Roadgames (1981)

SEPTEMBER 19, 2009

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

While I couldn’t make all five of the films for the New Beverly’s TRUCKATHON, I knew for sure I’d get there for Roadgames, which I’ve been meaning to see for years. Not only is it an early 80s Jamie Lee Curtis horror movie (the only one that hasn’t been remade... yet), but it’s also the type of road thriller that I often enjoy (Duel, Breakdown, etc). And having Richard Franklin at the helm is a pretty sure sign of quality - I have yet to see a film from him that I have disliked. Shit, I even like F/X2, which is the movie that he hated working on so much that he essentially quit Hollywood.

His Hitchcock influence is as evident as ever here - the film is essentially Rear Window 2: Rearview Mirror. 85% of the movie is simply Stacy Keach driving and talking to himself or one of the two women he picks up (Curtis being one - I’m actually surprised how relatively small her role is). But it’s not the similar plotting; the dialogue contains a bit of that Hitchcock dry humor, and certain shots feel like something out of his suspense thrillers. The final shot in particular, even though it’s a completely different subject, reminds me of the final shot of Psycho (the car being pulled from the swamp).

But equally important to the film’s success is Keach. I mainly know him from his TV work (Titus, Prison Break, and the short-lived Unsolved Mysteries wannabe Missing: Reward), but here he proves to be an able leading man. And I mean lead - apart from his dingo-dog, he’s usually by himself. But he doesn’t sit in silence; he occasionally has full blown conversations (even arguments) with himself, saying one line aloud and keeping the response in his head. Not only does it keep the film from being silent, but it also allows us to understand that the character may be suffering from a mental disorder (and in turn, that he may be the killer himself, but not in a way that prevents us from liking him.

I just wish it was edited a bit tighter. Some of the “getting to know you” stuff between Keach and Curtis could have been lost without any significance (it’s Curtis pre-gray hair and yogurt - we like her the second she appears, no need to spend excessive time getting us on her side). The movie is PG, so I wasn’t expecting any significant on-screen violence or a big body count (and I'm amazed at how many writeups refer to this movie as a slasher), but even keeping that in mind, I got a bit restless at times during the 2nd act. The end also feels a bit convenient - people who dislike Keach (for comical reasons) suddenly show up and accuse him of being the villain, and then he is just as quickly saved by someone’s say-so. I wouldn’t have minded a dark ending where he is framed for the crime with his own behavior acting as evidence (sort of like Arlington Road), but that sort of thing was rarely Hitchcock’s style, so it’s not a surprise everything ends rather cheerfully for our heroes.

I mentioned remakes before - I’m actually surprised this one hasn’t been fed to the remake machine yet. Not only is it an early 80s genre film, but it’s the rare one that owes as much to its lead role as it does the plot. With so many actors having their own production companies these days, I could easily see one of them putting a remake together in order to give themselves a nice vehicle (pun half-intended) that would put them front and center the whole time. Indeed, while I don’t think he’s that type of guy, I would love to see Nic Cage (who does have his own company) take on the role. Not only is he someone I could watch for 90 minutes straight, but his inherent craziness would actually sell the whole “is he the killer himself” idea even to those who had seen the original. “OK, this time maybe he IS the killer!” a fan might say whenever Cage went into full-blown “I could eat a peach for hours...” mode.

And in the end, the greatest thing about the movie is that it hasn’t aged (even things like “just call for help” would be explained by a “no service” plot device in any modern version of the story). The suspense hasn’t been diluted one iota from all of the road thrillers that have come since, and Keach’s performance is award-worthy to boot. Seek it out and enjoy.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

It! (1966)

SEPTEMBER 18, 2009

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

While he’s known for his parodies, most of Weird Al’s best songs are just “thematic parodies” where he sort of copies the overall style of a particular artist but not one of their actual songs (“Dare To Be Stupid”, for example, is his Devo-type song). Similarly, It! can easily be mistaken for a very good Hammer movie, however it’s not a Hammer movie at all. But the only way you can tell is because it’s got Roddy McDowall instead of Peter Cushing, and it’s directed by Herbert J. Leder instead of Terence Fisher.

Also it has a prologue. I can’t recall any Hammer film having a pre-credit sequence, and since I actually thought this WAS a Hammer movie until I bothered to check (about halfway through - I was wondering why Cushing wasn’t around), I actually made a note of it. It’s nice to have a death so early in the movie, before we even know what it’s called. And since it has pretty much the worst title of all time (until Stephen King did it one better by dropping the exclamation point), it’s good that they put us in a good mood first.

And it continues to be a good movie. It has an unfortunate direct ripoff of Psycho that never really gels with the Golem parts of the movie, but I can forgive it that, because other Psycho ripoffs of the era tended to be about people being driven mad in order for someone else to steal their inheritance, so it’s nice to have someone ripping off another aspect of the story (in this case, the dead mother propped up and spoken to). It also allows for Roddy McDowall’s character to start the film off as a weirdo, instead of the usual nonsense of a good person who instantly becomes evil once this new element is introduced into their lives. The Roddy/Golem stuff has a bit of a Little Shop Of Horrors element to it, and by making him a kook right from the start, we are spared the usual sort of “No I can’t do this until something tragic happens and I change my mind in a fit of anger”.

I also liked that it was a Golem movie (the first for HMAD, I believe). I’ve always liked the concept of a monster that you can control, as long as you put something in its mouth. Freudian aspects aside, it’s also steeped in Jewish beliefs, an area that is also under-represented in horror films. I think The Unborn is the only major one in recent memory, and that movie is pretty unlikely to inspire a wave of anything. Despite the Little Shop/Psycho similarities, the film as a whole still feels largely original due to utilizing little-seen concepts.

The ending is a bit of a letdown though. McDowall sort of redeems himself, but the climax comes down to a few army guys 2 miles away blowing everything to hell. I like a little more up close and personal confrontation in my monster movies. If not for the closing shot (a bit of a sequel setup, but we never got It! 2 or Another It! or maybe It?) I would have hated it entirely. I was reminded a bit of End of Days, which originally ended with Arnold just blowing up the Devil, an idea that was deemed stupid (possibly by someone who watched It!).

The film also sports the first appearance of Ian McCulloch, who would go on to play a guy named Peter in several Italian zombie films. Love that guy.

