zingbot

Having never watched any of Rob Zombie's films, I eventually got round to watching "House Of 1000 Corpses". After sitting through it a feeling of deja vu and bland disinterest set in. I could imagine two schools of fans for this film, the younger gore fan who has just got into horror films, or the older fan who has watched the original 70's and 80's exploitation/gore movies and likes the genre. However, as a viewer who has seen a fair amount of these types of films, I really wished I had watched "Blood Sucking Freaks" again instead, and that really says a lot. This style of movie has been done to death (sorry), some mild gore, a bit of torture, the villains as the anti-heroes, etc. A bit of homage is fine, but to base your whole directing career on it, as Rob Zombie seems to be doing, is a bit rich. The trouble is the original films were fun, but weren't that great in the first place. If you are a younger viewer then definitely watch "House Of 1000 Corpses", I think it's a stage all horror fans must go through and makes you appreciate the finer things. These days give me some Asian or European horror any time. As a final note, Sherri Zombie is the most annoying and terrible "actress" imaginable.

"Manhunter" is the less well known relative of "Silence of the Lambs", and unsurprisingly due to the success of the Jodie Foster/Anthony Hopkins' film, has never had the recognition it deserves in my opinion. Silence of the Lambs is a very good film, with great performances and direction. I feel that Manhunter is the superior film for numerous reasons. The direction by Michael Mann is excellent, as is the superb cinematography by Dante Spinotti. The whole film has many beautiful touches, colour changes and moody schemes. Only in watching the documentary can you really appreciate the effort and thought that has gone into the film. The acting is brilliant throughout. William Peterson as the damaged FBI profiler is superb, he is on the edge throughout and the story focuses on his turmoil and profiling skills. Brian Cox is fantastic as Lecter. He comes across as extremely clever and manipulative, but is way more believable than Hopkins' Lecter, and as a result much more chilling. He is a true psychopath, rather than some superhuman monster. Tom Noonan as Dollarhyde is also excellent, after seeing him for the first time you cannot imagine anyone else playing the role. The film was one of, if not the first movie to really show the art of criminal profiling, and as a result is gripping to follow as the whole story comes into shape. The music is definitely stuck somewhere in the eighties, and does age the film to some extent. However this is not a problem, most of the music is good, and all is forgiven by the superb ending with Iron Butterfly's "In A Gadda Da Vida" pumping out through an incredible finale. Very highly recommended.

Solaris is based on the Stanislaw Lem novel. Owning both the 1972 Tarkovsky movie and the Soderbergh version of Solaris, comparisons between the two films are inevitable. However, I think it is important to treat the two movies as individual films.

The plot is based around a space station orbiting around the planet Solaris, where the astronauts and a security team have either gone missing or are not very coherent. One of the astronauts aboard the space station contacts psychiatrist Chris Kelvin (Clooney) who flies off to investigate. He soon discovers some amazing developments that offer him a second chance, and questions how far anyone will go to grab that chance.

I feel that Soderbergh really couldn't win however he made this film. This may be deserved to a degree as remakes are notoriously easy to criticise, and very rarely a good idea. This is one remake that may have some justification, the original film is nearly three hours long, and the shorter version may encourage some viewers to seek out the Tarkovsky version as a result of watching, which has to be a good thing. This version could be viewed as a companion piece or an introduction of sorts to the Tarkovsky version, although it is a fine film in it's own right.

Solaris is criticised at the same time for being boring, too short, too complicated, and too simplified. It is also derided for having two very good looking leading actors. At 90 minutes it never has time to become boring, and while the pace is never fast, the viewer must have a very short attention span to get even close to boredom. The character development is achieved by flashback, which in the important dream sequences makes perfect sense, and releases information slowly but very interestingly. Solaris needs to be watched closely to piece together all the threads of the plot, but is not overly complicated. Some information is kept to a minimum, the viewer has to make some assumptions and use some imagination, which may be a bridge to far for some. Clooney and Natascha McElhone make excellent leads in my opinion, and anyone who says that Clooney can't act should watch more of his films.

The special effects are beautiful, but not overused. The sets and locations are very sparse and futuristic while still being recognisable and possible. The music by Cliff Martinez is excellent and captures the mood brilliantly.

Overall Solaris is a very moody, almost hypnotic film that requires some effort. The acting and plot development grab you and means that you keep watching to see how things develop if someone is given a second chance, and the implications that it brings.