Varied Celluloid

Originally written by Prof. Aglaophotis

Plot Outline: Dr. Stephen’s Sanitarium – a recovery home for the mentally ill where the patients are granted various liberties to roam freely around the home, granted they stay close, do their chores and adhere to the good doctor’s unique method of treatment that doesn’t so much as cure them par-se, but enables them to push their insanity levels around so they can categorize them; they may have their old tendencies, but they would be much less harmful to others in society than before their extensive treatment. This is where our story begins, when the only other supervisors are left to look after the patients after Dr. Stephens is distracted and accidentally killed by being struck in the back with an axe during the patient Judge’s personal stress relieving treatment. Unfortunately what distracts him was the nurse who had been planning to leave within the remains of the day. However, after the patient Harriet is enticed into thinking that the nurse took her baby (a doll she continuously treats like her own child), she attacks the nurse eventually killing her. Soon after, the new nurse Charlotte Beale arrives to be introduced to the sole surviving supervisor of the three in the staff, Dr. Geraldine Masters as well as the other patients residing in the home: Judge Cameron, Harriet, Sam, Danny, Allyson, Jennifer, Sgt. Jaffee and old Mrs. Callingham. However, during her stay, some of the patients try to warn her of something terrible going on there that is beyond control. As terrible things continually happen there, Charlotte realizes that the patients know what they’re talking about and she finds herself dedicated to finding the truth…but truth is certainly stranger than fiction now isn’t it?

  

	The Review

Personally, I have always enjoyed the persona of a twisted human being. In fact, not just one individual, but many twisted people; it almost seems as though in a play or film, the actor can almost never go wrong when displaying such a person, partly due to the fact that they are real and that they are made the way they are in real ways. I’ve found that there really is something truly remarkable about a movie consisting mostly of the mentally ill and chronically dangerous; the way each individual acts, how their own personal stories consist of traumatizing events and self-pity that is depressing and sometimes too fantastic to believe, but alarmingly down to Earth. That’s certainly a primary aspect that Don’t Look in the Basement has going for it that it uses fully, yet oddly omits in various little portions like a nearly completed puzzle. And yet, the final result is still marveling to gaze at; it’s a different look through the doorway of the human mind and how far it can be pulled out before it finally gives. The movie obviously has a limited budget, but it was used fairly well as the movie itself did not entirely require the advancement of an actual hospital, although it might have skipped out on some clarifying scenes, it still takes what it has and uses it with remarkable potential (not the best potential, but still remarkable). One of the only real complaint coming from me however is the simple fact that the movie states a warning: ‘don’t look in the basement,’ and yet the warning is almost never evident in the movie. It seems to take a minor role instead of actually taking the full setting of the movie (such as Don’t Go in the House, but I digress).

With a story as obviously huge as Jason and the Argonauts turns out to be, you would probably expect it to have a relatively relaxed pace and go the usual route of a true epic, but the film doesn’t hold to such standards. Rather, it moves along at a jaunting speed at just over 104 minutes, and never once proves to be boring which suits the film extremely well. Rather than trying to discern every little fact of the story to the audience, the director chooses to give us the juiciest details and always skips to the good stuff, which is exactly what an action adventure yarn like this should do. It may not go for the jugular in presenting an authentic Greek tale, but it more than delivers in the entertainment department, which is truly where the film was meant to shine. After Jason initially sets out on his quest for the Golden Fleece, the film just feels like adventure after adventure, and that is exactly what it turns out to be. It loses only an ounce of steam when Jason is introduced to a romantic interest (sad to say, but every film has to have one), but quickly picks things back up with Harryheusen delivering some of his most mind blowing work of the era. Jason fighting with the hydra was a standout, but the biggest bit of animation is obviously when the argonauts take on a team of skeletons who are awaken from the grave to do battle. The scene is quite famous by now, and for good reason. The skeletons may not be the largest or most mind blowing creatures The Argonauts fight in the film, but from a technical scale it’s probably the biggest achievement. The claymation and the live action are well placed together and it proves to be the most realistic battle in the film. The skeletons have shadows that dance around them as they fight, and it actually looks as if the swords really do clash. It’s a beautifully orchestrated dance that proves to be one of those crowning achievements that are never forgotten. Whether Harryhausen will be remember for the duel or the actual film is debatable, but if you ask me, it truly is an achievement in cinema from all corners and deserves to be remembered as so.

