Night Of The Zombies (1980)

JANUARY 19, 2010

GENRE: ITALIAN, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

I often bemoan the act of retitling Italian films for US distribution, because then I don’t know if I have seen it yet. That they are all so similar doesn’t help, it’s like they have a magnet-poetry kit with the words “City”, “Dead”, “Living”, “Hell”, “Zombies”, and “Night” (or “Nightmare”) and simply come up with different combinations. So as I was stewing at work for missing City Of The Living Dead, I discovered that it was actually Nightmare City, which I had seen just a few months ago. And I got out of work in time for Night Of The Zombies (Italian: L'inferno Dei Morti Viventi, but also known as Virus and, sigh, Hell of the Living Dead), which I most definitely had not seen.

Now, it’s a terrible movie in the conventional sense. The plot careens wildly around without ever becoming remotely coherent, there’s an abundance of stock footage that seemingly goes out of its way to not fit into the narrative (after we see some stampeding elephants, one of the characters advises the other to try to not make any sound since it’s so quiet and their position will be given away), and the characters are a terribly boring lot, largely stolen directly from Dawn of the Dead, except there are four officer types instead of two.

But through the magic of a full crowd at the New Beverly, it is, of course, a masterpiece. Each baffling plot turn inspires a bout of joyous laughter, each use of random stock footage is greeted with applause, and... well, the characters still suck, but when they die, it’s a glorious reward for all of us who have endured their nonsense for the past 90 minutes.

And nonsense it is. At one point, the most annoying of the group randomly puts on a tutu and begins prancing around like a jackass, despite the obvious danger around him (I like to think he is the cousin of the blood pressure obsessed goon in Dawn of the Dead). About 2/3 of the way through the movie, we are treated to a lengthy session of what I assume is supposed to be a crumbling UN, where all but one of the remaining consulates get up and leave once 5 pm rolls around (zombies or no, arbitrary shift end times must be observed). But the real raison d'etre has to be when the lone female of the group strips down and covers herself in “tribal” paint in order to distract the native zombies that are holding them up. It’s the sort of ridiculous, “why the fuck not?” moment that only exists in Italian horror movies, and would probably be parodied incessantly had the film not been so obscure.

But as obscure as it is, it’s almost a wonder it was released at all. The Wikipedia “production history” section for the film seems book-worthy, considering all of the production issues that arose (and those are just the ones that were reported - it was long before the internet and director Bruno Mattei has been dead for over a decade). Footage that had to be junked due to not matching the other footage, rewrites that weren’t reflected in the parts of the movie that was left intact, the stock footage... no wonder I didn’t really understand the plot (and I was sober!). I mean, it’s not exactly Southland Tales baffling, but suffice to say, I learned more about the story from reading the wiki synopsis than I did in the film itself, and others I talked to after the film seemed just as mystified by some of its plot points (such as what exactly the commando guys’ mission was).

Oh, and there’s an early scene where our commandos take out a group of terrorists, many of whom are unarmed when they are killed by our “heroes”. Along with the “outbreak” scene, in which we see the same shot of a control board with sequential green lights FIVE TIMES, set the tone nicely for the film that followed. I think having just watched Cemetery Man, in which the opening scenes are about zombies and the final third of the film is not, helped me appreciate this movie all the more. They tell you it’s a zombie movie in the first scene, and by god they keep it that way until the end, in which our heroine’s eyeballs are forced out of her head by the zombie hand reaching into her mouth.

In closing, I just want to once again reiterate my love for the movie-going experience and why anyone who tells me that digital downloading and watching things on your iPod is the way of the future is likely to earn my eternal scorn. Under any other circumstances, this movie would be unwatchable, but with the crowd, and on a somewhat scratchy but otherwise well preserved film print, it was the most fun I’ve had all month. People like to praise the convenience of things like Netflix instant, and I admit it’s a nice thing to have (it’s saved HMAD’s streak on several occasions), but it’s just that - a nice thing to have, not a replacement. And I can PROVE that it’s detrimental to the film - my first experience with the service was with the film Graduation Day, and I didn’t like it much. A year later, I saw it in a theater and had a ball. Yes, there are some inconveniences (parking, line-waiting, etc) and there might be a dickhead in the audience who can’t wait 90 minutes to check his Twitter feed, but Christ - if you truly love movies, then none of that stuff should factor into your decision to watch a blurry, possibly full-frame version of that film at home instead of seeing it properly alongside an appreciative crowd.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Cemetery Man (1994)

JANUARY 18, 2010

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

My introduction to Italian cinema came in 1995, when I bought a bootleg of Cemetery Man (aka Dellamorte Dellamore) from a mail-order company in TX (if memory serves). In retrospect it’s a horrible place to start, since zombies are pretty much a subplot (not a single one appears in the film’s final 25 minutes or so, for one thing) and there isn’t a lot of the unfiltered splatter that makes something like a Fulci film so much fun. And that’s probably why I didn’t like it much then, but when HMAD reader Samantha recommended it I realized I couldn't remember a damn thing about it.

Well, all but one thing, which is part of why I didn't like it when I first saw it: GIANT NEEDLE INTO PENIS SCENE. As a maturing 15 year old, that was the most horrible and upsetting thing I had ever seen in my life (and still is, I think), and I had no desire to see it again. In fact, as I sat down to watch it tonight, I realized that it was the only thing about the movie that I could recall. I couldn’t even remember why I didn’t like it much, and I never even got the usual déjà vu that accompanies a viewing of a “forgotten” film when I take another look at it 15 or whatever years later. You would think that the horribly cheesy “fireflies” (with strings more visible than the flying saucers in Plan 9 From Outer Space) would leave an imprint or at least ring a bell, but nope. I spent half my viewing tonight wondering if it was even the film I had seen.

Then the goddamn penis needle scene came up and I knew for sure.

Anyway, it’s still not one of my favorites, though I do appreciate its ‘out-there’ approach and emphasis on character and (intentional) humor over typical zombie action. I just wish it was structured differently so that the zombies would still play a part in the 3rd act. Not necessarily a big action finale, but SOMETHING. Kind of weird to think that if someone were to come in late and only see the last 30 minutes of the movie, they wouldn’t even know it was a horror film.

