The Curse Of The Werewolf (1961)

DECEMBER 31, 2008

GENRE: BRITISH, WEREWOLF
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

After Brides of Dracula and Evil of Frankenstein, I’ve decided to start checking whether or not any of the films on my Hammer set were sequels to films I hadn’t seen yet. Through this, I discovered that The Curse Of The Werewolf was actually the ONLY werewolf movie that Hammer ever made. I found that pretty surprising; how is it that with all of the movies they made during the 50s-70s, only one focused on one of the big three classic monsters? They actually had more about Jekyll and Hyde!

One reason it’s a shame is that this one, while pretty good, could definitely have benefited from 20/20 hindsight when it came time to make another. Oliver Reed is the werewolf, which is an incredible idea in theory (I had visions of a drunken wolf man trying to kill someone, but instead he just keeps laughing, tripping over himself, and generally just having a blood-free blast), but Reed doesn’t appear until nearly FIFTY minutes into the film! The reason for this is the rather involved setup; it’s not enough to just have a stranger come to town and bite Reed or whatever. No, a stranger comes to town, he gets tossed in a dungeon by the evil king, a little girl falls in love with him, and when she is a grown woman she gets tossed in the cell too, gets raped by the guy, kills the king, runs away, is taken in by a nice rich couple, has the stranger’s kid, and then dies. Then the kid is seen for a while as a tyke, before the movie’s four hundredth “time has passed” fade out occurs and Reed finally enters the film. Good lord!

And this presents a rather troubling issue: at this point there’s only a little over a half an hour left of the movie, so Reed kills a broad within minutes of his introduction. The best thing about the old Wolf Man movies is that you really felt bad for Larry Talbot, but here, even though he’s not a raving lunatic (well, relatively speaking, this IS Oliver Reed here), you don’t get to know him long enough before he does something deplorable, which makes it kind of hard to sympathize.

Still, all of the Reed stuff is top notch entertainment, almost making you forget the rather bland first hour. He runs around in a Mariachi suit, carries out what I believe to be the most upsetting and traumatic marriage proposal in cinematic history, and makes what can best be described as an “annoyed pigeon” sound when he growls. We are also treated to my favorite mob/torch moment in monster movie history. One of the townsfolk, as is dictated by law, tosses his torch at the monster, who is on a nearby roof. But instead of lighting him on fire or whatever, Reed picks up a bale of hay, which immediately engulfs in flame. Reed then tosses it back at the crowd, thus turning their own torches against them! Yeah! I bet the guy who sells them all the torches (I like to think he has a cart, like a New York hot dog vendor) felt pretty bad about that.

Director Terence Fisher (who else?) really botches what could have been the all-time best “monster’s dead, so the movie’s over” moment in Hammer history though. Reed’s character’s father puts a blanket over him, and momentarily covers the camera lens with it, leaving an all black image. It would have been fucking AWESOME if they cut right then to credits, but Fisher breaks Hammer protocol by inserting a quick shot of someone reacting to the tragic loss of a once human character (his fiancée, in this case). Hammer movies don’t usually bother with such sentimental nonsense, so I’m not sure why they thought outside the box for once when they had the perfect opportunity to wrap it up with the blanket thing. Oh well.

So, yeah, it takes a while to get to the actual werewolf part of it (plus the “curse” stuff never really has any payoff) but it’s still an above average werewolf movie. It’s a bummer Hammer never made another. Maybe the new Hammer studio will do one of their own if the Benicio Del Toro one (from Universal) takes a break from being delayed and turns out to be a big hit.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Terror-Creatures From The Grave (1965)

DECEMBER 30, 2008

GENRE: ITALIAN, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 4!!!)

I kind of like the irony of Mill Creek providing widescreen transfers on a few of the films from the Tales of Terror set, because the whole idea of providing a widescreen image is to allow viewers to enjoy the film as intended. But I highly doubt that director Massimo Pupillo intended Terror Creatures From The Grave (Italian: 5 Tombe Per Un Medium) to be seen on what appears to be a VHS transfer of a camera shot bootleg, with sound that occasionally turns into underwater garbling noises and the occasional jarring splice. I swear there are actually two prints being used, because occasionally a splice will come and then the film will look better (or worse) then it did a second ago. But hey, A for effort and all that.

I should make a separate tagging for movies that I wish I could watch again on a decent transfer, because all the image/sound problems were really distracting from what is otherwise a pretty solid movie. It reminded me of some of the other 60s Italian films I’ve seen, such as The Ghost (which also starred Barbara Steele), but in a good way. I liked the mystery angle especially; I’ve seen so many of these horror movies in which the “monster” turns out to be just some guy that it’s now a nice surprise when there are legitimate supernatural elements behind it all.

Unfortunately, because of the attempts to keep this sort of a mystery, not a lot happens onscreen. We see a lot of people FINDING corpses, but not a lot of people BECOMING corpses. Luckily, the few we are offered are pretty fun, particularly a wheelchair bound guy. What is it about wheelchair-bound victims that make their deaths such a mean-spirited joy? I think of the old hag in Gremlins, and of course the death of Mark, patron saint of wheelchaired horror movie characters, in Friday the 13th part 2.

Also, because a lot of the movie is talk, there’s an issue that comes up a lot – dubbed dialogue overlapping. Because the English takes longer to say than the original Italian (I guess), we often have conversations in which people reply much quicker than they naturally should, because the pause in between one character’s line and another’s is wiped out by the longer dub track. It’s kind of funny to see someone “reply” so quickly to a question though.

One line might be a mistranslation, but either way it’s a gem. When delivering some exposition (the backstory involves the Plague, which was apparently enough to get Edgar Allen Poe a writing credit), a guy mentions “horribly severed heads”. As opposed to all of the wonderful and beautifully severed heads you are accustomed to?

Also, our hero looks like Joe Pesci from My Cousin Vinny. I’d screenshot it, but I already took the DVD out and it’s so blurry you probably wouldn’t be able to see the resemblance anyway.

So, yeah, if you can find a good copy, I’d recommend this one. It’s slow, but the payoff is pretty good, and it has all the hallmarks of the 1960’s Italian “horror movie in a castle” genre: crypts, inheritances, moors, and well, Barbara Steele.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Blackwoods (2002)

DECEMBER 29, 2008

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

At this point, I don’t think I need to once again explain that I am no hater of Uwe Boll. Sure, his films have problems, but there’s no such thing as a filmmaker who achieves greatness every time out (Christ, I’ve always at least been able to finish Boll’s films, I can’t say the same for Steven Spielberg thanks to 1941), and more importantly, they are far from the bottom of the barrel. Anyone who truly thinks that Alone in the Dark is the worst movie ever made clearly hasn’t been reading my site. But despite my minor appreciation for the guy, I still haven’t gotten around to watching any of his pre-video game movies, which are often cited as “not as terrible” by even his harshest critics. So I was hoping Blackwoods, made in 2001, would be a minor gem, relatively speaking anyway.

Sadly, it’s a disappointing effort. While admirably slower paced and more focused on character and such, it’s pretty weak overall, and suffers from a lot of the same problems his more notorious films are known for: baffling use of slo-mo, nonsensical casting (Patrick Muldoon in a Jacob’s Ladder-ish psychological turn? No. Just no.), and a soundtrack that seemingly goes out of its way to not fit the scene. Nothing is as ludicrous as the anti-racism song that played over the love scene in AITD, but the selections from the Macy Gray-esque Charlemaine come pretty close, with her wailing about a failed relationship over shots of Muldoon accidentally running someone over.

But it also has a lot of the actors that are part of Boll’s stable, including Michael Paré as the town sheriff. He has what has to be my single favorite “Oh... Oh Boll...” moment in the entire film, when a waitress asks where the girl’s family is, and Paré instantly replies with this ditty, all in one breath, in the middle of a coffee shop:

“When people do wrong they know it, whether or not they accept it is another story. You get to believe your own lies if you tell ‘em long enough. You can’t escape your past no matter how hard you try; things have a way of coming back, some folks might call it haunting. I imagine my telling this story in years to come I’ll gloss over my part in it, relieving my conscience of my guilt. My nonchalance. The truth always comes back, it always does. God has a hell of a sense of humor.”

(I added in some punctuation that Paré’s script apparently omitted. I wish I could just show you the scene; my transcription doesn’t do it justice.)

Also on board is Clint Howard, who also appeared in House of the Dead. Unsurprisingly, he’s the best thing in the movie, playing a perverted motel clerk with Bozo hair, who offers condoms to guests instead of mints. Faring less well is Will Sanderson, cast as Muldoon’s friend who sits around playing GTA and grills him about his new girlfriend’s tit size.

Now, none of these thespians are known for their award-worthy work, and to be fair, they all do fairly decent with the script they were given, which had a good concept but a jarring tone/pace. It’s clear Boll wanted to say something about revenge and taking responsibility for one’s actions, but he needed a better writer to pull it off. There are two pretty big problems that he can’t overcome: Key information is hidden from the audience for far too long, and our hero is simply unlikable. There are moments where answers are about to be given, only to cut away to something else for a while, so that by the time Boll returns to the scene, you’ve already figured out the answer for yourself. Also, the scenes that play out in flashback, showing what REALLY happened, are so goddamn ridiculous (particularly the ones with Muldoon in his motel room) that it’s impossible to take the movie seriously anymore, which is precisely what it is trying to achieve at this point.

I am being intentionally vague, because even though the movie is like seven years old, I assume many of you haven’t seen it, and I don’t want to spoil it. And that’s a shame, because I REALLY want you to watch the hilarious trailer for the film, which gives pretty much everything away. But what makes the trailer so special is the narrator, who sounds like he’s making up his voice over on the spot. I have linked it below (there was no embed code), but beware: again, it spoils almost every twist in the movie.

I do want to point one thing out though: I dunno if it was Boll or his co-writer (Robert Dean Klein, who also wrote, *sigh*, Dark Ride), but there is an exchange between two of the redneck characters that floored me:

Redneck mom: “Because of this, I can’t get none of that.... what do they call it?”
Redneck son: “Satisfaction!”

Hahaha. Good to know even backwoods hicks appreciate the Stones. Or Britney Spears.

What say you?

Trailer: HERE

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Devil's Chair (2006)

DECEMBER 28, 2008

GENRE: MONSTER, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Last week someone asked why I always watch the extras for the movies I review, even the movies I dislike. I chalked it up to an equal mix of being obsessive compulsive and, in the case of those underwhelming films, an opportunity for the filmmakers to sort of state their case and maybe leave me a little less cold on their film. So it’s a shame I didn’t have The Devil’s Chair to bring up as an example, because I had passed on it several times in the store due to its extensive extras (commentary and a hour long making of), and had I not, I could have made a good point about the importance of extras, as the making-of gave me a whole new way of looking at the film. See, the movie ain’t all that good, but it shows promise from time to time, and ultimately, its biggest problem is a editing/screenwriting decision that seemed shoehorned into the final film, rather than an organic idea.

Throughout the film, our protagonist “freezes” the movie and narrates something. Sometimes it’s for a few seconds, other times it’s merely a few frames. Either way it’s annoying as hell, to the point where I kept yelling SHUT UP! at the narrator, who presumably couldn’t hear me. And worse, the haphazard frequency that it occurs means you can never quite get used to it. At times, it would become so frequent during a sequence that it made me feel like I was watching a DVD of one of those children’s storybooks for popular movies (where you get a tape, or, I guess CD now, of the movie being narrated as you look at select still shots). So like I said, it felt like something that got added in for whatever reason, because I couldn’t imagine someone sitting there and writing in a 3-4 word line to play over a shot that froze for a half a second.

And the extras confirmed as much. The movie was more or less an attempt by filmmakers Adam Mason and Simon Boyes to make a more commercial film (they were hired to make a “shit haunted house” movie under certain circumstances) that would help fund projects they truly cared about, but they didn’t want to make any old piece of shit either. However, as they were editing, they realized that they had indeed made a rather lousy film, so someone had the genius decision to write/record narration to play over any scene, moment, or even shot of the film that they felt was sub-par. A pretty terrible idea, if you ask me (apparently, they never heard of Blade Runner), and I am pretty certain that it didn’t help. I would love to see the non-narrated original cut of the film and see how differently it plays when I don’t have an annoying Brit yammering in my ear every twenty seconds.

But it’s not so much the concept of the narration that annoyed me, it’s the execution. The freeze frame stuff is only half as annoying as what he is actually saying, which is a lot of meta “look at this crappy horror movie!” type alleged humor. I’m sorry, but when the filmmakers are essentially making fun of me for wanting to watch a monster/splatter movie, they instantly lose a lot of my goodwill. It’s good that they indeed recognize their film’s faults, but calling attention to them in the most annoying way possible seems counterproductive. Hilariously, they point out how once they are finished with a film they never want to watch it again, yet all of these last-minute changes were designed to make a film that they were happier with. So the people who WILL watch it in the years to come won’t enjoy it as much because of the changes made by folks who have no desire in watching it?

Strangely enough, the making of is edited just like the film, albeit within the confines of a documentary. So instead of jarring freeze-frames, there are jarring quick cuts to the film itself, and instead of calling attention to the fact that it’s a movie by having the narrator say so, the editor simply zooms in and removes the color during a lot of the talking head shots, giving it a Natural Born Killers style feel. Again, it’s pretty goddamn annoying; I would suggest just listening to the making of’s audio track and looking at, I dunno, a piece of ham or something.

The most surprising thing about the making of, however, is when Mason began talking about his previous film, which was.... Broken! AKA the worst movie of 2007. I hadn’t remembered his name, and the box art for Devil’s Chair wisely doesn’t mention it. I’m glad I didn’t know before I watched the film, as I would have gone with a chip on my shoulder (something I don’t usually do, but man, Broken was REALLY fucking terrible). He mentions the film quite often, and seems pretty proud of it, to the point of sounding arrogant, but I didn’t really mind much. I’d rather a filmmaker (or anyone involved with a film) stuck to his guns about his past work rather than talk about how great it is when its time to promote it, only to slam it while he’s out for the next one (sadly, my hero, one Mr. Walter Bruce Willis, is one of the worst offenders of such behavior). I did get a bit annoyed when he claimed that Broken “isn’t torture porn, because it’s about Stockholm Syndrome”, which is like claiming that Con Air isn’t a high octane action movie because there’s that one part where Nic Cage dances with his wife. It’s torture porn pal, and one of the worst examples of it.

They also speak pretty openly about the baffling Hollywood tradition of filming without a completed script, replacing actors, etc. I mean really, outside of something like Project Greenlight, you probably won’t find a DVD with as much candid and fascinating information about how a film evolves, why parts of it don’t work, why story ideas get dropped, etc. Say what you will about the film (which, I realize, I haven’t done yet), but if you’re a film geek that loves this kind of stuff, I highly recommend watching the extras for this one; it’s the most informative/no bullshit collection of features I’ve seen on a disc in ages, and, if you haven’t guessed yet, far more interesting than the finished product.

