The Cottage (2008)

MAY 18, 2008

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

Oh the British, why are you so good at combining graphic gore with subtle comedy?

Much like the under-appreciated Severance, The Cottage is essentially a Friday the 13th film crossed with a black comedy, in this case something like Fargo or Ruthless People, in that you have a kidnapping gone wrong due to inept ‘criminals’, a kidnap victim who seems to have the upper hand, complications and double crosses, etc. But then a Victor Crowley-esque mutant killer comes along and everything goes to hell.

It’s not as laugh out loud funny as Severance, but it’s more consistently humorous. One thing about Severance that always kind of bugged me is that once the plane blows up (the film’s comedic highlight), they essentially drop the humor altogether. That’s not the case here, as there are giggles to be had right down to the final scene. And the film wastes no time getting to the laughs either, as the brothers begin humorously bickering in the film’s first scene (naturally, as this is a British movie, they bicker over tea).

Of course, the humor wouldn’t work at all without a capable cast, and thankfully director Paul Steven Williams has assembled one. Andy Serkis is great as the only intelligent criminal of the three, and has most of the film’s best lines. I was surprised at how good he was, since I only knew him as a guy who stood in for CGI characters (Gollum in LOTR, Kong in King Kong). Hopefully he will be taking on more actual roles. Reece Shearsmith as his brother is also good, playing a nebbish who inadvertently causes most of their problems. The only minor flaw is Doug Bradley, in a distracting cameo as one of a few townsfolk who show up long enough for you to say “what the hell was the point of that scene” (their one scene comes and goes out of nowhere, isn’t relevant to the plot, and is never even mentioned again).

As for the gore, it’s top notch. Not all of the gags are original (decapitation via shovel, again), but they are executed flawlessly, and none of the effects look fake. It’s also occasionally pretty suspenseful; the film has the best “guy stupidly puts his head to the door when he knows the killer is on the other side” scene in ages, as Williams has the timing for such a clichéd sequence down perfectly, resulting in not only a jolt but a laugh as well once punchline to the bit is delivered. It should be noted that the killer doesn’t make his official appearance until the end of the 2nd act, and those seeking a nonstop gorefest will be disappointed. Structurally speaking, it’s more like Hatchet than a F13 movie.

My only other minor complaint is that the Danny Elfman-esque score (it sounds exactly like Beetlejuice at times) was overbearing at times, and not always ‘right’ for the scene. Maybe if played softer it would work, but since it’s drowning out the scene audio at times, it becomes doubly annoying.

The DVD comes with deleted scenes and outtakes. The outtakes are typical (i.e. not very funny, though it’s somewhat amusing to see how jovial Serkis is out of character), but the deleted scenes are interesting for the most part. In addition to a deleted character (wisely excised, as it spoils the surprise of the killer, much like I and the box art have done), there is also a moment where Serkis is actually nice to the 3rd kidnapper, something that never occurs in the final cut. I would have liked a commentary, but alas (the deleted scenes have some explanation of their removal via onscreen text). Luckily, the movie was enjoyable enough on its own. Definitely recommended for fans of dry humor, and also fans of giant mutant killer dudes tearing fat guys’ spines out.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Phenomena (1985)

MAY 17, 2008

GENRE: GIALLO, ITALIAN, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Ah, Phenomena. My introduction to Italian cinema! Of course, by that I mean I saw Creepers, the severely edited US version of Argento’s film. I believe my mom rented it when I was about 6, because it had the girl from Labyrinth in it (occasionally known as Jennifer Connelly), and assumed I would enjoy it (not as much as I would when I hit the age of 11 or so and realized that Connelly was in fact one of the hottest women in the world). As a kid I remember being completely confused by the film, and thus “hated” it. I watched it again when I was about 17, this time the correct 108 minute version, and liked it a lot, and decided to start watching more Italian horror, which is how I came to see Demons and Zombie (and thus got introduced to Lamberto Bava and Lucio Fulci). So now, once again 11 years later, I watch it again as a sort of seasoned veteran of the output of one Dario Argento.

And it still holds up. The kill scenes are grand (if a bit jarringly edited at times, such as the beheading at the beginning), the plot is a nice blend of the usual black gloved killer stuff with the rather odd “Insect ESP” angle, and Donald Pleasence is, as always, a delight. I also quite much liked the monkey (why couldn’t she have gotten into the house in time!?!?!? :(), and the killer is one of Argento’s most memorable nuts.

The opening scene is a particular delight. In addition to being set in a location that looks a lot like the one in the climax of Opera (still my favorite Argento film), the credits reveal that none other than Giorgio Armani was the costume designer. You always hear about big actors who have horror movies in the early parts of their filmographies, it’s amusing to know that the same goes for fashion designers. His costumes for Connelly are much appreciated (she spends most of the film in a nightie. Fine by me.).

Ironically, I think it would be even better if it was edited down a bit. New Line (who distributed the film in the States) had the right idea, they just went overboard. For example, there’s a scene in an asylum that is among the most useless scenes in film history. All it does is foreshadow (rather clumsily to boot) the backstory that the killer is about to reveal herself anyway. An extra line in her exposition could have removed the ‘need’ for the scene entirely (I say ‘need’ because, as far as I’m concerned, we don’t need to know how the killer came to have a son anyway). This sequence comes after the film’s most annoying scene, where a body is wheeled out of a house, set to an Iron Maiden song. It is completely inappropriate to the scene, which is followed by a scene of Connelly running around (also useless). Without this entire chunk of the film, not only would it be shorter, but simply less “huh?” worthy.

There’s also a completely odd moment early on where the film suddenly has a narrator. He never says another thing in the film, and in fact his one line is pretty useless anyway, since he’s narrating action that wasn’t hard to follow anyway (he essentially says “And so Jennifer arrives at school”, over a shot of Jennifer arriving at school.). The movie has a knife wielding monkey, an insect trying to arouse Jennifer Connelly, etc... but nothing really made less sense than the use of a narrator here.

Another puzzling moment occurs about an hour in or so. Connelly is on a bus, using a fly to determine where the killer lives. When she gets off the bus, we see a guy sitting in the front row suddenly stand up, walk to the back of the bus, and shut the window next to the seat Connelly just vacated. Huh? Even for Argento, these things are a bit baffling.

(I just checked the IMDb, I guess there’s a scene where a woman asks her to shut the window that was cut, but why cut the setup and leave the punchline? And it looks like a dude shutting the window anyway. And even if not, she’s on the other end of the goddamn bus!)

Still, a damn good film, and one of the better introductions to Argento one could offer. It’s not as strange as Suspiria or even Opera, nor is it as completely accessible as Trauma or some of his newer films, which might give someone the idea that an Argento film is of complete and sound logic. A nice sort of hybrid, with the bonus of an incredibly cute and yet then-underage Connelly, which makes you as the viewer feel as creepy as you are creeped out.

