Ringu (1998)

JUNE 17, 2007

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

I usually try not to see a remake before I see the original, but sometimes I have no choice. In the case of Ringu, the original wasn't readily available at the time. But I still wish I had waited, since the overall content and some whole scenes were copied directly for the American remake, I would prefer to see it “in order” as it were, so I could have more enjoyment from both. The ideas were in Ringu first, but they were all done better in the remake, in my opinion. As such, I cannot credit Ehren Kruger or Gore Verbinski for coming up with the downer ending, for example, only for doing it better.

It's rare, but I truly think the remake is a far superior film. No one can deny (well since it's my opinion, I guess they CAN, especially if they are bias folks, see below for more on them) that the backstory in the American one is superior (and makes a lot more sense), the cinematography is much more lush, and the acting doesn’t leave as much to be desired as it does in Hideo Nakata’s original film. Yes, for once, one can say “Martin Henderson was better than (anyone, in this case Hiroyuki Sanada).”

In fact, the problem a lot of people have with The Ring (American) has nothing to do with the film itself, actually. It’s because it was a huge hit. And PG-13. Much like Halloween ushered in the slasher era of the early 80s, The Ring kick-started the ‘teen’ horror phase that continues today, nearly 5 years later. Darkness Falls, The Grudge, Boogeyman, White Noise, The Messengers… all bad films that directly or indirectly owe their existence to The Ring. And that’s a goddamn shame, because I happen to think The Ring is a damn good ghost movie. I didn’t care about the rating when I saw it, because I thought it was more of an anomaly than anything (and I saw it in a mostly empty theater – the film was one of the last genuine “word of mouth” hits). There’s nothing in it to WARRANT an R rating, and there’s no evidence that they watered it down to make it OK for a 13 year old to see it either. In fact, the remake is MORE violent than the original, which would probably get a PG rating. Everything in the original happens off-screen and there are no makeup effects other than a quick shot of one of the ghost’s eyes. Hell, it doesn’t even have the hilarious horse scene on the ferry.

The other problem with the original (that was improved in the remake) is that there is never any real feeling of dread. No one seems particularly concerned with their looming fate. There’s a scene where the two heroes are almost out of time, and are looking for the body of the girl in the well. For some goddamn reason, rather than just sticking his friggin hand down (the water is only a few inches above his waist) and trying to find the girl’s body, they take their time. The guy fills a bucket, and the girl pulls it to the top of the well, then dumps it. Then she slowly lowers the bucket back down (rather than just tossing it) and they begin the process again. They waste a good hour or so doing this. Morons.

I haven’t read the book the film was based on, or seen any of the other sequels/prequels/remakes (the American one was actually the 2^nd remake), so I dunno where this one falls in the giant pantheon that is the Ring movies, but it’s certainly not making me excited for the others. It’s certainly better than The Ring Two (which Nakata directed himself), a film I declare to be the absolute worst horror movie of 2005. And, I don’t think I need to remind anyone, 2005 was the year of White Noise, Cry_Wolf, Cursed, and Wolf Creek. Yikes. But at least that one had CGI elk to laugh at. This one’s just very… stiff? Empty? Half-assed? Downright boring? Take your pick.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Creepshow

JUNE 16, 2007

GENRE: ANTHOLOGY
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

Along with Poltergeist was a screening of the original Creepshow. I had never seen the entire film, only a TV version that omitted the E.G. Marshall segment entirely. Much like haunted house films, I’m no big fan of anthology films. I like movies that take the time to develop characters and have many plot threads that combine to make a richer film. You know, like Shocker.

The reason the Marshall segment is cut out on TV is a matter of length, not violence (actually, it’s probably the LEAST violent segment in the whole film) - Creepshow is a long film. This presented a problem to my neck, as we were sitting near the front. Then again, had our alleged friends not sat down in an area with only enough seats for them (and not my wife and I) when we came back from intermission (despite the theater not even being half full), it would have been fine. But hey, been a while since I was so blatantly insulted. And it added to the nostalgia factor; I felt like I was in high school all over again! “Sorry, no room for you.” Ah, memories…

Despite my general dislike of anthology films, this is certainly one of the better ones (that's my way of saying "I liked it" - it's hard being positive). Having two of the REAL Masters of Horror (Stephen King and George Romero) behind it, both in their prime, certainly doesn’t hurt. As with any film of its type, some stories are better than others. None are downright bad, but the comic book style and framing grows tiresome in "Father’s Day" (the other segments more or less keep it to the beginning and end of each story), and "Jordy Verrill", while funny, doesn’t really fit with the others. "The Crate" is the best, partially because it’s the longest segment, and partially because Adrienne Barbeau plays such a wretched character that it’s an absolute delight to see her mauled by the gorilla thing. I also really like the "Something To Tide You Over" segment (always nice to see Leslie Nielsen playing it more or less straight), though now I can’t enjoy it as much, as we learned from the editor (who was on hand for a Q&A) that the first cut of it ran 70 minutes (almost a feature itself!) and of course is now like 20. Perhaps some of it will be on the special edition DVD that is coming out (in region 2 anyway – have I mentioned how much I love my region free player?).

And, as always, any movie with Tom Atkins is automatically worth seeing. And I can think of no other film with Ed Harris dancing to some synth-y new wave nonsense. I would go so far as to say that ranks right up there with Crispin Glover in Final Chapter.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Non Canon Review: Poltergeist

JUNE 16, 2007

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

This is not a canon review for Horror Movie A Day, as I have seen Poltergeist many times in my life, though this was the first time I have seen it in its theatrical aspect ratio (2.35:1, which for both Tobe Hooper and Steven Spielberg is very rare). But I’d just like to drop a quick note about going to see it in theaters (our local revival house was honoring 1982 and also showed movies like Tron, The Thing, and Wrath of Khan, however they did NOT show Halloween III and thus the festival was largely incomplete).

Poltergeist II: The Other Side was the first horror movie I ever saw in theaters, so I was extremely excited to see the first film theatrically. Like I’ve said many times before, I don’t care for haunted house movies, but this is one of the very rare exceptions. And it’s amazing how well it holds up. While many haunted house movies today are overloaded with CG effects and other nonsense, Poltergeist keeps things grounded and pretty real. 25 years and numerous viewings later, it still packs more suspense and genuine scares than almost any modern film you’re watching for the first time.