Apparently this film was only recently released to DVD for the first time, which is kind of a surprise. Roddy, the fact that it was good, the relative lack of Golem movies... I would think there would be a bigger demand for it, yet it seemingly took over 10 years to hit the format (just as it was starting to be replaced by Blu-Ray). It’s packaged with something called The Shattered Room, which is apparently a Lovecraft adaptation with my favorite drunk, Oliver Reed. Should be amazing. I’ll get to that one in a few days, but even if it’s terrible, I think the disc is worth owning.

And for like the 5th time in the past week I can't find a trailer for the movie I watched. What the hell? From now on, whenever I can't find a trailer, I will embed a Meat Loaf video. Enjoy the incoherent video for his obscure non-hit "Razor's Edge".

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Zombieland (2009)

SEPTEMBER 17, 2009

GENRE: COMEDIC, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

Another day, another big studio horror comedy with the focus shifted more toward comedy. Being a horror nut, this would normally bug me, and in Jennifer’s Body’s case it did, because the horror was not only brief, but half-assed. Luckily, that is not the case for Zombieland, which manages to breathe life into the zomcom sub-genre by playing to the strengths of its cast members (Woody Harrelson - crazy; Emma Stone - hot, etc) and largely ignoring traditional zombie movie (comic or not) trappings.

Such as the lack of evil humans in the 3rd act. Sure, Stone and her sister (Abigail Breslin) are introduced as “villains” in that they play possum and steal our heroes’ guns, but you know their antagonism will turn into an alliance before the half hour mark or so. And even before then, they are hardly the hateful types that crippled films like 28 Days Later. They’re just trying to get by without doing any work - they don’t physically harm the guys or trap them in a room with zombies or whatever. It’s the refreshingly light, breezy tone that allows the film to work as well as it does. Even in potentially dark moments (such as when Jesse Eisenberg’s character learns that his hometown has been leveled) are not dwelled on, and it’s not long before another laugh is delivered.

Speaking of Eisenberg, I only have two issues with the film, and his performance is one of them. Basically, he’s playing Michael Cera. I can’t fucking stand that kid, and I don’t need to be reminded of him in an otherwise enjoyable movie. He’s a likeable hero, and one I can definitely identify with (I too spent many a Friday playing video games and am afraid of clowns), but his Cera-ness approached high annoyance levels at times. Maybe this is just Eisenberg’s style; I’ve never seen him in anything else, but if he’s like this in Adventureland (what’s with the theme park movies, dude?) then I will know I was right to ignore everyone that has told me to watch it.

(Oh, he’s in Cursed too. Like I remember frame one of that pile of shit.)

And that ties into my other issue, which is the fact that there are long zombie-free stretches. I wouldn’t mind a little of his fumbling awkwardness if I knew a zombie was about to shut him up, but there are a couple 10-15 minute stretches in the film without a single zombie. Not a big problem for a two hour plus epic like Dawn of the Dead; a little moreso when your film is only about 85 minutes. Sure, they make em count when they do occur, but you almost start to feel like they’re not even an issue for the characters.

But man, are the zombie scenes great. Woody’s shooting spree throughout the theme park is one of the all time best zombie sequences - shooting as he rides a roller coaster, hanging from an elevated tilt-a-whirl type ride and shooting as he spins round and round, etc. And the opening credits, set to Metallica’s “For Whom The Bell Tolls” (you know the movie is kind of special when Metallica allows one of their songs to be used - you’d probably be surprised how rare this actually is) is applause-worthy. Not only is it gory and epic (it’s sort of showing the overall scope of the zombie outbreak), but it features the best use of slo-mo in recent memory.

It also brings back the idea of “featured” zombies, something that has been sorely missing from several of the newer zombie films. It’s still not exactly up to the levels of “Hare Krishna Zombie” or whatever, but still: Clown zombie, Fat Ethan Suplee-looking Zombie, and even Chaplin Zombie leave an imprint. Speaking of Chaplin, there’s a scene where our heroes drive through Hollywood, and it actually kind of creeped me out, seeing it all deserted and showing signs of an apocalypse (crashed cars, trash blowing around, etc). Having just been there the night before, it was an eerie sight.

Another thing about Chaplin zombie (I would have loved if the entire Mann’s Costume crew attacked) is that it’s not only a hilarious sight, but it also helps ground the film in reality a bit. And that just paves the way for what will undoubtedly be the highlight of the film for its fans. Now that they are in Hollywood, director Ruben Fleischer and screenwriters Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick address something that is almost always overlooked in post-apoc movies: what happens to our celebrities? Woody’s character decides he knows just the place to hole up, and I thought for sure that they were going to reveal that his character was in fact Woody Harrelson (none of them are given real names - they go by their hometowns); that he was playing a caricature of himself a la Neil Patrick Harris in the Harold & Kumar movies. But the residence belongs to someone far more hilarious and “holy shit!” worthy, and I really hope it’s not spoiled for you before you see the movie.

Like Cut, the film also benefits from a wide-reaching soundtrack. Metallica, Willie Nelson, Velvet Underground, Van Halen, The Raconteurs, and Hank Williams all in one movie? Awesome. Some of these tunes are heard during what was my favorite non-zombie part of the movie, a driving/bonding montage where the four characters (constantly changing their seating arrangement; even the 12 year old Breslin takes a turn at the wheel) bicker and play the “You’ve never heard of _____?” game of identifying the difference in generations between characters.

This scene has a few pop-culture references, as does the entire film, so it’s nice that I saw it back to back with Jennifer’s Body. Zombieland has just as many references - but they are used as references, not in the place of other words, which means that they a. are funny and b. make sense. When Stone’s character talks about going to see her first R rated movie, she says “We saw Anaconda.” If the film was written by Diablo Cody, she would say “We saw a pirate-approved movie where Papa Jolie got Crunch’n’Munched by Sir-Mix-A-Lot’s dick.” (or something overly stupid like that - have fun deciphering it). By using movies, music, etc as actual movies, music, etc, it works even if you aren’t familiar with the material. If you take someone’s name and use it as a verb (as people in Body do), then you won’t understand the point of the line if you aren’t familiar with the person. And again, it just helps ground the film in reality - even if you haven’t seen Anaconda (and I haven’t, actually), you probably recognize it as a real world movie.

