#michael gough makes it great

[blueruins]

Konga (1961)

[starleska]

inspired by @deadpuppetboi's killer redesign of the Toymaker's original outfit (removing the problematic elements and capitalising on the literal 'celestial' theme), i wanted to say!!! if you are looking for a similarly bonkers reality-bending entity who wears kickass robes for inspiration, look no further than Q from Star Trek 👀

[popentertainment-moviereviews]

BEETLEJUICE BEETLEJUICE (2024)

Starring Michael Keaton, Winona Ryder, Catherine O'Hara, Justin Theroux, Monica Bellucci, Jenna Ortega, Willem Dafoe, Danny DeVito, Burn Gorman, Arthur Conti, Filipe Cates, Nick Kellington, Santiago Cabrera, Sami Slimane, Amy Nuttall, Mark Heenehan, Liv Spencer, Skylar Park, Matt Lyons, Jane Leaney, David Ayres and the voice of Charlie Hopkinson.

Screenplay by Alfred Gough & Miles Millar.

Directed by Tim Burton.

Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. 105 minutes. Rated PG-13.

Earlier this week, I was excited to see the ghost with the most is back in action. Hundreds packed the Philadelphia press screening of the long-awaited sequel to the 1988 cult classic Beetlejuice – and while it has finally arrived, it’s great to see it has not lost its spark.

Admittedly, going in I feared that a modern remake couldn’t hope to compliment the original, but I can say that it really did deliver. The style and effects were still true to Tim Burton’s classic style, just more polished and cleaner, considering the newer technology. For example, I was impressed that the oddity of the Netherworld had not been compromised by slicker effects. Instead it was heightened and was a true homage to the original. 

Much of the original cast returned to the fictional town of Winter River, CT for this second installment including Winona Ryder, Micheal Keaton, and Catherine O’Hara all reprising their original roles. Joining the cast were talents such as Jenna Ortega, Willem Dafoe, Monica Bellucci, Justin Theroux, Danny DeVito, and many others.

The plot was set for a wholesome story about reconnecting the now grown Lydia Deetz (Winona Ryder) with her teenage daughter Astrid (Jenna Ortega). Of course, their emotional healing process is constantly interrupted by questionable men, and the killer ex-wife of none other than Beetlejuice himself. I was able to thoroughly appreciate the writers’ ability to follow different subplots, while remaining coherent with the main story.

Of course, no movie is without its flaws, and while the movie was still able to make sense with many subplots, I felt there may have been a few too many. It was my feeling that giving Astrid one focus subplot, specifically about her father and trying to reunite with him, would have given a cleaner development for her without some oddly placed tension due to a love interest. Regardless, Arthur Conti did a good job in his role as Jeremy, and his plot twist was very well executed. 

A consistently incredible aspect of this movie was its humor. The performances of Michael Keaton (Douglas), and Catherine O’Hara were especially incredible throughout. Overall, the cast played off each other beautifully and delivered a delightfully hilarious performance together.

I highly recommend seeing Beetlejuice Beetlejuice when it comes to a screen near you this Friday. Not just for its all-star cast and how well it complements the original, but the soundtrack is also amazing. It includes “Day-O (The Banana Boat Song)” from the original movie, and also 70s classics like Donna Summer’s “MacArthur Park,” Jimmy Buffett’s “Margaritaville,” and The Bee Gees’ “Tragedy.”

Jordan Wagner

Copyright ©2024 PopEntertainment.com. All rights reserved. Posted: September 6, 2024.

[night-unfurls-its-splendour]

Live Commentary on Hammer's Phantom of the Opera (1962) Starring Herbert Lom

Well Herbert Lom has top billing, so already this is an improvement on 1943

MICHAEL GOUGH IS HERE! I REPEAT. MICHAEL GOUGH IS HERE!

That armchair upholstery is dope

So this is where the mid-show body drop comes from

Ooo yikes, Michael Gough is a creep

Okay this raoul stand-in is really sweet so far. I kinda like im

I generally object to rat-catcher antics, but as this is Patrick Troughton, I'll allow it

Shouldn't the mask serve to make him *less* frightening?

Ah yes! Toccata and Fugue in D Minor! Iconic! Unless I'm mistaken this is the film responsible for associating this piece forever with the Phantom.

Is this where the throne comes from too?!

He slapped her! I'm detracting points-- he's not a great teacher

This is not at all interested in being Phantom of the Opera, but as its own story I'm very into it

This opera is pretty amazing

Overall, I would call this an improved remake of the 1943 film ,since it borrowed so heavily from the backstory. But it really improved upon it by fleshing out the Phantom and letting him be a character. The story makes sense, the leads are likeable and its a sympathetic portrayal of the Phantom. Like I said, its not at all Leroux's story, but as its own film I very much give this my seal of approval, I really enjoyed this.

PHANTOM KILL TOTAL: 1

[uncloseted]

Do you think Tim Burton someone that we shouldn't support? I was hyped seeing the Wednesday Addams trailer but when I looked into Burton I found he's said a few racist things in the past. Now I'm not sure if I can watch Wednesday in good conscious or not despite the fact I adore the Addams family

I think there's a real difference between someone who has "said a few racist things in the past" (or said things that we retroactively consider to be racist) and a person who is actively being racist. People fuck up. They're often ignorant and uninformed. Sometimes they say things that aren't perfect. I think we need to make space for "yikes, friendly reminder that this isn't a good look" without defaulting to, "that person is racist and cancelled, nobody interact with their content ever again."

From what I can tell, the accusations of racism seem to be mostly over Burton's lack of diversity in his films. Which is accurate, but... he casts the same four people in everything he makes (Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Christopher Lee and Michael Gough). There's literally a lack of diversity in his films at all, because there's a lack of diversity in the actual individual actors that he hires. So it's kind of unsurprising that his films lack diversity and that he doesn't have great insight on the subject of diversity at large.

Specifically, when people accuse Burton of racism, they point to a 2016 interview with Bustle, in which he said he said that,

"Nowadays, people are talking about [diversity] more. But things either call for things, or they don’t. I remember back when I was a child watching The Brady Bunch and they started to get all politically correct. Like, OK, let’s have an Asian child and a black. I used to get more offended by that than just... I grew up watching blaxploitation movies, right? And I said, that’s great. I didn’t go like, OK, there should be more white people in these movies."

Is that a great take? Of course not. Movies made by white people that only include white people aren't the same as movies made by Black people that only include Black people. The Brady Bunch was doing important work by diversifying their cast, even if their moves towards diversity felt shoehorned to white kids in Burbank in the 60s. But is it a cancelable offense that proves he's always been secretly racist and that if we watch his works, we'll be supporting racism? I don't think so. I think he's just, you know, a white guy who grew up in Burbank in the 60s who has cast the same four people in his movies since 1988.

It should also be noted that in the same Bustle article, they interview Samuel L. Jackson about Tim Burton's perceived lack of representation in his films, to which his only response was, "I had to go back in my head and go, how many black characters have been in Tim Burton movies? And I may have been the first, I don’t know, or the most prominent in that particular way, but it happens the way it happens. I don’t think it’s any fault of his or his method of storytelling, it’s just how it’s played out. Tim’s a really great guy."

Also, the new Addams family TV show is actually pretty diverse. It stars Jenna Ortega, who is Mexican and Puerto Rican, as well as Luis Guzmán, who is Puerto Rican. It also features Fred Armisen, who is Venezuelan-Korean. An attempt to rectify the lack of diversity in Burton's works is being made here. If anything, this is the work of Burton's that's the worst to boycott, because Netflix has a history of cancelling shows that are led by Hispanic and Latin actors.

On a bit of a side note, I also want to say that the more I have these conversations, the more I feel like our increasing cultural focus on whether the media we consume is "ethical" or not is a red herring that's distracting from more important issues. Is a racist comment Tim Burton made in 2016 really the biggest race related issue we're facing right now? Fuck no. But by focusing on that, people can pat themselves on the back for "fighting racism" without actually having to contend with the messy, complicated, nuanced discussions that are necessary to solve the more pressing issues at hand, and without actually having to meaningfully change their lives. Even if literally nobody watched this new Addams family show, Tim Burton would still have an estimated net worth of $100 million. Even if literally nobody watched the new Addams family show, Tim Burton still got paid to make it. So in this case, even if his comments were totally unforgivable, I think boycotting it has very little worth. If he gives you the ick now that you've read that he's said racist things in the past, it's your prerogative not to watch it. That's totally fine, and I get feeling that way. But that's a personal decision, not a political or ethical one.