The cinematography was amazingly well crafted as the close ups of the patient’s faces seemed to emit a brief sense of claustrophobia as they ranted on vociferously and creepily. The music seemed to consist of peaceful notes from a flute that would shift appropriately to easy long shakes of a maraca and some mystique arose through the picking at the strings of a sitar. The diction was somewhat nerve-wracking, but in no way incredulous as it fit the personalities of the crazy characters nicely, from the impetuously obnoxious laughter of Danny to the screams of loneliness from the bipolar Allyson. I say nerve-wracking only to implicate the vociferousness of all of the loud characters or the ones with the most dialogue (even Judge contributes to this for when he’s not continually introducing himself and treating life like a court room, he’s looking surprisingly creepy and talking vaguely, yet simultaneously threatening). With this in mind, the acting was surprisingly convincing, the only down fall being that a single lobotomy patient Sam, as childish as he acted, still had normal actions and dialogue after his surgery which seemed a little questionable and even the climax seemed slightly questionable only due to a lack of different scenes that would clarify the vagueness, but even those aspects did not entirely deter from any lack of enjoyment. There also seemed to be an evident sense of research done for the characters in the movie as (although not entirely elucidated on) most of the disorders of the patients seemed to connect well with actual disorders, mostly intermittent explosive and posttraumatic stress disorders. Everyone else, though somewhat vague, are inferable due to the depth of the characters; their individual behavior, dialogue, facial expressions and the like; so much to the point that the viewer can easily get a vicarious sense of sympathy for some of them. Perhaps another great aspect about this film was the violence involved in certain scenes. Although if the budget was higher, I’m sure the violence would all be onscreen, but what was put on screen was rather effective as I could recall briefly cringing in discouragement (and delight) at the violence employed.

	The Conclusion

Despite its uniqueness, Don’t Look in the Basement might not get entirely well recognized over the years, but it certainly is entertaining to watch. I’m sure there are many ways that it could’ve been done better, particularly the further depth of each character so that the audience can actually become more familiar with everyone rather than a select few. But what it does have to offer it uses fully and makes for very interesting and creepy low budget psychological horror/mystery. What’s more, it also has a strong level of believability with the crazy characters introduced, no matter how shallow their pasts were presented. If you’re looking for something obscure, unsettling and with a good use of character credibility, Don’t Look in the Basement wouldn’t be a bad choice.

Originally written by Prof. Aglaophotis

Plot Outline: Having just defeated no one other than Count Dracula himself, Professor Von Helsing is arrested by the police authorities on accusations of murder. Naturally enough, nobody believes the good-hearted professor, whose stories of vampirism have always been regarded as unfounded superstition. The only person who can prevent Von Helsing from facing prison time and who can defend him in court is Dr. Jeffrey Garth, one of Von Helsing’s former brightest students. The case complicates itself even further when the corpse of Count Dracula, which in the meantime was being detained by the police, mysteriously disappears without a trace. No one could have ever dreamt that it was Dracula’s daughter herself, the Countess Marya Zaleska, who stole the cadaver. Seems that the Countess wanted to make sure that her blood-sucking daddy was really killed after all. After that she cremates his body, Countess Zaleska is fully ready to start a new life; a life without any attachments to her father and completely free of evil and darkness. To her dismay, the Countess however realises that she can’t escape her fate in any way and is doomed to be a vampire for life; or more accurately, for eternity. It is only after hypnotising and assaulting a young woman in her own house that Dr. Garth, who had befriended the Countess at a party, becomes aware of her true origins. And like his mentor Profs. Von Helsing would do, he sets out to stop this evil once and for all. His journey eventually takes him to Transylvania, where Count Dracula once lived, and where his daughter now resides. The final confrontation between Dr. Garth and Dracula’s daughter will decide the fate of all humanity.

