The Occupant (1984)

MARCH 23, 2010

GENRE: ASIAN, COMEDIC, GHOST
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

I was delighted to see that Brian Quinn’s Grindhouse Festival would be holding another Hong Kong-centric night just on principle, but even moreso that the horror-based film of the two, The Occupant (Ling Qi Bi Ren) was screening first. The horror one tends to go second more often than not, which means I fall asleep. And these movies are so obscure, I can’t go back and fill in the gaps with a bootleg DVD or even clips from Youtube. One of the previous entries didn’t even have a cast listing on its IMDb page!

The Occupant is directed by Ronny Yu and stars Chow Yun-Fat though, so it has some semblance of a reputation. And it’s also far more coherent and even slightly commercial compared to the others I have seen in this series. The anything goes/kitchen sink style of stuff like Seeding Of A Ghost is not really present here; logic occasionally takes a vacation, but there are no jaw-droppingly batshit WTF moments (there were plenty in the 2nd film though, more on that later!).

Hell, I can even describe the plot without any trouble! It’s about this girl who travels to Hong Kong to do her thesis, and the apartment she rents is haunted by the ghost of a pop singer who killed herself after a spat with her married lover. She is aided/hindered by two would-be love interests, a cop (Chow) and the nerdy realtor, whose attempts to hook up with her border on stalker-ish at times (but he’s so goofy that it never comes off that way). So you got this cute little love triangle, presented in the usual slapstick-y Hong Kong way, and then you have a pretty traditional “Why am I being haunted and how can we stop it?” plot (again, with some 80s silliness). Even the translation was less amusing than usual - nothing really egregious, just the expected typos (“Sonatabitch” was one favorite).

It was great to see Chow in a lighter role. I’ve only seen a few of his films, most of which are hard action movies, so it was nice to see him play a romantic, somewhat comical lead. It reminded me a bit of Chevy’s role in Foul Play, in fact, or maybe something Ryan Reynolds would play nowadays. In fact, I think the story could make for a great US remake, casting some of the Apatow folks in the leads (Rudd in the Chow role, maybe Jonah Hill or Jay Baruchel as the realtor?). High concept, big laughs... hell, Judd’s crew supposedly wants to do Ghostbusters 3 - just do an update of this movie and spare yourself the expectations.

Oh, and I dunno if it was intentionally vague, or if I was just reading into it wrong, or maybe it was poor editing, but there’s a scene early on where the heroine hears some lovers arguing next door, concerning the male leaving his wife. It seems to me that she was hearing the ghosts of the dead folks, but if so, that’s never clarified. Subtlety in one of these movies? Never!

It certainly wasn’t present in the 2nd film, A Tale From The East, which was as batshit as they come. After an opening text crawl that rivaled Alone in the Dark’s in terms of being overly long and complicated (several cards went by before I even had time to read them in full), we are treated to a couple who are hosting a BBQ in the woods at night (?), and they stumble upon a guy who comes out of nowhere. Meanwhile, a pair of electricians see a guy eat another man’s head, fight him for a while, and then find a little girl, who they bring home and then serenade with a song about the costs of certain snack foods. See what I mean about the other movie being a lot easier to describe?

I dozed off and on through this one (damn you, Pabst!), but I got the jist of it. It was more action packed, for sure, but it felt a bit familiar, as if it were combining elements of Seeding and Encounters of the Spooky Kind. Great finale though - as our characters run around a water slide (both with and without water running) and toss mystical children around. And the film contained what could be the key line for every one of these things I have ever seen: after saying something about (food I think?), another character replies “Don’t just say things at random!”. Lady, saying (and doing) things at random is the very backbone of Hong Kong cinema!

Speaking of which, the trailer reel had a bunch of American trailers for Asian imports, such as Rumble in The Bronx, Operation Condor, Black Mask (“starring Lethal Weapon 4’s Jet Li!”) and The Killer. It’s a shame these films don’t get wide releases any more (even John Woo’s latest film, Red Cliff, only played in a handful of screens), but it’s an even bigger shame watching Jackie do his thing in these films, compared to the shit he does now like the recent Spy Next Door. I remember being blown away by his stuntwork in Rumble In The Bronx (my introduction to Hong Kong films, I believe - and hardly one of his best films, I now realize), but his subsequent American films (the Shanghai ones were the last straw for me) resulted in my not bothering to watch his stuff anymore. I gotta fix that, even if its just re-watching his American dubbed edits (I remember liking Operation Condor a lot). I don’t think I ever saw First Strike or that one where he was the cook. Maybe I can convince the New Bev to dig up the New Line/Dimension prints and show them sometime. Jackie in his prime cannot be contained on a TV set!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Tell-Tale (2009)

MARCH 22, 2010

GENRE: HERO KILLER, REVENGE, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (STORE RENTAL)

Have you ever watched The Crow and thought: “This would be better if, instead of Eric coming back to life, they took his heart and gave it to a guy who needed a new one, and then that guy got all of the revenge for him”? If so, then Tell-Tale is the movie for you. Beat for beat, it’s the same damn movie, right down to the final battle being against a guy who wasn’t directly involved with the murder of him and his wife. Four bad guys, a helpful cop who buys into the supernatural aspects of the situation rather quickly, lots of POV flashbacks to the murder... it’s kind of astonishing.

But it’s a watchable, fairly decent movie at least (unlike any Crow sequel). The crime doesn’t really make a lot of sense once the truth about it is revealed, and the final “twist” is just grim for the sake of being grim, but it’s engaging and fast-paced, and offers more characterization than we usually get in these sort of revenge films. Josh Lucas is a good choice for the role; like Cary Elwes back in the day, he’s at best when playing “grey area” characters instead of full blown heroes or any sort of villain. Here, he’s the guy you’re rooting for, but he’s also murdering folks in cold blood who technically never did him any wrong. If it was Brad Pitt, you’d never think much of his murdering ways. Likewise, if it was, I dunno, Peter Greene, you’d spend the whole movie wondering why he wasn’t in jail. Lucas toes the line between sympathetic and intimidating perfectly.

And you can’t go wrong with Bryan Cox as the weary cop who seems to be supporting Lucas’ vendetta (you know, like Ernie Hudson). Cox has played so many villains, it’s great to see him in a more sympathetic role (and funny as well - the film is rather cold and clinical, but he earns a few chuckles with some throwaway dialogue here and there). Lena Headey is also on board, but as with most of her non-action performances, she seems to be a bit mis-cast. Plus, a beautiful, successful woman - why is she seemingly desperate and lonely? Not saying that all beautiful and successful women should be married/engaged by default, but it would help if they could offer some explanation for why Lucas is her only option.