[thealmightyemprex]

Disney Month The Sword and the Rose

For the third review of Disney Month ,we shall look at the Sword and the Rose

in this 1953 film Mary Tudor ( Glynis Johns) falls for a new arrival at court Charles Brandon (Richard Todd ) ,but her brother King Henry VIII (James Robertson Justice ) seeks to wed her to the French king , Louis XII (Jean Mercure) ,all while the Duke of Buckingham (Michael Gough ) also pines for her

Third in a series of films Walt Disney made in England which included Treasure Island ,The Story of Robin Hood and his Merry Men , and Rob Roy Highland Rogue .....I went into this movie COMPLETELY blind ,all I knew was Michael Gough and Glynis Johns were in it and it was one of Disneys early British made films before he tackled the big budget 2000 LEagues under the Sea .I didnt know the setting,didnt know the plot ,and didnt even know what genre it was ,just assuming it was a swashbuckling adventure.....And what I got in stead was a period piece romance with adventure elements,,,,,,And I loved it ,this is such a hidden gem

This is another film that doesnt feel very Disney to me ,it feels like a normal period piece movie(Though I dont know how accurate it is but accuracy is not this films focus,it is being entertaining ).I thought Glynis Johns delived a magnificent performance,in fact this miht be my favorite role I have seen her play ,in that we root for her even when she gets a bit devious .James Robertson Justice is both a good antagonist while also bringing levity to the film as King Henry VIII .Michael Gough as the Duke of Buckingham ,behind Glynis Johns,is my second favorite performance in the film cause I didnt know what direction they would take ,so when his true colors are revealed it is very effective ,and it might be one of my favorite roles I have seen Gough play .I will say Richard Todd while good,is a bit flat compared to the other actors ,and I didnt quite buy his romance with Mary till the end

I will say as a romance its just OK,,,,,Buuuuuut this appeals a ver specific thing I like which is "DOYAL DRAMA" .For some reason I love media depicting royals make deals, and backstab and all that stufff ,so I think it is a good period drama in that regard.It also has a pretty good final fight and the film opens with Michael Gough AKA Alfred Pennyworth wrestling people,which not something I expected to see but is now something I'm glad I have .I think the costume and production values are all great ,and I was far more invested in the story then I thought I would be

I think this is a very good hidden gem that I reccomend

@ariel-seagull-wings @amalthea9 @princesssarisa @the-blue-fairie @themousefromfantasyland @filmcityworld1 @marquisedemasque @angelixgutz @goodanswerfoxmonster

[rhysmademedoit]

So...

I recently rewatched the 1997 movie Batman and Robin, which was a mistake, but probably not in the way you'd expect. I have a lot of opinions about this movie now. In fact, I have so many opinions that I need to make a tumblr post breaking them down before I go crazy.

Let me say that I went into this movie with an open mind. It's a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad, movie, but I do genuinely think it has some interesting points. I'll start with the casting.

George Clooney is legitimately the worst Batman ever put to the silver screen. He's just playing George Clooney. I've seen him do a good job in other movies so I have to assume he read the script and decided to just phone it in.

Chris O'Donnell actually does a much better job as Robin in this movie than he did in Batman Forever. He and Batman feel like an actual team this time, even if Clooney could be carrying his weight more. The actual character O'Donnell plays in this movie is fairly over the top, but I think he does a good job grounding him in the reality of this movie.

Arnold Schwarzenegger actually really fits Mr. Freeze in a weird way. His cold, mechanical delivery evokes the Terminator, proving he still has what it takes to play a villain. The problem is that Mr. Freeze himself is TERRIBLY written. EVERY LINE HE SAYS IS AN ICE PUN!!! He's probably the single worst part of this movie, but I don't blame Arnold for that, he did a good job with what he had.

Uma Thurman is another actor I've seen do a great performance in other movies. For some reason, she decided to play Poison Ivy like she's Rita Repulsa. That might work for Power Rangers, but it feels really out of place here. It's a shame since I think Poison Ivy in this movie had a lot of untapped potential.

Alicia Silverstone is an actress I haven't seen in anything else, so I don't want to judge her too harshly. She's just... not very good in this. Not bad necessarily. I don't know if she wasn't given enough direction or didn't understand her character or what. Batgirl is actually a kind of interesting character who, like most things in this movie, doesn't get fleshed out enough. She does have some sweet moments though. Most of them are helped by the real star of the show...

Michael Gough delivers what has to be the greatest Alfred performance of all time, and definitely HIS greatest Alfred performance. And why shouldn't he? By far, he has the best scenes and the best lines in the entire movie, elevating the entire thing from a cheesy kids film to something that actually has a little maturity. Singlehandedly he becomes the sole reason to rewatch this movie. The "soul" of the movie, if you will.

I guess now it's time to talk about the plot of this movie. I'll be covering it in very broad strokes so I don't end up writing this forever.

From the get-go, two things are VERY apparent: (1.) This movie's visuals, lighting, and set design are awe-inspiring and (2.) A lot of the dialogue is absolutely HORRIBLE. It feels unfinished. Mr. Freeze looks jaw-droppingly epic in his suit with pitch black eyes and a glowing blue mouth, but it's all downplayed by the fact that he never has anything even remotely interesting to say. When Batman is saying lines like "Hey Freeze, I'm Batman" I just picture a little annotation next to it in the script saying *write a cool opening line here.

After an admittedly good fight scene with Mr. Freeze, we're introduced to one of the main conflicts of the movie: Batman doesn't trust Robin. I actually really like that premise. It feels true to the characters while also making for some interesting drama. Hopefully we see that same concept taken on by a better movie one day.

Next up, we're introduced to Pamela Isley, who gets turned into Poison Ivy... somehow. The movie really doesn't make it clear. I think they wanted to do a similar thing to Catwoman with Dr. Woodrew being her Max Shreck, but they plow through it before you even have time to think. Oh, and Bane is here too. I didn't mention him because he's just a strong henchman for Batman and Robin to fight, and honestly might as well just be a giant plant monster. In fact, he kind of is a giant plant monster, since Venom in this movie comes from Poison Ivy's plants. Whatever, on to the next scene.

At stately Wayne Manor, the movie does a really good job setting up that Alfred is getting older. He's a lot slower to respond, gets tired faster, and all around just looks much older here. We're also introduced to Barbara... Wilson?? I actually think making her Alfred's niece instead of Commissioner Gordon's daughter makes a ton of sense for this movie. After all, what better way to flesh out Alfred as a character than showing him interact with family? And as I said before, these moments are genuinely very touching! I love this stuff!

Gotham Observatory, another gorgeous set with a giant statue holding the observatory in the air. Pamela says some really interesting things to Bruce here, and in many ways she's right, the elite should be focused on saving the planet rather than exploring the stars. I think she could've used her hypnotism on this entire room and gotten what she wants immediately, but then the next scene wouldn't happen. Also Bruce Wayne randomly has a girlfriend now? She's only in two more scenes and is really forgettable. I don't see what the point of her is.

This is probably the scene most people think of when they think of this movie. I don't actually have anything to say about it that hasn't already been said, but there were some lines I do genuinely find funny, like when Batman says "You don't have the money," and Robin replies "I'll borrow it from you!" Batman having a credit card is dumb but in a fun way that I can appreciate.

Mr. Freeze shows up in his tank and steals the diamond, and a car chase ensues. The scene of Batman actually capturing Mr. Freeze is actually pretty funny, but more importantly, that point of conflict between Batman and Robin is brought up again. It's actually a really interesting moment because although Batman was genuinely saving his partner, the entire reason Robin wanted to risk his life was to prove himself, an attitude which came about because of Batman's overprotectiveness. It's pretty complex stuff considering the movie it's in.

I like this scene in Arkham because it shows how the patients detained here are treated inhumanely, but the movie doesn't do anything with that which is another huge missed opportunity. At least we get a nice little nod to the last movie's villains.

Plot twist! Barbara isn't actually the sweet uni student you thought she was, she's actually a street racing punk who wears leather and despises authority! The visuals of the street race are stunning as always, but the part that sticks out to me the most is how she completely slams Bruce and Richard for their treatment of Alfred. They've always thought of him as family, but in reality he's just their servant, and now we have his actual family member coming in to challenge them. It would be super compelling stuff if they actually focused on it for more than two seconds.

I can't find a good picture, but something about the set design of Mr. Freeze's lab feels really cheap. The set itself is cool but the lighting design feels oddly bright, almost washed out. It gives off a kids TV show vibe, not helped by their encounter with Bane and Poison Ivy which is really cheesy. There's a good moment of banter between Batman and Robin to let us know they've reconciled, and Arnie does a good job showing the stress Mr. Freeze is under, but that's about it. If you saw this scene on TV with no context, you'd think it was a made for TV movie.