I know I’ve talked more about the humor and characters than the zombie stuff, but that’s just how the movie plays out (and plays well). And even during the zombie scenes, they never lose the humorous approach. Comparisons to Shaun Of The Dead are going to be numerous, and that’s fine (though I think Dance Of The Dead is closer in tone - and Zombieland is far superior to boot), but in Shaun they sort of forgot about the comedy during the finale in the Winchester, and that’s not the case here. It’s a damn fun film from start to finish, and will almost certainly rank among my top 5 horror films of the year. Kudos to all involved!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Jennifer's Body (2009)

SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

GENRE: COMEDIC, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PREMIERE)

For a movie that was written by Diablo Cody, whose Oscar win for Juno (over “lesser” films like Michael Clayton - OK, Academy) remains the 2nd most appalling moment in Oscar history (after a tie for every award Crash won two years before), and stars Adam Brody, whom I’ve wanted to smack in the face since the first spot for The OC aired on TV, and Megan Fox, a pretty but completely annoying woman who recently compared my boy to Hitler, it’s a wonder I was able to even sit through Jennifer’s Body, let alone mostly enjoy it. It just proves once and for all that a little Raimi-style gore and mean-spirited humor can improve even the direst of situations.

And dire it is at times, particularly in the lackluster finale. The next two paragraphs contain minor spoilers, so skip them if you want to be surprised while you’re being underwhelmed.

See, the whole movie is really about Needy, Jennifer’s best friend (played by Amanda Seyfried, who unlike Fox manages to make Cody’s pop-laced dialogue work most of the time). The film starts off with her in an institution for unknown crimes, but once we find out what she did, it’s not only a weak reveal but it also lacks any sort of thematic payoff for what the film is really about, which is their strained friendship. In fact the ending as a whole lacks any sort of real panache; there is a threat that Jennifer is going to go apeshit at the school dance, but she never even gets there. They even have the band show up at the dance, presumably to either try their sacrifice again and/or allow Jennifer to get revenge on them, but they are brought up on stage and then never mentioned again during the evening. I won’t spoil everything, but everything about the final 10 minutes feels largely incomplete; like the script had to be 90 pages and Cody realized at page 85 that she had to wrap things up. And certain events further hammer home a notion that I had for most of the film, which is that Fox’s top billing had more to do with enticing horny young men into the theaters than it did screen-time or even character importance. Seyfried is front and center for nearly every scene, and the film is told entirely through her eyes.

Also, there is this nonsensical subplot about how the town has a waterfall where the water seemingly disappears into a black hole. We see scientists studying it and throwing orange balls (presumably with some sort of tracking device?) into it. Yet, it just washes out to the side of the road somewhere nearby. Not only does this feel completely stupid (scientists never bothered to check a large drainage ditch?) but it’s also just a really lazy way for Needy to find an important item later. It’s so half-assed that I actually considered whether it was a parody of deus ex machinas. Similarly, most of the finale takes place in an abandoned pool that has become overgrown with trees and various other greenery. which is certainly an interesting visual, but it simply makes no sense (and doesn’t have any sort of setup, not even a throwaway line explaining its current state. It just IS, for some reason). For a Oscar-winning screenwriter’s followup, it’s a shockingly lackluster script.

But despite all of that, it’s passable entertainment for sure. The biggest surprise is Brody. As I said earlier, I’m no fan of the guy, but he’s probably the best part of the movie. His Brandon Flowers-esque appearance alone is worth a few chuckles, as are a few of his off-the-cuff remarks (he bemoans that the only way an indie rock band can make it these days is to land a song on some shitty soundtrack - a line that took on extra hilarious meaning today due to the fact that an appearance by Panic! At The Disco seemed to be drawing in more fans than anyone involved with the film proper). I also loved the cameo turn by JK Simmons (with hair!) as a whacked out teacher who mistakes the school jock’s death screams as tears of sorrow. There’s also a most appreciated cameo by a genre veteran at the end of the film that I rightfully applauded. And while the referential dialogue is as grating as ever, there’s a mean streak to some of it that made up for it, such as when Brody and his band sing an impromptu rendition of “Jenny” before sacrificing a crying Jennifer to Satan. And Seyfried’s boyfriend (Johnny Simmons) is a charming little bastard, playing the voice of reason throughout the film and getting most of the traditional laughs (“You HAVE to go to the dance, I bought you a corsage and it was like 12 dollars!”).

Speaking of the laughs, I think the film plays better as a comedy than a horror film. The horror angle is not only poorly executed (for an R rated “horror” movie, it sure is short on on-screen carnage and kills - Prom Night (2008) boasts a higher body count) but largely unoriginal - enjoy your flashbacks to The Faculty, Carrie, Slither, and (big time) Ginger Snaps. But the comedy only rarely falls flat, and I laughed out loud several times, as did the audience, which ran the gamut from “passholes” to press to studio folk to teenyboppers. Ironically, the only big joke dud I can recall is the “not high school evil” line, which FOX (the studio - is this the only film where the film’s star shares a name with the distributor?) seems to be making their entire ad campaign around; I don’t think a single person laughed.

Oh and there’s a brief lesbian makeout between Fox and Seyfried. With tongue. Hey, I’m not COMPLETELY impervious to audience pandering.

As for Fox, well, what does it matter? She can’t act, but no one seems to mind in the Transformers movies, so why should it matter here? She’s actually a bit better here than in those films, probably because an insecure object of desire is a bit closer to her comfort zone. She struggles with Cody’s “witty” dialogue at times, as if she doesn’t understand the references that she is making (nor do I, at times - so I can forgive her some). But I am curious how the film would have fared with a better actress in the role, one who could not only deliver the dialogue, but also find a way to make the audience feel sympathetic for her character. Her public persona overshadows her limited acting skills, and her public persona is that of a stuck-up primadonna. Likewise, I’m also curious if the film would have been made at all if they couldn’t land Fox or an equally marketable actress; there is nothing in the film that convinces me that the movie was made for any other reason than the “dream team” of “Oscar-winner writer” and “superbabe star”.

