Now first, let me give you a quick plot synopsis: a group of doctors and scientists are taken to a small New Mexico town where all of the inhabitants died instantly after a satellite carrying a virus from another galaxy infects them. While there, the scientists investigate the dead people (some of whom are having their eyes eaten by birds) and discover that the corpses have dried blood that pours out like sand. So sets forth a scientific investigation into what the alien virus is and how it kills so fast… all while the president is threatening to nuke all of New Mexico to stop the spread of the virus. If that’s not the plot of a G-Rated film then I don’t know what is! Why would a kid want Rapunzel or Winnie the Pooh when they can have corpse eye-munching birds and sand blood pouring from a slit wrist?!?

Damn your eyes… Too late!

In the film there is not one but THREE scenes of nudity (one is particularly shocking in that it is a dead, topless hippy woman). Also, there are many, many scenes of violence and general mayhem. Not that any of them are any more violent or shocking than the newest C.S.I. episode, but this film was actually marketed to families and children.

This made me think about other 70’s films that had scenes that would never even be in a PG-13 movie today. The 1976 film, Logan’s Run, has several scenes with a fully nude Jenny Agutter (known mostly for her role in An American Werewolf in London) that would guarantee it an R Rating today but it was PG. Philip Kaufman’s brilliant sequel/remake Invasion of the Body Snatcher has extremely horrific scenes of alien clones growing and then having their heads graphically bashed in (not to mention a topless chase scene at the end) and that one was PG too. Then there is the original Planet of the Apes with several scenes of a nude Charlton Heston (and two other beefcake astronauts) and apes torturing humans that was rated G. These films also deal with situations and themes that are definitely not for kids and not just because they are too adult, but also because kids would never understand them!

This is just one of the disturbing scenes in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It gave Dusty nightmares too!

I understand that the ratings system was still a fairly new thing (first going in effect in 1967) and there were only four ratings: G (general audiences), PG (parental guidance), R (restricted) and X (explicit), but the fact that these films were marketed toward children is simply insane. Now, I’m not a conservative creep saying kids can’t handle these things, but it’s just so strange when comparing it to the present day. The ratings are so strict that no movie can use “fuck” more than twice without gaining an R rating ( and both uses must be non-sexual) and VERY few films have nudity without being rated R (I know everyone is thinking ” but wait, wait pal, what about Titanic?”). When it comes to violence, if blood is shown, it usually gains an R. For example, The Dark Knight Rises was able to have as many people as they wanted getting shot, as long as no blood was shown.

I don’t really know what to think about this, it was just something strange I was thinking about while watching Andromeda Strain. What do you guys think? Can you think of other G or PG rated flicks that contained nudity, extreme violence or obscene language?

Now first off, I must begin by saying that I love the new Marvel films that began with Iron Man. I was so happy that Marvel finally figured out how to incorporate their mythology into a series of films that were at once standalone comic book pictures but also part of a larger storyline. With each new Marvel film, I was so excited to see Captain America’s shield showing up on Tony Stark’s work counter or talk of the Super Soldier Serum in Incredible Hulk because I knew The Avengers was coming. And when it did, it was FANTASTIC!

Iron Man 3 is in a tough spot already since it’s the first standalone Marvel film after The Avengers. The fact that they chose Iron Man (obviously the most popular and liked Avenger) is smart but still makes one yearn for Avengers 2. The entire film I kept hoping Thor or the Hulk would jump in and help out Tony Stark when he is fighting hordes of villains, but sadly, *SPOILER ALERT* they never do.

When I heard Shane Black would be writing and directing the new Iron Man I was ecstatic! I absolutely love Lethal Weapon, Monster Squad, and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and thought he would be bring an amazing new voice to the superhero film. After seeing the movie, you can definitely tell Black was involved (whether it is Stark’s narration where he messes up and begins again ala Kiss Kiss or the film noir and buddy film tropes all of his films possess or it’s Christmas setting), in the end it just feels like another overblown superhero movie.