But best of all (or worst, depending on your POV or if you are in fact Tobe Hooper), Zelda Rubinstein was in attendance, and since her glory years are probably behind her, she’s obviously not afraid to speak her mind. In addition to randomly pointing out that poor Heather O’Rourke had shitty parents (I'm guessing she won't be authoring any Father's Day cards for Hallmark), she also laid to rest (or further ignited) the rumors about who exactly directed the film. One just needs to look at the credits: Spielberg and his usual cohorts (Frank Marshall, Kathleen Kennedy) were all over this film (producers, writers, etc) and Tobe Hooper is simply listed as director, to get the idea that Spielberg had more than just a hand in production and may have directed some or maybe most of the film himself, with Hooper reduced to a glorified camera operator role. After co-writer and actor James Karen said the usual version (“Steven may have suggested things to Tobe, but it’s Tobe’s film”), Zelda took the mic and said, bluntly “I remember it different.” She went on to say that Tobe would set up a shot and then Spielberg would come in and change it to his liking. “It’s Spielberg’s movie,” she said. Period. Hahahaha whoa!

Anyway, if you haven’t ever seen the film in it’s full aspect ratio, I demand you do so. The kitchen chair scene alone is 10x more effective when the camera isn’t needlessly panning around.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Crawlspace (1986)

JUNE 16, 2007

GENRE: SLASHER, WEIRD
SOURCE: CABLE (FLIX)

I recall watching at least some of Crawlspace as a 6 year old. At my grandmother’s house. And she was present. Like I’ve said before, I was lucky enough to have a mom (and apparently, grandmother) who had no problem letting me watch R rated horror movies. But no 6 year old should ever be exposed to Klaus Kinski. There are limits even I would impose.

Crawlspace is an interesting movie for the time. Kinski’s character set up traps and played tricks on his victims. He’s also a crazed Nazi. It’s like Saw crossed with Death Ship. Strangely, most of the kills are offscreen. We have the standard ‘find all the dead friends’ sequence, but we never saw him kill any of them. I looked and can find no evidence of the film being cut (it’s only 77 minutes long, with a lengthy non-action credit sequence), so maybe they just couldn’t afford to film them (which wouldn’t surprise you in the least, this IS a Charles Band production after all).

And like I’ve always said, not enough movies feature rape fantasy scenarios between two of the protagonists. I was delighted to see one in this film, which also comes with another rare bonus: a rival peeping scene! Kinski’s in the crawlspace, the “rapist” is at the window, both are watching the most 80s blonde in cinematic history cut the nipple areas out of her bra. Later, the same blonde plays a hauntingly beautiful (read: delightfully awful) ballad on the piano, and it is framed in such a way that we can see her giant framed Barbara Streisand album cover on the wall. I admit to even recognizing which Streisand album it was (Emotion) because that’s the one with her ludicrous cover of Jim Steinman’s “Left in the Dark”, which truly IS one of the most haunting songs ever recorded (I vow to use the creepy narration at the beginning and the end of the song in a movie someday: “Where did he touch you and how did it feel?”).

This movie features what may be one of my favorite dialogue exchanges of all time. Kinski is showing a newly vacant apartment to who will obviously be our Final Girl:

Girl: This place is great… much better than that weird old haunted house I lived in before.
Kinski: (Just smiles, a mixture of creepiness and confusion why someone would be so blasé about living in a haunted house)
Girl: I swear the guy across the hall was a vampire.
Kinski: (continues his “what the hell is this broad talking about” look)
Girl: You know what I like most about this place?
Kinski: (totally straight) That there are no vampires?

HAHAHAHAHA oh man I laughed for a good minute.

In fact, even without Kinski, the movie is pretty off-kilter. We also have a “Soap opera actress… who plays a soap opera actress.” and a group of women who enjoy “Tequila milkshakes” (????). There’s also woman so dumb that she doesn’t know if a ballet was boring or not until someone told her that it was. And, every now and then, Kinski plays Russian Roulette by himself. We see him pull the trigger 6 times but the bullet never comes up, reminding me of that one Tales from the Crypt episode with Lance Henriksen.

At 77 minutes, I can think of only four non-animated modern movies that are shorter. Incidentally many of them involve Charles Band (Dollman vs. Demonic Toys remains the all time champ at 61 minutes, half of which is footage from the previous movies as well as Bad Channels). Gotta love the guy.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

A Brush With Death

JUNE 15, 2007

GENRE: CRAP, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Wow. I really thought Drive Thru would be the worst movie I saw this week. Leave it to… oh wait, saying the names of anyone involved with this piece of shit would be meaningless, since none of them have any other credits to their name. Well, whoever they are, leave it to them to make what is not only the worst movie this week, but possibly the worst movie in the entire Horror Movie A Day canon.

Yes, even Bill Rebane himself never made anything as technically and creatively inept as A Brush With Death. I don’t even know where to begin pointing out everything that is wrong with this asstacular movie.*

Let’s start with the DVD packaging. The cover features a blond girl who is in some sort of half Christ pose in the middle of a tornado of some sort. Basically, she looks like a telekinesis prone heroine or villain, sort of like your Carries and Tamaras. I cannot discern if the actress is even in the movie (her hair is obscuring most of her face), but none of the blondes in the film ever display anything even resembling a personality, let alone powers of any sort, so it doesn’t matter.

Then on the back, the film is described thusly: “Five cheerleaders spend the night in an abandoned farmhouse and find themselves up against a vengeful ghost. They soon find out the spirit is from a dead boy who painted a portrait of the brother he killed forty years earlier.” OK, that’s pretty much the lamest and half-assed description of a movie ever (he painted a portrait? So the fuck what?), but the problem is it doesn’t even approach accuracy. They don’t spend the night in the farmhouse, they TALK about doing it but never actually do. In fact they don’t even go there until the last 20 minutes of the film. And it’s not a ghost they are up against – it’s a guy who looks like an accountant who appears out of nowhere (but not in the ghost way, in the ‘poor screenwriting; this mystery killer hasn’t appeared in the film before being revealed as the killer’ way). As for painting a portrait of his brother – you got me. He paints stuff (in the film’s tiniest shred of interesting storytelling, he drains his victims’ blood and paints with it) but not his brother. And if he killed his brother then why is he the dead one??? Whatever. I guess they had to put SOMETHING back there (there are no credits listed on the back, and the disc has no extra features), so let’s move on.