Basically, it’s the type of movie I wish I saw when I was 14. Still a virgin, still watching films without paying much attention to things like plot holes and undeveloped character dynamics (the movie never bothers to explain why Jennifer “needs” Needy), and without the exposure to great horror-comedy blends (such as American Werewolf, which also deals with a friendship strained by one of them turning into a monster), I’d have loved it then and been defending it now due to my nostalgia. For the 14 year olds today, let’s hope they have a theater with a lax policy on letting them into R rated movies (by the way - it’s mostly for language; there’s no real nudity and half of the kills are off-screen, the other half no more graphic than Drag Me To Hell), because other than those who blindly love anything with Fox in it, they are likely to enjoy the film the most. Everyone else, I think as long as you go in expecting a comedy (which I did) you will probably have fun but also forget everything about it in a few days.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Cut (2000)

SEPTEMBER 15, 2009

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

Hey, I got this great idea for a movie. There’s this group of young folks, maybe just out of or still in film school, and they are making a horror movie. BUT! Here’s the twist - a REAL killer shows up and picks them off one by one! How awesome is- what’s that? It’s been done? Several dozen times? Shit. And you say one of them was called Cut and starred Molly Ringwald? Well then. How bout a movie about Prefontaine?

To be fair, this one came before a bunch of the others, including Skeleton Crew, which I just watched last week. But it also came out the same goddamn year as Scream 3 and Urban Legend 2 (the same year there were like three Mars movies! What the hell was up with 2000?), and it lacks UL2s earnest goofiness and Scream 3s.. uh... Neve Campbell, I guess. And the backstory about a cursed, unfinished film was used to greater effect in this years Hills Run Red, so in short: the movie’s kind of lacking any real use. Everything it does was already done or has been since done better, rendering it little more than a passable curiosity.

Lets start with what I liked. The soundtrack, while probably awful on CD, is the rare kind that seems like songs one would naturally hear over the course of three days. I never got why some movies had wall to wall songs of a particular subgenre, regardless of the characters (Office Space is a good example - do ALL of these nerdy white guys listen to hardcore rap?). The movie kicks off with Split Enz’ “I Got You” (NICE), then we get some alt/grunge stuff, a bit of pop, a ballad... it’s a nice, realistic blend.

I also dug the killer’s look, because it reminded me of Decker from Nightbreed. Not enough people reference Nightbreed directly, as far as I’m concerned, so I will settle for possible homage. But one thing I DON’T like is that the killer is a supernatural force, something that is not revealed until later in the film. It’s fine when things start off that way (Freddy, for example), but it seems a bit deus ex machina-y to me. Plus it spoils the fun of a masked slasher movie, which is trying to figure out who the killer is. Spoiler: he’s some otherworldly thing that literally melts when the film print does (a sweet effect, I must admit).

I don’t get why so many of these movie-movie slashers have supernatural elements behind them. Midnight Movie suffered from the same problem (even worse there, since it was so muddled in its execution - at least I know what this guy’s limitations are), and Popcorn had some of this stuff too. And Skeleton Crew had all of the possession and scenes of people watching themselves in a film called Skeleton Crew. Scream 3 may suck, but at least the killer was a human guy, not a re-incarnated Billy Loomis. That said, I do kind of like the idea of a killer that is literally living film. What with everyone shooting on DV nowadays, it’s possible that in 20 years people won’t even understand the finale.

And maybe in Cut 2, some folks making a sequel to this film will shoot it on digital and the killer will simply disappear when someone accidentally drops the hard drive on the floor. (This is my non-too-subtle dig at how dumb the idea of everything going digital is to me.)

One pleasant surprise was how long Molly Ringwald survived. I’m not a big fan of the lass (I was more an Ally Sheedy kinda guy), but I figured she would be killed within a half hour or so in a Psycho-but-really-Scream kind of way. This allowed the few scenes where she was under attack to hold some suspense, because I actually thought she would die. Luckily, she didn’t have anywhere else to be, so she sticks around all the way through.

So like I said, it’s entertaining enough, but nothing special either. It’s technically sound and the cast is largely decent (I’m guessing Ringwald and Kylie Minogue ate up most of the budget - the DVD has no extras to solidify or dispute this theory), but the script is rather blah, and I’ve just seen too many versions of this story for it to really stick out in my mind. I won’t remember a thing about it in a week.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

DVD Review: Friday The 13th VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan

SEPTEMBER 15, 2009

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (SCREENER)

I’ve already reviewed the film here, as well as put together a little summary/capsule thing for Bloody-D's 13 Days Of Jason retrospective series from this past February, so if you want my in-depth(ish) thoughts on the film, check those out by clicking the links above. In short - I don’t mind Jason Takes Manhattan as much as many others seem to. Yeah he’s on the boat too much, and yeah the leads are lame, but the supporting cast is fun (Wayne, Charles, and of course: JULIUS!) and a boat is still better than the umpteenth stalk through the woods and increasingly convoluted lake area (how many isolated houses are on this goddamn lake anyway?). It was a marked improvement over the previous entry, and as the final “Friday the 13th” entry (before New Line/the Jason title took over), it holds a bit of nostalgic value too. This review concerns the brand new special edition DVD and whether or not you should upgrade (spoiler: you should).

As with the others, Part VIII has been blessed with a 5.1 soundtrack, an upgrade from the previous release’s “Ultra Stereo” (which is still available). Paramount has also made the disc more foreign language friendly - French and Spanish dubs are included, so fans that speak those languages can now enjoy lines like “Toxic waste, son! The city floods out with the stuff every night at midnight!” (subs for all three languages, plus Portuguese, are also included). The picture quality, as with VII, is also a big improvement. Screen grabs are below (click to enlarge):

While not as striking as the difference between the transfers for New Blood, it’s still obvious just at a glance that the 2009 version is superior to the 2004 boxed set counterpart. The color seems a bit off (Jason’s mask seems yellow in the boat pic) at times, but the detail is vastly improved, with much clearer definition (look at the wood on the boat) and, again, the 2009 version restores previously cropped out visual information (look at the Olympus sign on the left side of the Times Sq. screenshot). This is just one of the many benefits of not squishing two films on the same side of a disc, as they did last time.

A more striking improvement is the amount of extras on the disc. Rob Hedden’s previous commentary has not been held over (why?), but there is a brand new one with Scott Reeves, Jensen Daggett, and Kane Hodder (who is recorded via conference call, as he was in Utah shooting Adam Green’s Frozen). It’s a surprisingly fun track, as the two leads mock their performances and clothes, and Kane provides a lot of interesting production info. Reeves could have taken the time to at least glance at the IMDb before leaving for the recording studio (he first asks Kane if he played Jason in any of the other films, then asks him if he has done any other horror films in general! Christ), but it’s a hell of a lot better than Hedden’s track, at any rate.