The DVD is pretty packed compared to some of the other Argento films in the set. In addition to a commentary that’s worth listening to (since Argento is on it, plus Claudio Simonetti!), there are two music videos, which are interesting as both are instrumental songs. There is also the traditional interview with Argento where he discusses the film (he says it’s his favorite), and another making of piece that is, for some reason, half dubbed, half subtitled. I would have liked a bit about the alternate, 82 minute version, but oh well.

On a side note – did anyone besides me think that the girl who first taunts Connelly in the film’s big Carrie ‘homage’ was Coralina Cataldi-Tassoni?

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Hand (1981)

MAY 16, 2008

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

When you think of an Oliver Stone film, you think “politics”, “war”, “controversy”, or maybe “John C. McGinley”. But none of those things are evident in The Hand, one of his first films (many claim it IS his first, but in fact he directed another horror film called Seizure in the early 70s), and one can’t help but wonder that if the film had done well, Stone may have gone on to make more horror films, and fewer presidential biopics.

Then again, on the commentary (which I was really surprised by – not only by the fact that it existed, but it was recorded in the past 2 years) Stone claims over and over that he is not a fan of horror films, that he doesn’t have the knack for it, and that the only reason the film works for him is because of the psychological and character based elements. Apparently, many of the more traditional horror elements (such as the scene when Michael Caine investigates a leaky faucet and then a tree smashes his window) are studio mandated reshoots, which Stone shot, albeit begrudgingly. And I agree with him to some extent; without all that stuff, I think the film would still work.

However, it would NOT work without the two ridiculous gore moments, which elevate the film from minor psychological thriller to... well, psychological thriller with ridiculous gore moments. The second is pretty minor, but as it comes during a particularly batshit finale, it’s pretty outstanding. The first though, when Caine loses his hand, is a masterpiece as far as I’m concerned:

And that’s just SOME of the blood Caine is seen losing in the scene. It’s amazing he even survived. It’s so over the top, it helps earn the film some goodwill, as it is rather long (1:45) and gets a bit slow at times. Since this is a character based film, that is to be expected, but still, there are scenes that go on far longer than necessary, such as when Caine meets up with his romantic rival at a bar (an odd POV sequence to boot).

That rival is played by none other than Bruce McGill, who modern audiences know as “That guy that’s like a less menacing JT Walsh”. McGill is obviously much younger here, and looks like a country singer. Two other familiar faces pop up, one being Charles Fleischer, who was the voice of Roger Rabbit (how would that make him a familiar face? – Ed.) (shut your goddamn mouth! – BC), and looks a lot like David Cross. Also popping up near the end is Tracey Walter, who is best known (to me, anyway) as the killer in the criminally underrated and hilarious Drowning Mona (he has one of my favorite lines in the film – after confessing to the murders and bemoaning that he wouldn’t be invited to another character’s wedding, he is told that he WAS invited, as was his wife. Walter replies “I’m married?”). And Stone himself shows up as a bum.

Back to that batshit ending – what do you folks think about it? The whole movie makes you think the hand is killing everyone, only to reveal that it was Caine all along, killing everyone during blackouts. But in the final scene, he’s strapped to a chair and the hand kills the doctor testing him. So was the hand real all along? Or was the ending part fantasy as well? And will The Hand vs Idle Hands ever come to pass?

For no real reason, I'd like to point out that there is no scene selection menu. There are chapters, but if you want to know what random frame would be used to give a viewer an idea of what that chapter is about, you're shit out of luck!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The House of Usher (2006)

MAY 15, 2008

GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

The Vincent Price version of Poe’s "Usher" story was pretty good, and for the most part escaped its short story trappings – it didn’t FEEL like a stretched out tale. I cannot say the same for The House Of Usher, which is so dull and repetitious that I don’t even think it would work as a half hour Tales From The Crypt episode.

Nearly 80% of the film is this: Boring Austin Nichols is writing. The occasionally American, usually Polish-accented Izabella Miko walks in and touches his arm or something. They have the following conversation:

Miko: “How’s it going?”
Nichols: “OK. Now that you’re here.”
Miko: “I have to go back soon.”
Nichols: “No. Stay. I need you here.”
Miko: “But what about my life?”
Nichols: “You can make a life here.”
Miko (looks out window): “I miss her so much.”
Nichols: “Me too.”
(Beth Grant watches disapprovingly from the doorway, then walks away).

Now this isn’t an exact transcript, but a general idea of what you will see over and over and over during the film’s (still too long) 80 minute running time. The other two scenes are Miko and Grant being cold to one another, and occasionally Miko seeing her friend who should be dead. Finally, with 15 minutes to go, the movie remembers to, you know, DO something, as Nichols begins running around trying to kill Miko, and the dead sister comes back to help... it’s still pretty boring, but the music and more frenetic camerawork makes you think otherwise.

Speaking of the camerawork – it’s really awkward. The cutting and blocking is very jarring at times, particularly in the first 20 minutes or so. It’s probably supposed to make you feel uneasy, but since there’s nothing in the film that is holding your interest, it just annoys.

That said, otherwise it’s at least a well made film – rainy Massachusetts is captured well, and the scope aspect ratio is surprisingly fitting, despite the fact that the entire film takes place in a house. And the attempts to modernize Poe’s tale are somewhat admirable; it doesn’t feel anachronistic at any rate.

I was surprised at how bad Beth Grant was in the film, too. She’s usually pretty entertaining (either as a villain or someone you’re supposed to like), but she’s incredibly stiff here. Miko’s uneven accent is too distracting to determine whether she can act or not, and Austin Nichols is as dull as they come. Look, if you want a guy with that “look” for your film, may I suggest Aaron Douglas, who plays Chief Tyrol on Battlestar. That guy is gold.

There’s a commentary, but I can’t imagine sitting through the film again to listen to it. Maybe though; as I write this, I’m not feeling well, so maybe I’ll put it on to put me to sleep.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Tales From The Darkside: The Movie (1990)

MAY 14, 2008

GENRE: ANTHOLOGY, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

As a kid, I remember watching Tales From The Darkside: The Movie, at least a couple times, but the only story I recalled was the middle one, about the unkillable cat. Which makes no sense, because it seems that would be the least likely one to catch on HBO – if I started from the beginning, I would have fallen asleep by then (I was always narcinemaleptic), and if I caught it while flipping channels, it would likely be the final story. Well, whatever, I didn’t remember anything about the other two, or the wraparound, so it counts for HMAD.

It’s funny to see how many actors are now famous. When I saw it, even if I had recalled the piece, there’s no way I would know who Steve Buscemi or Julianne Moore were (even Christian Slater I likely only knew from one or two other movies). Likewise in the final segment, my 10 year old self would have no appreciation for a rare good guy turn from James Remar. I think the only ones I would have recognized were William Hickey (due to his role in Christmas Vacation) and Rae Dawn Chong (The Principal! Fuck yeah!). Hardly a single character in the film is as unfamous now as they were then, pretty much just the other preppy dude in Slater’s story is the only one that hasn’t gone on to have a nice career.

