There is so much more to learn.

I have recently been watching Middle-Earth lore videos and they are really fascinating.

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote a lot in his lifetime. Pretty much everyone has heard of The Lord of the Rings trilogy as well as The Hobbit, or There and Back Again. Some have heard of the Silmarillion as well, but there is a massive list of books in his name. Some are his letters, some are poetry and some are things his son Christopher edited together. Full list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien_bibliography

But back to the videos. I have been watching a few different channels, but In Deep Geek is one I'm confident in recommending. There is other stuff on there as well, but I haven't watched those. What I like is that everything is based on Tolkien's actual writings, there is no guess work or 'your guess is as good as mine' things presented as fact.

Here is a playlist of almost 200 videos to start with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMI2M4Uu44&list=PLVTclEEyY1SKFumpT86h-y6jikkEUKIAH 

 So, if you like Middle-Earth and want to learn more, like what were the Barrow-Wights? Or what was The Watcher outside Moria? Perhaps you want to learn why Sauron had no idea The Shire existed or indeed what Pipeweed is, then make yourself comfortable and enjoy.

 

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week! 

   

The People Who Own the Dark

This week I watched:

The People Who Own the Dark (1976).

This Spanish thriller, with an admittedly great title, is not really what you would think from the front cover or the blurb. A small group of powerful and influential men head to a large old villa (called a castle) for some debauchery. The owners of the house have procured some willing women but just as the drug fueled festivities are about to begin, the house is shaken by a massive force. When the party-goers come up from the cellar they find the maids completely blind. Being the men they are they soon realize that there has been a nuclear war. When they head down to the local town, they find that everyone there has also been struck blind. The synopsis states that “soon they discover the existence of a sinister group called The People Who Own The Dark”. This statement is misleading but not entirely false.

The blind villagers are the people who own the dark, even though the promotional material wants to make it look like there is something deeper and even more sinister. What is interesting is that the main antagonists in the movie are the blind villagers who act essentially like zombies. They move in groups and attack the main characters furiously. (They have some reason for this, but that is spoiler territory). The blind do function better than one might think even though they can't see, which gives them a very menacing presence.

The People Who Own the Dark is a pretty well made movie despite the vague element of exploitation and sleaze. There is barely any nudity and the blood is fairly muted. It is the psychological elements that stand tall. Partially the horror of Nuclear Armageddon and partially the fear of being targeted by a large group out to kill you. There is also the element of general survival what with the radiation and all.

The actors are all veterans and the director León Klimovsky who also directed The Werewolf vs the Vampire Woman handles things competently. There is nothing more to really say on that matter, either for or against the movie.

The exploitation element is a bit odd to be honest. Since the movie was never going to use it, why was it included in the first place? It could just as well have been a hunting weekend or someone's birthday. This is even odder when you factor in the clumsy marketing attempt that focuses on just that element that then barely shows up. If you sat down and watched The People Who Own the Dark because you were in the mood for some 70's sleaze you'd be pretty damn disappointed.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, it is actually pretty good. By using a horde of blind people that can think instead of the tired, cliched shambling horde of the undead, we get a pretty neat and scary threat. The movie is a bit too short to really explore the situation the main characters are in so we don't get any deeper message, but what is there is well worth watching. The People Who Own the Dark was never going to be a masterpiece or even a cult classic, but I for one was not disappointed.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

Night Moves but not Bob Seger

Because I liked The Conversation (1974) a friend recommended:

Night Moves (1975).

Harry Moseby (Gene Hackman) is a Hollywood private investigator who is hired by an aging minor star to find her runaway teenage daughter Delly (Melanie Griffith). He finds out from Delly's on/off boyfriend Quentin (James Woods) that she left for Florida where her stepdad Tom (John Crawford) lives. With his own marriage teetering on the edge, Harry goes off to find the runaway but he will find more than he expected and in more ways than one.

It is worth pointing out that The Conversation and Night Moves are completely different movies. The only thing they have in common is Gene Hackman as a private investigator and being made in the mid 70's. Both movies are good but The Conversation is in my opinion better by a clear margin.