Of more interest, I am sure, are the “slashed scenes”. Gorehounds might be disappointed to see that only two or three of the kill scenes are extended (one of which is the aftermath of the long sought-after “dart” kill), but fans of the film will enjoy all of the little character beats and such that are presented here, as well as a minor subplot about how their graduating class was going to be the last, as the school was closing (I’m sure this tied into the notion that the film was intended as a series finale). A few more excised moments can be seen in the largely unfunny gag reel (only Peter Mark Richman’s goofs really amuse, as well as a prank Kane pulled on Tiffany Paulson in the opening sequence), so check that out for a few more. Rounding things out is the traditional 20 minute-ish retrospective piece on the film, with Hedden, Hodder, and a decent number of the cast, plus composer Fred Mollin and editor Steve Mirkovich (and his son, who played young Jason). By now you know how these things go, but as the film was always considered one of the weakest, it’s also been covered the least. Thus, you probably haven’t heard all of these stories a million times.

While a boxed set is still a rumor, Friday fans should be pretty pleased with these upgrades. Yeah, we’d all love uncut editions, but without the elements to do them properly, they’re probably never going to happen. And even if that one kill or that one cast member couldn’t be found, these discs are practically Lord Of The Rings-ian when compared to their 2004 counterparts, and for that every Friday fan owes Dan Farrands and his crew a giant debt of gratitude. It’s a shame he wasn’t involved with the releases of the first 3, but what’s important to realize is that even Paramount knew that the discs could be better and brought him on board to do 4-6 and kept him around for 7-8. Like the truly invaluable "Crystal Lake Memories" (which he edited), Farrands doesn’t play favorites with these films the way that David Grove did with his book - each film, good or bad, now has a respectable special edition that its supporters can relish and that its detractors can use to give it another chance.

Film score 6/10
DVD score 8/10

PLEASE, GO ON...

DVD Review: Friday the 13th VII: The New Blood

SEPTEMBER 15, 2009

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (SCREENER)

I’ve already reviewed the film proper here, as well as put together a little summary/capsule thing for Bloody-D's 13 Days Of Jason retrospective series from this past February, so if you want my in-depth(ish) thoughts on the film, check those out by clicking the links above. In short - I don’t really like The New Blood much. Jason’s look is awesome and some of the kills are great, but the kids bore me to tears, the rushed production shows at every turn, and I never quite shined to the telekinesis plot, since it was obviously an attempt to compete with the (then more popular) Nightmare On Elm St movies, which had “superpowered” characters in its 3rd and 4th films. This review concerns the brand new special edition DVD and whether or not you should upgrade (spoiler: you should).

Regardless of how I feel about the movie, Paramount and Dan Farrands have put together a fine special edition for it. For some reason it was the only one of the films that had a 5.1 soundtrack on the previous releases, so nothing new to report there. But the video quality is practically night and day. Since no one sent me the other new discs (ahem!) in time for a worthwhile review, I never bothered to compare the video quality with the previous 2004 releases. Below are screenshots from the 2004 boxed set versions and their counterparts from these new 2009 releases (click to enlarge):

Not only is the color much improved, but I was shocked to see how much picture information the 2004 releases were missing. In the shot of Jason in the kitchen, notice the decoration on the left side of the frame that is completely missing from the identical frame on the old release. And in the forest shot, notice the sharper detail in the trees and on Jason’s ratty clothes (and again, far more picture information).

As for the extras, Kane Hodder and John Carl Buechler’s old commentary is gone, but the pair have recorded a new commentary, this time joined by (a separate) Lar Park Lincoln. It’s not a bad track; Hodder and Buechler repeat some of the stuff they said on the last one, but Lincoln’s thoughts are obviously new, and thankfully she takes up the bulk of the track (unless you haven’t listened to the old one, in which case you might want to hear more from the guys). And Buechler admits that the story isn’t up to par, which I don’t think he fessed up to on the last one.

We also get about 15 minutes’ worth of deleted footage. The footage isn’t in particularly good shape - it seems to be taken from a VHS tape with a bad tracking problem, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the damn cassette had been stored in someone’s flooded basement. It’s an even split between excised character stuff and kills, some of which were on the boxed set. Of most interest is a deleted epilogue in which Jason resurfaces from the water, which would have been nice to have (the theatrical cut of New Blood is one of the only films in the series that doesn’t end on a scare). Of course, we also get the usual retrospective with cast and crew, though it runs a bit shorter than usual and skimps over the more interesting things about the film’s production (such as its origin as Freddy vs. Jason). Then there is an interesting look at “real” telekinetic cases, as well as how realistic the film is at portraying this power (spoiler: it isn’t).

Of no use to anyone is a three minute fluff piece of actresses Diana Barrows and Elizabeth Kaitan going for a makeover, spurred by one of the film’s few memorable lines (“Need a little touch up my ass”). I could see maybe this thing having some merit had the girls at least talked about the movie a bit while they got their nails done and tried on new clothes, but nope. Even at three minutes, it’s a fucking waste of disc space, time, energy, and any other abstract object you can imagine. The only good thing I can say about it is that at least it’s not another episode of "Lost Tales From Camp Blood", which has finally been ‘cancelled’ (or maybe it just concluded its run - I stopped watching these worthless things after the 3rd entry).

In my opinion, it’s the weakest film of Paramount’s series, but like all of the others, it’s not without merit, and blood or not, is fun to watch with a bunch of friends and some beer. The extras aren’t quite as extensive as they are for Final Chapter or whatever, but if you’re a fan of the film there is no question you should be picking this version up. The fact that a proper special edition exists at all is a laudable achievement; after years of bitching, Paramount has finally tried to make amends for the previous releases - for the good films and the bad ones.

Film Score 4/10
DVD score 8/10

PLEASE, GO ON...

DVD Review: Grace

SEPTEMBER 15, 2009

GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

After a (too) brief theatrical run, Grace is now hitting DVD and Blu-Ray from Anchor Bay. I won’t take time to review the film again, you can read my original review HERE and then come back for my thoughts on the DVD.