This next part is really silly. Why would Poison Ivy want Mr. Freeze to freeze all of Gotham? Wouldn't that kill all of her plants? The part where she seduces Commissioner Gordon is probably my favorite scene of Gordon in this entire quadrilogy, he really does a good job playing up the goofiness. The biggest problem is that the plant-infested GCPD headquarters looks really cheap. It's like the opposite of Mr. Freeze's Lab: the lighting is beautiful but the actual set looks so fake. Speaking of things that look cheap, what's with that Batgirl costume? It doesn't even look like a bat! This is probably one of the dumbest scenes in the entire movie, but it's still kind of sweet that they show Robin still trusting Batman after everything that's come between them.

I've been leaving out a lot, but the fight against Poison Ivy and the fight against Mr. Freeze actually are back to back. The Gotham Observatory is a beautiful set to stage the finale on, even if the actual plan makes no sense. There's also some nice moments of teamwork between the trio where you see how well they work together... or at least they would be nice moments if the three of them had any chemistry together at all. Seriously, this needed another draft. The fight scene isn't anything to write home about, but I do really like Batman's speech to Mr. Freeze at the end. It really shows the evolution of his character. In Batman 89 he was a hard edged antihero and a bit of a psychopath. In Batman Returns he became more bold and confident, but was also willing to open up emotionally. In Batman Forever he gave up his vengeance streak to become a more pacifist hero who only kills in self defense. Now, in Batman and Robin, he's willing to reach out to a man who almost killed the entire city, and to say to him that there's still a good man buried deep inside him somewhere under all the ice. It's too bad George Clooney is still phoning it in or it would have a lot more impact.

I know this movie has a lot of problems. I know I have a lot of problems with this movie. I know that one of my biggest problems with this movie is its cast. And yet somehow, watching the end of this movie, where Alicia Silverstone, Chris O'Donnell, and George Clooney put their hands together and agree to be partners, I couldn't help but feel excited to see them return. I want to see them come back in Batman Unchained. I want to see them fight Coolio's Scarecrow and Joker's daughter Harley Quinn with Batman hallucinating about Jack Nicholson's Joker. Heck, throw Man-Bat in there as well! And Tim Drake as the next Robin! And let's stunt cast everyone because why the heck not.

But that movie's never going to happen now. Even if they made a movie with that exact plot and everyone reprising their roles, it wouldn't be the same. It would just be nostalgia pandering.

There's one scene I left out, but it's arguably the best scene in the entire movie.

Alfred's lying in bed, dying. Bruce says to him "I've spent my entire life trying to beat back death. Everything I've done... Everything I'm capable of doing... but that can't save you." And Alfred responds by saying "There is no defeat in death, Master Bruce. Victory comes in defending what we know is right while we still live." They embrace. Bruce says "I love you, old man." Alfred says "And I love you, too." They smile. It's a beautiful scene on it's own, but it hits even harder because of Barbara's rant to Richard before. When Alfred says "I love you" to Bruce, it resolves his entire character arc in the movie. His search for his family has come to an end. Bruce is his family. Richard is his family. The Wayne's were his family. Batman is his family.

In short, this movie sucks, but I've come to appreciate the little strands of brilliance that live on inside of it. I may even like it a little more than Batman Forever. Just a little though.

Here's to hoping we see the trio of Batman, Robin, and Batgirl return to the big screen in the future. Have an ice day!

[denimbex1986]

'...The Toymaker will take center stage in the 60th anniversary's third special, "The Giggle," where Neil Patrick Harris will take on the role and unleash the villain's full power on Earth.

With The Toymaker set to return as part of Doctor Who's 60th-anniversary storyline, Davies has opened up to SFX Magazine about why he selected the villain as a main antagonist for the milestone celebrations. The showrunner explained that he enjoyed writing The Toymaker for his balance of intimidating and humorous moments, seeing that the character was a figure that could easily be understood by audiences unfamiliar with the older continuity of the classic era while promising that the story would be rewarding to existing viewers. Check out Davies' full explanation below:

My lord, one of the most exciting days of my writing life was writing page one of "The Giggle" script, when I realized how brilliant The Toymaker was. I thought he'd be a good villain, that I'd have a laugh with him. I started writing the script and thought "This is the best villain ever created." So powerful. So funny. So dangerous. I love him! Obviously, that was written before the streamer was decided. Bear in mind, a lot of this went into production. It could have been Netflix, it could have been Amazon. It could have been anyone - You could say any name there that we went to. It's our job to go to every streamer in the world. All of them were very interested. So I'm writing this knowing that no matter where it went out it would go to a bigger audience - So do you have to explain who the Toymaker is? I've got to say, in a science fiction setting, a great cosmic villain called the Toymaker played by a big star kind of makes sense anyway. Spier-Man could swing into an apartment tomorrow and meet the Toymaker, and you'd go "Oh,it's that kind of villain." So he makes sense enormously. There's a flashback. Let's say it. There is a flashback to Michael Gough, which is wonderful. It's funny, when I handed in that script my agent went "Ooh, I remember the Toymaker, played by Michael Gough." So there's a very powerful memory of him. She's not a science fiction fan at all. So where we thought there'd be possibly resistance to old characters and old continuity and adventures, there's been none. As long as there's some nice clarity to it. They will ask "Who's this? Who's that?" But they know equally that fans will come on board for that. It's been lovely. It's been really lovely.

Why Doctor Who Took 57 Years To Revisit The Toymaker

While The Toymaker took 57 years to return to television screens, there had been attempts to bring the villain much sooner and fulfill the First Doctor's prophecy from "The Celestial Toymaker." Colin Baker's Sixth Doctor was originally set to face the being in the classic era's season 23 episode, "The Nightmare Fair,"...However, with a change in format and a lengthy hiatus, the story was never produced for the television series.

As such, The Toymaker has returned across Doctor Who's expanded media, showcasing his power in comics, novels, and audio dramas...With the 60th-anniversary also adapting Beep the Meep (Miriam Margolyes) to screen and the Toymaker returning to a toyshop, "The Giggle" could similarly be inspired by these off-screen encounters.

While other classic foes are more recognizable to general audiences, The Toymaker is one of the Doctor's most powerful classic enemies due to his reality-warping abilities that even left the First Doctor trapped. Pulling from the show's long history can be difficult due to wanting a striking balance between respecting lore and being accessible to newcomers, but Davies took that into account during the writing process. As such, "The Giggle" will be a worthy reintroduction for one of Doctor Who's oldest, most powerful villains.'

[garbage-connoisseur]

Konga

Konga is a 1961 British King Kong knock-off starring the gorilla suit of famous gorilla actor George Barrows, but not Barrows himself as they were too cheap to fly him to England to work, instead finding a no-name actor that just happened to fit inside of the suit instead.

I was recommended this movie for an ape-themed movie night, where we ended up watching three other great movies instead (well, two awful movies and Link), and had been told that this one came highly recommended by a regular at my local video store who was really into monkey flicks.

First a content warning though. The protagonist of this movie is a massive bastard, who over the course of the movie kills a cat (not shown on screen, but the corpse of a cat puppet is), grooms a student, attempts a sexual assault and is in general a bit of a racist misogynist scumbag. I will not be showing anything graphic related to that in this post though.

The movie starts out with what appears to be a plane crash, but which we must conclude is actually a flying car, on account of the size of the explosion and how cars are famously the single most explosive thing in all of cinema.

The sole survivor of the crash turns out to be Dr. Charles Decker, a botanist with a massive ego, who turns up one year later after surviving in the Ugandan jungle thanks to being found by a chimpanzee that guided him to a local tribe, where he stole the knowledge of their witch doctor. Ooops, did I say "stole"? I meant "discovered". With this newfound knowledge of some of the local fauna he returns to Essex to revolutionize Botany and possibly more nefarious things.

Charles Decker is played by Michael Gough whom most of you will recognize as Alfred from the Burton/Schumacher Batman movies. In Konga he gives it his all and just exudes massive ham energy in every scene he is in.

Charles builds a new garden in his greenhouse containing carnivorous plants containing some kind of human elements that he plans to use in his research into increasing growth in both plants and animals, creating an all new garden of genetically modified plants.

Charles is creating a serum made up of the human-compatible plant genetic material combined with some zombie-herbs that will make injected animals grow huge in size and become susceptible to his control through hypnosis, and he of course plans to test this out on... Konga, the baby chimpanzee that saved his life. God, what a piece of shit.

To test out if he can control Konga, Charles orders him to go murder the Dean of Essex College where he works, who had accused him of being a madman and to maybe take a break and get better, which is obviously indefensible. Charles? Mad? Off you go Konga!

The bobbies are completely stumped by this murder, and remain stumped even after Charles Decker throws a party and invites another scientist working in the same field who he realizes might be unto the same findings as himself and might even be able to publish first. Now, Charles is a reasonable scientist, easily able to put aside his emotions in the name of science.