Popping in the disc reveals that, despite being a new film, the transfer is not anamorphic. So I had to watch the movie zoomed, thus making it look worse than it already did. I can’t even tell if it was film or video. Pretty sure it was the latter. We also have glorious 2.0 sound. Ooooh!

The opening credits (this is going to be a long writeup – my page of notes is covered) provide one of the biggest laughs I’ve ever gotten – the fucking casting person is credited BEFORE the people in the cast! I have never seen that before. It also claims to be based on a true story, but of course that is likely a lie. The credits also contradict one another – the credited writers change from beginning to end (yes, even though there are opening credits with the director, producers, writers, casting, etc, they are all repeated at the end before the usual scrolling list. This means that the no-name actors are actually given THREE screen credits).

In what has to be a first for a horror movie, the car breaks down before we even know half of our characters’ names. Almost immediately they are helped (the car just ran out of gas), and as the guy puts gas in, he has a flashback that lasts longer than the main story has lasted so far. Making matters worse – the contents of this flashback have no bearing on anything else in the movie. Random flashbacks are a theme of this movie, as about 2 minutes after this one ends, we get another one (introduced with its own title, like they did in Kill Bill, only stupider) that again has no real bearing on the plot of the rest of the film (it does have something to do with the plot on the back of the DVD though). There’s another one later about 2 backpackers that again, goes absolutely nowhere.

Every line of dialogue in this film is either badly ADRed, done as a voiceover over shots where the characters are obviously not even talking, or recorded badly on set (possibly even with the camera’s built in mic). There are scenes of people talking where one character’s audio will be loud and clear (if obviously recorded in a booth and not outside by a pool or wherever the character is supposed to be) and the other won’t be audible at all. Excellent. The unintentional comedy provided by constant VO lines almost makes the film worth watching. There’s a part where the girls are getting out of the car and the soundtrack just has an assortment of random lines like “here’s your bag.” - because someone onscreen is handing another a bag (she’s not talking). It's like an unfunny version of MST3k, where instead of saying jokes they are sort of filling in dead audio with general observations. There’s another part where a filthy mechanic character tells the girls to ‘service’ him or something and they dub in some “Ew, Gross!” style dialogue as the girls simply stand around doing nothing. It’s simply amazing. Often, director Brad Wiebe tries his hardest to hide this audio limitation by cutting to a character who is listening to whoever is allegedly talking. This makes some scenes more confusing than necessary, since the girls all sound similar to one another. “Who the Christing fuck is talking?” will be a question you will ask yourself often when watching this thing.

Rare is a film that is both padded to hell and overplotted. For every entirely useless and unnecessary scene, like when a character needs to be explained how to play Truth or Dare (???), there is another like one of the girls talking to someone on her cell phone about how they never appreciate her and make her feel bad about herself. Who she is talking to, what exactly he/she did to piss her off, or what it has to do with anything at all is never clear. Much like the flashbacks, it serves nothing other than to continually make the audience wonder what exactly the movie is supposed to be about.

And while I thought nothing could be more hilarious than the casting credit, or the scene where the girls are ‘partying’ and they offer a guy a "drink" (which is a 20 oz Coke), the ending managed to make me laugh harder than I have at anything all year. Our final girl hits the accountant guy over the head, leaves her surviving friends tied up in the farmhouse, and runs outside. Her friend, a guy who may be a rapist, drives by and she gets in the car as he takes a phone call. THE END. I shit you not. You expect a cut to the interior of the car, or maybe the killer getting back up, or maybe finally seeing the blond witch girl on the cover, but instead it cuts to an honest to god THE END title card.

And to top it off, much like The Woods, this film also has a character we are supposed to like make fun of a handicapped person. Nice.

You know, I understand that filmmaking is a business, but when I see something as soulless and worthless as this, it really pisses me off. It’s obvious that no one involved has any real respect or love for the genre (or even film in general) and were obviously out to make a quick buck. Christ, they don’t even seem to know anything about filmmaking at all beyond knowing how to turn the camera on. As awful as it was, even Drive Thru displayed some working knowledge of horror movies (since they ripped so many off blindly). And yeah, no one is going to pretend a movie like Friday the 13^th wasn’t made simply to double an investment, but at least they made a decent film by putting some goddamn effort into it. There is no such evidence here. And it further saddens me to know that there is a family of four somewhere that could have been fed for almost a whole day with the money they used to make this film. It’s a goddamn travesty.

What say you?

*I begrudgingly admit that the piano music over the opening credits IS pretty great. It's the closest the movie gets to being competent.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Black Sheep (2006)

JUNE 14, 2007

GENRE: PREDATOR, COMEDIC, MAD SCIENTIST, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

Look at all those genres! And none of them “Crap”! Does that mean that, for the first time all week, I really liked a movie?

At a recent premiere afterparty, I met Zoe Bell (who, in an amazing coincidence, played a character named Zoe Bell in Grindhouse), who is from New Zealand. And much like I usually do whenever I am speaking to a beautiful woman, I managed to insult her, when I mistook New Zealand for Australia. Apparently, that’s like… I don’t even know what I could compare it to, if I wanted to compare it to something else people are always confusing (Bill Pullman and Bill Paxton?). But look, I don’t know the difference; I’m never going to know the difference; just deal with it.

I certainly lump the two together when I think about horror movies such as Black Sheep. I dub them all “Australian”: Black Sheep, Undead, Wolf Creek, Dead Alive… probably some others. But really, other than Dead Alive (and Bad Taste), I have never really enjoyed one (in fact, the two Peter Jackson films I mention I am more of a fan of the technical stuff, not so much the storytelling, acting, etc.). Undead was actually one of the first movies I watched for Horror Movie A Day (prior to the birth of the blog – some of the films I have gone back and added reviews for, but not all), and I thoroughly disliked it. The humor didn’t work, the story was generic, and the effects ranged from OK at best to downright terrible. And Wolf Creek I consider one of the most overrated horror movies of the decade.