As an anthology film, it works better than most, since more stories are good than not. The first two are pretty great, and the wraparound is delightfully mean-spirited. The only one that didn’t quite gel was the 3rd one, with Remar and Chong. I don’t know if it’s too long or simply not long enough, but it just doesn’t fit as well with the others. Maybe it’s the lack of black humor (more apparent after the 2nd story, which is by far the most fun), or the abrupt “ten years later” finale, I dunno. The KNB transformation during the finale makes it worthwhile in the end, however.

Slater’s story (about the mummy) has my favorite line of the film – when opening the mummy’s sarcophagus, the other preppy dude randomly comments “Ugh, he looks just like your father!” This is not a very nice thing to say, whether the character’s father is dead or alive. And he says it in such a way that it seems like the audience should know what he means by it. I also love Buscemi’s explanation of how he tricked Slater, mocking him for not knowing the difference between Egyptian and Sumerian hieroglyphics or whatever. Ah, Buscemi, you were always awesome.

The DVD surprisingly has a commentary by director John Harrison and George Romero (who wrote the cat story, based on Stephen King’s short story). Romero is one of those guys that you wish was on every commentary track, even if he had nothing to do with the film, because he’s consistently interesting (the fact that he’s the most intelligent of his peers doesn’t hurt). They reveal that the stories were originally written in a different order, though I can’t remember what that order was (they also say there’s a lot of continuity errors as a result, but I didn’t notice any more than usual).

And I didn’t hear them really say anything about it on the track (I was kind of ‘background’ing it for the most part, since I had just finished watching the film), but apparently the movie was, as far as many of the crew are concerned, Creepshow 3. It certainly feels like a Creepshow film, and it’s obvious that the kid in the wraparound was meant to be reading comics instead of a large leatherbound book of short stories. I’ll take it over the actual Creepshow 3, at any rate (which to be fair I haven’t seen, nor will I until I hear a single good thing about it; a challenge that has yet to be met).

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Tender Flesh (1974)

MAY 13, 2008

GENRE: CANNIBAL, WEIRD
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

The worst thing about seeing a gem like Tender Flesh (aka Welcome To Arrow Beach) is that it’s so obscure that I can’t talk to anyone about it except the folks I saw it with. It’s never been released on DVD, and the VHS is long out of print (Half.com doesn’t even have an entry for it for you to ‘wish list’). I know one HMAD reader saw it, because I randomly sat next to him, but for the rest of you, I hope you’ve either seen it, or know a way to see it. The trailer is below (another fine idea from Chris!), to whet your appetite.

The film itself isn’t much to write about – a girl is invited into a home run by two weird folks (a brother and sister who kiss a bit too lovingly), and before long discovers that the guy is a cannibal. She escapes, no one believes her but her Dirk Diggler-y boyfriend, someone else enters the home who isn’t so lucky... standard stuff for this kind of movie. But what makes it so wonderful is the nearly nonstop quirkiness of the whole thing. For example, early on, our heroine (Meg Foster!) hitches a ride with an Owen Wilson-ish guy who promptly floors it, gets chased by the cops, and flips the car. He’s never heard from again, but while the cops investigate his car, they find a bag of cocaine. The chief (or sheriff, I forget) tells his deputy to take it back and that it “better all be there!”. He then rubs his nose and snorts. One assumes that he’s just clearing his nose of an errant booger, but the subject of the scene just makes it hilarious.

Later, Foster and Diggler are discussing whether to go back to the house or not, in the kitchen of her temporary home. On the walls are several diagrams that detail the different sections of cow, pig, chicken, and woodland creature that one could eat. A chicken’s head is a 6, for example. Why is that there? Who knows, but I love it anyway. It’s also around this time that one of the finest pieces of dialogue ever written, recited, and recorded is unleashed upon us all: “He kills people... GIRL people!”

There’s also another line that I can’t remember exactly, but the jist of it is “There are any number of places a girl can stick herself with a needle!” (they are discussing heroin). Again, it’s just off-kilter enough to be memorable.

Sadly, there isn’t much cannibal action, and the brother/sister incest never goes beyond a make out session (one that is cut from abruptly – not sure if the print itself was cut or if it was just a bad edit). It also gets a bit slow, as we spend too much time with the assorted cops going about their day. But the oddball dialogue (Foster’s in particular), silly background stuff, and soundtrack were more than enough to keep me entertained. In other words, perfect New Beverly movie. I'm actually quite surprised it's not on my Chilling Classics set.

Before Flesh was 2000 Maniacs, a film that I’d pretty much ONLY want to watch at the Bev. The print was pretty bad... color was OK but the audio was muffled almost the entire time. Two guests came, one of which is none other than Steven Poster, who is now a successful director of photography, most notably all of Richard Kelly’s films (and I got to talk to him about Southland Tales, I guess a Blu-Ray is being seriously considered, wooo). And it was good to see Grindhouse guru Eric Caidin up and about, as he was attacked in his store a couple weeks ago (you’d never know it though – the guy is definitely a trooper). All in all, definitely worth the trip, even if some cock in the ass totally stole my spot as I was trying to park.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Card Player (2004)

MAY 12, 2008

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

There aren’t too many Argento films left for me to watch, which is pretty great. This is the 10th I’ve watched for HMAD, and with the 2-3 I had seen before, I’d say I’ve gotten a good sense of his style and themes. Which is why I feel safe saying that The Card Player (aka Il Cartaio) is the least Argento-ish of his movies. Not that it’s bad, it’s actually a pretty good “serial killer taunts the police” movie. But that’s all it is in the end, and other than the Claudio Simonetti score (which is also atypical of the composer, as it is entirely electronic based, to the point where it’s essentially techno), there is nothing here that suggests the master is the one behind it all; no stylish touches that elevate it above any of its cinematic brethren.

But, as said, it’s still pretty good. I had fun trying to figure out who the killer was, and was wrong, so that’s good (I DID correctly assume that the killings were pre-recorded, so the “movie-killer-guessing” part of my ego was only partially deflated). And despite the relative lack of Argento’s visual style, it’s an immaculate looking DVD. Blacks are actually black, instead of the faded gray that a lot of movies (including Argento’s own Stendhal Syndrome) suffer from on their DVD. I almost thought I was watching an HD DVD at times, until I recalled that the poor format died before it got around to releasing obscure Italian horror movies.

It’s also got a nice autopsy scene that made me flinch a bit. The cop is taking a scalpel to the corpse’s eyes, sort of cutting mucous-y fluid away. Gah. There’s also a nice sort of scare when a corpse (maybe the same one, I already forget) “pukes” water into a guy’s face. Otherwise, though, it’s the usual cop/thriller/killer stuff – the killer comes to our heroine’s apartment, she falls for a fellow cop who ends up dead, etc. It’s actually pretty similar at times to that Untraceable movie. At least I think it is, I’ve forgotten just about everything about that movie already.

