Fabutrash: 'Berserk!' is Craaaazy

Tweet

Listen, if you and I are going to be friends, then there's something you'll need to know about me.

I'm addicted to HRF.

HRF, or Hollywood Royalty Fabutrash, is a drug that comes in the form of most wonderful actors' and actresses' attempts at staying relevant in their twilight years. This drug is usually produced by actors who love their art so much that they continue to take on roles, even if those roles are in campy and poorly-written whodunnits like "Berserk!"

And, ladies and gentlemen, the fabulous Ms. Joan Crawford is one of the leading producers of HRF. Crawford is cemented into American culture because she was, indeed, a prodigious actress in her time, and titles like "Mildred Pierce" and "Grand Hotel" will live on in infamy.

And she even managed to crank out some pretty successful films in her later years. Just because she got old doesn't mean she got tired. I mean, look at "What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?" I personally think that's one of her best films and one of the greatest films of all time.

But enough about my hard-on for Joan. I want to get into the meat of this particular Fabutrash pick of the Week: "Berserk!"

The film follows the ringmaster of a travelling circus, played by Crawford. She's a whip-cracking task master to boot, and costume designer Jay Hutchinson Scott was obviously tasked with trying to make an aging Joan Crawford look sexy by putting her in some sort of Beyonce "Single Ladies" leotard that really accentuated Joan's huge head and mismatched petit body. Scott definitely failed. But this isn't about the costumes.

Crawford's character Monica Rivers is sort of down on her luck. Her show isn't doing that well and she's grasping at straws (or whips) to find some way to increase audience numbers. Then, people in her circus start dying.

As the saying goes, sex sells. But since live sex acts weren't about to be a part of Monica Rivers' circus (those would be performed with her young-enough-to-be-her-grandson boy toy behind closed doors), then I guess bizarre acts of violence had to take center ring, as it were.

But who's responsible for killing the circus performers while they're performing? Is it Monica Rivers' little sex slave? Is it the sex slave's jealous admirer? (That bitch!) Is it Monica herself?

All we know is someone is killing circus performers, and there's about a dozen suspects with just as many motives.

Now, this premise on its own actually isn't that bad. But the script, oh the script, makes "Berserk!" a piece of Hollywood trash that's been haphazardly frothed with gold spray paint. You'll find such snot-covered gems like Joan saying, "The French Revolution could have been avoided if Louis XVI had given the people a reason to celebrate," to which her little boy toy answers, "Don't forget what happened to Marie Antoinette."

And don't expect corny dialogue to rule the day, either. "Berserk!" is cut with scenes from actual circus performances that have nothing to do with the plot other than, well, they're circus performances. When I watched this movie, I felt like I was flipping back and forth between a Joan Crawford B-Movie and 1960s stock footage of Ringling Brothers. In fact, I bet if all the unnecessary juggling, tightrope walking and elephant riding shots were cut, "Berserk" would probably be about 20 minutes long.

I'm not going to give the ending away per se, but I am going to give you a big clue. So if you're that intent on watching "Berserk!" to see who the mysterious killer of circus acts is, then I give you permission to leave.

The No. 1 reason "Berserk!" was chosen as the Fabutrash Pick of the Week is because of the killer and the killer's motive.

I suspect screenplay writers Aben Kandel and Herman Cohen saw William Castle's "Strait-Jacket," which also starred Joan Crawford, and thought: "Wow! I didn't see that coming! Hey, I've got an idea! Let's do the exact same thing with the exact same character."

Yup. If you've seen "Strait-Jacket," then you'll see how "Berserk" has, well, the same ending, only with a far less plausible and far more ridiculous motive.

I'm rating "Berserk" 2 1/2 out of 5 Fabutrashes for being fabulously kitschy. I'd give it more if it weren't for all the unnecessary elephant ass shots.

Do you have any suggestions for Fabutrash Films? Let us know! "Like" our Facebook page and post suggestions to our wall, and follow us on Twitter and use the hashtag #FabutrashSuggestions.

The 5 Lies We're Telling Ourselves About "Dark Knight Rises" - by Matty Jacobson

Matty Jacobson edits and contributes to
The Skewed Review.

THE SKEWED REVIEW | ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT


Tweet

Christopher Nolan is one of the most celebrated directors of our time. The ending to "Inception" could arguably be one of the most talked about in cinematic history. And, of course, how can we not consider "The Dark Knight" as one of the best renditions of the Batman universe ever? Yes, Christopher Nolan is a genius. Let's all take a moment to bow down to him, light a candle in his honor, and slaughter the nearest goat in his name.