So obviously he handles things remarkably well...

Luckily Charles is convinced that he has left absolutely no clues that he has been behind the murders of these two people that he met up with within a few hours of their violent deaths...

Anyways, Charles has a thing for one of his students, and the entire class can tell, especially the student's boyfriend, who confronts him and tells him to keep it at a student-teacher relationship and nothing more.

Again the bobbies are completely clueless, and Charles decides that the best way to avoid raising suspicion is to invite the dead boy's girlfriend over for dinner, and to offer a shoulder to cry on, which is totally normal guys.

Now, Charles has an accomplice, his housekeeper and assistant Margaret who has repeatedly made him aware that she is into him, and has managed to make him promise to marry her in order to keep quiet about all the murders. Margaret may be a victim of sunk cost fallacy and a terrible taste in men, but she is not dumb, and she immediately realizes that Charles is making eyes at his student, and always intended to have her replaced.

Meanwhile Charles is busy explaining to the student how there is an evolutionary link between vegetables and animal life; that the key to all life lies in the cell, and that he has trained cells to perform miracles of biological engineering in cytoplasm, which when injected into the circulatory system has human properties that will speed up cell division by stimulating the centrosomes causing sudden massive growth. This seems wrong, but I don't know enough about biology to dispute it.

Margaret decides to try and re-hypnotise Konga to obey her, and also to give him a massive injection of the remaining serum. This mostly backfires on everyone involved.

Konga decides to go for a walk and to bring his good friend Charles, who like Margaret mysteriously seems to turn into a puppet sometimes.

And finally we get a climatic end at the closest thing London had to a skyscraper in 1960.

All in all I found this to be a quite fun watch if you can look past the fact that Konga is barely in the movie at all, and can only be called a dai kaiju in the lest ten minutes or so - and that the central protagonist is just such a massive creep throughout the entire movie. Yikes.

Really funny how both this and yesterday's movie turned out to be about pseudoscience on how to bridge the gap between plants and animals.

[irvinenewshq]

Boucher responds to Proteas rain-induced World Cup heartbreak: We wished to play

Quinton de Kock and Temba Bavuma (Gallo) Proteas head coach Mark Boucher says that the Proteas wished to complete their T20 World Cup opener in opposition to Zimbabwe in Hobart on Monday regardless of the circumstances and that Zimbabwe would have wished the identical consequence had they been in South Africa’s place. It was a vastly irritating outing for the Proteas, who had been much better than their African neighbours and effectively on track for a beneficial Pool 2 victory earlier than the umpires – Ahsan Raza and Michael Gough – lastly pulled the gamers off the sector one final time. At that time, the Proteas had been 51/0 in simply three overs, needing one other 13 for victory in 4 remaining overs after their goal of 80 in 9 overs had been lowered to 64 in seven following one other delay. SCORECARD | T20 World Cup: Proteas v Zimbabwe Quinton de Kock (47* off 18) did all he might to get his aspect over the road in time, but it surely was to not be. READ | Hobart rain cruelly denies Proteas World Cup factors in farcical circumstances Addressing the circumstances after the match, Boucher acknowledged they had been “robust” however stated the choice was finally out of his management. “I assumed it was robust circumstances. We’re right here to play a World Cup, and, clearly, we wished to play,” stated Boucher. “It appeared like each captains wished to play at first, and taking a look on the sport earlier than [Bangladesh v Netherlands], the sector was pretty moist as effectively, and there had been a little bit of rain round. “The underside line is that gamers do not make these choices; the officers are there to make these choices, and that is what occurred.” Dwell with choices When requested if he would have been snug together with his bowlers having to function within the circumstances Zimbabwe confronted in direction of the back-end of the match – they misplaced bowler Richard Ngarava to damage due to the slippery turf – Boucher was fast to reply. “I feel we did. We bowled with a ball that was fairly moist as effectively,” he stated. “We had been in an excellent place, so when you stroll away from this sport you are going to be considering we had been laborious executed by, whether or not the sport ought to have taken place or not. “If Zimbabwe had been in our place, they might wished to have carried on enjoying. “We’re not there to make the calls; that is what the officers do. The officers made the decision, and we now have to dwell with their choices.” The constructive, the coach added, was that this did not come at a time when the Proteas had their match using on the end result as was the case on the 1992 and 2003 50-over World Cups. “The constructive is it is not a do-or-die sport for us. We’re nonetheless in command of what occurs on this World Cup,” he stated. “Sure, we have not had a great historical past with rain, however I might moderately have it occur within the first sport the place we’re nonetheless in command of what we are able to really do. It is a robust group and there’s most likely one sport that’s actually going to be a sport that we now have to win, but it surely’s nonetheless very early within the match. “I am simply proud of the best way that we performed and our depth was excellent immediately, in order that’s a constructive I can take out of it and in addition Quinny [De Kock] performed some actually particular cricket photographs which I feel sends a little bit of a message as effectively.” The Proteas are subsequent in motion after they tackle Bangladesh on Wednesday. Rain can be forecast for that match. Originally published at Irvine News HQ

[docrotten]

HORRORS OF THE BLACK MUSEUM (1959) – Episode 134 – Decades Of Horror: The Classic Era

“New sensation! Woman’s head cut off! Read all about it! New sensation!” And don’t forget… Hypno-Vista! Join this episode’s Grue-Crew – Chad Hunt, Daphne Monary-Ernsdorff, and Jeff Mohr, along with guest host Steven Turek – as they discuss the quirky Horrors of the Black Museum (1959).

Decades of Horror: The Classic Era Episode 134 – Horrors of the Black Museum (1959)

Join the Crew on the Gruesome Magazine YouTube channel! Subscribe today! And click the alert to get notified of new content! https://youtube.com/gruesomemagazine

ANNOUNCEMENT Decades of Horror The Classic Era is partnering with THE CLASSIC SCI-FI MOVIE CHANNEL, THE CLASSIC HORROR MOVIE CHANNEL, and WICKED HORROR TV CHANNEL Which all now include video episodes of The Classic Era! Available on Roku, AppleTV, Amazon FireTV, AndroidTV, Online Website. Across All OTT platforms, as well as mobile, tablet, and desktop. https://classicscifichannel.com/; https://classichorrorchannel.com/; https://wickedhorrortv.com/

Synopsois: A frustrated crime columnist and thriller writer wants accurate crimes for his next book so he hypnotizes his assistant to make him commit the required crimes

  Director: Arthur Crabtree

Writers: Herman Cohen, Aben Kandel

Selected Cast:

Michael Gough as Edmond Bancroft

June Cunningham as Joan Berkley

Graham Curnow as Rick

Shirley Anne Field as Angela Banks

Geoffrey Keen as Superintendent Graham

Gerald Andersen as Dr. Ballan

John Warwick as Inspector Lodge

Beatrice Varley as Aggie

Austin Trevor as Commissioner Wayne

Malou Pantera as Peggy

Howard Greene as Tom Rivers

Dorinda Stevens as Gail Dunlap

Stuart Saunders as Strength-Test Barker

Steven Turek of the DieCast Movie Podcast joins the Decades of Horror Classic Era Grue Crew for this episode and, in fact, picked the topic of discussion, Horrors of the Black Museum, an American-British production distributed by American International Pictures and Anglo-Amalgamated Film Distributors. As Steven points out, even though the film is blatantly billed in the U.S. as containing Hypno-Vista, there is nary an example of hypnosis in the story. For Steven, this Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde mashup is all about inventive kills with a few gadgets thrown in for good measure.

Daphne points out that Horrors of the Black Museum is part of what has been called Anglo-Amalgamated’s Sadian trilogy along with Circus of Horrors (1960) and Peeping Tom (1960). From her point of view, it’s a fun film and she most enjoys Michael Gough’s arrogant character and the incredible kills.

Michael Gough’s scenery-chewing performance is what stands out for Chad in Horrors of the Black Museum. It’s an example of good acting coupled with a zany story with seemingly arbitrary twists and insane kills. Jeff agrees with Chad’s appraisal of Gough’s performance. For him, Horrors of the Black Museum is not a great movie, but it sure is fun watching Michael Gough chewing accompanied by the unique kills, the first of which takes place within the first three minutes of the movie.

Now, about that HypnoVista thing. A thirteen-minute prologue was added to the U.S. release by the folks at AIP as a Castle-esque gimmick. It featured hypnotist Emile Franchele and obliquely introduces the HypnoVista concept. Most streaming sources do not include this prologue, but it can be viewed here: Hypno-Vista intro of Horrors of the Black Museum  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWgU1lJHB4k 

At the time of this writing, Horrors of the Black Museum is available to stream from the Classic Horror Movie Channel, Wicked Horror TV, and Tubi.