Now, the big selling point of the film is that it’s based on the Poe story, but it’s a very flimsy connection at best (he’s not even mentioned in the credits; no “Based on the short story by Edgar Allen Poe” or whatever). Basically, it’s about a beating heart (and it’s set in Rhode Island) but otherwise has no discernible relation to Poe; it’s about as much of a “re-imagining” of his story as Untamed Heart. And I might be wrong (been years), but I thought the “beating” in the Poe tale was in the guy’s head, however there is no other explanation for it here - the heart has possessed Lucas and is leading him to the guys who killed its owner. Some ambiguity in this department might have improved things.

Speaking of Rhode Island, one thing I really liked is that there were a lot of visible Massachusetts plates in the movie (even on a car that plays a big part in a certain scene). It added some realism - in RI, you WOULD see a lot of MA plates, something that usually escapes set decorators. It’s a nice little detail, though I might have missed it entirely if the transfer was any worse. For a company called Genius, they seem to be kind of dumb when it comes to transferring for Blu-ray. Everything is way washed out; actual black doesn’t appear anywhere in the film, just bluish gray. Details aren’t the best either - for the first time in the 3+ years I’ve owned my TV, I actually fiddled with my picture settings in an attempt to make a particular disc look better. I haven’t watched it yet, but I hope to hell they didn’t do this bad of a job with Halloween II - the movie was practically ALL black, so I don’t want to be looking at a murky cloud the entire time.

There are no extras whatsoever on the disc, not even a trailer (making the poor transfer even more frustrating - it’s not like they didn’t have room on the disc). The compact length (90 minutes) and “huh?” worthy producing team of Ridley and Tony Scott would suggest there was plenty of deleted footage and behind the scenes stuff, but I guess not.

Good rental though. It’s a serviceable thriller with a few good performances, some odd quirks (is this the first horror/thriller movie in which a little girl suffered from a rare bone disease that I can't even begin to try to spell correctly? I think someone was watching House, M.D.), and some occasional shocking violence for the gorehounds. I won’t remember a thing about it in a week or so, but I didn’t hate myself for watching it either. Your call.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Pumpkinhead (1988)

MARCH 21, 2010

GENRE: REVENGE, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

I actually have seen Pumpkinhead before, on a very dark “EP mode” VHS copy (taped off of Cinemax, if memory serves) when I was 11 or 12. So come to think of it, I have never SEEN Pumpkinhead. Hell, I don’t even know if I was able to see the (way creepy) shot of Pumpkinhead’s face starting to resemble that of Lance Henriksen, which is pretty much the point of the movie. In fact, the only thing I thought I remembered was incorrect - for some reason I thought Lance’s son in the film was handicapped. But I wouldn’t consider thick glasses a handicap; if not for contact lenses I’d have to wear glasses thicker than the windows on the Popemobile.

I also had a vague recollection of it being somewhat disappointing; one of many 80s films where the concept was better than the execution. I still feel that way, though I certainly enjoyed the film more now than when I was a kid (which wasn’t much, hence why I never watched it again). The monster is terrific, as is the fog machine drenched final 20 minutes, when Lance goes to right the wrongs as Pumpkinhead lumbers about. But it’s got a few problems getting there.

For starters, the movie is too damn short. If you remove the credits, you have a movie that’s under 80 minutes long, and that includes a rather unnecessary prologue (gives away Pumpkinhead’s appearance - should have been saved for later. See: well, any of the movies (Pumpkinhead director) Stan Winston did the effects for). Lance begins regretting his decision instantly; I think it would be more interesting if he enjoyed his revenge at first (not unlike Jeff in Saw III, also looking to punish those responsible for his son’s death). Perhaps the “psychic link” that causes Lance to change his mind should have been more gradual, so that it didn’t really hit him full blast until the 3rd or 4th death. It also makes his character seem a bit ineffective - he tries to stop it after the 2nd, but 3 more get it before he finally succeeds.

Also, the group isn’t very interesting or well developed, even though they sort of become the main characters. I guess we should like Tracy because she’s nice to Billy, but that’s about all there is to her. Worse, it’s kind of odd that there’s really only one asshole in the group (the one who actually hit Billy with his bike), and his death is no more graphic/satisfying than any of the others. If I was writing this, I’d actually have Lance himself kill the guy at the end, or at least let him die while trying to save the others. It’s unclear if Lance tries to stop it because he realizes that vengeance is not going to bring his son back, or if he simply feels bad for having a giant monster kill a bunch of largely innocent folks. Christ, the guy who stayed behind to keep the kid company and tell Lance what happened gets it first!

But it works as a weird fairy tale horror. The basic sentiment behind the whole thing is fine, it’s just awkwardly played out. And again, the monster is amazing in both design and execution - Tom Woodruff was/is one of the best movie creature performers, as he also played the Alien several times, as well as Gillman in Monster Squad (sadly, guarantee they’ll go to Doug Jones if they do a remake, that is if they go with a man at all. Our luck he'll be CGI). Winston may spoil his appearance too early, but he’s a good enough director to keep him from being overused where it counts; not a lot of shots of Pumpkinhead just wandering around like in the latter Jason/Halloween films.

And Lance is awesome. He didn’t get to play a heroic lead very often, and that’s a shame. You really feel for the guy even before the kid is killed, because you can tell he’s trying to make the most of his rather crappy life for the benefit of his son, and that’s something that wouldn’t have been apparent with a less capable actor. Hell, at one point he gets bullied by Buck Flower (!) and yet remains honorable. I’d hang my head in shame for life if Flower, best known for playing bums and winos, got the upper hand on me during a business transaction. I also liked seeing Brian Bremer as Bunt, the hick kid who tries to help the “cursed” foks, mainly because I only know of the guy from his creepy androgynous role in Silent Night Deadly Night 5. Mayim “Blossom” Bialik pops up somewhere too, according to the credits, but I didn’t spot her (she’s one of the other hick kids).

