New trailer for Hisss!

Finally, a trailer is released for what looks like one of the most interesting and unusual horror flicks you're likely to see this year, and it's actually turning out much better than I expected! I'm really looking forward to it as it's really quite different from usual run-of-the-mill horror flicks, this time focusing on a well known Asian mythological legend rather than mindless psycho killers stalking teenagers, remakes or the usual exercise in graphic, mindless and excessive showcase of torture porn, which seems to be the current trend right now with horror films.

Hisss is a contemporary retelling of the age old Indian legends regarding the ichhadhari nagin, snake women of the race of serpent shape shifters from the underworld, as written in the ancient Puranic and Vedic texts of pre-Hindu mythology . Many films have been made throughout India on this subject, and for me the most striking was 1986's hit Nagina, which made a huge impression on me as a child (I'll never forget Sri Devi's snake-dance, with her piercing blue eyes literally creeping the hell out of me as Amrish Puri plays the infamously disturbing yet catchy snake-charmer music now iconic to film). Most of these movies usually dabbled in romance and revenge and though Hisss retains the roots of this popular genre aswell it is now also, for the first time, exploring the legend by creeping into the realm of pure unadulterated fantasy horror...which is right up my street!

The movie revolves around a seedy American who travels to India in search of the truth about the nagas and hopefully capture one, as he believes that hidden within the hood of this mythical creature lies a rare gem of great worth. Once there he manages to find and captures one, and takes it back to the modern world for hus own personal gain and to exploit at his will. Unbeknownst to him of course, the naga's mate soon learns of this and, transforming into a human female, embarks on a journey of revenge as she travels in search of her lost love, killing all that stand in her way, as we find out nothing should becoming between a nagin and their lust for power and love. Written and directed by Jennifer Lynch (daughter of cult film director David Lynch and of the recent Surveillance), it stars the stunning Malika Sherawat as the seductive Nagin snake woman out for revenge as well as Irfan Khan, most recently seen in the multi Oscar award winning Slumdog Millionaire.

Malika Sherawat as a mythological Nagin (Snake Woman)

What makes this movie special is that it is joint Indian and American production- an American director is taking the helm (as chosen by the producers) as well as an American special effects company but the story and production is Indian and it's being filmed in India simultaneously in both Hindi and English (although I must add the movie is not Bollywood so there's no need to worry about song and dance acts! This is a gritty terror/drama whose main priority is to shock and awe with it's beautiful horror imagery). Malika as always looks fantastic in the part but when she becomes the snake-creature it's both horrific and...strangely beautiful (don't ask me why, it just looks so fucking awesome). The make-up effects are by the ever-fantastic Robert Kurtzman, who has worked with visionary directors like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodrigeuz on classic films such as From Dusk Till Dawn, Army of Darkness, A Nightmare on Elm Street Parts 5 and 7, Evil Dead II and Scream, to name a few from his colourful filmography. His work has been pretty incredible throughout and it looks to be no exception here; his designs for the naga are both revolting, scary and sexy at the same time and the pictures had me pumped when I first saw them as it looks to be a groundbreaking piece of work, especially for an Indian horror film. Seeing them within the movie now is even better as the look and feel is perfect, as is the visual tone of the film- very slimy, sticky, hot and sexual- perfect for this kind of movie and it really shows off the excellent make-up work well.

Hisss is in post-production right now but it'll be out in a few months, a perfect tie-in for a hot, sultry and altogether venomous Indian summer. I can't wait!:

Family Guy is shit.

Just a quick rant:

People seem to get massive fanboy hard-ons for this crap and it makes no sense to me as I think it's absolutely fucking terrible, and in my honest opinion it's one of the worst attempts at an animated sitcom I've ever seen (and i've seen too many in my time). The early series' however did have some genuinely good episodes and the show itself did show promise but it quickly turned into an unfunny sketch show which uses a random gag sequence to try and be entertaining but just ends up being too dumb for it's own good.