Be sure to check out our very own Whitney Collazo and Daphne Monary-Ernsdorff as they join Steven and Alistair Hughes for a discussion of Hammer’s Vampire Lovers (1970) on Diecast Movie Podcast episode 125/Hammerama 7. Steve also conducts a very interesting interview of Whitney on episode 118.

Gruesome Magazine’s Decades of Horror: The Classic Era records a new episode every two weeks. Up next in their very flexible schedule is one chosen by guest host and special effects artist Dirk Rogers: Matango (Attack of the Mushroom People, 1963). Get ready for some body horror from Toho and Ishirô Honda!

Please let them know how they’re doing! They want to hear from you – the coolest, grooviest fans: leave them a message or leave a comment on the Gruesome Magazine YouTube channel, the site, or email the Decades of Horror: The Classic Era podcast hosts at feedback@gruesomemagazine.com

To each of you from each of them, “Thank you so much for listening!”

Check out this episode!

[trixterdark]

I love Batman and Robin and Batman Forever, bye~

Val Kilmer’s Batman is great. His balance between Bruce and Batman is surprisingly good. Despite all the camp you can believe his miserable millionaire vibe.

George Clooney as bobblehead Batman. I have no problem believing that George Clooney is Bruce Wayne. His Batman has a Adam West vibe.

Chris O’Donnell is uh... A Dick. But I think that his Robin works for this universe. His desire to be equals and cocky nature make sense for the character’s age. Laundry karate will forever be iconic lmao.

Alicia Silverstone as Barbara. My fav 90s film girl. Wish they put the bat ears on her outfit. Not sure why they made her related to Alfred, but I guess it gives her access to the tech faster.

Michael Gough is THE Alfred Pennyworth. Also a total enabler who keeps insisting that random teens turn into vigilantes.

Nicole Kidman as Chase Meridian. Not quite a damsel in distress or a strong independent woman (for the 90s, I mean. It was like you had one or the other) who has time to fill Batman in with important info, but also isn’t afraid to flirt with him

Tommy Lee Jones Two Face is perfect with his manic energy. Love the use of duality with the lair. Kinda wish we could have seen Billy Dee Williams in the role, but I suppose we can pretend 89 Batman and 95 Batman are alternate universes.

A very elastic Jim Carrey as The Riddler. Apparently he didn’t get along with Tommy Lee Jones, which is surprising considering  how well they mix in the film. Also does a lot of damage to both Gotham and  Wayne manor in a short amount of time.

Uma Thurman is giving 60s Batman villain. Inspiring countless costumes and drag performances with this charisma. We can only stan.

Arnold the Terminator himself as Mr.Freeze. Love the puns and the very 90s suit design. Like a action figure come to life. 

Also. Robert Swenson as Bane. Scary to me as a kid.

Also...the goons. Gotta love all these goons. Every villain has goons and they have cute funky outfits. Color coated goons. Goons on skates. 

And the lairs! So many cool lairs! 

The Batmobile glows and I’M HERE FOR IT. Giant red flame? Glowing blue stuff? 10/10

The suit up closeups are um...cinema. Don’t ask me why. They need to be there.

The Gotham in these movies is wild, bright and fantastical. Take a look at the buildings! They carry some of the dark whimsy from the Burton films. Weird neon warehouses, giant statues mixed with some art deco here and there, possibly inspired by the cartoon running at the time.

In short these movies are campy, weird and colorful. I don’t prefer them to any other iteration, I’m just glad they’re here. I wish we had another one that showed us more of a team dynamic between Bruce, Dick, and Barbara.

[symphonicscans]

Interview with Hozumi for Sarasate Magazine, 2019

There are next to no interviews with Hozumi, so when I heard about this magazine having one I immediately bought it. Finally got around to translating it, and while it doesn't really talk about much, it's better than nothing! I formatted it to fit the original magazine, but there is also a text transcript as well.

Download the interview in PDF form (or read the transcript below) (I was also really pleased to get my headcannons confirmed XD)

WHO IS SOLLIMA?

Hozumi’s “My Giovanni” was inspired by the piece Violoncelles, Vibrez!

In the story, the main character Tetsuo Tezuka idolizes a cellist named Giovanni Bazzoni, who is modeled after Sollima, and the piece that inspires him is Call of the Cello, which is of course based on Violoncelles, Vibrez!

Giovanni Sollima * Composer, Cellist

Born in 1962 in Palermo, Sicily, Italy, he studied cello with Giovanni Perriera and composition with his father Eliodoro Sollima at the Conservatorio di Musica di Palermo. After graduating with honors, he continued his studies on cello with Antonio Janigro and composition with Milko Kelemen at the University of Music in Stuttgart and the Universität Mozarteum in Salzburg. In 1997, he founded the Giovanni Sollima Band in New York City, a group made up of musicians who were already active as soloists and chamber musicians, with such luminaries as Claudio Abbado, Martha Argerich, and Philip Glass. His compositions are often said to be strongly influenced by minimalist music, but he has established his own style by freely incorporating a variety of genres, including classical, rock, jazz, bop, and ethnic music from the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and Africa.

His most widely recognized work is a ballad for two cellos and string orchestra, titled Violoncelles, Vibrez! (1993), which was dedicated to his close friend Mario Brunello, a fellow student of Janigro. It has been performed by many cello ensembles in Japan, including in an arrangement for eight cellos. His other solo cello piece, Lamantatio (1998), which requires the cellist to sing as well as play, is also frequently performed. He also has written a work for shamisen and orchestra, which was commissioned in Japan. He currently teaches at the Conservatorio di Santa Cecilia in Rome, and the instrument he performs on is a Francesco Ruggeri made in 1679. His first visit to Japan was in 2004 for the “Summer in Tokyo,” where he performed Violoncelles, Vibrez! amongst other pieces.

A Must-Read Comic for Cellists

“Boku no Giovanni”

Writer/Yumi Kogo

Characters

The cast of the comic

Tetsuo Tezuka

A boy who loves the cello. After looking for a fellow cellist to play with, he ends up having mixed feelings about Ikumi’s cello talent. He later goes to study with Yuriko Soga in Italy. After returning to Japan, he enters a competition.

Ikumi Tachibana

The other protagonist of the story. The only survivor of a marine accident, he is taken in by Tetsuo’s family and is introduced to the cello. He grows up to become a emerging cellist in the classical music world.

Tetsuro Tezuka

Tetsuo’s older brother and good friend. He used to play the cello, but became jealous of his brother’s ability and stopped playing. Later he becomes a ‘mental trainer’ for musicians.

Yuriko Soga

A cellist living in Italy, Tetsuo initially refers to her as the ‘witch.’ She has a carefree personality, but she is an internationally famous cellist. She later becomes Tetsuo’s teacher.

Yukari Narita

A student in the piano department in a Music High School. She becomes Tetsuo’s accompanist, introduced to him by Yuriko. She likes his free style of playing and they become fast friends. She brings out the best in Tetsuo.

-

“Boku no Giovanni” is a popular music-themed manga serialized in “Monthly Flowers,” a manga magazine for women published by Shogakukan. There have already been four tankoubon released. The manga depicts the lives of two boys who choose to dedicate their lives to the cello, and it’s become popular not only with women but men as well. The story is different from the usual type that follow music students living happily while competing with each other, instead delicately portraying the struggles of a boy who aspires to find his place in the world of music. It is in this setting that the character modeled after Giovanni Sollima appears, and they play an important role in the story.

The Beginning

Tetsuo Tezuka, an elementary school student who plays the cello in a small port town, feels lonely because his older brother Tetsuro, his only cello-playing friend, has stopped playing. Tetsuro had begun to feel inferior to Tetsuo’s rapid improvement, so decides to distance himself from the cello so he wouldn’t end up hating his younger brother. Unaware of his feelings, Tetsuo repeatedly asks him to play ‘Giovanni Bazzoni’s’ work for two cellos, Call of the Cello with him.

At the same time, a large passenger ship sinks on a stormy sea off the coast of their island; a faint voice in the distance is heard. Ikumi Tachibana, who followed to voice to the beach, loses his mother — his only living relative — in the accident, and is taken in by Tetsuo’s family. There, Ikumi learns that the voice he heard was actually Tetsuo’s cello playing.

World-renowned cellists Sollima and Yo-Yo Ma as models

Tetsuo starts playing the cello at age six. He always asks his older brother to play together with him.

It all started when he saw a video of Call of the Cello by Giovanni Bazzoni, which his father gave him. The character of Bazzoni — who has a great influence on Tetsuo — is modeled on Giovanni Sollima, the cellist and composer, and Call of the Cello is reminiscent of one of Sollima’s masterworks, Violoncelles, Vibrez! The other cellist in the panel, Lesser Curtis, is modeled after Yo-Yo Ma. Tetsuo was fascinated by the ‘shadow dancing’ between the two world-famous cellists and became enraptured with the cello.