I can enjoy an overblown superhero movie any day of the week (I LOVE The Incredible Hulk) but Iron Man 3 has a mid-movie plot twist that absolutely ruined the entire film for me. Now the twist is very clever and definitely unexpected (don’t worry I won’t ruin it) but it made me feel the exact same way I did when I saw M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village. For those who haven’t seen The Village, stop now and continue to the next paragraph. Ok, those who are still here, WHY THE HELL DID HE MAKE THE MONSTERS FAKE?!?!? Everyone always mentions the so-called “BIG” twist that the village is actually in the modern-day and not the 1600’s as you believe, but that one doesn’t really ruin it for me. The fact that he made the monsters a made-up parlor trick to scare the villagers into submission is simply idiotic. How can you be scared again? Why even watch it again when you know those horrific beasts are actually assholes in homemade suits? This is how I felt in Iron Man 3. I literally almost walked out when the twist happened. It ruined the mythology the films had created and made the entire movie a joke.

Now, not everything is bad. Ben Kingsley makes a FANTASTIC villain out of the Mandarin. He is a character cloaked in mystery and feels completely dangerous. The way he talks is simply creepy and awesome and a much better villain for Tony Stark to fight than a bald Dude or a Russian Mickey Roarke. The film noir and mystery aspect of the film is great. Most of the movie, Stark acts as a detective (much like Bruce Wayne) attempting to solve and avenge his friend’s recent attack and injury. It’s a very cool addition to the series and gives the film a new style to play with. The film also does a good job treating the events that happened in The Avengers as a trigger for Stark’s Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Tony Stake has always been the most “human” Avenger and the fact that he has panic attacks after going through the wormhole in Avengers makes him even more relatable.

Overall, I give it a 14/17 on the Sitz-o-Matic scale. It is the first big disappointment of the year and quite possibly the worst of the new Marvel films. Please see it and tell me what you think! I have a feeling that my reaction to the film might be completely different than everyone else.

Top 5 “Phase 1″ Marvel Films:
1. The Avengers
2. Iron Man
3. Thor
4. Captain America: The First Avenger
5. The Incredible Hulk

I love that the blurb for this poster comes from Sex Gore Mutants. Brilliant!

The film was actually pretty awesome. The “infected people” basically look like bad make-up Lepers (Dustin described them as looking like the Toxic Avenger) and they constantly attack and bite people’s necks and drink their blood like they are vampires. If I didn’t know better, I would think that Danny Boyle and Alex Garfield saw this film before making 28 Days Later but since Boyle is so adamant that his film is NOT a horror film and doesn’t share anything with the horror genre, I would suspect this wasn’t the case. But the monsters in this film do share many characteristics with those infected with the RAGE virus: they’re fast, they’re angry, and they’re super violent for no explicable reason.

Like many Italian zombie flicks of the era, this one is filled with gratuitous gore and nudity (and a wonderful disco dance scene added in case we get bored). Sometimes the two meet as when one unlucky dancer (in the aforementioned disco dance show) gets her breast cut off and eaten. The dubbing is fairly bad and sometimes the dialogue literally made no sense at all. You won’t find any award-winning acting either, but Stiglitz DOES do all of his stunts and wields a gun and hatchet fairly well.

Aside from an ending that makes no sense at all (and nearly ruins the rest of the film), Nightmare City is a fun, gory film for fans of Lucio Fulci (Zombi 2, City of the Living Dead), Romero and other Italio-zombie films. I give it a 14 out of 17 on the Sitz-O-Matic Scale.

As an added bonus, Quentin Tarantino has a funny story about a time when Eli Roth met Lenzi and told him Tarantino was a big fan of his “zombie” film, Nightmare City, and Lenzi began yelling (in a strong Italian accent) “they are not zombies, they are INFECTED PEOPLE!”

This week, I watched the “shockumentary” Goodbye Uncle Tom by the Italian documentarians Gualtiero Jacopetti and Franco Prosperi. Here is a quick film history lesson, friends! Jacopetti and Prosperi invented the shockumentary with Mondo Cane (1962) which was basically a showcase of the most absurd, shocking events they could find around the world. While these films began as real documentaries, most of them started incorporating fake reenactments and gore effects until they became pure exploitation. They continued into the 1980’s with the popular Faces of Death series (which I refuse to watch) and fake snuff films and eventually died out with the invent of the Internet.