But it works as a comedic romantic fantasy drama... thing. The recurring appearance of Anna Falchi (good lord, this woman) in different roles (or are they) keeps things charmingly strange, and I love the character of Gnaghi, who “hates to see dead leaves blown away”. At times it feels more like a Jeunet film than an Italian zombie flick, and having seen so many, I think it’s the better for it. The irony, of course, is that the zombie movie stuff is interesting as well, and worthy of its own dedicated story, instead as a sort of segway to the romantic/existential stuff that Michele Soavi is more interested in.

For starters, the zombies come back after seven days, and our main character (Rupert Everett - whatever happened to this guy?) is a cemetery watcher who helps keep it under control. There’s a quick throwaway bit where he is checking off which graves have been taken care of (i.e. shot in the head so that they won’t return), and some humor about the paperwork needed to continue his duty... stuff like that, coupled with a full blown zombie movie, would be pretty fun, I think, and more importantly, would feel fresh, instead of the usual “trap everyone in a location” type execution. I mean, Christ, Soavi has the balls to include a scene where the zombies are all boy scouts (!), but you could almost delete the scene from the film without any consequence. Again, weaving the zombie stuff throughout the film instead of front-loading it, I think, would have resulted in a more solid (and accessible) film.

Splatter fans will be disappointed for sure. Most of the zombie kills are entirely bloodless, and only the rare human kill has any arterial action. The makeup effects for the zombies aren’t particularly exciting either, and some of them talk, which I never care for. I suppose there’s some irony that one of the more celebrated zombie movies has such minimal zombie action, but it’s still bound to disappoint some who think they are in for a visual feast. Again though, it’s not that the movie is bad, but I wish that whenever the film was heralded that it would include a little disclaimer. “Warning: This movie has as many goddamn fireflies as zombies.”

The disc’s only real extra is a 30 minute retrospective about Soavi and the film. Rupert’s nowhere to be seen, but Falchi (who is even more alluring now, if you ask me) and some others offer their thoughts, detailing the film’s inception and a bit about the (aborted) attempt at a remake during Everett’s quick stint on the Hollywood A-list. Soavi also reveals that he initially couldn’t even finish the source material because he didn’t get it, so I don’t feel too dumb for not understanding the ending (are they in a snow globe? Was the whole movie a dream?). A bio for Soavi is also included, as is the trailer, which sells the film as more of a Dead Alive style romp. There is also a curious trailer reel, as it focuses entirely on the small set of other FOX/Anchor Bay co-distribution releases. So instead of the newest Evil Dead release or Hatchet or whatever, we get Freaked, Bad Dreams, Visiting Hours (!), and something called Warning Sign, which looks sort of like Chosen Survivors to me, except with some sort of bio-monster instead of bats. It also has a hilarious voiceover where the guy says the tagline and the title of the movie, and then randomly adds “Sam Waterston. Kathleen Quinlan.”, but without saying “Starring” or adding the director or the MPAA rating. It’s like he just started reading the credits and they cut him off. At any rate, I now know that there is a horror movie with Sam Waterston, so I’m excited.

The package also includes a “8 page” (fuck you, it’s 6 - covers don’t count!) booklet with additional info about the film. AB used to include these things all the time, but haven’t bothered lately. Hell, they don’t even include a single sheet with the chapter names or maybe the original poster reprint like all studios used to provide. Enviro-friendly action, or another example of how DVDs became the standard and thus the studios dropped a lot of the added incentives to buy them? You be the judge.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Blade II (2002)

JANUARY 17, 2010

GENRE: COMIC BOOK, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I'm a big fan of most comic book movies. I'm a big fan of Guillermo Del Toro. And I'm a big fan of things that look like vaginas. So why did I find Blade II to be such a boring film? I thought the first one was fun, if nothing special, but with the talent (and bigger budget) on hand for the sequel, I felt comfortable thinking it would be superior, or at least equal. Sadly this wasn’t the case, and all I got out of it was saying “Well, now I can watch the 3rd one.”

See, Blade II came out at a time when I was busy on a student film, as well as very broke. So I missed a lot of movies I otherwise would have seen on opening night. Then it came out on DVD when I was trying to save up for my upcoming internship (and this was before Netflix, or at least before I was a member), so I didn’t get it then either. I finally picked it up in 2004, because I knew the 3rd one was coming out and wanted to catch up. So I bought it, and put it on one night, got about 20 minutes in, and proceeded to sleep through the entire thing, occasionally waking for maybe a minute or two. I don’t think I ever even saw the characters played by Matt Schulze or Karel Roden. I think I caught Perlman snarling at one point, but I can’t be sure. At any rate, what I saw didn’t impress me much (I wasn’t as bad with my dozing off back then - if I slept that much it was because of the film's quality), and had little interest in re-watching it. And, suffice to say, I skipped Blade: Trinity in theaters (though that was more due to the poisonous word of mouth).

But having time for a two hour movie today, I figured I would give it another chance. I’d become an even bigger fan of Del Toro in the meantime (my only exposure to him at the time I originally tried to watch Blade II was Hellboy and Devil’s Backbone - which is still my favorite of his films) and with all of the more traditional vampire movies I’ve watched for HMAD, I figured I would appreciate the change of pace (i.e. action over romance). Sadly, this was not the case - I stayed awake this time, but I remained bored throughout most of its running time.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a well made film. The budget isn’t as big as other Marvel efforts, but it’s all up on the screen. Effects, most of the acting, all fine. It’s just a fucking bore. There is a reason Blade never got his own on-going series (even one of the limited series got canceled halfway through!) - he is simply a one-note and thoroughly uninteresting character. He only goes after vampires, his personal tragedy doesn’t seem to affect him the way Uncle Ben’s death affects Peter Parker (if anything it just seems like the creator’s way of giving him cool powers and explaining away any potential plot holes), and the villains lack the “gray area” element that makes someone like Magneto (who wants his kind to be accepted) or even the friggin’ Lizard (a scientist who became a victim of the research he was using to try to grow back a missing arm) interesting enough to watch during the non-action scenes. Hell, I don’t even know exactly what it is that the bad guys in this movie were trying to accomplish, but there sure as hell wasn’t anything really noble about it.

