Silent Night, Deadly Night 3: Better Watch Out! (1989)

APRIL 19, 2009

GENRE: HOLIDAY, SLASHER
SOURCE: VHS (OWN COLLECTION)

A week or so ago I picked up a copy of Silent Night, Deadly Night 3: Better Watch Out! at a used VHS store near my home, for no other reason than that I found myself in an honest to god used VHS store. They had a few DVDs and a pitiful collection of used console games as well (nothing current gen), but the store was by and large a VHS reseller, which is admirable in today's market. And since SNDN 3 has never been released on DVD (in fact, 2 is the only sequel that was, and that is long out of print), I figured it was 3 dollars well spent.

I just wish the movie was as nostalgically charming. It's an OK enough slasher for the period (late 80s), but it's missing the mean-spirited feel (read: appeal) of the first two films. A grandmother is killed, but it's not played for wiseass laughs. Given director Monte Hellman's exploitation/grindhouse background, you would expect him to be an ideal choice to take on the 3rd entry in this notoriously insane franchise, but he had to go and try to make it all serious and shit.

Well, as serious as a movie in which the killer's brain is exposed and thus protected by some sort of glass bowl with an electronic gizmo on it can be, anyway. Bill Moseley himself plays Ricky this time around, and he's obviously a much better actor than Eric Freeman, the movie doesn't give him much to do beyond lumber around like Karloff's Monster and occasionally kill someone. His only real line of dialogue in the movie comes at the very end, when a ghostly apparition of Ricky appears and wishes us a happy new year, for some reason.

Also, speaking of Ricky, the movie flashes back to the first film's initial murder sequence, where Ricky's parents are killed. But for whatever reason, they make us try to think that it is a young Ricky in these scenes. At the time of the murders, Ricky was just a baby, and the clips edit his character out entirely, so an ignorant audience would probably think that the shots of young Billy are supposed to be Ricky. This allows part 2 footage to be skipped entirely as well.

Odd aside - Ricky hops on the 101 freeway to get to the house where most of the action takes place. The last time I saw the 101 depicted in a movie was another holiday slasher: Home Sweet Home (which also had a family getting offed instead of the usual group of friends). Weird.

One thing I did like a lot was the fate of the killer. Rather than definitively kill him off, or have him come back to life as a way of promising another sequel, we just have an EMT take the body away on a gurney while saying "If we hurry we can save his life" or something to that effect. More slashers should take this route, it horror-movie-logically leaves it open for a sequel without actively promising one. Of course, we all know that the next film had the Ricky character popping up but otherwise it had nothing to do with the first 3 films, so I guess they split the difference.

Another enjoyable quirk of the movie is the Robert Culp character. He seems added into the movie via reshoots (he doesn't even appear until a half hour or so into the movie, and only meets the heroine in the film's final shot), but his scenes are wonderfully offbeat. Many of them are shared with a pretentious psychiatrist, who doesn't appreciate Culp's sense of humor. Culp also spends 2-3 minutes of screentime professing his love for his new "cellular telephone" (which can store 100 contacts!) and trying to save money on his bill by getting the shrink to sign up on his referral. Given the film's surprising lack of violence (the body count is like, four), at least the bulk of the non-horror scenes aren't without entertainment value.

I also loved the opening nightmare sequence, which seemed taken from an Italian film. It's a rare nightmare scene in a horror movie that actually realistically depicts a dream, with illogically laid out locations, shifting tones and "plots", etc. It's also the only real setpiece of note in the film, as the kill/attack scenes are rather lazy. One in particular was pretty damn laughable - Ricky smashes through the door and grabs Laura Harring (!), and neither the heroine or Harring's boyfriend (the heroine's brother) really react. The heroine just mutters "he can't be stopped", and the brother/boyfriend makes a feeble attempt to pull the arm off, before briskly walking to the kitchen to grab a knife. There's no music or anything either, making it possibly the most casual attack scene in horror movie history. I've seen off-screen kills with more gravitas.

Back to the brother/boyfriend - those lines are made awfully thin by the fact that Harring looks a lot like the girl playing the sister (someone named Samantha Scully). Not only does it make some shots momentarily confusing, it also adds a likely unintentional layer to the film. We have this girl who keeps saying how her brother is the only thing she has in the world, and the dude has a girlfriend that looks just like her.

So I dunno, it's a disappointing SNDN entry, but still more or less a serviceable slasher. You get to see two future stars in early roles and shameless use of clips from The Terror (a film on which Hellman served as one of the many uncredited directors), and a guy stumble around with a mixing bowl on his head. You can do a lot worse.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Bats: Human Harvest (2008)

APRIL 18, 2009

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

My knack for falling asleep during a movie (also concerts, lectures, and as of this week, trials) is well known amongst my friends, and probably a good bulk of my regular readers. But even those folks will probably be pretty amazed at how quickly I nodded off during Bats: Human Harvest. Thirty minutes in? Nope. First couple of scenes? I wish. Opening credits? Not a chance. Nope, I was out BEFORE THE MOVIE EVEN STARTED. I believe I got to the French version of the "The views on the commentary and extra features* are that of the participants and not the parent company... (etc)" screen before passing out, waking up near the film's finale.

Of course, I knew I would fall asleep. It was after midnight, so I thought I would get a head start on the day's movie by starting it before I actually went to bed from the day before (HMAD rule #4 - the movie has to start between 12:01 AM and 11:59 PM of that day); hoping to catch at least the first act. But trial, the first day of Fangoria, and a number of other factors kept me from even coming close to that mark. I woke up and actually laughed at myself. Then I passed back out.

Anyway, once I finally watched the movie (before heading to Fango for the day), I discovered what a colossal pile of shit it was. Even for a Sci-Fi (or is that Syfy?) movie, it doesn't deliver on any single level. I can't even imagine that the (clearly non-discerning) usual Sci-Fi audiences will find anything to enjoy about this one. They'd be better off with Lake Placid 2.

For starters, even by DTV standards, it's fucking sinful to call this a sequel. Yes, there are bats, but they don't look or act anything like the ones in the first movie, nor do they exist in the same locale. Fuck, it's not even the same goddamn COUNTRY this time; instead of southwestern US desert, we're in dreary Russian woods. Did they migrate? I mean, I can see wanting to latch a film on to a big hit - White Noise 2 may have been unrelated to the first one, but you can't fault the studio for wanting to latch it onto a 50 million grossing film from two years before. Is there really any benefit to latching this completely unrelated movie to a decade-old film that no one really remembers? Hell, it might even be DETRIMENTAL, as it's highly likely that someone, being a wiseass or not, opted not to watch the film because he/she hadn't seen the original, like most other people in the world.