First off, the actors are all great. This was Melanie Griffith's first credited movie role, and as she wasn't even planning on becoming an actor, her portrayal of Delly is very good. To be fair, a teenage girl playing a teenage girl isn't exactly a strenuous job, but she is good.

Night Moves is also technically well made, even though you won't find any stunning visuals. I'd say that is more because they wanted a realistic, intimate close up feel rather than a sweeping cinematic experience.

However when I was done watching I couldn't help feel Night Moves was missing something. It might be I overlooked something subtle, I'm not sure. I love a movie that doesn't have to spell it out to the audience in ten foot tall letters, but being so subtle that important things are missed isn't good either. I am pretty sure a scene has to have been missing though. When Harry arrives in Florida he meets Delly and Paula (Jennifer Warren) who is stepdad Tom's girlfriend. Tom, a pilot, is off in his pontoon plane as Harry arrives, but we see him land on the water by his house. Then in the next scene they are all talking like old friends, but we never saw Harry and Tom meet, and that feels very odd in a movie that takes such pains to show small mundane details.

My other complaint is that the “big thing” falls a bit flat when it is finally revealed. Everything makes sense and there aren't any plot holes, it's more down to how the movie deals with it. I'm having real trouble explaining this without spoiling anything here. Imagine if Luke Skywalker upon learning that Vader is his father had shrugged and said “well, shit”. Underwhelming but technically correct. My Luke example is an exaggeration, but it points to how Night Moves felt in the end.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, I do. Despite my complaints, Night Moves is a good time. It stands tall as a good example of why 70's cinema was so great. Night Moves is one of those movies that are all about the experience, a ride if you will. Sure it has a few problems, but it is genuinely a good movie. It is a product of its time for all the right reasons.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Raw Deal

Growing up in the 80's, one name stood above all others in the action genre: Arnold Schwarzenegger. To my surprise I found one of his early action movies that I had never seen so I sat down and watched:

Raw Deal (1986).

Arnold plays Mark Kaminski, a former FBI agent forced to resign after being too brutal with a child murderer. His old boss Harry contacts him after Harry's son (also an agent) is gunned down on a protection detail. Harry wants Mark to infiltrate the Chicago mob that killed his son and bring them down from within. What follows is a lot of awkward conversations and lots of good action.

Raw Deal was made after The Terminator and Conan, and between Commando and Predator so the action is fine, but there is something odd with how the movie is made. The director, John Irvin, had previously made the amazing spy drama series Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, but he clearly wasn't as comfortable in Hollywood as he was in his native UK. Raw Deal has some amazing shots, really nice ones, but those are few and far between, while the rest of the movie feels oddly amateurish. Schwarzenegger said he liked working on the movie since he could finally wear a wardrobe that was both comfortable and stylish. He also liked working with Irvin as he felt he became a better actor in the process. Raw Deal also stars Paul Shenar and Robert Davi, both veteran bad guy actors who effortlessly play their villainous roles. Honestly all the actors are good.

Raw Deal flopped pretty badly in cinemas upon release. It made a modest profit of $16 million which is embarrassing for a Schwarzenegger action piece, but I get it. As famous film critic Roger Ebert said: "This plot is so simple (and has been told so many times before), that perhaps the most amazing achievement of Raw Deal is its ability to screw it up. This movie didn't just happen to be a mess; the filmmakers had to work to make it so confusing."

I think he's being too harsh here, but Ebert isn't far from the mark. Some of the way the story is told needed a lot more space, so there are scenes that lead nowhere and make no sense. In a series these plot points and characters would make sense in a way they can't without more time. Example: early on we meet Mrs. Kaminski who is depressed and drinks too much, but she is never seen again. Why include her at all? Stuff like this makes the film weaker and the arguably competent action scenes can't make up for the stuttering pace.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes and no. Raw Deal is by no means a bad movie, lets get that straight, but it is far from great either. Had they chosen a newcomer instead of Schwarzenegger, no one would ever have seen this movie. I guess it is best watched like I did, because I just wanted an 80's Schwarzenegger experience. I didn't have a bad time, but I'm also glad it wasn't longer.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

House Rules for Video Games.