So basically, when it comes to horror movies, I’m Kiwi-ist.

But Black Sheep changed that. While it doesn't really work as a remake of the Chris Farley movie, I really dug it. The main plot (i.e. sheep running around killing folks) begins almost immediately, after some quick setup and back-story, which is nice. Writer/Director Jonathan King knows that people are there to watch carnage, so the necessary background information is given swiftly. Our actors, none of whom I recognize, are universally appealing, especially Tucker, played by Tammy Davis (a guy named Tammy?). He reminded me of Desmond from Lost. "Yeh gonna die, brother!"

The technical aspects were uniformly great as well. It’s beautifully shot, even more impressive when you consider that King is a first time director (DP Richard Bluck has done a couple features). The score is also quite good; it reminded me of the better Danny Elfman scores. And the makeups are some of the best I’ve seen all year. Of course, it’s the WETA guys doing it, so that wasn’t really a surprise, but it’s still worth mentioning. This also means the DVD runs the risk of having 13 hours of bonus material devoted to how they crafted sheep hooves, all narrated by Richard Taylor, the droniest sleepy voiced man in human history. But that’s not the film’s fault.

I do wish, however, that we got a full blown transformation scene a la American Werewolf. In the film, when bitten by the infected sheep, they do not turn into zombies, but “weresheep”. This is awesome, except we never see the transformation. Instead, the bitten character will suddenly get wide eyed, then raise their arm or whatever and have a sheep body part. Then we cut away to a reaction or something, and when we come back they are full weresheep. Blah (I was tempted to write “Blaaaah” but I opted not to).

There’s also a subplot about a guy who fucks the sheep. It’s tastefully done.

My only regret is that I saw it in one of the most uncomfortable theaters in all of LA: The Laemmle’s 5 on Sunset. With non-reclining seats that would better suit an amputee fetus than an average size human being since the rows are spaced about half an inch apart, I couldn’t wait to get out of there. Luckily, the movie is short (87 min) because King, unlike his fellow Australians, doesn’t bloat his film to be over 3 hours long or introduce idiotic subplots like alien takeovers. Kudos, sir. My legs still hurt, but not as much as they would have had you gone the “more is more” route of your brethren.

The movie comes out next week, not sure how wide of a release it’s getting, but the Weinstein’s are distributing it, so it should at least get the same respect thatFeast got.

…

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Woods

JUNE 13, 2007

GENRE: RELIGIOUS, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Faithful readers (if I have any) will remember that I usually keep a piece of paper next to me to jot down notes while I watch the film (at least, when I’m watching the movie at home. People who write stuff in the theater are douches). This aids me in writing the review, especially when I don’t have the chance to write it until a day or two later. Well even though it was only like 6 hrs ago, I stumped myself with my notes for Lucky McKee’s The Woods.

There were very few notes to begin with, which makes this anecdote even sadder. On the paper, I had written: “Don’t tell me what to do.” I stared at this for a good 10 minutes trying to recall what the hell it meant. Still puzzled, I went to drop a deuce, and immediately after… completing the task, I remembered: it was the lyric from the Lesley Gore song “You Don’t Own Me”, which was featured in the film. It stuck out because Mike Mendez used it in The Convent to similar effect. It’s a really unintentionally creepy song. Not as creepy as “You Don’t Have to Say You Love Me” from Dusty Springfield, but close. I’ve always wanted to make a mix CD of songs that for some reason creep me out. To me, Carly Simon’s “That’s The Way I Always Heard It Should Be” is more terrifying than anything in half the movies I watch.

And are there any all girls schools in the middle of nowhere that AREN’T evil? Suspiria, Picnic at Hanging Rock, The Woods… just once, I’d like to see a girl be sent off to a woodsy private school, only to be immediately killed accidentally by a neighboring wizard. The rest of the movie is about the wizard’s attempts to revive her, the school never seen again. You know how in the Simpsons, the first 5 minutes or so have almost nothing to do with the real story? We need more movies like that.

Anyway, this film didn’t deserve to be sent direct to video. Especially when star Agnes Bruckner’s other horror efforts (Blood and Chocolate, Venom) were god awful and greeted with wide theatrical releases. And what other movie offers Oscar nominee Patricia Clarkson getting axed to death? Certainly not Good Night and Good Luck (and the movie is the poorer for it).

Not that it’s any sort of masterpiece. I literally had to take a shit to remember anything about it 6 hrs later. But it moves along well and has some really gruesome (and unexpected) gore, if you like that sort of thing. There’s also some nice playing with conventions, in particular: Bruckner’s character never has the “I swear I SAW something!” scene with no one believing her. Instead, another character has to try to convince her that something is amiss, and of course by then it’s too late. Stuff like that is always nice to see. And extra bonus points to McKee and writer David Ross for having a scene where Bruce Campbell goes to a shed to look for a weapon, but does not have him “hilariously” pick up a chainsaw. Indeed, Campbell plays the role entirely straight, which I think is the first time he has done so other than that one X-Files episode. Good for him!

McKee is a solid director, and with a good script (i.e. May) he can work wonders. In fact, he’s a good enough director that his work elevates the messy script, something few directors can pull off. Give the guy something good! It’s not like we’re overloaded with solid modern horror directors. Very few have proven they can make more than one good film.

The movie does have a pet peeve of mine though: Poor green-screen compositing giving away a scare. There’s a scene where a cop gets into his car. Nothing exciting is going on, but everything outside of the car has clearly been added in later, which means – THERE IT IS! A tree monster thing smashes in and impales him. But the problem is, there are like 2 or 3 other shots in between him getting into the car and the actual killing, thus defusing all suspense, because we knew right from the get-go that something was going to happen. In such cases, I wish the first shot would be real, so when they cut back to it and it’s fake, you don’t notice before the attack occurs. Then again, some folks never even notice these things so whatever.