The movie has been on DVD for a while, but again since I didn’t have the fondest memory of it, I never picked it up. However, I understand the bonus features are well above average, so maybe I’ll check it out after a while. Being one of ShockTillYouDrop’s midnight screenings, some special guests made up for my lack of behind the scenes observations: Screenwriter Gary Gerani and producers Billy Blake and Richard Weinman were on hand to talk a bit about the film’s production, but as things were running late it was rather brief (no audience questions!). Apparently there is a new comic series coming out, and one of them (Gerani I believe) mentioned that they are actively looking at new ways of keeping the character alive, or some jargon that basically said “Don’t be surprised if a remake gets announced before the end of the year”. While I don’t usually think remakes of films less than 25 years old are necessary, I can definitely think of ways the story could be improved, and in the right hands I think we can get a Pumpkinhead film that improves over the uneven original.

What say you?

P.S. I know you love the movie and think I’m nuts for finding it lacking in certain areas. My apologies. I’m sure I’ll feel exactly the same way you do on the Sci-Fi Original sequels once I get around to watching them.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dead Calm (1989)

MARCH 20, 2010

GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: NETFLIX (INSTANT VIEW)

Any doubts I had that Dead Calm was a horror movie were squashed when Nicole Kidman, chased by a deranged killer on her boat (that alone should qualify it, no?) fires a harpoon at the door, only to kill her dog (who, we had learned earlier, was smart enough to open doors). As she goes out to inspect, Billy Zane jumps out from behind another door, not unlike Michael Myers busting out to kill Bob in the original Halloween.

Plus, the film’s two death scenes are as exploitative as you can get (three if you count the poor dog, whose carcass is left pinned on the door). In the first, Kidman gets into a car crash, which results in her young son flying out of the windshield (from the back of the car) and sailing through the air in slo-mo. Usually such scenes are presented rather tastefully (with a horrified parent’s look, or maybe the kid’s balloon floating away), but this? I could practically hear the New Beverly Grindhouse Night crowd cheering and laughing. And (spoiler) Zane’s death involves his head being immolated by a signal flare, though I wasn’t surprised to learn that this was a studio demanded addition after preview audiences balked at the original, more ambiguous ending (it is unclear if the same preview audience demanded to see a toddler smash through a windshield and soar like eagle).

Otherwise, it works as a pretty decent, if somewhat pace-challenged thriller. The individual suspense bits are terrific, such as Sam Neill pumping his sinking boat even as the water level reaches his neck, or the numerous scenes of Kidman doing something sneaky (you KNOW Zane will eventually catch her in the act, but the film offers so many such moments, you’re never sure which ONE he will interrupt). And the limited cast sort of spells out the dog’s doom from the second he’s introduced, so you’re always tense when he’s on-screen, knowing that he’s not long for this world.

But everything moves a bit too quickly. Zane gets on their boat claiming to be a survivor of a ship that’s about a half mile away (sorry, KNOTS - though I haven’t a clue how many), but Neill is immediately suspicious and takes off to investigate. And Zane attacks Kidman a few minutes later. Sure, we know he’s crazy, but I wouldn’t have minded seeing him play victim for another few minutes, or at least offer a one on one scene between him and Neill (something we don’t get at the beginning OR the end of the film - if not for the reshoot, Zane and Neill would never share a scene after the film’s first 20 minutes).

Even more troubling is when Kidman allows Zane to have his way with her (she’s even on top at one point!). Again, it comes too quickly (heh) but it also doesn’t even seem particularly necessary - if she was trying to distract him away from something Neill was doing, it would be one thing, but at the time Neill is simply trying not to drown. A kiss and a flirtation is one thing, but full blown lovemaking seems a bit ridiculous. The film is based on a novel by Charles Williams, and I am sure it makes more sense there - maybe some Stockholm Syndrome had settled in, or she was just mentally troubled by the death of her son and wanted to “feel SOMETHING!”, but whatever the case it just seems gratuitous at best. On that note, the death of their son also seems to be a non-factor in the proceedings. Unlike Antichrist, the loss doesn’t seem to have disrupted their marriage (another thing that would have made the lovemaking scene a bit more plausible) - the two seem to get along fine. And when the dog dies, it doesn’t seem to really effect her to lose another “child”, but her rather blasé attitude about it doesn’t seem like a side effect of her being “numb” after the kid’s death. Whether Kidman’s performance was lacking or simply something not on the page, you could honestly cut the entire opening 10 minutes out of the movie (and just start with them on the boat) and it wouldn’t make the slightest difference. Nice to see her assets back when she was still attractive though (i.e. before she got plastic surgery and began to resemble a creepy motion cap character in a 3rd rate PS2 game).

Zane is a delight, and it’s a shame he didn’t get to play more psychos (this and Demon Knight are the only ones that come to mind; he’s the “villain” in Titanic, but there he’s just an arrogant prick). I wish we could have seen more of his “home movies” with the people on the boat, or, again, some battle of wits stuff with Neill, but it’s not a storytelling flaw in this respect; I just enjoyed his scenery-chewing when he got the chance to do it.

It’s equally bumming that Philip Noyce never really dipped into horror/thriller territory again (unless you count Bone Collector, but who wants to be reminded of that?). For a movie that takes place entirely on a small boat, he manages to make it visually interesting throughout, and I loved some of his off-kilter editing choices. For example, early on, when Neill has figured out Zane is up to no good and tries to get back on their boat, we stay with Neill (in a dingy) as he approaches his boat. As he pulls alongside, we see Kidman and Zane engaged in a brawl in the background. Most directors would cut to a closeup of them fighting, with lots of edits to make it seem more exciting, but Noyce sticks with Neill - it’s a cool little moment.

Speaking of Neill - the guy doesn’t age. This movie is from 1989, which would make him 42, but if I had to guess he only looks about 5 years younger than he does in Daybreakers (filmed in 2008). If he and Kidman were to remake the film today, their characters would seem like they were the same age, instead of what looks like at LEAST a 10 year (actually 20!) difference here (another missed opportunity - Zane seems more Kidman’s “type”, but it’s an aspect left unexplored).

I have to mention the music. It’s fine for the most part, but composers Tim O'Connor and (or?) Graeme Revell tosses in these breathing sounds over large chunks of it, and they sound ridiculous (especially when used in a scene where the character is indeed gasping for breath - I thought the film was just horribly out of sync at first). Needless to say, I would not be buying the rare import score for this movie at a horror con.