And you might think I am splitting hairs when I say that the bats don't look the same, but it's true. The bats in the first film seemed to be of typical size, but these are clearly mutated (though this might just be poor scaling of CGI effects and not an actual storytelling decision). They have also seemingly gained Screamers-esque powers - when they swoop at someone, a limb usually gets sliced off in the process, somehow. Still not quite sure how that works.

But the real problem is that the movie is a giant fucking bore. Not only do our heroes have to contend with bats, they are also up against some Russian rebels (or soldiers, I forget/don't care). So in between dull bat attacks, we get some even duller firefights. In fact, pretty much the only nice thing I can say about this movie is that I was happy to see that the two groups didn't team up against the bats, as I am getting fairly sick of the "the enemy of my enemy is my temporary friend who will obviously sell me out near the end of the movie" plot (note - if one of the human groups teamed up with the bats to take on the OTHER human group, I might be changing my tune on this matter).

It's also just incredibly lazy on every level. None of the actors are recognizable to me (the main guy was apparently on Baywatch - because, yeah, it was the dudes that people remember from that show and thus would be excited to see them in a movie), and they all perform with the conviction of a voice-over actor in the cut-scenes of some Halo ripoff. On more than one occasion I pondered whether hitting B on one of my Xbox controllers would skip the chitchat and resume the shooting action. Of course, the action is no better, due to the fact that no one seems particularly engaged on anything that's going on. At one point our heroes rescue a guy, and he just casually says "Oh, thank you", as if someone had just held a door for him or something.

The most hilarious after effect of this global laziness is a scene with some Russian bad guys talking. No one else is around, but for some reason they speak (broken) English with one another. However, near the end of the movie, when our hero is at gunpoint, the Russian colonel (captain, major... again: whatever) talks to him in Russian (the first time the language had been used in the entire movie, by my recollection), despite the fact that he's saying things that one would expect someone to respond to (like "Why are you here?"). Jesus fucking Christ.

In short, don't bother. And if you must, and you also fall asleep before the "Play" display has disappeared from your TV screen, take my advice: don't bother rewinding it when you wake up.

(p.s. Attn: New reader CB - THIS is a negative review! :) )

What say you?

*The irony, of course, is that the DVD HAS no commentary or behind the scenes type footage, only a pair of brief deleted scenes without any context. So if the unnecessary warning wasn't there, I may have seen, I dunno, the Destination Films logo or something before passing out.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Mum & Dad (2008)

APRIL 17, 2009

GENRE: SURVIVAL
SOURCE: "THEATRICAL" (DVD PROJECTED ON A SCREEN)

Given how fucking awful the screening room was last year at the Fangoria convention, I was really hoping to not have to use it this year for any HMAD entries. But I ran out of time before I had to leave for the con, and had no choice but to check out Mum & Dad there, as I knew after the con I'd likely be carrying on the festivities elsewhere, perhaps with beer and Rock Band. Luckily, the screening room location changed, and at least in a visual sense, it is much improved. For starters, the screen is elevated, so if you're in the back you can still see it. There are also a lot more seats, so the 10 people max that bother to watch a movie there can spread out instead of getting their heads in each others' way.

Unfortunately, the sound was a total bust. If things were completely quiet, it would be acceptable (still very compressed sounding, as it was a mono sound source being played on two speakers), but that is not the case during a convention. Music from the auction room (to the right of the theater) and booming audio from the main panel hall (room behind the screen) was a constant distraction, and given that the film has a rather subdued sound design (i.e. lots of quiet scenes or people just talking), it became difficult to hear dialogue, and worse, impossible to really focus on the movie.

So it is with some hesitation that I say that it's not exactly the best of the survival horror genre. Maybe under a proper screening circumstance, I would be more enveloped into the film and feel more strongly about it. Because it's certainly better than say, Broken, which had similar subject manner (a man making a "family" out of unwilling kidnap victims). For starters, it has some actual character development, and not just from our protagonist. Her abductors are fleshed out as well. Even the mute "son", who is the closest any of them come to sympathetic, manages to get his state of mind across as the film progresses.

I also dug the occasional humor. It's the typically droll British stuff for the most part, and it's well-placed as well. Too much and you become a farce, too little and you prevent the audience from "getting" a rare joke in an otherwise bleak and dark film. And the humor (or, I guess, humour, as this is a British film) always comes from the family doing typical family things amidst all of the bloodshed around them, a la Texas Chainsaw (any of them in the original series).

It's also fairly suspenseful at times, but unfortunately that is a byproduct of the script's lack of surprise. Anyone who has seen this type of film knows how it goes - the girl gets kidnapped, tries to fight, eventually comes around and acts as the captors expect, then her plan goes awry, leading to escalated violence before her eventual escape. And given the fact that we HAVE seen films like this before, I kept expecting the script to turn the tables on our expectations, which made such standard stock scenes (like the inevitable "Girl gets free and sort of investigates the house rather than leave" sequence) feel a lot more suspenseful, because I kept expecting something different to happen than usual (i.e. she goes back to her room and chains herself back up before getting caught).

And that's the only real problem with the movie - it just doesn't add anything to the genre. It's not like I Know My First Name Is Stephen, where the victim eventually just succumbs to their new life, only to "snap out of it" when a new victim is introduced to the mix - she NEVER really accepts her fate, which would have been interesting from a character point of view. Even when she briefly acts like the dutiful daughter the titular characters expect her to, it's always clear that she's merely trying to catch them off guard. Plus this section of the film lasts less than ten minutes, so it doesn't really make an impact anyway.

Also, director Steven Sheil continuously cuts to shots of planes flying overhead. They serve their purpose - reminding us that there is a lot of noise that would drown out any screams, as well as the irony of someone being trapped with the entire world literally at their reach, but they are overused. At times, they will appear at top and tail of a single scene. I don't think they ever go more than 10 minutes without showing them (always in a succession of 3 shots, as well), and as a result they come off more as padding than as any sort of narrative/thematic device.

Finally, you see a fat man's ass. It's probably the most horrifying thing in the movie.

Still, it's worth a look (the movie, not the fat man's ass), especially if you haven't been exposed to a dozen of these things in the past couple years. There's nothing wrong with exploring familiar territory in a horror film, but when it's territory that is supposed to shock, it doesn't quite work when you follow the template so closely.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Julie Darling (1983)

APRIL 16, 2009

GENRE: KILLER KID, WEIRD
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

Whenever I need to explain what the New Bev is to someone who has sadly never heard of it, I usually say "It's our version of the Alamo Drafthouse" (if they don't know what the Alamo is, they probably won't care about the New Bev and thus I wouldn't be bothering to explain it to them). So it's quite fitting that they chose the Bev as the Los Angeles stop for their "Alamo Roadshow", which finds the famed Texan duo that runs the Drafthouse taking their unique programming to independent theaters on the West Coast. And they kicked things off with Julie Darling, a wonderfully sleaze-lite thriller with Sybil Danning (who was in attendance).