If nothing else, The Woods features a character that is consistently referred to as “Firecrotch”, and gets a laugh or two from mocking a poor woman’s nervous tic. Classy.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Drive Thru

JUNE 12, 2007

GENRE: CRAP, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

You know, ordinarily, I wouldn’t watch this type of crap. The whole point of Horror Movie A Day was to finally get myself watching movies people talk about and like. Movies like CHUD, or 2000 Maniacs, or Amityville… in other words, movies that had passed me by or were before my time. Not direct to video shit. Who the hell am I going to be talking to that requires me to have working knowledge of Drive Thru? Nobody that’s who! But this one caught my attention. In fact, the trailer, depicting a clown named Horny killing folks at a McDonald’s type fast food joint named Hellaburger, made me laugh out loud. It looked like a successor to Shocker or Dr. Giggles – a dumb, fun, jokey slasher movie that you can’t take seriously.

Well, it IS all those things, except fun. In fact, it’s awful. I might go so far as to say this is the absolute worst slasher movie I have seen since Dark Ride. I must laud whoever cut the trailer, because he truly made this movie look enjoyable, and did so using footage from the movie! Maybe if you are drunk and/or stoned out of your mind you will enjoy nonstop cheese metal in place of a score, a killer whose favorite weapons are apparently Avid Farts and the Optical Flow filter, a total lack of suspense, etc. I was sober, but I was half asleep, so I should be at least close to the target audience.

This movie pissed me off from the start, with the ever annoying “intercut credits with movie” sequence (after a prologue with some truly annoying stoners getting killed offscreen; a scene I THINK is supposed to be funny but couldn’t be further from it). At least some movies that do this offer two or three credits before quickly cutting to a scene, but here, it’s every other credit: Starring: Some No Name! Cut to girl on the guitar for 4 seconds. And Jan from The Office! Cut back to girl. Back and forth, back and forth. I don’t care if it's designed by Saul Bass, this style of editing in a credit sequence can never be pulled off in any sort of entertaining fashion (though Halloween 5 came close, with cuts to a pumpkin being hacked up).

The rocker chick (the cute as hell Leighton Meester, who sounds nothing at all like whoever is singing for her) is our lead girl, and her friends are all more annoying stoners. And worse: they are the most politically minded 17 year olds in history. Final Girl dumps a beer on a guy’s head because he is republican, blasts her mom for being a liberal hippie, and also points out that she is about to turn 18 and thus will be drafted. Another kid, who by my math would be born at the beginning of the first Bush’s presidency, claims someone is as “Dead as Nixon” (he also makes Captain Kangaroo references). So, because I have brain cells, unlike the writers, I immediately think “OK, it’s badly implemented, but the political stuff must mean something. Maybe the killer has something to do with a wars? Perhaps he was killed in action and has returned?” Later, an old friend of the girl’s mother runs into them at the restaurant, and we learn that all of the victims thus far are the children of a group of friends. “Hmm, maybe they accidentally killed someone at an anti-war rally?” Well guess what? Nope. In fact, the back-story is as generic as they come: yet another socially awkward guy is the victim of a prank that goes wrong, and now he’s back for revenge. You know, like in Terror Train. Or Slaughter High. Or The Burning. Or Valentine. Or a million other infinitely better movies.

But there are many more ripoffs to come! Since the killer is killing the real bad people’s kids, we can throw Nightmare on Elm St into the mix. And whole chunks from the climax are lifted directly from Happy Birthday to Me. None of which have the slightest goddamn thing to do with politics. So what purpose do all of the faux political references serve? Quite a few: it makes a bad movie worse; it dates the film; and proves the writers don’t have a fucking clue. Well done.

The idiocy doesn’t stop there. Final Girl smokes pot and drinks, but balks at having sex when she’s still 17 (even pointing out the possible criminal ramifications of having sex with a minor – again, while she drinks and smokes pot. Huh?). She’ll be 18 in a few days and wants to wait. She doesn't, rendering these scenes entirely useless. Speaking of Meester, it’s obvious that the producers instructed the makeup people to make her look as much like Jessica Alba as possible. Which just reminds one of another better movie: Idle Hands, which was also stoner horror (both films even have Sean Whalen) but at least that movie had the good sense to be enjoyable.

One of the stupider subplots of the film is that Horny the Clown continually warns Meester of his next victim, for some reason (come to think of it, “for some reason” would be the way to describe almost everything in this movie). He does this via toys: first a Ouija board spells out the victims’ license plate, then a magic 8 ball makes reference to another one’s tattoo, and then, I shit you not, a fucking Etch A Sketch draws out the logo on another victim’s shirt. It’s as fucking retarded as it sounds. The stupidity of it all comes full circle when she finds Horny’s old bedroom, which is filled with toys. She picks up a (totally different) magic 8 ball and says “Well this explains a lot.” Well, actually, no, it doesn’t, at all. How does a zombified retard owning a magic 8 ball explain how YOUR magic 8 ball suddenly had your name and a hint at the next victim inside of it? Fuck you, movie.

Let's move on to the CG in this film!

(The following is a transcript of a phone call I believe took place at some point during the post production on Drive Thru):

FX Supervisor Dale Tanguay: (answers phone) Hello?
Co-Director/Co-Writer Shane Kuhn*: Hey, Dale, it’s Shane!
Tanguay: Hey, how’s it going?
Kuhn: Good, good... hey listen, we just finished a rough cut, and it looks like we’re gonna need some CG effects in the film. Didn’t you say you have After Effects?
Tanguay: Uh, yeah, well, it’s just a demo I think… I haven’t really used it….
Kuhn: Great! You're in charge! We need a guy getting cut in half, a head melting in a microwave, a girl breathing fire…
Tanguay: Well I don’t think After Effects can really DO any of those things, at least not well, plus I only know how to make a circle slide across the screen-
Kuhn: OK, sounds good! I know you’re the guy for this! Our FX budget is 12 dollars, that a problem?
Tanguay: Well, uh-
Kuhn: Perfect!
Tanguay: But I'm blind-
“click”

Seriously, the CG in this movie is beyond amateurish. I’ve seen animatics in DVD special features that looked better. Composited effects shift around on the TV screen or whatever they are supposed to be superimposed onto, the digital blood doesn’t even look rendered, let alone color timed, etc. Maybe, if someone is foolish enough to give these two the chance to make another movie, and they can’t afford to do quality CG effects, they will throw a rock and find someone who can do practical makeup effects that look better than the best CG in the world anyway. Just a suggestion.