I have previously talked about my No Hit Runs in the Sniper Elite games. I have completed SE5 and SE Resistance (though not the DLC's for that game yet) and I'm currently working on SE4. Being forced to restart a level if I take any damage from any source adds a lot of tension and is really fun, except when you are almost done with a massive level and make a mistake, but such are the rules.

I have also previously posted about the FailRace channel on Youtube and their super cool Survive the Hunt videos in GTA Online, where one person has to remain incognito while doing tasks and all the others are hunting him. Very tense stuff.

The reason why I mention this again is that yesterday I found a Cyberpunk 2077 Geoguessr video. The host has a bunch of screenshots which he posts on Discord and the last player to take an in-game photo of themselves at that location is eliminated. I'll embed that video below.

The video got me thinking about what are essentially house rules but for video games. Anyone who has played Monopoly with their family has probably played with house rules even if they didn't know it. Likewise, most tabletop RPG Gamemasters and their players make use of house rules. If a rule feels dumb or not fun, you can change it, simple as that.

But when it comes to video games, house rules are not quite as easy, as that would require changing the games code which makes it a mod and not a rule. You can of course use mods to make your challenge work, but as the examples I mentioned above show, you can make up new rules for a video game with only a bit of ingenuity. Of course you can't apply any challenge or house rule to any game, that won't work. I don't think it would be possible to play Cyberpunk 2077 as a No Hit Run, you'd get nowhere fast, but the Geoguessr video proves that there are options for even as complex a game as Cyberpunk.

Some games include pre-made challenges like how you can play through Dishonored 2 with no supernatural powers. The achievement list is a great place to start if this sounds like fun to you.

I guess I don't really have much of a point to this, except to point out that a house rule challenge can be a great way to revitalize a well loved game that is starting to feel a bit stale. If you have a game you love but can't really justify playing it yet again, have a think and see if you can't come up with a challenge or house rule for yourself. You might be surprised at how much fun it is. You don't have to worry about being original either, my Sniper Elite No Hit Runs were inspired by a guy (don't remember his name) who played all the Soulsborne games in a row without taking any damage, so happy gaming!

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

What a title...

Continuing on my current journey of lesser known vampire movies, I watched:

The Werewolf Versus the Vampire Woman (1971).

Also known as La Noche de Walpurgis, Walpurgis Night, Shadow of the Werewolf and Werewolf Shadow amongst many other aliases, this Spanish horror movie is generally regarded as the film that kicked the Spanish horror boom of the 70's into high gear.

Straight off the bat, I need to say that this movie is a bigger mess than last week's entry. The picture quality of the version I watched was awful, so a few dark scenes were impossible to make out. I saw a mention online of nudity, but the version I saw had none, so be aware of that. As for blood, there is more gore in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, so no worries there if that isn't your thing.

The story more or less is this: Elvira (Gaby Fuchs) and her friend Genevieve (Barbara Capell) are writing their final university thesis. They call it an essay, but it's implied to be much bigger. The subject is Witchcraft and Satanism in medieval France, and they know of an obscure figure, Countess Wandessa Darvula de Nadasdy (Patty Shepard), a satanist who became a vampire to preserve her youth. Together they go off into the French countryside to find her tomb, but they get lost, run out of gas and meet Waldemar Daninsky (Paul Naschy), who we already know is a werewolf, or to be pedantic, a wolf man. Think Lon Chaney Jr. He is also looking for the tomb, but the enourmous amount of ruins in the area makes it difficult. They accidentally revive Wandessa (of course) and the struggle to survive is on.

The Werewolf Versus the Vampire Woman is the fifth movie in the Waldemar Daninsky saga, a series of werewolf movies whose continuity makes little to no sense. That only matters if you intend to watch them all. As for this movie, the script is unfortunately a mess, but some blame may lay on the various alternative cuts. Things are rushed beyond credibility and certain events make no sense. All of this is really frustrating because at its core The Werewolf Versus the Vampire Woman is a good movie.