All done? OK. Now that we're done praising his name and all his glory, let's get down to the reasons why we're all lying to ourselves about Nolan's last installment of his Batman trilogy: "The Dark Knight Rises."

Caution: THERE ARE SPOILERS IN THIS ARTICLE, and I will undoubtedly offend many of you Nolanites who are so invested in "The Dark Knight Rises" that you're unwilling to see it's many, many, many flaws. Since I know you're already gathering your counter-arguments, then please consider writing a whole article. I will publish it if you write it.

The Successes

First, I'd like to point out the merits of "The Dark Knight Rises." I'm not a total hater, you see. But I am a comic book enthusiast, so when any adaptations leap from the pages of my cheaply printed $2.99 magazine to the big screen, I have the tendency to see how compatible said films are with the books I so love.

Let me start with what many Skewed Review fans might have been waiting for (or at least I'll pretend there are people out there who care about The Skewed Review enough to be waiting for this): Catwoman. Or, rather, Selena Kyle.

Yeah, this sexy bitch.
Oh, and Catwoman, too. 

I am a huge Catwoman fan. I wrote an entire article on why we should all strive to be like her. Granted, DC Comics has since rebooted the character of Catwoman and put her back in the role of cat burglar, but the message I was portraying in that article still remains pretty relevant. Selena Kyle may be a criminal, but she's got honor.

I was definitely leery of Nolan's decision to cast Anne Hatheway as Selena Kyle, and I pretty much dumped on the decision in this article that compared every Catwoman that we've seen brought to life. But, I might have spoken too soon.

In all actuality, Hatheway did a pretty good job portraying Catwoman. In fact, I felt as though her story in "The Dark Knight Rises" was lifted beautifully from the pages of Frank Miller's Batman story arc, "Year One." If you're not a fan of reading, then what are you doing on this website? But seriously, you can see the adapted cartoon film (not for kids!) that gives you the gist of a Catwoman who's committed to her friends but is out to get big spenders like Bruce Wayne.

Is it just me, or does it look like
Catwoman is tripping Batman? 

There's no doubt that Nolan's version of Selena Kyle was heavily influenced by Miller's Catwoman in "Year One." So, there you go. Well done. Wait, did I say "successes" earlier? Oh. I guess I meant "success." Singular. Even then, I think my approval of Selena Kyle could be chalked up to my having little or no expectations of Nolan's Catwoman to begin with. So I guess I was pleasantly surprised to see Hatheway did so well in the role.

Now onto the reason you're here in the first place: the lies we're telling ourselves. Please note, these all have to do with "The Dark Knight Rises," and not "The Dark Knight." OK? OK.

No. 5: "Batman can exist in the real world!"

Have you seen the so-called "real life superheroes" that are popping up globally? These people actually dress up in costumes and then prowl the streets. They often end up getting their asses handed to them by thugs or facing criminal charges for assault. The proof is legitimate that a costumed vigilante is nothing short of a joke in the real world.

But Christopher Nolan attempted to place Batman in as real a world as possible. That's fine, I guess, except when you look into the pages of a DC comic book and you see images like this:

That's some real world stuff right there. 

OK, fine. That's from one of my "Catwoman" titles (the only book I read now). But she's still in the Batman universe. DC knows that there's a certain amount of camp that needs to go along with costumed superheroes. In order for us to believe that there are legitimate crime fighters out there who feel the need to put on capes, then we need to suspend the belief that the rest of the world goes on with business as usual.

This is where Nolan's universe starts to crumble a bit. He devotes so much energy into making Batman work in the "real world" that, when something campy does happen, it comes across as laughable rather than believable--at least in "The Dark Knight Rises."

Take, for example, the part part in "The Dark Knight Rises" when Bane tricks the entire Gotham police force into going into the sewers below the city. Yeah, the whole force. Now, in a comic book world, this might not be so far-fetched.

In the DC universe, Gotham police are, well, pretty stupid. The only credible person associated with Gotham's Black and Whites who isn't a total dumb ass is Commissioner Gordon. This is the reason we have Batman in the first place. Obviously the people hired to watch over the city are completely incapable of doing it at all, so an emotionally scarred billionaire must pick up the slack.

