The Season (2008)

NOVEMBER 18, 2010

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

It seems every Screamfest has a movie where I end up sleeping through the whole thing. In 2007 it was Hell's Ground, and 2009’s “Dozefest” was Damned By Dawn, which I reviewed last week. 2008’s example was The Season, which is unique in that I fell asleep in the first minute or so, and even though I woke up for a total of 10-15 minutes throughout the running time, never even saw the film’s hero, The Signal’s AJ Bowen. Epic nap!

What I DID realize was that when I woke up and the end credits were rolling, it was barely over an hour after the film began. And you all know how much I love short movies, so I was delighted to see that it was finally on DVD and thus I could see it “again” for the first time. All I knew was that it was another breakdown/backwoods weirdos (in this case, the Amish) trying to breed with unwilling tourists movie, but I couldn’t gauge if it was a good one or a bad one based on the 10 scattered minutes I saw.

Well, it’s not good in the critical sense, but like the similar Bloodlines, it’s just so damn crass, I couldn’t help but kind of love it in some ways. In addition to the casual remarks about inbreeding and a rather politically incorrect approach to mentally disabled folks (since they’re part of the villain family I guess it’s OK?), we also get one of the most potentially offensive but hilariously blunt moments in recent memory. Not too long into the film, an inbred baby is stillborn, and its grandmother casually picks it up and tosses it in a trash basket like she’s done it before (and in front of customers, no less – they run a purposely car-killing “gas” station). Nothing that would seem out of place in a Troma movie, but sort of novel here.

Sometimes they go a little bit overboard though, such as when the resident “doctor” pries out a little inbred kid’s teeth as a punishment for helping the heroes try to escape. There’s funny shocking, and then there’s just mean-spirited pointless “shock value”, a balance filmmaker Adam Edward Brooks sometimes doesn’t get quite right. I mean, I could see this playing at the New Bev on Grindhouse night and hearing everyone cheer and laugh for most of the movie, but this moment wouldn’t “fit”.

On the other hand, moments like this help keep up the fairly impressive pace. Granted with a 70 minute running time (with very slow credits) there isn’t much time for dilly dally anyway, but things kick off about 10 minutes or so in and rarely let up, with folks constantly running or chasing or getting killed. It’s a bit ridiculous that three separate cars full of people show up almost simultaneously, but it helps spread the action about – one guy is taken off by the attractive Amish girl who seeks a “stud”, some stick around helping the pregnant lady, others get chased by a couple of mutants... the whole movie takes place in the same basic area (think Texas Chain Saw Massacre’s house and gas station, albeit closer together), and Brooks is wise to keep everyone separated (and in broken groups – no one gets to stay with the people they “came with” for very long), which allows him to cut around and keep the momentum up.

Or should I say “fade around”? Every goddamn scene in this movie fades to black, which drove me insane. Do they think this is going to air on NBC or something? Christ, even a star-wipe would have been welcome after a while. I can only assume it was an attempt to make edits a little more graceful – I ASSUME that the movie wasn’t intended to be 65 minutes long when it was written/shot. I wouldn’t be surprised if some character moments were excised, possibly due to the woeful acting by several of the leads. J.P. Wohl in particular is atrocious, awkwardly delivering every single line he has. Some of the rednecks are pretty stiff as well. Bowen is good (not surprising he’s the only one in the movie with a lengthy resume – most have only The Season listed on their IMDb), and Julianne Mason as the obligatory “good” bad guy who aids our heroes is pretty decent, but everyone else ranges from forgettable to downright awful. I bet there’s a lot of cutting room stuff that they tossed just because it would have been unbearable to hear them talking without any action to distract us (Bowen’s brother, for example, starts off the movie getting out of prison, but we never even know what he was in for).

If so, none of it is mentioned on the DVD, though Bowen and some of the other actors allude to script elements that are in no way apparent on-screen in the 10 minute making of, which depressingly starts off with local news footage of the film’s audition/production process, with the anchors saying how it will be their big break and all that. Since it’s been almost 3 years since it was shot and 90% of the cast and crew don’t even have any “in production” credits since, I’m guessing super-stardom will not be coming as a result of working on this particular movie. There’s also a terribly edited trailer and some lo-res stills to waste disc space. However, the commentary is quite enjoyable, with Brooks, Bowen, Wohl, and another actor (sorry, forget which – one of the Amish folks though) discuss the usual stuff, but with a goofy camaraderie and a lot of ball-busting and self-deprecation. No one seems to think they made high art, so that was refreshing – I hate when a director or producer talks about their junky horror movie as if it’s something really unique or impressive; these guys seem to know that the movie isn’t going to be winning any awards and enjoy it for what it is (they also don’t complain too much about their independent production limitations, which is also nice).

