Reviews

summary: a promising concept is poorly executed, resulting in an uninspired & cliched romantic comedy about a music mogul and a wannabe pop star.

the concept for this made for t.v. film had potential: a farce about how the music industry manufactures, hypes, and sells "pop stars". This film takes the farce further by having the music moguls manufacture the ETHNICITY of our protagonist (Maggie) as well as her image (drawing attention to yet another feature of corporate music: exploiting a fad to maximize profit--in this case the recent "Latin pop music" explosion heralded by Ricky Martin).

Maggie is a Latina struggling in LA, but she is not sufficiently "ethnic" in the eyes of her agent or the music studio--so she is "taught" how to be a "real" Latina by her ethnicity coaches. This is a perverse, but an often accurate depiction of what happens in the music & film industries, in the sense that corporate music & film utilize ethnic stereotypes to sell their products. These corporate images of how a "genuine" Latina, Chicana, Asian, Pacific Islander, etc. acts, behaves and speaks reinforces the stereotype even further. [ASIDE: is the film taking jabs at Christina Aguilera? if so, bravo! one wonders if Christina, like Maggie in the movie, needed to have language coaches to ensure she sang the lyrics correctly on the album she recorded for the Latin market.)

Unfortunately, this film doesn't provide a deep analysis of ethnic identity, or how ethnicity is manufactured and defined by media conglomerates, or how damaging these stereotypes can be. Instead, the film employs the very same ethnic stereotypes it hopes to critique--but perhaps I am being unfair, since it is a farce after all.

Regardless, the film's campy humor falls flat, the dialogue is simply banal and the plot is so cliched that my wife and I were able to predict plot developments (and even dialogue in crucial scenes) with horrifying accuracy. The end result: we were bored to tears.

So why did I continue to watch this film--painful as it was? I confess, I love Camille Gauty. I first noticed her when she was a contestant on a reality tv show (which, ironically, was about "making a girl pop-music group"). Gauty almost made the final cut...the musical act (sans-Gauty) would later name themselves "Eden's Crush" (remember them?). I can't verify this, but I suspect that one of the reasons why Gauty was cast in "30 Days..." was because.... well, because Gauty herself wanted to be a pop music star!

VERDICT: do yourself a favor and watch "COOL AS ICE" instead of "30 DAYS..."--you'll get to see Vanilla Ice (a bonafide pop star instead of a fictional one) in his prime. Ironically, Vanilla, later in his career, would face a dilemma not unlike Maggie faced in "30 DAYS": was he selling himself out when he reinvented himself as a "gangsta" rapper for his comeback album "the funky headhunter"? In "30 DAYS..." Maggie ultimately decided not to sell out and dropped her "Solita" persona. Vanilla, however...

"Bloody ape!!!", Rajasaheb (Amrish Puri) mutters.

Folks, Bollywood action films are NEVER merely action films--they are often a fabulously preposterous melding of action, romance, comedy, and musical genres INTO ONE FILM! In fact, many of the Bollywood films I've had the pleasure of seeing simply do NOT conform to any of the narrow genres that U.S. audiences are accustomed to. Sure, we have hybrids such as the "romantic-comedy" and "comedy-horror", and perhaps even "action-thriller-romance"...but we ain't got NOTHIN' equivalent to the glorious Bollywood-type films from south asia (India in particular).

One moment Koyla is a brutal action flick a la Bronson (gratuitous and graphic violence and carnage), the next moment Shah Rukh Khan is lip-syncing cheezy-yet-infectious pop music to the woman he loves (yes, my friends, musicals CAN kick butt), followed by Shah Rukh Khan's comedic thwarting of his persuers, only to be jolted back by the ruthlessness of Rajasaheb (an over-the-top-to-the-point-of-insanity performance by the veteran actor Amrish Puri, who played Mola Ram in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom").

Amrish Puri can certainly play a villain: but whereas the character of Mola Ram is a generic, arbitrary villain, the character of Rajasaheb is truly despicable because the audience witnesses the injustices he perpetrates. ("Give me a compelling reason to hate the bad guy and root for Indiana", I demanded. Spielberg fails to do so, and so i have always rooted for Mola Ram in "Temple of Doom". Similarly, I rallied behind the Decepticons and C.O.B.R.A. in my youth as a T.V. casualty. But honestly, what did you expect from a crapmaster like Spielberg?).

Ahh, Rajasaheb is a bad-guy you love to hate! Actually, "bad guy" is an understatement--he's a "loveable elderly sadist"--and I guarantee that you, too, will love to hate Rajasaheb! A convincing antagonist is a crucial ingredient for any action film because it drives the whole drama of the film. Unfortunately, few films successfully succeed in delivering a villain you love to hate. Koyla delivers.

Shah Rukh Khan is great as well and really hams up his performance playing Shanker. (I must, however, admit that i am a sucker for any film starring Shah Rukh Khan. I encourage you to see all his films--even the countless bollywood "romantic-comedies" that he is in--you will rarely be disappointed).

KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN for one of the most ludicrous, ridiculous, & insanely POOR special effects occurring at the CLIMAX of this film. Without spoiling this cinematic delight, let me simply say that it involves an axe, slow-motion, etc... Even if we ignore the poorly executed FX, the heavy-handed use of slo-mo harkens back to the glory days of prime-cheeze-USA-action films circa 1980's.