The great thing about Grace is that it surprisingly holds up on a second (and now third) viewing. It’s interesting to see all of the little moments, particularly in the early part of the film, that take on a new meaning when you have the information from the rest of the film (particularly those surrounding the Samantha Ferris character). And certain scenes never lose their punch; I still squirm at that opening dinner scene (and pretty much every scene/shot of someone or something eating - even the cat eating its cat food is a bit ugh-y). So if you are thinking “rental” - you might be surprised at how effective the film can be on repeat viewings.

And a rental time might not be enough to get through all of the extra features. Director Paul Solet appears on not one but two commentary tracks that are worth a listen. He is joined by Jordan Ladd on the first (this one is exclusive to Blu-Ray), and the track is largely centered on story and acting. For those who enjoy more nuts and bolts type stuff (and irreverent humor), Solet teams with producer Adam Green and DP Zoran Popovic on a second track, where they discuss some of the challenges dictated by the production’s small budget (and a shooting schedule that was cut from 24 to 17 days), shooting in Canada, and a few funny anecdotes for good measure (apparently, Canadians are polite enough to ask someone if they want to fight in a bar, unlike us Americans, who just smash a bottle over a guy’s head and see how the chips fall).

We also get over an hour’s worth of making of material, split up into six parts. The usual areas are covered - conception, casting, production (two on that), music, and then the film’s premiere at Sundance - but they are above average thanks to an unusually dedicated crew (I’ve never heard of a composer doing so much for the film itself) and an emphasis on what actually goes on instead of talking heads kissing everyone’s asses. My favorite bit is a night of shooting in which they have 6 minutes to set up and complete two necessary shots before they are forced to leave the location (someone’s house). A 24-like clock occasionally appears to remind us how much time is left, and damned if its not as suspenseful as the film itself, despite the fact that we know the shot is indeed in the film. The Sundance bit is also great. Not only is Solet sitting on the (now replaced) seats at my beloved New Beverly Cinema during his interview segments, but it shows how hard-working he is when it comes to promoting the film; at one point he stops reading a rave review from CNN (or something, one of the big news orgs though) to hand out a flier for the film’s 2nd Sundance screening.

Now, I watched all of this on the Blu-Ray, and while I usually love Anchor Bay’s work (Children Of The Corn's transfer, for example, is flawless) I think they dropped the ball a bit here when it comes to delivering the high def quality you are paying extra for. Not only are the extras not high def, but they’re not even anamorphic! No one watching a Blu-Ray is doing so on a 4:3 set, so this is just inexcusable. The pieces themselves are put together quite well, it’s a shame someone in charge couldn’t match that effort in the presentation. And the film itself, possibly by design (though shot on film, I’ve never actually seen a film print of it), is a bit soft, lacking the detail that most Blu-Rays offer. It’s not a BAD transfer by any means - color tones are correct, contrast ratio is good, etc - but I doubt anyone would seriously be able to stop the difference between it an a standard DVD (especially if your DVD upscales, which many of them do nowadays). So while you should buy Grace, it’s up to you whether you feel the extra commentary is worth the extra 5-10 bucks or not.

One final note that was pointed out by Icons Of Fright’s Rob G - the extra features as presented on the disc are out of order. On the disc they are listed in alphabetical order, but the ‘correct’ order is the way they are listed on the back cover, starting with Conception and ending with Sundance. That way will take you through Grace’s entire “birthing” process, and thus tells a story of sorts.

Film score 8/10 (Uniquely uncomfortable “real” horror film that holds up to repeat viewings)
DVD extras 9/10 (Above average look at a difficult but high-spirited production)
Presentation 6/10 (Extras are not high def or even anamorphic, film transfer lacks that Blu-Ray polish)

PLEASE, GO ON...

Beware The Moon (2009)

SEPTEMBER 14, 2009

GENRE: DOCUMENTARY, WEREWOLF
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PROJECTED BLU-RAY)

If it were up to me, every film ever made would have a full length documentary chronicling its production and/or its legacy. Nowadays, we have EPK crews following a production every step of the way, allowing for some great fly on the wall type pieces such as what became Lost In La Mancha. But for older movies like American Werewolf In London, footage shot during production is comparatively scarce. Luckily, we have guys like Paul Davis to bust his ass and put together great retrospective documentaries like Beware The Moon to satisfy our movie-doc fix.

You don’t even have to love the source material to appreciate the dedication and execution of this film. In a world where you have a “special edition” of Fletch in which Chevy Chase doesn’t even appear in the extra features, it’s remarkable how many cast/crew Davis was able to assemble here. From the big players (John Landis, Rick Baker, David Naughton, Griffin Dunne, etc) to the minor ones (the corpses in the theater, various production crew), it seems just about everyone you can hope for that is still alive appears in the doc. The only curious exception is Frank Oz, who not only doesn’t appear, but isn’t even mentioned to the best of my recollection. Granted his role in the film is small (but important, since his character’s name is Collins!), but given his relationship with Landis, I was a bit surprised by his absence. Still, when the only notable exception is a guy who appeared in the film for about 60 total seconds, you know you’re dealing with a labor of love and, more importantly, a film that the cast and crew are still willing to talk about nearly 30 years later.

Like most docs of its type, the film deftly takes us through the film’s conception, pre-production, filming, editing process, and aftermath. But in a rather unique fashion, Davis literally walks us through the entire film from start to finish. His host segments are shot in the same locations as our characters, and he manages to stick to the usual template in relation to the film as it plays out in sequence (the runtimes are even pretty close to identical). So as David and Jack arrive at The Slaughtered Lamb, we hear Landis and co. discuss their arrival in London to begin filming. Given its legacy, it would be easy to make an entire film about Rick Baker’s transformation scene, or at least get to it ASAP, but it’s not until roughly halfway through the doc that the effects work discussion takes center stage, just like it is halfway through London itself that the scene occurs.

One minor quibble about this setup - the doc gets a bit clip heavy at times. Maybe it’s because we watched AWIL right before it (and I mean RIGHT before it, the Bev didn’t give us our usual 10 minute break in between the films for some reason), but I started getting a bit restless watching the scenes again. Obviously the clips are important to give context and such, but having just watched them, I wanted to get back to stuff I HADN’T seen yet. The doc is packaged with the new release (buy it HERE); I would suggest perhaps giving yourself a day in between viewings. Or, if you’ve seen the movie a million times anyway, skipping right to the doc to learn something new, which you almost certainly will.

