's not like any of them have anything bad to say about the piece or their time working on it, but some of them are open about their fatigue with discussing that part of their lives or their discomfort with the make-up process they were required to undergo). We also get a bit of a nod towards the often overlooked Christopher Young, whose score includes one of the best horror movie themes of all time. Even though he doesn't go into his process, it's a treat to see him included here. That's pretty much what it's like for everyone involved: it's nice to see them even though they don't actually say all that much. The overall experience is competently put together and is enjoyable for its duration. It isn't particularly informative, but it is interesting.
Under the Skin: Doug Bradley on Hellraiser (2004)
Interesting, if not particularly insightful.
This interview with Doug Bradley, the actor who portrays Pinhead in 'Hellraiser (1987)', is relatively cursory overview of what it was like to appear in an iconic horror movie. Shot in a relaxed, talking-head fashion, Bradley talks about various aspects of production, with a large focus being on the experience of undergoing six hours of make-up each morning. He talks about his time on set with fondness, and he answers each unheard question in a fair amount of detail. It's clear he has respect for the franchise he helped make so iconic, and a particular love for the first entry. He alludes at various times to the decreasing level of quality the series is quite openly known for, without airing out any dirty laundry or anything like that. He seems like an amiable fellow, and the chat has the same sort of vibe you might expect from an encounter at a fan expo. However, the interview doesn't really get into the nitty gritty aspects of the production of 'Hellraiser (1987)', primarily because it's only twelve minutes long. It's good enough for what it is, though, and is an enjoyable glance behind the scenes of a brilliant horror movie. It's also really nice to see Bradley out of costume, and his appearance here dispels any notion that he may be as mean as his pain-provoking character.
Layer Cake (2004)
Welcome to the title drop, son.
Originally slated to be directed by Guy Ritchie, Matthew Vaughn's feature debut retains its expected feel despite its change of director. 'Layer Cake (2004)' is the typical slightly twisty, stylishly achieved, fast-and-loose London gangster flick that you'd expect from the former director, but it's somewhat of an oddity coming from the latter. It doesn't really feel like a film from the twisted mind of the man behind 'Argylle (2024)'. However, it has all the hallmarks that would come to define his career, chief among them a confident sense of style that permeates the entire experience. There are a lot of unconventional choices being made within a fairly conventional framework and it's all rather fun to see. The narrative is occasionally somewhat confusing, centred around a series of reveals mostly conveyed by people talking about other people whose names we haven't quite put to their faces by the time they depart the piece for good. It's not incomprehensible, though, and it certainly all makes sense. It's always entertaining, often surprisingly so, and it isn't negatively affected by its occasionally obscured storytelling. It helps that the flick moves at a zippy pace and constantly strikes the right balance between sincerity and self-awareness. It also helps that its cast are all really enjoyable in their roles, no matter how small those roles may be. The movie is reportedly what landed Daniel Craig his signature part of James Bond, and it's easy to see how his proficiency in portraying a suave, suit-wearing drug dealer would prove that he could portray a suave, suit-wearing secret agent. He gives a strong central performance that balances cool with can't catch a break, and he rises above the sometimes monotonous delivery of his narration with some stand-out moments that bring more humanity to his constantly calculating character. Colm Meany, George Harris and Michael Gambon are the highlights of the supporting cast, but you can't discount the one-step-above cameos of Sally Hawkins, Dexter Fletcher, Tom Hardy, Sienna Miller, Ben Whishaw and Burn Gorman. Ultimately, although it starts to stall a little towards the end of its second act and it sometimes tries to be too clever for its own good, this is an entertaining crime drama that's visually interesting and nicely acted. Its ending is also subversive in all the right ways. It's a really solid effort.
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024)
You fabulous thing.