  

	The Review

Following the success of 1931’s Dracula starring Bela Lugosi, it was only a matter of time before Universal would come up with a sequel to the horror classic. This sequel eventually came out 5 years later, titled Dracula’s Daughter. And by Jove, let me just start by saying that it turned out to be a movie of the highest calibre, completely worthy of being regarded as a continuation to Dracula. I use the word “continuation” because this is what the movie essentially is; its frame of events taking place just seconds after the original (pretty much like the relationship that Halloween 2 has with John Carpenter’s original). Those expecting to see Bela Lugosi again in this sequel will however be disappointed, as the Count makes an appearance approximately totalling 1 whole second (practically it’s just a shot of him lying in his coffin with a stake driven in his heart in the first few minutes of the movie). This time round is Gloria Holden who takes the spotlight and let me tell you, she’s one of the most memorable female vampires ever to grace the big screen in the history of cinema. Her undisputable acting talent, coupled with her very apparent charisma give the right tragic feel to her character. From the very first second that you see her on screen, with her face covered in a veil and her big dark eyes looking menacingly at the cowardly policeman, you’ll know that Holden was born to play this role.

I also have to admit that I’m always a bit wary when coming to review a film which is nearly 70 years old, such as this one right here. The reason for me stating so is that your particular appreciation of such a movie will probably very much depend on your age. I don’t want to sound like a reviewer full of prejudice, but still I must state that younger audiences who are used to endless gore and flashy effects may find this film dull and uninteresting. Of course I’m not saying that every young individual is like that; I myself am 22 years old and love this movie to death. But while many movies can be regarded as timeless classics, that doesn’t mean that they will appeal to everyone. And Dracula’s Daughter, much like its predecessor, takes its time to tell its story. The movie is filled with dialogue and doesn’t have any sort of action, except maybe at the end (if you can call a bloke shooting two arrows with a crossbow action, that is). Naturally enough, this is not to say that the movie is weak. On the contrary, its principle strength lies in its subtle approach to drag us into the story and never let us go until it’s over. One could say that they don’t do movies like this anymore these days, and one would be totally right. It’s laughable and tragic at the same time when you see a movie like Stephen Sommers’ Van Helsing, whose primary objective was supposedly to pay tribute to the Universal monster movies in the first place, turn up to be the exact opposite of these classics. With flashy effects replacing smart dialogue and Dracula himself being very close to a buffoon, Sommers should have just gone and pissed on the graves of Lugosi, Karloff and all the others; and he would have probably insulted them less. A movie like Van Helsing is living proof of the sad state the horror movie industry in Hollywood is facing these days. It seems that no one has the necessary balls to build a horror movie entirely on dialogue and genuine suspense, as Dracula’s Daughter definitely is. So, in essence, for those of you who loved Van Helsing, I recommend you tay away from this movie. You may be shocked to discover that Van Helsing himself is not even a young, acrobatic womaniser equipped with all kinds of high-tech shit, but just a frail old man with thick eyeglasses; and that his first name is not even Gabriel but Abraham. If there is anything in this world that I hate more than vanilla coke, it’s the bastardisation of classic horror icons for the scope of earning a quick buck. Unlike Van Helsing, Dracula’s Daughter is driven by a brilliant screenplay and numerous quotable lines. Particularly noteworthy is Profs. Von Helsing’s speech on the ever-changing relationship between science and superstition, that the superstition of yesterday many times turns out to be the science of today. And who can forget the ever-classic line?: “I never drink… wine” (also used in Francis Ford Coppola’s version of Dracula).