Typical episode:

"Hey, this reminds me of the time/like the time/remember that time when we [insert random pop culture reference/80s film parody/celebrity piss-take/political statement joke/lame attempt at satire]"

repeat for 25 minutes, along with Stewie saying something gay/cussing his mum, taking the piss out of Meg and Chris saying/doing something stupid as mandatory, with the other characters coming in for a trademark catchphrase/sketch. Not funny or clever. Just annoying, stupid and shit, I fucking hate it and I hate it even more when people go on about how good it is and "quoting" the shitty lines which come from it.

Just about every Family Guy episode ever made.

As far as animated sitcoms go, it's definitly of the worst i've ever seen, I mean this show literally tries too hard to be funny and random does not equal funny, it just shows that they have no actual (or original) ideas to convey. Making fun out of celebrities is funny if you know how to do it right, not just a lame parody of one of their shows/films. South Park does this all much, much better, it completely destroys Family Guy and I find myself genuinely laughing out loud at it- it's consistently entertaining and has just gone from strength to strength, I wasn't a big fan of it at first but now it's just superb; funny, ridiculous and very clever, especially with the topics it tackles. And, even though The Simpsons is very weak now and not as good as it used to be, I'll still say that it is better than the rubbish that is Family Guy.

And both The Simpsons and South Park have both humiliated Family Guy at hilarious levels in some really great episodes; so kudos to them at calling out one of the most tedious, annoyingly random for the sake of being random unfunny animated attempts at satire ever. Give it up, Seth McFarlane. Or think of good material....Oh wait, he can't, becuase when Family Guy got cancelled and he tried to think of a new series he came up with American Dad...which was exactly the same as Family Guy, even down to the same lame characters and sketches. And his voices gets tiresome too.

Hellraiser remake news/thoughts

Just had to comment on this as it strikes me as rather worrying. Director Pascal Laugier (who recently did the well received fantastic Martyrs (review up soon)) spoke to Sci Fi Wire about the upcoming Hellraiser remake (which I'm really excited about seeing as it's one of my favourite horror series' if not my one and only favourite), which he said will be a reboot of the franchise and will retain the "transgressive material" of the original.

"The idea behind Hellraiser is not to do a remake — it's to do what they call a reboot — that is to say, a new version," said Laugier. "So what I am proposing to Dimension, the studio behind Hellraiser, is some elements coming from the first film mixed with brand-new stuff."

He added: "My main problem, honestly, with the Hellraiser reboot is that Hellraiser is very transgressive material. It deals with S&M and gay issues, and I really want to be faithful to the book and Clive Barker's world. I don't want to betray him. So if I have the feeling that I am being asked by Hollywood to soften the franchise, I will leave in a blink."

Now, hold on a second: GAY ISSUES!? Hellraiser has NOTHING TO DO with gay issues, as far as I am aware nothing at all, it's more religious than anything remotely resembling homosexual subjects! Oh, so the Cenobites dress in leather and love S and M, that makes them deal with gay issues? HOW?! Man, this guy has no clue....he's got to speak to Barker and get him involved or he's going to go in the wrong direction.

There's nothing homosexual about Hellraiser, though, whatsoever, not even innuendos. It's about pain and pleasure, S and M fetishes, going beyond limits, beings from alternate universes, religious subtext, fantasy, horror, etc- but there is nothing gay about it, not in the original novel or the film series. Hellraiser is just so much more than meets the eye, yes it's about sex and lust, desire, pain and pleasure but beyond that is is revolutionary in it's ideas, almost mind-blowing; it destroys typical conventions, it explores dimensions, alternate universes, breaking down barriers, going beyond established Judea-christian religious subtexts and limits, it's psychological in it's aspects as it is scientific- it's epic fantasy and horror fused together to create a universe we've never really seen before. It's not just about gore and sex, though it is part of it and relevant it's also completely beyond that.

