Wes Anderson + Stop Animation = A Hipster's Wet Dream

The second trailer for Wes Anderson's stop animation film The Fantastic Mr. Fox (based on the children's book by Ronald Dahl) was released earlier today. All the news regarding this movie hasn't really caught my interest in the past but I think that this trailer is pretty wonderful.

First off, the animation has a very retro feel to it. Because of this, it feels much different than all the animated movies that are on the market right now. Second, it's an stop animation version of a Wes Anderson movie with foxes. That's pretty cool on its own. I mean, just think about that notion for a few minutes. Yeah, pretty cool, right?

The trailer is pretty solid, showcasing cool stop animation, a quirky Wes Anderson film feel (I loved the ending with the diagram of the baseball game with Owen Wilson's narration) and even features "Street Fighting Man" by The Rolling Stones.

Somewhere, a hipster is crying in joy. Heck, I'm not even a hipster and I'm genuinely looking forward to this film now.

Watch the trailer below.

A Nightmare on Elm Street Teaser Trailer Released

The teaser trailer for Platinum Dunes' remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street was released today. The remake comes from music video director Samuel Baker (who notably directed Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" music video) and features Jackie Earl Haley (Little Children, Shutter Island and Watchmen) taking over the reigns of Robert England as Freddy Krueger. 

I'm always really torn over these horror movie remakes. Like many, I don't really see the reason to make them. I'd much rather see another A Nightmare on Elm Street sequel with England as Freddy than a "hip" remake from producer / anti-Christ Michael Bay. Still, with that said, some of the Platinum Dunes remakes have been entertaining. While it was not necessarily a good movie, Marcus Nispel's 2003 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake was a good "popcorn" version of Tobe Hopper's original classic horror film. It featured some pretty stunning visuals (as have most of the Platinum Dunes remakes), an awesome performance from R. Lee Ermey and some decent stalking scenes. Some of their other remakes have not faired as well. I enjoyed the Friday the 13th remake at times but, ultimately, it was pretty disappointing. Their Amityville Horror remake was beyond ridiculous and nearly unwatchable. 

While I'd rather have Wes Craven's horror classic not remade, I have to admit that I'm intrigued by this remake. Basically, the selling point of this movie is Jackie Earl Haley as Freddy Krueger. Haley is a fantastic actor. I first saw him in his Oscar nominated performance in Little Children and I've been a fan ever since. I've gained even more respect for the man after seeing his picture perfect interpretation of Rorschach in Watchmen earlier this year. I can't wait to see what he will do with Krueger in this movie. I'm already liking what I see from this trailer. The opening of the trailer which chronicles his death is very well-cut together and it shows that Haley may actually make Krueger more sympathetic than England did.

The rest of the trailer is what you'd expect from Platinum Dunes: really striking visuals. The visual style of these remakes turns a lot of people off but I tend to like it. A Nightmare on Elm Street looks like it will be one of the most visually pleasing off all the Platinum Dunes remakes. It also looks pretty creepy. The scene with Freddy at the very end is quite effective.

This movie may turn out to be a piece of crap but I will end up seeing if only to see what Haley can do with Krueger.

Source: Trailer Addict

Why Fatal Attraction Is Still Scary

Over the weekend, I watched Fatal Attraction for the second time in my life, this time on blu-ray. A few people have been surprised that I actually like the movie since I mentioned to them that I re-watched the movie. I’m not sure why this is. Perhaps it is because the movie was so popular when it came out or because of the film’s over-hyped sexuality. Whatever the case may be, the fact remains: Fatal Attraction is a really good movie. In fact, because of its realistic and truthful nature, the film is pretty scary.

I watched Fatal Attraction for the first time this past summer late one night on Hulu. Much like the people who have badgered me since this weekend, I was surprised at the fact that I liked it as much as I did. The movie was incredibly clever and well developed. From the opening title frames, I was pretty hooked.

The film starts by panning over an orange colored New York City sky during the sunset. The only sound that fills the speakers is the sound of the city slowing down, preparing for the coming night. The movie then starts off in the Gallagher apartment, establishing one of the most realistic families I’ve seen on film in some time. Everything feels genuine and not forced. Little moments shine, such as little Ellen Gallagher moving down the hallway mumbling “shit” over and over again because she heard her mother Beth slip the word out a moment before. All of the development is natural and subtle, something which never really seems to come together as well in other films.