As for the movie, well, it’s kind of hard to enjoy when every crowd pleasing moment (such as when the monster – which is a fucking great monster by the way – chases a girl in her bra) is mocked by the film’s narrator. It all feels like when someone you look up to says “Hey do you like (whatever movie)?” and you say “Yeah, it’s great!” and they go “I think it’s terrible”, and then you feel stupid for liking it. Well forgive me for renting a movie about a killer chair and expecting to have some fun. The final twist, while not entirely surprising, is still effectively implemented (and pays off at least the IDEA of having the narration, if nothing else), and kind of ballsy to boot. And the look of the film is quite nice, a welcome change from the ugly DV nonsense in their previous film. Again, I can’t help but wonder how much more enjoyable the film would be without the narration/freeze-framing. It would certainly be shorter, which can only help (it takes FOREVER to get going, though once it does even the narration can’t totally kill the momentum).

I will say this: it’s definitely not one of those generic psychological/supernatural type thrillers that I will completely forget about in a few weeks (it’s actually the 2nd killer chair movie I’ve watched this year, but I already forget the other one’s name). For all its faults, there’s enough promise here to make me interested in their next film (Blood River) – I just hope that it’s a film they are proud of as is, rather than one they feel they have to “fix” and in turn make (presumably) worse.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dead Of Winter (2007)

DECEMBER 27, 2008

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

The only reason I rented Dead Of Winter (aka Lost Signal), besides the awesome “It looks like Duel but in the snow” cover art, is because it was directed by Brian McNamara, who was the nemesis/fonzanoon in Caddyshack II and also popped up in Arachnophobia. I found it somewhat amusing that he turned to directing (he also appears as the sheriff), and was curious to see if his directing style was as non-descript as his acting. Unfortunately, Spielberg himself couldn’t make a good movie out of this script, so whatever directing skill he may possess is pretty hard to critique based on this drivel.

One thing he needs to learn is proper lighting though (or how to yell at his DP for such errors). The outdoor scenes are OK, but interiors are overlit to the point of blindness:

Christ, I’ve seen pornos with more natural lighting.

He also needs to get his ego checked at the door. The full on-screen title is actually Brian McNamara’s Dead Of Winter, as if he was John Carpenter or something. First of all, he's not John Carpenter. Christ, this is his first movie! Second: putting your name in the title is kind of ballsy when you were not one of the producers and/or writers on the film. If you look at the Carpenter films, he only puts his name on the title when he did something BESIDES direct, i.e. write or producer or hell, even merely composing. When he DOESN’T do any of those other things, his name stays off (See: Memoirs of an Invisible Man).

He should also reprimand his props guy, because early on we see a fridge with a “Lost Cat” poster on it. Uh... shouldn’t that be outside? Unless your home is the stomping grounds for all stray cats, it’s not going to do much good to anyone as long as it’s only visible to hungry family members.

But the real problem with the film is how nonsensically set up it is. We know that the two kids are merely hallucinating because of the crystal meth they snorted, yet the entire movie hinges on the idea that we believe the kids are really in danger from snow plows and killers and such. Plus, their hallucinations go on for about 6 hours, despite only snorting a single line of the stuff. (hallucinations aren't even a primary side effect of crystal meth, and only then in high doses, which I would think a single line would not count as). So you spend the entire movie wondering why screenwriters Robert Egen and Graham Silver couldn’t be bothered to have them use a drug known for strong/long-lasting hallucinations, such as LSD. Then, about five minutes before the film ends, we learn via flashback that LSD was indeed added to their (one) drink. Why was this information hidden from the audience? It’s not like it’s a twist or anything, and it simply results in explaining something that had probably caused most of the audience to lose all interest in the narrative.

Not helping matters are our annoying leads, both of whom I wanted to freeze to death before they even went into the snow. They spend the entire movie yelling at each other, talking nonsense, or shrieking at a killer that’s not really there. At one point the boy half of the couple makes a tired Shining reference, and then yells “Didn’t you see that movie?” Yes, and I wish I was watching it again right now, instead of enduring the 45th “guy yells at his girlfriend” scene in this movie. Plus, they are both drug users, which makes them hard to sympathize with. Let ‘em rot.

Also, beware of any movie in which the casting is done by one of the producers, because you end up with mother-daughter pairs that couldn’t look less alike:

Sure.

The real bummer of it all is that the finale is actually kind of sad. There’s a dumb and uninspired little twist that apparently took the red eye from horror movie land, but otherwise, the final five minutes play out like a tragic drama, and damned if I didn’t feel kind of bad for McNamara’s character, as well as the kids’ respective parents. Since it’s essentially an R rated horror version of an after-school special, I fully expected this sort of “SEE WHAT DRUGS CAN CAUSE!” wrapup, but it was still somewhat moving.

What everyone in the production failed at though, was making any one moment in the film even half as creepy and unnerving as the transcript of the 911 call made by the people that this really happened to (yes, for possibly the first time in ages, the “based on true events” disclaimer at the top of the film isn’t bullshit). Obviously, if you read the news report I linked, you will get the end of the movie kind of spoiled, but unless you are a Brian McNamara completist, there’s no reason to watch the movie anyway other than to learn what happened to the kids, and the article does just that, sans bad lighting.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Omen III: The Final Conflict (1981)

DECEMBER 26, 2008

GENRE: HERO KILLER, RELIGIOUS, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I debated putting Omen III: The Final Conflict in the “hero killer” category (a genre in which the villainous character is the one we root for – not counting Freddy/Jason type slasher movies), because I don’t think we are supposed to WANT Damien to succeed in his ultimate goal. But since the film doesn’t give us any other characters to really care about, you end up sort of cheering on Damien due to a lack of options.

And maybe that’s why his goals aren’t really all that high-reaching. He doesn’t seem to want to be president (which would have been AWESOME), and he only kills those who pose a threat to him. Even when he is offered a longer position as an ambassador, he’s all like “only 2 years, then I gotta go back to run my company.” It gave me an awesome idea for a movie, in which the Devil (or God) is reborn as a pretty lazy dude, and he only uses his powers for things like making his soda cold when he forgets to put it in the fridge. Then at the end he is shot to death by a burglar or something, just to give the movie some action.

The half-assedry is evident throughout the film, actually. Screenwriter Andrew Birkin can’t ever be bothered to give even the slightest explanation for why the priests who are trying kill Damien (using those daggers from Omen II) are so damned stupid. For example, they never seem to remember that as the Antichrist, Damien is going to be pretty hard to kill, and thus doing things like blocking him on a bridge and then calmly approaching him, dagger in hand, is pretty fucking ridiculous. Were they just hoping he would forget about his powers when his life was at stake?

The ending is a dud too. Damien is walking around muttering about Jesus and the Devil and the whole thing, then this broad just sort of quickly runs into the scene and stabs him, and that’s that. For the end of a trilogy, you would think they would introduce a formidable foe for him to take on in a big showstopping battle, but nope. Incidentally, part of the movie is about Damien’s attempts to kill the “Nazarene”, which is Christ reborn (NOT Chris Treborn), but he does so when the child is in its infancy and therefore can’t really do much. They should have had Damien fail and go into hiding or something, and then face off against the reborn Lord in part IV (which isn’t even about Damien, from what I understand).

Christ, they were even too lazy to put “Omen” in the title!

All that said, it’s still fun, and occasionally compelling. I like how matter-of-fact Damien is about his identity with some of his staff, and how he has followers everywhere. At one point he has them all meet up and he delivers a nice little inspirational speech, a nice touch. Also, there’s a great scene where he confronts a crucifix and delivers a monologue about who is the better son or whatever. Plus, since Damien is played by Sam Neill, even when he is having some truly atrocious things being done in his name, he is still rather charming.

One of those atrocious things is ordering the deaths of all male children born between 12 am and 6 am on March 24th. Unsurprisingly, we don’t really get any graphic gore or even onscreen deaths, but the suggestion of how they die is pretty gruesome/twisted. My favorite – a priest (apparently a follower), drowning the kid during his baptism. Harsh. Speaking of the deaths, Damien has apparently regained his “cause them to commit suicide” power, which he never used in part 2. The film’s first death is a result of Damien mentally telling a guy to set up an elaborate “open the door and cause a shotgun to go off” machination, possibly the goriest kill in the entire series.

It’s a bummer that Damien never got to really cut loose and cause the kind of havoc he was certainly capable of, but it’s still a good trilogy overall. It was a damn good idea to make each film about a different stage in Damien’s life, rather than just have him be a couple years’ older each time out. The jumping ahead causes some minor continuity errors (they always say the year, so the math never works), but it keeps the films feeling fresh and different enough from one another, which is pretty rare in any franchise.

Like II, the only extra is a commentary, this time by director Graham Baker. He says maybe 12 things over the entire 105 minute film, and 10 of them are just descriptions of the onscreen action. Sometimes he doesn’t even offer a complete thought, such as during the aforementioned bridge scene, when he suddenly announces “Kind of foxes’ point of view...”, five minutes after he last said anything and about 3-4 before he says anything else. Needless to say, don’t waste your time with it, or simply turn it on the first time you are watching the movie (he’s also seemingly unwilling to talk over any dialogue) if you really need to know his non-thoughts on the film’s production.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Wicked Lake (2008)

DECEMBER 25, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, CRAP, RAPE-REVENGE, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

I am a man, and a very enthusiastic fan of horror movies. More importantly, I love junky movies that you’re not supposed to take too seriously, if at all. So the idea of a tongue-in-cheek movie about four hot girls making out with each other and then killing some rednecks with their supernatural powers should be a shoe-in for, at the very least, “so bad its good” entertainment, right? Then why, oh why, is Wicked Lake so goddamn boring in just about every conceivable aspect of its existence?

I mean really, if Robin Sydney and another, even hotter girl making out for nearly five minutes near the film’s beginning can’t even interest me, then director Zach Passero has already failed miserably. And that’s 10 minutes into the film! This could have been a decent short film with maybe 2-3 people. Take the standard survival horror setup, with one or two rednecks attacking our “heroine”, only have it turn out that she’s a witch or werewolf or vampire or whatever and kill them. Bam! Done. But nope, they have to make a whole movie about this. And you would think with 95 minutes at their disposal, there would be more than enough time to at least explain what the girls are, right? Not a chance! They are sort of witch-y, they display vampire powers, but they are only activated by a full moon. They’re everything and nothing all at once.

And again, none of this is supposed to be taken seriously (yes, Passero and writers Chris Sivertson and Adam Rockoff have decided to use attempted rape as a catalyst for their attempts at humor), so I could care less about the bad acting and nonsensically thin story. It’s the sheer DULLNESS of this movie that kills it. The lesbian stuff is dull. The kills are dull. The gore is dull. The bad redneck actors are so bad that their attempts to be over the top are dull. And needless to say, the scenes with two cops investigating, abruptly shoehorned into the film’s 2nd half without any sort of introduction whatsoever, are even MORE dull, because by design they are there to presumably give the audience a breather from the high hilarity and awesomeness that the lesbo/redneck/gore scenes were allegedly providing.

One of the cops is Tim Thomerson, who thanks to HMAD I am actually seeing more of than I have in the past 10 years (since his Full Moon Dollman/Trancers heyday). He fares no better than anyone else in this POS, but at least with him I have some sympathy for appearing in such drivel. Like me, I’m sure he was enticed by the over-the-top plot, only to discover that no one involved seemingly knew how to actually be funny or interesting.

Most annoying is Marc Senter, playing a wispy emo kid who makes his character from The Lost look bearable by comparison. It’s essentially a character Andy Samberg might play for 20 seconds in one of those “gotta fill some time” SNL sketches, only he’s around for the entire movie. To be fair, the one laugh I got out of the entire thing was when his character was impaled on a door 35 minutes in, only to survive for the rest of the movie. So people open and shut the door with his body still hanging there; it’s a funny sight gag. But still, I would have been MORE appreciative if I didn’t have to endure his “funny” character at all anymore, and I really hope for Senter's sake that he gets a role as someone likable someday.

The DVD comes with a poorly recorded commentary track that is, unsurprisingly, “fun”! Everyone is in a living room, talking over each other and talking about how fun the movie is. I think it’s safe to say that if you didn’t like the movie, you won’t like the track. There are also a collection of outtakes and deleted scenes, but considering the quality of the film itself, I couldn’t bring myself to suffer through them.

This movie was so bad I had to re-edit my “worst of 2008” list for Bloody Disgusting. Since it was already encoded and formatted and ready to post, it would have been a pain in the ass to put it at number 2 (April Fool’s Day is still the worst) and move everything else down, so instead I took out my old number 9 (Trapped Ashes, which was also bad but so obscure I felt it wasn’t worth noting) and put this in instead. My apologies to the makers of films 2-8, all of whom actually managed to make terrible films that were slightly better than this steaming pile.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Christmas Tale (2005)

DECEMBER 24, 2008

GENRE: THRILLER, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

I am starting to notice a pattern with the discs in the 6 Films To Keep You Awake series. The first disc had two movies about abortion, and now disc 2 has two movies about children who love horror movies. But while A Real Friend ultimately turned out to have no real place in the realm of the supernatural, The Christmas Tale (Spanish: Cuento de navidad) is instead very reality-based until the final scenes.

NOTE - The ending will be SPOILED in the review!

So the whole movie is about these kids who find a robber in a pit in the woods, and rather than turn her in or even really help her, they leave her in there until she tells them where the money she stole is. It's a fun setup; sort of like a horror/thriller version of The Goonies (albeit with foul mouthed children - they are pretty much the sole reason for the film's R rating), but unfortunately writer Luis Berdejo really wants to make a horror movie, and after some sort of generic confrontations and turned tables, it turns out that the woman really is a zombie of some sort, which is what their adolescent imagination had come up with in the first place (thanks to their repeated viewings of a movie called Zombie Invasion).

I only wish this was presented as the 2nd act twist, rather than as a twist ending. It would have been great to be suddenly thrust into a whole different genre at some midpoint, a la From Dusk Til Dawn, instead of spending the entire movie wondering when it will earn its place in a horror collection. For a while I was afraid that I wouldn't be able to even really count it as a horror film, and then the ending is more horror than anything else in the collection thus far.

Luckily, until that point it's pretty entertaining. The kids are all good actors (strangely, Pan's Labyrinth's Ivana Baquero is the weakest; she often seems like she's simply reading her lines) and their interplay is delightful, particularly in the earlier scenes before they start fighting with one another. The group's resident "nerd" is the best, mainly due to his amusing (and ultimately helpful) fascination with The Karate Kid. Unlike Real Friend though, they either got the rights or simply didn't care enough to obtain them, so the movie's title is given (and the kid calls himself Daniel LaRusso). Edgar Wright once talked about how when they were making Spaced, it was important that they use real games/movies/whatever instead of generic ones that simply invoke real titles, because it became a lot easier for the audience to identify with the characters. I understand being a little kid who wants to be the Karate Kid; but I wouldn't feel as strong a tie to a kid who was obsessed with some generic action movie that the filmmakers shot specifically for this film.

Which is ironic, because the zombie movie they are all obsessed with is INDEED a fake horror movie. The clips we see of "Zombie Invasion" suggest an over the top hybrid of a Spanish zombie movie starring a Bruce Campbell esque tough guy, and not a very good one either. Maybe the idea that they were indulging in fantasy would come across better had a real film like Dawn of the Dead been used instead, because the horror fans watching this would remember their own Romero-inspired zombie games as kids.

There are a couple of horrific moments before the final reveal though. Our villain tries to claw her way to the top of the pit, and you all know what happens to fingernails during such occasions in horror movies. Also, while she is still human, her demented rampage/chasing of the kids is pretty suspenseful, mainly because you kind of suspect that maybe Berdejo and director Paco Plaza have the balls to kill one of them.