To describe the movie briefly, one would probably say "It's about a girl who kills anyone who comes between her and her father, whom she wants to fuck." But that would be doing a disservice to the film, which has a far above average number of cheer-inducing moments (like when a man tries to resuscitate a suffocated child by pinching his nose shut), a beautifully executed ending, a 15 year old girl with a gun rack, and lots and lots of "product placement".

I'm sure none of the companies paid to have their products in the film (given the taboo subject matter, it would probably be the opposite), but it's striking how often a well known product figures into a scene. Julie has a borderline addiction to Nestle Quik, her mother rambles about the virtues of Diet Coke, and at one point, a guy walks out of a Burger King and then past a McDonalds! And for whatever reason, Julie has a Pan Am poster in her bedroom. Teenage girls love defunct air travel, I guess.

Back to the BK/McD's guy, he is truly an inspired creation. As the Alamo guys correctly pointed out, he clearly just wandered in from a 70s porno movie. It's not that he merely LOOKS like a 70s porno actor (sans mustache), but in a span of about 90 seconds he manages to run through every bad porn cliche known to man: asking the housewife if he can assist her with anything, commenting about her being alone in the house, etc. And writer/director Paul Nicholas knew he had a good thing going, because after a tragedy, the movie follows him for a while. I momentarily thought the movie was pulling a Psycho and that the rest of the movie would be about him, but it's just to help set up his importance later in the film.

Some might be reading all of this and wondering if this is even a horror movie. Well, had I known nothing about it beforehand, I wouldn't have considered it one. It does have some elements of a Killer Kid movie, obviously, but it's not played for scares or even thrills, really. It's just a weird little movie. But, it played the festival under the "Psychosexual Maniacs" banner, and IMDb lists it as horror, so it qualifies for my purposes. I wouldn't have minded a bit more bloodshed (they set up Julie killing her little stepbrother, but they pussy out and save the kid before writing him out of the movie all together), but the lack of violence pays off with the surprising and somewhat mean-spirited ending.

Oh, in case anyone was wondering about the whole "daddy-daughter" thing, it never gets into Taboo 2 territory, but Julie does fantasize about being in Danning's place while she watches them make love (Hey-O!!!), and the dad is way too touchy-feely with her at times. Not a movie to watch with your family, at any rate. Oddly (or confusingly), I won a movie called Daddy Darling during the traditional pre-show raffle, which sounds like a softcore version of the same movie, except with lots of lesbian sex. Whether I will actually watch it anytime soon is a question mark, but considering that the only other thing I ever won in the raffle was a wrestling T-shirt, I consider it a damn good win all the same. Thanks, Brian and Eric!

Anyway, if you live in any of the big West Coast cities (San Fran, Seattle, and Portland), check out the Alamo roadshow if you can. Full schedule is at their website HERE. San Fransiscans should note that Raw Force is on the bill there - do NOT miss an opportunity to see this film with a crowd!!!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Wolfen (1981)

APRIL 15, 2009

GENRE: WEREWOLF
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

This is the sort of thing that makes people wonder if I may be brain damaged. I was going to watch Gozu today, but the length (123 minutes) turned me off from such an endeavor. Instead, I put on Wolfen, which has a running time of 115 minutes. Would 8 minutes really make a goddamn difference at all? Plus, my Wolfen DVD was still shrink-wrapped, so I probably spent 2-3 of those 8 minutes fiddling with the adhesive crap on the sides. Whatever.

Anyway, given my general disinterest in werewolf films, this one ain't too bad. Its biggest blunder (besides the overused "Wolf POV" color effect - it seems nearly half the movie is shot in this headache inducing mode) is spending time on red herrings that anyone watching the movie KNOWS is a red herring. After the initial murders, there's a bunch of hooey about a terrorist group (the guy was a land developer) being responsible. And while I don't doubt that in real life, a cop would suspect a terrorist before a killer wolf (for pretty much any crime), we know perfectly goddamn well that it's a wolf, and since the movie runs long as it is, they really should just get to the goddamn point.

Have you ever watched Battlestar Galactica and thought "I wish I could see Bill Adama naked"? Well, Wolfen will satisfy your disturbing wishes. As a Native American who may or may not be a wolf in human form, Edward James Olmos spends a good three minutes in his birthday suit, baring all as he runs around a beach. The movie also offers us Albert Finney's bare ass. Yet, Diane Venora remains clothed. Thanks, movie.

One thing that stuck out about the movie was the humor. The wolf stuff is played straight and serious, but there is levity in the form of Finney and Gregory Hines' characters. They have a lot of little throwaway lines and character beats that amused me, to the point where I didn't mind hanging out with their characters despite the occasional long stretches of zero wolf action. Tom Noonan also pops up in a rare non-villain role, so there's something.

I probably would have liked the movie more if it had a more powerful finale. The wolves have enclosed our heroes, killing the stock "greedy businessman" character in the process. Finney and Venora take an elevator to the top of a building, and the wolves follow. Finney then settles things by smashing a model of the building that was going to be built in the wolves' stomping grounds in the Bronx (which appears to be half demolished in the film). The wolves are satisfied (buildings can't go up if their model has been broken, I guess) and disappear. Would it have hurt to have Finney actually kill one of the damn things? Granted, the movie's point is that they are just protecting their home and that its businessmen and developers that are the real enemy, but come on. They took out a homeless guy too, what the hell could he have been doing to hurt them?

This is based on a book by Whitley Strieber, the batshit author who also wrote The Hunger. Apparently, his forte is taking classic monsters and putting them into really slow stories in which they are sort of the heroes. Wonder what he'd do with a slasher movie. Like everyone else involved with the movie, he offers no insight on the DVD; an extra feature called "Howl-ywood", which I assumed was a featurette of some sort, was just a text based rundown of some other (and more popular) werewolf movies from 1930 to the late 1990s, which thankfully means we didn't have to endure some sort of diplomatic description of Cursed. The flashy, misleading trailer is also included, and is not recommended for anyone suffering from epilepsy.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Hell High (1989)

APRIL 14, 2009

GENRE: SLASHER (?)
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Not counting sequels and the occasional guilty pleasure like Dr. Giggles, were there ANY good slasher films to come along between Wes Craven’s exemplary takes on the style (84’s Nightmare on Elm St, and 96’s Scream)? I really can’t think of one that sticks out. But I heard good things about Hell High, from 1989 (though produced in 1986), so I was hoping that would be the one to break the mold. And to some extent it does, in that it’s a pretty good movie. The problem is, it’s not really a slasher, by my criteria.