The affair between Alex and Dan is also carried out in a realistic fashion. From a moral standpoint, it is hard to understand why Dan cheats on his wife. He seems to have the ideal family life with a loving daughter and really beautiful wife. However, there is something believable about the attraction that is sparked between him and Alex. A lot of this has to do with great performances by Michael Douglas and Glenn Close. They both are very natural and have great chemistry together. For a while, they really make the audience understand the affair that occurs and how it almost seems natural. They really make you wonder what you would do if you were in the shoes of Dan Gallagher. Like most human beings, Dan is a flawed man. He is put in an ideal situation where he can cheat with a woman who he has a natural attraction to and get away with it. So, he does it. Michael Douglas really manages to make Dan reliable despite this horrible betrayal he commits against his wife. You can feel his satisfaction, confusion and guilt all over the situation through his facial expressions, movements and tone of voice.

A lot of the legitimacy of the affair is really sold in the film’s somewhat controversial sex scenes. The sex scenes in this film, contrary to popular belief, are not very long. In fact, they take up maybe five minutes of the two-hour film. However, there is such energy and intensity to them that they really leave a lasting impression on the viewer. The first one takes place in Dan’s kitchen as he makes love to Alex over his sink. As the lovemaking gets more passionate, the faucet gets knocked on, causing water to shoot down the backside of Alex. She then puts her hands in the water and rubs it over both of their faces. Despite the impurity of this scene, the use of the water almost acts as a cleansing agent. It makes the act of lovemaking between Alex and Dan seem more intimate and special instead of a hedonistic one-night stand. Director Adrian Lyne then adds some humanity to the scene by having Dan struggle with carrying Alex away from the sink while his pants awkwardly tie up his legs from moving right.

By doing all of these things in this quick scene of lovemaking, Director Lyne, Douglas and Close all make the affair more believable and possibly even more acceptable to the viewer. This is important for a variety of reasons. By establishing a strange sort of legitimacy in the affair, the viewer is almost lured into a sense of calm. Even though we know that bad things are happening, it does not feel as if the film’s characters are going to crash and burn for their mistakes. This legitimacy is also important because it really maintains the feeling of reality that was established in all of the film’s previous scenes.

When things really start to go south and we start to see how unstable Alex really is as a woman, the movie manages to create some truly unsettling and uncomfortable sequences. For me, there is nothing more unsettling than someone who invades your privacy and does not really know the limits of how okay it is for them to be apart of someone else’s life. Alex’s intrusions into Dan’s world are small and seemingly harmless at first but, as they grow in their extremity and creepiness, one cannot help feel for or identify with Dan.

That’s really what makes Fatal Attraction a scary movie. Everyone, in some way shape or form, has been in Dan’s shoes before. Yeah, most of us have never had a stalker to the extreme of Glenn Close’s Alex Forrest but I’m sure all of us have had someone who intruded in our lives somehow when we didn’t really want them to. This kind of intrusion really tests us all as human beings and really gives us a sense of discomfort that is unlike any other feeling in the world. Why can’t they get the fact that we don’t want them in our lives? What does one have to do to make them get the point? The social awkwardness and discomfort that comes from these situations is truly unbearable and Fatal Attraction really manages to translate that feeling to film quite well.

For me, the quieter scenes of stalking are the ones that cause me the most discomfort. Nothing is tenser than when Alex shows up at Dan’s apartment in the guise of wanting to buy his apartment. The part where Dan has to re-introduce himself to Alex in front of his wife was really effective. The scene where Alex is following Dan home while he listens to a tape of her telling him how he is going to pay for his actions is equally unsettling.

While the last half of the movie is entertaining and thrilling, it definitely looses some of the realism of the first half of the film. Here, things go more of the Friday the 13^th route, except in a more adult fashion. While this part of the film is tense and fun, I did not like how Lyne handled some of the camera work (his penchant to go handheld and move close on actors’ faces, especially in the infamous rabbit scene, did not really work for me).

Still, despite these slight hold ups, Fatal Attraction remains a really unsettling movie that taps into some of our most personal fears. For me, the ideal of someone invading your privacy and having to deal with that situation is one of the most uncomfortable things in the world. Fatal Attraction capitalizes on this fear by establishing a very realistic feel with a great cast, clever screenplay and really subtle development. It’s definitely one of the most intelligent thrillers made till this day and still manages to make me incredibly uncomfortable every time I watch it.

Stormtroopers' 9/11

This video has been floating around the web for a day or so and I figured I'd share it with you all. It comes from College Humor and shows how the destruction of the Death Star was 9/11 for Stormtroopers. The fictional event is cleverly paralleled with 9/11. And yes, it's pretty politically incorrect. We diversions into various conspiracy theories similar to the ones surrounding the 9/11 terrorist attacks, frustration over the fact that a memorial still has not been built and even comparisons between Luke Skywalker and Osama Bin Laden. 