And the movie is 115 minutes long but they tell you everything in the first reel. The bad vampires approach Blade to seek his help in taking down the even worse vampires (not the worst plot, honestly), and almost instantly, Blade says that he thinks it’s a setup. And guess what? It is! But it takes another 75 minutes or so to get to that point. It would have been far more interesting to set up the betrayal as an actual surprise, and maybe have a few moments where a vamp saves Blade’s life (or vice versa) or they bond or whatever. But no, the part in between these two scenes is pretty much two overlong action scenes (test audiences actually complained that the film had too much action!), and Blade disappears for large chunks of each as we focus on the “bad-but-not-AS-bad” vampires like Perlman and Tony Curran.

Of course, the exception is a woman vampire, which is a subplot that is as painfully generic as they come. Blade of course hates all of the male guys, but he has a soft spot for her, protecting her, making sure she’s OK, and even letting her drink his blood when she is injured. So Blade’s not gay, that’s about all that these scenes accomplish. Again, it would be far more interesting to see him either A. treat her, a perfectly sexy woman, with as much contempt and hatred as he gives the rest of them, or B. have him bond with one of the males on a personal level (maybe they were both turned against their will or whatever), which would at least add a layer of depth to the guy beyond “dude wants to fuck”.

The action scenes also go on for so long that they too become boring. Sure, I like watching a vampire explode/melt into ash as much as the next guy, but after I see it 5 times in the first sequence I’m kind of tired of it. And the scene where they track the bad ones around a night club is not only a bit reminiscent of the Blood Club in the original, but it goes on FOREVER, to the point where I started wondering if the film was going to play out entirely in this one location, after the initial set up, like The Rock or whatever. The next long one (in the sewers) is a bit better, as they introduce ridiculous things like UV light bombs and (briefly) have Blade and Ron Perlman’s character fighting side by side instead of engaging in their generic chest-puffing (which is as far as it goes - the two never really fight; their big showdown is about 4 seconds long), but it’s also repetitive and in dire need of editing. And Blade’s fighting is as dull as his character - he just spins around a lot, makes a lot of “whoosh” sounds whenever he does anything, and keeps his sunglasses on and his head pointed down at all times. I actually began longing for an Underworld style shootout, just to mix it up a bit.

I was also a bit disappointed how little of Del Toro himself showed through (though apparently all of the vagina-esque visuals were his idea). Even Mimic had more of his signature style and personality. I kept expecting the villains to reveal some sort of magic powers or something, but nope. Apart from a brother-sister dynamic that was also present (and far more effective) in Hellboy II, and a couple of the cast members (Perlman, Roden, Luke Goss), there’s nothing here that really feels distinctively Del Toro. And his reliance on CGI here was a bit disappointing; granted the technology wasn’t where it’s at today, but still - why did he use a CGI ninja instead of hiring an actual martial artist who could somersault and fight? The “character” is wearing a mask for Christ’s sake, it’s not like they couldn’t find a convincing look-alike to double for the actor.

Then again, maybe he was overruled on certain things. Unusual for any film, let alone a big budget production based on an existing property, both the film’s star and its writer were also producers on the film. Thus, it wouldn’t surprise me if the film was the result of too many cooks spoiling the broth. Some evidence of that appears on the commentary by Snipes and Goyer, where they occasionally point out things Del Toro wanted that they vetoed (or let him do it and express confusion as to why its there). And the only reason I chose this commentary over Del Toro’s was because the two men would go on to hate each other on the next film, to the point where Snipes sued Goyer over the direction it took (can’t blame him - the film underperformed, Snipes hasn’t had a theatrical release since, and Goyer went on to co-write the Batman movies with Chris Nolan), and you can already sense some minor animosity between the two (Snipes doesn’t seem to want to do the commentary at all, and gets a bit perturbed when Goyer indirectly suggests that Snipes isn’t the only reason that the films were successful). Add in the likely demands of Marvel, and New Line, and it’s a wonder the film even makes sense.

There’s a 2nd disc full of stuff, but I haven’t had time to check it out yet. Maybe I’ll get around to it and update, but since the film was well-made and it obviously did well at the box office, there isn’t likely to be anything on there that would interest a non-fan (i.e. no tell all documentary where everyone bitches at each other for the film’s faults). I’m in the minority on this one it seems, and that’s fine. But if you are a fan and are in the dark, there’s at least three hours’ worth of stuff on there to enjoy, plus the other commentary by Del Toro and one of the 5798 producers.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Shattered Lives (2009)

JANUARY 16, 2010

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

Like last year's (for me) Frayed, Shattered Lives owes a bit to the original Halloween, but in a way that I found refreshing instead of annoying. It's not a perfect film, and it gets a bit too melodramatic in its third act, but it's a step in the right direction for independent filmmakers seeking to put their own stamp on the slasher film, which is of course the most over-mired subgenre in all of film history, not just horror.

Spoilers ahead!

Instead of copying Halloween's structure, Shattered Lives merely finds a way to put a spin on its opening shocker (that our killer was a little kid) that actually works. After an opening slasher (and fairly splatter-y) segment, the film details Rachel, a girl of maybe 6 or 7 whose mind is cracking under the stress (for lack of an age-appropriate word) of her parents' failing marriage. She starts conversing with two imaginary clowns (living embodiments of two of her dolls), and they eventually convince her to stab her mother, in a scene that actually managed to shock despite being set up for at least 20 minutes prior to its occurrence. And there are other little references to Carpenter's classic, such as a scene played out through the eye-holes of a mask, or the 2.35 image (very rare for these things). But that's why a film like this works when something like Offerings fails - it obviously owes a debt to Halloween, but in a way that feels unique. Whereas some films seem like the director watched Halloween and took a few notes while saying "I can do this", this feels like the product of a filmmaker who saw Halloween as a kid, loved it, and is paying homage to it (possibly even subconsciously) when he goes off to make his own film years later.

I also dug the balls of Carl Lindbergh to start the film off with his biggest setpiece and then more or less present a character based psychological drama for the next 75 minutes. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the overlong and rather pointless hyper-edit replay of the opening massacre that comes near the end of the film was the result of a producer or distributor demanding more "action" in the finale. Not only that, but we discover the nature of the killings, which adds another layer of tragedy to it. It's interesting, early this morning (12:01 am to be exact!) I finally saw the French film Irreversible, and that film also shows us a brutal killing, and then later tells us why it occurred. It's not quite as justified here as it was in Irreversible, but it's the same sort of thing, playing with our ideas of violence.