Now, to be fair, no one involved wanted to make a traditional slasher (the director doesn’t even seem to want to make a horror movie at all, judging from his interview on the extra features), but you can break traditions while still fitting a general mold. But Hell High (which is a horribly misleading title; it was originally "What Are We Doing Tonight?" or something to that effect) doesn’t even do that. It’s actually the reverse: there are slasher traditions (opening flashback, a guy in a mask, an isolated house), but the mold itself isn’t there. For starters, the guy in the mask isn’t the killer, nor are the other three people wearing masks in the scene. They are the “group”, wearing the masks to scare their teacher. So if anything, it’s a twist on the “prank goes wrong” template, but it still never quite FEELS like a slasher movie, even when folks are killed.

Speaking of the kills - they’re all lumped together! One of the group dies around the 45 min mark, but the other two are killed in the same scene. And it’s not like Halloween, where the killer is just sort of stalking everyone and taking his time - the “killer” doesn’t even EXIST until more than halfway through the movie, when the prank makes them snap and take revenge. So it’s really more of a hero killer/revenge type movie, at least to me.

All that said, it’s definitely a pretty good horror movie in general. For starters, there’s an AMAZING 80’s pop soundtrack, coupled with a truly memorable and creepy main theme and some Carpenter-esque cues during the horror scenes. Someone needs to get me this soundtrack ASAP. Also, it’s almost a shame that the mask wearing folks aren’t the killers, because two of the masks they wear are pretty awesome:

I also love, love, LOVE the opening sequence. A doll’s head is ripped off, a guy tries to nail his girlfriend in a dirty shack in the middle of a swamp, and then a little girl inadvertently kills them by throwing mud into the guy’s face as he is driving his motorcycle. And they are impaled by a bunch of sharp metal poles sticking out of the ground for no discernible reason.

The film’s only real problem is that after that glorious opening, a bit too much time is spent on setting everything up. The four main kids seem to take hours hanging out and chatting before finally going to pull their little prank. That, coupled with the fact that all of the violence occurs in a very brief section of the runtime, gives the film a jarring pace that could have easily been fixed by moving some sections of the narrative around. For example, before the four kids go to the house to scare the teacher, two of them go and watch her shower. Yes, we need the traditional nude shot, but couldn’t this have been combined into the scene with all four of them? Also, the central mystery doesn’t quite work in any form - we’re supposed to think that the girl in the film’s opening is one of two females (the only two in the film of any significance), but as it is eighteen years later, the girl would be about 23-25, unlike the two women, one of whom is 18 at most and the other is 35 at least. It’s like they were trying to average it out, but weren’t even close to successfully misleading us in either direction.

Unlike most largely unknown horror films from the era, the DVD has a surprising wealth of extra features. Joe Bob Briggs provides both an introduction and a commentary, as he is one of the film’s biggest champions. His commentary is quite good, it mixes MST3k like observations with actual film production information, which is what Simon and I hope to do with our public domain series (provided we can actually FIND any information with our limited resources). Director Douglas Grossman also provides an audio commentary, which is typical (very proud of the crew, apologizes for using horror movie clichés, etc.). Oddly, he didn’t bother to use headphones, so we can hear the movie’s audio from his viewing room, and it’s not in sync with what we are seeing. He also has people with him that obviously aren’t part of the commentary, so we just hear their muffled voices from time to time. Weird. The disc also includes a pair of interviews, one with Grossman, and the other with screenwriter Leo Evans. Both are fairly upfront with the film’s flaws, but are proud of it nonetheless. Some trailers and TV spots round things out. And since the movie is rather short (79 minutes, with opening credits over black), it’s not too much of a bother to sit through both commentaries (as opposed to say, one of the LOTR movies’ extended cuts; it would literally take an entire day to watch Return of the King and then all FOUR tracks), so I would recommend both, especially since they are so different.

I hope some folks check this movie out. It’s delightfully off-kilter, and it’s a shame that the slasher label will set up people to expect a different kind of film. I watched some of it again (this review was written two weeks after my viewing - thanks jury duty!) and found that now that I knew what NOT to expect, I liked it even more.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Other Hell (1981)

APRIL 13, 2009

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

It must have been in 2000 or maybe 2001 when my good friend Joe Canistro told me about a sub-genre I had no idea existed: Nunsploitation. It was at a Fangoria convention, and he had just purchased one such film (the title escapes me) and gave me a brief summary of what constituted a Nunsploitation film (in short, nuns either killing or being killed). Being a product of Catholic school (grades 1-8 anyway), I very much liked the idea of combining nuns and murder. So interested, in fact, that it took me 8 or 9 years to finally watch one: The Other Hell (Italian: L'altro Inferno).

Bruno Mattei is one of those filmmakers who I often read about in places like Rue Morgue, and this is also my introduction to him. When I am seeing a filmmaker or type of film for the first time, I actually want to think its OK. I don't want to see the absolute best the genre or filmmaker has to offer (i.e. - if I had never seen a John Carpenter film, I wouldn't want to start with Halloween, as it would raise my expectations too high for his other output. The Fog or Christine would be good though.), nor do I want the worst, as I wouldn't be inspired to bother with it/them again. Thus, I would be pretty happy if The Other Hell fit the bill. I didn't love it, but I was more or less entertained by the nonsense unfolding before my eyes.

Now, I've seen enough Italian films to know that they simply don't care about logical sense, which means that when a scene that takes place in a convent features a dozen or so mannequins hanging from the ceiling for no discernible reason, I don't think much of it. It looks cool, and it's one of the creepier moments in the film, so who cares if it doesn't make a lick of sense that a convent would have a room like that.

But even I had to laugh/pause at a line about 2/3s of the way through the movie. By this point, I'd say at least a half dozen folks have been killed, and the murders are being investigated by a priest (Carlo De Mejo, who literally just walked in from Gates Of Hell). And it didn't even cross my mind until someone mentions that if there's another murder that the police might have to be brought in - why is a priest investigating this stuff? Obviously he has a connection to the players in the tale, but what exactly qualifies him to identify a murderer without the aid of police? Also, what are they doing with the bodies that is keeping the police from finding out about it in the first place? Had they never even mentioned the cops, I probably never would have even given it any thought.

However, beyond the complete disregard for real world logic, it's a fun movie. Nuns are eviscerated, dogs eat a guy's hand, the devil is represented as a blinking red light, the bad nun has a full blown mad scientist's laboratory (complete with beakers filled with bright green and red fluid), and a priest is immolated. Someone's got issues, and I enjoy seeing them try to work them out. And the ending seems to suggest that 95% of the way through the first draft, writer Claudio Fragasso took in a viewing of Zombi and decided to work some undead elements into his script without bothering to rewrite the previous 80 pages. Again, none of this is necessarily a bad thing. The Goblin score is also terrific, though it doesn't quite fit with the film at times (I wasn't surprised to learn it was recycled from another film).