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not recommending this movie outright. It’s derivative (the ending is practically shot for shot stolen from Chain Saw) and most of the acting is terrible, but it’s also got that je ne sais quos that keeps it mostly entertaining and watchable, and I think folks who share my sick sense of humor and love of all things tasteless will feel the same. And the Amish are underused in modern horror movies, I think, so there’s something.

Then again, maybe they were intending to make a serious horror film, in which case they failed miserably.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Darkroom (2006)

NOVEMBER 17, 2010

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: CABLE (ON DEMAND)

Early on in The Darkroom, there’s an closeup of a door labeled “Room 7”, and I instantly thought of the film Room 6, which wasn’t bad but suffered from an obvious twist scenario. But I was also reminded of the film Shallow Ground (both films start with a bloodied youth found wandering in an isolated locale and having no recollection of who he is - and I'm 99% positive they're even shot in the same area), which I really liked, so I forgot about the Room 6 connection and kept on watching, as the now adult amnesiac (Reed Diamond) tried a memory loss drug which seemingly didn’t work, and then escaped the institution after another patient caused a ruckus and left the guards distracted. So far, so good!

(SPOILERS AHEAD!)

No less than 5 minutes later, our main character almost gets hit by a bus, except there’s another person in the street behind him, which is awkward. “Oh Christ, he’s not really there, is he?” I said to myself, and got confirmation 5 seconds later when he asked some people for change and they ignored him. Not two minutes after that, he finds a kid who talks to him and becomes his friend, and again, “Wait a minute, is that him as a younger kid? Is this entire movie him inserting his adult self into his younger self’s memory in order to figure out what happened to him?” Then, adding insult to injury, I look up the director and writer on IMDb and sure enough – same guys who made Room 6 (Michael Hurst and Mark Altman)! It wasn’t just a random memory in my head being triggered, it was an intentional reference!

Ordinarily I’d make the claim that “If you have never seen a movie before, the twist might work/you might enjoy the film”, but I’m not sure that’s the case in The Darkroom. You need not to have seen any films before to figure out that he’s not really there – while movies like Sixth Sense wisely keep their ghost/hallucination characters away from others (or work in a reason to be ignored, i.e. the “angry” wife), this one keeps having him awkwardly being ignored, by the likes of waitresses and cops. Hell, at one point the kid brings him into his house to help him pick a lock, and the guy doesn’t even do it himself, he just tells the kid how. How obvious can you get? Worse, they wait FOREVER to “reveal” this to the audience, complete with a “did you notice no one ever talked to him?” flashback montage. They would have been wiser to go the Beautiful Mind route and reveal it much sooner and have that be another obstacle for the main character.

Or the thing that propels him to DO something. More problematic than the obvious twist is the fact that our hero (the younger version, played by Shawn Pyfrom) is a total moron, standing around doing nothing while the killer tortures the kid’s girlfriend, letting his step-dad verbally abuse his mother, etc. And of course, the older one can’t do anything, because he’s not actually there. Even when he discovers that the guy is cheating on his mom, he doesn’t even say anything, despite the fact that he’s snooping around specifically looking for something to prove the guy’s bad news. So it’s an unusually passive movie too – even with its short length (80 minutes), it’s a long stretch until something happens.

Well, unless you count the monster/kill scenes that never really amount to anything. Diamond sees these monsters (courtesy of Rob Hall) every now and then, and there’s also an apparent serial killer, since a cameo-ing Richard Riehle and some other construction workers find a body in a pit they are digging up, but this stuff just feels like it’s tossed in to pepper the movie with “action” instead of being an organic part of the story. It’s never even made clear if the girl that Riehle found was killed by the same guy who is trying to kill Pyfrom’s girlfriend.

