10.11.2009
31 Days of Horror: The Ghoul
The Ghoul is a 1933 British horror movie that stars Boris Karloff as a Professor obsessed with Egyptian artifacts and with living forever. He believes that when he dies as long as he has an amulet called the eternal light with him - he will gain eternal life. But if the amulet is stolen - Karloff will rise from his grave and kill! Karloff dies and everything is fine. And then some unscrupulous bastard steals the amulet.
The movie was once considered a lost film. And then an incomplete and badly damaged Czech print appeared. It wasn't much but it was something. Then a complete print was found in the archives of the British Film Institute.
It was the first sound British horror movie and features a brilliantly over the top performance from Karloff. The film is stunningly shot and pretty creepy at times. There is a lack of any real likable characters but the movie moves fast enough and Karloff is always watchable.
While it's amazing that this movie has found - there doesn't seem to be any trailers for it. The best I can do is a couple of clips showcasing Karloff's brilliant acting.
Daily Python: Christian Edition
Just for Sunday, from the genius that is Monty Python's Life Of Brian.
For some reason, Brian doesn't seem to want to look on the bright side of life. Go figure.
Our week-long celebration of Monty Python's 40th anniversary wraps up tomorrow.
For some reason, Brian doesn't seem to want to look on the bright side of life. Go figure.
Our week-long celebration of Monty Python's 40th anniversary wraps up tomorrow.
It's finally happened
With Marge Simpson posing in this month's Playboy magazine (E Online) the inevitable has happened. Every American woman over the age of majority who wants to be in porn has been in porn.
EDIT... Yeah, well, Rod Pedersen could use the traffic, anyway.
Sunday Sermon
Values, values, values, values. In the United States those invoking the term often (if not usually) use it to justify their own gruesomely immoral attempts to deny others freedoms and resources. Welfare for the poor, health care for everyone, the right to marry whoever one wants, the freedom to choose to end a pregnancy. Can't do it folks, goes against American values.
Whatever. It's cartoonishly predictable. When I hear an American say "values" I think theirs are probably deformed.
There are probably exceptions, but if the word hasn't been ruined it's damn close to it.
Getting to my point: last night, Nobel prizewinner-designate Barack Obama addressed gay and lesbian activists at a Human Rights campaign dinner in Washington, DC--and he talked a good game (New York Times). He said it was time to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), the Clinton-era (or should I say Newt Gingrich-era?) policy that says homosexuals must be discharged from the military if they're honest about their sexual orientation. He also "called on Congress to repeal the Defence Of Marriage Act [DOMA]," which lets states ban gay marriage and says the federal government position is that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Well, those are values I think most prairie dog readerswould agree with.
The problem, according to activists, is that the president could effectively end DADT by using executive powers to suspend its enforcement. And he hasn't.
As for DOMA, Obama shat the bed last spring when his administration defended the act by comparing homosexuality to incest (New York Times again).
Unlike Canadians, who can marry who they like regardless what their crotches look like (no thanks to Stephen Harper's conservatives, who fought against gay rights tooth and nail--please don't ever, ever vote for them), American gays and lesbians have to put up with unbelievable amounts of bullshit, mostly coming out the mouths of "value voter" bible-thumpers.
In fact in the United States, support for gay marriage is well below 50 per cent. Although I note that non-churchgoing catholics, Hispanics and people under 30 buck the trend. Who's the worst? Southerners (not by as much as you might think though), protestants who go to church every week and Conservative Republicans. (There's a difference between the last two?)
The link is to the Pew Research Centre, and it's recommended reading--very interesting stuff in a pleasing, easy to understand chart.
Given all this, it's probably not a big surprise there's a rally in Washington today to remind the president and Democrats it's time to stop talking and start doing. (Washington Post)
Will they? Who knows. Obama's actually said he's against gay marriage, so either he's a bigot or he's lying for political insurance.
I guess gay and lesbian Americans should hope he's a liar?
Whatever. It's cartoonishly predictable. When I hear an American say "values" I think theirs are probably deformed.
There are probably exceptions, but if the word hasn't been ruined it's damn close to it.
Getting to my point: last night, Nobel prizewinner-designate Barack Obama addressed gay and lesbian activists at a Human Rights campaign dinner in Washington, DC--and he talked a good game (New York Times). He said it was time to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), the Clinton-era (or should I say Newt Gingrich-era?) policy that says homosexuals must be discharged from the military if they're honest about their sexual orientation. He also "called on Congress to repeal the Defence Of Marriage Act [DOMA]," which lets states ban gay marriage and says the federal government position is that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Well, those are values I think most prairie dog readerswould agree with.
The problem, according to activists, is that the president could effectively end DADT by using executive powers to suspend its enforcement. And he hasn't.
As for DOMA, Obama shat the bed last spring when his administration defended the act by comparing homosexuality to incest (New York Times again).
Unlike Canadians, who can marry who they like regardless what their crotches look like (no thanks to Stephen Harper's conservatives, who fought against gay rights tooth and nail--please don't ever, ever vote for them), American gays and lesbians have to put up with unbelievable amounts of bullshit, mostly coming out the mouths of "value voter" bible-thumpers.
In fact in the United States, support for gay marriage is well below 50 per cent. Although I note that non-churchgoing catholics, Hispanics and people under 30 buck the trend. Who's the worst? Southerners (not by as much as you might think though), protestants who go to church every week and Conservative Republicans. (There's a difference between the last two?)
The link is to the Pew Research Centre, and it's recommended reading--very interesting stuff in a pleasing, easy to understand chart.
Given all this, it's probably not a big surprise there's a rally in Washington today to remind the president and Democrats it's time to stop talking and start doing. (Washington Post)
Will they? Who knows. Obama's actually said he's against gay marriage, so either he's a bigot or he's lying for political insurance.
I guess gay and lesbian Americans should hope he's a liar?
Pick of the Day: The Girlfriend Experience
I'm not sure how relevant it is to the plot, but this film by Steven Soderbergh is set in the weeks leading up to the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Its stars real-life adult film star Sasha Grey as a $2000 an hour Manhattan call girl named Chelsea who, as the film's title implies, offers clients more than just sex.
I haven't done any research on this, but whereas some men who pay women for sexual services probably get off on the idea of power-tripping on them, other men might feel a certain amount of shame at what they have been reduced to doing, and desperately crave the illusion of love and intimacy.
That's what Chelsea gives her clients -- sort of. All is well, even her boyfriend is semi-cool with what she does, until Chelsea finds herself falling for a new client named Barack. No, not really. The client's name is Philip. Although given the time period in which the movie is set, it might possibly be read as an allegory on the corrupt nature of modern politics and the illusion of principled leadership and civic dedication that politicians profess to provide. Or not. I'd have to see the film, which screens tonight at the RPL Theatre at 7 p.m., to be sure.
Here's the trailer. (YouTube)
I haven't done any research on this, but whereas some men who pay women for sexual services probably get off on the idea of power-tripping on them, other men might feel a certain amount of shame at what they have been reduced to doing, and desperately crave the illusion of love and intimacy.
That's what Chelsea gives her clients -- sort of. All is well, even her boyfriend is semi-cool with what she does, until Chelsea finds herself falling for a new client named Barack. No, not really. The client's name is Philip. Although given the time period in which the movie is set, it might possibly be read as an allegory on the corrupt nature of modern politics and the illusion of principled leadership and civic dedication that politicians profess to provide. Or not. I'd have to see the film, which screens tonight at the RPL Theatre at 7 p.m., to be sure.
Here's the trailer. (YouTube)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)