Horror Review: Christine (dir. by John Carpenter)


During the late 1970s and early 1980s, one could hardly step into a theater during the fall or winter movie season without seeing a trailer for the newest Stephen King adaptation. His name had become synonymous with cinematic horror, and nearly every year brought a new film promising supernatural terror or psychological unease.

Among this wave of adaptations came a 1983 film that united two masters of the genre—Stephen King, the reigning literary giant of horror, and John Carpenter, the filmmaker who had already cemented his reputation with Halloween and The Thing. Their collaboration resulted in the sleek, deadly story of a boy and his car: Christine.

The film opens on the assembly line of a Plymouth factory in 1957, immediately signaling that something is off about this particular 1958 Plymouth Fury. From the first note of the retro rock soundtrack to the gleam of that deep crimson paint, Carpenter frames the car with both nostalgia and menace. The lighting in this opening feels almost clinical—bright, sterile, mechanical—yet Christine’s red sheen cuts violently through it, a visual omen that this machine is infused with something beyond metal and chrome. Carpenter wastes no time making it clear that this car is not an inanimate prop; it’s a living entity from the moment it’s born.

We’re soon introduced to the film’s human core—Arnie Cunningham (Keith Gordon), a shy, bookish teenager tormented by bullies and smothered by his controlling parents, and his best friend Dennis Guilder (John Stockwell), the confident star athlete who often looks out for him. One afternoon, during their drive home from school, Arnie spots a rusting, decrepit Plymouth Fury in the front yard of an old man named Roland D. LeBay. Where Dennis sees a heap of junk, Arnie sees perfection. Ignoring his friend’s concerns—and later, his parents’ outrage—Arnie buys the car and names it Christine.

As Arnie begins restoring Christine to her former glory, a transformation occurs—not just in the car, but in Arnie himself. The once timid, acne-scarred teenager grows into a confident, even arrogant young man, donning slicker clothes, sharper speech, and a darker aura. Christine becomes his obsession, his refuge, and ultimately, his identity.

Carpenter crafts this metamorphosis with eerie precision, pairing the car’s physical renewal with Arnie’s psychological decay. The cinematography shifts accordingly—the lighting grows darker, drenched in neon reds and shadowy blues, mirroring Christine’s two faces: seductive allure and demonic possession. Carpenter’s score, a pulsing blend of electronic rhythm and minimalistic dread, underscores these shifts. It functions almost like Christine’s heartbeat—steady, mechanical, and ominously sensual.

Between the vintage rock tracks that accompany Arnie’s moments of infatuation and the electronic motifs that follow Christine’s predatory stalks, Carpenter manipulates sound to blur the lines between teenage romance and supernatural horror. Every rev of the engine feels rhythmic, almost musical, as if the car itself communicates through vibration and tone rather than words.

Arnie’s newfound confidence even earns him Leigh Cabot (Alexandra Paul), the most desired girl in school—a relationship that initially feels like a symbol of his triumph. But Christine is no fairy tale. When Arnie’s bullies vandalize his beloved car, the story turns from eerie to vengeful.

In a now-iconic sequence, Christine repairs herself before Arnie’s stunned eyes—the crumpled metal expands, glass re-forms, headlights ignite like eyes opening from a nightmare. Carpenter lights the scene with a soft, golden underglow that turns mechanical resurrection into a hauntingly beautiful transformation. It’s both horrifying and hypnotic—a perfectly scored ballet of vengeance set to the hum of machinery and the director’s unmistakable electronic pulse.

What follows is a furious killing spree. Christine prowls the night streets for retribution, a creature of fire and gasoline more alive than metal should ever be.

While Carpenter’s adaptation diverges from King’s novel, it remains faithful to its emotional and thematic essence. King’s book delves deeply into the idea of objects absorbing the evil of their owners, suggesting that malevolence can linger in things as much as in people. Carpenter, however, turns the focus inward.

His version becomes a tragic character study—a battle for Arnie’s soul between the cold, seductive power of obsession and the fragile warmth of human connection. In one corner stands Christine, the car that offers Arnie unconditional love but demands total possession. In the other are Dennis and Leigh, desperate to save the friend they’re rapidly losing to something they can’t fully understand.

Carpenter’s signature touches—his electronic score, minimalist framing, and cynical tone—imbue the film with a dark romanticism. Christine is less a haunted object than a femme fatale: a mechanized embodiment of jealousy and desire. The film’s atmosphere bridges two eras, combining the nostalgic vibe of 1950s Americana with the grim realism of Reagan-era suburbia.

By the end, Christine becomes both a story of supernatural obsession and a commentary on teenage identity—the hunger to shed weakness, to command respect, and to control one’s fate, even at the cost of one’s soul.