The video is not only pretty well thought out but it's really funny. Check it out below.

Patrick Swayze Just Died

Patrick Swayze just died of pancreatic cancer at the age of 57. He has been battling the cancer for almost two years.

This really has been an awful year for celebrity deaths. Like John Hughes a month or so ago, Swayze's death really bothers me. I grew up watching Patrick Swayze movies because of my parents. I used to watch Ghost, Dirty Dancing, The Outsiders and Red Dawn all the time. A few years ago, I re-discovered Swayze through his awesome role in Donnie Darko as Jim Cunningham, the self-help guru who also happened to be a pedophile. 

Earlier this summer, I even had two characters in my web series Bags and Boards be really big Patrick Swayze fans. I had them say a lot things that I thought were cool about Swayze and how it was a travesty that he had cancer. 

For me, Patrick Swayze is just one of those actors who you don't forget. The guy was a super star. The fact that he is dead really just is hard to fathom for me. To make things worse, he went through two horrible years of literally wasting away. It's just not fair (btw, why haven't we cured cancer by now... it seems like something we should have figured out by this point). 

So, while this news isn't surprising, it's pretty upsetting. Patrick Swayze was awesome and he didn't deserve to go out this way. It's a really sad day.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go listen to "Unchained Melody" by myself and cry myself to sleep.

R.I.P Patrick. You will be missed.

Source: The Washington Post

Speech of the Week #39

Welcome everyone to a weekly column here on YDKS Movies entitled Speech of the Week! Every week, I will post a new scene from a movie that features a speech of some sort being given. After all, there are a lot of famous scenes in film where characters give an influential speech of some sort. Then again, there are also a lot of scenes where characters give a speech and it just comes off cheesy and lame. In this section, you will see both kinds. That's right, people, I'm giving you the good and bad of film speeches all wrapped up in one great big package. I hope you all enjoy.

This week's speech is from one of my favorite movies, Fargo. This speech comes from the end of the movie when Marge (Frances McDormand) captures Gaear (Peter Stormare) after he has shoved his partner into a wood chipper. This scene really captures the moral of the movie. Marge's character is so naive when it comes to the evil nature of the people in the world. She just tries to get by day by day, do the right thing and enjoy life. She can't understand why anyone would want to kill someone or steal for that matter.

The speech she delivers to Gaear is heart-felt and really hits home due to her honest revelation that she truly does not understand Gaear's nature. It's a great speech from a truly great movie.

Watch it below.

A Review of Halloween II

From the moment Rob Zombie’s Halloween II begins, the viewer should know that they are in for a truly unique and bizarre experience. Static, white text fills the screen telling the viewer of a psychological white horse vision, which later on becomes the very imagery that appears to drive Michael Myers to his murderous ways. Ten minutes later, as a hulking Myers walks away from a destroyed, crashed ambulance to see a vision of a pale, white satin bound Sherri Moon Zombie and a white horse, the viewer should really know they’re in for a bizarre experience if they didn’t already. And did I mention that this takes place right after Michael cuts off a necrophilic paramedic’s head slowly and painstakingly with a piece of broken glass?

With bizarre visions of white horses and horrific scenes of startling, realistic violence, it’s hard to see this as a Halloween movie.  And that’s because Halloween II is not a Halloween movie. It’s a Rob Zombie movie one hundred percent. This is both a good and bad thing.

Out of all the movies to be released this year, Rob Zombie’s Halloween II may easily be the most misunderstood. The movie is kind of like a slap in the face to the viewer. In fact, at times, it almost feels as if Zombie was testing us all. The film is angry, bleak, at times inspired and completely erratic. It never calms down, moving one hundred miles per hour, never giving the viewer any time to breath. Overall, it’s a complete mess of a film but I really feel that there was some interesting stuff going on in it that cannot be ignored.

First off, let me say that I was in the minority two years ago when Zombie’s first Halloween remake was released. While the film was incredibly flawed and, at times way too over-the-top (the breakfast scene at the beginning), I enjoyed it for the most part as Zombie’s own, unique love letter to Carpenter’s original, classic film (you can read an article where I compare the remake and original here if you are interested). So, with that said, I went into this film slightly interested to see what Zombie could come up with but also very cautious to the quality of the film.

The movie I got was something that I wasn’t prepared or what I wanted. Still, it was an experience that I won’t soon forget. Halloween II is one of the angriest movies I think I’ve ever seen. It’s a movie about the aftermath of a horrific murder spree and how even those that survived will never really completely recover physically or emotionally.

