.., Bernie met Jason in Friday 13th Part 7, The New Blood (1988): Dir John Carl Buechler
Nemeses: noun ( pl. -ses |-ˌsēz|) (usu. one’s nemesis)the inescapable or implacable agent of someone’s or something’s downfall
5. Ashley ‘Ash’ J Williams (played by Bruce Campbell)
Deadly Movies Cameos | Linda Blair in Scream (1996)
Twenty three years earlier she was vomiting on priests, doing very bad things in front of her mother, and 360’ing her swede, then in 1996 Wes Craven deployed Linda Blair in the best of the Scream franchise cameos. It’s fantastically short, as good cameos should be, lasting less than 10 seconds. Blair plays ‘Obnoxious Reporter’ strutting up to Sydney (Neve Campbell) and belting out the great line ‘how does it feel to almost be brutally butchered?!’. How Wes Craven must have enjoyed waking up for this day of shooting. There’s always something very cool about seeing different generations of final girls sharing a bit of screen time.
Deadly Movie Connections: Bishop, Played by Lance Henriksen in Aliens (1986), Alien3 (1992), and Alien vs. Predictor (2004)
Aliens (1986): Dir James Cameron. The android Bishop would first appear as an advanced model of the Ash android (Alien 1979 played by Ian Holm). Bishop is the executive officer aboard the military vessel Sulaco, destined for a rescue mission on LV-426. Bishop is essentially a strategic planner who’s primary function is to aid human survival by any means necessary, which he achieves to heroic levels when being torn in half by the Alien Queen. Of course as an android this is less of a fatal guts-spill and more of a spiny rainbow ball.
Alien3 (1992): Dir David Fincher. Bishop would also appear during the finale of Alien3 billed as Bishop II who claims to be the designer of the Bishop range. After a bit of a skirmish with want away prisoner Morse and his monkey-wrench, Bishop II clearly bleeds from the head (a scene accentuated in the 2003 Assembly Cut whereby Bishop II’s entire ear is hanging off). Blood would indicate that Bishop II is human right? Well Alien lineage teaches us that droids are filled with a milky white goop (see Ash’s decapitation in Alien, Bishop’s torso and legs separation in Aliens, and Call’s weepy wounds in Alien Resurrection) rather than blood. So at this stage Bishop II is either A) a human with a very high pain threshold, or B) an advanced model of android that utilises human tissue (think Terminator). Rumour has it that in the original screenplay Bishop II was indeed a human, a fact backed up by the novelisation whereby Bishop II is a human called Michael Bishop. This ambiguity however left the door ajar for one Paul W S Anderson (cough, asshole, cough).
AVP Alien vs. Predator (2004): Dir Paul W S Anderson. Now it gets confusing. Henriksen plays Charles Bishop Weyland, a rather coarse attempt to bridge both the matter of where the Bishop android derived from and the origin of the infamous Weyland-Yutani company. So Charles Bishop Weyland both looks like the android Bishop and owns one half of the company that would go on to form the super conglomerate that would build said Bishop’s. Coincidence? So it’s pretty obvious what we’re being asked to derive from this, Charles Bishop Weyland is the inventor of the android technology and the inspiration for its appearance. Which is a very tender move by the future scientists who think of this homage to Mr Weyland some 168 years in the future, one of the many glorious timeline problems caused by this movie (I wonder if future Mac robots will look like, and be called, Steve Jobs?) . Which brings us back to the troubling appearance of Bishop II in Alien3 and adding a third variable to the conundrum that C) Bishop II is the spitting-image direct descendent of Charles Bishop Weyland, let’s say great great grandson, which would account for the blood. Hmmmm.
In conclusion: To conclude my almost pointlessly deep investigation into the character of Bishop in the Alien franchise I give you final hypothesis: Bishop is an android developed somewhere between the events of Alien and Aliens, let’s say in the year 2160’ish. He is a product of the Weyland-Yutani corporation whose physical appearance was based on that of one of the companies founding fathers Charles Bishop Weyland. Bishop II (although originally intended to be human in the original Alien3 screenplay) is an advanced form of android who is covered in living tissue (due to the new continuity added by AVP). Done and done.