Upon its release in December 1983, Christine performed modestly at the box office but was far from a failure. Over time, it has developed a strong cult following, cherished by both Carpenter devotees and Stephen King fans. Though often overshadowed by Carpenter’s heavier-hitting works like The Thing or Escape from New York, Christine remains one of his most technically polished films. It also stands as a fascinating bridge between studio horror and Carpenter’s independent sensibilities—where the shine of a Hollywood production mingles with the grit of a B-movie heart.

If Christine teaches any lesson, it’s that love and possession are two sides of the same coin. Arnie’s tragedy lies not in falling for the wrong woman, but in falling for one that burns with literal hellfire. In Carpenter’s vision, the road to damnation isn’t paved with good intentions—it’s lined with chrome, lit by headlights, and always hungry for one more ride.

The Walking Dead: “Torn Apart” 6-Part Webisodes


It’s just 13 days more days til the season 2 premiere of AMC’s The Walking Dead series. The show has been a runaway hit for the network and for all involved. The past summer has seen some major turmoil within the creative team (mostly the firing of show-runner Frank Darabont halfway through the season 2 filming), but the show still remains one of the most awaited ones for 2011 with millions of fans waiting to see what’s in store for Rick Grimes and his small group of survivors.

Leading up to the show’s October 16 premiere the people at AMC and the show decided to create six webisodes showing the life of the first zombie Rick comes across in the first season. Yes, these 2.5 minute webisodes details the life of the “Bicycle Girl” before she joined the ranks of the undead. The webisodes were directed by the show’s lead make-up effects guru in Greg Nicotero.

One would think that AMC would release one webisode every other day until the seasoon 2 premiere but they’ve tortured fans of the show enough with all the drama this past summer and decided to release all 6 webisodes at the same time.

From what I saw these webisodes were well-done and added an extra but of tragic backstory to one of the iconic figures of the first season. Here’s to hoping this becomes a regular practice with each new season for the show.

Part 1: “A New Day”

Part 2: “Family Matters”

Part 3: “Domestic Violence”

Part 4: “Neighborly Advice”

Part 5: “Step-Mother”

Part 6: “Everything Dies”

Comment on what you’ve just watched. Do you think the family’s decisions made things worse or were things just too far gone for them to reach safety? What would you do differently if in their shoes?

Source: AMC TV: The Walking Dead

Quickie Horror Review: Ginger Snaps (dir. by John Fawcett)


Werewolf horror films have not enjoyed the same prolific output as zombie or vampire cinema in recent decades. While the undead and bloodsuckers dominate both mainstream and indie horror, lycanthropes remain relatively underrepresented. In the last ten to fifteen years, the number of truly memorable werewolf films is small enough to count on one hand, suggesting that the subgenre is persistently niche despite the creature’s long-standing place in horror folklore. This scarcity makes standout entries even more notable, and among those, two titles remain touchstones for modern audiences: Neil Marshall’s gritty low-budget Dog Soldiers (2002) and the Canadian cult classic Ginger Snaps (2000), which preceded Marshall’s work by two years.

Ginger Snaps is as much a coming-of-age drama as it is a horror film, weaving werewolf mythology into a biting exploration of adolescence, sisterhood, and female identity. Set in a seemingly quiet Canadian suburb, the story follows sisters Ginger and Brigitte Fitzgerald, misfits bound by their shared cynicism, morbid sense of humor, and disdain for high school conformity. Isolated from their peers, they find comfort in their own dark, goth-influenced world, preferring late-night cemetery photography to pep rallies or social gatherings. Their bond is strong, but it faces a severe test one fateful night.

While walking home together, the sisters encounter something in the darkness—an unseen, feral creature that lunges, attacking Ginger with brutal force. The animal’s bite leaves a wound that begins to heal at an unnatural speed, and soon, strange transformations begin to manifest. At first, these changes seem physical—accelerated hair growth, heightened senses, and an insatiable appetite—but as time passes, her personality shifts as well. Ginger grows more assertive, sexually confident, and rebellious, traits that make her magnetic to others yet alienate her from her once inseparable sister.

Director John Fawcett and screenwriter Karen Walton craft the lycanthropy metaphor with unusual clarity: the werewolf curse mirrors puberty’s upheaval. Much like films inspired by the “body horror” sensibilities of David Cronenberg, Ginger Snaps draws unsettling power from portraying transformation as both horrifying and intoxicating. This duality captures adolescence’s contradictions—its liberating confidence and its destabilizing volatility—while reframing the traditional werewolf narrative to center on female experience. For Ginger, the physical metamorphosis coincides with new social dominance, a rejection of her former outsider identity, and an embrace of raw, animalistic freedom. For Brigitte, these same changes signify danger, loss, and the unraveling of the relationship she once relied upon.