This is where I felt the movie really excelled. In other horror films, the survivors of the previous film's massacre don’t really seem that affected. Here, Zombie spells the resulting dysfunction and emotional pain out both in blatant and subtle methods. Laurie Strode, once preppy and slightly innocent, now sleeps in a room plastered with a poster of Charlie Manson (with spray-painted text saying “In Charlie We Trust”), lives in therapy sessions, suffers from horrible nightmares every night, curses like a sailor and seems to be on the verge of a complete emotional breakdown.

The most interesting relationship I saw that resulted from Michael’s first reign of terror was the one between Sheriff Brackett (the amazing Brad Dourif) and his daughter Annie (an equally impressive Danielle Harris). Annie wears horrible scars from her encounter with Michael in the first film. In a really subtle performance, Harris also manages to get out the emotional scarring that resulted from that encounter. Her interactions with Dourif are very natural and really showed how their bond has strengthened since the horrible attacks the previous Halloween. The fact that we never see Annie outside of the confines of her father’s house really says a lot about how her life has drastically changed because of Michael’s actions.

Dourif really manages to be the standout performance in the cast by his very subtle performance as Sheriff Brackett. This is one of the few times where I actually found one of Zombie’s characters stronger than Carpenter’s original version. Dourif really manages to get across the struggle Brackett is going through in trying to keep the world together for himself, Annie and Laurie since the attacks and how easily it can all fall apart.

The last survivor of the first film’s massacre also has some interesting things going on. While many reviews have criticized Malcolm McDowell’s Dr. Loomis as adding nothing to Zombie’s film, I beg to differ. Loomis spends most of the film away from Haddonfield doing a promotional tour for his newest “blood-money” novel on Michael Myers. McDowell revels in making Loomis greedy and uncaring, something that really can be difficult to take as a fan of the original Halloween series. However, his performance really gives the film some nice comic relief at times. I also enjoyed seeing how he really had to recognize the moral decisions that needed to be made in the end to right all the wrongs he had been apart of. For me, his character really reminded me of Scatman Crothers’ Halloran in The Shining. He spends most of the movie away in the background and then has to make a return in the end to make a vital sacrifice. I felt that this was interesting.

Another way that Zombie really excels at selling the “aftermath” of violence is his actual portrayal of violence in the film. Unlike most horror films, which sell their violence as “fun” and “gory gags and set pieces,” Zombie shows his violence as gritty and horrible as it really is. The only instance where he really explored this kind of realistic, brutal violence in the first film was in the killing of the child bully (a scene so disturbing in its realism that it sparked a lot of walk outs when I saw the film in theaters; both my sister Avery and friend Guy stopped watching the first movie after this scene). In Halloween II, almost every kill follows the realism of this moment and even surpasses it at times. When people are killed, Michael is showed grunting and getting into the kills. Instead of people getting stabbed once or twice, Michael stabs them at an upwards of twenty times (this really isn’t much of an exaggeration). One victim is slammed on the ground and Michael proceeds to stomp his head in with his giant foot, leaving only a little slab of mangled flesh and bone. It’s these extra few stabs and time spent focusing on the kills that really makes the experience of watching the event a horrible thing for the audience. All of a sudden, the horror film isn’t a thrilling experience. For once, Zombie really forces the viewer to realize what they are watching: another human being completely destroy another. The reality of the discovery is a little sickening. By doing all of this, Zombie really alienates his audience but also manages to make a satire of the horror genre and a valid point: murder is a truly awful thing, whether it’s in real life or film.

Zombie also really gains points due to the pure artistic nature he achieves in some of the “visions” and dream sequences that occur in the film. In one standout scene, Laurie arrives at a dinner table surrounded by pumpkin-faced children and ancient looking adults. A skeleton hangs on the wall opposite the table with the iconic Michael Myers mask on top of it. The cinematography and artistry of the sequence is almost that of a vision that Guillermo del Toro would put to film. A latter sequence in which Laurie imagines herself killing someone close to her is full of truly horrific imagery and manages to be pretty creepy to watch. However, despite the inventiveness of these sequences (and a truly haunting moment at the end of the film in the shack), they really take away from the extreme, brutal, angry reality that Zombie seems intent on establishing in other sequences.

