vitriol - Horrorphile

Horrorphile

follow this blog

543 followers

4960 daily readers

rank of 1

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

vitriol - Horrorphile

HORRORPHILE VIOLATES GOOGLE CONTENT POLICY

May 24th 2010 01:24

As you can see above and below, I no longer have any advertising. It seems my appreciation of horror in art and popular culture, in particular movies, has got me into trouble with the big boys at Google and their Ad-Sense programme. According to their programme policy “publishers may not place AdSense code on pages with content that violates any of our content guidelines. Some examples include content that is adult, violent or advocating racial intolerance.

Sites with Google ads may not include or link to:
• Pornography, adult or mature content
• Violent content
• Content related to racial intolerance or advocacy against any individual, group or organisation
• Excessive profanity …”

Well, it seems I’ve breached their guidelines and violated their content policy. I received an email from Google late last week which informed me that upon reviewing my account they noticed I was displaying Google Ads in a manner that was not compliant with their policies. According to Google “As stated in our program policies, AdSense publishers are not permitted to place Google ads on pages with violent content. This includes sites with content related to breaking bones, getting hit by trains or cars, or people receiving serious injuries.”

Horrorphile – Pleasure of Nightmares primarily reviews and discusses horror movies, or as I call them “nightmare movies”. Of course the subject matter is going to be adult or mature, and will contain violent content; this is the very nature of horror, whether it is explicit or implicit. I’m not advocating using violence in real life, nor am I promoting pornography, but I’d be a hypocrite if I said the links between sex and death should not be inferred within the horror genre. I certainly don’t advocate racial intolerance, but I use the odd expletive, I take the Lord's name in vain from time to time, and I champion the drinking of beer when watching a movie, but I’m hardly excessively profane.

The programme content guidelines list numerous other restrictions, of which I can safely say I do not feature or provide links to any of it. I’ll admit that I never read in detail all of Ad-Sense’s content policy guidelines, an assumption on my behalf that has landed me in hot water. However it concerns me greatly that Google have taken these steps without actually looking at the bigger picture. My blog is not about reality, it’s about the fictional realm of movies. My site receives over 10,000 hits a day. I’m no Bloody Disgusting, I’ll admit, but I must be providing a few extra bucks in the pockets of the Google advertisers. Apparently not enough.

Google states their decision is final, however if I make appropriate changes to bring my site into compliance they may enable ad serving again, but this is not possible for all cases. I’m not about to censor myself, so instead I’ll retreat back inside the Darkness with my loyal True Believers, lick my wounds, and evaluate my advertising options.

391

Vote

Comments (51)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: vitriol

Email this Post to a Friend

FOR THE CRITICS AND THOSE THAT DON'T LIKE PARANORMAL ACTIVITY

December 7th 2009 23:22

Paranormal Activity Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat

By now if you live in the Northern Hemisphere you’ll probably have seen Paranormal Activity (2009), and if you live in Australasia where the movie has only recently opened then you’ll either have just seen it or are planning to, or will have decided to catch up with it on DVD after all the hype has died down, or maybe, just maybe, you’re avoiding it because you’re concerned you’ll be genuinely terrified. Don’t listen to the cynical types and don’t watch the trailer, just go see the movie with a packed audience.

It was inevitable that the movie would receive mixed reviews. Fair enough, the acting isn’t anything amazing, there’s a grain of salt that has to be consumed (that Micah continues to video long after anyone in their right mind would do so) for such a movie to work, but for what it sets out to do it does it very, very well. I’m disappointed with Australian film critics who have slammed the movie for reasons unwarranted. David Stratton (ABC’s At the Movies) gave the movie 1-and-a-half stars and called it “extremely unthrilling, very obvious, and very clichéd”, Sandra Hall (Sydney Morning Herald) gave it 1 star and described it as a lame Hollywood con job, and Tom Ryan (The Sun-Herald) gave it 3/10 in a vacuous spit, except to wonder “… I guess it worked for somebody.”

Hall and Ryan spent most of their respective reviews trying to explain and/or rationalise the movie’s technique and success, and along with Stratton, they all seem to exhibit a general distaste for modern horror. Horror is about manipulation, plain and simple. At the Popcorn Taxi screening of Antichrist (2009) some idiot in the audience criticised Lars von Trier during the Q&A for manipulating him. Sandra Hall slams Paranormal Activity for being a con job. Stratton gives Roland Emmerich’s disaster flick 2012 (2009) 3-and-a-half stars and justifies the movie’s intent, yet completely misses the point of Paranormal Activity. At least Stratton’s long-time colleague Margaret Pomeranz has her head screwed on right; she gave the movie 4 stars acknowledging she enjoys horror movies and she found the movie clever because of its restraint.