Having never gone through the special edition’s extras or read anything more than a brief Fangoria article on the subject, I loved watching one of these things and hearing “new to me” stuff nearly nonstop. While the Halloween and Friday docs obviously had a few nuggets of new info, for the most part I felt like I was listening to things I already knew (Haddonfield is really Pasadena! Harry Manfredini literally phoned in half of his scores!), but that was not the case here. I never knew Baker was originally involved with Howling and left for London out of loyalty for Landis, or that Griffin Dunne was actually controlling his own puppet’s mouth during the theater scene, or a few dozen other tidbits that horror nerds like me love to hear. And Landis’ recollection of John Belushi’s reaction to a particular negative review is worth the price of admission alone.

As the film is a celebration of the original classic, the shit-tastic sequel American Werewolf In Paris is completely ignored (how I would love to hear the ever-candid Landis talk about it though...), which is fine, but I was hoping for a little more about the film’s on-going legacy. Maybe I’ve been spoiled by the Jason doc (and footage from the upcoming Psycho Legacy), but I would have enjoyed hearing from a few filmmakers (past or present) discussing how the film influenced them, even if briefly. Its impact is mostly limited to Landis pointing out that the reviews weren’t great but it has become well-regarded over time, which seems to be shortchanging it a bit. It even has its own (at least one) tribute song by Wednesday 13 (quite a good one I might add)!

But the only real drawback is that the film isn’t available on its own. Not only is it worthy of its own release, but I would love to hear about ITS production in turn (i.e. the process of finding/interviewing dozens of people, finding the shooting locations, etc). It’s an incredibly professional and well-constructed film, so I hope owners of the previous release find it in their hearts and wallets to understand that this is worth the upgrade (on standard def I mean; if you are a Blu-Ray owner, there’s no question that this is a justified double-dip).

And to Mr. Davis, if you’re reading this... now that you’re in good with Universal, I am curious: what are your thoughts on Shocker?

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (1968)

SEPTEMBER 13, 2009

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

While I am usually a strong advocate of watching franchises in order, I make an exception for the (loose) Dracula series from Hammer. I've seen so many goddamn Dracula films, I figure the best chance of any of them have at this point is to be watched on its own, without knowing what came before it whether I saw it or not, so I can have as much of a blank slate as possible. Indeed, after watching Dracula Has Risen From The Grave, I discovered that it was the 4th (of 9, according to the IMDb anyway) in the series, of which I have seen the first (Horror of Dracula) and second (The Brides of Dracula), but not in order.

Anyway, it's not a bad film, but it takes a while to get going. Drac (Christopher Lee) only appears for about 2 total minutes in the film's first 50 or so. Hell, the opening scene is set in broad daylight, which is just saying "Don't expect Dracula anytime soon!" And our new cast of folks aren't particularly interesting; it's pretty obvious to spot who is standing in for who here (they barely even try to change the names in some cases; the Mina counterpart is named Zena). Newcomer Veronica Carlson plays Lucy, er, Maria, and the Jonathan Harker wannabe is some dude named Paul.

But the real disappointment is the Van Helsing fill-in, a monsignor played by Rupert Davies. He's not a bad character in his own right, but he's a lousy sub for Dracula's greatest nemesis. Hell, the guy barely even interacts with Lee, and he is injured badly within seconds of their big "fight" scene and spends the rest of his scenes in a bed. The cool thing about Dracula movies is that there's always an equally badass guy fighting him (usually Van Helsing or one of his descendents) but this movie offers no equally compelling foil. Also, the film sets up a conflict between Paul and the Monsignor (Paul is an atheist), which would have been interesting if they actually teamed up (and thus had to put aside their differences), but it just boils down to the Monsignor essentially telling him to reconsider his faith.

Another interesting element that they don't really do much with is the fact that Drac's "Renfield" of sorts is a priest who is under his control. There's one scene where he needs to help Drac by removing a cross from his intended victim's neck, but he is unable to do it because of the good that is still inside him. The film could have used more stuff like this, instead of half-hearted attempts at a love triangle between Paul, Maria, and Zena.

The plot, to its credit, does add something kind of new to the mix. A large cross has been placed in front of the entrance to Drac's castle, so he can't go inside until it has been removed. But instead of doing something cunning to go about accomplishing this (which would be fine), it ends up being yet another Dracula story where a girl falls under his spell and spends most of her scenes in bed with conveniently large windows nearby. And would you believe a staking scene goes awry? You bet it does!

As the film began, I wondered aloud if it would be directed by Terence Fisher or Freddie Francis (it's the latter), and by the time it ended I wondered if Fisher may have been a better choice (according to the IMDb, he WAS the original director, but had to bow out following a car accident). When the story finally picks up, Fisher's strange reliance on colored filters distracts from the narrative. It would be fine if he just colored the scenes orange or red or whatever, but instead he just colors the SIDES of the frame that way. When the camera isn't moving it's not as bad, but it looks really stupid when the camera pans to follow a character and the red/orange space (with normal color in the middle of the frame) tracks along with them. I actually thought the film was damaged at first.

So I dunno, it's watchable and all, but there's so many ways it could have been better, and even back then, there were simply too many Dracula films for this one to really stick out. The "cross in front of the castle" plot is fine, but it's often lost in what is essentially a remake of the original story, albeit with far less interesting characters. Though I guess it was the first film to ever be rated by the MPAA, so there's something.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Haxan: Witchcraft Through The Ages (1922/1968)

SEPTEMBER 12, 2009

GENRE: DOCUMENTARY (?), RELIGIOUS
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

Undoubtedly the most unique HMAD entry, Haxan: Witchcraft Through The Ages is only a horror movie in the general sense (and in the sense that IMDb lists it as one, though it was also recommended by HMAD reader Garv), due to the subject matter (Witchcraft, Satan, Germany) and batshit presentation. You’d think with all the Grindhouse movies I’ve seen there over the years that I would have seen a baby being eaten before or several monsters climbing out of a woman’s vagina, but Haxan I believe was the first (it’s certainly the only one to offer both).