Unless I'm wrong I totally do not see anything homosexual about the characters; Cenobites or humans, or story for that matter. Barker himself described the Cenobites sporting a sort of "neo-punk" fashion, though they are meant to be beings of a high order; "theologians of the Order of the Gash". There's nothing gay about it, in fact in the novel they are described as sexually ambiguous, conforming to neither gender. Saying Hellraiser deals with "gay issues" just shows that they have no idea or grasp of what the actual concept is about. Yes it is unusual and I guess "queer" in it's sense of difference but "gay issues" is a rather narrow term to use, I think.

People I think have the wrong idea about it if they see gay stuff in it as that is not the premise, and certainly not an issue.

Anyway, regarding the movie I think this "remake/reboot" should be set in London, England, and have 55 Ludovico Street situated there as it is in the original novella. I think it would be brilliant to have it set in as it would also give it that unique gothic horror feel, being among the sights and sounds of London town- it's just too generic to have it set in the US like every other Hollywood movie these days, that's what made the first two films stand out because it looked so visibly different from the other flicks which were set in America.

My thoughts:

-Set it in London, England- like the original movie and the novel.
-get British actors, with the exception of one or two, but Frank has to be British, as does Pinhead, and preferably Julia.
-no dubbing out English voices this time!
-show more of London town, especially when Julia is out picking up victims in bars.

I think it would work really well, even though it's not a British production, I think the setting and background of London is just so much tighter and Gothic for the material than the US. I hope this new re-imagining/reboot goes back to the roots, the later sequels were missing this element.

And regarding my dream cast for the movie:

My picks:

Kirsty Cotton---Emily Blunt (one of my favourite actresses right now though I can also see Kiera Knightly doing an excellent job)
Julia---Famke Jansen
Frank Cotton---Andy Serkis, Dominic West or Jason Isaacs (all fantastic actors who would play the part well though I can't seem to decide who)
Rory/Larry---Richard Armitage (pictured)
Pinhead/Lead Cenobite---Tom Hardy (a popular fan favourite, pictured)

I think Famke would be a perfect choice for Clare Higgins' successor as the woman who kills for her forbidden lover in this version, even though Famke is a bit weary on horror movies.

Well, I'm inclined to think that Hellraiser is a little more than "horror". It's every much a character drama too, a lethal 3 way liaison between two men, a film about lust, betrayal, obsession, desire, the epitome of high Gothic horror/romance, as if something written by Edgar Allan Poe etc...something which Famke can easily get her teeth into and in all honestly something I think is suited to her, made for her even; I can't think of a better person who has such a powerful screen presence, especially when the character itself is turns from a normal loving woman who has an affair and then becomes a cold-blooded icy murderer. Julia is supposed to be a beautiful woman with a hidden secret whose transformation is slow and drawn out, the audience is both on her side and against her, which I also think is a very interesting dynamic. There's just too much in the character and film for her to work with, I think she would be phenomenal.

It is just so much more than a typical horror film, it definitely stands above your normal run-of-the-mill genre stuff and so it needs better than average actors to pull it off, and I think these guys are simply perfect for the roles.

Miley Cyrus was hilarious in the Jonathan Ross interview

Seriously, never seen an interview with this chick before but that was one of the most entertaining interviews i've ever seen on that show- she gave Wossy a run for his money and it's usually him that's humorously intimidating. She was on the ball and made no qualms about anything and really livened it up, especially when she got up to teach him to dance. Very funny to watch, she's really confident and as Wossy rightfully said- she'll go far in the buisness.
I thought she was fantastic and really stood her own. Wossy can be very intimidating but even he was surprised at her quick and very funny quips and comebacks. She's got a very contagious and funny sense of humour and attitude and in all honesty she was an absoloute joy to watch.

So much better than that Lady Gaga, who is quite possibly one of the dullest people i've seen and imo was one of the most uncomfortable interviews ever to grace that show. She just came off as mentally unstable and try-hard. And i'm guessing there was nothing in that tea-cup she was constantly "drinking" out of either.