The DVD comes with a pair of interviews, one in Italian with Mattei (seemingly shot in his garage) and the other in English with De Mejo. Mattei's is kind of dull, but De Mejo's is pretty interesting, because he seemingly goes out of his way to talk about anything but the movie. The interviewer will ask him about a certain co-star, and he'll spend the next minute or so discussing their other movies and whether or not he still talks to them. The longest he stays on subject is when he discusses his death scene, mainly because he seems to be discovering for the first time that his character is presumed to be dead. There are also a handful of trailers for this and other Italian horrors. As always, the film's trailer spoils most of the scares/deaths while not even making an attempt to explain the film's plot.

In closing, please recommend more from both the nunsploitation genre, as well as Mattei. Good or bad is of no concern, as long as they are interesting. Or have some backroom nun on priest action, of which this particular film offers none.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Nightmare (2000)

APRIL 12, 2009

GENRE: ASIAN, GHOST (?)
SOURCE: CABLE (SUNDANCE CHANNEL)

Most of the Asian horror films I see fall into one or both of the following categories: Ones I’ve been told are great (Audition) or ones that have been remade for dumber audiences (The Eye). It’s rare I see a film like Nightmare (Korean: Gawi), which has no remake (that I know of), nor had I even heard of it until about 17 seconds before I began to watch it. In fact, had it not been for Time Warner dropping Fearnet (thanks a lot, assholes!), I might still not have heard of it, as the lack of Fearnet in my “Free Movies” section inspired me to look - for once - at the other channels in there. Nightmare, as it turns out, was the only horror movie I could find.

Here’s one thing about the movie - it’s a fucking mess. The basic story isn’t totally terrible (it’s the umpteenth version of the “Friends keep a secret that eventually destroys them” tale), and there are some great visuals and isolated sequences sprinkled throughout the film. There are also numerous homages to the films of Dario Argento (a killer reflected in the eyes of a victim, for example) and an impressively varied soundtrack. In other words, I’ve seen worse. But the problem is, the good things are overshadowed by a needlessly confusing presentation.

For starters, director Byeong-ki Ahn frequently goes back and forth in time, something that would be a lot easier to follow had the timeframes been further apart, instead of 2 years. And most of the characters don’t really look any different (only one drastically changes his hairstyle), so you’re always spending the first minute or so of any time switch not really knowing that time has indeed shifted again. I don’t want frequent “2 years later” style onscreen text, but using a sound effect like Lost, or changing the color scheme or something, would have been very helpful and appreciated.

Second, the incident that kicks off the story is presented as a video. In theory, it’s a great idea - there’s a guy who keeps filming everything they do as a group anyway, so might as well tie it into the plot. Unfortunately, Ahn can’t be bothered to stay consistent with this POV, and the “video” often features angles that cannot be accomplished by a guy running around with a camera, not to mention the character himself, camera in hand (who the fuck is filming?!?!). It’s the clumsiest implementation of the device I have ever seen in a feature film; it could almost be used in a lame spoof of vérité films (paging Friedberg and Seltzer!).

Finally - the damn plot is hardly resolved! There is a seeming twist in which one of the characters reveals that he/she is the one that has been killing off the other group members one by one, and NOT the ghost, which we have been led to believe. But after he/she is dispatched, the goddamn ghost appears again and kills off one of the survivors. So did the ghost do everything, and the other person was just making shit up? Were they working together? Or, given the title, was the final sequence just a dream? Who the fuck knows.

There are other, less problematic issues as well, such as a sequence with a bloody woman in a shower that I couldn’t identify as one of the film’s characters, and a character talking about the “1979” murders committed by David Berkowitz (did he temporarily escape?). Also, the subtitles were incredibly terrible at times (and occasionally even cropped!), which just added to the general sloppy feel of the movie.

In short, I can see why no one has remade it (remaking promising but flawed films, of course, never actually happening even thought that’s actually the BEST reason to remake a film) or recommended it to me. Like I said, I’ve seen worse, but I, and presumably all of you, have also seen much better - from both sides of the world.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

It's Alive 3: Island Of The Alive (1987)

APRIL 11, 2009

GENRE: KILLER KID (BABY!), MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I normally don’t watch two films from a franchise in the same week (unless it’s to prep for a new entry, i.e. re-watching the Saw films whenever a new one is churned out), but I was too excited for It’s Alive 3: Island Of The Alive to put it off much longer. Knowing that it starred Michael Moriarty, I was pretty sure it would be the best of the series, as the leads of the other two movies were kind of bland, something that Moriarty certainly wouldn’t be accused of (at least, in a Larry Cohen movie - I doubt he was this amusing on Law & Order).

Unfortunately, while Moriarty IS great, but the movie itself is kind of lackluster. The island setting is a great concept (the babies are “quarantined” there), but it hardly factors into the movie. After a brief scene with some hunters early on (complete with a hilariously inadequate model of a helicopter which inexplicably explodes in midair after the pilot is slashed), more time is spent getting Moriarty and assorted others TO the island than is spent actually ON the island. The final third of the film takes place in Florida, and while the setting is still slightly different than the California locales of the first two, it still feels a bit repetitive.

And while the baby effects are improved, once again we don’t really get a lot of action with them. There’s a great opening bit with a new one being born, but nearly all of their subsequent carnage occurs off-screen. Once they become larger (i.e. can be performed by folks in rubber suits) they do a little bit more, but I stress “a little”. I know Cohen makes these films independently, but I also know that he shot it back to back with Return to Salem’s Lot, a film I’m pretty sure no one was asking for. He should have combined the funds to make one kick ass, Moriarty-starring It’s Alive movie.

Moriarty, it doesn’t even need to be said, is great. My wife came in halfway through and after 5 minutes was like “You love this guy, don’t you?” (she hadn’t been privy to The Stuff or Q). Not even a minute later, she got her answer when Moriarty found himself adrift at sea on a raft. A shark swam by, at which point he yelled “Of course! It’s not a shipwreck unless there’s a SHARK!” and I laughed my ass off for a good ten minutes. As always, his odd, clearly improvised moments help make the slower parts of the film seem to go by faster (such as the “going to the island” sequence, which, again, lasts longer than the “on island” segment it’s leading to). Unfortunately, he is saddled with the always annoying Karen Black for the final 10 minutes of the movie, which just further diminishes the impact of the already underwhelming finale.

Black does have a good scene with the film’s best creation (Moriarty is just playing the same guy he always does, can’t really call him a “creation” at this point), which is a sleazy mob-looking dude named Tony. He is attempting to bed Black (good God, WHY?) by blackmailing her by threatening to show her friends and employers a nationally published book (not the best blackmail plan I’ve ever heard), and repeatedly calls Black a “son of a bitch” after she pukes in his car (though he keeps wiping a spot that is clearly puke-free, so either he’s overreacting or Cohen couldn’t shell out 89 cents for some fake vomit). His increasing anger is simply hilarious to watch, and again, helps you overlook the fact that the now giant killer babies aren’t doing much.