Like every film Zombie has made since The Devil’s Rejects, the soundtrack for Halloween II is pretty well done. Zombie really integrates music into his movies well, much like Quentin Tarantino. For most people, the ending of The Devil’s Rejects set to Lynard Skynard’s “Freebird” will never leave their minds. Zombie really manages to get an effective usage out of The Moody Blue’s “Nights in White Satin” in the hospital sequence of this film. The song, already melancholy and haunting, really adds to the creepy nature of this sequence. However, it also works as a linkage between Laurie and Michael. The song's title and main lyric is an obvious allusion to the image of the ghost of Deborah Myers in her white, satin dress that drives Michael to find Laurie.

While Zombie does have some truly interesting things going on in this film, the fact remains that it’s a mess. Michael spends most of the movie wandering around and killing people that have nothing to do with the overall story (rednecks, strippers, horny teens). If he’s so eager to get to Laurie then why is he wasting time knifing hicks in a cornfield? It doesn’t make much sense.  Another scene features Michael at the same Halloween party as Laurie. Instead of getting Laurie, he kills two kids about to have sex and then just leaves. What’s the point in that? Also, because Michael has been resorted to just a complete force of destruction, all the character development that was attempted in the first film feels pointless. Michael is just a hulking mass in the film with nothing to add to the story but a body count. After Zombie tried so hard to make him more of a mortal character in the first film, I felt slightly betrayed by this (even if it did make Michael a little scarier this time around).

Speaking of scares, that’s another place where Zombie fails completely. There were one or two decent set-ups in the first film (The Strode house sequence, the Bob ghost fake out and the awesome bathroom scene) but not one in this one. When people are killed in this movie, there is no build or chase leading up to it. Michael usually doesn’t pop out from the shadows before taking his victims. No, usually he just walks up in plain sight and proceeds to kill them brutally for the next five minutes. Yes, Zombie achieves some great realism here but he sucks out all the “horror” from the horror film. After all, that is what Halloween II is, right?

There also times when Zombie seems to be self-destructive with his filmmaking. There is one particular effective sequence that has some tense moments and a general atmosphere of excitement and creepiness. This sequence pays off in being an overlong dream sequence. Because this sequence was so engaging, this pay off feels like a slap in the face. There are many times when Zombie does this throughout the film. Every time he seems to be succeeding, he does something to shoot himself in the foot. It’s quite frustrating to experience.

The worst part of the film is definitely Zombie’s dialogue. Every other word seems to be the F-word and it gets old fast. The dialogue was my biggest problem with the first film and it definitely did not improve in this newest film. It really drags the film down, especially in the coffee shop scene with the three “lead” girls.

In the end, Halloween II is not a good movie. In fact, it’s a mess. Still, I found a lot of it really interesting. I was glad to see that Zombie was exercising more of his vision this time than being constrained by the confines of John Carpenter’s world. His vision does, however, prove to be the film’s downfall in the end. While it is exciting to see all of the original things he can come up with in this overdone series, he does get too frantic with all of it. The film lacks focus and becomes kind of a drag about half way through. It’s also not a particularly enjoyable film experience. By the end of the movie, I felt like I needed to take a shower. That’s how brutal and grimy it can get. Still, I plan on watching the movie again, hopefully with Zombie’s commentary. It’s a film full of some ambitious moves and interesting concepts. Unfortunately, it’s just not as good as most of the concepts are.

5/10

Independent Film of the Week #5: New York City Portrait

This is an article series called Independent Film of the Week. In this series, I am going to showcase an independent film that I enjoy for all of you to discover. I have been watching a lot of these on Vimeo recently and it has really inspired me to make my own original films. Enjoy.

This week's film is called New York City Portrait by director Max Moos. Moos shot this film in April 2006 during a 3 week stay in New York City on a Canon 400D camera. The video is a time lapse film, showcasing many different beautiful aspects of the Big Apple. I've always really been fascinated with New York City so I really enjoyed this film. It really shows how it can be a really beautiful city despite all the poverty and crime that occurs in it. 

Watch the video above. Enjoy.

Watch Bags and Boards Episode IV

Hey everyone. The fourth episode of my web series Bags and Boards is now completed after a long, arduous month of filming. This episode is much larger in scale than the rest of the episodes. I hope that you all like it. Watch it in full HD above. To see previous episodes, go here.

In this fourth episode entitled "The Voyage Home," the gang gets lost on the way to the Jackson Comic-Con while Betty and Steven get closer than they ever imagined.

This episode guest stars Larry Kenney, the voice of Lion-O from Thundercats.

Bags and Boards is a web series created by Wesley Caldwell, Austin Caldwell, Jay Long and Dale Griffin that follows comic book store workers as they struggle with the daily grind, antagonistic customers, love and hard economic times. Despite all of this, they maintain a positive outlook on life, have fun and celebrate the wonderful lifestyle of the comic book world.