And why is it, whenever a horror movie has a scene set in a traveling carnival, the haunted house looks more advanced than the fuckin Haunted Mansion at Disneyland? In the real world, those carnival haunted houses are always the size of a trailer, and you go in a little zig zag pattern up the length of the trailer and roll back out 30 seconds later. Basically, they completely suck. But whenever a movie needs one, they look amazing. While not as hilariously overdone as the one in Child’s Play 3, this one still certainly looks like it would take a lot more than an hour or so to knock down before heading to the next town. It’s the rare fault in this film that is commonly shared with others; out of the couple dozen or so that belong exclusively to this pile of shit.

I started writing this review at 2:20. It is now 2:58. This means I probably spent about 37 more minutes writing my review than they did writing the script.

What say you?

*The other one is named Brendan Cowles, which is a longer name so I opted to pick on the other guy to save on keystroking.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Popcorn

JUNE 11, 2007

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

There are many oddities about Popcorn, and I am not sure if they are due to the production troubles (both original director (Alan Ormsby!!) and star (someone else!!!) were replaced after 3 weeks by Mark Herrier and Jill Schoelen, respectively) or just a really half-assed script, but they really serve to make this movie stick out, if not necessarily in a good way.

For starters, “Popcorn” has nothing to do with the movie. OK, it’s at a movie theater, where popcorn can be bought. Fine, but that means the movie could just as well be titled “Soda”, “Ticket”, or “Gift Card”. There’s also one of the lamest final lines in movie history (“Can you hold me?” which is a far cry from the brilliant final line in Schoelen’s previous slasher, Cutting Class) which suddenly turns the movie into a love story. Speaking of Schoelen, she may be cute as hell, but the girl cannot act worth a shit. Her delivery is so wooden, she often sounds like the dubbed performer in an Italian movie. The rest of the cast is OK for this type of thing, with a few familiar faces (Kelly Jo Minter, Tom Villard). They are supposed to be playing film students, yet they never film anything and dismiss Ingmar Bergman, which is just confusing to say the least.

And for a slasher movie, this one strays too far from the established rules, serving to make the film not more original, but more oddly paced. For example, the killer reveals himself and his master plan with a half an hour left, and at least 4 would be victims still around. What sort of slasher does that? Plus, he literally leaves the climactic battle with Schoelen to go kill someone for no reason, only to come right back and pick up where he left of. Huh? He’s also strangely selective, with only 4 kills out of the group of 8 or so film students, a professor, 2 jerks, and an old time theater showman (that guy disappears from the movie entirely after his one scene). In fact, had the movie taken out its occasional F bombs, it would probably have gotten a PG-13, which would make a lot more sense, since the film is an homage to PG rated monster and mad science movies from the 1950s. The kills are bloodless, there is no nudity, and it’s certainly not “intense” in any way shape or form. And the kills are pretty damn lazy. The best scene in the film is when the film professor is skewered by a giant prop mosquito. And whoever directed/wrote it must have felt the same way, because they opted to do the exact same thing at the end to off the killer. Again, weird.

Even the credits offer something you never see (but didn’t actually want to): the laughable credit “Filmed on location in Jamaica.” Not, like, Kingston, Jamaica, or whatever. Just: Jamaica. That certainly explains all of the reggae music in the film, but doesn’t explain in what sort of world that it’s easier to send an American cast down to Jamaica to film a movie that takes place almost entirely inside a movie theater than to just film in LA (where the movie is supposed to take place). Like everything else in the movie, whatever.

I must point out that the intention of the film is A+ and is the only reason I’m not dumping it in the Crap genre. There is nothing wrong with paying tribute to the bygone days where going to a movie was an event, offering you something you couldn’t get at home with your own home theater. Especially in the wake of the pisspoor box office performance of Hostel II (the best chance the genre has for a while to climb out of its long losing streak – Saw III being the last real “hit” horror film), it’s nice to be reminded of when people actually went to the theater (and in turn, the theater provided the customers with an EXPERIENCE). There are at least attempts by some theaters to make things better. The Arclight in LA makes efforts to making movie-going a bit more classy (no ads, assigned seating, ushers stationed inside the theater to keep cell phone usage/talking to a minimum), and the Regal cinema chain has begun providing little remotes to customers that can be used to alert the theater to a problem (with sound, picture, audience). Such efforts are laudable, but they shouldn’t have been necessary to begin with. Hopefully, more theaters will follow their lead so we can at least begin to weed out all of the assholes who seek to ruin the experience for others, but I think going a step further and occasionally utilizing William Castle style gimmicks would help get people back to the theaters.

That or less crap. Either or.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Innocent Blood

JUNE 10, 2007

GENRE: COMEDIC, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

I think I will impose at least a 6 month moratorium on comedic vampire movies. I’ve really had my fill.

Since, I dunno, I was born, I have been saying “We need more vampire movies with Don Rickles!” But I wanted something better than Innocent Blood. It’s not an awful movie, but it’s overlong by about 20 minutes, and by the 3^rd act I had really grown tired of watching mobsters bite each other. There are some minor attempts to rewrite the usual vampire rules (they have reflections, they can be killed by a bullet to the head) but not enough is done with them. It actually looks more like they shrugged off the mirror aspect just so they wouldn’t have to figure out how to pull off the effect (which wouldn’t surprise me; the movie looks incredibly cheap).

Of course, John Landis is one of those guys who has a sort of lifetime pass due to his early classics (in horror’s case, that would be American Werewolf in London), and you can’t really fault him for trying to do something similar with the vampire myth, but the laughs are few and (very) far between, and the effects work is more or less generic. Naturally, as this is a Landis film, there are some funny cameos (Tom Savini, Sam Raimi, even Dario Argento) but nothing to write a blog about.