The extras are a mixed bag. There’s a lengthy interview with Argento, and another with Simonetti, that are quite good and informative (and in Italian, even though the movie is in English). But then there are two other featurettes that are wholly worthless, simply presenting (the same) behind the scenes footage over music. The second one, which is actually shorter, is a bit better, as it includes some thoughts from the lead actress, but it’s still hardly worth your time. Still, nearly 40 minutes of extras, plus trailers and a commentary (by Alan Joneszzzzzzz), is pretty sweet considering how good the picture looked. Say what you will about Anchor Bay’s tendency to double dip – their transfers are almost always top notch.

In my notes I took, er, note, of the fact that the hot broad from Do You Like Hitchcock appears as one of the victims. I don’t really have anything to say about it, but, yeah; the hot broad from Do You Like Hitchcock appears as one of the victims.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Candyman (1992)

MAY 11, 2008

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

I saw Candyman once, at a sleepover, when I was like 13. The only thing I vividly remembered was that a certain female cast member was very appealing to my 13 year old brain (that'd be Stacey, the student Virginia Madsen's husband hooks up with). Strangely, I got inspired to revisit it while playing GTAIV, in which you have to take out a drug dealer who lives in the projects. Something about the building reminded me of the one in Candyman, so I opened the DVD I bought ages ago (this is nothing new, one of the very first DVDs I ever bought is still in shrinkwrap) and made it my movie for the day. And sure enough, the building in the game IS very similar to the Cabrini Green housing development that Virginia Madsen and her friend walk around in the film’s first act. I love how my memory works.

See?

The movie itself is about as good as I remember - I wish I could recall why I didn't watch it more often, though I suspect it was because it was/is somewhat slower than the other things I was watching at the time and didn't feel encouraged to revisit it as often as my usual high body count slashers. One thing that most certainly DIDN’T bother me as a kid was Candyman’s dialogue, which I now liken to the bad gothic poetry I would read a few years later in my high school newspaper. Stuff like “What is blood if not for shedding?” sounds cool to a kid, but now I find it incredibly corny. The film works best when Candyman is just a silent figure, graphically killing folks for no real reason and blaming it on Madsen (the part with the shrink kills me – he wants Madsen to escape, but does he need to commit another murder that will be pinned on her in the process?).

Also, any dialogue (not just Candyman’s) drowns out the incredible score by Phillip Glass, which is a shame. The score is up there with Halloween and Exorcist as instantly identifiable in the horror genre, and I even let the credits run to hear it one last time. I know Glass gets a lot of shit for his atonal nonsense, but his work here is quite melodic and wonderful, and the film wouldn’t be nearly as effective without it.

I also love how the movie used medicine cabinets as a way of explaining how Candyman got in and out of people’s homes. Horror movies have used the opening/closing of a bathroom mirror as a scare device for decades; it’s about time someone actually took the time to make the damn things part of the plot. Kudos to Bernard Rose (what the hell ever happened to him, anyway?*) and Clive Barker for this invention.

The extras are nice – and actually more plentiful than the disc would have you believe. Despite being listed as “Commentary with Bernard Rose”, it actually has just about everyone else on the track, including Barker and Todd. Xander Berkeley is the only principal who is absent. Sadly, they are recorded separately, and they keep reminding us who is who (ironic, since is the only track in history with 6 completely distinctive voices), but it’s still a good listen. Rose in particular is good to listen to, in addition to saying the exact same thing I’ve always said when people say they don’t like horror movies because they are too scary (“Would you dislike a comedy for being too funny?”), he also trashes PG-13 horror near the end, and this was recorded when PG-13 horror films were the exception, not the rule. A prophet! Another thing he reveals is that Sandra Bullock was up for Madsen’s role, which is an amusing thing to think about. There’s also a nice retrospective piece (Todd’s simple description of Candyman 3 makes the whole thing worth watching) and an interview with Clive where he discusses his career. Good stuff.

And no, I haven’t read the short story. Other than Nightbreed and Lord of Illusions, I have never read any of the original Barker stories that the films have come from (or any other Barker material, for that matter). I keep meaning to check them out, but I read very rarely these days (I used to get all my reading done on my subway/bus commute in Boston; in LA I drive to work). Someday....

Finally, the best thing about the movie? Ted Raimi cast as a “town bad boy” in one of the flashback scenes. Ted is possibly the least threatening guy ever born, so this is just hilarious to me.

What say you?

*He went on to make some softcore nonsense, as well as the Beethoven biopic Immortal Beloved. Which is odd, because the director of Candyman 2 went on to make the film version of Chicago. Candyman films – the gateway to Oscar bait music related cinema**!

**Except for part 3. The director of that movie went on to write Wrong Turn 2. Which is, as far as I’m concerned, a better deal.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Believers (2007)

MAY 10, 2008

GENRE: CULT, RELIGIOUS
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

What the fuck is wrong with Raw Feed? Why can’t they ever make a film that lives up to its concept? I’d rather see a generic story done right than a good story done wrong, but that’s precisely what RF has done with each of their first three films. First was Rest Stop, which managed to create the most unlikable heroine in cinematic history (while boring us to tears). Then came Sublime, which was OK but about 40 minutes too long, and featured needless (and underdeveloped at that) “white guilt” social commentary. Now we have Believers, which not only takes a genius concept (a doomsday cult is actually right) but also an always fun actor (Johnny Messner) and once again dulls the movie almost beyond repair.

The problem is that the cult stuff is hardly the focus. This may be the first film in history whose sequel would almost be guaranteed to be more interesting. I was more interested in the history of the cult, its members, and most importantly, the idea that they were right all along. Naturally, the whole ‘end of the world’ that the film presents would kind of make a sequel hard to pull off, but I dunno, anything’s gotta be more interesting than watching scene after scene of Messner saying “fuck you!” and rattling his cage door. It’s a waste of a ‘twist’ ending when the 90 minutes before it weren’t giving you much in the way of entertainment.

That said, it’s not a bad movie. As said, Messner’s a fun guy to watch, and the few bits of interesting thought that the movie offers are certainly compelling. And one of the cult guys is named Io (lol), and resembles Tony from the original Die Hard (the one that Willis kills first; “There are RULES for policemen.”). And the cult member is the bald guy from Murder One, so there’s something. But the reliance on typical plot developments (Messner’s coworker comes looking for him, Messner briefly escapes, etc) sort of outweigh the original aspects. You really gotta work to weed out the good and try to ignore the generic.

One thing that helps immensely is, strangely, the disc’s extra features. Most of them feature the lovably nutty Io, including his orientation video, an uncut interview that he does on some sort of daytime talk show (this includes a hilarious and subtle jab at Scientology), and his explaining how math ties into their theories about God and life and all that good stuff. There’s also a video of some folks investigating the cult compound, taking place shortly after the events of the film (but before the film’s epilogue, obviously). The 20 minutes of material here are all far more interesting and revealing than the film itself.