I had to laugh too; my review of Real Friend points out how some of the film's background ambience is lost because it is not translated. Not the case here; at one point, the subtitles helpfully translate the "never would have guessed it" Spanish word "fotographias" for us. Even more amusing, it's literally in the background of a shot and has no bearing on anything. It's not like the kid is hiding in the photo hut or whatever. Awesome.

One final note I want to make, I know I compared it to Goonies, but it's actually more like a mean-spirited ET, as in both films the kids find something and hide it from adults. But even more obvious is the fact that Plaza never shows any adult's faces (besides the robber, obviously). Two cops are introduced, but shot in a way that you never once see what they really look like. I found that pretty interesting, and even though the making of never says it (at least, not in the part I saw - the disc was scratched and I had to skip over some of it), it's obvious that ET was an influence on both writer and director.

The making of focuses mainly on the kids, how Plaza had them bond for a while before filming, and how they would practice the stunts and such. It's mildly entertaining, but a bit overlong (22 minutes), especially considering that some of it is just B roll footage with music playing over it. One thing I learned - actress Maru Valdivielso (the robber), who is made to look kind of ugly in the film, is actually quite pretty in reality. Why they would take a pretty woman and make her look like Julian Richings, I don't know, but hopefully her next movie allows her good looks to be seen.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Pulse 3 (2008)

DECEMBER 23, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, TECHNOLOGY
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

If nothing else, I'll give Dimension this: they never beat you over the head with their DTV releases the way Lionsgate does. Even though I sorta kinda liked Pulse 2 and thus would be among the very few to care, I didn't even know that Pulse 3 was already on shelves. Wasn't it only two months ago? If they can release these back to back sequels so, well, back to back, then where the hell is Feast III?

Anyway, like 2, it's not so much that it's a completely terrible movie, but rather an OK one that's unfortunately terribly made. Luckily, the greenscreen use isn't as rampant (i.e. several scenes are filmed normally), and also director Joel Soisson has worked its usage into the actual narrative, such as placing closeups of an IM window behind the actress instead of a typical background. However, it's still there enough to distract away from whatever impact a scene may have had. It's impossible to concentrate on what the actors are saying or doing when your eye is constantly drifting to noticeable composite errors and laughable lighting differences. Also, they sure as hell didn't go all out when it came to making titles; I instantly recognized the default font/size for a Final Cut Pro title placeholder for "Seven Years Later" style captions.

Sadly, while it may be a small step up in the technical error, the story isn't as compelling (for lack of a better word) as the previous entry. While 2 had some minor suspense and the occasional exciting setpiece, this one focuses on a single character who does little more than just walk around for the entire movie. Everyone she runs into is a threat, but without anyone else on the 'good guys' team, these scenes aren't as suspenseful as they could be, because there is simply no way that our only protagonist is going to meet any harm until the final scene (if that). On the plus side, lead Brittany Finamore is insanely cute, so putting her in every single scene is probably more beneficial than detrimental. Still, this is possibly the only time in history that a sequel got a harsher rating for a far less violent film (the body count for the entire film, not counting people who are already ghosts, is like, two).

One thing that was kind of distracting was the complete lack of Jamie Bamber footage. Our lead is the little girl from 2, and while she keeps seeing her mother's ghost (the scene where she confronts her is probably the best in the film), her dad is completely MIA, even in the occasional flashback to 2. I assume Bamber footage would have cost too much to re-use, and this movie is clearly a budget production. Oh well. Instead, our top billed genre star is Rider Strong, despite only appearing in two scenes (one at the beginning, one at the end). Strong is fine in the cameo role (though he occasionally has a look on his face that seems to say "Hey, didn't I shoot a sequel to Cabin Fever like 2 years ago? What the hell happened to it??"), but why they would choose to give this hardly-big star top billing for 5 minutes of screentime is quite puzzling.

As before, Dimension has provided us with a making-of and a commentary track. The making of is pretty weak; it's about 8 minutes long and contains almost nothing that isn't revealed on the far more entertaining commentary, which is provided by Soisson, Finamore, producer Michael Leahy, and editor Kirk Morri. Finamore doesn't say much, but the others provide the best possible type of commentary for this type of movie: they're perfectly aware that it's not the best film in the world, and they take cracks at it and the previous films, but also provide some nice info on its production, things that were changed, issues with filming, etc. The best is when they non-ironically point out how the film does not have any strong primary colors beside red (I can imagine a casting call for extras: "PLEASE, do NOT wear anything green!"). Oddly, they keep mentioning a deleted scenes collection, but no such thing is present on the DVD. I would have liked to have heard them explain why, considering the obvious lack of funds, they didn't just make one decent Pulse sequel instead of kind of half-assed ones, but I'll take a wisecrack about Kristen Bell as a consolation prize. No trailer is included, which isn't surprising because it appears as if Dimension didn't even bother to cut one (I couldn't find one on Youtube, which was the extent of the research I was willing to put in in order to provide it at the end of the review).

So if you hated Pulse 2, you'll hate this one too. It's got some of the same problems, and it improves on some areas while getting worse on others, making it pretty much even in terms of overall quality. But if, like me, you saw Pulse 2 as a somewhat entertaining sequel to a pretty terrible movie, then you'll get as much (or as little) enjoyment out of this one too. Lazy Sunday, in the late afternoon, watch Pulse 3 just to... something, something rhymes with noon!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Wait Until Dark (1967)

DECEMBER 22, 2008

GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

I remember in high school, when Quentin Tarantino was my biggest hero, I wanted very badly to go to NY and see his update of Wait Until Dark (with Marisa Tomei in the Audrey Hepburn role). But like pretty much all Broadway shows I'd ever be interested in, it closed after like two months (much longer than Dance of the Vampire or Whistle Down the Wind though), before I was able to even seriously look into planning a trip. Yet, I saw fucking Rent.

It's painfully obvious that the film was designed as a play. We have one location, and characters constantly drift in and out rather than leave someone on their own for too long. There's the odd bit here and there that's obviously designed for the screen (such as the entire opening), but I wish a bit more could have been done, like maybe showing the bad guys check out the husband's studio.

Also, it's clearly a big showcase for two actors, in this case Hepburn and Alan Arkin. Arkin's character is sadly absent for a lot of the 2nd act, but it just makes his appearances (some of them in costume; he is hilariously credited three times at the end of the movie) all the more enjoyable. As Arkin says on the brief retrospective interview (the DVD's only extra of note, not too surprising since almost everyone in the movie is dead now), back then it was pretty rare to have a character in a mainstream motion picture that was so bizarre and peculiar, and even though I clearly didn't see it back in its prime, I was still rather surprised to see someone behave so oddly in an Audrey Hepburn movie of all things. Nowadays, with guys like Christopher Walken and Crispin Glover more or less basing their entire career on being weird, it's nice to see it done so well by a guy who is actually acting, not just playing up a persona.

Since the movie more or less takes place in real time, you know that not a hell of a lot is going to happen until the final 10 minutes, so that didn't really bother me. It was still a pretty suspenseful setup, and I had fun seeing how they managed to stretch what could have been an Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode into a nearly two hour movie without ever really dragging. The movie's awesome "warning" ad (seen below in the middle of a rather spoiler-y trailer - try to skip to the obvious part and don't watch the rest!) suggests a more gimmick-y movie, like something William Castle would have done, but it's really more of a suspenseful character drama.

I would have liked more scenes of people hiding in the house while she blind-walks around completely unaware though. My favorite part of the film is when she goes to her closet and takes out a scarf, completely oblivious to the body that is hanging on the door. As she whips the scarf around her neck, the corpse's hair gets brushed aside, providing a macabre sight gag for jerks like me to marvel at.

As for the horror angle, well, again, it's pretty much just the last ten minutes. This movie pretty much invented the "he's not dead!" moment, and it still packs a wallop, thanks to the way it's done. Our guy doesn't suddenly reappear or grab her ankle or whatever, no, he literally springs across the room (from off camera) and tackles her. It's fucking awesome. I prefer the more subtle/creepy style of this standard moment (i.e. Michael slowly sitting back up behind a totally unaware Laurie), but for the shock value version, this one is hard to beat.

I was also happy to see Jack Weston in the movie. Short Circuit 2 was one of my favorite movies as a kid, but other than that and Dirty Dancing, I don't think I've ever seen him in anything else. He died in 1996 (8 years after SC2, which was his last movie for some reason), so that's a bummer. He's a great character actor in the M. Emmet Walsh vein.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)

DECEMBER 21, 2008

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Earlier today I was interviewed for a documentary about horror fans and why they do the things they do, like, I dunno, watch and write about a horror movie every single day of their life. One question was about whether or not I plan my movies, which I do not, and noted that I still didn't even know what I was going to watch today. But that was kind of a lie, because I had just gotten the new Anchor Bay release of Hellbound: Hellraiser II, and I was eager to revisit it.

Like the first film (I can't believe it's been almost a year since I watched it?), I only saw Hellraiser II once, when I was in eighth grade and watched all three (this was a happier, pre-Dimension time) back to back. Being a fan primarily of slashers, I didn't really care for any of them, and if it wasn't for Horror Movie A Day I probably still wouldn't have revisited them or watched any of the DTV sequels. Which is a shame, because the films are far better than I remembered.

While Pinhead may look cool and all that, the story is simply better suited for an older audience. The themes (the lengths one would go to satisfy their obsessions, for example) just don't really resonate with a kid who is watching it mainly for boobs and blood. I'm not even sure I understood what was going on inside Frank's personal hell back then.

The movie also had some surprising revelations for me. For example, I am currently editing a documentary, and at one point the subject of the film chuckles to himself after saying "What was on the agenda? Ah yes... an evisceration!" I have always been a bit baffled as to why he was saying that, but now I know that it's a line from the movie. Also, I think this movie may be responsible for my seething hatred of having wet skin under my clothes. When I shower, I dry myself for like a half hour, because if I feel any wetness on the interior of my clothing, I practically freak out (and instantly re-dry and put a different shirt on). Hell, even when I see people in movies just toss their jeans on immediately after getting out of a shower, I cringe. I think the scene where a skinless Julia puts on Channard's shirt, getting blood all over it, may have been the root cause of this odd phobia.

That or I'm just a giant fucking baby.

Also, as a sequel, it really delivers what you would hope for. It's not a copy of the first film, but it retains the same feel and brings back a lot of the characters (IMDb's trivia notes that the film feels muddled without Andy Robinson, but honestly I didn't mind his absence at all. It gave even more weight to the Frank scene), while expanding the mythology and introducing new villains/threats, particularly Dr. Channard. Having recently seen the lackluster sequels, the film's overall high quality is even more impressive; certainly Dimension has proven time and time again that it's pretty easy to make a shitty Hellraiser movie.

Not that it's a perfect film. There are some odd omissions of character, such as the rather personable cop who appears in the film's first 20 minutes and is then never seen again. And Kirsty has apparently gone back and read some of Clive Barker's notes or something, because all of a sudden she is an expert on the Cenobites (how did she even learn the term?), apparently gaining all of her knowledge after just looking at them for a few minutes. And while Tony Randel does an admirable job of taking over from Barker as director, I think he could have stood to lose three or even two hundred of the shots of Kirsty and Tiffany running down hallways together. There would still be several thousand for us to enjoy, so I don't think it would have been any real loss.

Speaking of the hallway, it's kind of funny how time/better technology has sort of ruined certain movie effects. Being more hip to movie magic, it's pretty easy to see that the "endless maze of hallways" is really just three hallways (if that) shot from different angles. Also, even as a kid, I was always aware of bad effects in movies (such as the abysmal composite shot in Nightmare on Elm St 3 when the skeleton is fighting Craig Wasson), but I didn't see anything wrong with Hellbound when I watched it on an EP mode VHS copy. Now, in a glorious anamorphic transfer on upscaled DVD, I can see that the matte/composite shots in this movie are pretty damn cheesy, as are some of the effects on Dr. Channard. Don't get me wrong, they are imaginative and all, but the clarity of DVD really diminishes their impact. Another thing that I noticed about the effects which was just more amusing - whenever they cut to a closeup of a head being inflicted with some incredibly serious pain (such as pins being driven into it), the head doesn't move at all. I'd be squirming like a mother fucker!

Speaking of Nightmare 3... anyone else ever notice how similar the dynamic is with the female leads in the two films? Which movie am I describing? A curly brown haired woman from the first film helps a new character, a blond with bad 80s hair, fight the returning monster while running around both a mental institute and Hell.

One other minor thing - while I always love the idea of a villain redeeming himself in the face of a greater threat, it seems really abrupt when it happens here. Pinhead has no recollection of his human side, but once he sees a picture of himself, he instantly finds it in his heart to help Kristy out. It's an interesting story idea, I just wish it was threaded more into the narrative instead of coming more or less out of nowhere in the final reel.

Anchor Bay has put together a pretty great collection for this release, and it's pretty impressive how good the movie looks when you consider that there is an additional 90 minutes of extra features. The commentary and making of are carried over from the 2000 release, then 2 features are imported from other sources, and finally 3 all new featurettes were created specially for this edition. Unsurprisingly, the new ones are the more interesting, as they deal with folks we don't often hear from. Barker, Bradly, and Ashley Laurence are not in any of the new features, so instead we hear the thoughts of the other three cenobites, as well as Kenneth Cranham, who is delightfully British (read: dryly hilarious) as he recollects his turn as Dr. Channard. There is also a new interview with director Tony Randel, who talks about how he moved up from being a film librarian at Corman's company to a full fledged director. The old making of is typical of such pieces for films that were made before special editions were in vogue, in that for every minute of interview footage, there's two minutes of film. Even though it was produced by Barker himself, it's actually the weakest in the lot. Finally, there's an old interview with Barker from the set, and a new-ish (2004) interview with Bradley. Plus the usual trailers and such. Oddly enough, the box art makes no mention of the fact that this is the full unrated 99 minute cut, not the theatrical version you might expect. Which got me thinking: what if someone preferred the theatrical? Is it available on DVD anywhere? I know unrated cuts are generally more enticing, but more often than not, the added shit is worthless (see: Crimson Tide), so the choice should at least be available.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Plasterhead (2006)

DECEMBER 20, 2008

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: NETFLIX (ONLINE VIEWING)

After swearing off both the Xbox/Netflix hybrid, and direct to video indies, I watched Plasterhead, which falls in both categories. Hey I'm nothing if not a goddamn liar. Actually though, I HAD heard of Plasterhead; one time when I was covering the news updates for Bloody-Disgusting I got a press release about the fact that it had been picked up for distribution. I asked for a screener and never got one. But even though it sounded generic, the killer looked cool, and this being a year or so ago, I had not yet tired of these movies, so it remained on my radar.

Unfortunately, it's not much better than the movies that had me swearing off such things in the first place. Yet another group of kids take a shortcut, stumble on an isolated house, and get picked off one by one. Albeit very slowly. Actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure if any of them actually die. There's four of them, one obviously gets away, but the fates of the other three are left unclear. The resident black guy gets shot in the belly but he is alive last time we see him, with Plasterhead dragging him off somewhere. And the would-be hero, surprisingly taken down with a hammer, Kirk style (or was that Jerry?), is last seen lying in the road, still breathing (whether that's just the actor doing a terrible job at holding his breath or not, I have no idea). The resident slutty girl (who is going on spring break without her boyfriend, despite just getting engaged? Huh?) is pretty much dead though, but even she lives for quite a while after her initial attack.