There are several scenes that are excellent and some of the ideas are really cool, but that all drowns in the chaos of the messy script. The general cinematography is good, and the actors are likewise solid. The special effects are lovely but the sound in the version I watched was abysmal, with sound effects drowning out dialogue and a nasty static buzzing filling in the silence.

But on the flip side, the vampires are awesome, the wolf man makeup is pretty good even though at times he sounds like a pirate trying to sound like a werewolf. The Spanish landscape is interesting but I don't get why they pretend to be in France as it makes no difference to the story. Maybe it's one of those things where it feels more sophisticated to be in a foreign country?

So, do I recommend this movie? I want to, I really do, but unless you have a good reason to watch it, find a better movie. At its heart The Werewolf Versus the Vampire Woman is a good movie, but it is burdened with so many other problems that the final result falls flat. I hope and wish someone would remake it and do it right.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

The Blood Spattered Bride

I saw a video on Youtube about lesser known vampire movies and so I sat down and watched:

The Blood Spattered Bride (1972).

This Spanish retelling of Carmilla by Sheridan Le Fanu was also turned into film by Hammer Horror in 1970 with The Vampire Lovers, but both movies are very different.

A newly wed couple arrives at a hotel, but the bride, Susan (Maribel Martin) has a horrible vision and begs to leave immediately. The husband (no name given, played by veteran actor Simon Andreu) agrees and they travel to his massive old mansion. There Susan meets the groundskeeper, his wife the housekeeper, and their strange young daughter Carol. Soon enough, Susan starts to both see and dream about a beautiful blonde woman with piercing eyes. The dreams are very disturbing and Susan becomes increasingly unstable. Husband calls a doctor, the blonde, Carmilla, arrives in person and things spiral into violence and madness.

I need to be honest here. The Blood Spattered Bride is a mess of a movie. There are scenes that make no sense, and there are scenes that should go on but are cut short. When it was released in Spain in '72 it was savaged by the censors due to both the blood and the nudity, so this might be why. The nudity itself is apparently historic. If it is true, and I have no evidence to the contrary, then The Blood Spattered Bride is the first Spanish movie to feature full frontal nudity. It is also worth nothing that the nude body in question (Susan's) is probably not that of Maribel Martin as she was 17 during filming and therefore a minor. This is reinforced by the fact that you never see her face when the clothes come off. The camera either stays south of the neck or her hair falls strategically across her face.

To be fair, there isn't really that much blood, but what there is is pretty good. By keeping the amount of violent scenes low they are all the stronger. Nothing remarkable, but solid.

Besides some truly bizarre ideas, my biggest gripe is the personality of the husband, because he is also all over the place. Most of the time he is very caring and loving, but as an example, there is a scene where he apparently just for fun grabs his wife by the hair and starts to haul her up on a large rock, all the while laughing. Scenes like that make him pretty unlikable and as he is the closest thing we get to a hero, it makes it hard to sympathize with him against the vampire.

Carmilla is interesting though. Like the source material she is lesbian, but unlike Hammer's version who is more tragic, this Carmilla is pretty feral and an absolute man hater. I'm not reading between the lines just to be clear, she straight up says it. What I really liked about the Spanish Carmilla are her rings. She wears jeweled rings on each finger but she has them turned inwards with the gems to the palm. This small detail makes it clear that something is wrong with her without being too overt. An interesting little detail in my opinion. Oh, and it's worth noting that Carmilla can go out in the sun, that is also in the source material, so it isn't the movie being sloppy.

So, do I recommend this film? Yes and no. The Blood Spattered Bride is by no means a bad movie, but it is hard to call it good either. If you only want to watch one film version of Carmilla, watch The Vampire Lovers, but if you have no Hammer Horror left and are itching for a Gothic 70's vampire fix you can do a lot worse than The Blood Spattered Bride. Just keep the kids out of the room.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!