***

Ikumi finds out that Tetsuo wants somebody to play cello with, so he can play Call of the Cello with them, so he asks Tetsuo to teach him how to play. Both boys start out lonely, but day by day they grow closer through their connection with the cello, and vow to remain lifelong friends.

The world-famous cello “Witch”

Another person who stands out in this story is the character of Yuriko Soga, a world-famous Japanese cellist living in Italy. Every summer she visits Tetsuo’s house to relax. She has a carefree personality, but her playing is of the highest level. Through Yuriko, Tetsuo realizes how difficult the life of a professional cellist is, but also thinks that he has no talent. As if to fight against this reality, he refers to Yuriko as a “witch” and rejects her as an outsider in his world.

One day, Tetsuo spends a week at his grandfather’s house, and when he returns home he finds that Ikumi has effortlessly learned how to play the Dvorak Cello Concerto, which he is unable to play yet. He becomes angry and jealous of Ikumi’s talent and his ability to play with the ideal sound that he wants for himself, and there are many scenes after this that make the reader turn the pages with a heavy heart; only in comics can you see the mood and atmosphere of a person’s feelings at a glance.

As if to escape from Ikumi, Tetsuo goes to study abroad in Sicily, Italy, where Yuriko lives. Five years later, he returns to Japan only to find that Ikumi’s talent has blossomed. Tetsuo pursues his own unique way of making music, but struggles to find a pianist to accompany him in a competition due to his strange way of playing. Through his connection with Yuriko, Tetsuo is introduced to Yukari Narita, a high school pianist who prefers a free style of playing, and this inspires Tetsuo to search for his own style in earnest. It will be interesting to see how his relationship with Ikumi and his future as a cellist develops in future chapters...

(Caption beneath image: Monthly Flowers March 2019 / featured cover illustration)

Interview with the Author of “My Giovanni”

- Hozumi-san - Discovering Sollima and the Fascination with the Cello

Hozumi-san, the creator of “My Giovanni,” debuted in 2010 with her work The Wedding-Eve, which won the Silver Flower Award at the Monthly Flowers comic audition. She made her published book debut with the same work, which is a collection of short stories of which the title is one. The book won the 4th Pukurog Grand Prix in the manga category, and also placed second in the “Staff Choice: This Manga is Amazing!” It also placed second In the ladies’ comics category. Subsequent works include Sayonara Sorcier, which depicts the life of Vincent Van Gough, and Usemono no Yado.

My Giovanni was inspired by a performance of Sollima’s Violoncelles, Vibrez! The series began in 2016 and is still ongoing. We asked Hozumi-san to talk about her encounter with the cello, its appeal, and how My Giovanni was born.

She first fell in love with the cello through 2CELLOS.

Q: I understand that you have always liked minimalist music. How exactly did you come to know about Sollima?

A: My first exposure to minimalist music was with Michael Nyman’s The Heart Asks Pleasure First, but one day I got hooked on 2CELLOS. I had a CD of cellist and composer Siegen Tokuzawa, but I had never watched a proper cello performance before. When I started listening to 2CELLOS, I became more and more fascinated with the sound of the cello and started listening to serious classical music. That’s when I came across Sollima’s Violoncelles, Vibrez! From that point on, I started buying Sollima’s recordings and playing them while working on manuscripts (laughs). After that, I listened to recordings of Joe Hisaishi, Ryuuchi Sakamoto, and others that had a bit of minimalist elements, but I still find it difficult to listen to completely minimalist music. I prefer works that mix minimalist elements with folk and other styles.

Q: I heard that your encounter with Sollima’s works is what led you to create My Giovanni. What was it about Sollima’s music that appealed to you?

A: More than anything, it’s the drama! Of course there’s a strong element of repetition since it’s minimalist, but after listening to a song I feel a sense of fulfillment, as if I’d watched an entire movie. When I heard it for the first time, I remember being impressed and thinking, “Wow, I’ve found such an amazing piece of music!” I was so impressed. It seemed like all of human life experience was depicted in it, and I racked my brain wondering if and how I could draw a manga like that. I started to draw it, but it still didn’t reach the ideal I have, and I’m still struggling with it (laughs).

Q: Do you have any specific cellists that you modeled the characters of Tetsuo, Ikumi, and Yuriko Soga after?

A: I don’t have anybody specific in mind, because I think the way they perform is related to their personalities, so I wouldn’t want to attach them to a specific cellist. I’m not sure it’s a good idea to use anybody in particular as a model because, for the sake of the story progression, I sometimes have to push through the performance scenes with a more comic-like style…

But I have a feeling that there is a bit of Sollima in all of them. Actually, learning to play the cello has made me realize that more.

Q: Hozumi—san, your drawings of cellists are natural and beautiful. Is there anything you pay attention to when you draw them, or anything you are very particular about?

A: I really appreciate you saying so. But I don’t think I’m quite there yet. I actually started cello classes and tried to play the cello myself, but it’s really difficult to draw not only the instrument itself but also the playing position — and not only for cellists. I will continue to work hard to draw the flow of the skeleton and muscles as realistically as I can.

Q: You said you’re learning to play the cello. What was your impression of the cello when you started playing it?

A: This might not be something to talk about in a classical magazine, but I was in a band for a while when I was in school, so I had a little bit of experience with the electric bass. So, when I started cello, I had the faint hope that I would be a little better than an amateur because it was a string instrument… but (of course) it was completely different. Unlike electric bass and guitar there are no frets, and even just holding the bow is very difficult. It was a struggle for me to make a single note sound good. Since then, when I hear cellists play — which I used to listen to without much thought — now I am in awe of them. When I draw the characters in my work I think, “It’s amazing, they can all play so well.” (Laughs)

Q: What is the appeal of the cello for you?

A: It has a wide range, with high notes that pull at your heartstrings but also deep bass notes. I think it’s great that they can play everything from melody to bass lines, and since I used to play the bass I think it’s really cool to be able to do that! As a manga artist, my motivation for drawing them is to find a way to express the sexiness that cellists exude when playing cello.

Q: What are your favorite songs, both to play and to listen to?

A: I haven’t gotten very far with my playing because I’m too busy with the manuscript, but I often listen to the song Rain by Ryuichi Sakamoto. It’s a trio for piano, violin and cello, and I imagined this song when I was drawing the live performance scene for the same ensemble in the comic. I also like Piazzolla in general, but in particular I often play Duo de Amor when I’m drawing.

I really like to hear the cello played by my teacher.

Q: How much time do you spend practicing the cello? What do you find most difficult when you practice?

A: Actually, I haven’t been able to attend classes since I had a health scare last year, and I’m not able to play as much as I used to. Really, all practicing is difficult, but if I had to pick one thing I’d say that even though my left hand fingering is good, I can’t keep up with the bowing… sorry for being such a beginner…

Q: Is there a moment that made you glad you started playing the cello?

A: I’m really only a novice, so just being able to play a single note with a tight, deep sound is a great feeling. “Amazing! I can make the cello sound like a cello!” That alone makes me very happy. Also, it was really helpful for me to understand how to hold the bow and use proper tilted posture as a reference for drawing, it was really great! I’m also happy just listening to the teacher play so skillfully in front of me.

Q: What color is your case?

A: I haven’t bought a case yet because I’m still at the stage where I’m renting my cello, but I like white ones and the deep red Bordeaux-like color, and in the comic Tetsuo’s case is white and Ikumi’s is Bordeaux.

Q: Like My Giovanni, many of your works feature gentlemen, siblings and their home environments. Are those things you consciously decide to focus on?

A: When I create my stories, I often adapt and build on my own experiences as a teenager, so that might have an influence on my work. However, I think the best part of a story is to leave things to the imagination of the reader rather than explaining everything about how the story came to be. Although there are fragments of my personal memories in some parts, it is undoubtedly the original story of the characters, and I hope you will enjoy reading it until the end.

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Is It Really THAT Bad?

I’m going to warn you all now. This one is going to get a bit angry at the end. Normally I would try and remain as professional as possible, but in this case, I don’t feel like I would be able to.

Batman & Robin is a film that has lived in infamy since its release in 1997. Upon release, it was critically reviled, and this hatred of the film continued long into the modern day, where it frequently tops “worst films of all time lists” to the point where it actually is listed on the Wikipedia page for “List of films considered the worst.” It was nominated for at least 11 Razzies but only won a single one, and it went on to be a frequent punching bag on the {REDACTED] Critic’s web show, where he would get irrationally angry at the mere mention of the Bat Credit Card. In contemporary reviews, Mick LaSalle of The San Francisco Chronicle stated “"George Clooney is the big zero of the film, and should go down in history as the George Lazenby of the series,” which is less of a criticism and more of a compliment, if I’m being totally honest.