Another ballsy move? Creating the most hateful mother I've ever seen in a film. Seriously, the mom from Baby Blues is a better mother than this (four letter word I shouldn't say but is really the only one to use here). She takes her daughter to the park so she can make out with her paramour (she even lets the kid watch) and then later has the guy over the house with her daughter there (dad's at work)! Then when the dad surprises her with plane tickets to Hawaii for just the two of them, she starts bitching at him for that too. At one point she even gets angry because her husband loves their daughter "differently" than he loves her. Uh, I think there are laws about a guy loving his daughter the same way he loves his wife, so that's sort of a good thing on his part. She also threatens to leave and tells the girl it will be her fault if their marriage ends. Honestly, it's amazing it took two rhyming and imaginary clowns to convince the girl to stab this bitch.

Ah yes, the clowns. They don't really do much beyond look creepy and rhyme, but they add a layer of quirky originality to the film all the same, and even though they get annoying, they are a huge part of what keeps this movie afloat. In fact, there are a lot of odd little moments throughout the film, such as when the girl has a tea party with her dolls and Lindbergh provides closeup cutaways of each one. Or the fact that the family's refrigerator inexplicably has a painting of a rooster on it. It extends to the technical side of things as well; the aspect ratio occasionally changes to 4:1 for some reason (yet it doesn't appear to be an anamorphic error - everything we see is scaled correctly).

The DVD has no extras, which is a bummer as I would have liked to have listened to Lindbergh talk about the process of making his film (which he wrote, directed, produced, and edited) and maybe explain why his child actor (who isn't the best in the world, honestly) looks nothing like her parents (though the grownup version does look a LOT like the mother, to the extent that I was momentarily confused). And of course, verify my beliefs about Halloween, cuz if it was just coincidence I'd feel really bad for chalking these moments up to homage instead of creativity. At any rate, it's more than just a notch or two above the usual indie junk LG puts out, and I look forward to Lindbergh's next film Bunnyman, despite the fact that it sounds a lot like a concept I had been cooking up recently. BUT maybe in 20 years I can make my movie and then some movie reviewer can theorize that I was influenced by Bunnyman. That'd be funny.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Martin (1977)

JANUARY 15, 2010

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

During a recent screening of Knightriders (which I had never seen) I was embarrassed as a horror nerd to realize that I wasn’t sure what John Amplas looked like, as he was the film and I knew he was the star of Martin. I had started watching the film back in high school, but as was often the case with me, I fell asleep watching it and never went back to finish it (I used to go to school all day and then work all night at the mall, so sue me!). Of course, seeing Martin didn’t really help, since Amplas played a guy who was always in clown makeup in Knightriders, but hey, at least now I’ve filled two gaps in my Romero exposure.

It’s kind of sad that Romero can’t get a film off the ground these days unless it has zombies (and even those he can barely get released), because Martin (and Knightriders, for the record) are really unique and interesting movies, unlike pretty much anything else I can recall. Even though his zombie films are usually a little off the beaten path, they are still zombie movies with a lot of the usual zombie movie trappings. But with Martin, I had no idea where the movie was going even as it was winding down, and even when I was occasionally reminded of other films for whatever reason (Cannibal Apocalypse kept coming to mind; John Morghen’s character’s arc in that film was similar to Martin’s at times), it never felt like a direct response to a film that had come before. And more importantly in these days of remakes and ripoffs, I never felt like I was watching a film I had already seen a dozen times due to seeing the films that “paid homage” to it (you know, like if you see House of 1000 Corpses before you saw Texas Chain Saw Massacre). It’s its own thing through and through.

The great thing about the movie is that it never quite provides a definitive answer as to whether or not Martin is indeed a vampire. I lean towards no, but the film works even if you think he is (provided you accept that a lot of the traditional lore doesn’t apply here - i.e. he goes out in the sun and such). His flashbacks could indeed be flashbacks, or they could be movie-infused hallucinations. Or some sort of reincarnation memory (like, his ancestor WAS a vampire but he is not). I always enjoy these sort of interpretive movies, and I could see myself giving it another look in ten years and having an opposing theory. That said, since I DO think he was just a fucked up kid (and Romero says the same on the DVD extras), I think the movie could have used a scene of him watching a vampire movie. Certainly enough of them were in the public domain that it could have been affordable (even with this film’s pitiful 80,000 budget), and I don’t think such a scene would have been “too telling” or whatever. If anything, it would have helped the argument; maybe he was watching it to get ideas, maybe he was just amused by its depiction of his nature. Then again, the movie was once 160 minutes long (cut down to 97 minutes almost instantly; the “full” version no longer exists) so maybe there was a scene like it originally. Just seems odd, any “he’s just confused” theory will point out that these black and white flashbacks are the result of a kid having seen too many movies, but for all we know he doesn’t even watch TV.

I also liked how abruptly it ended, giving even American Werewolf In London a run for its money in this category. However, as is the case with many Romero films, there is a little coda of sorts that plays over the end credits, as we listen to the radio show that Martin frequently called during the film as the host wonders why he hasn’t called in. And we hear this over footage of his uncle burying the poor sod in the garden. Heh.