Then again, you can’t really be surprised by that, since the film is directed by none other than Blair Witch’s Daniel Myrick (faring far better here than Solstice, at any rate). BW had a bunch of stuff (books, video games, tv specials, and of course, the internet) that fleshed out the film, and the same thing applies here. The only difference is, BW is still fun to watch even without knowing any of that other stuff, whereas with Believers, it’s almost required viewing in order to give the film any merit at all. Without this stuff, it’s just an underdeveloped, only occasionally interesting overlong Twilight Zone episode.

The only sort of “typical” extra is a commentary, and like Solstice, it’s just not very interesting, even though Myrick has help here (co-writer Julia Fair). He rambles about technical things, and also sits in silence for long periods of time. Fair occasionally interjects some generic “this guy was great” type comments about the cast, but not much else. Myrick also points out a Blair Witch related “easter egg” that I had actually caught, so if you missed it, watch the commentary up until that point to see what it is!

And yes, I spoiled the ending of the movie but not a vague reference that occurs in the first 10 minutes.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Knock Knock (2007)

MAY 9, 2008

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Never heard of Knock Knock until no less an authority than Uncle Creepy told me that I would enjoy it, as it was up my alley (being a slasher movie and all) and featured hilarious Italian stereotypes. Rather than wait for the increasingly unreliable Blockbuster Online to send it (most of my top 10 movies are either long wait, or simply just not sent), I picked it up at the store so I could bask in the glow of its apparent greatness.

And surprise, it really ain’t all that bad at all. It’s incredibly well shot (on film, hurrah!), though a better editor would be helpful (in addition to some annoying strobe edits, it’s also a very dirty print – lots of blue light lines and large specs of dirt). With one major exception, the no-name cast is also pretty good, another rarity for these things. The one exception is sadly the closest thing the movie has to a female lead, Kim Taggart. She looks like Ann Coulter playing a cop, and her delivery for everything from simple greetings to large chunks of exposition is uniformly terrible.

Sadly the story isn’t very original, or, at all. It’s yet another “prank goes wrong/deformed killer goes after the kids of the people who did him wrong” movie. Slight bonus points for not making it a whodunit (there are like 3 characters with the same bushy dark hair as the killer, throwing you off track), but I wish writer/director Joe Ariola (who gives himself two credits at the beginning and one at the end – douchebag) could have come up with something that took more effort than seeing a DVD of The Burning next to one for Nightmare on Elm St and going “Hey wait a minute...”

One thing that was impressive was how brutal the kills were. No one gets merely stabbed or their throat slashed. This guy fucking EVISCERATES every victim. Guts hanging out, limps hacked off... it’s nuts. It’s also well done; none of it looks fake, particularly the scene where a guy’s leg is cut off around the knee. Sadly, the impact of the kills is blunted by the editor’s (or maybe Ariola’s) insistence on strobe editing/Avid farting these sequences to death, not to mention overlapping duplicate audio (and occasional footage). Sometimes, you know, less IS more. Had the scenes not been drawn out so we could leave absolutely nothing to the imagination, the film would be 5-10 minutes shorter.

The movie also contains one of my favorite slasher scenes in recent history. One of our group (and group is a bit of an overstatement, after 20 minutes we never see a single one of these kids unless they are about to be killed, nor do they ever hang out with each other again) is walking down the street, singing to himself with his teeth guard (he’s a football player) still in his mouth for some reason. So he’s just going “mush mumble rawr flar gwar” and then all of a sudden the killer jumps out and begins stabbing the shit out of him. It’s fucking hilarious. And it’s a common theme in the film, the killer coming out of nowhere. I think there were only two scenes in the film that showed the killer doing any sort of stalking; usually he just jumps out without any build up or suspense. Usually I hate this, yet it sort of worked for this particular movie. And I’m actually glad that the kids never really interacted after the first 20 minutes, because all they did was mock one another, even after one of their friends died. You know, I mock my friends a lot too, but I also occasionally, like, SAY THINGS to them.

In my notes I have written “Dom/Boot/Shop”. It took me a while to remember what the Christ it meant, but then I remembered – it’s short for “domestic violence, bootleggers, and shoplifters”. At one point, the horrid female detective woman says that her previous cases were primarily those three crimes, “and usually the same people.” What kind of person is a bootlegger AND a shoplifter who beats his wife? “My wife got pissed that I stole a spindle of DVD-Rs, so I punched her in the face.”

Sadly, Ariola was too busy making sure his name was listed 3495 times in the credits to record a commentary, but there are four featurettes concerning different areas of the production such as sound/music and the special FX make-up (Ariola is missing from these as well – he’s the Terence Malick of indie horror). Hardly groundbreaking, but like the movie itself, they are reasonably entertaining anyway. And also like the movie, it features pointless duplication – the composer is introduced twice over a 40 second span. I like when the features have thematic ties to the film itself.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Off Season (2004)

MAY 8, 2008

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

Despite living in Los Angeles, it’s very rare I see LA set movies that I can definitely pinpoint their exact shooting location. Most LA movies are set in the downtown/south LA area, and I live north, in the loathed and lovable Valley. The only movie I can recall being shot ‘in my neighborhood’ was the utterly loathsome piece of shit Crash (the scene where they ‘hijack’ Terrence Howard – he drives right by my street), and that was actually a year before I moved here. The town I grew up in, to the best of my knowledge, has never had a single film shot there (School Ties was shot 2 towns over, that’s about as close as we got). But I do have a sort of third home – Old Orchard Beach, Maine, where I went every summer of my life until I was like 18 and didn’t ‘have to’ go anymore with the rest of my family. So at last weekend’s Fangoria convention, when Angus Scrimm mentioned that he had shot a film called The Off Season there, I immediately top of the queued it.

The opening credits were a particular highlight, as Rick and Kathryn (our main characters) drove down the main “downtown” street (where all the rides and amusements are); a street I have walked up and down probably a thousand times. Of course, the title signifies when the film was shot, so it was a bit odd to see everything closed down and empty – even when it rains in the summer, the street is always mobbed with cars and pedestrians. Unfortunately, that’s about the extent of the visual joy, as the characters soon check into a motel and we barely see anything outside their room for the rest of the film.

It’s also not a very good movie, either. It starts off great, a sort of low-budget spin on The Shining (hey, it’s Maine, might as well mine King material while you’re at it). We get the writer, the oddball supporting cast, almost subliminally creepy sightings, etc. And there’s even a few chilling-ish moments. My favorite part of the film was when we see Rick in the foreground and Kathryn in the background. As she strips off her pants and wipes her brow from sweat, he shivers and wraps a blanket around himself. Sadly, this nice little subtle moment is ruined when they actually call attention to it.