Over the past 20 years, we’ve certainly seen a number of terrific claustrophobic thrillers, and I would put Dead Calm in the middle of the pack. It’s not a complete home run, like The Descent is, but the characters are likable and for the most part, the concept is plausible, unlike say, Black Out. Changes aside, I think for once that reading the book first would help - you can project all of the character development into the film and make it a little more interesting psychologically. And be spared the nonsensical, “supposed to be upsetting but it’s more just comical” image of the kid playing Superman.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Fun Park (2007)

MARCH 19, 2010

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

After a “long wait” that turned into a “no longer available” on my Blockbuster queue, I was happy to find The Fun Park among the many titles available dirt cheap at a closing Hollywood Video. I long for a good amusement park slasher, or at least one that’s as decent as Tobe Hooper’s Funhouse (itself no classic). But after a promising start, Fun Park gets duller and duller as it goes, and ultimately ends up faring only somewhat better than Dark Ride (something that shouldn’t take any effort whatsoever).

The main problem with the film is the script, attributed to one screenwriter (director Rick Walker) but three story creators. I’m not sure if the multiple go-nowhere plot threads are the result of hasty re-writing, or if they were simply half-assed plot elements thrown in for padding/“character development”, but either way they’re a big part of what sinks the movie. It’s one of those movies that starts at the end, with the lone survivor (Jillian Murray, the film’s best asset in that she’s very pretty AND has my support for being a part of Mass Effect) of an alleged massacre at the titular locale telling her strange story to cops and a kindly female psychiatrist. We learn her character has a shitty life - her mom’s an addict, her dad is a question mark, her dreamboat boyfriend is going off to college, likely without her, etc. So you’re probably thinking - and they seem to be suggesting - that she’s delusional and simply killed everyone herself.

SPOILER!

She didn’t. The killer clown did. In fact, there is no seeming reason for the flashback structure, other than, I guess, not bothering to try to derive any suspense out of Murray’s character’s fate, since any horror fan would know she was safe right off the bat. There’s an opening text that’s very much like Texas Chain Saw’s, but if you recall, that one didn’t specifically say that Sally survived (if anything it hints she has died as well). The only reason for such a structure is to pull a High Tension and say she killed them all, or was at least in cahoots with the clown, or SOMETHING. But no, it ends as typically as one could expect.

The shrink has some needless baggage too. It opens with her in the shower, crying and experiencing her OWN flashbacks concerning her miscarriage. Later, her investigation puts her in direct contact with the guy who knocked her up, but once this relationship is established it’s never relevant or even mentioned again. Nor do they bother trying to draw any real parallel between the two women - both have suffered loss and all that, but so much time is spent on the fun park stuff (scenes that don’t have the shrink, obviously), the two never really develop a real relationship, which makes the end (where they end up living together, apparently) all the more awkward.

But the real killer (heh) is the lack of using the setting well. For a movie about a killer clown at a fun park, there are remarkably few scenes set in or even around the rides. We see a ferris wheel, bumper cars, etc. but other than a quick scene on a carousel, the characters never interact with the attractions. Instead, they dick around an arcade for a while and then the killer takes them to a standard basement dungeon you can see in hundreds of other, largely better horror movies.

And then, the final nail in the coffin. Because this is a mid 00s horror movie, the killer can’t stalk and kill his victims and then move on. Nope, he has to chain them up and fuck with them for a while, making them watch each other get maimed. And Walker substitutes quantity for quality to an excessive degree - we actually get a (not exaggerating) FIFTEEN MINUTE scene of the clown cutting off their faces and smacking them around while they’re all chained up and painted as clowns. Even the most die hard fan of Hostel and Rob Zombie’s movies would probably get bored by this sequence before it was even halfway over, and the fact that the actual setting (you know, the one in the goddamn title) has nothing to do with it makes it even more excruciating.

Not helping matters is Walker’s schizo direction. Frequent, unmotivated zooms and camera shifts are the order of the day, with even casual conversation between two characters shot in migraine-inducing “Bourne Identity Wannabe Cam”. He also tosses in super impositions and grainy super 8 flashback footage throughout the film, not unlike Natural Born Killers, but without the skill or even narrative significance. All of the stuff about broken childhoods (the clown is a victim of a domineering, insane mother - the subject of many of his own flashbacks) never pays off in any meaningful way.

And it’s a shame, because the elements are all there. The cast is personable (though the stoner character is WAY over-stoned, to the point where actual stoners might be insulted), it looks like it cost more than its reported million bucks, the HD look is quite good, looking sharp and colorful despite a lackluster transfer (non-anamorphic, more on the DVD’s shortcomings later), and the clown is an imposing, somewhat creepy figure. The clown makeup is quite good in fact - and it’s worth noting that the “messy” look he has (and gives to his victims, another cool touch) appeared in this film, shot two years before the release of The Dark Knight. And as I said a while ago, it actually starts off strong - for the first 30 minutes or so, I was enjoying it quite a bit (despite the camerawork). Its faults lie not in its basic ideas, but in their execution, or lack thereof.

Even the DVD is puzzlingly incomplete. Not only does it not provide a scene selection, it doesn’t even have chapter breaks! If you doze off, or (for some goddamn reason) have a favorite scene, you have to fast forward from the beginning of the film to find it, like a VHS tape (fitting, as VHS tapes, instead of DVDs or even mini DV tapes, are seen several times in this not even 4 year old film). Weirder, all of the bonus features are listed on the main menu instead of on a “Special Features” page. There’s a feature called “The Story of The Fun Park”, which suggests it will be about the true story behind the film (according to the blurb from Movie News Flash (?) on the back, it’s based on a true story. On that subject, it also has raves from Yahoo News and Premiere, but I can find no review of the film from any of these outlets), but it’s actually just about the cast and how much they like the location. "Behind The Scenes" is 3 minutes of the eponymous footage, sans any sort of insight or even cohesion - it’s just a bunch of random, largely inconsequential clips. Ms. Murray’s audition is a nice inclusion, as its followed by the scene she reads as it appears in the film, which you don’t often see. And then there are some outtakes, none of which are very amusing (I really should just stop watching these things). All of the bonus features have full end credits sequences, which is odd, as usually such things just have a copyright date. Odder still, the film’s caterer is specifically credited with their own card on each feature. The outtakes and audition were catered? Oh and there are some typos too (“Wanye” instead of “Wayne”), the surest sign of half-assery. In short, save for maybe the audition, skip all of them.