Robert Loggia seems to be having fun, so there’s something. And his crew is comprised entirely out of stock “mob” actors, like David Proval, Tony Sirico, Chazz Palminteri, and the greatest of them all, KIM COATES. Why Coates never made it to the level of a Michael Madsen or Tom Sizemore is beyond me. Sadly, he is wasted, as is the always great Luis Guzman. And Marshall Bell (Kuato!!!) disappears after like 2 scenes. Why bother casting a recognizable character actor and then write him out of the movie before the first act is through?

Making matters worse, the DVD is a full frame piece of crap, like all early Warner DVD releases (Still waiting on a proper transfer of Caddyshack II, assholes!!!). I looked online and found that region 4 (Australia, or New Zealand. Look, I'm never gonna figure out the difference.) has an anamorphic widescreen release, but it’s not worth importing. I somehow doubt that the left and right sides of the frame contained everything that validated the excruciating running time.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Hellraiser: Hellseeker (2002)

JUNE 9, 2007

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL (I guess?)
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

10 American dollars to whoever can explain what a Hellseeker is (you OWE me ten if you say 'one who seeks hell') and what it has to do with this movie.

The funny thing about that subtitle is, I sat in the video store and called up 2 or 3 friends who I thought would either know or be near a computer so they could check to see if Hellraiser: Hellseeker was the 6th or 7th film in the series (as you know, numbers implies sequel, and the geniuses at Dimension would like an undiscerning viewer to think this was a stand alone film, despite many references to characters from the first two films that mean nothing to you unless you're a fan). Because the last one I saw was part 5 (Inferno) and didn't want to go out of sequence and watch 7 before 6. None of them answered, so I took the risk, and checked when I got home. I lucked out: this WAS indeed part 6, part 7 is titled Deader. Phew! Glad it all worked out. I'd hate to watch 7 first and have this one spoiled. What's that? None of the latter day Hellraiser sequels have a goddamn thing to do with anything at all, let alone each other? Oh.

Indeed, like many of the Dimension era Hellraiser sequels, this was a totally unrelated script that they bought and (sort of) shoehorned Pinhead into it. Ashley Laurence returns for a minute or so as Kirsty, thus providing the only other weak tie to the franchise. Look, all the usual Dimension culprits are on hand (Joel Soisson, Rick Bota, Mike Leahy) so you know what you're in for. Strangely, Patrick Lussier is nowhere to be found.

The rest of the movie is about some douchebag who fucks every woman he sees and eventually pays for it. OK, fine, I like watching a guy fuck his acupuncturist (with needles still sticking out all over his chest) as much as the next guy. But look, why rip off Jacob's Ladder so much that the 'surprise' ending becomes painfully obvious five minutes in? At least Jacob's had the good sense to ground the film in reality to begin with and slowly turn nightmarish. Here, shit is baffling from the getgo, leaving the film no other options (other than "wow, that was one badly edited movie") for a conclusion.

The CG in this film is pretty impressive, in that it's amazing anyone allowed it to be seen by an audience. There's an eel out of the mouth gag (which was done better in Wind Chill, which is a phrase no one ever thought would be uttered) where the CG artist couldn't be bothered to even TRY to match the color or film stock on the damn thing. It's like when you draw an arrow on a picture using Microsoft Paint - THAT's how "seamlessly blended" it is.

Even the DVD itself is annoying. In the extra features menu, there's a choice for 'extended' scenes. You click on this option, and you get the following options on the menu: Commentary On/Off; Scene 1, Next, Main. Clicking next gives you the other two scenes and Play All. What the fuck kind of submenu offers you more choices for other bullshit than it does for its titular content??? As Dr. Malcolm McDowell Loomis would yell: "Christ!"

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

1408 (2007)

JUNE 8, 2007

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

The amount of surprises this movie contains is beyond astonishing. A PG-13, Dimension produced, haunted house movie based on a Stephen King short story and directed by the guy who made one of the worst films (Derailed) in recent memory. NAME ONE APPEALING THING ABOUT ANY OF THAT!!

Well you'll be damned, 1408 is actually pretty solid. Expanding the short story in both standard (adding a backstory about Enslin's daughter) and pretty clever (a throwaway line in the short story about a broken thermostat becomes a pretty funny sequence) ways, I remained engaged and entertained throughout most of the running time. There are only a handful of actors who can carry a film almost entirely on his own, luckily John Cusack is one of them (another caveat about this film - it reunites John Cusack and a hotel. Thankfully, Pruitt Taylor Vince is nowhere in sight). But considering my now decade-old crush on her, I could have used more Mary McCormack. Actually, the only reason I saw the film was because I was supposed to cover a junket for the film today, with Ms. (I hope it's just Ms. anyway, heyo!) McCormack in attendance, but someone else got to do it instead. LAME. This means I am also denied a chance to ask Cusack about the status of Con Air 2.

People near me may have thought I WAS bored, in fact, because I kept looking at my watch. But the reason is, there is a countdown built into the plot (no one ever lasts in the room more than an hour), and at one point the clock begins counting down from 60:00. So every now and then, I checked it against my watch to see if they were cheating. Surprisingly, they didn't (well, you THINK they did, more on that below). Doing real time is pretty tricky (not to mention often boring; see Rope, Nick of Time, and the last season of 24) so to pull it off truthfully while maintaining suspense and entertainment is a laudable achievement.

The only real flaw in the film is that they try to pull a reverse twist, making you think perhaps everything in the hotel was a dream, but this occurs at like 70 minutes into the film, and thus you know damn well that it's not that easy because there's gotta be at least another 20 min to go. Then again, at this point, 3 people walked out, assuming it was over, so I dunno. For me, I think this would have worked better had there been another 10 min or so in the room. But you can't really fault a film for not dragging things out just to satisfy people with a working knowledge of running times. But then they reveal that it's part of the psychological episode, and the 60 minute countdown remains more or less intact. Also, another minor one, there's a great thing in the book where Enslin records a long monologue about the door being crooked, but then when he plays the tape back, all he actually said was "The door is crooked." I would have liked to have seen this incorporated somehow, because it creeped the shit out of me in the short story.