The narrative excels in balancing its supernatural premise with human emotional stakes. While a less thoughtful script could have leaned entirely on gore and special effects, Ginger Snaps roots its horror in character dynamics. Walton’s writing, although sometimes heavy-handed in its metaphors, is remarkably strong for a film produced on a modest budget. Themes of loyalty, femininity, sexuality, and transformation run parallel to the literal werewolf plot, creating layers of meaning. This thematic richness ensures that the story resonates beyond its horror trappings, inviting audience discussion in a way that pure creature features often do not.

Central to this success are the performances. Katharine Isabelle embodies Ginger with feral charm, adeptly shifting from sardonic teenager to predatory seductress. Her portrayal never loses sight of the character’s humanity, even as the animal side takes over. Emily Perkins delivers an equally strong performance as Brigitte; her quiet, introverted resolve becomes the emotional anchor of the film, providing a moral counterbalance to Ginger’s volatility. Together, they create a convincing sisterly dynamic where love is tested by fear, jealousy, and survival.

Even the supporting cast contributes meaningfully, with Mimi Rogers standing out as Pamela Fitzgerald, the sisters’ well-intentioned but oblivious mother. Rogers resists the temptation to overplay the role for comic relief, giving Pamela a genuine warmth that contrasts the darkness overtaking her daughters’ lives. This restraint keeps the film grounded, preventing it from becoming camp and ensuring its humor arises naturally from character interactions rather than exaggerated antics.

Visually, Ginger Snaps sidesteps the glossy look of higher-budget Hollywood horror, opting instead for the muted realism of suburban streets and dimly lit interiors. This aesthetic choice enhances the film’s authenticity, making the supernatural intrusion feel more jarring. The creature effects, while limited by budget, are used sparingly and effectively; rather than relying on endless transformation sequences, the filmmakers allow viewers’ imaginations to fill in the most disturbing details. This restraint mirrors the approach of Dog Soldiers, demonstrating that practical effects and atmospheric tension often outshine CGI spectacle.

The film’s release trajectory reflects its cult status. Premiering at the 2000 Toronto International Film Festival, Ginger Snaps did not achieve immediate mainstream attention. Instead, it found its audience gradually, through word of mouth and home video rentals. Horror fans discovered it over time, drawn to its unconventional blend of teenage angst and supernatural dread. In the years since, it has earned a devoted following and spawned two sequels—Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed (2004) and Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning (2004)—that expanded the lore while retaining the core themes of the original.

Part of the film’s enduring appeal is that it approaches werewolf mythology with fresh eyes. Traditionally, cinematic werewolves are framed around male protagonists, their curse tied to aggression, uncontrollable rage, or forbidden lust in a way that reflects masculine fears and desires. By centering two teenage girls and equating lycanthropy with female sexuality and transformation, Ginger Snaps subverts these tropes, adding complexity to a genre often dominated by male perspectives. The werewolf becomes a vehicle for exploring how society reacts to—and attempts to control—the emergence of female autonomy.

Dark humor plays an important role as well. The Fitzgerald sisters’ sardonic wit is woven throughout, providing moments of levity even as events grow increasingly grim. These comedic beats arise out of their personalities, underscoring their outsider status and emotional coping mechanisms. The humor and horror work in tandem, preventing the film from collapsing into bleakness while maintaining its bite.

Thematically, Ginger Snaps joins a short list of werewolf films that transcend their genre trappings, akin to An American Werewolf in London (1981) or The Company of Wolves (1984). It invites analysis not just for its scares but for what those scares signify: the fear of change, the allure of liberation, and the strain placed on human bonds by transformation—be it supernatural or psychological. In this respect, it aligns with Cronenberg’s The Fly, where bodily change becomes the central metaphor for loss and evolution.

Two decades later, the film remains a touchstone for horror fans advocating for more diverse and conceptually rich werewolf stories. Its success highlights that the subgenre’s scarcity is not due to audience disinterest but perhaps to a lack of filmmakers willing to innovate beyond conventional “monster hunt” templates. As the horror landscape continues to evolve, Ginger Snaps offers a blueprint for blending creature mythology with compelling character drama, ensuring that lycanthropes can be as emotionally resonant as their undead or vampiric cousins.

For viewers wondering why werewolf cinema lags behind zombie apocalypses and vampire sagas, Ginger Snaps provides an answer: when the subgenre is approached with thematic depth, sharp performances, and genuine character stakes, it can be every bit as compelling—and perhaps even more relatable—than its supernatural peers. In weaving together dark humor, horror, and adolescence’s raw turbulence, the film stands as a rare entry that deserves both its cult following and its place in the broader horror canon.