Hell, skip the movie too. Watch Texas Chain Saw Massacre for the millionth time and The Funhouse for the 2nd or 3rd, back to back, and you’ll have a better time.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Invisible Man Returns (1940)

MARCH 18, 2010

GENRE: REVENGE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Often hailed as Vincent Price’s “first horror film”, The Invisible Man Returns is not really a horror film at all. First of all, the title is wrong - it’s more like AN Invisible Man ALSO Has Some Problems. Price does not play Jack Griffin, he plays a guy named Geoffrey Radcliffe, turned invisible by Griffin’s brother (why not at least make the brother the one who turns invisible? Or would audiences find it hard to believe that two guys in the same family would become invisible?). And unlike Jack, he’s not a loon who begins killing folks at random; he’s actually a pretty noble hero - the film as a whole is more like The Fugitive, or, even more apt, Memoirs of An Invisible Man.

It’s pretty obvious that the film was an influence on Carpenter and the various writers for that film (or H.F. Saint, who wrote the original novel for Memoirs, assuming the film followed his book at all). Many of the invisible gags in that film were introduced here, such as the rain making him “visible”, and the process to create them is actually pretty similar (just a different color - they used black velvet back then, but Carpenter used blue-screen). The effects actually hold up quite well; there are a few matte outlines here and there, but the overall effect is pretty believable, and I imagine it must have floored people back then.

Some of the effects are really clever too. I particularly like the dirt/soot depressing on ladder rungs as the Invisible Man climbs down, as well as the various object levitations (I didn’t catch any visible strings this time around). And they seem to have thought things through a bit more this time around - unlike in the original where they seemed to treat him as a ghost or something that they couldn’t grab onto, the pursuers are actually pretty pro-active this time around. They’re largely incompetent, yes, but pro-active all the same. Also, most of the time you can picture where he would be when he knocks something over or throws something, unlike the original where his position was not logically clear (such as when he begins throwing things from the center of a crowded table - was he laying down in the center?).

But it’s just a basic “wrongfully accused” story otherwise, with Price trying to clear his name while he eludes the police. At one point he seems to be going the Griffin route (i.e. mad with power, possibly dangerous) but it’s more or less abandoned after it’s introduced. Not long after that he gets his man, and even though the film is longer than most of the Universal classics (85 minutes!), the time isn’t used to add any significant wrenches into the story. Unless you count the fact that he gets his molecules back at the end, which makes this one of the very few (only?) invisible man movies with a completely happy ending. Chevy (the only other one I can think of who didn’t turn into a villain) got away, but he was still invisible.

As for Price, well, obviously, he’s not in the movie that much. Like its predecessor, he’s already invisible when it starts, so we only see him at the very end. But he seems to have fewer “dressed” scenes than Rains did (even when you factor in the longer running time), and as he wasn’t yet THE Vincent Price, he’s actually pretty straight, even romantic at times. Luckily, the disembodied voice effect editing is much improved over the original; it sounds like he’s really in the scene instead of in a hollow chamber like Rains did.

I don’t plan on watching Invisible Woman or Invisible Agent, as I understand they are even less horror than this one. But Invisible Man’s Revenge sounds promising - who here has seen it? Is that one back to a more psychotic Invisible Man? It’s a shame that Price didn’t get to cut loose and wipe out a train or whatever like his predecessor did. Stupid heroic heroes!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Zombie Death House (1987)

MARCH 17, 2010

GENRE: MAD SCIENTIST, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: NETFLIX (INSTANT VIEW)

John Saxon has close to two hundred film/TV credits for his acting, but only one for directing - the 1987 Zombie Death House (aka simply Death House). He also appears in the film, though the bulk of his scenes are separate from the main narrative. In fact, his detached role, coupled with the title change, leads me to suspect a rather routine prison riot movie was morphed into a mad scientist/zombie one rather late in the game (the film's trailer barely mentions the zombies). This could also explain why the film’s editing was so atrocious and why the zombies barely appear in the goddamn thing.

As I was LiveTweeting my viewing (until some technical snafus ended it prematurely), I can tell by the timestamp that it’s about 50 minutes into the (95 minute) movie by the time our first real zombie shows up, after some hints at the experiment having some deadly side effects appear around 28 minutes in. So what fills up all of that other time? Mob shenanigans, poorly shot/edited/choreographed car chases, a bunch of prisoners being hardasses, an imprisoned mobster bullying cons and guards alike, our hero fucking a girl and then being framed for her murder... basically every B movie plot BUT zombies.

The third act finally delivers reasonable amounts of zombies, but it doesn’t help matters much. For starters, they’re all wildly inconsistent - some are slow, some are fast. Some talk (“Don’t touch my Twinkies!” one says, presumably in order to spurn a new catchphrase), most just moan. They also never really cause much of a threat - the biggest “swarm” we ever see is confined behind bars, with our actors simply moving at a snail’s pace in order to provide tension (instead of simply running past the confined undead). And the movie’s so poorly lit (or transferred for Netflix) that I sometimes can’t even tell if a character is a zombie or just one of the many generic cons/guards/mobsters that populate this overcrowded movie.

At one point I joked that the movie had more characters than Southland Tales, but it’s not really a joke (and this movie is an hour shorter than that one, so character introductions are even more fleeting). Let’s see, we have the warden, his wife, his children, a reporter, her assistant, Saxon, HIS assistant, the hero, at least two blond girls, two big mob heavies, three or four featured prisoners, the head guard, the doctor, a priest.... plus lots of guards, lots of cons, a few zombies here and there... no wonder the movie is so cheap looking (gotta love the “Pentagon” scene at the end), even if everyone got SAG scale they must have eaten up the entire budget. And you know Michael Pataki didn’t come cheap!

And of course, none of that would matter if the movie was interesting, or if the hero was in any way compelling (he reminded me on more than one occasion of the lunkhead from Space Mutiny). But it’s all so generic and dull, from start to finish. I’m sure if Saxon had some money and the availability of his fellow B movie buddies, he could have made something fun; a sort of precursor to The Expendables but actually made in the 1980s, but this movie ain’t it. He barely even has any scenes with the other vets in the cast (Pataki, Ron O’Neal, etc), which is another missed opportunity. And his death is wholly unsatisfying - a few generic zombies surround him and paw at his shirt hard enough to bust the balloons packed with Kool-aid taped to his chest, and that’s about it. All this mess is his fault; we want to see him get it good! Or at least get it at the hands of another major character (zombified or not).

I hate to say it, but Saxon isn’t much of a director (maybe that’s why he never did it again). There are a lot of flashbacks that are entirely unnecessary; even with the over-stuffed plot I think I can remember the basics, yet around an hour or so into the movie we are treated to footage reminding us why the hero is in prison. And later he has a dream consisting of stuff we saw literally moments before. Saxon also frequently cuts to scenes that serve no real purpose. At one point we leave the prison to see the two reporters in their helicopter, where someone informs them that a car will meet them on the ground. That’s it. Who the fuck cares? Like anyone is going to be like “Hey now wait just a minute here - how did the reporters get from the helicopter to the prison?” (as I type that I realize the scene is even MORE pointless). A level-headed editor probably could have made this movie 70 minutes long, and even that could use some additional tightening.