It's also painfully acted across the board; only the woman playing the waitress manages to come off as slightly believable. Everyone else has two modes: wooden or ridiculously over the top, particularly the sheriff, who plays one of those movie-only cops who refuses to believe anything that makes sense lest the movie not fall into inane cliché, which seems to be the intent. So when he finds some bodies, obviously it is the work of the two college kids driving through town, NOT the town boogeyman (whose origin lies in the sheriff's own doing, something he knows perfectly well), and thus holds them at gunpoint rather than listen to reason.

Another insanely ridiculous development occurs early on, when one of our heroes (for lack of a better word) finds a purse with 500 dollars cash inside. He wants to pocket the money, which is understandable, yet even though no one saw him find the bag, he's "honest" enough to show the bag to his friends (whom he should know are more goody-two-shoes-y than he is) and announce his desire to keep the cash to use on their vacation. Why the fuck not just pocket the cash right from the start then? Why bother risking a "We have to report it to lost and found!" reaction when 500 bucks is at stake? Oh, because then there would be no movie, which brings me back to my initial question. Dude could have saved himself AND me at the same time.

Luckily, there are a couple moments that rescue this from the crap heap. One is the requisite "The gas station owner is creepy and also has no gas" scene. The guy playing the gas station owner is only like 30 or so from the looks of it, but he talks like an old man (and later we are told he hasn't had gas in 30 years, which means he was a VERY ambitious, if not business-savvy, toddler). It's the most charmingly nutty thing I've seen in quite a while. Plus, there's a nice little reference to Friday the 13th, and even though the winter setting is not really utilized, it's better than most snow-bound slashers, such as Shredder or Iced.

Also, the killer's backstory is unique, in that it takes a sad truth about the world (a hate crime) and uses it as the motive for a slasher with a plaster head (I bet he took like, two weeks to come up with his name). They fail to put this sort-of sympathetic character trait to good use though, as I thought maybe the black guy in the group would sympathize with the killer (or vice versa) and he would be let free or maybe even take up the mantle of Plasterhead. But no, even though the guy's dying from the sheriff's racism-fueled gunfire, Plasterhead doesn't seem to care. But at that point, neither did I.

One final thing I want to point out - the opening credits are bizarrely out of order. They will show a cast name or two over movie footage, and then cut to black for a crew credit (the DP, music, director, etc), and then return to cast names. I believe there is actually a union rule about such things, but what do I know about credits? Also, it is listed as "A Kevin Higgins/Michael Salerno film" ("THE" would be more accurate), but Higgins is the writer and director, with Salerno merely producing. Again, I'm pretty sure the director's guild has rules about such things, and the last thing you want to do is piss off those guys. Hollywood guilds are very strict about being complete assholes in order to "protect" the very people they are hurting when they pull rank.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

A Real Friend (2006)

DECEMBER 19, 2008

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, WEIRD
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

As I watched A Real Friend (Spanish: Adivina Quién Soy), I began wondering why no one's made the movie before, because the story is simple and also through its very design allows a filmmaker to pay homage to his favorite horror movies. Basically, a lonely little girl escapes into the horror movies she watches; her imaginary friends are Leatherface, Nosferatu, and Mr. Hyde. And maybe Pennywise or Cheezo... there's a clown that pops up every now and then, but he never really gets a moment to shine. They are in the kill scenes, and also pop up in the background from time to time. Leatherface is essentially the girl's best friend, and does things like give her a hug when her parents are fighting. Brilliant!

The attention to detail was truly admirable, particularly for Leatherface. They never say his name (or the name of the movie), but the costume/mask are spot on perfect, as is the performance of Aitor Mazo (credited as Bubba, another nice reference). The film clips are recreated pretty accurately (though the "Chainsaw Dance" finale is set on a beach for some reason), and Mazo actually does a better job than at least 2 of the actual Leatherface performers (likewise, whoever did the makeup for this should be brought on to do any future installments of the regular franchise). Writer/Director Enrique Urbizu doesn't stop there though; when Leatherface cuts down a door he makes the exact same pattern that Gunnar Hansen did in the original film. Also, the frequent news reports that we overhear echo those in the first film (i.e. they are all about the discovery of bodies, murders, etc).

I loved this, because I hate when a movie sort of parodies a well known movie killer, but does it completely wrong. Like in The Blob when they go see a faux Jason movie. The mask is all wrong, the style is totally off... it's more distracting than entertaining. But not here; apparently the rights/licenses were not obtained (Nosferatu is in the public domain, so that's the only one they call out by name) but the detail is so accurate even a non-horror fan would probably figure out who the other monsters were.

Another thing that struck me was how much Spanish TV allows in their films (all 6 in this series are TV movies). At one point the girl's teacher picks up a hooker, who goes down on him in his car and then spits his load onto the sidewalk, and the girl's mom is seeing taking it from behind in a broom closet. Plus the murders are pretty gory. Our TV shows might have a lot of profanity, but even on Heroes (possibly the goriest mainstream show of all time) you never see a decapitated head rolling around (for proof, check out the recent decapitation of Universal Studios shirt guy).

I just wish it had been a little better overall. It starts off solid, but it loses steam once the "vampire" reveals his true identity. And then the twist ending really feels like a copout; without spoiling anything, I really was hoping to put this one into a different genre (which would also spoil it, but whatever). Luckily, the movie had earned a lot of goodwill with its horror-fan appealing setup and way above average attention to detail, so I was able to forgive it. It's just a shame that I can't give it a fully positive review, something I thought for sure I would after the first 30-40 minutes had charmed me so.

Another bummer is that I spent half the movie wishing that I had known a 12 year old girl who liked to watch Texas Chain Saw Massacre in her spare time. If this girl was in my 6th or 7th grade class, she surely would have been the first girl to tell me she only liked me as a friend.

There is one aspect about the movie that really struck me as bizarre: the protagonist's insane methods of food storage. At one point, she wants pineapple for her pizza, and retrieves some from under the sink. Who the hell keeps food under the sink? But the really baffling one came early on, when the mom asked if the girl had eaten the "Macaroni salad that was wrapped in tin foil and put in the microwave." What the fuck? Tin foil in the microwave? Macaroni salad kept in anything BUT a fridge? Remind me to never eat anything at this fictional person's home.

The making of is decent, if not essential. Urbizu is clearly a talented guy, and even in this brief look one can tell he cares deeply about all aspects of his production. As with the others, no other features are provided. I would think that there would be deleted scenes on all of them, since they have to fit a certain length to fit on TV (they are all 75 minutes long). Oh well.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Ringu 2 (1999)

DECEMBER 18, 2008

GENRE: ASIAN, GHOST
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

I was about halfway through Ringu 2 when I began to understand why the American sequel had a completely new storyline rather than follow this one (the two original films are pretty identical, so I figured the sequels would follow suit) – this movie kind of sucks. The American Ring Two was even worse, but you can’t blame them for attempting something different rather than redo this overplotted and thoroughly unscary version.

Let’s get what works out of the way. They aren’t copying the original movie, and given the rather limited number of stories one could make about a haunted video tape, it was a wise choice to open it up a bit and stick with the characters, rather than bring in a bunch of new characters and have them suffer the same fate(s) of the people in the original. Also, more on that, the movie picks up a few days later, and all of the surviving actors have returned, so it feels like a genuine continuation, not a completely unrelated entry like The Eye 2. And there’s a rather surprising death of a major character halfway through (probably the primary reason this movie was not the basis for the American one), which is a ballsy move.

But that’s about it. The problems more than outweigh the high points. For starters, the movie is only about a tenth as freaky or scary as the original. There are surprisingly few scenes of long haired ghosts fucking with people, and those few aren’t particularly exciting either. The most suspenseful the movie gets is when a guy is trying to erase a tape and he keeps failing to do so.

Speaking of tape qualities, something bugs me. The only way to end your curse is to make a copy of the tape and give it to someone, right? So that copy is at least third generation at that point (since the one that caused all the trouble in the first place was itself a copy), right? So that guy makes a copy and gives it to someone to save HIS ass, and now we’re on a 4th generation dub. And so on. Well, then wouldn’t the tape eventually be so damn muddled and blurry that the ghost wouldn’t be able to find its way out of the well and into your TV? Also, what happens when you give the tape to someone who already had it? “No thanks, Steve gave me a copy yesterday.” Eventually, folks will run out of people to give it to.

Another issue I had with this movie was its stubborn refusal to keep things simple. There are so many goddamn subplots in this movie, I felt like I was watching three movies combined into one. Dead fathers, facial reconstruction, mute kids, psychic powers, super-water, spirit photography, police investigations... not to mention the damn video, which pops up from time to time, mainly to try to remind the audience that this is a sequel to Ringu and not Ju-On (which it often feels like). The water stuff in particular is annoying – apparently one of the after effects of being cursed is that you can turn ordinary tap water into super-absorbent water? What the hell kind of special power is that? Sylar wouldn’t even bother to snarl at the owner of that power, let alone cut open his forehead to take it. And the end of the film seems partially lifted from Exorcist II, hardly a great source to crib your sequel ideas.

Also, and this isn’t the movie’s fault, but I noticed that when you watch a foreign film, even with subs you’re still missing out on some of the ambience, because they can’t subtitle everything. Like at one point, the little creepy kid has scattered a bunch of pages, all of which have different things on them, but the subs only translate one (“I feel scared” or something of that nature). Newspaper articles, TV headlines, etc... all suffer the same fate. Even some dialogue gets left to the imagination – an interview with a girl who has watched the tape is playing, and after two or three lines, the subs no longer translate what she is saying for our benefit (the main characters begin talking over the video, but still, in my own language I’d be able to follow both). It’s like playing a role playing game without talking to any of the townspeople or reading the quest descriptions.

Luckily, the DVD has no extra features whatsoever, which means my time spent in the increasingly underwhelming Ringu universe was limited to the 92 minutes for the film itself. However, when I was looking the movie up on Wikipedia to see if I could gain any insight as to why a pretty decent movie can’t seem to come up with a good sequel, I discovered the existence of a Dreamcast game based on the concept. Has anyone played this thing? Dreamcast is the only console that I’ve never even touched, so I’m completely oblivious on the details.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Zombie Diaries (2006)

DECEMBER 17, 2008

GENRE: MOCKUMENTARY, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

What the fuck is it about British zombie movies that makes people exalt them to high heaven, ignoring all of their derivative qualities? When 28 Days Later came out, folks sang its praises, claiming how much better it was than Dawn or Day of the Dead, while completely ignoring the fact that without those movies, 28 Days Later would be pretty damn short due to the fact that nearly half the film consists of scenes with only minor differences from their superior counterparts in Romero’s films. Now we have The Zombie Diaries, which most reviewers claim is far superior to the similar Diary of the Dead, despite the fact that this film shares almost all of the same problems Romero’s had, and is far less interesting to boot.

For example, many complained about the characters in Diary filming things that they shouldn’t, and the camerawork being too “clean” (so we could see the top notch gore effects). Well Zombie Diaries does it one better: at one point a guy fires a shot, and then there’s a goddamn CUT to the zombie getting its head blown apart! With one camera! Also, these characters film their friends being eaten and many benign conversations and events, not to mention take the time to perfectly frame just as many headshots as Romero’s characters did (and unlike that film, none of the kills here are particularly memorable). But it’s British, not American, so it’s OK I guess?

And Diary, for all its faults, at least stuck to a single concept (film students are making a horror movie, end up being in one) and a core group of characters, most of whom never filmed anything. Here, we follow three separate groups, and while the documentary team has an excuse, none is ever given for why the other two are constantly filming their adventures (and certainly not why these regular folks are equipped with good cameras and an endless supply of tapes and batteries). As a result, it’s often very confusing as to who exactly is filming, especially near the end of the film when the groups begin intersecting. At first I thought the film would present a tapestry of different characters, a la Max Brooks’ incredible book "World War Z", which would have been fine, but the constant switching back and forth of perspective is needlessly confusing and ultimately annoying. Perhaps if the groups weren’t intercut with one another, and instead presented whole in 25-30 min segments, it would work better.

But even then, the movie would still suffer from the same shit that many zombie movies do: evil fucking humans. Yeah, because the end of the world, losing all your loved ones, and the undead walking around is simply not enough for a single movie, you gotta have a couple of humans show that “we” are the REAL monsters. It’s the same moronic decision that ultimately sunk 28 Days Later and many other zombie films (even the original Dawn loses a lot of steam once the biker gang shows up). I don’t understand why this is such a prevalent concept in zombie films. I don’t see this happening in other genres; it’s not like you’re watching The Howling and then near the end a bunch of fucking goblins show up too. Christ, zombies don’t even figure into the final 10 minutes of a movie called ZOMBIE DIARIES, because the evil humans have once again become the main antagonists.

That all said, it’s not without merit. The first half hour or so (before the “Survivor” group is introduced) is pretty solid, and the acting is decent for the most part. There’s a guy in the “Scavenger” group that’s pretty bad, but otherwise they are all believable, and more importantly not recognizable. The biggest mistake any of these mockumentary movies can make is to cast well-known actors (part of why I didn’t even bother with Quarantine), so at least they got that right. And to be fair, it did come BEFORE Diary of the Dead and a lot of the other recent “found footage” type movies, so kudos to coming up with an original-ish way to PRESENT their zombie movie; it’s just a shame that they couldn’t come up with original ideas to put into it as well.

The DVD comes with two commentaries, one by the director/writer/producer/editor team (no one else to blame for the movie’s faults!) and one by the cast. I listened to the director one; it’s plenty informative, though they start off by claiming they won’t be pretentious and then 10 minutes later they are knocking Blair Witch’s jump cuts, noting that they are “absurd”, apparently forgetting that the film is presented as edited footage and thus the jump cuts make total sense. They also knock on 28 Days for some of its faults (I’m no big fan of that film either, so I don’t care, but it’s still worth noting I think), rather than bother to note their own. There are also quite a few deleted scenes, confusingly presented in three separate menus (one per survivor group). “Play All” only refers to the scenes for that group, so make sure you click around if you want to see all of the footage that was wisely removed from the film. Many reviews point out an hour-long making of documentary being included as well, but damned if I could find it on the copy I rented.

The DVD box also features what I assume is the cover for a much more exciting zombie movie, since it doesn’t have a goddamn thing to do with this one.

On the back of the DVD, a site (magazine?) called Dark Side is credited with saying that it’s “The Best Zombie Film Ever!” This bummed me out; I feel bad for anyone who lives in a universe that doesn’t include Night of the Living Dead (1968 or 1990), Dawn of the Dead (78 or 04), Day of the Dead (85), Land of the Dead, Diary of the Dead, 28 Weeks Later, Shaun of the Dead, The Beyond, Zombie, The Gates of Hell, Return of the Living Dead, Zombies Anonymous, Dead & Buried, [Rec], Mulberry St, Demons, Demons 2, Boy Eats Girl, Night of the Creeps, Messiah Of Evil, Flight Of The Living Dead, Black Sheep, Deathdream, Children Shouldn’t Play With Dead Things, Planet Terror, Brain Dead, Prince Of Darkness, or Cemetery Man. To name a few.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Mummy (1932)

DECEMBER 16, 2008

GENRE: CLASSIC, MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

When I saw the 1999 remake of The Mummy, I enjoyed it, but was a bit bummed that it was not even close to a horror movie like the original. However, I said this without actually having SEEN the original, which I assumed was about a guy running around with bandages, killing folks in London or something. So now that I have seen it, I have to admit: Stephen Sommers made the right choice to go all out adventure with his film, because as a horror film, the concept doesn’t really work for me (the one I made up in my head was way better!).