The DVD has some nice features, including a commentary with Romero, Tom Savini, composer Donald Rubinstein, and DP Michael Gornick. There are some gaps, which is odd as there are FOUR guys in the room, but it’s a good track with lots of great stories and anecdotes. I only wish Romero had done one solo or at least felt comfortable saying something that didn’t include the others, as the story and themes are hardly addressed at all. Technical talk makes up the bulk of the insight, so if you’re looking to know more of where he got the idea or why there’s a drug deal scene in the middle of the climax, you’re out of luck. You WILL, however, learn the pros and cons of certain cameras and editing systems. There is also a retrospective with the four men (where the hell is Amplas?), where Savini admits the blood looks awful (“like melted pink crayon”) and Romero talks about how depressing it was to see dying Pennsylvania towns in the 70s like the one where they shot the film. Then there’s an overlong trailer and a TV spot, and some other trailers for other Lionsgate releases (this is back before they would force you to watch them at the top of the disc). As I thought it was a barebones release, all of this stuff was a nice surprise, though I almost missed the commentary track, as it is buried in the setup menu. DVD designers - a commentary track is a special feature, and doesn’t belong in the set up page. No one looks in the set up menu unless they are watching the film and discover that the audio is inexplicably set to French mono.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Slaughter Of The Vampires (1962)

JANUARY 14, 2010

GENRE: VAMPIRE
SOURCE: NETFLIX (INSTANT VIEW)

Hey, filmmakers - stop doing the "Dracula" story. Don’t do it straight up, don’t contemporarize it, don’t put it in fucking space, and CERTAINLY don’t just rip it off, like Roberto Mauri did for Slaughter Of The Vampires (Italian: La Strage Dei Vampiri). At least if it has “Dracula” in the title I know what I’m in for, but here I sit down to watch what I think is a different take on the vampire story, and after a half hour, sure enough, the vampire has fallen in love with the new love of a well-to-do man, and he has to team up with a doctor to save her from the vampire’s spell. There’s no Renfield, but that’s about as close as they get to mixing things up once the story kicks into gear.

And it’s a shame, because it DOES start off differently, with the townsfolk chasing some vampires and taking them out, and then there’s a couple on their honeymoon, and a nice dance... it’s not the most thrilling movie ever, that’s for sure, but at least I didn’t think I had seen it 47 goddamn times already.

All that said, it’s not bad as these things go. It’s only 75 minutes long, so it’s not a heavy investment, and every 5 minutes or so, something peculiar or laughable occurs, providing the energy for me to get through the entire thing without feeling like I had entered a time warp. For example, the doctor examines a guy who had been attacked and straight up prescribes him a “nice glass of beer”. Thanks doc. And I also enjoyed the occasional laziness in the screenplay, such as when someone needs a blood transfusion and the doctor just tells a woman to “get blood from the townspeople”. Uh... don’t you need to know his blood type, at least, let alone theirs? Or is the entire town Type O? Or is the screenwriter assuming that the audience gets the jist and doesn’t need details, sort of like when a guy in a movie goes into a bar and just orders “a beer”?

The laziness applies to some of the filmmaking too. The girl gets bit on the neck and then two scenes later we can clearly see that there is no bite mark. And when the vampire dies (spoiler!) they do one of those “let’s just fade in and out to different stages of his decomposition” things, but they move the camera around so much in between shots (and change the position of the corpse) that it’s damn near impossible to tell what is going on. In fact, the only way I DID understand it is because I had seen it done in so many other movies. There you have it, a film where you need to see other movies to understand it, but will then be bored by it because all it’s doing is copying other movies.

I also noticed something that puzzled me a bit. Like a lot of old films, you can see the “cigarette burns” on this home video release, which means that when the film showed theatrically, that would be where the reels needed to be changed. But they come awfully rapidly in this film; I think I counted three in the first 20 minutes (which would normally be the amount of time for one). So I started suspecting that maybe I was watching an edited version, but I can find no evidence to support such a thing - by all accounts, the movie was always 75 minutes long. Weird.

I also got to thinking - why doesn’t Dracula or his simulacrums ever fall for poor women? It’s always some broad with ties to the local higher-ups, and she lives in a mansion and all that. I guess its so they can get that cool shot of the vamp entering her window - WHICH IS ON THE SECOND FLOOR!!! Scary!! But then, why not set it in a slum, like Cabrini Green or whatever. There we go - Dracula On Chicago Avenue. He could fall for a hooker and the gangs could get all noble and fight him off to save her. Of course, that would be yet another Dracula movie, so even if they made it I’d be pissed off at having to watch another goddamn Dracula movie, so don’t bother on my account.

Well, whatever, it’s mildly entertaining (and female lead Graziella Granata is quite sexy, for what it’s worth) but not very good, and the generic Drac riffs keep it from being worth anyone’s while, unless you are the world’s biggest "Dracula" fan and have a compulsive need to watch every single film that uses Stoker’s story as a guide. Then by all means, seek out Slaughter Of The Vampires!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Fear Of The Dark (2002)

JANUARY 13, 2010

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, TEEN
SOURCE: NETFLIX (INSTANT VIEW)

I think it should be a rule that if your movie shares a name with an Iron Maiden song, then that song should be played over the opening and end credits, and maybe during a few other scenes at random for good measure. Especially in a movie like Fear Of The Dark, where nothing much is happening and you know for sure that the only two people in the movie won’t ever actually get hurt. A little Maiden goes a long way.

Anyway, the movie isn’t all that bad, but I had to keep reminding myself that it was intended for children. I’m sure if I was 12, when I was more susceptible to fear (and not knowing what the word “susceptible” meant), I would have been pretty scared and telling my friends at school how awesome it was. But now that I’m damn near 30, I had to settle for merely admiring certain aspects of it, giving it the benefit of the doubt for its cheesy ending, and promptly forgetting everything about it as soon as it ended.

One admirable aspect is the acting. Both Jesse James and Kevin Zegers have impressed me in other films, and they do so here. Even with the thin plot and occasionally awkward writing (James and his mom have a relationship that borders on flirtatious), they create real characters, so that by the 3rd act, when the 16-ish Zegers is hiding under the sheets with his brother because he’s afraid of the monsters in the closet, you actually believe that he’s scared, and like him enough to almost hope that the filmmakers never grow a pair and actually hurt/kill him.

And even with the thin plot and the fact that the whole movie takes place in a not-very big house, it feels shorter than it is. It gets a bit repetitious at times (lot of “why did that light go out?” “OK I’ll check it out.... (2 min later) It was nothing!” type stuff), but I was never really bored, and was surprised to see that 50 minutes had gone by when I thought it was more like 30. In fact, it reminds me of the movie Clownhouse, except without the actual threat of murdering clowns. In fact, Clownhouse itself only “works” on me as an adult due to the horrible backstory causing the creepiness; the actual movie, I now realize, is just as repetitive and back-loaded as this one.