Although it's aesthetically similar to 'Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)', 'Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024)' is a different beast entirely when it comes to its narrative. Structurally, tonally and even viscerally distinct from its predecessor, this revenge epic has a much less frenetic atmosphere than you may expect. At times, it's almost serene. With an episodic format that splits the story into vignettes (more so than even its five chapter breaks would suggest), the feature depicts the origin of its eponymous badass while also widening the world that surrounds her. Indeed, much of the movie is dedicated to world building rather than propulsive action, but that's not to imply that there are a lack of set-pieces. In fact, pretty much the whole movie is a set-piece; even the simplest of lore-extending scenarios are told with such striking visual grandeur that you'll practically be drooling for the film's entire duration. Plus, there are several more traditional yet utterly jaw-dropping action scenes - including a meticulous fifteen-minute War Rig defence that may just be the movie's highlight. It's difficult to describe how epic even the most intimate moments of the affair feel, and the budget has been put to fantastic use to set this relatively small-stakes story amidst a backdrop of bizarre post-apocalyptic societies and ruthless wasteland power struggles. There's so much depth to each and every aspect here, and most of it is conveyed entirely visually (Furiosa herself probably only has about the same amount of dialogue as the notoriously quiet protagonist of 'Mad Max 2 (1981)'). Anya Taylor-Joy brings a palpable determination to the role, her eyes telling a story of long-burning pain and quiet desperation, and Alyla Browne holds her own as the younger version of the character (the transition between the two actors is so seamless it's hard to actually pinpoint the exact moment it occurs*). The most showy role in the flick definitely goes to Chris Hemsworth, whose Dr. Dementus is a verbose maniac with just enough depth and charisma that his evil nature is almost too easy to downplay - especially in a world in which decency seems to have died a long time ago. He's a really entertaining villain, and it's enjoyable to see a new faction in the wasteland rather than just expanding on the one we've seen before (Immortan Joe and his blindly loyal War Boys). While I personally don't think it drags or anything, the movie is arguably a little too long. However, it's also arguably too short. It kind of acts as a 'greatest hits' of its hero's life, starting when she's a child and finishing just before her actions at the beginning of 'Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)'. As such, there's a lot of stuff that gets glossed over - or, rather, skipped entirely - so that the movie can maintain its purposefully elliptical pacing. A lot of the stuff that it moves past feels like it would be really interesting, so I kind of wish it was fleshed out more and maybe the film was done as a two-parter. I know that's technically a criticism, but it's also kind of a compliment. After all, it's not often you wish a picture was longer, let alone split into two parts, which should indicate just how successful George Miller's effort is. The feature truly is spectacular, an exceptional epic with almost unparalleled aesthetic beauty and pristine direction of the highest order. It's wonderfully weird for a blockbuster, and I really hope it does well enough for Warner Bros. To greenlight another trip to the wasteland. While I don't like it as much as 'Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)', it's just as sturdy and substantial. Because it's so different, it doesn't even require a direct comparison. It's great.
*the use of AI to achieve this effect is somewhat disturbing, but it's unclear exactly how the tool was used (i.e. To help a human artist or to replace one) so I'm not confident in fully condemning it just yet.
Rabbit Hood (1949)
"Arise, Sir Loin of Beef."
'Rabbit Hood (1949)' may be somewhat light on the zany sight gags, but it more than makes up for it with the various ways Bugs Bunny manages to outwit the Sheriff of Nottingham after he catches the rabbit trying to pinch one of the King's carrots. The short has several classic Bugs reversals - in fact, it's essentially a string of these gags that escalate in embarrassment for the Sheriff - and it's a really fun time. It's amusing on more than one occasion and has a bright, bouncy aesthetic that nicely counteracts the generally more 'grounded' humour. It's a little brutal on occasion, too, as it isn't afraid to show its hero getting violent to avoid the rack. It's perhaps a tad repetitive and its final gag isn't as satisfying as it could have been, although it is enjoyable on a more meta level. Still, it's a really good effort that will keep you smiling throughout.
Knighty Knight Bugs (1958)
"Don't sneeze ya stupid dragon, or you'll blow us to the moon!"
'Knighty Knight Bugs (1958)' is the only Bugs Bunny short to win an Oscar. It's nothing especially special when compared to other films featuring the rascally rabbit. However, it's still an entertaining experience with several enjoyable sight gags and an amusing central premise that sees Bugs take on Yosemite Sam in Arthurian England. Most of the short features the former holding up in a castle while the latter unsuccessfully attempts to siege the place so that he can get back the sword that has been stolen from him. It doesn't have the strongest of narrative drives and its gags are sometimes a little weak, but there are a handful of funny moments that elevate the piece from its initially somewhat humdrum status. To be fair, that status might be based entirely on the bias that comes when watching something that's been deemed worthy of an Oscar; it creates an unfair expectation that this is going to be something truly special. If you don't hold it to too high a standard, the short is undeniably no less successful than most of its 'Looney Tunes' peers (and is actually better than a lot of them). It's an entertaining, chucklesome effort that remains fun for its duration.
Robin Hood Daffy (1958)
Ho ho. Very funny. Ha ha. It is to laugh.
'Robin Hood Daffy (1958)' casts Daffy duck as the titular folk hero and has him try to prove his identity to a mocking Friar Tuck, as played by Porky Pig. It's part of that era in which its protagonist isn't so much a manic, mischievous trickster as a hopelessly down-on-his-luck, perpetually trying-to-prove-himself sap. The short is dripping with unmistakably Chuck Jones style, with distinctly sharp character designs and zippy movements that lend a specific rhythm to the slapstick. It is, in essence, a one-joke short, but the variations of that joke never cease to be at least somewhat amusing. It's not the best 'Looney Tunes' of its kind, primarily because it isn't as visually inventive or packed with wall-to-wall sight gags. Its ending is satisfying, but it's slightly too abrupt for my liking. However, this is a more-than-solid effort overall that keeps you smiling throughout. It's fun and aesthetically pleasing.