And hey, Sam Jackson manages to drop an F bomb! The system works!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Hostel Part II (2007)

JUNE 7, 2007

GENRE: SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PREMIERE)

OK, I’ll admit to it, I downloaded the workprint of Hostel Part II after seeing it tonight at the premiere. I could have done so even earlier and had a review up, but I think reviewing a workprint of a film is like telling your mom her cookies suck after you eat some of the batter. Not only is it not fair, it’s just fucking rude. Especially when it comes to horror films, a proper soundtrack is essential to the film’s effectiveness. Carpenter showed Halloween without the music, and got rejected by every studio there was. Then he added his legendary score, and the same folks who said it stunk said it was the scariest movie they had ever seen.

Also, my mom doesn’t make bad cookies.

So why did I download it at all? Because I had a sneaking suspicion about the film after it was over: that it was the type of movie that worked better on a 2^nd viewing. And like no less than four other times in history, I was correct. While I was initially sort of disappointed and even sort of puzzled by the fact that this film has less violence and gore than the original (despite Eli’s claims to the contrary), it works much better on a 2^nd view, when your expectations have been thrown out the window and you can focus on the film for what it is (even more impressive when you consider my 2nd viewing was on a crappy bootleg).

What it IS, in fact, is a pretty solid sequel. There is a sequence early on of people bidding on the girls, and it is possibly the best sequence in Roth’s career. My wife got more frightened watching these doctors, laywers, family men, even a woman, calmly bid thousands of dollars for the right to torture and kill some innocent girl, than any other ‘gorno’ scene in the film. And the guy who works the front desk at the hostel is one of the creepiest non-violent characters I have ever seen in a film. There’s also a heartbreaking scene of a kid who looks like he stepped out of Deliverance (and time traveled 35 years, I guess) who tries to help one of the girls. But because he is weird looking, she refuses, sealing both their fates. Poor sod.

However, there are some problems. The two big twists are easily guessable (more on that later), and Lauren German’s final girl character is pretty one-note (not that Paxton was a multilayered icon of heroism, but he wasn’t set up to be the hero, the other guy was, so it was OK and even part of the point, I think). But for the most part, Hostel II is, at least in execution, what a sequel should be: a continuation of the original, with both a repeat of some elements and a changeup of others. No one wants the exact same movie, but no one wants something entirely unrelated either. The result is a nearly 50/50 split of the two. I would have liked to have seen more of Sasha, the Elite Hunting “president”, and maybe a little more development with Richard Burgi’s character (as the saying goes, “This film needs more Richard Burgi!”), but I understand the need to spend time with our females, especially when they’re THIS hot. It’s a trifecta of perfect ‘types’: Vera Jordanova – the exotic supermodel-y beauty type, Bijou Phillips – the hot sorority party girl type, and Lauren German – the cute as hell girl next door type. Boyoyoyoyong. Best looking horror movie since Black Xmas! Even Jordan Ladd looks hotter than she usually does. Sadly, I think her screen credit is on-screen longer than she is.

Back to the twists. In a schizophrenic (‘split personality’ style schizophrenia, not ‘real’ schizophrenia) screenwriting choice, Roth uses EXTREME subtlety to foreshadow one surprise (that Roger Bart’s meek character would eventually go apeshit and be the most vicious character in the film) and EXTREME shoehornery to foreshadow another (that German’s character is rich). See, in the first film, I was truly shocked when the Derek Richardson character got killed halfway through. Even when he was being stabbed, I was still like “OK so he escapes, then Paxton dies, and- oh shit, no, he’s dead. Fuck!” It wasn’t telegraphed, everything in the film up to that point led us to believe that he would be our hero.

Not the case here. For barely any reason whatsoever, Bijou starts explaining to the audience, I mean, her friend, that German’s character is super rich. Hmm, what could that mean? That she would buy her way out of being killed, maybe? But on the flipside, Bart’s character is totally repressed, dominated by his wife. He says as much after he freaks out and begins slapping his victim around. But on my first viewing, even though I figured he would do that (while the previously gung ho Burgi character suddenly chickens out. It’s very similar to Dogma in that respect), it still seemed sloppy and out of left field. But watching it again, I see it is in fact quite nicely foreshadowed: In the one scene of Bart at home, his wife leaves for work and leaves the door open, her plate on the table. Then, Bart silently cleans up after her. It’s actually quite subtle and wonderfully done, and shows that when he wants to, Eli can indeed write (and direct) such character development in a far greater way than he is often given credit for. Again, the first time I watched it, it didn’t resonate with me, because I was like “Yeah, yeah, come on let’s see some Achilles’ heels being cut!!! WOOO GORE!!!!!!!!” Because that’s what I expect when I sit down to watch an Eli Roth movie.

But this is a new and improved Roth. While it is leaps and bounds over Cabin Fever, I still prefer the first Hostel, and as the “Hey guys, she’s rich! REMEMBER THAT!!!” scene proves, he could have used another draft or two. But otherwise, it’s good to see him trying to make more of a real film, rather than cater to expectation and make a film showcasing how many different ideas he had to torture folks. Good for him! Proud of ya!!

I should note, Roth is from Newton, Mass, a town located some 12 feet or so from where I lived (Arlington), so I have undying support for him. He may have overhyped the movie (seriously, it's not more violent at all, unless you're some sort of sexist that feels that a woman being killed is equal to 3 guys being killed), but when it comes to doing his job, i.e. making entertaining horror films, dude is 3 for 3 in my book, which is more than I can say for many of his peers. Besides, I don’t buy into the notion of “In order to enjoy your films (or music, or books, or sandwiches) I must think you are a perfect person". Hell, I tell people to watch Victor Salva’s Clownhouse, and that guy fucking raped a kid while he made it. Mel Gibson's a racist, doesn't make Lethal Weapon less awesome. So I certainly wouldn’t dismiss Roth’s films because the guy might have a bit of an ego.

Kudos, sire Roth. You pulled off a solid sequel. Even Craven (Hills 2 or Scream 2 or 3) and Carpenter (Escape From LA) couldn't manage that. And shame on the folks who watched a sub-quality, unfinished version of the film and based their opinion on it without viewing the final product. If you liked what you saw, fine, say so. But slamming an unfinished film, to me, shows a total lack of respect for not just the filmmaker but for filmmaking in general.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...