I don't see why people say she's immature in the interview, if anything I thought she was just being funny and it worked becuase the audience and Jonathan were laughing with her. I loved it when she explained how Disney and herself spent ages coming up with the title to the movie. I thought she was naturally confident which was great becuase it made for a cracking interview. I don't see why people are complaining about it so much, all the issues with it seem completly trivial and trife.

I thought Miley was endearing, funny and charming in a very wacky way though when she settled down she also answered the questions normally. I didn't see anything wrong with her, sure she may be a little loud but why is that a problem? She's got a funny bursting-at-the-seams personality which was destined to be manifested as a stage and screen entertainer. I didn't think she was childish and if I had any reason to i'd equate it to the fact that she is still young, so it's expected. She's still young, and whilst she may not be the quiet, reserved type that doesn't make her any less of a normal person. She is entertaining, loud and funny to watch and imo oozes charisma and screen presence- everything which has made her famous. She wouldn't be where she is today if it wasn't for who she really is, and that was her.

I see a lot of negativity towards Miley and from my understanding it looks as though it's simply for the fact that she is young and therefore falls into the "young teen brat" category, which I don't really think is very fair at all. She definitly showed an entertaining and upbeat personality in the interview but I also thought she kept within limits and relegated to sillyness when it called for it; unlike a certain GaGa who actually was more of a brat than Miley and half a dozen of those Super Sweet Sixteen teens put together, even though she's older than them and should know better. Though I think it's also unfair to regard Miley as a "SS16" teen becuase the people on there are truly horrid and utterly detestable, to the point of making me feel ill, and Miley isn't like that (or doesn't seem like that) at all, at least not in my view of what I have seen of her.

I'm not saying that that's how most 16 year olds are but a large proportion of them do have certain characteristics which Miley has, being the typical teen poster girl for her age group. But she's an entertainer at heart and of course I believe she is also slightly guilty of playing up to the camera as many celebs sometimes do. Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato et al are all different people and they all have different personalities but that does not mean that one is better than the other simply becuase one is louder/more overly confident than the other and doesn't adhere to your tastes. In time Miley will quieten down but as of right now she's riding the fame wave and I say let her; she works hard and is good at what she does and no doubt deserves everything she is getting. It's who she is and its that which has made her come this far, if she wasn't herself then she wouldn't be a star and she wouldn't be here.

Of course I had a whole wealth of preconceptions about Miley prior to this becuase all I ever hear is bitching and detest regarding her so when I sat down to watch the show I was expecting the worst, but when I was very surprised that I warmed up to her quite quickly and honestly couldn't understand the hate. If she is notorious at being one of the worst teen celebs out there then I think that is a gross overstatment and complete over-exaggeration; there are far worse out there- far worse. I simply wonder where this hatred and negativity comes from, most likely jealousy or basic irritation no doubt, along with the world's love to hate things just for the sake of it; a sad habit that will sadly never cease. Miley just seems like a funny, wacky girl and I found her a joy to watch.

Animatronics= dead?

I've just realised that many big-budget CG movies these days don't even use animatronics anymore in the same way Jurassic Park is famous for using. The JP films, as we all know, use a combination of Stan Winston Studio's (in some cases) life size animatronics for close up/midriff shots of the dinosaurs reacting to sets, props and people etc and ILM's CGI for long full body shots of the dinosaurs doing things otherwise impossible to do via practical animatronics. But i've seen recently that many big CGI movies these days don't use animatronics anymore, instead rather going full CG for the whole show, especially if they are huge dinosaur-sized sentients. Recent examples of this are:

Peter Jackson's King Kong (2005): The prime example. I would have expected this movie to be made similar to the JP movies in terms of using practical and CGI effects but no, this movie's creatures are all full CGI, even down to intricatly detailed close-up shots. Usually they have animatronic heads for when creatures interact with actor in close shots, but that's not the case here. Everything is high detailed CG, close up and long shots. The only "animatronics" were props and machines simulating logs or Kong's hands/arms for the actors to work with, all covered in greenscreen ready to be made into real characters on the computer.

Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy (2003-2006): The undead skeleton pirates are all CG, no animatromics, but most importantly Davy Jones and the Kraken are all fully CG- a very big surprise considering I thought they at least used a fusion of make-up, prosthetics and CGI for Davy's face but apparantly not, Davy is full CG, including his clothes and hat. It's all shot close up too, and amazingly still retains incredible texture, movement and density which before wouldn't have been able to be achieved without practical make-up/prosthetics.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-2003) Whilst the goblins and other smaller human-sized nasties are actors in prosthetic make-up (except Gollum), the bigger creatures are all full CG. With the exception of Treebeard (who is basically just a massive prop), all the huge monsters here do not have animatronic counterparts. For example, midriff/head shots would be animatronic if it were JP, but here everything is done on the computer, from extreme close ups to long shots (Ballrog, cave-troll, Shelob, Wargs, flying fellbeasts etc, all CG, no animatronics).

Transformers (2007): All the robots are fully CG, close-ups and long shots. The movie does use props and some extentions of the characters are animatronic (eg Scorponok's tail when it attacks people) but otherwise the main robots themselves are all CG.



Star Wars: Attack of the Clones/Revenge of the Sith(2002,2005): All the massive creatures here are all full CG, no animatronic counterparts (case in point the monsters in the Geonosis gladitorial arena such as the Reek, Nexu and Acklay and the Varactyl Boga- that iguana thing which Obi-Wan rides in ROTS) all fully CG, even when reacting with actors.

These are just some of the movies of recent years that I can think of which don't use animatronics, i'm sure there are more i've missed.

So cinema and technology have come to a point where there's no need to have huge practical effects anymore- everything from close-up to long shot can now be done on high quality CG and look just as good, where before having CG for everything was costly so they used to split it up between two mediums. Certainly there was never any problem using full CG for everything, even upclose shots (JP has the Rex and raptors merely a few meteres away from the camera and it still looks amazingly detailed) but there were issues of having CG objects interacting with actors and props. Now however it's not a big problem anymore, current technology can deal with everything. It's not expensive anymore either- certianly now it would probably cost more to make animatronics as well as CGI- two different types of things which then involves blending them both together, which is yet more work. Not to mention the hours of difficult labour having massive animatronics on set. It's a lot of work when one can now sort it out with CG which now, in some cases, looks even better than animatronics (when time and effort of course are put into it). Why have an animatronic with limited movement as a close up when you can have a full CG object close up which can do anything and everything? (Imagine having Kong's close ups with a large animatronic head...really wouldn't look as good at all, especially in conveying emotions and expression. This is where CGI for everything works so well as one seamless creature).

All these current movies have no animatronics in there becuause it's now easier and cost effective to do everything with CG and have it looking just as good (King Kong the very best example of this). JP3 was all the way back in 2001 where it made sense by using the traditional ILM/Stan Winston method, but massive leaps in CG technology has been made since then. So, do you think the next JP movie will still use animatronics when films can now be made easily without it? Looking at it now, I really can't think why they should...

I'd like it to keep tradition but the fact is that buisness-wise it would be expensive to do both- they would probably relegate it to one medium to keep it cost effective. Stan Winston Studios would of course still be used in the design process (every dinosaur in the JP films has been designed by them of course) but i'm not sure if they would still make huge animatronic dinosaurs anymore. Maybe smaller ones like raptors and such but still, movies nowaydays use CGI for everything.

The only recent movie I can think of where they had huge animatronics as well as CGI was the Queen in AVP:Alien vs Predator in 2004, but this was mainly becuase their budget didn't allow it to go full CG. The Alien Queen was both animatronic and CG, though I think this was becuase the Queen is a creature which just looks and moves better as an animatronic rather than a CG one (the skin and sheen for example all look more realistic when made out of real material).