First off though, let me make something clear: Karloff is great in the role, in fact maybe even better than he is in Frankenstein, simply because he has more to do and is playing someone I can identify with a bit more (I believe in reincarnation more than I believe in stitching a dude together and electrocuting him until he wakes up). But a great performance doesn’t mean the movie itself is great, or even good.

The main problem with the movie is the complete inertness of it all. Nothing fucking happens, and when it does it’s off-screen or skipped over entirely. The finale comes out of nowhere because of this: our heroine is drawn out of her home by the hypnotic lure of the monster (the movie owes more than just a little to Dracula), and then all of a sudden she is decked out in Egyptian garb, convinced she really is "Anck-es-en-Amon" and not the modern day woman she was just seconds before. Huh? It’s like there is an entire reel missing.

Plus, for a villain, he is pretty careless with his attacks. He takes out the woman’s boyfriend, presumably because he is the only one that can pose any serious threat to his plans, yet fails to actually kill him. This allows the guy to wake up and mount a traditional rescue, but even that doesn’t actually happen. Instead, a statue waves its arm around a bit, which causes Karloff to disintegrate for some reason, and the movie ends 10 seconds later. I don’t think the girl even kisses her should-be-dead-boyfriend, a traditional end of the movie moment I assumed would be the only reason he survived in the first place.

Another problem: it’s simply not scary, or even suspenseful. Imhotep is often seen chatting with the other characters, and doesn’t seem to want to cause them any real harm, which means I didn’t really fear for any of their lives. And his motive is hardly a terrifying concept – he simply wants to nail his old girlfriend. If it wasn’t for all of the Dracula swipes (even the Swan Lake music pops up) and Karloff’s Jack Pierce makeup, I wouldn’t even consider this a horror movie. A kind of nice love story maybe, but not horror.

Luckily for Universal, I’m in the minority, so they have assembled a nice package for fans to enjoy. There’s a 30 minute retrospective about the film’s origins, which also has a lengthy section about lead actress Zita Johann, and a rather dismissive account of the non-sequel Mummy films that Universal made in the 40s (this one never had a legit followup). Newsflash – when you are selling a set with 5 movies, try not to trash the other 4 on the disc for the 1st one. Kind of sets me up for disappointment, and I’m already far off the Mummy bandwagon. There is also a commentary by film historian Paul Jensen. Like Tim Lucas on the Bava films, he sounds like he is reading a Wikipedia entry at gunpoint, and spends a lot of time simply narrating the action (and at one point apparently gets bored and begins describing another movie entirely, in full detail), but there’s still a lot of good trivia to learn while listening (that “missing reel” I mentioned is explained: apparently there was a longer sequence, which he describes, but never says why it’s not in the film itself). The film’s trailer and a collection of images round out the disc (the four other films are smushed together on disc 2). The transfer is also better than many of the other 1930’s classics from Universal (in particular Frankenstein, which was pretty lousy if I recall), though I fail to understand why the brand new Universal logo (with the website URL and everything) is shown in black and white, as if someone would be tricked into thinking it’s part of the original print.

One last note – there’s an actor in the movie named Noble Johnson. Is it just me, or is that the classiest porn name of all time?

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Damien: Omen II (1978)

DECEMBER 15, 2008

GENRE: KILLER KID, RELIGIOUS
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

The most interesting thing about Damien: Omen II is how the death scenes seem to have influenced the minds behind the Final Destination kill sequences. Almost no one just dies in this movie, there is always a chain of events preceding it. Most striking is an elevator kill late in the film. Does the elevator just crash to the ground and kill the guy like in a regular movie? Nah, after it hits, a pair of weights connected by a thick cable fall from the top of the shaft, slicing through the top of the car and cutting the victim in half. It makes no fucking sense at all, but it’s still pretty awesome. The original had one too (the decapitation), but it seems to be the rule rather than the exception here.

And it’s actually a much better sequel than I expected. Like the original, it’s a classy killer kid movie; silly deaths aside, the concept isn’t played for dark humor like other KK movies. Of course, you don’t get actors like William Holden unless you’re taking things serious, so I guess I should have known better right from the start. It’s not as terrifying, but it’s suspenseful enough, and the storyline is interesting without copying too much from the original. There’s a great scene about halfway through when a teacher grills Damien about historical dates, all of which Damien seemingly knows before the teacher even finishes asking. Given how terrible I am at remembering dates, I wholeheartedly accept exceptional skill at it to be the Devil’s work.

One thing that bummed me out though was the relative lack of military school sequences compared to the ones revolving around the Thorn company. The idea of an Antichrist wreaking havoc on fellow soldiers-in-training, hardass captains, etc is particularly enticing, but Damien actually spends most of his scenes in or around the home of his adoptive parents or taking factory tours. This story decision is even more frustrating when you consider the fact that Damien’s watcher at the academy is played by a young(er) Lance Henriksen. As a result, Lance only has like 3 scenes (none of which really explain how he knows what Damien is, though the IMDb trivia helped me out there), which is 1-2 less than the number of scenes that some random Thorn executive has.

There’s also a death setpiece that would not be possible unless it was winter. Why does every killer kid movie seem to have a pre-occupation with ice and/or snow? The Good Son, Godsend, Devil Times Five, Cathy’s Curse, Whisper...

I also like how Damien still seems to be rather oblivious to his powers for the first hour or so It would have been easy to have him as a malevolent teenager purposely doing harm on those who bother him, but again, he seems rather innocent until the third act, and even then he's hardly a power-hungry villain; he still acts human and evokes sympathy. The only problem I really had with the remake of the original was that Damien was a hateful little bastard (that and it was otherwise the exact same movie, albeit with a better graveyard scene IMO). I assume that the next two movies has Damien in full on villain mode, but it was fun while it lasted.

The only extra is a commentary with producer Harry Bernhard, moderated by J.M. Kenny (who was responsible for getting this box set together). Like most producers who offer commentary tracks when the writer or director is MIA, he seems to be a giant blowhard who belittles the work of those who you would rather be listening to, and yet tries to sound like he’s the good guy in the whole thing (when discussing original director Mike Hodges, he merely points out that “they didn’t see eye to eye”, then reveals that replacement director Don Taylor is married to a good friend of his, offering no other qualifications for a man who directed only TV movies both before and after his work on this film). Most annoying is when he gets annoyed about the red dress that Joan Hart wears. “I don’t want anyone to think that I had anything to do with that red dress!” he barks. Well, why would they? You’re a fucking producer. Your job is to make sure that the director has all of the red dresses that he fucking wants as long as it fits into the budget. He also spends a good chunk of the time talking about all the great actors he found and all the great locations he selected, instead of explaining why he hasn’t managed to make a movie since 1991 (the TV movie Omen IV). Maybe Big Red Dress had him exiled. To be fair though, he is also largely responsible for Jerry Goldsmith’s return, which gave the film an extra layer of legitimacy.

Finally, I would like to point out that the repeated use of the phrase “born of a jackal” gave me pleasant thoughts of Ludo as I watched the film. “She moves through moonbeams slowly, she knows just how to hold me. And when her edges soften, her body is my coffin!”

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

This Night I Will Possess Your Corpse (1967)

DECEMBER 14, 2008

GENRE: HERO KILLER, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

The Netflix description for This Night I’ll Possess Your Corpse (Brazilian: Esta Noite Encarnarei no Teu Cadáver) claims that it’s more or less a remake of the first film, but I disagree. Like any sequel, there is a general sameness to the plot, but it’s far from a complete do-over. There’s another poker game, but that’s hardly worth damning the film with a remake tag. In fact, it picks up where the original left off, keeping continuity alive, unlike other “sequels that are really remakes”, such as Evil Dead 2. Plus, it features a new town, different characters, is about a half hour longer, and best of all, further delves into the psyche of the character of Coffin Joe.

Whereas in the first film his hatred of religion was more of a glorified character quirk than anything, it’s pretty much front and center here. You can’t ask this guy for the time without him ranting about how religion is for morons and how neither heaven or hell does not exist. It actually gets a bit tiresome as the film goes on (it’s 105 minutes long); it’s as if no one told José Mojica Marins that spending so much energy putting something down is just as annoying as preaching it.

It’s also a better made film than the original, by far. The acting is still hit or miss, but the production value and camerawork are far more professional, and Marins has improved his performance as well. Also, there are no effects achieved by gluing some glitter onto the film negative (though he has seemingly employed a similar idea for the opening credits, which are among the most insane and enjoyable in film history). And there’s a lot more violence, mostly at the hands (legs?) of spiders and such, so there’s something.

Also, Joe is more, for lack of a better word, compassionate in this one. Early on he saves a little boy from getting run over, and then he feels extremely guilty for killing a woman who was pregnant (she wasn’t showing yet). No one tries to cheer him up by pointing out that he wasn’t the father of the child, and thus it wouldn’t have been perfect anyway, but oh well. Apparently, there’s even a censor-mandated version in which Joe accepts Christ as his savior shortly before dying (pfft, there’s a 3rd one, so he doesn’t die anyway), which would have made an interesting extra feature.

The only extras are another interview with Marins, in which he moans about how professional actors don’t like it when you twist their fingers with pliers or set off small bombs near them in order to get a certain reaction, hence why he uses amateurs. The best thing about it is that he seems to think that the professional actors are in the wrong on this matter. There are also a trio of trailers, for this (which spoils the awesome and surprising color sequence), the first film, and another sort-of sequel called Awakening Of The Beast, which was considered the third part of the trilogy until Embodiment of Evil came along.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Hellgate (1989)

DECEMBER 13, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Since The Pit was so amazing, I had high hopes for Hellgate, as it was on the other side of the disc. It also starred Horshak himself, Ron Palillo. And a wax tourist trap figured into the equation, which brought along memories of, well, Tourist Trap, one of my all time favorite movies.

Unfortunately, it sucked.

I dunno how they could take all that promise and make a movie so dull, but that is precisely what screenwriter Michael O’Rourke and director William A. Levey did. By my count, there was only one inspired sequence in the entire film – when two older dudes point a rock at a fishbowl, which makes the goldfish grow and grow until it shatters the bowl and turns into a flopping mutant thing on a table. Then they do the same to a turtle. I was hoping that the rest of the movie would just be two old dudes pointing a rock at various marine life and seeing what happened, but instead, we go back to our four dull leads doing their dull thing.

And four is as many hero sort of characters we get. It’s not a bad number for a zombie movie (I believe Dawn of the Dead did just fine with a quartet) but O’Rourke and Levey seemingly refuse to kill them, or even put them in any real danger until the final 15-20 minutes of the 91 min film. And they never introduce any significant sub-hero characters to kill either, so the movie just treads water until then. There’s some nonsense with Palillo horsing around with a blond woman who is a ghost (or something, I actually got pretty baffled by some of the movie, just never in a good way), which makes his girlfriend mad, but that’s about the extent of the suspense until the final reel.

Back to the blue rock laser thing – it’s the most inconsistent magic implement I’ve ever seen in a movie. It always shoots out the same blue line, but the consequences change at random. Some things grow larger in size; others turn rather monstrous but don’t really grow that much. Some objects explode instantly; others just simply break in half. And then some folks just turn into the zombies that we occasionally see wandering around, but never seem to figure into the actual story.

And if anyone can explain the scene with this guy... be my guest.

Also, and I don’t mean to be mean, but the two girls are... how can I put this nicely... not very attractive. Come on, casting people – if you’re going to make a bad horror movie, at least make sure that the two girls who don’t do anything are at least hot, for the audience’s sake. One of them looks like Paul Reubens for Christ’s sake.

The uneven tone doesn’t help either. When you’re making a horror/comedy, the least you can do is succeed on one count, but Hellgate doesn’t even come close on either front. The only laughs I got were unintentional, stemming from the cheap-o effects (and the giant fish) and the movie is never the slightest bit scary or suspenseful (except, again, the giant fish, which kind of freaked me out since I am afraid of fish).

This movie must have been direct to DVD. The IMDb has no “box office/business” information, and BoxOfficeMojo actually laughed at me for attempting to find out the financial success of a (the?) movie starring Ron Palillo. So, what, three days into my “No more DTV crap!” credo, I’ve already fucked up. Oh well.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Amityville II: The Possession (1982)

DECEMBER 12, 2008

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

After the first Amityville, it was pretty much a no-brainer that someone would make a film about the original case, that of the DeFeo family. But it’s not quite as clear why the makers of Amityville II: The Possession would change the creepiest aspect of the story, and also structure their film in a way that results in the second half being more of an Exorcist knockoff than a haunted house film.

While there have been theories and varying confessions from the involved parties, nothing can change the fact that the DeFeo family members were all killed sound asleep in their beds, none of them waking up at the sound of the initial shots. Yet in this movie (which, to be fair, is just based on the real case; their names have been changed and other details completely fabricated or left out) they are all awake, and there’s even a sort of chase scene implemented into it, as the fake Ronald DeFeo chases his sister/not-so-secret lover around the house; a sequence not unlike most of the slasher films of the era (it’s a triple genre offering!). Granted, it’s obvious that the movie is after cheap shock value more than creepy suspense, but still, changing this fact rubbed me the wrong way.

Also, the melding of two films has some structural problems. I can understand that having another movie set entirely around a family getting angry and seeing weird shit in their new home wouldn’t be particularly interesting, but it doesn’t change the fact that the 2nd half, after Ronny kills them all, is far less exciting. If I was Tommy Lee Wallace (who wrote the script, a fact I was not aware of until the credits began to roll), I would have had the “Ronny on the run” sequences come first, without knowing why people were after him. Then, once captured, I would present the haunted house stuff as a flashback (which would also help another problem, more on that next), and then end with the Exorcist nonsense, which I guess I’d be stuck with for some reason. I think the movie as a whole would work better this way, instead of feeling so all over the place.

Back to that other problem though – there is no time for sympathy for any of the family members. By the 5 minute mark they are already at each other’s throats and seemingly under the house’s spell. Brolin turned asshole rather quickly in the first one too, but not THIS quickly, and it was only him, whereas here the mom and older brother turn bitterly angry along with him. The only one who doesn’t seem very affected is the sister, but she’s a damn weirdo as well (she’s all over the brother from the minute she is introduced – I suspect that if the ghosts didn’t possess him, she would have just climbed into his bed on her own). It’s more entertaining, sure, but this means that the entire second half of the film resolves around trying to cure/help a guy who I didn’t like even before he began shotgunning his entire family.

Still, as you might expect, it works in a Grindhouse-y way. Indeed, Andrew Prine himself even shows up as a friend to the resident priest (James Olson, who is for all intents and purposes the star of the film). He’s rather subdued, and his role is rather minor in the grand scheme of things, but still, he brings along a whiff of the exploitative that the rest of the cast seemingly embraced. Burt Young in particular is delightfully despicable, and Jack Magner as Ronny (renamed Sonny) reminded me of Scream Bloody Murder’s Fred Holbert. Sadly, both men apparently never capitalized on their would-be breakout roles, though Magner popped up in Firestarter at least (Holbert has never been heard from again).