They also did a piss-poor job of casting the film. Pyfrom and Diamond look nothing alike, but I guess that could be considered an attempt to hide the twist, so I’ll let it slide. However, Greg Grunberg as an evil step-dad just doesn’t work – the guy is just too boyish looking and personable. I’m all for guys playing against type, but I mean, look at newly minted Sexiest Man Alive Ryan Reynolds in Amityville – he was totally convincing when he went psycho in the climax. But Grunberg just can’t bring the evil, and I spent half the movie wondering why Pyfrom hated him so much, because he seemed pretty charming to me. Plus, the end of the film takes place 15 years later, and again his boyish looks betray the character – he’s now supposed to be 50 or so? But all they did was give him a beard. Diamond actually looks older than him, even though he’s supposed to be his stepson. So it just makes things kind of confusing as well.

But then again, it IS only 80 minutes, and Diamond is a pretty interesting actor, plus there are some occasional monsters for some reason. It’s also well made, and you can’t go wrong with hiring Ray Stella as your DP. So in short, if it’s on and you got nothing better to do, you'll be mildly entertained and it won't offend you. And it’s always nice to see Lucy Lawless (as Pyfrom’s mom), so there’s something. But hopefully these guys give up on the twist movies and go back to doing what they do best – making fun of Uwe Boll.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Tony (2009)

NOVEMBER 16, 2010

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

Barely qualifying as a film in both running time (72 minutes, including the very slow end credits) and plot (there is none), I would still recommend Tony to fans of serial killer films, as it’s very abnormal in the genre; the closest thing I could think to compare it to would be Henry, but it also reminded me a bit of Colin, in that the entire movie is told from the focus of someone we shouldn’t be rooting for, but can’t help but sympathize with anyway.

Also like Colin, it’s set in London! But in places I recognize this time – Tony even walks past the Empire Cinema in Leicester Square that I was situated in for the better part of 5 glorious days last August. But only briefly – most of the film takes place in areas I never saw while I was there; areas that aren’t particularly flattering or picturesque. Tony’s apartment, for example, is one of what seems to be several hundred in a building called Robin Hood Gardens (I think?), which to me just seems like a depressing place to live. But it just confirms that the city is a sorely underused locale for horror films – skilled DPs could be having a field day with the architecture and largely disparate areas; it’s almost hard to believe these places could all be in one small geographical area.

And it’s a good thing that it’s not an overused area, because it seems half the movie is just Tony walking around. This movie would be unbearable if set in say, downtown Los Angeles, or the Bronx – areas I’ve seen 596 million times in movies. Because at least when he goes walking around yet again, I can at least enjoy the scenery, but if I recognized the areas from other movies I’d just be bored, I think. We get it, he’s lonely and socially awkward!

Also helping is Peter Ferdinando’s performance as Tony. He has no real arc to speak of, but he’s fascinating to watch all the same, meekly making his way through several encounters with random annoying people (many of whom he kills) as he just tries to get through his day unperturbed. He clearly wants companionship (there’s a suggestion of necrophilia), but for the most part the guy just wants to be left in peace, watching his action movies on VHS. Speaking of which – kudos to the filmmakers for making him an action junkie instead of a horror fan; we don’t need any more “evidence” that watching horror movies makes us turn into psychotics. He even owns Firestorm! Oddly, one of the few films he mentions by name is Hider in the House, which is very much a horror thriller.

But back on point, I liked that he never seemingly went out of his way to kill someone. Instead, he just kills the folks that would disturb his life, such as the guy who threatens to take his TV away for not paying his licensing fee (this is a very foreign concept to me – I was amazed to discover that this actually happens in the UK). He goes out to clubs and such, but again it seems to be more to find someone to hang out and watch action movies with, not to kill. The best scene in the film finds him unknowingly drawing the attention of a homosexual guy in a club, who goes home with him. Tony just thinks the guy wants to hang out and maybe listen to one of his Queen tapes, and so when the guy makes a move on him... well, let’s just say it’s the rare occurrence in a serial killer movie where you fear for the safety of the killer.

Also he kind of reminded me of Gary Oldman, which is fine by me. More actors should be like Gary Oldman.

The DVD comes with a pair of short films, including the original short version of Tony. Oddly, one of the least effective scenes in the film, where Tony brings a pair of drug dealers home for some reason (the accents were a bit impenetrable to me here), pretty much makes up the bulk of the short film. If I had seen the short first, I probably wouldn’t have bothered with the feature when it came around. Then Ferdinando, director Gerard Johnson, and producer Dan McCulloch provide a dry but worth-listening-to commentary track, explaining how they got away with some of the exterior filming shots, that the film was shot in sequence over 12 days, etc. The film is so short you might as well listen to it; combined it’s still shorter than any Harry Potter movie.