But after a half hour or so, it’s clear that the film isn’t really going anywhere. Nothing we see is ever explained, other than (sort of) a bloodstain on a mattress that comes and goes throughout the film. The Jason Sudeikis-y Rick eventually becomes a drunk who doesn’t write, but this is never really explained, nor is his sudden departure from the film (he claims to go off to LA, but then we see him in New York at the end?). Kathryn suddenly becomes the main character, and all of a sudden we are introduced to the history and career of ANOTHER writer who once lived at the motel. The last 15 minutes of the movie almost seem like the first few scenes from another film, though one that is equally as plodding.

Just some of the questions that are never answered: Why is the bathroom covered in poop? Why does Kathryn’s dead mother keep calling? How did a ghost give her a black eye? Why don’t we ever actually SEE Rick go off to drink with his buddy (as this is an independent horror film, naturally his buddy is played by Larry Fessenden, who delivers cinema’s longest middle finger giving scene)? Why do they keep alluding to making dinner when the motel room clearly does not have a kitchen? Why do all of the horror elements suddenly disappear so we can hear about some author’s books that spill dirt on prestigious Maine residents? Why is poor Angus Scrimm rambling about plants for 90% of his (4 minutes’) screen time? I’m all for a few unanswered questions, but only when the film itself is entertaining and the basic story is resolved, neither of which apply here.

It’s almost difficult to review the film, because I feel I only watched a few deleted scenes from it. Seeking answers, I went into the special features menu, only to discover that “Version of the film that is worth a damn” was not among them. The only actual extra is a making of that has more Scrimm footage than is in the film itself, which really depressed me. Here’s Angus talking about all the preparation he did for his 5 minute role, more effort than anyone else (cast or crew) clearly put into it. There’s also a shot of director James McKenney en route to a casting session, driving down a street in Burbank right near my work (he’s following me, Denzel Washington in Déjà vu style!). There are also Spanish subtitles, so Spanish speaking folks can be just as bored and baffled as I was.

Whatever, movie. Way to make Old Orchard boring.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Vampire Bat (1933)

MAY 7, 2008

GENRE: VAMPIRE (?)
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 2!!!)

There ARE 30s and 40s horror movies that don’t have Lionel Atwill and/or Dwight Frye, right? It seems one or both men turn up in every single old movie I watch, classy (Universal) or not (budget pack). Vampire Bat is one of the 598,569 examples, casting Atwill (looking very Udo Kier-y here) as the resident evil doctor and Dwight Frye as, shocker, a mumbling weirdo that scares everyone.

As these things go, it’s not too bad. Melvyn Douglas as Carl, the film’s “process of elimination” hero (he doesn’t DO anything, but everyone else has a defined role, so hero is all that’s left), is a particular delight, mainly because Carl is, quite frankly, a dick. He scoffs at just about everything anyone says, yet offers no theories of his own. The silly German accents also add to the enjoyment; I never tire of hearing someone discuss a victim’s “JOOG-you-lar vein”.

This also killed me:

So let’s break it down – the bad guy has a bottle of poison, which he has labeled “Sleeping tablets”. Now, either he needs to remind himself what he is telling people they are (or maybe he has different poisons that resemble different medicines), OR he is trying to fool someone who might find the bottle into thinking that they are indeed, actual sleeping pills, and that they ignore the painfully visible POISON label. Either way I laughed my ass off at the sight, hence the screengrab.

One bummer is that the vampire” turned out to be yet another crazy human. In the height of Dracula and such, I’m not sure why so many of these old movies turn out to have such non supernatural endings. This movie even goes the extra mile to throw you off track, as werewolves are also discussed at length, and yet never actually implemented into the storyline. Oh well.

IMdb lists the running time as 64-65 minutes, yet this copy ran a scant 59. Is the IMDb in error, or am I missing 5-6 minutes worth of Atwill talking about coffee and Douglas just being an insufferable cock? I would hate to think Mill Creek was half-assing their responsibilities and thus not providing its customers with the most complete, pristine version of these classics at a cost of 40 cents a piece.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Crazy Eights (2006)

MAY 6, 2008

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

It’s no secret that I will often give a generic movie a slightly better review if it’s technically proficient (blame all of the movies I’ve watched that couldn’t get either the technical OR creative aspects correct), but what do I do when it comes to a movie like Crazy Eights? It’s one of the best shot low budget films I’ve seen in ages, and certainly made with more effort than any of the other After Dark films from this year (save for Mulberry Street, which remains the only one I really consider independent). But the movie itself? Couldn’t make heads or tails of it. At no point in the entire film was I quite sure why the horror-ish things were happening, and the ending was even less coherent.

But man, what a great looking film. Director James K. Jones and DP Stephen M. Lyons have somehow found a way to combine M. Night Shyamalan’s endless takes (entire scenes play out in one or two shots) with Michael Bay’s non-stop camera movement. If there’s a still shot in the entire film, I didn’t catch it. They are also fond of Dutch angles, which when combined with the almost floating camerawork give the film a very interesting and energetic feel, which is all the more impressive when you consider that the entire film consists of five folks standing around looking at walls and news clippings and old toys.

And yes, five. The plot description will say six, but the film has a Noonan, played by Dan Deluca. While he is given his own death scene (and his death is acknowledged by his friends, which puts him above his namesake), his character is so extraneous it’s almost laughable in certain scenes. For example, after the funeral that serves as the reason for these estranged friends to get back together, they all go out to eat. During the dinner, everyone but him not only talks, but gets a closeup. I wasn’t even aware he was actually with them until a wide shot revealed him sitting in between two of the others. Poor sod. Naturally, he is the first to die, and even before then he is more or less written out of the film by the most exaggerated injury in film history (he falls down maybe 5 steps and yet his leg looks like it was run over by a truck and then partially eaten).

Actually, there is almost another non-character, but since she’s played by Gabrielle Anwar, she gets elevated a bit. Like Deluca’s character, she disappears for long stretches and doesn’t really interact with the others. She spends most of the film rocking back and forth on a chair (what I wouldn’t give to be that chair...) before shoving her hands down her own throat and ripping it out from the inside. Not sure why they would hire a relatively well-known actress to do so little in a film, but hey, any Anwar is fine by me.

The real casting surprise is none other than George Newbern as the lead. He plays the least obnoxious priest in movie history (he wears jeans and smokes instead of telling everyone how to live their life before molesting little kids), and even though he’s third billed, he’s essentially the lead. Newbern is the star of one of my favorite movies as a kid: It Takes Two. It’s the tale of a man who is about to get married, but before he does so he wants to buy a sports car. He does, but the car falls apart, then he eats some bad Mexican, fucks some hot blonde woman, blows up the car dealership, and gets married on time. It’s never come out on DVD, but occasionally airs on cable. It’s also got one of my favorite movie scores ever, composed by none other than Carter Burwell (I believe it was his first film) who is known for his work with the Coens. Anyway, good to see him again.