Plus, you could certainly never accuse the movie of being boring. The first half is nonstop haunted house clichés, icky incestuous scenes (complete with a “break up”) and hysterical family domestic disputes. And then Magner runs around half-possessed for most of the second half. Also, the complete lack of regard for continuity with the original film (this is a prequel, though that is never actually made clear in the film either) is pretty admirable, especially near the end of the film when the house is more or less blown up, an event that apparently left no damage for the Lutz family to endure when they move in a few months later. And even though the Exorcist stuff is a bit past its time (this movie was made nearly 10 years after that classic), it’s still enjoyable and fast-paced, with some impressive makeup as well.

Since I’m not a big fan of haunted house movies anyway, I’m probably not the best person to ask for a recommendation. But if there was one I would want to see at the New Bev, it would be this one for sure. On with the rest of the sequels!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Phantom Of The Opera (1962)

DECEMBER 11, 2008

GENRE: HERO KILLER (?), REVENGE (?)
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

As I’ve made clear in the past, The Phantom Of The Opera is hardly one of my favorite stories, yet I was interested in seeing the Hammer version. If nothing else, I assumed, it would be rather bloody for its day, have lavish costumes and sets to enjoy, and maybe Christopher Lee or Peter Cushing popping up somewhere.

Sadly, only one of those turned out to be true, and I’m sure you can guess which. But even that kind of disappointed, since the Phantom’s mask (always a source of “how will they do it” curiosity for any adaptation) was pretty bland, and covered his entire face. Plus, his ‘real face’ makeup isn’t all that terrifying; if I saw the dude on the street I wouldn’t be all that scared of his scars (and then Jeff Richmond would probably explain to me how he got them). The sets, however, were indeed pretty nice.

Also, I found it interesting how much liberty they took with the story. While I tend to prefer the versions that are just sort of inspired by the story (i.e. Argento’s Opera, and the chees-o 80s movie Phantom of the Mall: Eric’s Revenge) rather than faithful to the novel, some of the changes here seem rather random and pointless. For example, the Phantom’s name is not Erik or Eric, but someone named Petrie (first name never given, though it starts with L, which cannot be any variation of Eric that I’ve ever heard of), and rather than actually murder anyone himself, it is all done at the hands of a dwarf. Also, while the sewer abode does make an appearance, the finale takes place during the opera itself, when the dwarf is wreaking havoc and the Phantom plays hero, pushing Christine (the only name they kept) out of the way of the requisite falling chandelier. Hell, they don’t even do “Faust”, but instead a rather entertaining (and English language) version of the Joan of Arc story. I’m all for putting your own stamp on things, but a lot of these changes just seem there for the hell of it rather than any sort of narrative reason.

They also have a human villain character (played by future Alfred Michael Gough), who was stealing the Phantom's music and passing it off as his own. This is fine, but it goes nowhere. Maybe the censors had something to do with it, but the guy never gets his comeuppance! He just runs away. It's like Dragonheart, when Dennis Quaid swears to kill every dragon, and yet befriends the only one he actually had a problem with after he's killed countless others who never bothered him.

Still, had you never read the novel or seen any other versions, you can do a lot worse (such as Schumacher’s version of the musical, or Argento’s abysmal Julian Sands entry), and if nothing else, it’s not all that long either (I think even the Lon Chaney one is longer). Herbert Lom is a great Phantom, and the lavish color and production design provides enough eye candy to keep you entertained. It’s a bit light on the horror element, which is surprising, but it’s actually not as crippling as it could have been. And the source of not-Erik’s scars is possibly my favorite backstory yet – he threw what he thought was water onto a fire, but it turns out that it was actually nitric acid. Yeah, because nitric acid always comes in 20 oz. plastic bottles. Some professor.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari (1920)

DECEMBER 10, 2008

GENRE: CLASSIC, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 4!!!)

Silent movies are not my friend. In addition to the obvious increase in how much time I spend on sleep-inducing reading, I also can’t get away with the “resting my eyes” approach, because there aren’t even sound effects or tone of voice to get the jist of a scene (though, come on, how long am I actually awake after my eyes first close?). And even when I’m wide awake, I can’t let my eyes wander, because I won’t “hear” the dialogue. So it should come as no surprise that despite its standing as one of the most important horror films of all time, The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari was never high on my to-do list.

But it’s not just my sleepiness; I was also afraid that having already seen the past 90 years of horror movies that owe their existence (albeit in a Kevin Bacon-y way) to the film, I wouldn’t enjoy it all that much anyway. The ending has been long since spoiled, and the set design – the film’s most lasting contribution – would probably not be as impressive anymore. It’s one thing to try to watch an original when you’ve already seen the remake and try to undo your memories, but in this case, we’re talking about trying to forget EVERY HORROR MOVIE EVER in order to fully appreciate its contribution to the genre.

That said, I still enjoyed it. The sets may not be as “Wow!”-y anymore, but they ARE still impressive, and I would find myself paying more attention to the background than the foreground (i.e. the actors) every few minutes. I just wish half the movie wasn’t filmed in “Closed Iris O-Vision” so that I could actually see some of them in their entirety. And even though I knew the conclusion, the actual meat of the story was largely unknown to me (right down to the vocabulary – I had to look up “somnambulist”), so I remained engaged despite knowing that it was all in the guy’s imagination. And the scene where Cesare goes after the girl in her sleep is pretty goddamn creepy, if I do say so myself.

I also love the “Cesare” dummy that makes an appearance in the 3rd act, because I actually wasn’t sure if it was supposed to be a dummy or a corpse at first. Then a guy begins tossing it around the set, which pretty much gave me the answer. But hey, it’s a pretty good looking dummy!

I was also tickled to be reminded at how goddamn slow people used to read. A card reading “Case histories and notes” stays up for a good 10-15 seconds, which is more time than I need to individually say each letter in the phrase. But at least I could read that one; a few minutes later (or before, I forget. Same reel at any rate) there’s this:

There have been a few low-budget remakes and modernizations over the years, but no big Hollywood production. Given the film’s reputation for its impressive sets and twist ending, I find this kind of surprising. Surely the Saw guys could have some fun with the concept (say what you will about Repo – the set design, by the same team from Saw, is fucking amazing, which is even more impressive when you consider the film’s budget was lower than the last 2 Saw sequels). And the furor over such a proposed remake would be more entertaining than either film, so it’s win across the board!

I wish I could have loved the movie, but it’s just too hard to forget everything that has followed its lead. It’s a shame, but that’s just how it is. I still enjoyed it and would love to watch a special edition’s features (not to mention a better print than Mill Creek offered), however it won’t be dethroning anything on my top 10 list. Sorry, purists and “everything new sucks” types! I will say this though, to all readers who have recently had children – when they get old enough and want to join you for your horror movie watching, make them watch the classics first!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Manos: The Hands Of Fate (1966)

DECEMBER 9, 2008

GENRE: CULT, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 4!!!)

It’s a shame that MST3k went off the air during a horror drought, because it means that movies like Manos: The Hands Of Fate are considered the “worst they’ve ever done”. Call me crazy, but I’ve seen at least 2 movies in the past month that were far worse than this (including yesterday’s), and at least Manos has some valid excuses for its many, many shortcomings. And since these shitty movies are seemingly made for the ultra-cheap Lionsgate to buy for pennies, it’s pretty likely that many of them would end up on the show (MSTs producers had to pay for the movies they showed, which is why you’ve never heard of 90% of the episodes’ targets - they couldn't afford big time stinkers). With Mike and the other guys apparently only focusing on big blockbuster movies for their Rifftrax site (the “most recent Riffs” list on the site just looks like BoxOfficeMojo’s “all time” chart), movies like Manos will unfairly be known forever as the worst, while the Michael Feifers of the world go unpunished for their far worse movies.

Not that Manos needs to be defended, good Lord no. It’s slow, it’s seemingly edited by a blind fetus, it makes little sense, and its low budget shows at every corner (such as the rather slim number of folks doing the dubbing). But director Harold P. Warren has an excuse – he made the movie on a bet, and the money he pooled together wasn’t enough to use a camera with a sync sound system or actual actors. A movie like Leprechaun in the Hood has name actors and probably a reasonable budget – what’s its excuse for being just as terrible?

And to give credit where due, some of the dubbing is actually pretty good. Particularly the wives and the Master – it sounds/looks pretty reasonable on more than a couple occasions, even if it’s all the same two or three voices. I actually forgot it was entirely dubbed at times, so there’s something.

It’s the editing that kills this movie more than anything else. I guess it was already too short to lose anything, but come on – after the Master is killed (?) in the most abrupt finale in movie history, we watch yet another endless driving scene, drawing out the inevitable conclusion. Well, inevitable in that the Master is alive and our heroes are now under his control, not inevitable in that the little girl is apparently one of the Master’s many wives now. Ew. Then there’s when the cop asks “What couple?” and the answer comes about 20 seconds later. Delayed reactions, thy name is Hands: The Hands of Fate.

A very special cameo.

But my favorite “OK, you can cut now” moment has to be when Torgo ties the hero to a tree. It goes on for about two whole minutes, which is all the more hilarious when you realize that the camera could only film 32 seconds at a time, which means that Warren had to have instructed himself (as the hero, natch) and John Reynolds (Torgo) to stay put while the camera started up again, so he could continue showing this entirely unnecessary action. It goes so long that the score song actually ends, and another starts up before it finally cuts away a few seconds later.

Speaking of Reynolds, it’s sort of common knowledge that he committed suicide a few months after the film was released, but the reasons why are less clear. Many will say that it’s embarrassment over being in this film, but all we know for sure is that the device that he wore on his legs left him in tremendous pain, and he became depressed and addicted to painkillers as a result. So I’m sure that the suicide was caused by a mix of being depressed over being in so much pain, and also the closed time loop knowledge that his problems would be forever mocked by film fans who assume he ended his life because he was apparently the only guy to ever appear in a terrible movie. Rumors of some other cast member suicides are common, but they appear to be just that, though it’s understandably hard to get any concrete info on their whereabouts; almost no one involved with the film has a single other credit to their name. All I can say is: if starring in a really awful movie is enough to kill yourself, then the producers of Gossip Girl should keep a close eye on Leighton “Drive Thru” Meester.

The Mill Creek transfer is, unsurprisingly, terrible. It seems to have been taken from a dubbed VHS tape copy of a bad film print, resulting in any number of bizarre artifacts (note how the image keeps skipping/freezing, but the audio itself is uninterrupted). I am sure there is some sort of wise-ass-y “Worst Movie Ever Made Special Edition” DVD with a decent transfer (the MST3k version, which I’ve only seen part of due to the fact that I don’t care much for Joel, is noticeably cleaner), but I don’t need a bunch of assholes laughing at how terrible it is. I’ve said it a million times, or thirteen, and I’ll say it again: I’ll take ineptitude over soullessness any day of the week. And if Manos is legitimately the worst movie you’ve ever seen, well... consider yourself lucky.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Butcher (2006)

DECEMBER 8, 2008

GENRE: BREAKDOWN, CRAP, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: CABLE (FEARNET)

Anyone who claims Ed Wood and/or Uwe Boll are the worst filmmakers of all time have clearly never suffered through the works of Michael Feifer. Boll and Wood’s films may be problematic at best (though a few of Boll’s, such as Postal, are actually quite good IMO), but at least they entertain, and are made by people who genuinely care about film and filmmaking. But there is never even an iota of evidence of that being the case with Feifer’s movies such as The Butcher (which he only produced this time around), which are seemingly made on an assembly line.

Like The Graveyard, we have yet another group of unlikable “heroes” facing off against a killer in the middle of the woods. Except this time it’s more of a survival horror than a slasher, since Feifer and encoring screenwriter Michael Hurst are ripping off Wrong Turn and Texas Chainsaw Massacre instead of I Know What You Did Last Summer and Friday the 13th. However, to be fair, they go right ahead and rip off The People Under The Stairs during the 3rd act, an inspired choice of blatant thievery.

The problem with this movie is that it has no aspirations. There is absolutely nothing in the movie that would suggest that the film was actually born out of anyone’s imagination or desire to tell a particular story, or even pay homage to earlier classics a la Last House In The Woods. Everything is by the numbers and mind-numbingly boring, without a single good line or standout performance to save it. The directing style (of soft-core porn director Edward Gorsuch) amounts to simply placing the camera in a position where it can see whoever is talking, the killer is as dull as the kids he’s stalking, and the backstory is tossed in out of nowhere during the finale when our Final Kids are confronting the guy.

I mean, you take a real piece of shit like Drive Thru or Dark Ride, and as terrible as they may be, you can actually sort of see the genesis of an idea in there. “How about a killer at McDonalds?” is at least SOMETHING. And Dark Ride, if nothing else, had a great location. But what the hell could be the one liner for this shit? “How about some kids are going on a road trip, and they take a shortcut, right? But they break down and get chased by a redneck around yet another goddamn dilapidated house in the middle of nowhere!” Yeah, pal, you’re on to something. I am sure that, once again for Feifer, he simply had a location and decided to make a movie there, as quickly and cheaply as possible. My biggest fear with the current real estate crisis is that there will be a lot of properties being bought up cheap by this tool, which will just translate into more godawful movies that I inadvertently watch.

Well, thanks to Feifer, I am going to start being a bit more selective when it comes to what I watch. I’m sick of writing the same review over and over, and watching movies that are so devoid of personality that I can’t even think of a single specific scene or moment in the film to point out. It would be impossible to stick to theatrical releases, so I can’t reign myself in too much, but I will no longer be watching any direct to video films that I’ve never heard of, and I will TRY to limit the number of obscure budget pack films as well (dipping into those is not always avoidable). The whole point of HMAD is to engage in a dialogue about these movies, and with shit like this, no one ever comments anyway, because you’re all a lot smarter than me and never bothered to watch it. If I hear really good things about one, or it’s part of a franchise, then fine, but as far as “obscure for a reason” shit like this goes: NO MORE.

Which means, unless it’s 11:55 PM and I have yet to watch a movie, I don’t think I’ll be tuning into Fearnet anymore.

I will also be memorizing the entire filmography of Feifer so I can ensure I never again suffer the indignity of spending 90 minutes of my day trying to find enjoyment in one of his soulless pieces of shit.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Phase IV (1974)

DECEMBER 7, 2008

GENRE: POST-APOCALYPTIC
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

If you ask me, some movies just aren’t suited for midnight. While not a bad film, Phase IV just doesn’t work when you’re already a bit tired. I need something with a lot of action, or a lot of goofy moments, or something I’ve seen enough to be able to doze off for a few minutes without being “lost” when I wake up. Over The Top, for example, is the perfect midnight movie – it’s ridiculous, it has a really annoying kid to laugh at, and plenty of big rock songs and truck driving footage to keep you from heading off to sleepytown.