Like in Q, the finale DOES feature dozens of cops being flung to their death, so there’s something. Nothing against the police, but there’s something kind of cathartic about seeing a bunch of them get wiped out, especially if you assume every one of them has written a parking ticket for a 30 seconds' overtime parking meter.

Oh, I almost forgot - there’s a brief joke at the expense of the first film’s plotting. It’s rare for any sequel to mock an earlier entry’s plot holes, so this was a nice little touch. Also, James Dixon returns as Perkins, the only character to appear in all three films (as far as I can recall). So in those and a few other respects, it’s a worthy entry to the franchise. None of them are particularly great, but they are admirably consistent and entertaining. I wish the upcoming remake of the original was done by a more interesting filmmaker with a more interesting cast; I’m not saying they can’t turn out a good movie, but this concept really deserves an A list treatment. Somehow I can’t see a movie starring Bijou Phillips and from the director of Art of War II as qualifying.

The DVD has a commentary, but after hearing a half dozen other Cohen tracks, I feel pretty confident that I don’t want to spend 90 minutes listening to it (once again - I’ve been assigned to jury duty, plus I am still going to work at nights - my day is kind of jam-packed). But I’m sure Cohen has a lot of great things to say about his other pictures and everyone who worked on the crew, and that he’s proud of his opening titles.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

A Haunting In Connecticut (2002)

APRIL 10, 2009

GENRE: DOCUMENTARY, HAUNTED HOUSE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Since I first saw The Haunting In Connecticut last fall, I have been wanting to know more about the "true" story that inspired it. I would have preferred the book, but it's out of print (way to tie in your existing property to a new and quite successful film, whoever published it!), so I had to go with A Haunting In Connecticut, a half doc/half movie (think the 're-enactments' you see on Unsolved Mysteries, albeit in full length feature form) that aired on the Discovery Channel back in 2002.

I wasn't too surprised to see that the 2009 movie was more enjoyable and simply better made, but I WAS surprised to see that the film version actually makes more sense. For example, in the movie, the kid with cancer sees the blood on the floor, and isn't sure if it's real or a hallucination brought on by his experimental cancer treatment. The mother, of course, doesn't see it at all. But in the docudrama (which I assume is telling the story more or less exactly how it happened, or at least, how the family claims it did), it's the mother who sees the blood. Cancer kid isn't even around (in fact, he's sort of a supporting player in the 2002 version as a whole - the focus is more on the mother). This is ridiculous - why would a rational woman more or less ignore a giant puddle of blood on the floor?

Another botched scene made far more effective in the new movie (thanks for using 99% the same title, Lionsgate! Or should I just refer to them as "A" and "THE"?) is the part where the kid puts the plates out, only to discover them right back in the cupboard a few seconds later. Once again, this part was originally just with the mother, but worse, the time from when she puts the plates down to when she notices that they are gone is like 30 seconds. An ADD-addled viewer might not even remember what is supposed to be scaring him by the time the sequence reaches its punchline.

There were other pretty big changes as well, but more often than not, I honestly believe that the "based on" version from the Hollywood machine is more plausible and far more interesting than the Discovery Channel one. Even smaller things that had nothing to do with the haunting didn't work as well. For example, in real life (again - assuming the DC one is sticking to the facts) the father apparently had a say in whether or not they bought the house. In the movie, Virginia Madsen just takes it and tells her husband later- it not only adds some character development, but also gives the family as a whole a different dynamic. And the movie version dropped one of the brothers, another wise choice as it allowed more focus on the one with cancer.

Really, the only thing I think the Discovery Channel version has over the Lionsgate one is a much hotter nanny/aunt character. Well played! Also, I loved how the real family members appear in silhouette. To avoid being recognized by the ghost mafia, I assume? Why not use a voicebox too?

There is one thing I have to consider shenanigans on though - the final act of the movie seems like it's just taken from Poltergeist. After an hour or so, the family calls in a team of experts, including an elderly woman. They live in the house and observe while the family all huddles together in the living room. Their tech guy even gets so spooked that he has to quit! The Catholic element is still present, but the priest character (embodied by Elias Koteas in the feature version) has no role in the tale until the very end. It all gets very silly, and I have to assume that Discovery embellished this stuff, if it even happened at all. The movie version got a bit over the top near the end too, but it was at least consistent with the rest of the film in terms of character and plot, instead of suddenly bringing in a bunch of random folks and putting the family on the sidelines.

I know it sounds like I'm just pimping for big budget movies, but hear me out. Since I don't really believe in this type of stuff, I have to judge such stories on plausibility and entertainment value. And in that regard, "THE" is far more effective than "A" (except for the title - if I were to accept that haunted houses DO exist, then I would hardly believe that this was "The" only one ever). It's kind of telling that I can more easily believe what's happening to recognizable actors than I do for regular people talking directly to the camera about the same events while re-enactors helped flesh it out a bit.

Now, someone find me the goddamn book!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Broken (2008)

APRIL 9, 2009

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

How tired was I after a day at the courthouse (for those of you just tuning in - I’m on jury duty)? I fell asleep during the opening credits of The Broken. Has to be a record for me. Longtime readers know that I’m borderline narcoleptic, but I’m pretty sure I’ve never nodded off before the opening credits were through. I’m still waiting for the day where I fall asleep before the start menu appears.*

So I rewound it, and once again - I dug the movie. It could have been a lot better, but it lucks out from the existence of Mirrors, a mostly lousy movie that also featured murderous reflections. Unlike that movie, this one actually has some decent creepy/suspenseful moments, a lead performance with some effort (unlike Kiefer Sutherland in that film, Lena Headey is NOT simply playing her FOX television character here), and - this may be a problem for some - a lack of nonsensical backstories.

Of course, there isn’t ANY backstory at all. Why the mirror people appear and begin killing their doppelgangers is never explained, and keeping with After Dark 3 traditions, there isn’t a commentary to add some insight into the matter (this one doesn’t even have the standard 15 minute making of!). But I actually didn’t mind it - I’m pretty sure no one can ever give a decent explanation for why/how our mirrors are trying to kill us, so I guess it’s not even worth wasting time to try.

Instead, writer/director Sean Ellis keeps the film relatively grounded, not to mention quiet. It’s hardly an action packed movie anyway, but I can’t recall the last time I saw a movie that was so willing to shut the fuck up. There isn’t a lot of long dialogue passages, and score/sound effects are kept to a minimum as well. Even when an evil reflection appears behind a character, it doesn’t mean we get a loud musical sting to alert the folks who had stopped paying attention (or, in my case, nodded off).