Also on hand are Dina Meyer, Frank Whaley, and Traci Lords. It’s the most impressive cast assembled for an After Dark film yet, and I think it helps smooth over some of the film’s shortcomings (you know, like, not making any goddamn sense). I’m not sure if it was the INTENT to never really explain anything (some theories on the IMDb seem to make sense, but damned if anything in the film really support them), but if so they did a piss poor job. Then again, the film has one of the strangest writing credits I’ve ever seen – “Additional Screenplay Rewrites By...” followed by three names, one of which (Jones again) is also credited with the screenplay itself? Who the fuck credits himself for rewriting his own script?

And once again, the DVD is completely lacking in extras, which is incredibly strange, since all of the AD films from the first year had at LEAST a making of featurette. So far this year, the only ones with extras are Nightmare Man and Mulberry, which incidentally are also the most truly independent of the series.

Still, the atmosphere, the pace (it’s only 80 minutes long with credits), and occasional (brief) gore are admirable, and the cast much better than this type of stuff is usually afforded. I can’t go so far as to say it was GOOD, because I think story should come first above all else, but the craftsmanship alone puts it above many others. Maybe a few more (or less?) of those credited rewrites would have resulted in this being the best of this year’s offerings, but instead we are left with a mixed bag – A well made and well cast movie that unfortunately doesn’t have a script worthy of the efforts.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

It's My Party And I'll Die If I Want To (2007)

MAY 5, 2008

GENRE: INDEPENDENT, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

At the Fangoria convention last weekend, Spooky Dan approached me, handed me a card, and said “Hey go get this guy’s DVD, he wants you to review it.” He then went off in search of more Red Bull. I, on the other, less caffeinated hand, headed over to the table and introduced myself, and got a copy of It’s My Party And I’ll Die If I Want To, promising to watch it as soon as possible. Which, of course, turned out to be like 10 days later, but that’s actually rather quick for me; I still haven’t watched Omen II and it was almost a year ago that I re-watched the first one to prepare for it.

Anyway, back on subject, the movie is pretty good. I wasn’t expecting much out of it, but it quickly earned my interest and respect by having a guy who looks like the Quaker Oatmeal dude bash in his young son’s head in the film’s opening scene, along with the rest of his family (including another kid, though that kill is largely off-screen). It’s like the Charlie Bowles story come to life (except with a mallet instead of a hacksaw)! From that point it gets a bit slow as we meet our cast and set up the events that will take over the film’s finale, but that is to be expected. Also, since the film only runs about 75 minutes, it hardly takes “forever” to get to the good stuff. Still, maybe one more kill somewhere in the middle would have benefited the film’s overall pace.

I’m not sure why, but some shots seem to be compressed at a different frame-rate than others, which occasionally makes the film feel jerky (and in one case, ruins an otherwise impressive “Monster POV” style shot). It’s shot on consumer video, so I hardly expected the film to wow me on the technical level, but this kind of bummed me out. Especially when the DVD had been so well put together in terms of mastering – in addition to a surprising anamorphic transfer (whoever mastered the disc should work for Lionsgate), it also automatically displayed the audio setup menu before the film began, allowing you to choose between 5.1 and stereo. I can’t believe no one else has done this yet; it’s a great idea, especially nowadays when DTS tracks are more commonly placed on the disc. Since no DVD will default to DTS; I have watched entire films in lowly Dolby Digital due to not even realizing I had other options. On the flipside, I hate going into a setup menu only to find “English subtitles on/off” being the only thing on the damn page. Excellent idea.

As for the film itself? Not bad at all. For starters, it’s exceptionally well made considering the low budget – lots of camera movement, decent production value, etc. The cast is good (save for one thankfully minor character, a girl who looks like Michael Rosenbaum in drag), and the girls’ chit-chat comes off as very genuine, instead of the usual line-reading we get in these things. And bonus points for keeping the hottest friend of Final Girl alive the longest, something that is sadly rare (like the original Prom Night – Wendy was the hottest one and they kill her first!). Even better, the gore/makeup effects are very good – but that WAS expected, as Wash is a protégé of none other than Tom Savini (who makes a brief, somewhat superfluous cameo). Finally, the final gag is great – you get to the point where you think the movie’s over, and then they add in a joke that turns into an unexpected extra bloodbath.

I also liked the Creepshow style scene transitions, though I feel they are a bit overused (much like in Creepshow itself). At one point we just watch like 2 straight minutes of a girl playing with a balloon and assorted other padding in comic-style frames, a sequence that could have been removed entirely. The ending also has the sort of blue/red background hyper-reality style that Creepshow featured, a nice touch.

Speaking of that film, writer/director/pretty-much-everything-er Tony Wash clearly knows his 70s-80’s horror. In addition to the obvious (Creepshow, and the plot is similar to Night of the Demons), there are some more obscure homages sprinkled throughout, such as a guy named Ben Tramer. One that WASN’T an homage was a scene in which our heroine practices karate; a sequence that reminded me of the one from Nightmare on Elm St 4 (a scene that introduced me to Dramarama’s Anything, Anything; thank you music supervisor!). I asked the director if this was intentional and he said that it was not. Which is a great thing about these indies – you can easily contact the film’s director and see if you’re wrong about something. How great would it be if, when arguing with someone over the ending of The Mist, I could just ring up Darabont and be like “Yo Frank... is it about faith or not?”

I also discovered a funny thing about nudity in a film. When someone you want to see naked (say, Jessica Alba or whoever) uses an obvious body double, it’s incredibly annoying and disappointing. Which, if you think about it, is kind of silly – you’re still seeing a nice rack and ass, just not the one you “wanted” to see. This was no more evident than in a scene where our heroine showers, and her body double is ridiculously unmatched. Since I didn’t really care to see the real actress naked (partially due to the fact that I had no idea who she was), it didn’t bother me that the double looked nothing like her. Kind of interesting.

The disc comes with some nice extras, including two of the director’s short films, as well as a 20+ making of (which is largely blooper material). Another cool feature, one I haven’t fully played with yet, is a Choose Your Own Adventure version, which allows you to make choices that alter if/when certain characters die. After choosing the “wrong” thing, you will be taken back to the previous menu so you can pick the right one and move on, which is good because it allows you to watch all of the choices without sitting thru a bunch of the movie over and over (unlike say, Return to House on Haunted Hill, which made it more of a chore to see the different versions).

Like some of the other indies I have watched, it’s kind of contradictory to the point of HMAD, since I can’t imagine many (any?) of the regular readers have seen the film. But it is available through the film’s official site, and I’m sure Wash will be showcasing the film at other horror conventions. It’s definitely worth checking out, and the type of indie I highly recommend supporting – it may not be perfect, but it’s made with genuine care and love for the genre, which is more than you can say for (at least) half of the films I’ve watched; movies that spent more in a single day than Wash and his crew probably had for the entire production. Kudos to them.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005)

MAY 4, 2008

GENRE: ITALIAN, THRILLER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Enough of this thriller shit... tomorrow’s movie better be about monsters killing people in incredibly graphic ways. After the very “light on horror” Burbs and Godsend, I was looking for something more traditional. Thankfully, Anchor Bay answered the call, sending me the new Dario Argento Box set yesterday, which features two films already reviewed on HMAD (Trauma and Tenebrae), one I haven’t seen since I was a kid (Phenomena), and two I haven’t seen at all. One is The Card Player, and it better be more of a horror movie than Do You Like Hitchcock? (aka Ti Piace Hitchcock?), which features three kills in the entire film, and one is a goddamn chicken (and another is just a dude accidentally being hit by a car). If I have to stretch the criteria for what is and what isn’t a horror film for a goddamn Dario Argento movie, there’s something wrong!