Goodbye Uncle Tom begins with Jacopetti and Prosperi somehow traveling back in time to the per-Civil War American south to make a documentary on slavery. The strangest thing about this is that the film never makes it seem absurd or strange in the slightest. They just wanted to make a doc on slavery so they jumped in their helicopter, gunned it to 88 MPH and automatically ended up back in time. When they arrive, all the slaves and slave owners simply wave at the helicopter as it blows about their bushels of cotton. Inexplicably they don’t find it weird that a flying machine with giant blades appeared out of nowhere. The filmmakers begin to interview people around the south but never mention the fact that they’re carrying cameras which would obviously seem strange to these people. Famous “celebrities” like Harriot Beecher Stowe show up randomly to give insight on slavery. Very strange. It actually confused the hell out of me that a movie like this can get made and no one at any point ever mentioned how weird the time travel aspect is.

When it comes to their depiction of slavery, they hold nothing back. A title card at the beginning reads “THIS FILM IS COMPLETELY TRUE. NOTHING WAS FABRICATED FOR ENTERTAINMENT” At one point a slave ship is shown with literally hundreds of naked men chained together in tiny bunk beds as they are urinating and diarrhea’ing all over each other. The men are fed pig fat, cornmeal and grain. One slave refuses to eat so they jam a large chisel in his mouth, break his teeth with a hammer and force feed him the “food”. The entire film is filled with these scenes of extreme depravity and gruesomeness. I read an interview with the filmmakers where they claim to have made the film in response to being called racist following their earlier Mondo shockumentaries. While i applaud their decision to graphically show American slavery in excruciating detail, the way they do it is just wrong on so many levels. Many of the scenes show gratuitous amounts of female and male nudity not for “historical accuracy” but titillation. The fact that they are exploiting such a disgusting part of American history makes them seem even more irresponsible, if not racist.

I don’t think I can recommend this movie to anyone unless they are in the mood for something horribly offensive, depressing and gross. It ranks alongside Salo: 120 Days of Sodom, Cannibal Holocaust and Men Behind the Sun (about the Japanese experimenting on the Chinese during WWII) as one of the most disturbing, shocking films I’ve ever seen. I give it a 10/17 only because I can’t stop thinking about it.

Eli Roth does a fantastic commentary of the trailer over at the great website Trailers From Hell. Check it out!

Djake: I knew I would love Django Unchained as soon as I heard Quentin Tarantino was making a “Southern” about a slave seeking revenge. It truly is a story tailor-made for Tarantino’s sensibilities. And I was happy to hear that he was finally making his all-out Spaghetti western. He has flirted with the genre before in Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds, but never fully adhered to my favorite sub-genre. Django is finally the epic western he has promised to make his entire career.

As most people already know, Django Unchained takes its name from the great Django (1966) starring Franco Nero (who makes a brilliant cameo in Unchained) and directed by the other Italian Sergio, that is Sergio Corbucci. After the success of Django in Europe, the Italians rushed out (as they do with any popular picture) to make copies and unofficial sequels. None of these offshoots starred Nero (except the delayed sequel, 1987’s Django Strikes Again) and none were directed by Corbucci, but they used the mythic stranger Django as the antihero and protagonist who avenged women and others throughout the Spaghetti West. Tarantino said that he wanted to make his own version of Django, like he did with Pai Mei in Kill Bill (a Kung Fu staple in literally hundreds of Hong Kong films) but this time Django was a slave in the pre-Civil War South who takes his revenge on evil slave owners and traders. And what a bloody revenge it is!

This film might be Tarantino’s most violent so far in his entire ultra-violent filmography (and no I didn’t forget the House of Blue Leaves bloodbath from Kill Bill). At one point, Tarantino includes a shootout that rivals anything Sam Peckinpah or John Woo could ever wish to have. When Django shoots and kills people, it literally looks like they are being shot by a canon. It gives the character a mythic, almost otherworldly quality in that his bullets do more damage than any other character in the film, which is fitting when we learn the German folk tale of Sigfried and Broomhilda from Dr. King Schultz (played beautifully by Christoph Waltz) that is paralleling the story and Django’s quest throughout. And like Jules Winnfield in Pulp Fiction, he seems to be protected by God because he is never shot (when any other man would be riddled with bloody holes) and shakes bullets out of his holy jacket. But along with the gratifying, shall I say cartoonish violence, Tarantino also injects scenes of terribly disturbing and horrific violence. Most of these, as one would expect in a film dealing with slavery, involves characters getting whipped by evil, white slave-owners or getting ripped apart by vicious dogs. In these scenes Tarantino actually shows restraint in his depiction of the violence. One particular scene involves a dirty, disgusting “Mandingo” slave fight that involves one guy getting his eyes gouged out. But as he did with the ear scene in Reservoir Dogs, we do not see this, only the looks on the faces watching the horror. He had said in an interview that he originally included the gore, but had to dial it back because audience members were too disturbed and couldn’t laugh or enjoy the rest of the film.