Dinosaurs on the other hand are living, breathing animals much closer to today's animals than the Alien Queen..they sweat, they tear, they have much more complicated skin and skin mechanics including muscle, bone and tissue which move and react...all of which can easily be done on a computer these days and, with the right SFX house behind it, can look much much better than a model.



I believe Spielberg is quoted to have said that animatronics solicits better performances from the human actors, as the actors have something to play to. Getting eyeline/eyefocus right when you want a face-to-face shot, that sort of thing. Shooting around that (ie: no face shots of actors looking at CGI on the same frame) limits the director's vision. Perhaps the future is crude models for the director and actor's benefit, and CGI all the way...

But guess what- even Spielberg has moved on since then! His War of the Worlds adaptation in 2005 had no animatronics, not even for the small aliens (especially in the sequence where he replicates his JP "raptors in the kitchen" sequence with the two children in the basement). Whereas in JP he used animatronics and CGI for the raptors, in WOTW it's all CGI aliens, even for the close-ups. The tripods were of course just too big to be made with animatronics, so that's understandable. The only practical effects in this movie were the fallen tripods and weeds. So it looks like Spielberg has embraced the wonders of full CGI now too.

He also produced Transformers, which as I already mentioned had no major animatronics. He will most likely produce Jurassic Park 4 as well, and I think he'll probably give a thumbs up to full CGI there too.

I think it has become easier for actors to work agianst nothing as they are now well versed and experienced in it as opposed to before when it was a new thing and therfore harder, though most of the time it's not really against thin air. SFX guys usually have stand-ins for the actors to work agianst, and though it may not be much it's at least an eyeline. Nowadays of course they have actors who mo-cap the performance of their character; Andy Serkis as Gollum or Bill Nighy as Davy Jones for example, who act as their respective character which will later be replaced with a CG version- this eradicates the problem of other actors with nothing to work with, especially when conveying emotion and drama from their performance as it is all now done in-camera.

I just think that technology has moved on so much that everything can be done with full CGI in a live action movie now- and, as movies like King Kong have shown us, all look good as one seamless art rather than breaking it up between different mediums. Though new technolgy is being created everyday, James Cameron's new film Avatar will have such technology never seen before as it has been invented just for it, and all of that is done on the computer with no practical work whatsoever, not even for the alien characters. A recent magazine writer who some some test footage was reportadly so amazed he said "I couldn't tell what was real or not". So maybe the time of animatronics is coming to an end, who knows. Movies have to keep ahead of the game to impress audiences who know all to well what's CGI and what's not, I don't think a new JP movie could work with traditional animatronics anymore when people demand so much more from their special effects now. People just get turned off when they can see what's "fake".

I think, personally, that this is just down to Weta's lesser results of CGI amongst blue/green screen work. This is of course their biggest problem, and it's been complained about many times; their greenscreen compositing work is just very poor compared to ILM's- take for instance the infamous Brontosaur stampede in Kong which is the best example of their worst work, just really bad greenscreening, especially on the actors in that scene who are so poorly composited it's pretty much embarassing they even left it in. Even The Lord of the Rings films have the same issue.

ILM however don't have this problem- as seen in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies (which I see as some of their best work to date), Davy Jones and his crew are all filmed on greenscreen and superimposed onto real locations and sets- and the result is seamless, much better than what Weta has done. Though one can argue that even ILM have their bad days, as seen in the Star Wars prequels (absoloutly atrocious greenscreen compositing work, especially in Attack of the Clones, but this agian is most likely down to excessive workload which I guess was the case with King Kong, which is why some things look amazing and some things look like crap). However I don't expect a JP movie to have CG output on that huge scale considering the films are usually split greater on the human side than dinosaur action, so the CG work would probably be on a good scale.

Either way Kong is a great example of CG work but a bad example of greenscreening. But other movies (Pirates) have shown that this isn't a problem in the right hands. And considering ILM will be doing the CG work in the next JP film, I don't think it's ever going to be a problem for them. JP3 and even The Lost World: Jurassic Park had a lot of close-up composting done, and it all looked great.