One blemish though - Ellis’ insistence on flashing back to a key automobile accident that occurs relatively early in the movie. OK, we get it: Headey can’t stop thinking about it. We don’t need to see it over and over (it doesn’t help that the Headey dummy is pretty bad, so to go out of your way to show it so many times, often in slow motion, is just stupid).

There’s a scene where Headey gets locked in the London subway, despite having just taken the tube there. Since this also happened in Creep, I have to wonder - does the London subway system routinely trap its riders inside the stations? I mean, I understand that the trains stop running at a certain time, but these movies make it seem like they lock the exits up even BEFORE that point. So many characters dead because the night watchman wanted to duck out early...

Richard Jenkins is also in this movie. You don’t see him popping up in many genre films (you gotta go back to Wolf for such a thing), and he lends the film a touch of class. Unfortunately, his role (like many of the others) is underwritten, and the movie doesn’t really give him much to do. Since the plot is left rather unexplained, the least Ellis could do is bulk up the character development, but he kind of drops the ball there too.

But again - it’s all about the impressively quiet scares, and the fact that the mirror people are actually kind of creepy. I also dug how Ellis avoided the usual clichés as much as possible. Of course there’s a scene where a reflection suddenly diverges from its owner and does something scary, but it turns out to be a nightmare. Otherwise, reflections are surprisingly AVOIDED at times. There’s a part where Headey is trapped in the bathroom, and there’s not a single shot of the mirror reflecting her or anything else of importance. That’s unprecedented!

I now have two films left on the After Dark 3. Unless they are total shit, I think I can confidently say that this is the best year yet. The films are more interesting and less generic, and the filmmakers seem to be a more capable lot. I may not have loved any of them as much as Gravedancers (year 1) or Mulberry St (year 2), but I’d rather eight films in the B, B+ range than one or two As amidst a sea of Ds and Fs.

What say you?

*Anyone notice something awesome about this batch of Lionsgate DVDs? You can finally skip over their logo! For years, you’ve had to endure the “opening gates with all the chains and gears around” logo everytime you put in and/or start watching one of their discs. But you can get right to the main menu on these discs, as long as you hit menu or chapter forward.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Perkins' 14 (2009)

APRIL 8, 2009

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

If there was one film out of this year’s After Dark Festival that I was sure I would hate, it was Perkins’ 14, from the director of Dark Ride (which should sufficiently explain my prejudice). But damned if I not only liked it, but it’s actually probably my 2nd favorite of the lineup so far (after Autopsy). And I say this after being annoyed all day at jury duty (where I was eventually picked to serve on a 4 week trial - see announcement).

The funny thing about Perkins’ is that the thing that originally made me think I would dislike the movie is the very same thing that made me dig it. See, it starts off as the umpteenth Silence of the Lambs retread, with an intelligent, well-mannered serial killer facing off against a law enforcement type. I could very easily live the rest of my life without ever having to watch one of those movies again, and by the time the movie hit its 2nd “Cop and killer talk through the bars of his jail cell” scene, I was already Twittering my disdain.

But then BAM! It’s a goddamn zombie movie (and the "serial killer" hadn't killed anyone)! OK technically they are just humans that are crazed from experimental drugs, but you take any one attack scene out of context and you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference from a 28 Days Later or Dawn 04. So for all intents and purposes, around the halfway mark, it’s a zombie movie. It’s like From Dusk Til Dawn, except instead of suddenly becoming a horror movie, it just becomes a different subgenre of horror movie. Well played.

And as a “zombie” film, it delivers. The lack of an entire mob of zombies (there’s only, well, 14) actually works to its benefit; it allows for some actual suspense. The problem with a lot of zombie films (fast or slow) is that the sheer NUMBER of them keeps the characters on constant alert. But here the good guys occasionally let their guards down, and often pay for it. It’s a refreshing angle on well-worn story concepts.

So really, the only problem is the unfortunate production value. We’re in Romania, but it’s supposed to be Maine. Some actors (particularly the guy playing Perkins) manage a decent Maine accent, but the rest just sound like Romanians. It’s very distracting, and it makes me wonder why they couldn’t just say they were in Romania in the first place (it would add to the originality). And the town is supposedly going completely to hell, but we never see any of it (even before bad things occur, the town seems strangely under-populated). There are also some dubious acting choices, such as a cross-eyed guy playing a cop (it’s not played for laughs - this movie’s especially downbeat and grim, which is another thing I liked).

Craig Singer has also improved as a director since Dark Ride. He still has some problems with letting the audience understand where people are in relation to one another (there’s a part where the hero finds his daughter, who is about to be harmed by an approaching zombie, and yet for the life of me I can’t understand how he even sees her or where the hell she is), but he has weaned off of his gonzo time stretch/squeeze fascination, and has improved in structure/pace as well. Sure, it starts slow, but that is a full blown creative decision, not just lame padding (i.e. the “prank” sequence in DR).

The DVD’s only extra (besides the Miss Horrorfest videos that accompany all After Dark releases) are a collection of webisodes about the film’s production. They’re a bit long when combined, and focus far too much on the actors as opposed to the more technical aspects of things, but they’re still worth a look (apart from learning spoilers, they would probably be a lot more exciting to watch as they were originally presented, likely one episode a week over a couple of months, as opposed to all jumbled together). I would have liked to have learned more about the initial internet contest that birthed the film (actors, the story, and even the poster were all chosen via the internet, not entirely unlike Project Greenlight), but yet again, there is no commentary track, which would be a damn good vehicle for such discussion. The first year, Christ, the AD DVDs pretty much all had tracks (Gravedancers even had commentary tracks for the extras!). Now none of them have them at all. It’s weird. Then again, since jury duty will be eating up nearly half my day, I guess it’s a blessing in disguise, as it keeps me from feeling overwhelmed with HMAD “responsibilities.”

Anyway, I hate that I had to spoil the 2nd half of the movie, as it does come as something of a surprise, but I assume that knowing it won’t really affect your enjoyment. Hell, if you’re like me, and are sick of "genius serial killer" movies, it might even HELP, knowing that you only have to deal with that plot for the first 40 minutes.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Count Dracula (1970)

APRIL 7, 2009

GENRE: VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

For almost as long as I have been reading Fangoria on a regular basis (something I no longer do, due to a steep decline in quality over the past couple of years - though I still buy every issue), I have been hearing about the films of Jess Franco (aka Jesus Franco, and also - according to the IMDB - pretty much every combination of any first/last names you can think of). Most of his films sounded right up my alley: horror mixed with lesbian softcore! Can’t go wrong with that. Yet I’ve never actually seen any of his work, so I figured his take on Count Dracula (German: Nachts, Wenn Dracula Erwacht) would be a good place to start. Dracula does have those three brides after all...