The obscure Phase IV, on the other hand, is a terrible choice for me. It’s a killer ant movie, but they are normal sized ants, which means no goofy effects. And there’s only like 3 people in the entire movie, so they don’t do a heck of a lot of killing until the final 10 minutes. And instead of rock songs, you get Brian Eno-y moody electronic stuff. Needless to say, I was “resting my eyes” a bit more than I liked (even my wife was dozing off, and she NEVER falls asleep at the movies), but I was able to catch up thanks to MST3k, as it was one of the movies featured on the very first season of the show, which aired on a Minnesota based public access channel.

But it’s not a bad movie. You gotta admire the idea of making an artsy movie about mankind’s perceived dominance and setting it during a Chosen Survivors style end of the world story. And adding killer ants. It’s very talky and slow, but it’s strangely alluring too, in the same way that The Keep and 2001 are. And damned if the ant footage (which is pretty goddamn incredible at times – the movie may work better as a documentary) doesn’t contain some excitement, like when an ant tries to bring poison to the queen (I guess if she eats it she will be immune, or something). He gets it to a certain point and then dies from the poison, so another ant comes along gets it a bit further before it dies as well. This continues until the ants get it to the queen. Awesome. Also, the ants somehow make some solar panels that bake the scientists inside their lab.

As you may not have cared, the movie stars Michael Murphy, who is rather Tom Jane-y here. He’s a guy I like to see in movies, but rarely actually do. Interestingly enough (to me anyway) he is given 2nd billing behind Nigel Davenport, despite the fact that he has way more screen time. Murphy would take his revenge 15 years later though, taking top billing in Shocker over (actual star) Peter Berg. He narrates a lot of the movie, and some of his stuff is baffling (the ending is woefully underexplained), but he’s a nice sane balance to Davenport’s rather batshit fellow scientist. I like the bit where he figures out a way to determine the anthills' (giant anthills!) weakness – he bounces every sound in the world at the structure, and only one is absorbed instead of bouncing back. Cool idea, even if a bit bullshit (I guarantee his sound database did not include the sound of me gargling mouth wash).

Most surprising about the movie is that it was directed by Saul Bass, who is best known for creating kick ass title sequences (this was his only feature length directorial gig). Even more surprising, the movie doesn’t even HAVE opening credits, and the ones at the end are rather minimal. Speaking of credits – when the hell does Phase III start in the movie? I missed it both times.

So if you can catch it on cable or whatever, by all means check it out. It’s a nice little curio. But at midnight? Absolutely not. Call me when they are showing Road House.

(Road House will show on February 28th)

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Blame (2006)

DECEMBER 6, 2008

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

My 3rd Spanish language movie in a row! Lo siento to all of my racist and/or illiterate readers.

Blame (Spanish: La Culpa) is a movie that only works as a horror movie if you TELL people it’s a horror movie. Nothing of the sort happens until the final 5 minutes, and even the minor things that seem taken from a horror movie are explained away almost instantly, lest you begin to think you’re watching a haunted house story or something.

For example, early on we see a door handle jiggle from the other side, as if someone was trying to escape a locked room. Is it a ghost? An imprisoned monster? Nope, it’s the neighbor (the door is shared, hotel-style, with the other side of the duplex), something we learn a few minutes later. The main character has an abortion, and then later her daughter begins carrying around a small box and won’t show anyone what’s inside of it. Could it be the aborted fetus? Nope, it’s a picture of a mother with a baby. Total “could it be...?” screentime? Four minutes. Like Spectre (which is on the other side of the disc), it’s hardly a traditional horror movie, but that is actually what makes it more suspenseful. You know SOMETHING “scary” is going to happen, but the script makes us patiently wait for it, which is unnerving in a way. You could tell someone it’s a drama and they would have no trouble accepting it as such, at least until the very end when someone’s neck is slashed (the only traditionally “horror” moment in the entire movie).

Naturally, this means that the film has received “Worst movie ever” style comments on the IMDuhb, including one guy who says that nothing in the movie is resolved, which is interesting, because everything IS in fact resolved if you pay the fuck attention. I suppose there should be a Saw-style edit montage in which things you just saw are played under voice-over that is telling you something different this time so that it “makes sense”, but since morons would have turned the movie off long before the finale anyway due to the lack of gore and nudity, it would have been fruitless. In the end, you have more proof that if you want a horror film that is intelligent and story/character driven, you have to look outside “the greatest and bestest country God ever gave man”.

This is also the 3rd film in the past week that has dealt with abortion, which is not a very common topic in horror movies (or so I thought). Like Re-Cycle, there are some truly “ew” worthy “what happens to the unborn fetus” ideas going on here, so those of you who are disturbed by the concept should steer clear. I’m pro-choice (it’s MY body, dammit!), and even though both of these films seem to suggest the filmmakers feel the opposite way, I never felt I was being preached to, nor do they make it seem like pro-choicers are villainous in any way (note the genre tag before you argue that point with this particular movie). Which is good; while I am a staunch supporter of using a horror film to tackle a particular issue, it should never be construed as “propaganda, but with gore!”. Best to address a topic, but stay more or less neutral when it comes to choosing a side. Well, for this particular topic anyway. Others it’s OK to be a bit biased; I’m not really interested in hearing Hitler’s side in a Nazi zombie movie.

Like Spectre, the only extra is a brief making of in which people’s faces are blurred out for some reason. You won’t learn much beyond the fact that director Narciso Ibáñez Serrador likes cigars and that the Spanish for casting is “casting”, but since the movie is only 70 minutes long, you might as well turn the making of on for the additional 15 it offers, get your money’s worth.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

At Midnight I'll Take Your Soul (1964)

DECEMBER 5, 2008

GENRE: HERO KILLER, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

A few weeks ago, a half dozen or so of us went to a friend’s for some drinks and general hanging out, and then around 2 AM someone decided to put on the newest Coffin Joe movie, Embodiment Of Evil (he had a screener copy). Being 2 AM, and me being half drunk and having to read bootleg subtitles, I promptly dozed off and saw maybe 12 combined minutes of the entire thing. But I saw enough to know that I had to get around to seeing the other Coffin Joe films, starting with At Midnight I’ll Eat Your Soul (Brazil: À Meia-Noite Levarei Sua Alma).

Movies like this are the ones I meant to watch when I started doing Horror Movie A Day; friends would talk about them (2 of my friends actually have Coffin Joe inspired email addresses), but I had never seen them, and probably never would if not for my insistence on watching a new horror movie every day. I wish I could fill my week with more movies like that, not obscure DTV garbage no one gives a shit about. Oh well.

Anyway, I was surprised how simple this was, considering how baffled I was at the footage I saw of the newer film (even before I fell asleep, I didn’t have a clue as to what the hell was going on). It’s not exactly the most accessible movie ever made, but it moves from A to B in a coherent manner, the character’s motives and actions are understandable, etc. I was expecting Eraserhead levels of “What the fuck am I seeing?”, but instead I was actually wishing for a little more head-scratching. I like simple movies, but this one has almost no complications or subplots. Christ, the title is actually pretty much half the plot right there.

It wasn’t enough to deter my enjoyment though; it’s definitely a fun and odd little movie. I don’t know how anyone could watch a movie in which a guy threatens to kill someone because they tried to make him follow the rules of Good Friday (no meat) and then announces “I’ll eat meat today even if it’s human flesh!” and not be entertained. Although it did take me back to when I was forced to follow such traditions and would have to eat filet o fish sandwiches at McD’s on Friday during Lent (McD’s was a Friday tradition). But then that brought me back forward to a smarter me that saw the irony in that, and it all evened out.

I also loved a bit late in the movie when some of the townsfolk have begun to fear Coffin Joe and want him to get out of town. One genius figures the best way to do this is to approach him at the bar and get up in his face and make fun of him. Good idea, schmuck! A few minutes later, viewers are greeted to the most amazing ghost effect in the history of cinema. Director José Mojica Marins (who also plays Joe) couldn’t afford traditional special effects, so he simply glued some glitter onto the negative in an outline around the “ghost”. The result, of course, is ridiculous, but awesome. He sparkles!

The poor effects budget also affected the skull department.

Given the movie’s cult status and such, I was surprised at what a slimmed down DVD it was given. The transfer is non anamorphic (nor can it be zoomed, as the subtitles are too close to the bottom and thus would be cropped out), and the only extra is an interview with Marins, who reveals, among other things, that the long fingernails he displays in the movie are now part of his real life appearance. How does he scratch his balls? One thing I definitely would have liked is a piece on Joe's lasting legacy (I understand he's sort of a cult figure in Brazil, across all mediums). I’m sure there’s a better edition out there somewhere, and if not, the upcoming sequel will certainly result in a reissue.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Non Canon Review: Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (1985)

DECEMBER 5, 2008

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: 2004ish?

With the remake on the way (and seriously – if you don’t think it looks awesome, you can sod right the fuck off!), I wanted to revisit all the old F13 movies, some of which I haven’t seen in years. Parts 3 and Final Chapter were already (non canon) reviewed thanks to revival screenings, and with 1 and 2 due to be re-released in special editions (1 will be uncut, and on Blu-ray!), I figured I would start with Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning and go in order up until Freddy vs Jason (ugh), then go back for the first 2 when they come out in a few weeks. Makes sense, no? No.

Anyway, V was one of the first ones I saw as a kid, so the whole “it’s not really Jason” thing didn’t really bug me all that much. I had only seen part 4, so as far as I could tell, maybe every movie had a different guy in the mask. I remember being more annoyed that Corey Feldman was only in the first scene, before being replaced by a mute guy who looked a lot older than 15. But otherwise, it offered boobs, lots of deaths (this one has the highest body count* of all the Friday the 13th** movies), a kid to “identify with”, more boobs, and what was one of my favorite kills in the series (and remained so for a while – the guy driving the motorcycle straight into Jason’s waiting machete). Being, what, 7? I didn’t really put more thought into my critiques of a movie.

Then when I watched them all again around 1998, I hated it. Other than VII (which I never liked and never WILL like), it was my least favorite. The reason was simple – it was a really lazy entry, often being exactly what ignorant critics would accuse the films of being. Nearly half of the body count stems from characters who were introduced literally moments before their death (the two punk kids, the waitress, Reggie’s brother and his girlfriend, etc), not to mention the inanely introduced drifter guy, who I guess we are supposed to think is a suspect but gets killed in his second scene.

On that note, I don’t even know why there would be a need for red herrings: A. we are never given any indication that it’s anyone BUT the real Jason doing the killings, and B. even if you knew the real Jason was dead and buried, why would you suspect anyone BUT Roy the ambulance driver, who is so obviously the killer it’s almost amazing that the guy went out of his way to put on a bald-head appliance to sell his Jason “look” (but yet donned a mask with some ridiculous blue stripes – worst mask in the series!***). Also – if they wanted it to be a mystery, why is the most likely suspect – Vic the psycho wood cutter – never spoken of again in the movie? And why doesn’t Roy kill him, the only one he should actually have a beef with???

And it didn’t help that the film was sandwiched between 2 of the series’ best entries (almost any fan would have Final Chapter and/or Jason Lives in the upper part of the requisite “best to worst” list****). Then again, like (fellow Paramount franchise) Star Trek, it seems that the even numbered films are always better than the odd numbered ones (and yes, I consider Takes Manhattan to be better than New Blood at least, but that’s another review), so I guess it shouldn’t be much of a surprise. I appreciated that they were trying to move beyond the summer camp setting by having it in a mental institute (Pinehurst, in an early incarnation before Father Petrelli took over), but after about 20 minutes that whole concept seems forgotten, since the doctor is gone and the “hospital” is still just another cabin in the woods.

So now, in 2008, how do I feel? I like it a lot more than I did last time, and I have the New Bev to thank. With Brian and Eric’ Grindhouse nights, and Phil’s increasingly prolific Saturday Midnight screenings, I have a much deeper appreciation for the attitude that this film has. In fact, I would rather watch this one at the Bev than even 2 or 6, which are superior films but wouldn’t be as fun to see with my 300 fellow Bev-pals. It almost feels like an exploitation film at times (not much of a surprise; director Danny Steinmann’s previous film was Savage Streets), something I enjoy much more now than I did 10 years ago. There’s a LOT of dialogue, character actions, and even entire scenes that seem lifted out of the type of schlock-y crap I laugh at on a bi-weekly basis down at the Bev: the horny hospital worker who sings an ode to cocaine, the waitress who shows herself her own tits for no reason, the drifter guy (who is under the employ of a pair of rednecks straight out of Mother’s Day)... they all seem teleported in from a Cameron Mitchell movie. Even Tommy, our alleged hero, is a mute jerk who isn’t satisfied with just punching a guy who pulls a prank on him. No, he picks the guy up and flips him over before pummeling him into oblivion, a move I suspect he learned at the Burbank Karate Club.

And the dialogue! Oh my. My favorite line in a movie, ever, has to be the head counselor’s solemn eulogy concerning Joey, who was viciously axed to death by a fellow patient a few hours before: “Look, I know how you all feel. This thing is not easy, for any of us. So let’s just have breakfast.” Then there’s the odd line at the end about Roy “keeping it a secret for all these years.” (which is about the closest we get to character development for the guy). And who can forget Miguel A. Nunez Jr’s lament over his excessive enchilada consumption?

Nice of Vic to put Joey’s arm over his body.

That said, it’s still far from perfect. I don’t like any of the kids (the only time in the series where that was the case, there is usually at least one who I don’t want to see offed, but not here), and Tommy is just fucking annoying. Plus, the low budget seems to be a handicap for once; this movie has the most goofs and cheap-o film shortcuts of the entire series. Like at the end, when Reggie is driving the tractor: he has a hood on, but when they go to a longshot, the hood is covering his entire face in order to hide the real actor that was driving. And while some of the deaths are cool, none have any of the great prosthetic and appliance work of the previous films.

But the biggest half-assery is saved for the end, during the traditional hospital scene (which includes a super hot nurse – who is she?!?!?). The cop shows up with some newspaper clippings that Roy was carrying around with him, concerning Jason. Thanks to upscaled images and a much bigger TV than I had before, I noticed that the articles had absolutely nothing to do with Jason at all beyond the headline (it’s just vague jibberish). They obviously had to make the prop, but they couldn’t take 10 seconds to write “Mass murderer Jason Voorhees got half his goddamn head hacked off by a 10 year old boy who then went crazy; his mother is still missing” or something?

And who the fuck took that photo?

But in a way, that’s also part of the charm, and more of a reason to see it in a theater so it can be laughed and cheered at by a crowd of drunks such as myself. I don’t think more than 2-3 minutes ever goes by in the film without something else that would make me howl. And even if not, the body count is so high that you’re never more than 5 minutes away from another random death.

Like most of the movies on Paramount’s half-assed insult of a box set, there are no extras whatsoever for the film. While not as drastic as VII or VIII, the MPAA was obviously pretty harsh on this one at times, but none of that is restored, nor is there any sort of commentary or retrospective. Luckily, we have two books on the franchise, though Peter Bracke’s "Crystal Lake Memories" is the only one you need. The other, while cheaper, is biased and poorly researched, and each subsequent sequel gets less and less coverage; the chapters on the last four films combined take up less book space than the entry for the first film. Still, it would have been nice to have some sort of visual element for each film. Hopefully, the remake will be a hit (as long as it’s as good as it looks), and the re-releases of the first three films will sell enough to warrant re-issues of the other Paramount entries (the New Line ones are all special editions already).

What say you?