Paranormal Activity is clever filmmaking. And not just because of its economy; writer/director Oren Peli made the movie for $US15,000, half of what The Blair Witch Project (1999) cost. Both movies will be forever compared, since they both use a very similar tactic – exhibiting the movie as “found footage” – which is a deliberate conceit, and gives the movie its edge of “authenticity”. The movie shouldn’t be criticized for this staged reality, if it convinces an audience then hats off to the filmmakers, for one of the most basic elements of a horror movie is to engulf the viewer in the movie’s atmosphere so that you feel the fear in a palpable way. The Blair Witch Project did this superbly, and Paranormal Activity does it too.

Part of the movie’s entertainment is the anticipation, the dread. As soon as we’re a few nights into the narrative, and some freaky stuff has started to happen, that’s when the movie becomes seriously loaded. Each time we return to the night vision camera set up on a tripod in the corner of the room and Micah and Katie are asleep, and the editing speed ramps so the digital clock in the right hand corner whizzes through the hours ‘til the middle of the night, then abruptly stops … The audience collectively moans in exhilarated distress, ‘cos we know the spooky shit is gonna get worse.

As much as I champion Paranormal Activity to be seen in the cinemas, part of me wishes it had never been hyped the way it has, so that it could be this unknown DVD release that I’m telling all my friends to rent. That way no one would’ve seen the posters and trailers riddled with critics’ superlatives. Hype can be such an ironically damaging beast.

Still, the movie is doing phenomenal box office down under; it is now the biggest horror movie of the decade. To quote clueless Tom Ryan: “I guess it worked for somebody.”

110

Vote

Comments (11)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: vitriol

Email this Post to a Friend

THEY BAN TORTURE PORN, DON'T THEY?

October 15th 2009 23:18

A curious, belated piece of news came to my attention yesterday as I was searching for a clip on youtube. Someone had uploaded a short New Zealand television news piece from 2007 that addressed how the Office of Film and Literature Classification in NZ had made the decision to ban the theatrical release of Eli Roth’s Hostel: Part II (2007), but probably would allow the movie to be released on DVD later, however minus a scene they felt to be too offensive for the common good.

The scene they found to so objectionable was, perhaps a little contentiously, one of the movie’s highlights; the “Elizabeth Bathory” sequence where a client gets to slice open a young girl who’s hanging upside down like a pig on its way to be slaughtered. It’s a potent nightmare moment that juxtaposes the extreme dark pleasure of the older woman and the abject terror of the innocent younger girl; Mrs Bathory (Monica Malacova) paying top dollar to indulge her wildest, darkest desire, and the poor young tourist (Heather Matarazzo) who’s been abducted and ended up as a disposable horror toy. But hang on, there’s another scene in the movie which involves gleeful castration,now isn’t that just as morally volatile? Seems a double standard rears its ugly head.

This bloodbath a no-no said NZ Chief Censor

Hostel: Part II was better than Hostel (2006). Others will disagree, but I found the sequel to be more disturbing, more intelligent and intriguing (even though the conceit of the original is laid bare, and even though the whole idea is far-fetched), far more atmospheric (in that sumptuous, elusive Euro fashion), and much more convincing with its special effects (most of the first movie’s prosthetic work looked too rubbery). All these elements were integral for the movie to work well. It’s a hardcore horror movie; it takes no prisoners.

I remember when Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988) came out I read that it had been banned in Queensland. My friend and I shook our heads, pitying the poor Australians who were being denied such a fabulously imaginative and indulgent nightmare. It’s always the wicked and tenebrous ones that are deemed “problematic”. More to the point, it’s the beef of the chief censor that’s gone rotten. They’ve got a bone to pick, ‘cos a raw nerve was hit, and they want a scapegoat.

Kiwis were denied a cinema screening ...

Kiwi Chief Censor Bill Hastings (who looks like a right tosser) made the final decision that the scene in Hostel: Part II had taken things too far, and so he was denying the discerning public the right to make up their own minds. According to Hastings; “The sadistic violence was combined with the protagonist taking sexual pleasure from the torture and killing of the victim.”

Oh, so it’s fine to screen the Saw series that delights and wallows deeply in graphic sadism, yet one scene in another “torture porn” movie that depicts behaviour tenuously linked to sexual pleasure is deemed beyond the pale. Apparently if sexual arousal is involved its taboo. Society has such strange moral codes.