	The Conclusion

It’s also particularly important to point out that the screenplay to Dracula’s Daughter is top-notch not only for its memorable quotes but also for its overall theme. This was in fact probably the very first movie which showed a vampire in conflict with her fate. The movie presents a woman who does her best to escape her destiny, in vain. It presents a man, in Profs. Von Helsing, who accepted his fate of devoting his life to destroying vampires to the fullest, but who still has to face serious charges from all the people who refuse to believe him. Lastly, it also presents another man in the form of Dr. Garth who’s still undecided on what his fate consists of. His relationship with his personal assistant is quite confusing; the two of them gave me the impression that they’re undecided on whether they are good friends, two people in love with each other, or just two working partners. It is only at the end when Dr. Garth is driven to an extreme situation where he has to take a literal life-or-death decision. This movie is in fact all about these decisions and their consequent responsibilities. Decisions which shape the very core of our destiny. Decisions which, once taken, cannot be undone. It’s a movie which, apart from being entertaining, provides some serious food for thought. Highly recommended for all serious movie buffs out there (and for all those who hated Van Helsing).

Originally written by Prof. Aglaophotis

Plot Outline: A year has passed since Count Dracula was defeated in Transylvania; yet the townsfolk still seem to believe that his evil hasn’t been completely defeated. For this purpose, the Monsignor decides to go and exorcise Dracula’s castle. Equipped with a crucifix and accompanied by the local priest, he heads for the hills to get rid of this evil once and for all. Unfortunately for them things soon take an unexpected turn when the local priest hurts himself and accidentally spills some of his blood on Dracula’s hidden grave, waking the latter from his sleep. As Dracula comes back to life, he wastes no time in wreaking havoc on the town inhabitants once again; and after making a sensual local bartender his slave, he decides to seduce Maria, the Monsignor’s niece. The Monsignor’s only hope in saving his niece lies in Maria’s boyfriend Paul, who swears to protect Maria with his own life. The final confrontation between Paul and Count Dracula will determine the fate of all the people of Transylvania.

  

	The Review

Among the countless horror figures the film industry exploited throughout the years, there is no doubt that Dracula is the most popular and immortal icon of them all. From Max Schreck to Bela Lugosi to Christopher Lee to Gary Oldman, and more recently resurrected yet again in Wes Craven’s Dracula 2000 and in the upcoming Van Helsing; Dracula has steadily grown to be the most popular vampire and horror character of all time. Yet, no matter how many more Dracula versions will continue to exist in the future (seeing Hollywood’s continuous fascination in milking every last drop from a franchise); I will always remain to cherish two particular versions of Dracula in my heart. And these are Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee. I don’t think I need to expand on the greatness of Lugosi, as every respectable horror movie fanatic should know who he is and what he contributed to the vampire genre for several years to come. In the case of Christopher Lee, he managed to become a horror legend back in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s thanks to his Dracula Hammer films. And I dare say that every inch of success he obtained was well deserved; given the fact that he created one of the most charismatic vampires in cinema history. In my book, no Saruman or Count Dooku would ever come close to the coolness that was Count Dracula.

Dracula has risen from the grave is actually the fourth film in the whole Hammer series (which can boast of a total of eight entries), and one of the seven films out of all these to feature Christopher Lee. Ironically enough, the producers had no choice but to make the second instalment, Brides Of Dracula, without Lee; the reason being that Lee himself was afraid of type-casting at the time. He seemed to eventually change his mind over time since he then came back for no less than six sequels. Many fans of these movies seem to agree that Dracula has risen from the grave is the last real good entry into the series. It is actually a very good film in its own right, made back in the days when atmosphere was preferred to false scares and suspense was preferred to giving petty theories on why Dracula acts the way he does. This is as a matter of fact one of the main gripes I have with several modern versions. Remember the ending to Dracula 2000 and all that Judas Escariot nonsense? Many horror movies nowadays try too hard to construct an interesting story, and seem to forget that their primary reason of existence should be to frighten the unsuspecting viewer as effectively as possible. The Hammer Film producers were definitely aware of this, and Dracula has risen from the grave is living proof. The film doesn’t give us any information on Dracula’s background and evil origins, partly because it’s a sequel and partly because this was the way many horror movies were approached back in the days. As soon as Dracula is out of his grave he immediately jumps into action, without any clear motives except for the fact he wanted to seek some sort of revenge on the Monsignor that tried to exorcise his castle. This is actually quite secondary to the whole premise though. All we need to know is that he’s Count Dracula and he’s an evil force. If we acknowledge just that, we are almost guaranteed to enjoy the movie. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and I think it even helps to make the entire Dracula mystique all the more frightening. One of the golden rules I’ve learned from my experience in watching horror movies is that the less you know about the villain, the more scary the movie will turn out to be. Just compare Halloween to its sequels as one example.