It also must hold the record for the most iris close/open “wipes” in film history. Sometimes you get three or four in under 20 seconds, as director Benjamin Christensen uses them in at the top and bottom of each shot of a particular sequence (there are a lot of montages that present examples of witchcraft via photos displayed in succession). This 1968 version is actually a bit reworked from its original 1922 incarnation, so I don’t know why he never reconsidered removing some of these in the 40+ years he had to give it some thought.

Other than that it’s a wonderfully strange and engaging film. I’ve already mentioned the baby-eating, but there are quite a number of on-screen elements that threw me for a loop, given the film’s age. You hear about how Hitchcock nearly got in trouble for showing a toilet in 1960, so you just sort of assume that everything before that was even tamer. But this movie offers up visuals that might get MPAAed into smithereens even today (the Devil suggestively churning better got many an uncomfortable laugh), not to mention some that are just plain... icky (fat guy, fat woman, love potion that works a bit too good.. you do the math). It also poses whether or not “possessed” or Devil-controlled people are simply suffering from mental afflictions, which is an area I wish to see more of in films (horror or documentary - both are fine by me).

I also dug the occasional stop-motion animation. This is obviously long before Harryhausen (but after Méliès), and it’s great to see such skill when cinema was still relatively new. It also blends fairly well with the live action stuff (all limitations considering, i.e. they didn’t have After Effects), which also impressed me greatly. The costumes/makeup effects are also quite impressive. Christensen himself plays the devil, and it actually looks better than half of the modern movies’ versions I’ve seen, as do the various demons and imps that are dancing about in every other scene.

Afterward I discovered that the film had a different version that ran nearly 30 minutes longer. But no footage was deleted; instead it merely had more title cards and a slower speed. The version I saw had new narration by William Burroughs, which is what replaced a lot of those time-consuming title cards. I’m all for that, but it also had a new jazz score that I hated. I’m not a big fan of jazz to begin with (there are far too few songs about Bats out of Hell and people experiencing Paradise in the vicinity of Dashboard Lights in the jazz genre for me to give it much adulation), but the score just didn’t fit at all. Ignoring the obvious anachronistic problems (don’t recall reading about jazz musicians grooving about during the middle ages), it just never quite fits the images on the screen. Thanks to Internet Archive, I was able to watch the original cut (with all the titles intact) that has the original score, which is obviously far superior. Unless you’re a big jazz (or Burroughs) fan, I think it’s worth the extra 27 minutes or so it takes to watch the original version. Ideally, the narration would be blended with the original score for the best of both worlds, but alas.

Regardless of which version you see, you’ll be a better horror fan for it. It’s nearly a hundred years old at this point, and yet it contains effects that still hold up, themes that are still explored today, and is undoubtedly the vision of one guy (as opposed to various producers and executives adding their own two cents to the narrative to justify their job, regardless of whether it even makes sense - which is pretty much all we get today). Plus, again - BABY EATING.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Drifter: Henry Lee Lucas (2009)

SEPTEMBER 11, 2009

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

With his 3rd serial killer movie (at least) in the past few months, I am starting to suspect that Michael Feifer is trying to win a bet with fellow serial killer churner Ulli Lommel to see who can make the most in a single year. But at least Feifer’s are watchable, so he’s got the edge there. Drifter: Henry Lee Lucas is, much like Bundy, a surprisingly decent movie, though it suffers from many of the same issues that that film (and BTK) did.

For starters, Feifer seemingly has a strong opposition to what some folks might call a timeline. His films always start at the end of the killer’s spree and thus the whole film is presented in flashbacks. But the length of time between scenes is always annoyingly unclear, and in some cases, I can’t even tell if we are back in the current time or if he is simply recounting another time that he was in jail (Lucas, like most serial killers, was imprisoned and let go or escaped at least once or twice before his final incarceration). In Lucas’ case, it KIND OF works, because Lucas lied about a great number of his kills and thus establishing a firm date for something that might not have happened wouldn’t make much sense. Still, it’s frustrating to never get a sense of context in terms of the characters. We see Becky and Henry arguing - have they been together for years or for months?

He also tends to gloss over the more interesting elements of the real case. Henry would confess to crimes he did not commit in order to get special treatment (some reports claim he would be given the security codes for certain offices in the police station where he was held), but this aspect is limited to him being taken out to buy cigarettes. They also don’t spend enough time on his insane upbringing, limiting it to a few flashbacks (within flashbacks!). But we get a full 3 minutes of him and Ottis Toole (“Plug it in!”) driving around and acting up on the freeway.

But otherwise it largely works. Antonio Sabato Jr is surprisingly strong as Lucas (though it’s a bit distracting how much he looks like Mark Ruffalo and sounds like Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain). My only familiarity with him stems from half-remembered episodes of Melrose Place circa 1995, so I don’t have too much of a sense of his range, but regardless - he’s quite good here. This is the first “real” Henry movie I’ve seen (Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer was very loosely based on the case and skipped Henry’s upbringing (and glass eye) entirely), and I suspect his take on the role will be the one to be judged against in the future. The other acting varies (grats to Feifer for managing to find an actress even MORE awful than the ones that played BTK’s family in that film), but Sabato Jr’s performance makes up for it.

It’s also largely accurate, compared to what (admittedly little) I know about Lucas. Where BTK seemed to be largely made up, this is more like Bundy - sticking to the facts. But also like Bundy, it perhaps works with too large a canvas, instead of focusing on one time in his life and making it really compelling, it sort of takes a fly on the wall approach to every major event from his documented life, rarely spending more than 2-3 minutes on an event. It’s like the "Cliff’s Notes" of Lucas’ life, which is fine if you don’t know anything about him, but those who have read a book or seen a CourtTV piece about the guy will likely get bored due to the lack of any real depth.

As always, Feifer provides an audio commentary, where he is joined by Sabato Jr. If you’ve ever listened to one of his other tracks, you know what you’re in for: he points out friends and relatives in (thankfully) small roles, plugs his other films every chance he gets, and points out shooting locations that he likes to use over and over, such as the one small stretch of desert road where Lucas has at least three different kill scenes. But it’s also sprinkled with anecdotes and discussions about filming a Texas-set period piece in modern day LA, so it’s worth a listen. A still gallery is also included, for people who can’t just hit pause when they see a frame from the movie that they particularly like.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...