Sadly, not only is there no sex of any kind in the film (even Dracula biting Lucy/Mina is fairly asexual), but it’s not even a particularly interesting adaptation of the Dracula story. See, if you are adapting Harry Potter or LOTR, you gotta get it right and stick to the source material. But with Dracula, even at the time this film was made (1970), you really should do your own thing, because there have been so many goddamn film versions of it. While they may be terrible, at this point I’d rather watch Dracula 2000 or 3000 than another straight up adaptation of the Stoker novel, which is precisely what this is.

I mean, sure, there are some slight deviations from the novel: Van Helsing is now running the asylum where Renfield (Klaus Kinski!) is committed, but that and the other minor changes seem more like cost-cutting measures than any sort of creative decision. Beyond Kinski’s traditional craziness, I failed to find a single thing in the film that felt like it was brought to the table by the talent or creativity from any of the principles. Even Christopher Lee seemed bored, though in his defense he had already played Dracula in the Hammer version (is he the first actor to portray the same role in two otherwise unrelated films?).

Also, despite Lee and Kinski having top billing, their combined screentime does not equal that of Herbert Lom (Helsing) or Fred Williams (Harker), nor do they ever really share a scene. I mean, you have these two - why even bother with anything else? The movie could simply be Kinski and Lee having dinner and a conversation and it would probably turn out more engaging.

Jim Henson’s Dracula

It’s not a complete loss though. Franco occasionally stages some nice shots or the odd setpiece (loved the bit with all the stuffed/mounted animals “attacking” our heroes), and the women are beautiful to look at. Lom also makes a good Helsing, and gets to enjoy a scene in which his character supposedly suffers a stroke (to me it looked more like he was suffering heroin withdrawals). And Lee’s “crazed” makeup is pretty frightening, what with his red eyes and such. Plus, I mean, it IS still the Dracula story - had I never seen a single other version of it before, I’m sure I’d be far more entertained.

One thing struck me as odd - while all the usual conventions are followed (crosses, no reflection, etc), it seems that Dracula is able to enter Van Helsing’s home (which looks a LOT like that one hotel room in Fear and Loathing) without any problem. I somehow doubt he was invited. This may possibly just be an error however, there’s a few other goofs as well (Dracula is holding a candelabra during the ‘no reflection’ scene - but it has no reflection either).

The DVD doesn’t appear to have much, but it’s actually kind of packed, “time it takes to watch it all” wise. The interview with Jess Franco runs nearly a half hour, and he talks about all of his actors, as well as some production info (apparently, once the notoriously perfectionist Lee had finished his role, the producers pulled some of the money and did the rest of the movie half-assed). He even talks a bit about the Browning and Coppola versions. Then there’s an essay about Soledad Miranda, the actress who played Lucy and was sadly killed in a car crash a few years later, on the eve of signing a new contract that would have ensured her place as a major star. And then there’s the biggie: “Christopher Lee reads Dracula”, which is exactly that. Over a slideshow of stills and posters from this and other Dracula productions, Lee reads the entire novel. It’s about 90 minutes long, and while I hate to skip any extras when compiling my review, I simply don’t have the time to have a book read to me. It’s certainly a unique idea for an extra, and I wouldn’t mind seeing it on other classic horror adaptations (where the books tend to be shorter) to enjoy when I have time (or when I haven’t already read the book). I just hope Lee never stars in an adaptation of "War and Peace" or any “cokehead era” Stephen King novel.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

It's Alive 2: It Lives Again (1978)

APRIL 6, 2009

GENRE: KILLER KID (BABY!), MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

If nothing else, Horror Movie A Day will have given me a new perspective of Larry Cohen. Before HMAD began, I only knew him as the screenwriter of a few suspense films like Phone Booth and Cellular, as well as the director/writer of The Ambulance. I had somehow never seen any of his horror pictures. But It’s Alive II: It Lives Again is like the 6th or 7th movie of his I’ve watched for HMAD - enough to warrant giving him his own tag, especially if I include films he just wrote.

Cohen takes the best approach to a sequel I can imagine. He brings back the hero of the first film (the Frank Davis character) while introducing a new couple on the verge of having their own monster baby. So if you liked Davis, you get to see him do something new (he now works for a company that aims to help - or so they claim - those who are about to have a mutant child), and if you just liked the idea of a couple having a monster baby, you get that too. It’s familiar and yet different in nearly perfectly equal helpings (Davis kind of disappears for most of the 2nd act). It may not be a perfect movie, but in terms of successfully “following” the first film, it’s definitely one of the better examples I can think of in the horror genre.

The only real flaw in the movie is that they keep the monster baby action mostly confined to the final half hour. Sure, there’s a lot of plot to explain what with the various groups with an interest in the new baby, but still. You can’t promise monster babies and give us a bunch of middle aged doughy guys in labcoats rambling about creation and the future of evolution and such. Once the babies escape though, oh man. Awesome.

The highlight of their all-too-brief rampage has to be a kid’s birthday party. Not only are the kids all terrible actors with awkward dialogue (“Open mine first!” one kid shouts, after another gift has been opened), but they just come and go out of nowhere. And the babies don’t really attack anyone, but they do destroy a cake. It’s just such a random little scene that could have so easily been cut, I couldn’t help but love it a little.

I also love how easily the parents accept that their kid is a monster. Davis crashes their baby shower (!!) and is like “You remember seeing the news about how I had a monster baby? You’re going to have one too.” And they accept this without even double-checking the news article to see if it was the same guy. Even better, the mother starts calling the fetus “It” before Davis has even cleared the driveway. So many of these killer kid movies have parents that are on the “I don’t care what it’s done, it’s MY child!” train, it’s refreshing to see some folks that are like “oh it’s a monster, fuck it”.

Rick Baker did the effects for the babies. They are obviously better than the original’s, but still used sparingly to hide their limits. I am excited to watch the 3rd film - not only does it have Michael Moriarty, but I assume that the late 80s effects will be pretty awesome to watch. I also assume the remake, which has seemingly been cast into the ether (it was shot in 2007), will have lame ass CGI babies.

As always, Cohen provides a dull commentary that is only occasionally referring to what’s on screen, even in general terms. If you take a shot of whiskey every time he mentions one of his other “pictures” (the words “film” and “movie” are apparently not in his vocabulary), you will likely die of cirrhosis before the first reel is up. However, if you don’t die and merely become violently ill from the alcohol intake, you can take a few trips to the bathroom and probably not miss much, as he is also prone to long silences. The “trailer” is also included, but it’s really a teaser, featuring no footage whatsoever. It DOES, however, include a tagline that out-sillies the one for Q - “The It’s Alive baby is back again, only now there’s three of them.” Confusing grammar + awkward syntax = voiceover nirvana.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...