Horror Review: 28 Days Later (dir. by Danny Boyle)


For decades, the zombie film genre has been defined by the rules established by the grandfather of the modern zombie story, George A. Romero. His 1968 landmark horror film Night of the Living Dead transformed what had once been a gothic creature rooted in the voodoo folklore of Haiti and the Caribbean into an apocalyptic force symbolizing social collapse and human weakness. The film not only terrified audiences but also laid the foundational blueprint for every zombie movie that followed. Romero’s zombies weren’t merely monsters — they were a reflection of humanity’s fears, prejudices, and inner decay. His influence has remained so pervasive that, even today, filmmakers working in horror are inevitably responding to his legacy, whether they realize it or not.

Through the years, there have been numerous attempts to deviate from Romero’s formula. The most prominent early success came in the 1980s with the Return of the Living Dead series — a clever horror-comedy franchise that infused dark humor and punk aesthetics into the genre. Yet even that beloved cult entry eventually lost steam. True reinvention did not arrive until 2002, when British filmmaker Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland collaborated on 28 Days Later, a project that both revitalized the zombie genre and split its devoted fan base down the middle. Was it truly a “zombie” film, or something else entirely? That very debate remains unresolved more than twenty years later.

Boyle’s film begins not with a supernatural curse or the reanimation of the dead, but with a catastrophic act of human arrogance. A group of naïve animal-rights activists break into a research laboratory to rescue chimpanzees subjected to bureaucratic cruelty. However, they find that these animals have been injected with a rage-inducing virus — the product of bioengineering rather than black magic. One of the activists, horrified by what she witnesses, ignores the pleas of a desperate scientist and frees a chimp, unleashing a pandemic that will decimate Britain within weeks. This opening sequence is both economical and horrifying: the origins of the apocalypse come from compassion twisted into recklessness. Boyle establishes his tone immediately — quick editing, grainy digital video, and an oppressive sense of realism create a world that feels disturbingly possible.

The narrative then leaps forward twenty-eight days. In a now-iconic sequence, the protagonist Jim (played by Cillian Murphy) awakens from a coma in an abandoned London hospital. His disorientation mirrors that of the audience: sterile hallways littered with trash, flickering lights, a haunting silence broken only by the hum of wind through the empty city. When Jim emerges into the sunlight, the camera captures a London entirely devoid of people, its majestic landmarks standing as hollow monuments to civilization’s sudden collapse. This is one of cinema’s most unforgettable depictions of isolation. The haunting score by John Murphy and the use of Godspeed You! Black Emperor’s instrumental “East Hastings” heighten the apocalyptic stillness, transforming London into a ghost metropolis.

Jim’s bewilderment only deepens when he seeks refuge in a church — a setting traditionally associated with salvation — only to find it desecrated by carnage. His presence awakens a horde of infected individuals who charge at him with terrifying speed. Unlike Romero’s slow, lumbering undead, Boyle’s infected are human beings transformed by a virus that amplifies their aggression to animalistic extremes. They move like predators, sprinting at prey with berserk fury. Jim narrowly escapes thanks to two survivors, Selena (Naomie Harris) and Mark (Noah Huntley), who introduce him to the brutal new rules of existence: infection spreads through blood contact, turning victims within seconds, and hesitation means death.

The trio’s uneasy alliance soon crumbles after Mark becomes infected, forcing Selena to kill him without hesitation. This harrowing moment establishes her as one of the film’s strongest and most pragmatic characters — a refreshing departure from the damsel archetype that has long haunted horror cinema. Jim and Selena later encounter Frank (Brendan Gleeson), a good-natured taxi driver, and his teenage daughter Hannah (Megan Burns), who have been surviving in a fortified apartment building. Together they form a fragile surrogate family and travel in search of a military broadcast promising safety and a potential cure.

Boyle deftly blends moments of human warmth amid horror. Scenes like the group’s scavenging trip through an abandoned grocery store — a darkly comic echo of Dawn of the Dead’s consumer satire — offer glimpses of joy and normalcy. The countryside sequences, shot with a painterly eye, contrast the urban decay of London with the serene beauty of a world reclaiming itself from human control. Nature, the film quietly suggests, endures long after people have vanished.

Their journey leads them to a fortified mansion commanded by Major Henry West (Christopher Eccleston), a British officer whose soldiers claim to have “the answer to infection.” The supposed sanctuary quickly reveals a darker truth. West’s band of men have descended into moral depravity, promising their commander that the promise of “women” will restore morale. The film shifts from survival horror to psychological thriller as the real threat emerges — not the infected outside, but the monstrousness within human beings when order collapses. In this descent into militaristic patriarchy and madness, Boyle channels the spirit of Romero’s Day of the Dead, where the military’s illusion of control becomes the true source of terror.