Bags and Boards is a non-profit web series made for fun and to celebrate the world of comics. No money has been made by the creation of this show.

For news and updates on the show, go to the series' official site Bags and Boards.org.

YDKS Movies Exclusive: An Interview with Director Emily Hagins

Over the past month, I've done two articles (which you can see here and here) on young Austin, Texas director Emily Hagins. At the age of 12, Emily made a feature length zombie film called Pathogen. By doing this, Emily became the first teenage girl to direct a feature film in the United States. 

Emily and the making of Pathogen became the subject of Zombie Girl: The Movie, a well-made documentary that followed Emily's struggles to produce a film at such a young age and how it shaped her relationship with her mother.

After ordering Pathogen in the mail, I became encouraged by a hand-written note Emily did on my receipt to contact her via email. Over the past week, I have corresponded to her over email and she has been gracious enough to respond each time.

As the week passed, I asked her if she would do an interview just for YDKS Movies and she agreed. Just to show you how awesome Emily is, she answered all of these interview questions a day after she got four of her wisdom teeth cut out. 

Yeah, she's hardcore. Enjoy my interview with Emily below.

-------------------

YDKS Movies: Hey Emily. Once again, thanks for doing this interview. It means a lot.

Emily Hagins: No problem! :)

YDKS Movies: The first question I’d like to ask is, now that some time has passed since Pathogen was made, how do you feel about the movie? A lot of filmmakers (myself included) have trouble watching their own work, especially their earlier projects. Is it hard for you to watch Pathogen? Are you happy with the way it turned out? Are there some things you’d like to change?

Emily Hagins: Since it's been a few years, it's actually gotten a little easier for me to watch Pathogen. It definitely has its flaws, but I wouldn't change them now because I think they add to the film's "character." It is what it is, which is a zombie movie made by a 12-year-old. As long as I've learned from the experience, I'm happy to move on to the next project.

YDKS Movies: While on the subject of Pathogen, there were some interesting aspects of that film I’d like to ask you about. As the film unravels, a lot of the characters (which are sixth grade children) get into certain moral dilemmas and don’t always make the “right” choice. The characters abandon their friend who is being attacked by zombies, there is a big betrayal at the end and one character has to kill another character to be on the safe side of things. For a film made by a 12 year old, these are some big moral moments. At such a young age, were you trying to make any kind of social commentary? Some of my favorite zombie films (Dawn of the Dead, Night of the Living Dead) have been used to make social messages as well as entertain. Did these two films influence you at all or possibly inspire you to put in these moral dilemmas in the last half of Pathogen? I realize that this may be stretching but I found these moments interesting when I was viewing your film for the first time and I just wanted to see what you had to say about it.

Emily Hagins: Night of the Living Dead was definitely an inspiration. I think moral dilemmas keep things interesting and real, but as far as social commentary goes I'd like to leave that up to interpretation.

YDKS Movies: Lastly, just to cure my personal curiosity, what happened to the character of Researcher Sue in Pathogen? We saw the fate of Cameron but there weren’t any clues as to her whereabouts by the end of the film.

Emily Hagins: I get that question a lot, haha. I wanted her to disappear because it would leave an open end that may lead to hope- she might not be dead, and there's still an option that she cures the infection later down the road. But the kids were the focus of the story, so I wanted to end on their fate.

YDKS Movies: As you continue to make films, what would you say your biggest influences are? In Zombie Girl: The Movie, Undead seemed to be a big inspiration to you in the making of Pathogen. Are there any other movies that continue to inspire you and your more recent work? Is there a certain director that you admire or that has inspired you?

Emily Hagins: In general, I learn from most films that I watch (good or not so good). For The Retelling, I was mostly inspired by an old Japanese folk tale called Hoichi the Earless (or Earless Hoichi...it's translated both ways) and the Otto Preminger movie Bunny Lake is Missing.

I have a few favorite directors that inspire me pretty different ways: Danny Boyle, Robert Rodriguez, Guillermo Del Toro, Peter Jackson, Jon Favreau, and Quentin Tarantino.

YDKS Movies: Just out of curiosity, are you still using iMovie to edit? And are you still using that Sony camcorder you used in Zombie Girl: The Movie (the very camera I started out with oddly enough). After seeing footage from The Retelling, it looks like you are using different equipment.

Emily Hagins: Now I'm using Final Cut Pro, which I bought pretty soon after I finished Pathogen. The camera we filmed The Retelling on was a Sony HDR FX1. I learned a lot more about equipment and working with a crew from that production.