An Egg Scramble (1950)
Heavens to Betsy, I'm on the lam!
'An Egg Scramble (1950)' is a 'Looney Tunes' short about an old hen who finally produces an egg (or so she thinks) and decides that she isn't going to hand it over to farmer Porky Pig. After he forcibly takes it from her, she soon finds herself on a citywide adventure to recover her baby and keep it safe. The short is a little on the light side when it comes to humour. As you'd expect, there are some nice sight gags here and there, but it generally feels rather tame in terms of wacky antics or clever visuals. The designs of its human characters are a little unsettling, too (especially a housewife who tries to boil the protagonist's precious egg). Still, it's ultimately an enjoyable, easy-to-watch experience that provides ample light entertainment in a brisk package. It's not the best in its series, but it's definitely not the worst.
Bye, Bye Bluebeard (1949)
"S-s-s-six foot, eleven inches!?" "Yes, six foot, eleven inches."
'Bye, Bye Bluebeard (1949)' starts with Porky Pig attempting to rid himself of a mouse who wants to eat some of the plentiful banquet he's tucking into, but soon morphs into something of a fight for survival as a radio announcement brings the news of a vicious serial killer on the loose. It's weird to see Porky's life genuinely in danger, especially since the short is clear that all the cartoon logic in the world won't save him if the baddie gets his hands on him, and it's also strange to have a murderer as a villain in one of these films. It feels quite nasty, in a way. That's not to imply that the piece itself is particularly scary or, even, unnerving, but its out-of-place concept certainly carries with it a strange feeling that's hard to shake. At any rate, this is still primarily concerned with being fun. It features some enjoyable moments and is told with lively animation. One of its jokes seems to have served as direct inspiration for an excellent gag in 'Barry (2018 - 2023)', unless parallel thought was at play (the two were created over fifty years apart, after all). It's an enjoyable experience overall.
Daffy Duck Slept Here (1948)
You're pixelated.
There's a convention in town and Porky Pig can't find a place to stay. A lone vacancy opens up at a nearby hotel, but the catch is that the room will have to be shared. That wouldn't be a problem if the other person wasn't Daffy Duck, who barges in at God-knows-what time with his invisible kangaroo friend and wakes Porky from his much-needed slumber. 'Daffy Duck Slept Here (1948)' is all about the conflict that arises when Porky realises just how unlikely he is to actually get some sleep when sharing a bed with his hyperactive roommate. It has plenty of goofy, usually absurdist gags and operates on a distinctly cartoon logic that provides plenty of opportunity for laughter. It really makes you understand just how annoying Daffy Duck truly is, as his behavior is directed solely towards a sympathetic character. We identify more with Porky than with Daffy, so it can be a bit grating to see him act so unreasonable. It's lucky, then, that Porky ends up getting the last laugh, which leaves things on somewhat of a high note. Overall, this is an enjoyable, if occasionally frustrating, short that has plenty of amusing moments sprinkled throughout.
Porky Pig's Feat (1943)
You have insult me! We meet on the field of onion!
'Porky Pig's Feat (1943)' is great. This 'Looney Tunes' short is packed wall-to-wall with chaotic, side-splitting sight gags and an unrelenting energy that's simply infectious to behold. When Porky Pig and Daffy Duck are saddled with an unreasonably hefty hotel bill by an intimidating manager, the duo try everything they can think of to get out of the building without paying a single penny. It's a really fun experience that feels as though it could go on forever, never running out of steam even as it approaches its final gag. Its set-pieces are all vital and amusing, mixing pure visual bliss with delightfully 'contemporary' (now dated) references that really sell the personality of its lead characters. Mel Blanc's impeccable voice work also does that; there really is no substitute for the impossibly talented actor when it comes to injecting life into shorts like this. Overall, this is just a fantastic effort that's one of the best 'Looney Tunes' I've seen so far. It's a total blast.
Pigs in a Polka (1943)
The three polka pigs.
'Pigs In A Polka (1943)' is a 'Merrie Melodies' short set to the tune of 'Hungarian Dance no. 5' by Johannes Brahms, with each on-screen movement timed perfectly to the classic piece of music. Its story is that of the three little pigs, and it follows that well-established narrative pretty much to a tee. Although it's amusing to see the smooth animation speed up and slow down as dictated by the score, the film lacks strong comedic gags and feels a little bit standard when it comes to its slapstick. It's not bad, by any means, but it does feel a little bit lacking when compared to the zany freneticism usually associated with 'Merrie Melodies' and 'Looney Tunes'. It's a solid short overall, however, and its animation is consistently good.
Pigs Is Pigs (1937)
You greedy pig!
