Pynchon

There is horror everywhere.

A little earlier I turned on my TV and accidentally watched a few minutes of the BBC coverage of the "Concert For Diana". After the vomiting had subsided, probably caused by a side glance at the eminently punchable faces of Fearne Cotton and Prince Harry, I turned over and watched "The Evil Of Frankenstein" starring Peter Cushing. Much better. Gothic horror. Not the best of the "Frankenstein" films, but not bad.

A bit earlier today I went to see "Hostel: Part II". It's difficult to write about it without spoilers, so turn away now.



"Hostel: Part II" is very much a mixed bag of a film.

The pros.

To his credit Eli Roth has definitely tried to expand upon the simple formula of the first film. i.e. Young and attractive people, travelling across Eastern Europe, are kidnapped and tortured by rich people, paying for the pleasure of doing so.

You see what happened to the survivor of the first film. You get to see much more of the organisation behind the operation and how victims are matched up with clients. You get to know two of the clients (go-getter, alpha male Todd and quieter, more insecure Stuart), up close and personal. You get to see Heather Matarazzo sans clothes and her extremely kinky demise. (Well, I thought it was kinky, and there was a nice nod there to legend of the Countess Erzsébet Báthory, as well.) The most annoying people in the cast get their just desserts (hurrah!), even if it is a well worn cliche. I liked Todd's freak out when he finally gets to hurt somebody, if only by accident, and the dark humour of the devil kids football match at the end.

The cons.

Sorry, but "Hostel: Part II" just ain't scary. It's also kind of boring for long stretches. The film never manages to get beyond the cliche of suspicious, seedy looking European men, even when two of the girls get off with them. There is no tension to speak off and certainly no jump-out-your-seat moments. "Hostel: Part II" probably isn't gory enough, either, to satisfy the gore hounds. Yes there are bloody and stained implements lurking in the dark, and dark and damp cells with chains, but I counted only one major murder on camera and one extremely gross mutilation, along with a couple of other bits not lingered on. Is that enough for a supposed cutting edge horror film? I don't know if it is.

"Hostel: Part II" was OK, but that was about it.

Yesterday I saw "Ocean's Thirteen".



Pure and simple "Ocean's Thirteen" is an old fashioned entertainment. Nothing more and nothing less. An obviously contrived (but all films are contrived, you fool!), hip, cool, finger clicking, jazz glide of a movie. Beautiful people, dressed in great suits (or in Ellen Barkin's case a great dress), bouncing off each other. Smart dialogue. The camera work is wonderful, switching between styles with ease. "Ocean's Thirteen" looks absolutely wonderful.

"Ocean's Thirteen" also seems to be a very democratic movie. You do not get the impression that it is dominated by Clooney, Pitt or Damon. Everybody in the gang has reasonable screen time and has a part to play in the heist. They all make the most of it. The actors look like they were having a ball.

Great film. The one Summer blockbuster this year that I have truly enjoyed.

Labels: Movies, Television