By back-loaded, I mean yes, there are actual monsters in this movie, oddly enough. I legit thought it was all building toward an “it’s all in his head” (or worse, a dream) thing, but nope. For whatever reason, his house is being plagued by some legit monsters that can be killed with the light (this movie pre-dates Darkness Falls, for what it’s worth). I just wish that they did more, and did it sooner. It’s almost built like a surprise for the ending that there IS indeed something to be afraid of in this movie. You look at a movie like Halloween, where it’s similarly playing on childhood fears (the boogeyman) but there it was never any question that there was a real threat. I think the reveal should have been moved up and allowed for a more exciting third act.

I also think one of the monsters should have gone RRAAAAAAAARGHHHH! and beheaded the annoying girlfriend character who shows up in the second half. She’s played by that one non-superhero girl from Birds Of Prey (if you remember that show), and her appearance slows the movie down considerably. I figured she was fodder, so I was willing to accept the diversion. But sadly, she survives, so that’s some major BS right there.

Mostly though, I just like the idea that they made a horror movie for kids and more or less deliver the message that there ARE monsters in the closet and under the bed. Enjoy the added therapy bills, parents!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

(Lesbian) Vampire Killers (2009)

JANUARY 12, 2010

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

With a cover so shamelessly ripped off from another movie (Zombieland, to be exact), I thought for sure that Vampire Killers (aka Lesbian Vampire Killers) was an Asylum release. But nope, it was actually from Dimension Extreme! Since they have a slightly more dependable output, I hoped that, if nothing else, it would amuse me for 85 minutes and not make me wish I was back in that decrepit, empty theater watching Transylmania.

And it didn’t! It’s not a good film at all, but it lived up PRECISELY to my expectations: I was mildly amused and I never once wished I was watching Transylmania instead. But that’s about it. It’s only been a few hours and I’m already hard-pressed to recall anything about it beyond what I wrote in my notes, and if someone were to quote a line from the film I doubt I’d be able to recall the reference.

Part of the problem is that it spends so much time homaging other movies that it never has the time to have its own identity. It starts off like Shaun of the Dead (British slacker gets dumped, finds solace in a bar with his chubby, rude best friend), then dips into American Werewolf territory (they hitchhike their way to a local bar and are not welcomed by any of the patrons), before finally settling for a mix of any number of horror comedies, including Buffy (slacker learns his birthright is to slay vampires), Fright Night (young dolt teaming up with harried expert), and Evil Dead (lot of excessive bodily fluid gags, a cabin in the woods, etc). Add in the usual “straight” movie references (Star Wars) and the (admittedly cool) Hammer look to the final half hour (graveyards, fog machines cranked to 11, etc), it’s a wonder that they even bothered coming up with the original title instead of just calling it “Vampire” or something.

One thing it DOESN’T really deliver is lesbians. I’m sure the title change had more to do with possibly offending some folks, but I often wondered if they had cut the movie along with the title (IMDb claims there was an 88 minute cut at one point - anyone know the difference?). They are referred to as lesbians, and they fondle each other ever so slightly every now and then, but really, the video for "I Would Do Anything For Love" has more R-rated action in this department. In fact, other than language, the film as a whole is rather tame - no blood (just white goo - unless this is supposed to be jizz in which case the movie is disgustingly R rated), no nudity, not even any real explicit violence. The big bad vampire just gets a sword to the chest.

Speaking of jizz, the film’s most original gag is that the only sword that can kill the main vampire has a handle that is shaped like a penis. It’s a funny sight gag (as are some of the followup gags, such as the hero’s reluctance to grab onto it), but I was a bit puzzled at what this may be suggesting - the only way to stop a lesbian is with a cock? Did Banky write this movie? Or am I reading too much into this nonsense.

And I don’t know who thought it would be funny or helpful or necessary to have onscreen captions for every location, but they aren’t any of the above. Especially when they repeat - it’s been 5 minutes since we last saw it, do we really need to be reminded that Fletch (awesome name by the way) is in the McClaren graveyard? Christ, even Fringe lets us use our noggins every now and then when it comes to labeling establishing shots.

So I dunno, if you haven’t seen too many horror comedies then you will probably enjoy this one, but nearly everything in it has been done before, and better, so its of little use to horror fans. And the DVD doesn’t even have the trailer (it DOES have an unusually long and somewhat out-of-date spot for Planet Terror though - huh?), let alone real special features, so I certainly wouldn’t suggest buying it. It’s the movie free rental days were made for!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Don't Look In The Basement (1973)

JANUARY 11, 2010

GENRE: EXPLOITATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL (literally!)
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

It’s at least once a month that I have the “You REALLY watch a horror movie a day?” conversation with someone, but it’s rare that I am having it while in danger of blowing my streak (which is at around 1050 days right now). But that’s what happened last night, as a friend was grilling me as I was nervously checking my watch, having not yet watched a movie and seeing no tell-tale signs of the gathering being brought to a natural end. So I had to duck out early in order to get home and pop in Don’t Look In The Basement before the dreaded 11:59 PM deadline. I hope you folks appreciate this!

Luckily it’s a pretty good movie. Made on the cheap (and quite quickly) to cash in on Last House On The Left, it’s sort of like a better Dr Tarr’s Torture Dungeon, with an “inmates running the asylum” scenario, except without all the boredom (and Shakespearean nonsense). Christ, this movie offers up two deaths before the opening credits! And one of them was clearly seen by someone involved with Friday the 13th Part V and then copied for Joey’s murder at the hands of Vic, so I appreciated seeing that scene’s cinematic father.

They don’t do a very good job hiding the twist though. I called it early on, and then spent half the movie wondering if it was even supposed to be a twist and I had simply missed the scene where this plot point was clarified. On that note, I think Jack Sholder’s Alone In The Dark was influenced by this film as well, with the colorful inmates and the place being run by someone just as batshit.

I particularly liked how, even though it was a Last House cash-in, the film wasn’t particularly unpleasant. When the sweet and slightly naïve young nurse shows up to work there early on, I expected the worst (i.e. a rape) but the folks there are legitimately insane, not cold-blooded criminal psychopaths. One guy is a simple giant with an affinity for popsicles, one’s a batshit old lady who speaks in babble, one’s an older guy convinced he is still working as a judge, etc. No Krugs or Weasels here.