But in the real world? No authority figure in his right mind would send an entire police force below ground. It would never happen. Even if Jim Gordon was hopped up on morphine in the hospital and gave ridiculous orders, there would be at least someone along the way who would say something like: "Is it really a good idea to have every single one of us go into the sewers? Shouldn't we at least have half of us stay topside, especially considering there's, like, a whole city full of people that would be left un-policed?"

Nolan needed to stop trying so damned hard to make Gotham as real as possible and at least allow for some amount of acknowledged camp. Because when you try and sell me a real world situation, then I expect real world actions and consequences.

Of course, too much camp can be, well, too much. I'm not saying Nolan should go the way of Joel Shumacher's rendition of the Batman universe. I think we can all agree that "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin" were two atrocities that the world could have done without. But we can look to Tim Burton's first "Batman" to gauge where good camp can balance out.

Yes, Burton's film is dated, so we must keep that in mind. But it also didn't take itself so seriously that when something comic book-esque happens (like an airplane flying between buildings in order to scoop up giant balloons filled with poison), the audience isn't left thinking, "Wha...? But, I, that wouldn't happen!"

No. 4: "The dialogue was excellent!"

"Talk about an excellent script! All of Bane's monologues were so awesome! Oh, and that exchange between Batman and Bane? Pure genius!" -- Every diluted fanboy on the Internet.

See, here's where allowing your movie to acknowledge its own campiness can come in handy. When a federal government employee sees an internationally most-wanted criminal for the first time and, for argument's sake, shouts, "Why do you wear the mask?!" then it might not come across as out-of-place in a film that, without superheroes, would be about legacy-driven terrorist acts.

But it's not just the audible dialogue that's an issue (although, it really is a huge issue).

There are whole scenes in the film where, unless you're dedicated to seeing it multiple times, characters speak to each other in ways that are wholly gibberish to a movie-goer. Yes, I get that Bane has to speak through that mask, but I could definitely understand some of his words ("What happens when you take off the mask?!" "It would be extremely painful--for you.")

So that tells me that Bane has the capability to be understood. So why couldn't he be understood the whole time? Your guess is as good as mine. And I don't seem to be the only person on earth who agrees that Christian Bale's raspy Batman voice is not only hard to understand, but also just plain goofy. So I'll leave that right there.

Please, someone send me a transcript of that final exchange between Batman and Bane. To me it just sounded like a dog barking at a broken McDonald's drive-thru speaker.

No. 3: "Oscars all around! What superb acting!"

I guess I'm the only one who will admit that Christian Bale came across as completely apathetic to the role. I honestly felt like he didn't want to be in that role. I hope his AT&T bill didn't bankrupt him considering the amount of phoning-in he had to do in order to complete this movie.

But it wasn't necessarily the main characters who drove me nuts. Like I said before, Anne Hatheway was not disappointing. Oscar-worthy? No. And Tom Hardy was pretty good as Bane. I love me some Marion Cotillard, Gary Oldman can do no wrong in my eyes (even though he pretty much did wrong in this movie), and how dare anyone call into question Michael Caine?

Actually, I believe Caine pulled out the best performance of the whole cast. But unless Caine died during filming, I don't think the Academy will be handing him any awards.

But it's the people who weren't top-billed who I took issue with. I'm talking about the random cops/EMTs/Gothamites Nolan felt the need to zoom in on at various points in the film. For example, when Batman makes his triumphant return (the first of only two times Batman actually appears in the movie), Nolan zooms in on the reactions of police officers and emergency responders. The reaction shots look like bits of a how-to film that might be shown in an improv class.

"See, students? This is what we call 'surprised!'"

The thing is, these reactionary faces happened throughout the entire film. I couldn't figure out why Nolan decided to choose random bad actors and zoom in on their faces. It was like a parade of Overactors Anonymous. Who are these people? Why are they getting this type of screen time?

No. 2: "The plot makes perfect sense."

When Nolan decided to introduce Bane, Catwoman, Robin and Talia Al Ghul into the same story, then he had to at least attempt to make all the characters fit together in some semblance of the comic book story arcs from which they are borrowed.

For example, Bane is most commonly recognized as the villain who broke Batman's back, thus putting him out of commission for as long as DC execs decided they'd had enough of their replacement Batman.

Talia Al Ghul is the daughter of Ra's Al Ghul, and she's actually the mother to Bruce Wayne's kid Damian, who would one day become Robin. And Robin, at least the first Robin, is Dick Grayson, who, apparently, does not appear in this film. Oh, and then there's Catwoman, the chick who is responsible for doing things like this:

For as many times as this
has happened, I'm surprised
Catwoman isn't a Batman
baby mamma, too.
Oh, wait a minute... 