Most of the stars would take a negative stance towards it as well, with legend stating that if you tell George Clooney that you saw the film in theaters, he will refund you for your ticket out of his own pocket. Chris O’Donnell likewise is not particularly fond of the film, stating "It just felt like everything got a little soft the second time. On Batman Forever, I felt like I was making a movie. The second time, I felt like I was making a kid's toy commercial." And, perhaps most depressingly, Joel Schumacher himself was apparently very apologetic for the film, though this may or may not have come about because of years and years of vitriol being directed at him for making this film.

In the wake of Mr. Schumacher’s passing, I decided to re-watch the film, as I am famously rather fond of it, and I am going to tell you all why the answer to the question “Is it really THAT bad?” is a loud, resounding, NO.

THE GOOD

There’s honestly quite a lot to like here, more than you might think. I think first and foremost what you need to understand going in is that this is a silly, cartoonish take on the Burton style, blending the silliness and camp of the West series with the drama and aesthetics of the Burton films, all while adding some over-the-top, colorful flair. John Glover, who appears in the film as a cartoonish mad scientist, even has gone on record as saying "Joel would sit on a crane with a megaphone and yell before each take, 'Remember, everyone, this is a cartoon'. It was hard to act because that kind of set the tone for the film”… the last sentence makes the statement very baffling, but at least even the actors were aware of what they were doing. If this doesn’t sound appealing, well, the opening is sure to warn you off, as it is a suiting up montage with various shots of the firm butts, large codpieces, and stiff batnipples of the Dynamic Duo. The movie is very upfront about what you’re in for.

On the subject of the infamous batnipples, Schumacher stated "I had no idea that putting nipples on the Batsuit and Robin suit were going to spark international headlines. The bodies of the suits come from Ancient Greek statues, which display perfect bodies. They are anatomically correct." It seems a very odd choice, but it’s pretty clear that he meant it as an amusing little design choice and nothing more. Of course, this hasn’t stopped everyone and their mother from spewing homophobic comments about how he was purposefully making the film gayer, even from star George Clooney, who has said that he played Batman as a gay man and was told by Schumacher Batman is gay. It’s so disgusting that people did and continue to do this, because honestly, the costumes are fine, and even if they are meant to be fanservice… so what? O’Donell and Clooney’s asses look nice, as does Alicia Silverstone’s when she dons a suit. The fact hers is just as form-fitting as the other two really shows that the whole idea Schumacher did it because he was gay is ridiculous; the man was very egalitarian about the fanservice in the movie.

Whatever else Clooney says, he does a pretty great job as Batman and Bruce Wayne. His speech at the end of the film where he talks to Mr. Freeze and reminds him that he is a good man and offers to help him is honestly one of the few moments in any Batman film where Batman actually feels like the one from the animated series, a man who fights crime but also wants to help the people he’s trying to stop. Clooney just has a very natural charisma that lends himself to playing a hero, and while there are a few awkward moments in the performance, he captures the fun and charm a more lighthearted Batman should. Michael Gough’s last turn as Alfred is also surprisingly poignant, and a lot of mileage is gotten out of his genuinely tearjerking subplot.

Of course, the very best part of the film is the villains. Uma Thurman is clearly having a ball as Poison Ivy, and she gets to have a ludicrous amount of costumes as well as numerous moments of fanservice. She also has the power to turn every man around her into a simp, which is absolutely amazing and leads to quite a few scenes of Batman and Robin slapping each other over her. But f course, there’s really no doubt that the best part of the film is Mr. Freeze. He’s a combination of the sillier Mr. Freeze from the West days and the more modern take of the character most are familiar with, the tragic anti-villain who wants to save his wife; such a character would take a talented man capable of comedy and drama in equal measure. And who better than Arnold Schwarzenegger? Joel Schumacher wanted a man who looked like he was chiseled from a glacier, and Arnold certainly fits that description. He spends the movie juggling some of the most corny puns you can imagine and a lot of truly powerful, understated drama, and it really does work. You honestly get the sense that Arnold really gets Mr. Freeze and what makes him a great character. Also, that suit he has is amazing.

As a final note: the Bat Credit Card is absolutely not stupid. Linkara has defended it in the past, giving reasons why and how it could actually work, but really, all that needs to be said is… is this any more ridiculous than Shark Repellent Bat Spray?

THE BAD

So don’t get the wrong idea here; this film is far from perfect. As is the case with any comedy, the humor can be hit or miss; not all of the puns land, not all of the jokes are great. You’re never going to get a perfect comedy no matter how hard you try, and this is no exception.

As for performances, I think O’Donnell’s Robin and Silverstone’s Batgirl are a bit wonky. O'Donnell has long been a source of derision for his whining, and while I think the hate is a bit overblown, he does spend a ludicrous amount of time in this film being snippy, miserable, and arrogant. I think he actually fights with Batman more than any of the villains! Still, his performance isn’t horrible, he just gets a bit too whiny at a few points.

Silverstone is a bit of a bigger problem, but she’s not quite as bad as even I remembered. She’s pretty much Batgirl in name only, since she’s related to Alfred in this, but she’s mostly okay. The issue really is that her arc in the film is relatively bland and feels a bit shoehorned, which comes to a head where she fights Poison Ivy in a designated catfight, obviously because they didn’t want Batman to punch a woman in the face I guess. There’s just one issue with that:

On the subject of Ivy, while she definitely does have plant powers here, they’re strangely underplayed. She rarely uses them even when it would probably be beneficial, instead relying on Bane to do most of the fighting for her. Ah, Bane… Bane is one of the few things about this film I can’t really muster up any sort of defense for. While his creation scene is rather cool, it doesn’t lead to much of interest, as this version of Bane is pretty much a mindless supersoldier lackey who serves Poison Ivy. Now, this was still relatively early in Bane’s existence, as he had only debuted in 1993 and was really most famous for his signature “breaking the Bat” move, but it still is baffling why, with that famous thing fresh in everyone’s minds, that they would just choose to go and basically make Bane into Evil Diet Captain America. Surely they could have either saved him for a sequel or utilized him in a way more befitting of the character? I think this Bane is kind of responsible for the negative perception of Bane as this big, dumb bruiser, something that works like The Dark Knight Rises and Arkham Origins have thankfully gone a long way to rectifying. Bane is at his best when he’s a cunning genius bruiser; here, he’s nothing but a glorified prop.

Is It Really THAT Bad?

The answer is no. No it isn’t. AT ALL.

I’ve always felt this film came out at the wrong time. It was towards the end of the 90s, during the Dark Age of Comics when everything was dark, gritty, and edgy. The world didn’t want a movie like this back then; they wanted stuff like Blade, who would come in shortly after this film and show us how to make that aesthetic work. I guess in terms of Batman they wanted something more like Dawn of Justice, which really speaks volumes to how awful the 90s were for superheroes. 

Look, I’m not trying to convince anyone this is the greatest Batman film ever. Even I don’t think that; Batman Returns, The Dark Knight, and Under the Red Hood are all much better films. But is this really the worst Batman film now that we have the deeply misogynistic and disgusting The Killing Joke and the relentlessly bleak and unpleasant Batman v Superman? Hell, it’s not even worse than Batman Forever! At least the Batman in this film has some kind of emotional range beyond “plank of wood!” And even calling it the worst sequel ever is just… so baffling. Again, this is definitely better than Batman Forever, lack of Jim Carrey notwithstanding. And can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me that this is worse than any of the Terminator sequels after the second film? Worse than Iron Man 2 or Thor: The Dark World? The almost half dozen Alvin and the Chipmunk sequels? This is only the worst sequel or even a bad sequel if it is the only sequel you’ve ever seen in your life.

A lot of the hate for it from back in the day carries a strong undercurrent of homophobia. Much like the infamous backlash against disco, it’s seriously uncomfortable, and it definitely is cruel how accusatory people were towards Schumacher’s intentions for the suits of the heroes in the film. The fact that even the two main stars have gotten in on it is a bit disgusting, though O’Donnell questioning why there needed to be a codpiece is certainly less offensive than George Clooney saying he played Batman as a gay man for… whatever reason. Was he implying that Batman being gay made the movie worse? I’m not sure what he’s on about there. Even The New Batman Adventures made a cruel dig at the film; notice the sign and the effeminate-looking boy. You could only get homophobia this good in the 90s!

The hatred of this film is absolutely overblown. It’s so ridiculous. #70 on the bottom rated movies of IMDB? #1 on the 50 worst films of all time list from Empire? Doug Walker’s personal punching bag whenever he needs to talk about a bad sequel, to the point where he literally said no one wanted a comedic take on Batman in his worst sequels video? Come the fuck on.