'Pigs Is Pigs (1937)' is a 'Merrie Melodies' short that's surprisingly grotesque in its own way, focusing on a greedy little piggy who experiences a harrowing nightmare in which he's force-fed food by a variety of complex machines until he's ready to burst. Essentially, the piece depicts piglet torture and it's really bizarre to see. What's worse is that it isn't even all that entertaining. Although there are some inventive, if cruel, visual gags, the majority of the film is just a bit boring. It's moralistic, too, but it doesn't stick the landing in terms of driving its message home. It's just a bit weird, really, and it isn't all that pleasant to watch. It's interesting to see that this is basically where 'The Simpsons (1989-)' got that gag about Homer being force-fed all the donuts in Hell and still being hungry for more, though.
Fraidy Cat (1942)
Who's afraid of the big bad... nightgown?
After a more pleasant last outing, 'Fraidy Cat (1942)' reestablishes the iconic duo's entirely antagonistic relationship by having Jerry fall directly into his role as initial aggressor (as he would so often be in later films). Here, he decides to terrify Tom when he sees the cat shaking in his fur while listening to a spooky radio broadcast. Using an old nightgown and a vacuum cleaner, the mischievous mouse sets about pranking his unsuspecting prey. Of course, Tom eventually gets wind of the wind-up and fixes to do more than just scare his opponent to death. The flick has some funny sight gags and its animation is as scrumptious as you'd hope from these earlier shorts in which Tom is more cat-like and raggedy. It's a well-animated outing that's lively and has a lot of spirit to it. However, it just feels fairly standard overall. The premise isn't particularly clever and the piece lacks a satisfying ending to tie things together. It also features some off-screen animal abuse (which sounds to be more than the typical feline-on-rodent slapstick we all know and love) which leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Having said all that, it's still an entertaining effort overall. It isn't one of the pair's best outings, but it's definitely not one of their worst.
The Night Before Christmas (1941)
Jerry Christmas!
'The Night Before Christmas (1941)' is the rare 'Tom & Jerry' short to actually have a mutually happy ending. This is likely, of course, due to the fact that it's a Christmas short that aims to embody the Yuletide spirit one expects of such a thing. It's really nice to see the focal pair patch things up by the time the film comes to a close, and this wholesome element unexpectedly makes the piece one of the pair's stronger outings. It doesn't start out all that peacefully, though, so there are still plenty of cat-and-mouse hijinks for us to enjoy. The animation is fluid and lively, with some stand-out moments involving things such as reflections. There are some satisfying sight gags and the experience is constantly amusing. It also feels really well-paced, never stalling or rushing and telling a full tale in its brisk runtime. It's a really strong effort that should keep you smiling throughout, whether or not you watch it around its eponymous holiday.
Shiti Hanta (2024)
Cosplay protector.
Based on the anime of the same name (itself based on the manga of the same name), 'City Hunter (2024)' tells the origin of its source material's focal detective team. After a tragedy, a sex-pest private eye is hassled by the sister of his ex-partner until he agrees to help her find out who is responsible for the death that has torn her world apart. The film is definitely a live-action anime, and it feels like something ripped straight from two-dimensions in the best possible way. Although I'm not familiar with the specific anime it adapts, it definitely reminds me of a lot of other anime that I've seen and you can tell that its idiosyncrasies all lovingly stem from its inspiration. Because it's being told with real people yet operating on a cartoon logic, it has this distinct unreal feel to it that makes it seem quite unhinged at times. That's not a bad thing, though, as its off-kilter atmosphere goes hand-in-hand with its inventive filmmaking to absolutely nail the aesthetic it's going for. It's really fun, despite being rather rough around the edges and featuring a protagonist who's as creepy as he is good with a gun. The narrative is all rather rote (although it does have a fairly big surprise towards the beginning) and the character work is done in the broadest of strokes, but the flick is typically enjoyable and is often rather funny as well. It features some excitingly well-choreographed, highly stylised action set-pieces, too. You can tell it's a bit of a low-budget production (it is Netflix, after all), but it wears its heart on its sleeve and it's hard not to like on at least some level. It may not be groundbreaking, but it's definitely entertaining enough for what it is.
Trail of the Screaming Forehead (2007)
I think I'm seeing double here... eight heads!
It's easy to see what 'Trail Of The Screaming Forehead (2007)' is going for, and to be fair there are times when it achieves it to amusing results. However, the novelty of this 1950s B-movie creature-feature pastiche wears off incredibly quickly. "It's only 88 minutes long" has never been so misleading. It's a one-joke movie and it drags because of it. Despite nailing its intended aesthetic, its narrative is just really dull. It has some charm and its filmmakers clearly put a lot of love into it, but it's very hard to sit through - let alone recommend. There's not much more to say about it, to be honest. I can't condemn it too harshly, purely because it's undeniably a passion project and even has some limited success, but it is pretty bad, even if its heart - and forehead - is in the right place.