The film’s quickie production carries some problems, but nothing too damaging. There’s a subplot about broken phones that is way too padded (to the point where its not even remotely plausible), and the twist only works if you accept that our heroine is a complete idiot and horrible job researcher. There are also some bits of dialogue that only exist to explain what is happening in the scene due to primitive special effects, such as when the girl stumbles upon a woman whose tongue had been cut out and helpfully shrieks “Your tongue’s been cut out!”

The ending is a knockout though. The twist is revealed, the patients get their revenge, and then the “hero” patient gets his own revenge on the “villainous” patients. And then: bliss, as the end credits put the actor/character names over shots of their corpses when applicable. What a wonderfully mean-spirited and awesome thing to do. Also, if I were to fall asleep watching the film at the Bev, this particular set up would spare me from having to ask friends if/how certain characters died. I could totally fake staying awake!

The DVD is a horrid relic from the early days of DVD (1999), with nonsense being thrown on it to make up for the fact that it really had no effort whatsoever. “Movie Trivia” is simply a few filmographies for the primary crew members, and the “Preview reel” is as random as they get (Bird With the Crystal Plumage and Gorgo?) without having a trailer for THIS film. And the transfer is a full frame offering from a VHS source. Luckily (?), the film is being potentially remade, so if that comes to pass, I’m sure we can expect a new release. (or should I say, a BETTER release - there are multiple releases already, since the film is apparently in the public domain, but they all seem to be the same bad transfer). Director S.F. Brownrigg has unfortunately passed away (at a fairly young age - anyone know what happened?) but the film was written by Tim and Thomas Pope, who went on to direct The Crow 2 and write The Manitou, respectively. Love to hear those guys talk about it.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Second Chances: Pandorum (2009)

JANUARY 11, 2010

GENRE: MUTANT, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: SEPTEMBER 2009 (THEATERS)

As I predicted, Pandorum plays better on a 2nd viewing, and additional bonus points are awarded for watching it at home, where the confined air duct scenes feel more, well, confined. I’m still not entirely sold on the mutant scenes, and I think the Cung Le character should have been excised entirely (why are there TWO badass fighters on this ship?), but overall I was enjoying the film much more for what it was this time around, instead of being bothered by what it wasn’t.

One thing I definitely appreciated more this time around was the film’s rather simple plot, albeit with this huge backstory (Daybreakers also follows this path). The movie is basically about a guy trying to start up an engine so another dude can open a door. Sure, there are mutants spawned by a reaction to their cryo-chamber feeding tubes, and the destruction of Earth, and the titular mental condition that is causing one of our main characters to suffer the indignity of playing out one of cinema’s most overused and lame twists, but we learn about all of these things along the way, as our hero makes his way to flick a switch (sort of like how LOTR is just about a dude tossing away a ring). The similarity to some recent video games (Dead Space primarily) actually makes this more apparent and admirable - so many games extend their length by making you carry out ridiculous missions that don’t really make any sense that you might actually forget what the overall goal is, but that’s not an issue here.

I also enjoyed the sort of ballsy decision to trust a big budget sci-fi movie in the hands of Ben Foster. This isn’t like when Johnny Depp made that Nick of Time movie and left all of his quirkiness behind; this is the same sort of tweaky, off-kilter Foster performance we’ve come to expect, and it helps give the film its own identity even when things get sort of generic (mutant scenes). Even though I don’t care much for the character, his “conversations” with Le are hilarious, because Foster’s baffled expression has the sort of realistic feel that is often missing from these sort of scenes.

Also on Blu-Ray, 1080p Antje Truae. Nuff said.

(I know this would be a good place for a screenshot, but I can't do that with my Blu-ray player. Sorry.)

The Blu has a bunch of the standard features, but they are mostly worth a look. There are close to 30 minutes’ worth of deleted/alternate/extended scenes, many of which I think should have been included in the final film. In the film, technically inclined folks might notice a lot of awkward edits, and more often than not you will see the scene played out as intended in this section (no explanation is given for any of the cuts, but I assume the bulk of them were for time, as the film is longer than average as is). The only one you should skip is the final one, which is sort of a deleted ending that makes no sense whatsoever. Director Christian Alvart and producer Jeremy Bolt also provide an audio commentary, where some of these scenes are mentioned. They also reveal that the film was indeed a combination of two separate (but similar) scripts, which might explain the sort of unfocused feel. Then there’s a short video that details what happened to Truae’s character’s team, and another that’s a commercial to join the film’s flying program. The making of is rather useless, however, as it’s too short to be insightful but it also spoils key plot twists, which makes it lousy for promotional purposes as well. The only thing about it that caught my attention was the fact that producer Paul WS Anderson was nowhere to be seen in the piece. Since he was the one doing all of the promotion for it at Comic Con (Alvart was out of the country), it’s odd that he didn’t offer up a few words for the DVD. I now suspect his appearance at Con was primarily motivated by his desire to start drumming up interest for his Resident Evil sequel (which got announced the day Con started it - SHOCKING coincidence!).

The audio and video are superb. Anchor Bay’s blu-ray output is pretty much always stellar, and this is one of their rare new (and big budget) releases, so fans are in for a treat in the video department, especially during the brightly lit climax. The audio, however, is even better - it’s been a while since I’ve heard such an active surround mix, with the ship’s “dying” sounds and scurrying mutants constantly emanating from the rear channels. And my system is hardly worth bragging about, so I can’t imagine how good it looks/sounds on a top notch LED display with full 7.1 sound (I only have 5.1). It may not be a perfect movie, but it’s definitely worth watching, and if you’re a good horror fan, you should be supporting Anchor Bay’s blu-ray output so that they continue to pursue it for their library titles (Halloween 4, for example!).

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Xtro 2: The Second Encounter (1990)

JANUARY 10, 2010

GENRE: ALIEN, CRAP, MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

There are a number of films that were disowned by their creators that I happen to like (Valentine is one, off the top of my head), so Harry Bromley Davenport’s dismissal of Xtro 2: The Second Encounter wasn’t really too much of a red flag for me. But 89 minutes later, I realized he was right on the money - this movie is a stunning bore, without a single good kill or even enough “so bad it’s good” moments to make it worthwhile.