I don’t think there was a single actor or actress in the film that didn’t give a career best performance. My favorite was Leonardo DiCaprio who plays the detestable villain, Monsieur Calvin Candie (a Francophile who doesn’t speak French and is embarrassed by those who do), owner and operator of Candieland, one of the largest plantations in Mississippi. This is the first role I’ve seen DiCaprio do that involved him hamming it up and playing a character that is insanely flamboyant and mean rather than brooding and sad. Candie is aided by his trusted house slave, Stephen played wonderfully by Samuel L. Jackson. Jackson gives his best performance since Pulp Fiction playing the trusted confidant to the evil slave-owner. He is the Wormtongue character who whispers in the kings ear and tells him the trickery going on around him. He is wonderfully feisty and has some of the funniest scenes in the whole film. Again, Tarantino creates scenes that would otherwise be horrific or disturbing and makes them funny (think the head shooting car scene in Pulp Fiction). Christopher Waltz is once again fantastic and delivers a character nearly as charismatic and interesting as Hans Landa. Kerry Washington is gorgeous as the mythic, dreamlike wife of Django’s night- and daydreams. As Broomhilda, she is Django’s only love and the reason for his need for revenge and justice. And now comes Jamie Foxx. He is simply brilliant as the tough, quiet and strong Django. Of course he reminds one of Clint Eastwood’s Man With No Name, but his character is much more complex and layered. He is a newly freed man who is learning the bounty hunting trade from his mentor, Dr. Schultz and at the same time coming to terms with the idea of being a free black man in the disgustingly racist period know as the Antebellum South. Foxx plays the character with an underlying rage that I’ve never seen him do before. He is great, and a perfect choice to play this fantastic character.

As with all Tarantino films, Django is littered with homages and tributes to classic westerns and exploitation flicks. A lot of the flamboyant slave-owners reminded me of Robert Fleischer’s controversial Mandingo and its superior “sequel”, Drum (one of Pam Grier’s first major roles). Many of the snow scenes made me think of Corbucci’s masterpiece, The Great Silence, one of the few Spaghetti westerns to be set in the snowy snow. Other scenes reminded me of Robert Altman’s McCabe and Mrs. Miller, especially Dr. Schultz’ grey fur coat. I’m excited to see a detailed list of minor homages and influences since Tarantino always litters his films with them.

Notice how McCabe’s (Warren Beatty) fur coat is similar to Dr. Schultz’ (Christopher Waltz) gray one in Django.

Now the music in this film is the best so far for the great audiophile that Tarantino is. Of course there are some Ennio Morricone and Luis Bacalov western themes as expected, but the best music choices were the unexpected ones. At one point, Rick Ross comes on with the Jamie Foxx-produced “100 Black Coffins” and anyone can’t help but nod their head. Then comes the John Legend revenge-ballad, “Who Did That To You” that acts as a sort of blaxploitation theme for Django. This was also the first time Tarantino included original pop songs for use in his films.

Django Unchained is, by far, my favorite film of 2012. Currently it stands as my 2nd favorite Tarantino film, standing closely behind Inglourious Basterds. If you have not seen it yet, rush out and see it immediately. If you are easily offended by strong violence and liberal uses of the N-word, as Spike Lee was, or movies in which the black character is the hero then it is DEFINITELY not for you, and frankly I’m sorry to hear that because movies like this only come every so often, and only from the best filmmaker working today.

So, thanks to Jake for his review! If you have any thoughts you want to share, be sure to leave a comment. Thanks for reading!