Joel Schumacher may or may not have ended up hating this film, but he certainly was made to feel like shit for making it… and it is honest to god not that bad! But he was just absolutely eviscerated, to the point where this was a fucking headline when he died:

Literally fuck all of these people. Fuck io9 for their insensitive headline. Fuck Empire for rating this as the worst film ever. Fuck Doug Walker for his constant bashing and his shitty old “chimp out over the Bat Credit Card” gag. Double fuck Mick LaSalle for shitting on George Clooney’s performance while also trying to say George Lazenby’s Bond was bad. In fact, fuck George Clooney for his weird idea that playing Batman as gay is a bad thing (sorry George, but I can’t defend this). Fuck the Razzies. Yes, it was nominated, but I just feel it’s always a good time to say “Fuck the Razzies.”

I will never say you have to love or even like this film, but the sheer amount of vitriol and hatred for it is absolutely beyond me. At worst, this film is just a bit too goofy, and at best, it is a fun tribute to the campy days when Batman just couldn’t get rid of a bomb. I didn’t take off my score this time. I’m proud to say I gave this an 8/10, personally. If I’m being honest, a 6.6 – 6.9 is more appropriate, because it does have quite a few issues, but god, this film is not bad at all. It’s silly, goofy, campy, and fun… but bad? Not by any stretch of my imagination. And fuck the critics for convincing an entire generation that this is Batman at his worst, when we have Batman fucking slaughtering his ways through criminals and fucking Barbara Gordon on rooftops these days. I will always take stupid ice puns over misery, murder and creepy intergenerational sex, thank you very much.

I hope you can rest easy, Mr. Schumacher. Maybe you didn’t love your film in the end but, wherever you are, I hope you know I loved it.

[felicereviews]

Batman Returns

Warner Bros., 1992, Color, 126 minutes

Director: Tim Burton Producer: Tim Burton Screenplay: Daniel Waters

Starring:

Michael Keaton as Batman

Michelle Pfeiffer as Selina Kyle / Catwoman

Danny DeVito as Oswald Cobblepot / Penguin

Christopher Walken as Max Shreck

Michael Gough as Alfred

Synopsis:

An evil businessman creates a catwoman, helps a penguin, and tries to make a deal with the man behind the bat.

Why It’s A Favourite:

Many moons ago, while drinking Ranier beer with my cousin and his friend in our grandmother’s backyard, I was told that a Batman movie was being made and it would be more like the comics and not like the TV show we had grown up watching.  My cousin’s friend, Ken, used his hand to indicate the marquee as he said, The Dark Knight.  Though I wasn’t a comic book fan, necessarily, I was intrigued.  And upon seeing Tim Burton’s Batman, I was amazed.  It’s a great movie.  I remember seeing Jack Nicholson spray paint on fine art and getting all twisted up inside.  Batman is a great movie.  But my favourite - my really real favourite - is Batman Returns.

From the beginning of the film we are taken into the darkness the Penguin’s birth and abandonment.  (p.s. PeeWee and Simone, from PeeWee’s Big Adventure play Penguin’s parents!)  Boing!  He is thrown away and floats down into the sewer where the penguins save him.  Why are there so many penguins in Gotham?  Who cares?  Then we see Selina try to speak up in a meeting full of stuffy business men, one of whom is Christopher Walken, and I’m in my happy place.  After a bit we see Walken push Selina out the window and the cats save her.  Why are there so many cats and penguins in Gotham?  Do they actually live int he same climate?  Who cares?

We’ve now got they dynamic duo of villains.  Penguin and Catwoman.   

These two have the greatest dialog.  When Catwoman says she feels dirty and ‘I think I’ll take a bath right here’.  And later when Catwoman arrives in the middle of the mayhem Penguin says ‘Just the pussy I’ve been looking for’.  Oh you two better get a room.

Catwoman says so many great things in this movie.  “You make it so easy don’t you.  Always waiting for some Batman to save you.”.  And “You poor guys - always confusing your pistols with your privates.”  And “Don’t be naive!”  She’s great.  A dream role no one has topped.

Oh yeah and Batman’s in this too!  Michael Keaton is a good Batman.  He and Tim Burton had worked together on Beetlejuice which is what made Burton want to cast him in the part.  Burton knew that Keaton had a dark side, an underbelly if you will, that would fit the part of a man who is split in two worlds.  One in shadow but both lonely.

So - not that I had to choose between them - but I choose - Batman Returns to be one of my 52 Favourite Films In No Particular Order.  It’s wonderful and a little bit scary and sexy and funny and wrong.  I love it.

Surprises:

Bruce Wayne chiding Alfred for letting Vicki Vale into the bat cave, a reference to the major faux pas in Batman.

Danny DeVito surprised by a crowd with his mouth full of fish.

Fan Quotes:

Insert yours here

[thealmightyemprex]

Giant Monster November :Konga

This month w shall look at various examples of Giant Monsters in media ,and for our first look at an British explotation take on King Kong

In this 1961 film scientist  Dr. Charles Decker (Michael Gough) uses a size changing serum on a chimp named Konga (Paul Stockman ) to study him....Also to murder people who annoy him.....As one does

This film is really goofy.NOw you might be saying "Its a monster movie of course it is" and I'll be frank that annoys me.There isan art to the monster movie as there is with any genre ,you have your genuinely great movies :King Kong 1933,Godzilla 1954 ,Mothra ,The Host etc....Konga is not in that line up.In fact ....I think it barely counts as a monster movie ,its more of a throwback to old Gorilla on the loose movie ,and Konga only becomes a full giant in the last 15 minutes.

Now you might be under the impression I dont like this movie...That is not true at all ,I LOVE this movie.Oh it is not on par with say King Kong but I would throw this more into the cheesy goodness camp

So we gotta start with what doesnt work before we get to wahta does.The main thing that doesnt work is Konga himself.First off he starts off as a real chimp....But once he gets the serum he becomes a guy in a gorilla suit which makes no sense . Its not even a Gorilla suit made for the film ,the borrowed it from a professional ape actor (Which was a real thing in old movies and I miss them )and its pretty shabby looking .Also the rampage near the end of the film maybe one of the tamest rampages I have ever seen in a giant monster movie,once he destroys the lab and grabs Michael Gough (Who is our Fay Wray from King Kong equivalent which I love ) he just wanders around London not breaking anything or killing anyone,he is just on a little stroll,which is just hilarious .Thanbkfully,I kind of love the silly elements they enhance the film for me.ITs an example of why bad practical effects are supperior to bad CG ,cause they look so charming ,there is something magical about a guy in a standard Gorilla costume strolling along holding what looks to be a Barby doll while Michael Gough is sometimes shown or dubbed in screaming "Kongaaaaa" that is magical .ALso the crowd acting at the climax is hilarious

As for the genuinely good the best part of the film is legendary character actor Michael Gough hamming giving it his all as murderous mad scientist . It's so interesting he is most recognized now as lovable Alfred Pennyworth from the Batman films ,when he was so good at playing nasty villains ,and this might be my favorite villain role of his .He can be the charismatic scientist but also is a total manipulative sociopath ,murdering anyone who gets in his way while also being very sleazy to a student who is half his age .He murders a cat early in the film ,and thats when ya know he is a bad dude . I also love how petty his murdering is ,he has Konga kill a guy ,just cause the guy is doing the same work he is but is like"Cool dude,but I'd rather work alone" .I also love his assistant Margaret played by Margo Johns ,who is in love with this guy despite the fact he is bonkers ,and is so far into being his accomplice in the vain hope that he will marry her .I love how casual their scenes are even when she is scolding him for killing people ,it feels more like she is miffed he is sneaking cigarettes when he promised he would quite smoking ....Cept here we replace smoking with murder,I love it . I also like that there is NO hero ,yeah we have a few cops but they dont do anything ,we are just stuck with this dysfunctional pair of mad scientist and thier killer gorilla .There is also a legit good scene involving the family of one of the victims I liked .I also appreciate the film did attempt to show pathos at the finale ,as I do feel bad for Konga ,as a good monster movie knows monsters are tragic ,I somehow felt genuinely sad....But then giggled at the absurdity ,it was a new experience for me .Also spoiler (Not that it matters your gonna either watch this or you arent )but Michael Goughs death scene made me laugh hard

You guys are gonna think I am insane....But I love this movie.It isnt good ,but its a legit fun watch and Michael Gough is legitimately amazing ,so if you wanna watch a fun monster flick this is a good one

@ariel-seagull-wings @amalthea9 @princesssarisa @metropolitan-mutant-of-ark @the-blue-fairie @themousefromfantasyland @angelixgutz @filmcityworld1