Boyle and Garland’s reinvention of the zombie mythos was revolutionary. Longtime fans of Romero’s shambling undead initially resisted the notion that 28 Days Later even qualified as a zombie movie. After all, its creatures weren’t reanimated corpses but living people overtaken by an uncontrollable virus. Yet their function within the story — relentless, dehumanized embodiments of contagion and rage — served the same thematic role as zombies always had: mirrors for society’s breakdown. The debate over whether the infected “count” as zombies is less important than the fact that Boyle redefined the genre’s emotional and kinetic language. His infected didn’t just pursue victims; they hunted them. Their blistering speed and screams injected pure chaos into what had once been slow, creeping dread.

The technical and artistic choices heightened the film’s intensity. Shot largely on digital video with handheld cameras, 28 Days Later looked raw and immediate, more like found footage than polished fiction. This realism bridged the gap between old-school horror and the new century’s fixation on viral outbreaks and global instability. Coming in the post-9/11 era, its images of deserted cities and military lockdowns felt eerily prescient, foreshadowing later fears of pandemics and authoritarian control.

The performances ground the film emotionally. Cillian Murphy’s portrayal of Jim evolves from bewildered innocence to hardened survivor, serving as the audience’s emotional compass. Naomie Harris delivers one of the genre’s most capable female performances, blending vulnerability with ferocity. Brendan Gleeson, always magnetic, brings compassion and tragedy to Frank — a man whose paternal instincts ultimately lead to heartbreak. Christopher Eccleston’s Major West stands as a chilling embodiment of human corruption in crisis: the soldier who insists he is saving civilization while replicating its worst impulses.

Despite being produced on a modest budget of roughly eight million dollars, Boyle’s film achieved a scale and impact far greater than its resources suggested. The empty London shots — achieved by closing key streets at dawn for only minutes at a time — remain astonishing feats of logistical precision and cinematic audacity. More importantly, the film’s minimalist production enhanced its believability. Everything about 28 Days Later feels lived-in, grimy, and plausible.

Two decades on, 28 Days Later continues to stand as one of the most influential horror films of the 21st century. Its success reinvigorated a genre that had grown stale and inspired a wave of imitators across film, television, and video games, from Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake to AMC’s The Walking Dead. Beyond its cultural impact, it remains a haunting meditation on rage — personal, societal, and political. Boyle and Garland transformed horror into a canvas for existential dread, exploring how quickly civility unravels when survival becomes the only law.

Whether one calls it a zombie film or not hardly matters anymore. 28 Days Later breathed new life into the undead myth, shattering old rules and redefining what modern horror could be. The debate it sparked continues, but one truth is undeniable: the genre has never been the same since Jim first walked through that silent, ruined London — a world devoured not by the dead, but by the terrifying rage of the living.

Scenes I Love: Zombie


Lisa Marie picked her favorite scene from Lucio Fulci’s classic Zombie (aka Zombi, Zombie Flesh Eaters) and now I counter with my own favorite scene from this film.

This scene has a simple set-up. The wife of the doctor researching zombification on the island of Matool gets herself in a sort of a pickle. Zombies have laid siege to her island home and most of her servants have either fled into the night or have become zombie chow. She’s barricaded herself in a room as zombie begin to batter down doors to get to her. It’s in the sequence where she has thought herself safe as she’s barricaded the door to her room when the hand and arm of a zombie breaks through the door (for some reason quite flimsy and prone to splintering) and grabs her by the hair and begins to pull her out through the splintered hole in the door.

I could continue to describe the scene, but I think it’s better for people to see why this scene is the one I love from Lucio Fulci’s Zombie.

Trailer: Battlefield 3 “Above and Beyond the Call w/ Jay-Z”


(All video footage ACTUAL GAMEPLAY)

The time for the final push to hype up the upcoming first-person shooter from EA and DICE has begun.

Battlefield 3 gets a brand-new TV ad spot which touts the title’s actual gameplay and the strength of it’s new graphics engine with Frostbite 2.0. To better give the ad a particular hook it uses Jay-Z’s “99 Problems” track to some great effect. The video shows the three different gameplay choices a player can have during single-player and multiplayer gaming: foot soldier, helicopter gunship and fighter pilot and tank driver.

As the tv spot has pointed out — plus the video below showing some multiplayer gameplay — Battlefield 3 has been the consensus best shooter to be seen by industry people at all the gaming shows and conventions this year. Whether the title will knock Activision’s Call of Duty franchise off it’s lofty perch still has to be seen, but if there’s a game that could begin the process of doing it then Battlefield 3 may just be it.