YDKS Movies: Is there any way to see some of your short films? I am particularly interested in seeing Party Killer. I’d like to see your take of the slasher genre after seeing your vision of a zombie film.

Emily Hagins: I have a YouTube channel (zombiemoviegirl), but I haven't put Party Killer up yet. I'll try to do that soon because it's been a few years since I made that one.

YDKS Movies: Would you like to tell us a little bit about your newest film The Retelling?

Emily Hagins: Charlie Mason and his family take a summer trip to take care of his blind and ill grandfather in small town Texas, but Charlie soon discovers a weird presence that seems to be following his grandfather. With his new friend Anne, they unravel the mystery that may include them more than they think.

YDKS Movies:  Even though The Retelling is a ghost story, there seems to be more elements of drama in this film as compared to Pathogen. Do you want to stick with horror as you continue to make movies? Would you like to branch out and make other kinds of movies?

Emily Hagins: There is more drama with Retelling, and it actually turned out to be more of a murder mystery than a horror movie. I'd like to try out other genres, as long as they feel like something I can do. For example, being 16-years-old I don't think I'd feel comfortable making a gangster movie right now. As long as I can stick roughly to a subject or age group that I know, all I want to do is tell a good story.

YDKS Movies: While we are talking about horror, I was wondering how you felt about the state of the horror genre right now. Many people feel that horror is dead in a mainstream sense and that the only films produced in the genre right now are “torture porn.” Do you agree with these assessments? Are there any horror films released recently that you really liked? For example, did you see Rob Zombie’s Halloween II that was just released? I bring this film up because it has really caused a stir of hatred among many horror fans and critics alike… but it almost seems unjustified at times. I was just wondering what your stance was on this particular film (if you got to see if that is).

Emily Hagins: I've heard some people claim the torture porn argument too, and I haven't seen Halloween II (or Rob Zombie's first Halloween movie). I feel like a lot of these "jump scare" horror movies are made just for entertainment, and not because they had a good horror story to tell. However, I think they are starting to lose their entertainment value when the gore and scare tactics take over. I think it's easy to claim that horror movies are driven by these factors, but just like any other movie you need to have some kind of story that's just as entertaining and engaging. I'd say that District 9 is the most recent horror movie that I've seen and really enjoyed, even though it's about as much of a horror movie as it is a sci-fi movie.

YDKS Movies: Do you have any plans for your life after high school? Would you like to attend some kind of film school or do you plan on just jumping into filmmaking like you have been doing?

Emily Hagins: I definitely plan to keep making movies, which may include film school or not. I'm keeping my grades up to hopefully have film school as an option, and I want to have an open mind about it.

YDKS Movies: With the release of Zombie Girl: The Movie, you have received a lot of press and exposure. Now, at just the age of 16, you have your own Wikipedia page and IMDB listing. That’s pretty astounding. How has this kind of exposure changed your life? Do you get recognized a lot? Have there been any negative aspects to this kind of exposure that you’d like to tell us about?

Emily Hagins: It's actually been pretty encouraging. When people want to see my movies, I feel inspired to make something better than my last one. I'm constantly learning, and I always want to put that to the test. I don't get recognized very often. I guess one of the main negative factors is trying to find a balance between school and making movies. They're both important, but every once in a while I have to put one over the other and I wonder if I made the right decision. However, one of the other things about all this that's changed my life is that I'm learning to follow my gut, especially with those kinds of decisions.

YDKS Movies:  After Zombie Girl: The Movie’s release, who is the coolest celebrity you have gotten to meet on the festival circuit? Have you gotten to meet any of idols or people that you respect?

Emily Hagins: Actually, out of all of those directors that I mentioned in the earlier question, the only ones I haven't met in person are Jon Favreau and Peter Jackson. From that list, the one I met most recently was Danny Boyle, who was very nice and articulate. He knows what movies he wants to make, and what he needs to get there.

YDKS Movies: A lot of Zombie Girl: The Movie really confronted the issue of the digital filmmaking age that is starting take off. It is a revolution in film that both you and I are apart of. There were many pros and cons to this new type of filmmaking revolution that were weighed upon in the film. Basically, many people see this movement as a bad thing because anyone can make a movie now, regardless if they have talent or not. Plus, there is the whole argument over digital movies not looking like movies made on film. How do you feel about this issue? Do you think it’s necessarily a bad thing that anyone with a camcorder can make a movie these days? Also, how do you feel about the issue over the look of film compared to digital movies?