... and the NZ DVD release got butchered

Fuck, I loathe censorship! Pardon my French. I mean, for the most part I abhor how a small, supposedly intelligent-minded protectorate, has the power to tell us what we can and cannot see in the world of art. Censorship is a can o’ worms, I know, but before I get too carried away, I will say that there is some material released to the public that is reprehensible, but not Hostel: Part II. I Spit on Your Grave (1978) and Last House on the Left (1972) are far more dodgy movies in they way their content is presented. But more so, these movies have little to no artistic merit to them whatsoever, and that’s the real crime! Movies made that scrap the bottom of the aesthetic barrel should be banned, or at least have a big sticker on the poster or the DVD cover that warns any potential viewer that there are virtually no production values, intelligence, style, or atmosphere to be found in the following 90-odd minutes.

For the record, Hostel: Part II was released uncut in USA, UK and Australia. Two other countries joined NZ’s precedent; Malaysia it was banned outright, and in Germany a slightly cut version was allowed as an “Unrated” theatrical release (the uncut was banned).

Here’s the news piece:

Vote

Comments (9)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: vitriol

Email this Post to a Friend

A SAD STATE of AFFAIRS

August 10th 2009 00:45

The latest Australian issue of Empire magazine has a short article which lists all the Hollywood remakes that are currently in development, pre-production, or production. It’s a scary list indeed, chiefly because the majority of them are horror remakes (science fiction comes a close second). But it’s not just the cheesy dumb ones; many bonafide classics are being given the royal reboot.

With the additional news of Ridley Scott signing on to helm a prequel to Alien it’s a very sad state of affairs. Nothing is sacred, no movie is considered too cool to plunder. The 80s are well and truly being exploited for the Y-generation who is being force-fed soylent cinema green by Tinseltown. You’ll be familiar with some of these titles being remade, while others will leave you shaking your head. Here’s what’s on the menu of high art and deep trash nightmare revisited

[ Click here to read more ]

181

Vote

Comments (17)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: vitriol

Email this Post to a Friend

THOU SHALT NOT PLUNDER ... (a post remake)

October 10th 2008 01:54

I’ll try to keep it brief; I don’t want to sound like a stuck record (although I am starting to sound like a stuck record if you check any of the posts in my vitriol category). Remakes: they give me the shits. As a rule that is, but of course there are exceptions to any rule.

Jessica Harper is disturbed by the prospect of Hollywood remaking Suspiria

Slowly and surely all the modern horror movies are being remade. It’s depressing. Especially when there is nothing wrong with the original, it does everything right, yet the Hollywood machine is programmed to run in circles forever plundering and re-cycling the past instead of invigorating cinema with fresh untapped blood.

John Hurt writhes in agony at the thought of a remake of Alien

I was dismayed when I first learned that George Romero’s seminal Dawn of the Dead (1978) was going to be given the re-envisioning treatment. However, in one of those rare examples Zack Synder’s new look turned out to be rather excellent. However I was utterly mortified when two of my very favourites were plundered: John Carpenter’s Halloween (1978) and George Romero’s Day of the Dead (1985). Rob Zombie completely fucked up as far as I’m concerned, and the less said of Day of the Dead (2008) the better

[ Click here to read more ]

102

Vote

Comments (8)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: vitriol

Email this Post to a Friend

THE KILLING FLOOR (gore on the cutting room floor)

July 30th 2008 00:31

It’s time for another diatribe. With many, many horror titles being released straight to DVD these days there is a much touted plus factor the distributors try to lure the potential renter/purchaser with: the unrated tag. But just how accurate, or to be more precise, just how rewarding is it?

In America it is optional to submit your movie to the ratings board, the Motion Picture Association of America, which was created in 1968 after the dismantling of the rigid, tyrannical Hays Production Code. A few more changes happened over the years the most significant being in 1984 with the addition of the PG-13 and in 1990 with the changing of the X rating to NC-17 (the same restriction is in place – no one under 17 admitted – but the “porn” stigma was dampened

[ Click here to read more ]

111

Vote

Comments (12)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: vitriol

Email this Post to a Friend

The (DIS)ILLUSION of CGI effects

May 15th 2008 00:22

Now before I launch into my tirade, let me make it clear that CGI effects in movies frequently look incredibly impressive and justifiably need to be used because there would be no other way to realistically achieve the look the director desires. Movies such as Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park (1993) and The Lost World (1997), and Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-03) and King Kong (2005) are perfect examples.

Peter Jackson's King Kong embraces CGI superbly

What frustrates and, ultimately, disappoints me is the use (and there seems to be more and more of it) of CGI effects being employed in horror movies in place of the “old school” prosthetic, mechanical and animatronic effects. Call me old fashioned but I just don’t buy it. They don’t have nearly the same visceral power or palpable impact as effects which are engineered and executed in front of the camera and filmed!