Action beats are also pretty clumsy. Particularly in a scene with the warden, who is tasked with sledgehammering the wall in order for the bad guy to escape. He has a goddamn SLEDGEHAMMER, and the bad guy turns his back to him twice, yet does nothing. Then later, when the bad guy takes the sledgehammer and starts banging away himself, THEN the warden decides to try to take action. Guess what? Doesn’t work out so well. There’s also a hilarious bit where a prisoner could easily escape but he awkwardly stops to grab what looks like a free standing ashtray, before a cop just sort of strolls over and takes him out. Stuff like that. Come on Saxon, you worked with Bruce Lee for Christ’s sake! You don’t know how to stage a good fight yet?

But I dunno, maybe he had to take over the film when the original director quit, or they cut his budget in half during production, or something. The film has no Wikipedia page and the IMDb one is pretty bare, nor does the available DVD have any meaningful extras, so I doubt we will ever learn the entire production history of Zombie Death House. But we do know that whatever the cause may be, the movie kind of sucks.

Made for good LiveTweet fodder though.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Day Of The Animals (1977)

MARCH 16, 2010

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

I was surprised to learn that William Girdler was only my age when he died (in a helicopter crash), shortly after the release of his epic The Manitou. I had figured he was in his 50s or something, especially since that and his previous film, Day Of The Animals (aka Something Is Out There), featured mostly middle aged characters. It’s rare to see someone write/direct a film populated primarily with characters that are far older than they are. It’s really a damn shame that he died so young; in just seven years he made NINE features, all of which have a cult following (and are quite entertaining, at least of the ones I have seen). I wonder what he would have done in the 80s...

Anyway, Animals is a treat. It’s apparently a “but with more animals” version of his previous film Grizzly (which itself was a Jaws knockoff), so I hope I haven’t spoiled that film for myself, but if its even half as much fun as this, I’m sure I’ll still have a damn good time. Like Frogs or Long Weekend, the film is about animals taking revenge on the humans that have ruined their habitat, but it’s far more entertainment-minded than those films. And by that I mean I laughed at pretty much every death scene. The key one is when Jon Cedar’s character is killed by snakes AND a dog (odd team up) as he tries to get into a car that will allow him to rescue a little girl. Stupidly backing into his snake-filled car, he is first bitten a few times by the rattlers and such, and then the dog leaps on him and tears him apart. Not only is his death a bit of a surprise (since he was a pretty decent guy and had been more or less set up as a hero), but it’s also a bit of a hilarious “bummer”, since it seems likely that the little girl isn’t going to get rescued either (but she does, much later).

I just wish there was some more variety, or at least fewer dog attacks. The film’s poster suggests an entire Wildlife Treasury box of antagonists, but it’s primarily dogs for the film’s final half hour, which is odd as they aren’t exactly forest dwelling animals. They also prolong one of the dog attacks (at the helicopter) by obviously re-using shots; I’d rather the attack was just shortened and then maybe a lion or some rabbits show up and make things worse.

Can’t go wrong with the cast though. You got one of the many Christopher and Linda George (real life husband and wife) team ups, although their characters oddly rarely speak to each other despite being in the same location for the bulk of the film. Like Girdler, George died way too young; his performances are usually the highlight of the numerous horror films in which he starred during the late 70s/early 80s. But even better: Leslie Nielsen in a rare villainous role. He plays the requisite asshole of the group (a la NOTLD’s Mr. Cooper), and turns from mildly abrasive to full blown crazy over the course of the film, ultimately attempting to rape one of the female members of the ill-fated hiking group (after knocking around a woman AND her 10 year old son). Even scarier - he plays his final scenes without a shirt. If you’ve only seen him in his spoof comedies, this shit will blow your mind (it’s still not as disturbing as his sleazy john character in Nuts, however). Incidentally, one of his Airplane! co-stars also shows up - the little girl who takes her coffee “black, like her men”. RIP Peter Graves, by the way.

It also has enough characters to keep it from getting boring, and refrains from killing them too quickly, which allows for more suspense. As with Tremors, they repeatedly put supporting characters in danger, but allow them to escape with minor injuries. A movie like Rogue sort of weakens itself by keeping the supporting cast out of it for the entire last third of the film, but this one keeps everyone around. And Girdler split them into three groups, so we get different settings, different group dynamics, and yes, different animals (though again, dogs seem to be everywhere). And as this is a 70s disaster film, you get a wide variety of characters - a cancer stricken football pro, a journalist, a young couple, Nielsen’s bitter businessman, the mother and son, etc. Some faces may be more familiar than others, but it really is an ensemble piece; even the Georges don’t have noticeably more screen time than the others. And it stays with them - there are some haz-mat guys wandering around at the end, but it's not like The Crazies where we keep cutting away from the action to show government and scientist types yammering about the problem and how to solve it.

I just wish Media Blasters/Shriek Show had given the film more respect in the AV department. The transfer itself is fine - in that it’s anamorphic and doesn’t seem to be washed out. But they were using a terrible print as the source, the entire film is covered with scratches, color artifacts (the woods are purple during a big chunk of the climax), and even skips! At one point Nielsen is walking along with George, talking about food, and then suddenly he is stopped, talking to one of the other characters about something else entirely. The sound is pretty lousy too, it sounds like a record playing from the next room. Basically it looks like the stuff you get on Mill Creek releases, except you’re paying 20 bucks instead of 20 cents. The “TV Version” is also included, and it’s taken from a much cleaner source (no major print damage), but it’s also washed out and horribly cropped - they seemingly matted the (cropped) 1.33 TV ratio to 16:9, which means you’re missing the sides AND the top and bottom of the image! Examples below:

No idea why they did this (and, obviously, both versions are more compressed than they should be in order to fit what is essentially two films on one side of the disc), but I wish they had looked for a better print, or at least tried to clean up the one they had. The technical issues carry over to the commentary too; Lynda George is muffled, Cedar sounds hollow, and Scott Spiegel sounds like he’s outside of the recording booth entirely. Spiegel is there to moderate, presumably, but he does a lousy job of keeping them on track. For every story about the film itself, there are about five about other movies/people/subjects entirely. Some of them are amusing - George talks about Pieces! - but others are extraneous at best; I must admit I don’t really care to hear their thoughts on the merits of Gigli, the Mission: Impossible movies, or random Bill Shatner anecdotes, especially when the audio is so all over the place. The retrospective interviews are better, especially as they include animal wrangler/co-star Susan Backlinie (best known as the girl who gets killed in the opening scene of Jaws), though George is absent for some reason (they had her for the commentary, they didn’t grab an interview?). Basically, it SOUNDS like a really great package on paper, but the actual presentation is largely shoddy and, frankly, amateurish. Make sure you pick this up dirt cheap.