Emily Hagins: I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing that pretty much anyone can make a movie these days, and I have a couple of points behind this reasoning:

1) I don't think anyone can make a movie. It may look like one, but it takes more than just having a camera to put a movie together. That's not saying that you need all the professional gadgets, but there's as lot of competition now- so a good story stands out above anything else.

2) Now that the technology is out there, it gives people of all ages a voice. This results in tons of different perspectives that the world can now see, especially through outlets such as YouTube.

As far the difference between the aesthetic quality of film versus the digital look, I think they're getting closer to making this difference less noticable (especially with developments such as RED). However, I think the digital look serves a purpose too. It creates a sense of "real" and even has a slightly voyeuristic quality because it doesn't have as much of a professional look as film. This is an interesting technique for films such as The Blair Witch Project, In the Loop, or District 9.

YDKS Movies: For many people (myself included), you have been a big inspiration to make independent films. What would you say to struggling filmmakers out there? Is there any advice that you have?

Emily Hagins: Perseverance is just as important as any other quality for a filmmaker. Without it, you're not a filmmaker until you finish your project. There will inevitably be set-backs, and things won't go as planned all the time. You can't let those things get you down, because sometimes they will be the happy accidents that are the most memorable part of your movie for the audience. Just get through it, learn from your mistakes, rinse, and repeat.

YDKS Movies: Would you like to express anything else? Anything at all?

Emily Hagins: I guess I'd like to mention that I'm working on a comedy now, but we're still very early on in the script-writing.

YDKS Movies: Thanks again for your time, Emily. I look forward to seeing The Retelling, your upcoming comedy project and seeing how you continue to grow as a filmmaker.

Please visit Emily's site CheesyNuggets.com to purchase Pathogen and keep up with what new projects she has in store.

Speech of the Week #38

Welcome everyone to a weekly column here on YDKS Movies entitled Speech of the Week! Every week, I will post a new scene from a movie that features a speech of some sort being given. After all, there are a lot of famous scenes in film where characters give an influential speech of some sort. Then again, there are also a lot of scenes where characters give a speech and it just comes off cheesy and lame. In this section, you will see both kinds. That's right, people, I'm giving you the good and bad of film speeches all wrapped up in one great big package. I hope you all enjoy.

This week's speech comes from the pen of the one and only David Mamet. For those of you who are not familiar with Mamet, he is an incredibly foul-mouthed writer. Therefore, this week's speech is very NSFW due to very strong language. However, Mamet is a very talented writer and, because of this, there is almost a poetry to his fouled-mouthed, hard-boiled dialogue. Still, watch at your own risk.

Glengarry Glen Ross is a film about a group of salesmen who are sent out in a competition to make the most sales. The winner gets a new car. The loser gets fired. In this scene, Al Pacino plays hot shot salesman Ricky Roma. Roma's big sale gets blown when Kevin Spacey's wormy John Williamson opens his big mouth in front of the customer.

Following the blown sale, Roma verbally destroys Williamson. And I mean destroys. I haven't seen someone torn apart verbally this bad before ever. It's truly something to witness. 

Watch the scene below. But remember, it's NSFW due strong language.

Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds: A Brief Review

After the premiere of Inglourious Basterds at Cannes this year, word of mouth did not match the intensity and savvy the trailers displayed. Feeling defeated, I retreated my expectations and prepared to wave for them the white flag reserved only for movies I may or may not watch on DVD. However, I marched on and victoriously found out that IB has much more life and fight than I was led to believe by that initial propaganda.

IB is a vicious monster of a movie that cunningly hides under floorboards, behind movie screens, and in glasses of milk. It is calculating, ruthless, illuminating and apprehensive in its execution. Although this movie is set within the depths of WWII, the war scenario is simply nothing more than the foundation of it all, and, you get the feeling that in Tarantino’s version of things you are somehow watching where the real battles veraciously took place.

Tarantino is in vivid form here. And, while all of his reputable signatures are still present, the execution is sharpened and superior to his previous films (save Pulp Fiction). But, the real star is Christoph Waltz and his portrayal of Hans Landa aka “The Jew Hunter”. Not only is Landa one of the best cinematic villains of all-time, but, it is his character that really embodies and manifests the movie in human form. From vile to suave, Waltz shows it all with deadly efficiency. Look for him to runaway with Oscar Gold come next February. As expected, everyone else gives brilliant performances, but all are out-shined by Waltz in the end.

This is the movie Tarantino has been touting as his masterpiece, and it doesn’t disappoint. I cringed as much as I laughed (which I did a lot) and I haven’t had more fun in a theater this year.

10/10