Battlefield 3 slated for an October 25, 2011 release date for the Xbox 360, Windows PC and PS3.

Review: Drive (dir. by Nicolas Winding Refn)


Danish filmmaker Nicolas Winding Refn has made just a handful of films with most staying under the radar of most of the general film-going public. He first caught the attention of indie film fans with his Pusher Trilogy over in Denmark, but he really caught the attention of these fans with his explosive collaboration with Tom Hardy on the Bronson biopic. He would follow that film with the violent existentialist Viking film Valhalla Rising. It would take another major collaboration with another rising star in Ryan Gosling for Winding Refn to finally have his major breakout film which has caught the attention of not just the indie film fans and cineaste crowd, but the general public at-large.

Drive was first screened over at this year’s 2011 Cannes Film Festival where it premiered “in competition” for the Palme d’Or. While the film didn’t win the top prize for best film at Cannes it didn’t garner Nicolas Winding Refn “Best Director” award and his work on this film more than merits such an accolade. The film would begin to screen at other major film festivals before landing at the Toronto International Film Festival before making it’s major public release in North America. Everywhere the film went the consensus reaction to the film has ranged from positive to calls for the film as one of 2011’s best.

So, it would seem most everyone has been quite positive with their reaction to Refn’s Drive. Is this film just another indie arthouse title which the elitist film fans have begun to hype up to levels that would border on cosmic? Or is this film actually as good as it has been talked up to be by such film fans and those of the general public who have seen it? I think the answer lies somewhere in-between.

Drive has been called an action-drama to crime-thriller to film noir and even an existentialist meditation of the film variety. Some have even called it a modern urban fairy tale from the many traditional tropes and themes inherent in fairy tales. The film actually seems to defy genre labels as it’s all those and even more. Nicolas Winding Refn has made a film with so much variety in its cinematic DNA from other classic films and storytelling styles that watching the film once is not enough to find them all.

The film makes a strong statement with it’s introduction of the character who remains nameless but could be called “The Driver” or “The Kid”. Ryan Gosling’s performance in this opening sequence will set the foundation for his character from beginning to end. His driver role is not much for chit-chat and unnecessary talking with those who have hired him to be their expert getaway driver. He’s meticulous with his equipment and intractable when it comes to the rules he has set down for his clients. He would be theirs for the five minutes they need him to drive them away from their criminal acts. Whatever they do before or after those five minutes doesn’t matter to him and he sticks to this rule explicitly. Another rule which he lays down is that he will not be carrying a firearm. These rules have had some audiences bring to mind Jason Statham’s Transporter character and they would not be totally wrong to say so. What Gosling’s driver has over Statham’s is the air of realism to the role. It’s a realism that borders on hyper-reality as the film moves on to it’s climactic conclusion, but real nonetheless. Gosling’s “driver” will not do extensive and elaborate fighting skills the way Statham’s would.

The film would move from it’s powerful introduction and into a much more calm and somewhat serene section as the nameless driver gradually gets to know his next door neighbor in the form of Irene as played by Carey Mulligan. Their relationship will form the core of the film’s narrative and it’s the driver’s growing affection not just for Irene but her young son that would dictate some of the decisions he would make right up to the end of the film. It’s a relationship built not on extensive dialogue banter but mostly on meaningful glances and silent understanding between two characters who seem to have found a kindred kinship between them. It’s this growing relationship between the two and Irene’s son which almost look like a familial unit forming until the return of Irene’s incarcerated and newly-released husband Standard. This is a character played by Oscar Isaac as a man desperate to take full advantage of his last chance at normalcy and redemption, but ultimately doomed to fail.

Standard doesn’t just become the only wrench in the happy life Gosling’s character seems to want to have with Irene and her son. Into the picture also happens to come in is his mentor and business partner Shannon (Bryan Cranston doing a great job as the good-natured, but opportunistic fool character many Shakespearean tragedies always seem to have) and Shannon’s even seedier acquaintances in Hollywood mogul-turned-mob boss Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks in a chilling performance) and his more boisterous, but not as smart partner in Nino (Ron Perlman).

The film seems to settle on the low gears for the first hour of the film, but it’s during a botched robbery attempt where the driver becomes embroiled in that Drive finally moves into the high gears and stays there until the very end. Refn’s decision to use the first hour to round out and build the characters in this film definitely pays off in the end. The audience becomes quite clear as to who the players are and what motivates them to do what they do the rest of the film. Even the most secondary and tertiary roles in this film has a part to play. Even Christina Hendricks in the role of a low-level moll to a gang of criminals gets to have her time to shine if just briefly.