For a director who says he loves his old school, Rob Zombie used too much CGI for my liking

Take for example the “re-imagining” (Hmph! Re-imagine my arse!) of Day of the Dead (2008). It has some token prosthetic make-up on the zombie faces adding wounds and lacerations, but the camera never lingers long enough to appreciate the effects work (probably because the make-up wasn’t that good in the first place). But virtually all the gore and blood effects have been CGI-ed. It’s abysmal.

[ Click here to read more ]

158

Vote

Comments (23)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: vitriol

Email this Post to a Friend

Some horrors WILL, some horrors WON'T ...

January 22nd 2008 06:19

… Some horrors kick some bloody butt, and some horrors really don’t.

So what makes a horror a good horror, while so many are bad, in all the wrong ways? Many horror filmmakers think they can get away with a lot; mediocre to lousy acting, cheap special effects, shooting in available light, because they think as long as the movie is “nasty” and “violent” and “hip” and sports some gratuitous nudity then they’ll be able to sell it and have it distributed no probs

[ Click here to read more ]

124

Vote

Comments (6)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: vitriol

Email this Post to a Friend

The RE-IMAGINING of the SEQUEL to the REMAKE of the PREQUEL - THE FINAL GRIPE

October 19th 2007 00:09

I ain’t finished. Not yet. Just wait; no doubt in a couple of months I’ll be writing a post entitled Re-Envisionings: A New Beginning. And the vitriol will be laid on thick with a garden trowel, as savagely as the little girl in Night of the Living Dead (1968).

We are living in dark times, desperate measures, clutching at cinematic straws. Well, not us per se, but the insidious Hollywood machine. The 80s weren’t this bad, but we felt it. It had begun in earnest during the latter part of the 70s, but it went a little crazy during the 80s, then in the 90s it escalated a little more. Now, in the new millennium, sequel/prequel/remake mania has reached critical mass

[ Click here to read more ]

117

Vote

Comments (6)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: vitriol

Email this Post to a Friend

CULT CLASSICS being REMADE ... The situation is OUT OF CONTROL!

August 9th 2007 01:36

Day of the Dead (2007) teaser movie poster

The future looks grim. Hollywood is running out of ideas. They’ve been behind the 8-ball for a couple of decades but the situation is reaching critical mass. Now the rest of world is falling into the same filthy, muddy ditch. Europe and elsewhere are deciding remakes are the way to go.

Many of the following films are bona fide cult classics and should not be touched with a damn bargepole! Some are trashier and perhaps, perhaps, a remake might inject some blood’n’guts juice that the original lacked, although often that trashy element is what makes the movie so much fun in the first place

[ Click here to read more ]

130

Vote

Comments (9)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: vitriol

Email this Post to a Friend

SEQUEL or PREQUEL ... is that the question?

July 24th 2007 01:49

I come back to this dilemma time and time again. I’m not a stuck record, I’m a stuck pig! Squeeeeeaall!!!! There is no dilemma, there should not be sequels. Well, I guess I’ll admit that there are a handful of exceptions where there has been enough savvy and sophistication employed into a movie sequel, and the audience doesn’t feel like the original has been done a disservice.

There are some which have taken the sequel to utterly absurd lengths. We know the culprits. One dons an ice hockey mask, the other wears awkward gloves. And there have been sequels which, arguably, are at least as interesting as the original, and in some camps they are even preferred over the original. Two examples of the latter are a bunch of eight-feet-tall, dual-jawed, acid-for-blood ETs, and the other is a sociopath doctor hiding out in Italy who indulges his taste for human liver with a nice glass of Chianti

[ Click here to read more ]

126

Vote

Comments (17)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: vitriol

Email this Post to a Friend

HOSTILE at Hostel

June 27th 2007 00:29

I’ve got some flesh and bone to pick. Splinters digging into the palm of my hand that I need to pluck out. Those splinters are righteous social commentators and film critics who miss the point.

In last weekend’s The Sun-Herald columnist Miranda Devine had a short side-article headed up “Sick flick plumbs depths”. In it she blasted Hostel: Part II (2007) as being “the most disgusting, sadistic torture-porn movie ever to hit mainstream cinema”. Further on in the brief article Devine admits she hasn’t seen the movie, but then quotes Paul, an “aggrieved Sydney father” who expressed his disgust in an email saying; “What is Greater Union doing screening [the movie] daily now that the school holidays have started? Do [they] have no respect for suburban families? Am I supposed to be watching Shrek 3 with my kids knowing in the next room there are distressed women being ferociously beaten [on screen

[ Click here to read more ]

132

Vote

Comments (12)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: vitriol

Email this Post to a Friend

[ Horrorphile Home ] [ Create A New Post ]

Moderated by Bryn

Orble

Orble Homepage

Start an Orble Blog