It’s not a bad film at least (miles better than Phantom of the Opera, which was the most recent of his films that I had seen prior to this, and so bad I almost decided to never watch another of his recent films). In fact, considering it was a TV movie, it’s actually pretty solid, if not exactly top notch Argento. Also, on that note – what the hell kind of television does Italy have? This “TV movie” has a very graphic kill, rampant nudity and profanity, suggested incest, etc.... so really, saying “it’s good for a TV movie” is sort of giving it too much credit, since the medium obviously doesn’t have the same limitations that US television does. Also, it’s shot on video, which is a bummer no matter what medium/country you are working in, and even moreso when the film is directed by one of the most visually creative horror directors of all time.

None of the video looked really bad though, and in fact on a technical level, other than an odd glitch during the opening credits (why are they windowboxed?) it’s a perfectly good and professional looking film. But I expect nothing less from Dario.

What DID bug me was the setup of the video store that serves as the jumping point for several of the film’s plotlines. I spotted Green Mile filed along with several Hitchcock thrillers, and Mission Impossible 2 next to The Exorcist. Who the fuck alphabetized and categorized this place? There were other errors as well, not to mention a baffling amount of promotion for The Card Player (it’s almost as if the film was mocking me for not watching that instead).

And on that note, our protagonist is a pretty awful film student. He talks like your typical movie nerd guy, but then we see him watching Nosferatu on his widescreen TV, and he has the film stretched horizontally rather than at the correct square ratio. You fucking jerk! Look, no one likes to watch 4:3 movies on their nice 16:9 TV, but for Christ’s sake, don’t stretch out the image to make up for it! The movie looks like shit when you do that! Some fucking film student; he woulda gotten his ass kicked at my school.

As for the movie itself? It’s an interesting concept, but not enough is done with it. For some reason I was under the impression that the film concerned a serial killer who was killing people in Hitchcock homages (so like, he would kill someone in the shower, and throw a guy off Mt. Rushmore, or whatever). But instead it’s basically just a Strangers On A Train/Rear Window hybrid, with a bit of Dial M For Murder (and an affectionate mother that I guess is supposed to evoke Psycho, or at least Psycho IV), with our hero thinking that the femme fatale is copying the films on purpose. The film’s final scene is fascinating, as he realizes a pretty awful fact about himself; but that should have been the focus of the film, not a mini “twist” at the end.

Still, mediocre Argento is better than the best work of many others, and it’s certainly an entertaining piece. The Rear Window-esque finale is pretty suspenseful, and the hero’s never-fully explained flashbacks/dreams about two witches in the woods are vintage Dario. The box set is reasonably priced – just consider the film a bonus disc and you’re pretty much guaranteed an entertaining watch.

However, unless you speak Italian, don’t bother with the making of piece – it’s in Italian without subtitles. It’s not too hard to figure out what’s going on, but since these things are sort of worthless to begin with (there are no interviews included within) it’s even less appealing when you can’t really understand exactly WHAT boring things they are saying.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The 'Burbs (1989)

MAY 3, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (BACKYARD SCREENING!)

Some may wonder why The ‘Burbs is included as a Horror Movie A Day entry, and it’s perfectly reasonable to do so. However, it meets my criteria (IMDb lists it as comedy/horror), and quite frankly – there is more legit suspense and (light) scares than in many “straight” horror films. So F you! It’s horror!

(I also like the fact that now I have two Tom Hanks - the least horror-ish guy ever born - movies reviewed here.)

It’s also hilarious. The reason I think the film works where so many others have failed is that it puts funny people into a standard horror movie situation, rather than try to make a funny situation scary (such as recent films like Killer Pad – which is about a crazy, out of control teen party that gets crashed by demons or something. I haven’t seen it, but the trailer made me want to slit my wrists). The plot is really no different than Fright Night or certain Twilight Zones – a guy becomes convinced that his neighbors are murderers. And the fact that (spoiler) they ARE certainly solidifies the film as horror, although it ends rather abruptly after this reveal.

I’m convinced that Tom Hanks is the only guy in the world who could have pulled off the role of Ray. A lot of big actors have certain “Everyman” abilities that the best (non big) character actors have, but still just don’t look right in certain situations. For example: Bruce Willis. Sure, I buy him as a regular detective, or a boxer, or whatever, but there is absolutely nothing sillier than the sight of him driving an SUV around suburbia in The Story Of Us. But Hanks doesn’t have that problem, and he’s friggin flawless here (asking his neighbor to look at his new tools is the film’s funniest moment). I wish the guy would do more non-romantic comedic work; after this he pretty much only did one more (Joe Vs The Volcano) and then it was all dramas and romcoms, with the occasional Road To Perdition to “stretch”.

I also really dig the ensemble nature of the film. The best scenes are the ones with three or more of them doing something ridiculous in order to discover more about their neighbors. Hanks may be the star, but if it was just him vs. the neighbors, the movie would probably suck (especially since Bruce Dern is the one who delivers the film’s most quotable line – “You’re about a 9 on the tension scale, Rube!”). Again, this is part of why the ending feels a bit weak, as it comes down to just Hanks vs the head of the killer family (Henry Gibson), with the supporting cast all off somewhere else (Corey Feldman disappears entirely in the last 10 minutes, only resurfacing in the final shot). Maybe a scene of the family "in action" would have helped, though I can understand the reasons for not wanting to do so.

As you may have noticed, the film was watched in a backyard. My buddy Mike has a great projector setup, and since it was his birthday, there was plenty of delicious snacks for me to devour. As a bonus, the film’s editor (Marshall Harvey, a friend of Mike's), brought sardines on pretzels, the "awful" hors d'oeuvres that the family serves Hanks when they finally enter the strange house and meet the neighbors. I believe I was the only one who had any, and I’m certainly the only one who ate three. Look, sardines – good! Pretzels – good! I don’t really see the issue.

Also, the location added another thrill to the proceedings – when Dern sits on his roof you can see the same mountain in the background that you can see from Mike’s street (the movie was filmed on the same backlot at Universal that now serves as Wisteria Lane). That’s fucking cool. Imagine watching, I dunno, Star Wars and then looking out your window and seeing Mos Eisley or something? Actually that would mean I was in a fictional spaceworld and listening to the same annoying song for eternity, so I’d probably freak out.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...