SEE THIS FILM NOW. Even if you hate the film, you'll dig the musical sequences with the bangra-hindi-pop music. Yes, the actors are lip-syncing to other artists' songs--but you won't care.

Bonus trivia: "Koyla" means "coal", by the way. Now do you see the significance of the this film's title?

IF YOU LIKE KOYLA, but want more blood and less comedy, then I recommend Shakti: The Power (2002). Shah Rukh Khan has a minor part in it, providing the only levity in an otherwise brutal film (the spirit of Cannon's action films of the 80's lives on!!!)

"... the beat is too strong ... we're deaf mutants now--like them", Rex Voorhas Ormine

I am surprised that this movie has been uniformly bashed. Let me be the first to actually discuss the virtues of "The Beat" and why YOU MUST SEE THIS FILM NOW.

Make no mistake, this movie is cheesy and "bad" in the conventional sense: the story is preposterous, the poetry is silly, and the acting is inconsistent.

But these are the film's CHARMS--all of these ingredients form the recipe for one of the most UNDERAPPRECIATED CHEEZY FILMS of the 80's.

If the reference to "deaf mutants" didn't pique your interest, then perhaps this will: What kind of name is "Rex Voorhas Ormine", anyway? It is such an unusual name (for North American audiences) that I said to myself, "even the names of the characters in this friggin' movie are firggin' silly."

Well, "The Beat" is so fabulously cheezy that the "meaning" and "symbolism" behind "Rex Voorhas Ormine" is revealed not-too-subtly by Bart Waxman (the misguided guidance counselor you love to hate). I won't spoil the revelation behind Rex's name, but please don't get too excited, O.K.?

Overall, the acting is inconsistent (John Savage--who plays the "concerned teacher" Mr. Ellsworth is pretty good, as is the fellow playing Bart Waxman, but the rest of the cast are unconvincing). That said, the acting does NOT detract from the film. Why? There is a SINCERITY in each of the actors' performances that makes the characters they play endearing. So although the performances may suck, you are still left with the impression that the actors are really trying to do their best. As a result, the actors' sincerity succeeds where their acting fails (which is quite often).

The homage to "beat poetry" in this film is bad, bad, bad. But this is a good, good, good thing when it comes to entertainment. Would you actually enjoy "better quality" or "more respectable" poetry--especially in a film like this?

Folks, that would be BORING (think about the droll they made us read in high school--sanitized to avoid "corrupting the youth", politically conservative and devoid of any critical analysis, etc.) Even if you don't like poetry or "arty" movies (with all of the "intellectual" posturing that implies), you most certainly can (and should) appreciate LUDICROUS POETRY in a WANNABE ART FILM!!!! How could you not enjoy the following?

"do you remember the roar of the dinosaur? a woman's scotty craps on the floor bad scotty bad, oh the woman's so sad she washes her hands and then waits by the door today, yeah--today!"

Yes, that is an example of some of the remarkable poetry liberally sprinkled throughout "The Beat." But what about the story, you ask?

Well, the story is preposterous. But then again, that is the beauty of this film. Apart from some cliches, stereotypes, and predictable plot points, there are enough genuinely unique elements to the plot/story to keep things interesting. Who is Rex? Where did he come from? What the heck is he talking about? Deaf mutants? Illiterate angels? Do Billy and Kate REALLY understand what Rex is saying? Is the audience supposed to understand Rex and his poetry posse? (I've seen the movie several times and I still haven't figured everything out.)

Will bad poetry and high school talent shows really END GANG VIOLENCE?

I guarantee that you have never seen anything quite like "The Beat"--a perfect combination of brilliantly bad poetry, mediocre-yet-sincere acting, and a "mythopoetics conquers gang violence" storyline that has YET TO BE RIVALLED BY ANY FILM EVER MADE.

Bonus for fans of classic NYC hardcore: The Cro-Mags make a rare film appearance as the "Iron Skulls" and it's a hoot to see them perform several songs. I wish they included more concert footage, but maybe that will be an "extra" included on the "collector's edition" DVD I fantasize about.

There is something about this film that is simply charming...perhaps its the evil antagonist who is constantly "limp-running" with a cane throughout the film. Perhaps it's his tenebrous hair (is that flour in his hair?). Perhaps it's the sheer sincerity of the actors' performances.

Too many films are discounted and critiqued unfairly (i.e. "should've had more gore")--but gore a good movie does not make--we should determine if a movie stands on its own (sans blood).

"Blood Farmers" is consistently cheesy and entertaining, unlike other films which are merely punctuated with a few memorable scenes. sure, i love gore-flicks, and yes, with a title like "Invasion of the Blood Farmers", the average person would expect some blood-n-guts. and you do get some low, low budget blood-n-uhhhh-fur moments (the scene with the dog is sublime...and then there's the scene in...).

So if you want real gore, you will certainly be disappointed. but if you want some consistently entertaining movie magic, "Blood Farmers" delivers. sure there are some slow moments...but the ending alone is well worth the time invested.

Ed Adlum & Ed Kelleher, who "wrote" "Blood Farmers" also "wrote" the equally glorious "Shriek of the Mutilated"...these two films are a DOUBLE-FEATURE THAT CAN'T BE BEAT!

My Grade: B/B+ If you like "Invasion", check out: Invasion of the Blood Farmers (1974)