Now, on to Grizzly! Or Abby, Girdler’s infamous “Black Exorcist” that was pulled after Warner Bros. threatened to sue. Anyone have a copy of that one?

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Possession (2009)

MARCH 15, 2010

GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Remember the good ol’ days, when legit horror movies were billed as “psychological thrillers” or whatever by horror-fearing producers? Nowadays, it’s the other way around; standard thrillers like Possession are sold as full blown horror movies. The DVD and trailers proudly point out that the film is from the producers of The Ring and The Grudge, and the cover showed a ghostly, Feardotcom-y figure that has fuck all to do with the film. And the title was changed from Addicted to Possession, apparently in an attempt to get it to join Alien, Monster, Werewolf, and several other films where the title shares a name with its would-be HMAD genre tagging.

Spoilers ahead!

If you notice, I have not listed this as a Possession movie. But if you’ve seen the trailers or read a synopsis, you know the basic premise behind the film - two brothers, one an asshole (Lee Pace - surprisingly effective as a hardass) and the other a perfect man (Michael Landes), get into a car accident that leaves them both comatose. Pace wakes up and claims he’s his brother, having all of his memories and very much in love with the guy’s wife (Sarah Michelle Gellar). Is he possessed? Did they switch bodies? Or, is the asshole just putting on the most gloriously complicated act in history so he can nail his sister in law? I’ll let you double check the genre tagging and make your decision.

Now, to be fair, at least it grounds the movie in some sort of reality, in that there’s nothing supernatural or metaphysical about it - the dude is simply lying. But in order to work, we have to suspend far too much disbelief; in fact, even more than we would had there actually been a supernatural explanation. Not only does he have to take on all of his brother’s mannerisms, but he has to learn how to sculpt, garden, etc. as his brother did (whereas he seemed to be some sort of electrician in his asshole life). He also has to hope that Gellar never asks him anything he can’t answer, such as, I dunno, one of the presumably millions of things they did together that the brother DIDN’T take a photo of or write about in a love letter.

See, Gellar finally figures out the ruse when she goes through her letters and photos and sees that her husband had written about every single thing that Pace had used to “prove” he was Landes. It takes a full year for this to dawn on her, which is stupid enough (did she not READ the letters when they were given to her?), but again - did she restrict her inquiries to only the most memorable moments in their relationship? I suppose we are to believe that the part of her that wanted her husband back allowed her to sort of live in denial a bit.

In fact, that IS the point of the film’s original ending, which is available on the DVD. It makes the film even less of a “horror” movie, but it’s at least more interesting. Originally, she realized he was lying and just let it slide, because I guess she figured a guy pretending to be her husband was better than nothing. In the ending on the film itself, she confronts him and they have a typical “chase through the house on a rainy night” battle, killing him in the process. Her real husband remains comatose (in the original ending they took him off life support). There’s a bit too much repeated footage on the alternate ending (it’s literally the entire last half hour of the movie, but only about 5-10 minutes are different), and again it makes its horror connection even flimsier, but its definitely preferable to the one that ended up in the film from a creative/storytelling point of view. If you are still interested in watching it after I’ve just spoiled BOTH endings, switch to the alternate after Gellar and Pace make love in the theatrical.

I also think they go a bit overboard with trying to make Landes seem like the perfect man. He brings her flowers (twice!), makes her a cake, decorates the outside of their house with lights, lights a bunch of candles, doesn’t mind when she forgets their anniversary, fixes her grandmother’s necklace.... OK buddy, you’re a god and it would be a real shame if something bad happened to you. WE GET IT. The movie could have benefited from possibly not painting the brothers as such polar opposites - it would make the concept a bit easier to swallow, and they could use that screentime to develop Pace’s character a bit more. Why is he such a scumbag? And where did he acquire such fantastic mimic skills? Interestingly, if you go back and watch the film a 2nd time (or watch it knowing the ending), you can see him “learning” his brother’s styles by watching him garden, make love, etc. So he wasn’t just being a creepy perv, he was doing "impersonate my brother" research! You know, JUST IN CASE they both went comatose someday.

The DVD also has some other deleted scenes, including one where William B. Davis’ hypnotist character more or less spoils the ending, which I assume is why it was cut. The trailer is also included, but you don’t need it because the featurette is essentially just the trailer mixed with brief interview snippets with the stars and directors Joel Bergvall and Simon Sandquist, who wear matching jackets. Not very insightful stuff; they basically reiterate the plot and try to make you think the movie is far more twisty-turny than it actually is. You want a good version of the car accident/amnesia plot? Watch Wolfgang Petersen’s 1991 thriller Shattered, with Tom Berenger. Good stuff, GREAT twist. And if you want to see Gellar deal with unexplained memory problems in an only-sort-of-horror setting, watch The Return, which is far more interesting than this movie (and inches closer to horror territory to boot).

What say you?

P.S. I learned later that the film is (sigh) a remake of an Asian film. Anyone seen it? Actually horror?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Entity (1981)

MARCH 14, 2010

GENRE: GHOST
SOURCE: NETFLIX (INSTANT VIEW)

For years I had heard of The Entity as “the movie where she gets raped by a ghost”, but I always assumed that this was sort of a spoiler; an event that the film built toward (not unlike describing It’s A Wonderful Life as being about a guy who sees what life would be like without him). So I was surprised to see it happen pretty much in the first 10 minutes of the movie. “OK, but NOW what?” I asked the TV. The TV ignored me and kept on playing the movie, but I soon had my answer: not much.

Granted, the film is based on allegedly true events, so I can’t knock it for being a bit inert, but I CAN knock it for being over two hours long when it repeats a lot of stuff. Two scenes of the ghost following her to her friend’s house, at least four of her talking to Ron Silver (who believes she is just crazy), several more rapes, etc. It’s not a bad movie by any means, but I felt like it sort of started at one level and never really went higher. I think a touch more development prior to the first haunting, and then some editing (really, just remove any 20 minute chunk in the middle of the film) could have resulted in an even better film.