Surprisingly, this movie also featured a recurring sexual element in it; and it’s one of the first movies responsible to introduce the concept of the seductive vampire. There is absolutely no form of nudity in it; yet the film still fells strangely erotic in some places, particularly evidenced by the clothes worn by the female bartender and the sensual face expression of a female character lead when she’s bitten by Dracula. The film manages to be sexy without feeling the need to include sex, also partly thanks to the natural beauty of Veronica Carlson, whom director Freddie Francis successfully exploits every angle of her charm to full effect.

The film’s flaws are quite minor, and they usually have to do with some plot-holes or continuity errors. For example, it is never explained why Dracula didn’t order the priest to take off the crucifix attached on his castle the first time he sees it. Instead, he decides to leave it there for no apparent reason; and when he goes back to the castle at the end of the film, he quickly orders Maria to take it off herself. This factor should be quite noteworthy since it will eventually influence Dracula’s fate. Another thing I noticed happens during the chase scene between Dracula and Zena. This scene should’ve taken place at night; yet the shots seem to jump from dark night to early dawn continously. And I never fully understood where the first victim hidden in the church bell came from, since Dracula was still sleeping for over a year when the bell ringer finds the body.

	The Conclusion

Such trivial inconsistencies shouldn’t nonetheless stop you from enjoying such a well-made vampire movie. When you hear James Bernard’s haunting score in the opening credits, when you see Christopher Lee light the screen with his presence, when you experience a movie filled with such eerie atmosphere; you know you have just found a long- forgotten little gem.

The Plot: Okay, I won’t even lie, the plot is pretty convoluted and features so many twists and turns it’s a little hard to keep up with – but essentially Sartana, the famed Spaghetti Western cult figure (played here by George Hilton), after rescuing a boy and his mother from a gang of evil bandits is then embroiled in a game of tag with said gang as they are in pursuit of gold which they frequently rob off of a stagecoach that travels through their territory. Sartana gets in the middle of things, offering his service to the company owner – but in this film nothing is as it seems. Things get even more complicated when the mystery man Sabbath enters the picture, another gunslinger like Sartana with equal ability and who dresses all in white while carrying a white matching parasol. Seems a little girly, sure, but then he shoots you dead. However will Sartana make it out with these kind of odds!?

The Review: Sartana’s Here… Trade Your Pistol For A Coffin. How do you like that for a title? In the world of cinema, the Italians were brilliant with naming their product. Here in the states we use average terms, usually a two-word title meant to declare action of some sort. In Italy, during their best days, they used full declarative statements in their titles! Who says you can’t do it, right? Your Vice is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key, Django Kill… If You Live, Shoot!, A Special Cop In Action, Live Like A Cop Die Like A Man, etc. You could sell me these movies based solely on those titles and a lot of the time that’s exactly why us viewers would end up checking out these movies. The Spaghetti Western genre is very notable for these sultry titles that just suck you in, even the more popular Sergio Leone films had some pretty nifty titles. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly – that’s a pretty unusual title right there, same for Once Upon A Time In The West. Long sentence based film titles meant to lure you in, and that’s exactly how I found Trade Your Pistol For A Coffin. Once I read that, I knew I had to see this film. I have unfortunately never had the pleasure of seeing any of the Sartana films previously made to this one but I’ve read up on them a little. It seems that this is the fourth (official) film bearing the name Sartana and features George Hilton stepping into the lead role as the titular character. Though I can’t speak of many of the differences between this film and previous films made with different casts and such; but I will say that Trade Your Pistol certainly stands out by its own merits and definitely doesn’t let you down if you come into it looking for all those reasons guys like myself enjoy the subgenre.