Once the narrative shifts from character study to an almost Cronenbergian exercise in violence and brutality does the film finally able to hook in the last few audiences who may have still been iffy about Drive. Not to say that the final 45-minutes of the film was a non-stop action film, but it does move at a consistently higher gear pace than the first hour. We see the driver having to show to the audience that he’s not just an expert wheelman for Hollywood (stunt driver by day) and the criminal underground (getaway driver by night). It serves the film well that Gosling’s character has the barest minimum of lines of dialogue. We see all we need to know about this character through his behavior that brings to mind roles played by such past luminaries as Steve McQueen and Clint Eastwood.

Most likely it would be in the second half of the film that should satisfy the action junkies. While the action scenes are not of the Michael Bay-type they do show that Refn has a fine grasp of what makes an action scene thrilling. Whether the scene calls for some of the most well-done car chase on film since Frankenheimer showed everyone how to properly do it in Ronin or scenes of sudden brutal violence which calls to mind similar scenes from Cronenberg’s last two films (A History of Violence and Eastern Promises). Both types of action were done efficiently with little to no glamour to gloss over things. The burst of violence actually adds to the mystique of Gosling’s “Man With No Name” role. One particular scene in the apartment elevator where Gosling, Mulligan and a goon sent by the mob makes for one of the best scenes in the film and of 2011.

As much as these scenes of action and violence will be the ones to get the most attention from the general film-going public in the end it’s the excellent screenplay by Hossein Amini of the James Sallis’ novel of the same name which really holds everything together in conjunction with some top-notch performances from everyone involved. The film makes or breaks itself on Gosling’s performance as the driver and he delivers on all cylinders. His performance was quite reminiscent of past performances such as James Caan as Frank in Michael Mann’s Thief, Steve McQueen also as Frank in Bullitt, but in my opinion Gosling’s work in this film brings to mind young Clint Eastwood as “The Man With No Name” in Sergio Leone’s spaghetti western trilogy. Both characters were the type to let their actions speak for them and were both full of quiet confidence not to mention restrained violence which would erupt when needed.

Much has been said about Albert Brooks’ turn as the mob boss Bernie Rose. how the role was quite the 180-degrees from people’s perception of the actor who usually did comedic roles. I say that Albert Brooks always had a dark side to his comedic talent. I mean he was and is megamaniacal villain Hank Scorpio from The Simpsons. In all seriousness, Brooks’ as the mob boss was the other pillar which held all the other performances focused. In fact, Gosling’s character and Brook’s Bernie Rose could almost be considered mirror-images of each other. They were characters who had found their place in the world and the role they would play and didn’t struggle against it. Everyone else in the film struggled against their lot in life. It was also these characters who had the bulk of the film’s dialogue.

Drive has been hyped (for some overhyped) since it first premiered at this year’s Cannes Film Festival, but it’s one of those rare films which has more than earned and surpassed the hype which has preceded it’s general release to the general public. It’s a film which bucks traditional genre labels by combining the themes, ideas and foundations from many different film and storytelling genres. For fans of action there’s enough thrilling action to sate them. For those who are fans of film noir this film definitely carries within it the DNA set down by the film noir of the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. For some who wish to watch a film which explore existential themes then Refn’s film has that too. In the end, Drive manages to be a film which caters to so many different audiences without ever pandering to them or dumbing the story down. It’s a film made by a filmmaker who continues to impress and who has made his best film to date.

Drive is a film that is not for everyone, but it’s also a film that everyone should see and experience at least once. It is also one of the year’s best films and, so far, my top film of 2011.

Song of the Day: Angel of Mine (by Monica)


The latest “Song of the Day” is old-school for many. Seems anything that was released and played after the year 2000 people consider old-school now. For me this song is a more recent old-school. It’s only 13 years since it first played the radio waves. My choice is the ballad “Angel of Mine” by R&B singer Monica.

While this song was released in 1998 as one of the singles for Monica’s This Boy Is Mine album it definitely sounds like a much older R&B ballad from the late 80’s and early 90’s which I consider the true old-school. While it does have some of the more technical gloss which R&B albums began to show in the late 90’s and onward (which in my opinion hasn’t been to its benefit) the singing by Monica and the sweet-natured romantic lyrics brings to mind R&B acts like En Vogue from my high school days.

This song also happens to be the bridge for me and probably many others of my generation when young romance began to give way to mature romance as we all entered out late 20’s and with the big 3-0 just around the corner. The lyrics speaks of finding true love but it also didn’t have that juvenile, puppy love feel to it.