Davenport also said that the film had no relation to the original, but I assumed he was exaggerating and that it simply didn’t have any returning characters. But no, this movie hasn’t even the slightest resemblance, which has to be a first (and last) for a movie that was filmed as a legit sequel (as opposed to say, a retitled Italian movie). The alien is no longer a parasite inside human forms; instead it’s a combination of a Chestburster from Alien and a Pumpkinhead from Pumpkinhead. And they keep mentioning an incident in Texas, but the first movie took place in London, so it actually feels like a sequel to a different movie entirely. Davenport said that he didn’t have the rights to the story, but I don’t think merely saying “London” instead of “Texas” would have caused him any legal trouble. Besides, since the film rips off Alien and Aliens at every turn, shouldn’t he be more worried about getting sued by Scott/Cameron?

But sequel continuity or not, it’s a wretched film from the first frame. The effects are terrible, and apart from the odd chest-bursting ripoff shot, none of the kills are shot/edited properly; you see a guy scream and then it cuts to someone throwing blood on the wall (I’m waiting for the movie so shitty that you actually see the crew member throwing the blood). Some are put together so poorly that I couldn’t even tell what was happening; there’s an elevator shaft scene where the Xtro seemingly plummets onto a guy and then they both fall down and get sliced up by a big fan (in an elevator shaft?), but I didn’t understand that until someone clarified it later. From my POV, the Xtro puppet fell, a guy screamed, and then someone lit a frozen turkey on fire and threw it at a fan.

In a way it’s sort of the prototype Sci-Fi original movie, the type that cluttered the 90s and early 00s before they switched to Bulgaria forests. You’ve got the underground base, the team of commandos, the has-been lead (Jan-Michael Vincent, whose past popularity remains a mystery to me), a bunch of crappy actors who inadvertently look the roles they are playing (lab techs, blue collar folks, etc; a Hollywood production would have amazingly beautiful women as lab techs, these broads wouldn’t be allowed within 50 yards of a Bruckheimer production), and a plot that is stolen from other movies. Character development is limited to a single adjective description (the “asshole”, the “funny guy”), or in some cases, a role from a better film (Nicholas “Krycek” Lea’s character, for example, is simply Michael Biehn’s Hicks with shittier dialogue).

I was entertained precisely twice during the entire fucking thing. At one point, a character informs “Dr. Shepard” of his plans to blow open a hatch, which made me think about Lost for a few minutes instead of paying attention to this movie. The second is when I realized that the main girl was also the mom in Silent Night Deadly Night. And thus, the phrase “Silent Night Deadly Night star’s career plummets” was born. Thanks, Xtro 2.

There’s a third one as well, which Davenport claims is his favorite. While I hardly doubt that it’s better than the first one (by all accounts, Xtro 3 doesn’t have circus animals or a naked Maryam D’Abo), I have to believe it’s better than this, so maybe I’ll check it out someday. I’m in no rush though.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Long Weekend (1978)

JANUARY 9, 2010

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

Ironically, my wife decided to watch (most of) Long Weekend with me instead of going to the recycling center as she often does on Saturdays (something I requested as the designated “cardboard” bin was overflowing). So instead of doing her part to save the world, she watched a horror movie about the world getting revenge on two assholes. I was hoping that would scare her into going, but no. She went to yoga while I played Dragon Age (which is awesome but hard - goddamn bot teammates don’t know how to use their good attack spells!). If a koala or some sort of sea creature eats her today, she will regret her decision I am sure.

Anyway, I love the concept for this movie, and most of its execution (more on that later). Sort of like Frogs, it’s about how the world can strike back at annoying humans via its large selection of animals and sea creatures. A possum bites our hero’s finger, a massive spider-web seemingly traps the heroine’s car, and a goddamn eagle bites a presumably innocent truck driver, distracting him and causing him to mow down one of the protagonists (oddly, the 1st of two movies I watched today - the other being Knightriders - that features the film’s main character getting nailed by a giant truck out of nowhere). There’s also a possibly-not-as-dead-as-they-thought dugong (“Sea cow”) whose “corpse” keeps moving closer to their camp.

And of course, they are unhappy, so most of the non-horror scenes concern the two of them bickering over pretty much everything. Usually filmmakers try to keep it even in terms of who is the “bad guy” in their trouble, but its no question that the wife (Briony Behets) is the bigger pain in the ass here. She complains about going, she complains about staying, she snaps at the husband (John Hargreaves) for turning off the radio while she was clearly asleep (“I was LISTENING to that!” she says as she wakes up), and she tries to convince him that their dog is dead so that they can leave without her (it had merely run off).

However, she’s not as much of a villain to the environment as he is. This guy is a real piece of work. Tosses a cigarette into the brush, throws glass bottles into the ocean (and then shoots at them), chops down a tree for no reason (he admits this!), litters... It’s amazing it takes Mother Nature so long to get back at the sod. He’s also a bit of a moron, instigating not only the possum but an obviously angry dog later on.

The only slightly negative aspect is that it gets a bit repetitive/slow. Since there is no actual villain per se, the movie is almost over before they realize that they’re in actual danger. There’s a local guy who gives them the evil eye early on, maybe the screenwriter (Everett De Roche, which wasn’t a surprise as this is, after all, an Australian horror film) should have brought him into the story as a red herring somewhere around the 50 minute mark, just to break up the monotony a bit. It would also work as a sort of reveal for nature; we as an audience know how much trouble locals can be for vacationing city folk, so to see him be relatively harmless in comparison to what the earth could do to them would be kind of cool I think.

The DVD has my favorite execution of a bonus feature ever: an audio interview played over the still gallery. Both things are fine to have, but listening to an audio interview over a still of the actor gets dull. Likewise, no one wants to look at pictures set to a loop of the score. So presto: they combine them, and you get 2x the entertainment value in the same amount of time. There’s also a commentary by the producer and the DP, but it’s very dry (nearly 20% is about using Panaglide/Panavision) and their voices are a bit monotone, so go with caution. There are some good tidbits here and there, of course, but many have been repurposed for the IMDb trivia page anyway.

In closing, I just want to pose a question: does anyone ever have a relaxing vacation in Australia? It seems like going there is merely the world’s most elaborate (and expensive) suicide mission.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...