All I can speak about is this film itself, and for what it is SHTYPFAC is a fantastic western, deliberately over the top and always moving along at a swift pace. Big reveals are a constant, and absurd sequences of shooting prowess so beyond all human capability are so frequent that the mind can hardly absorb it all in one sitting. This to me was one of the more fun aspects of the film, little moments like a man with matches that are lodged between his own toes taking his pistol and shooting the ends of them all and lighting each match one by one. Then there’s all of the little gags with Sartana, shooting his enemies through a loaf of bread and then later being called out for it as his enemies catch him at lunch once again and telling him “stand up, and move away from that bread!”. Hollywood westerns often had one man taking on an army of pistoleers, but rarely did you see one go so far as to make shooting a superhuman ability. Shooting at the hip is a tough enough ability for an experienced marksman, but shooting from within the holster… shooting through bread… shooting through boots – I have to think Sartana had some kind of Spidersense going on. I’m not sure if this is simply a running gang throughout the whole series, with Sartana blasting his enemies through varying objects constantly – or if its something introduced in this film alone but I am definitely giving it my thumbs up because even though it is completely unrealistic to be as amazing with a pistol as seemingly everyone in this film is – it certainly makes for one interesting piece of work!

In many ways SHTYPFAC embodies a lot of the ideal greatness that the genre took on when Sergio Leone showed all of the world just what a western could be with his Man With No Name trilogy. Although Leone did keep his films a little more grounded in reality, Sartana takes itself above rational thought and creates something unique nd fun. The plot is almost inconsequential to the real story here, which is that with enough “cool” characters, a ton of “cool” superhuman bits of gunfighting superiority – you ccan make one COOL movie. The plot really isn’t a bad one at all, but at times things move so fast its hard to keep up with every little thing. Like I said though, what makes the film so special isn’t just that. It’s the atmosphere, the booming soundtrack and the larger than life characters who make no mistakes. Caricatures of the Spaghetti Western subgenre, but done to perfection here. I have to say I really enjoyed my first Sartana film and I hear the rest of the series is even better. Things get a bit overboard in the way that the characters are presented as being able to shoot the hair off a chiahuah at four hundred miles away – but if you take it as part of the charm (which it is) it becomes all the more enjoyable. I highly recommend it and can’t wait to see the rest of the series.

The Plot: Jake Vandorn (George C. Scott) is a business owner and upstanding community man in his home town of Grand Rapids. His wife having left him, he has raised his daughter by himself and has done a respectable job of it. When he sends her off to a bible camp of some sort with another family member, it isn’t long before he hears that his daughter has went missing. He travels to California where she was last seen, in LA and asks around before finding a private detective. The private eye (Peter Boyle) takes the case and vows to find her, and after a few weeks he does find… something. He brings back a film can with him to see Jake, where he shows him the footage of his daughter in a threeway with two other males in a seedy silent stag film. She looks terribly uninterested and might be drugged. Jake’s world is shattered, his beautiful and sweet daughter involved in a world like this. Jake travels to LA to meet with his private eye shortly thereafter, and is forced to start his own investigation. Now Jake finds himself in a world he doesn’t understand and on the track of a daughter he isn’t even sure is still alive anymore.