So in order for Bane to break Batman's back, and for Catwoman to get her some Batmaction, and for Robin to essentially want to become Robin, and for Talia Al Ghul to screw Bruce Wayne, and for Ra's Al Ghul to come back to life (which is his thing in the comic books), we got a rookie cop who knows Batman's identity, convinces him to put his costume back on, but not after Bruce investigates this cat burglar, but also has to beat up a masked terrorist who is screwing Batman's girlfriend who happens to be the daughter of Batman's old nemesis and, oh, Bruce Wayne has to hallucinate Liam Neeson for about seven seconds.

Now, the definition of "contrived" can be found at, let me see, oh--at your local theater. Just go see "The Dark Knight Rises."

No. 1: "This is just as good as, if not better than, 'The Dark Knight!'"

"Batman Begins" was just too "blah" for my taste. In fact, my favorite Batman film doesn't come from Christopher Nolan at all. It's also not Tim Burton's first film, either. I'm unapologetic about my love for "Batman Returns," for this reason alone:

Pussy never looked so good. 

But, after "Batman Returns" and "Batman," I'd have to say that "The Dark Knight" is my third-favorite Batman flick. Does it suffer a bit because of the whole "this is the real world" thing? Yeah, but it wasn't so bogged down with campy comic book characters that the film came off as ridiculous. The fact that the one character, Joker, was the primary villain for the better portion of the film aided in the reality of that universe.

I will argue to this day that Heath Ledger wouldn't have got an Oscar if he hadn't died. Was his portrayal of The Joker eerie and compelling? Yes. But was it Oscar-worthy? I don't think so. But despite the sympathy award, I still love "The Dark Knight."

So it's making me a little confused when I hear fanboys saying "The Dark Knight Rises" is better. I'm sorry, but it's not. In the universe that Christopher Nolan created, "TDKR" would need to be one villain short in order to be cohesive with the rest of the franchise.

There was just too much going on in the newest film. I'm just sad that so many people behave like such sheep and give "TDKR" such praise when it doesn't deserve it. It was OK. It just wasn't this fabulous cinema treasure that warrants such fanboy praise that one can't help but think these Internet junkies are sitting at their computers without pants 24/7 in anticipation of giving "Dark Knight Rises" as much praise as possible.

But, since I know there are some of you out there who disagree with me, please take this opportunity to submit your own article. I guarantee I'll publish it as long as you stick to the guidelines.

'Dark Shadows' Glows (If You Know What You're Looking At) -- By Matty Jacobson

Matty Jacobson loves any excuse to
break out a wig. And luckily, he had
a Barnabas Collins wig on hand.
Matty owns, edits and contributes
to The Skewed Review.
You can email him here.

THE SKEWED REVIEW | ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT 

In my eyes, Tim Burton can do no wrong.

He's hands-down my favorite director, and it's true some of his work is better than others, but he's one of the most imaginative and visionary directors of our time.

However, I feel I'm often left defending him because a lot of folks don't view his material in context. For example, Tim Burton's version of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" was another take on Roald Dahl's classic book--not a remake of the 1971 movie starring Gene Wilder.

Yet, so many people thought Burton was remaking the old film, and were quick to poo-poo it on the grounds that you shouldn't touch something as sacred as "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." Never mind that Roald Dahl hated the Wilder version, and that Dahl's wife was actually an adviser on the Burton version. And no one ever seemed to mention that the '71 version added and removed parts of the book seemingly on a whim, whereas the Burton movie followed the book almost verbatim. Even the dialogue was the same ("Do you have any idea what breakfast cereal is made of?).

So I'm a little worried that people won't see "Dark Shadows" for what it is.

"Dark Shadows" was a soap opera on ABC that aired from 1966-1971. The show, like any soap, was overly dramatic and very tongue-in-cheek at times. The only big difference from regular soaps and "Dark Shadows" was that "Dark Shadows" started featuring vampires, witches, ghosts and werewolves after the first season.

Now someone who sees Burton's film without knowing what the original series was like may not quite get it. So here's an example of the show after it went to color.




Burton's movie really stayed true to the show by also presenting it for what it is: a caricature of '70s drama based on Universal Studios-esque monsters of the '40s and '50s.

I recently read an article on Cracked.com called "4 Artists Who Should Probably Just Take a Break For  a While," by Daniel O'Brien. In the article, O'Brien writes that Tim Burton and Johnny Depp should stop working together for a while because the movies they're making together aren't that good anymore.