“Angel of Mine” marked one of the last few true R&B ballads which focused on love and romance instead of physical love (looking at you Chris Brown and Ne-Yo). They sure don’t make them like this anymore.

Angel of Mine

When I first saw you I already knew
There was something inside of you
Something I thought that I would never find
Angel of mine

I looked at you, lookin’ at me
Now I know why they say the best things are free
I’m gonna love you boy you are so fine
Angel of mine

How you changed my world, you’ll never know
I’m different now, you helped me grow
You came into my life sent from above
When I lost all hope you showed me love
I’m checkin’ for you boy you’re right on time
Angel of mine

Nothing means more to me than what we share
No one in this whole world can ever compare
Last night the way you moved is still on my mind
Angel of mine

What you mean to me, you’ll never know
Deep inside I need to show
You came into my life sent from above
(Sent from above)

When I lost all hope, you showed me love
(Boy you showered me love)
I’m checkin’ for you, boy you’re right on time
[ From : http://www.elyrics.net/read/m/monica-lyrics/angel-of-mine-lyrics.html ]
(Right on time)
Angel of mine
(Angel of mine)

I’ll never knew I could feel each moment
As if it were new
Every breath that I take, the love that we make
I only share it with you
(You, you, you, you)

When I first saw you I already knew
There was something inside of you
Something I thought that I would never find
Angel of mine

You came into my life sent from above
(Came into my life)
When I lost all hope you showed me love
(Boy you showed me love)
I’m shakin’ for you, boy you’re right on time
(But boy your right on time)
Angel of mine
(Angel of mine, oh mine)

How you changed my world, you’ll never know
I’m different now, you helped me grow

I look at you, lookin’ at me
Now I know why they say the best things are free
I’m checkin’ for you, boy you’re right on time
Angel of mine

AMV of the Day: Death Romance


Time for a new “AMV of the Day” and this time it was the AMV that was the consensus hit of this past summer’s Anime Expo 2011.

“Death Romance” is the creation of youtube user KaitoKid99 and from the reaction I’ve read about his entry at the AMV contest at Anime Expo 2011 this anime music video was something to have seen with a huge crowd reacting to it. The video took two so very different things and actually ended up quite funny and well-done: Death Note anime and Lady Gaga’s song “Bad Romance”.

Just watching the video I could very well imagine how well this video would’ve gone over. The fact that it won not just Best In Show at Anime Expo 2011, but also Best Comedy should put this video as one of the top one’s for 2011. KaitoKid99 didn’t use too much effects trickery and gimmicks. This video just was edited and synched quite well with a minimum of fuss and in the end those tend to be the best ones since there’s not too much to distract from the video.

I really regret not being able attend Anime Expo 2011 now if just to have seen this AMV on the theater screen at the Nokia Theater with a crowd of a couple thousand otaku.

Anime: Death Note

Song: “Bad Romance” by Lady Gaga

Creator: KaitoKid99

 

Song of the Day: Nightcall (by Kavinsky & Lovefoxxx)


The latest “Song of the Day” choice is the other song used in the film Drive which made quite an impression on while I watched the film. It’s the 2010 electro house track “Nightcall” from a similarly titled EP from electro house artist Kavinsky.

“Nightcall” was the song chosen by Drive filmmaker Nicolas Winding Refn and it’s film composer Cliff Martinez to begin the film. The choice of this song was pretty much a perfect one as it made for a great intro to the film. The song plays as the film introduces us to the lead character (played by Ryan Gosling) as he drives down the late-night streets and alleys of Los Angeles. The song’s 80’s sound gives the film an almost old-school drama feel to it. For anyone who grew up in the 1980’s this song definitely would sound familiar as it style was used many times over to score many action-dramas.

With “A Real Hero” this song helps bookend song-wise one of the more interesting and, in my opinion, one of the best films of 2011.

Nightcall

I’m giving you a night call to tell you how I feel
I want to drive you through the night, down the hills
I’m gonna tell you something you don’t want to hear
I’m gonna show you where it’s dark, but have no fear

There something inside you
It’s hard to explain
They’re talking about you boy
But you’re still the same

There something inside you
Its hard to explain
They’re talking about you boy
But you’re still the same

I’m giving you a night call to tell you how I feel
I want to drive you through the night, down the hills
I’m gonna tell you something you don’t want to hear
I’m gonna show you where it’s dark, but have no fear

There something inside you
It’s hard to explain
They’re talking about you boy
But you’re still the same

There something inside you
It’s hard to explain
They’re talking about you boy
But you’re still the same

There something inside you (there something inside you)
It’s hard to explain (it’s hard to explain )
They’re talking about you boy (they’re talking about you boy)
But you’re still the same