The Review: “If you look at anything from the inside it makes sense! You should hear perverts talk… one guy almost had me convinced to let his German Shepard screw me!” – from the mouth of a porno actress/stripper talking to George C. Scott about his religious beliefs. This little comment doesn’t exactly encompass the entire drive or motivation of Paul Schrader’s Hardcore, but it comes in one of those moments where Scott’s character tries his best to relate to one of these bottomed out young people in this world of depravity – only to find a blank endless sea of filth brimming just under the surface. In this day and age it has become more taboo to talk down on the pornography industry than it has to speak up for it. In this world after Howard Stern and Jenna Jameson, we have sanitized the view of porno so much that a film like Hardcore probably couldn’t even be made. 8MM which came out in 1999 seemed to take a lot of influence (that’s a technical term for stealing, folks, though I will say I’m a big 8mm fan too) from Hardcore but in that film it is mainly focused on the seediest sides of fetishism even at that time. I’m not coming down like a preacher here, that would be pretty hypocritical of me. You think a lonely guy who knows a decent as much about technology and the internet like me doesn’t, you know, have his ways of finding things? Of course, but just because you buy the product doesn’t mean you have to buy everything the salesman slings your way. From everything I have seen, the pornography business has always been and will always be made up of many people unfortunately confused about many things – and now they are making millions off of it. However in 1979, things were unfortunately even worse than they are now. AIDS had not come along yet, but the drug use was at an escalated rate and people in America were still trying to party like the 1960′s. It’s a case of pick your poison, but this world in which Hardcore takes place, although it seems exaggerated, is close to perversion of our obsessed culture and our unrequited search for the next kink. We eat too much, we drink too much, we consume too much and as Scott’s character points out – behind every marketing campaign is someone telling us this or that will get us sex.

The film itself is nowhere near as preachy as I probably seem about right now. The character of Jake, played so brilliantly by one of my favorite actors in George C. Scott, is far from being perfect. No man or woman ever can be, but what can be seen as righteousness from the character is simply his not being as corrupted as the rest of these characters. His vice isn’t of the sexual variety, but one coming from pride. Although I am not familiar with his denomination of Christianity, which seems to follow some far different beliefs than I have heard, his pride and own self indulgence gets in the way of his own spiritual behavior. His focus on his daughter is intense and leaves no room for others, as he wanders through this corrupt and putrid version of California’s sexual underground. When coming upon a young porn actress who takes over the role of his sidekick in the latter half of the film, instead of trying to help this poor confused girl his pride gets in the way. He puts his own morality above her and instead of hearing her stories, he simply shuns her and tells her he would rather not hear about that side of her life. Jake isn’t perfect, but unlike this lawless society underground where everything can be bought and sold, he at least attempts to be a good man. Paul Schrader’s film doesn’t deliver a cut and dry definition of the moral compass one should have while watching the film – so all audiences are going to walk away with a different opinion. I have read opinion pieces where Jake is considered the “villain” of the film, and his quest for his daughter in this underworld is puritanical and baseless without reason. However, if this were true, I think Schrader would have provided more evidence for the audience. Something more than the “big reveal” in the final minutes of the film. Jake doesn’t come across as a bigoted man in my opinion, just a close minded one. He knows his home, he understands the morality there but he does not understand this lawless place with these insidious human beings and he simply doesn’t care to try and understand them. There’s a fair enough line between hate and indifference, and I think Jake walks that line through the picture. Indifference in such subjects, when you can be helping rather than ignoring is a sin of its own however, and no one leaves this film clean. The loss of his daughter can be placed at the man’s feet, but I think at the end of the film it seems obvious that this is just another poor and confused little girl – used and abused by a faceless system; much like the girl who desperately seeks Jake’s help the only difference is one child is his and the other is not.

There’s nothing simple about Hardcore, it is a tough and brilliant film that leaves you with a million questions and the need to talk about it desperately. It is beautiful in the way it was filmed and features several amazing performances that will not be easily forgotten. George C. Scott was such a tremendous talent, who much like Lee J. Cobb – always delivered the heavy performances. Here he is a more mild mannered person trapped under unfortunate circumstances and more often than not subtle in all of his movies – showing just how fantastic he truly was. Every time i see him in just about any film I am always amazed, and I have to say he was under utilized by the Hollywood system. He had an outstanding career, but even if he made two hundred Patton’s, Hardcore’s or Dr. Strangelove’s I still don’t think we the film viewing world would have seen the bottom of his talent. I highly recommend everyone reading this check out Hardcore as soon as possible if you haven’t already. I think the film speaks for itself and you’ll more than likely be left speaking about it once you see it. I came close to giving it a five out of five, but decided at the last second to go with the four. There’s still a bit of ambiguity that could have been cleared up in the film I think; but as it is – Hardcore is an amazing film that I think should have a much larger audience than it currently does.