Case Date 1933: Here’s an intriguing revelation that’s only known to Mole People, Richard Nixon, and 45 year-old men who work at Forbidden Planet. During the 1930s it would appear that various Japanese studios turned out knock-off King Kong (or Kingu Kongu in Japanese-English) films that were only ever given domestic release due to the incredibly blatant copyright infringement. You’ve got to admire the balls of steel approach by these on-the-fly filmmakers, cashing in on the popularity of Hollywood releases. These were, in effect, 1930s versions of today’s direct to DVD movies.., Outrageousu! (click the poster image to enlarge)
What adds to their mystique is that all three copies are lost to time. The most likely cause of this loss? The US atomic bombings in 1945. Whatever the cause, the image to the left would seem to be the only surviving still from any of these three films, most likely from 1933’s Wasei Kingu Kongu (aka Japanese King Kong 1933)
According to multiple online sources Japanese studio Sochikuh (which still exists in one way or another in Kyoto Japan) produced a quick replica of 1933s King Kong in the same year. Wasei Kingu Kongu or literally ‘Japanese King Kong’ was apparently as good as a literal remake or straight copy. Then there is King Kong Appears in Edu which appears to be some kind of bizarre period drama. Edu being the name for Tokyo prior to 1868. This film was produced by the Zensho Kinema studio which ceased making films in 1940. This, rumour has it, featured Kong fighting giant insects and bashing up old-school Japanese architecture.
As for King Kong Zenkouhen.., No-one seems to know what the hell this is about, or if it really existed in the first place. Indeed it may be the case that King Kong Zenkouhen is in fact King Kong Appears in Edu, but we may never know as all prints are lost. Many state King Kong Appears in Edu as being released in 1934, however records have the production studio, Zensho Kinema, only existing between 1938 and 1940 giving extra weight to the theory that the these two films are indeed one and the same.
Whatever the truth behind these obscure films consider this; It would appear that these Kong rip offs pre-date the man-in-rubber-suit films made famous by Toho’s Godzilla by some 16 years or so. In which case, for better or worse, they deserve their rightful recognition in Monster Movie history.
For more Deadly Movies information on King Kong adsurdities take a look at these gems
Deadly Movies Reviews | ‘Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid’ (2004)
As far as guilty pleasures go this is right up there for me. It’s the sort of film that you only confess your love of to close friends, film comrades, or that person you end up cornering when drunk at a house party. You know you shouldn’t like it but you do, and you don’t just tolerate it but you genuinely enjoy it time and time again. Before you know it you are on multiple viewings and looking the cast up on IMDB. This bodes the obvious question.., Why?
Deadly Movies takes a look at representing the future of space travel
Thunderbirds creator Gerry Anderson (along with Sylvia Anderson) wrote, produced, and of course created the miniatures for the 1969 Sci-fi film Journey to The Far Side of The Sun. Now for me this film has faults way beyond that of the realisation of the future, but it was this particular movie future that got me thinking; How best to represent the future on film? In Anderson’s film, for example, never has the future looked more like 1969. Complete with knee high boots, bob haircuts, mini skirts, egg chairs, and plenty of psychedelia. Now of course films should be watched in the historic, cultural, and social context of which they were made, and Journey to The Far Side of The Sun certainly isn’t the only culprit when it comes to pimping the present out as the future. Take the greatness of Arnie’s Total Recall; great film but set in a future that’s more Walkman than Ipod. That’s what I’m getting at, you could pull up multiple examples from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Don’t get me wrong outdated technology is often part of the charm, but what can really throw a phaser in the works is if the fashions of the day (or fifteen minute phase) are so sewn into the visual fabric of the film that it acts as a distraction rather than a compliment. And that was indeed the case with Journey to The Far Side of The Sun.
While it’s easy to point the finger at previous attempts at (re)creating the future, you have to remember that these films were once cutting edge and that our contemporary takes on what lies ahead may well one day seem laughable. But this doesn’t mean that filmic representations of the future are doomed to ridicule. There are shining beacons of visual hope, path blazers of concept and set design that achieved the almost impossible by creating a future that, to date at least, for the new viewer cant be dated by hair-do’s, fashions, furnishings, slang, or pop references. They are the sci-fi films who’s directors, cinematographers, set designers, costume designers, and conceptual artists have given us timeless settings by which we can bathe in a film that could be a glimpse of tomorrow. Look at Fritz Lang’s timeless Metropolis (1927), or the simple lines and neutral colours used in Alien (1979) likewise some of the amazing sets seen in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) or the mixing of cultures, periods, and ethnic design in Blade Runner (1982). These visual wonders have kept things simple and not of the period. Yes characters may smoke and there may even be the odd perm or flattop, but the effort and understanding was there that to be of the future the film must have a healthy distance from the present.