Well, far be it from me to critique what a Cracked contributor has to say, but I respectfully disagree. I think Depp and Burton work wonderfully as a team, and I love everything they've done together.

What makes "Dark Shadows" especially important is that Depp said he always wanted to be Barnabas Collins when he was younger, so essentially he had his childhood wish granted when he collaborated with Burton on the movie.

I thought the script was smartly written, and like the show, it got a little convoluted toward the end. If I hadn't known what the original show was all about, I might have questioned the last quarter of the film. But when compared with the campy original series, I think the movie holds true to the source material; it adds camp where it needs it most, and milks the comedy angle for all it's worth.

I'll always recommend a Burton film. But from now on, I'm going to start recommending suggested reading and/or watching to supplement the films. So before (or shortly after) you see "Dark Shadows," make sure you take some time and watch an episode or two of the '60s-'70s show. It'll help you understand why the movie is like it is.

When did Vampires become such pussies? - By Heather Harrison

Heather Harrison is a
contributor to "The Skewed
Review." This is her first
of hopefully many snarky
articles to be published
on our humble website.
Got feedback for Heather?
You can email her at
heather@theskewedreview.com,
or find her on Facebook
and on Twitter.

THE SKEWED REVIEW -- OK, OK. The “Twilight” saga is almost (and finally) done with right? Well then, no time like the present to finally give my long overdue rant about these sparkly tween “monsters.”

No, I’m not talking about Justin Beiber or Lady Gaga. I’m talking about an obsession so absurd, so consuming, that we are all touched by it in some way. That’s right, ladies and gents, I’m talking about the sparkly wonder itself: “Twilight.”

Can we say, “enough is enough” to that one?  

For any of you who have lived under a rock, or, you know, in space for the past 3-4 years, “Twilight” is the Stephanie Meyer “vampire” book series-turned-movie craze that has all the little sparkle-ridden tweens running for the area of Forks, Wash.

I say “vampire” because I’d like to make one thing clear: Vampires don’t sparkle.

Vampires seduce and kill humans by ripping into whatever vein they choose and bleeding their human prey dry. Yeah. Human prey.

Sure, some vampires choose to eat animals, but not an entire brood! Brood is a great way to describe the throngs and throngs of Twi-hards that storm every movie theater and distributor at least twice for every new entrance into the saga.

I want to give you an idea of what we are dealing with here, so let’s compare these media atrocities to something a little more standard: Zombies.

When you compare the zombie hype to the “team Edward or team Jacob” nonsense, zombies are pale by comparison. To illustrate my point I’ve done some math for you (now if only I could put this much effort into some real math).

The “Twilight” saga has four movies released so far that I was able to find box office information on from 2008 up to this month. Among these 4 movies, the gross opening weekend total in the USA, according to IMDB.com and boxofficemojo.com, was $419,132,978. That is an average of $104,783,244.50 per movie.

The totals for zombie movies were a little bit harder to come by, however. I endured through the pages upon pages of zombie movies released from 2008 until now to bring to you the most accurate numbers I can find from movies actually released in theaters.

According to IMDB.com, USA zombie opening weekend totals ran about $136,226,264 between the seven major zombie movies I found listed in that time frame. Average that out and you come up with a total of about $19,460,895 per movie. For those who just don’t want to complete the math on your own, that is roughly an $85,322,349 difference. Like I said—these are just estimates.

“Heather, why do you have such a vendetta against ‘Twilight?’”

I grew up on the vicious vampire world of Lestat and Louis where, though still full of turmoil, they were strong and violent, as vampires have always been—not sparkly and able to maneuver in the daylight.

 That wasn’t too violent for me when I was a teenager, and it wasn’t too graphic. It was plain old scary fantasy to me. So my point in all of this, if I may hop up on my soapbox momentarily, is simple: Vampires just aren’t what they used to be because teens aren’t what they used to be.

I understand that times change and opinions change, and maybe I’m getting too far into the “back in my day” mindset for this topic, but, come on! Vampires are an age-old legend, and in my opinion the “Twilight” saga just kind of took that and ran it right off the proverbial track.

In all fairness, I will give credit where credit is due; Stephanie Meyer is brilliant for marketing toward today’s teens. But for derailing the very thing I grew up on, I give Stephanie Meyer 5 out of 5 sparkles and a rainy day in good ol’ Forks in Washington state!