*Not counting all the anonymous folks who must have drowned in VIII when the boat sank.
**That would be parts I through VIII. The “Jason ____” movies, from New Line, all had high body counts to try to hide the fact that they fucking suck.
***Trivia – Jason was mostly played by Tom Morga in this film. He also played Myers in Halloween 4 for a great deal of the time, and the mask in THAT film is considered the worst in the series as well. Poor Morga.
**** As of this writing: 6, 4, 2, 1, 3, 5, 8, 7, X, Hell, FVJ. Might change after I revisit them all over the next couple weeks. Also, 3 is only better than 5 when viewed in 3D.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Spectre (2006)

DECEMBER 4, 2008

GENRE: GHOST
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

What is it about the Mexican/Spanish people that results in them making really slow but yet really good ghost movies? Like Devil’s Backbone or The Orphanage, Spectre (Spanish, and more accurate title: Regreso a Moira) is not going to win any prizes from gorehounds or even “show the axe flying but cut before the splatter” hounds. The movie has a body count of 2, and one is a suicide. The closest thing the movie gets to action is when the hero is driving absent mindedly and almost rear-ends a guy.

Yet, despite my disappointment that the film had nothing to do with the terrorist group S.P.E.C.T.R.E., I was thoroughly compelled. I was all prepared to make a joke about the series’ title ("Six Films To Keep You Awake"), due to my tendency to doze off during any foreign language movie (it’s all the reading!), but I actually stayed awake the entire time, which is unheard of for me and a damn fine achievement. Granted, there’s not a lot of dialogue, but still, I’ll take a compliment however I can get one, even if it’s from myself.

Helping immensely is the insanely hot Natalia Millán as Moira, the possible witch who our 16 year old hero gets to fuck a real lot over the course of the 80 minute film. She’s a bit Famke Janssen-esque, which is perfectly fine by me, and a good actress to boot. The creepiest scare in the movie comes during one of their love scenes, actually. Our hero sneaks into her room in the middle of the night and begins taking her from behind (HOT). Then he begins accusing her of being a whore, pointing out that she never looked to see who it was; that it could be anyone inside of her. She replies “You don’t know if it’s me either.” Gah! Let this be a lesson to all doggie-style enthusiasts: ALWAYS double check the front before making your way to the back.

I also really dug how the movie carefully laid out the information. I was never completely confused as to what was happening, but at the same time there was always a sense of urgency and mystery to the proceedings; a difficult balance to pull off. Gil Mateo’s script provides exactly as much information as you need as the scenes unfold, no more or less. And the end, which almost cancels the film out as a horror movie, is wonderfully bittersweet. It’s like Nicholas Sparks writing a Twilight Zone movie.

The "Pig to Christ" scene transition is always a
tough one to pull off, but Mateo succeeds.

One thing that kind of bugged me – the guy playing the older version of the hero looks WAY older than he should. It’s only forty years later, but it seems the character has aged 60. This is even more apparent when he visits his two childhood friends, who should be the same age but the actors are noticeably younger. One could assume that the emotional scarring from the incidents in the film (I’m trying not to spoil here, it’s a character driven story) left him looking older than his years, but if so, it’s a bit overboard.

The only extra on the DVD is a making of that runs a little over 20 minutes. It’s a perfectly decent piece, though I am a bit confused why certain crew members and even actors have their heads blurred (half-assedly at that). It was a distraction.

Like I said, this is part of the "6 Films To Keep You Awake"; another one is on the other side of the disc, so I’m sure I’ll get to that within the next couple days. So far, it’s certainly better than Lionsgate’s other “X number of films to make you do something” series, so kudos!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Dentist (1996)

DECEMBER 3, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, HERO KILLER
SOURCE: CABLE (FEARNET)

I almost miss the mid 90s horror drought, because it meant that smaller DTV movies would still get decent coverage in Fangoria. Nowadays, there’s no way that something like The Dentist would get more than maybe a line or two in that thing near the beginning of every issue that announces movies that are being made (most of which never are). But in the summer of 1996, when horror was so slow that a non-horror movie like Escape from LA would get like three articles, Brian Yuzna’s killer dentist movie was given a 6 page article. The article got me excited to see the movie, so why it took me 12 years to watch it beyond me. I think 1996 is when I got a Playstation, so that might have something to do with it.

Sadly, I can only assume the movie hasn’t aged well. It's not that there's a lot of outdated music and clothing styles, but I never felt like I was watching anything but a DTV horror movie from 1996. It’s got a certain charm and all, but I was still underwhelmed. And that is surprising, because if there’s one thing that I can’t stand to watch it’s teeth being removed, but I had little trouble with this movie.

Part of the problem, I think, is that the movie is too damn overcrowded. There’s an IRS guy after him, some cops, his wife, the pool man, a neighbor whose dog he killed, an annoying girl who wants her braces out, an actress and her manager, 3 or 4 coworkers... the movie could definitely benefit from a trimmed script. It’s not like he kills everyone anyway (the body count is like 5, tops), and having so many distractions diffuses a lot of the humor, and also makes the movie feel a bit repetitive.

Also, it’s jarringly structured in a way that has him get revenge on his wife around the halfway point. It should have come down to a faceoff between him and her, but instead, Stuart Gordon and Dennis Paoli’s script has him go to a dental school and threaten people we’ve never seen.

Keeping it together, however, is Corbin Bernsen as the title character. Luckily, a lot of the humor doesn’t come from bad puns, a la Dr Giggles (I guess LA Law is the go-to show for comedic horror movies based on medical professions. Someone get Harry Hamlin in Killer Chiropractor, pronto), but instead Bernsen’s obsessive compulsive behavior and the character’s total devotion to his job. Unlike Giggles, he’s not out to kill everyone, and still cares about his patient’s good hygiene. It gives the movie a slightly unnerving feeling that helped overcome some of its lesser aspects.

It’s also a good movie to watch for “oh wow, he’s in this?” watching. Ken Foree plays one of the cops, and you must remember that before Rob Zombie came along, Ken didn’t appear in every 3rd direct to video horror movie. Back then, his appearance actually carried the weight it theoretically does nowadays. But most surprising is a young Mark Ruffalo as the actress’ manager. He’s an interesting actor, and I’m surprised that it was another four or five years after this that he began getting meaty roles in Hollywood films (I assumed he hadn’t even began acting for a living until 2000 or so). I should note that oddly enough, he’s actually in the news today (his brother got shot yesterday and is in critical condition. I hope the lad is OK), and I noticed that his Yahoo resumé is rather incorrect since it says he “most recently” appeared in 13 Going on 30, which came out like 4 years ago and he’s been in like 6 movies since (including others mentioned in the article).

I should also note that The Dentist is not mentioned in the article at all.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Eyes Of A Stranger (1980)

DECEMBER 2, 2008

GENRE: EXPLOITATION, SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I wonder how much smaller my DVD collection would be if I didn’t have so many movies like Eyes Of A Stranger, which I certainly had no desire to own, but came in a box set with Dr. Giggles, Deadly Friend, and The Hand, movies I DID want to own. I actually forgot that I had the movie entirely, and came across it for no reason other than the fact that I managed to watch all my Blockbuster/Netflix movies and haven’t gotten any new ones in the mail yet.

Another movie in that set was John Carpenter’s underwhelming TV movie Someone’s Watching Me!, which Eyes resembles in more than a couple ways. Both involve creepy phone calls, the heroine is a newscaster, and their cat and mouse situation is intensified by the fact that they live across from one another. And I can’t recall for sure, but I’m pretty sure the killer’s identity was known from like the halfway point, with no other suspects to choose from in that movie as well.

The biggest difference is that this one WASN’T a TV movie, and thus it has a lot of swearing, some gore, and unabashed nudity (including a young Jennifer Jason Leigh). It’s actually kind of glorious to see such an anti-PC movie of this type; the Ashley Judds and Uma Thurmans of the world have dulled the “Woman stalked by Serial Killer” genre into nothingness, so to see the killer cause genuinely upsetting trauma to his victims (he’s also a rapist, so he fondles Leigh all over and shoves his tongue down her throat) is actually sort of novel.

But it doesn’t matter, because it’s still a dull movie. The lack of any sort of suspense regarding the killer’s identity really hurts it, because it was all the movie had going for it (like Feardotcom, the killer is inexplicably hidden from view for a while only to be casually and un-climactically revealed in a non-surprise way). Could it be our heroine’s boyfriend? Her fellow newscaster? Or the repairman guy who she keeps manipulating so she can snoop? Nope, it’s... the guy she thinks it is right from the start. Nail-biting suspense! To be fair, the finale is kind of creepy, since Leigh’s character is blind and the guy is just sort of walking around the apartment with her. Still, you knew she wouldn’t get killed, so it’s sort of dull too.

Back to the boyfriend, this movie has the most annoying conversation in movie history. He’s a lawyer, so naturally he only speaks in law-based double entendres. So she’s about to leave his bed to go to work, and he says “I can always serve you a restraining order.” (she leaves) “Hey, I was just about to start my closing argument!” (she tells him they can talk later) “You know I’m at the end of my probationary period!” Objection! Shut the fuck up! He’s also the most ignorant dick in the world, expressing complete astonishment that Leigh is able to swim despite her handicap.

Hilariously, on the back of the DVD, it boasts that it’s from the “Production company behind the original Friday the 13th”. I had to look up exactly who they meant (Georgetown Productions Inc), and in the process discovered that the writer of this movie was actually F13 writer Ron Kurz, using the odd pseudonym of Mark Jackson (must be his production company). But I love that that was the best thing they could come up with to try to entice viewers. Like, “From the director of” or even “the producer of” is one thing, but “The Production Company”? Who the fuck would care? That reminds me of when the Onion made a joke that a movie was being touted as “From the studio that brought you Remember the Titans”, which became prophetic when studios actually DID begin using such non-connective claims on their films (mostly Sony, proudly pointing out that Daddy Day Camp was from the studio that brought you Daddy Day Care, because the 6 year old intended audience hates it when a franchise switches studios!). I can only hope that someday, a movie is sold on the fact that it has the composer of Con Air attached.

Oh, the occasional gore effect in the movie is courtesy of Tom Savini (so the production company AND the makeup effects artist of F13!), which means it’s pretty great stuff. There’s a de-capped head in a fishtank early on that’s pretty much the highlight of the movie.

To bring the review full circle, I looked up what the tradein value was for this movie, since I’d rather have shelf space than continue to own it. I would get 5 cents, which is the lowest I’ve ever seen for a tradein (to compare, they’d at least give me a buck for Dark Ride). So I’ll probably end up keeping it, in case I ever want to trade the entire box set back someday. For the record, that would net me a cool 11 bucks, probably on the strength of Dr Giggles alone.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Trailer Park Of Terror (2008)

DECEMBER 1, 2008

GENRE: BREAKDOWN, COMIC BOOK, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

The dude at Blockbuster can eat crow! When I returned The Tattooist, he said “everything OK?” to which I replied “Well the movie sucked, but I’m good otherwise.” (as the saying goes, an odd question deserves a wiseass response). So when I returned to the counter with Trailer Park Of Terror, he said “Do you HONESTLY think this will be any better?” And I said “it can’t be worse”, but he seemed unconvinced.

At this point I’ll stop replaying entire conversations with strangers and just get to the point. Despite what a guy at Blockbuster might think, TPoT is above average for the DTV dreck I seem to be watching half the time. It’s well directed, the actors do a good job with the material they are given, it moves along despite a low body count, and the clichés are delivered with some admirable effort to make them seem less cliché (such as the obligatory breakdown sequence – the driver is getting sick of the asshole kid providing the character backgrounds for the other characters and being a total ass as he does so). As I've said several times, actual effort put into the film's production goes a long way with me.

Also, I was happy to discover that, despite the title (and a name-check in the opening scene), it’s not some Herschell Gordon Lewis-esque splatter/white trash movie either. Sure, there’s a Confederate flag or two, and the soundtrack is all southern-fried country rock, but director Steven Goldmann and writer Timothy Dolan take a surprisingly dark approach to the material, rather than settle for cheap and predictable redneck gags the entire time. Our tragic villain watches her mother get killed before her eyes (and later in life, her ticket out of the park is accidentally killed by her stereotypical redneck neighbors), and there isn’t a lot of comedy either. This surprised me, because I had read an issue of the comic that it is based on, and it was definitely over the top with its approach to humor, with lots of easy and obvious gags that really drove home the “trailer trash” aspect of the setting. That’s not the case with the movie at all though; if anything the movie feels rather underplayed (perhaps because of a small budget), rather than over the top ridiculous.

This isn’t really a problem though, until the very end, because, well, there is no end. Maybe their budget ran out, or Dolan’s script simply lacked a strong conclusion, but calling it anti-climactic would almost be kind. None of the villains are killed or even attacked, and there is a frustrating lack of answers behind the supernatural aspects. Perhaps there is a sequel already planned, but it’s sort of presumptuous to leave this many questions in a first film. Our Final Girl is let go via the flimsiest and clunkiest dialogue explanation ever written, and there’s a 2001 Maniacs-y twist concerning the town’s actual presence in the world, and then it’s over.

Another problem is that the main bad girl, Norma, is presented as sympathetic for the first half of the movie (via flashbacks), but they never explain how she became not only evil, but the apparent leader of the bad guys to boot. Not to mention how they all became ghouls (though country singer Trace Adkins, playing what I assume is supposed to be the Devil, gives her a gun that shoots apparently hellfire, which I guess can explain some of it away).

And I am starting to grow tired of the “group of delinquent kids” backstory for horror movies. I’m not sure who thinks that have a bunch of criminals play our heroes is a good idea, but it becomes kind of hard to root for them when they are introduced more or less as assholes and act in kind for the bulk of the film.

That said, it does have a certain charm. The lack of corny humor I expected meant that I was able to watch the movie without groaning every 2-3 seconds, so that’s an automatic plus. Also, the production value is high, and Goldmann and DP Jeff Venditti give the film a look that reminded me of Supernatural, which is perfectly fine by me (not so fine – the use of that goddamn body mount cam during the opening shotgun massacre). And a ghoul who was an Asian masseuse in her previous life tries to give a corpse a “happy ending”, which results in his member being yanked right off entirely. Ugh/awesome.

The makeup is also pretty solid. There are 6-8 different monsters, all with their unique look that seems to be primarily physical makeup pieces. Gore is minimal, but the deaths themselves are enjoyable nasty, such as a guy who is deep fried (this particular scene is marred by the inclusion of some trendy torture violence) and a meth head who is too high to realize her arm has been cut off.

The only extra on the DVD is a mostly annoying “making of” with all of the actors in character. It’s a fun idea, but goes on too long. Also, call me crazy, but when I see a potentially good movie with some fairly odd flaws (like, an abrupt ending and giant leaps in character progression) I like to hear from the creators to see if they can shed some light on the matter, not actor Lew Temple telling a poorly dubbed interviewer to fuck off.

The comic is an anthology series, so there’s a well of material to use for future installments. Adkins’ character could definitely be expanded, and I wouldn’t even mind an anthology approach to the film itself (i.e. 3 or 4 stories). Either way, let’s hope the next one corrects the mistakes of this one. I know it’s kind of ironic to watch a film called Trailer Park of Terror and bemoan the storytelling problems, but when the acting, production value, directing, etc. upend expectations, there’s no reason the script can’t follow suit.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...