But it’s still a pretty good one. True or not, the ordeal is pretty terrifying, elevating it above the usual haunted house type movie. The first time we see Barbara Hershey’s body being poked and prodded by unseen hands (a Stan Winston effect, if I’m understanding the credits correctly) is not only a terrific effect in the technical sense, but also a creepy one. The tricky subject matter keeps the film from having any real sense of humor (though I must admit I laughed when Silver asked if the ghost ejaculated, partially because of his deadpan expression, and partly because I think the idea of ghost jizz is pretty funny), so even when the story occasionally dips into Poltergeist territory, the tone is unlike it or any other haunting/ghost film I can recall.

And as with Emily Rose or (to a lesser extent) Haunting in Connecticut, I liked that they provided enough plausible “evidence” for me to consider that Hershey maybe was just crazy. Silver has a reasonable explanation for pretty much everything, and it’s a concrete fact that her character suffers some serious sexual hang-ups (molested by her stepfather, impregnated as a teenager by a man twice her age, etc), so his theories certainly hold water, at least for a while (the scene in her friend’s apartment sort of solidifies the “it’s a ghost” idea once and for all).

The ending was a bit of a letdown though. Again, the film never really builds tension or suspense, but there is at least an attempt at a climax when Hershey is placed in a replica of her house, albeit one equipped with liquid helium tanks that will hopefully freeze the ghost while she remains safely inside a contained area (so it hinges on the ghost being kind of gullible, I guess). But the “attack” is fairly brief, and Silver never really has that “Oh shit, she was RIGHT!” moment that I think we deserve after listening to him argue with our heroine for the entire movie.

Sidney J. Furie directed the film. You may know him from the Iron Eagle films and a couple of late period Dolph Lundgren films. Entity is one of his rare dips in horror (he’s also billed as an uncredited director of Devil Doll), which is a shame as I would have liked to have seen one where he was allowed to have a little more fun without being tacky/insensitive. Half the movie seems to be shot in canted angles, and there are a lot of De Palma esque di-opter shots to enjoy (thank CHRIST for once Netflix offered a widescreen transfer for an instant viewing, and the quality was pretty good as well). I think he could have made a terrific, or at least, very stylish, slasher movie. Sadly, he seems to have retired (he had to exit his last film for health reasons, and he directed his first film over 50 years ago!), so I doubt we’ll get one. Hopefully he’s at least back in good health.

This showed at midnight at the New Bev a few months ago, and I missed it for some reason, but I’m glad I caught it at home. Not only would the length have guaranteed some dozing, but it’s not really a midnight type movie. I caught Irreversible there at midnight, and while the movie was quite good, it didn’t have that crowd experience that I associate with midnight screenings. If I’m gonna drive around LA at 2 am (where the bullshit LAPD never bothers to stop people that are driving without their headlights, a scarily common sight in Hollywood and even on the 101 freeway), I want to have a good time more than I want to see a good movie.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Hausu (1977)

MARCH 13, 2010

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE, WEIRD
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

You might wonder why I would knock on something like The Box for being a bunch of nonsense, and yet praise Hausu (House) for being a bunch of nonsense. Well, the answer is simple: as someone who prefers story to anything else, I felt annoyed by Richard Kelly turning the intriguing and unique concept of The Box into yet another baffling Kelly-ish narrative about vessels and mathematics and whatever the fuck else was going on. But in Hausu’s case, I’ve seen the basic plot (teens visiting an isolated house that turns out to be haunted) a million times, so the batshit, incomprehensible-by-design nature of it allowed me to be entertained by the story all over again.

If I had to “pitch” the movie to someone, I would probably say it was David Lynch’s version of Evil Dead 2, or maybe The Grudge as written by James Joyce. Blending animation, splatter, outright nonsense (a dancing skeleton, for example), typical haunted house motifs, and screwball comedy antics into a single film, Nobuhiko Obayashi has created a stream-of-conscious horror comedy that simply must be seen to be believed, and even then you’ll probably figure you were dreaming part of it up. “Did I really just see a piano eat a girl?” you might ask yourself after the film has concluded. Yes. Yes you did.

The film’s structure sort of defies reviewing, or even my usual sort of “reactionary” type posting. It’s all so rambunctious and free-flowing, I’m hard-pressed to even bring up a specific scene. Images certainly stick out, such as a cracked mirror flowing with blood (very cool), or the kung-fu expert character (named Kung Fu) taking on a phone that explodes, but I can no longer recall their context. I could probably watch the movie a dozen times and still not have any better understanding of it, but I know for sure that a single viewing is simply not enough to PROCESS everything. The editing is rapid-fire, the girls never really pause in between their lines, and it’s got a pretty crowded cast (about a dozen main characters) despite only being 87 minutes long.

Some of the stylistic flourishes are a bit annoying though. At one point, the film appears to have been shot at maybe 12 frames per second, which would be fine for a quick “scare” shot, but it’s used for a lengthy tracking shot consisting of the girls trying to exit the house and make a phone call, while talking. It gave me a bit of a headache, honestly. Perhaps it was an error that they couldn’t afford or didn’t have the time/cast to reshoot, but it’s a blight all the same. Many of the flashes are a delight though, such as the odd super-impositions, frequent closing irises (I muttered “The...end...” several times), and blending of live action with animated/rotoscoped characters/objects. Both Brian De Palma and Michael Bay would probably find Obayashi’s whims to be excessive. Needless to say, if you’re one of the types of people who think Armageddon’s editing or De Palma’s split-screen effects are the bane of cinema, you shouldn’t even look at the poster for Hausu.

Everyone else though, by all means, go see the film. If you’re in Los Angeles, you can check it out at the New Bev until March 17th (two shows a night!), and I’m pretty sure other cities will be playing it as well, as Janus has struck a new print for it. There’s a UK DVD with some nice extras, including lengthy interviews with Obayashi; hopefully it will be ported to the US soon (the UK one is linked below for you Region 2 capable folks). I think seeing it with an equally bewildered crowd is part of the fun, but even if you have to settle for seeing it on a 13 inch TV in your kitchen, your life will still be the better for having seen it.

What say you?

P.S. If you have seen the film, you know that the theme song is both wonderful and haunting. And if you have seen the film AND are one of those techie geniuses, please make it into a ringtone for me (preferably the “Cat’s Meow” variant). Thanks.

PLEASE, GO ON...