With some sort of plot to speak of (you can remove any section of the film and it wouldn’t have any affect, even on editing) this could have been a “Year’s Best” type entry, but it’s just a bit too barebones to elevate it to that level. But Ferdinando’s performance and the laid back, dryly comedic approach to the killer film are laudable, and thus it’s still definitely worth a look.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Beware! The Blob (1972)

NOVEMBER 15, 2010

GENRE: MONSTER
SOURCE: NETFLIX (INSTANT VIEW)

The best thing I can say about Larry Hagman’s sole directing effort Beware! The Blob (aka Son Of The Blob) is that it’s got a halfway decent ending, with the blob trapping what passes for our main characters in a bowling alley. Unfortunately, you have to sit through about 70 minutes of unparalleled nonsense (BORING nonsense at that), which isn’t exactly the best risk vs reward scenario. Now I understand why so many people wanted to see who shot Larry Hagman; they probably wanted to make sure they thanked the right person (or yelled at them for not doing the job right).

Apparently, the script was ignored and most of the film was improvised, and it shows. I can’t imagine how bad the script was if they decided THIS was better; a film largely comprised of endless scenes of hippies bickering, telling bad jokes, or basically doing anything that didn’t involve being eaten by a giant ball of Jell-O. Not that the original could be mistaken for a Michael Bay-paced affair, but at least the blob had a consistent presence once it showed up – here it seems half the people aren’t aware of danger even in the third act.

It also had a definable main character, unlike this thing, where our hero can only be labeled as such because he appears more than once in the first hour, unlike everyone else. But he’s dead weight; the transfer from Steve McQueen in the original to this kid is akin to going from Arnold Schwarzenegger to Danny Glover, or Jim Carrey to Jamie Kennedy. Except worse, because at least Glover and Kennedy can hold their own if freed from precedent. This kid (who is also Charlie X from the classic Star Trek episode) would pale in comparison to a ham sandwich in terms of screen presence.

It’s not his fault though; the movie just plain sucks. It doesn’t help that the blob changes consistency constantly – sometimes its liquid-y, other times it seemingly has a skin over it. Needless to say, the FX work is largely terrible; every now and then there’s a nice shot (like when it pours through multiple rectangular slats at the bowling alley), but most of the time it’s confined to a corner of the screen while a bad actor pretends to be getting engulfed by it. They even botch a silhouette kill! I mean, the only reason to DO a silhouette kill is to “show” a guy being eaten or whatever using animation and other came tricks, but Hagman bungles this as well, showing the shadow sort of near the actor’s shadow and then cutting to reaction shots.

And while I assume the film is supposed to be funny and not meant to be taken seriously (they even watch the original Blob at one point; making this a Gremlins 2-esque meta sequel), it’s not particularly funny, either. There’s one kind of amusing scene where a hippie wanders into a barbershop and the guy tells him he’s “a sculptor, not a barber”, and then demands 400 dollars for a cut (which the hippie agrees to), and I liked the kid at the end asking for his lighter, but otherwise it’s just painful. Plus the kill a little kitty in the first 10 minutes; now you’ve made me upset – it would take the greatest comic minds in the world to get me back on your side. And let’s face it, the folks Hagman has assembled are hardly top notch comedic legends – even Burgess Meredith barely made me crack a smile. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that the line “It’s gonna be a better world without this thing” was an intentional howler; if it was supposed to be said without irony than this movie is even stupider than I thought.

Also, I hated that it took the entire movie for them to figure out that cold harmed it. Half-assed sequel or not, there should be a rule that any weakness the monster has should be introduced early in the sequel, only to discover that the monster has evolved and that it’s no longer harmed by it. But nope, even with an air conditioner scaring the thing off around the 50 minute mark, it takes another half hour for these geniuses to consider the cold as a weapon.

Oddly, I kind of hope that the (2nd) remake of The Blob goes forward, just so we can get a funny sequel (again, like Gremlins 2). The Stuff sort of explored this area, but I’d love to see a modern (and decent budgeted) take on the “genre”, with a good cast and some fun cameos. It could be a damn good time. And hippie free!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Vampire In Brooklyn (1995)

NOVEMBER 14, 2010

GENRE: COMEDIC, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

It's odd that two of the biggest 80s comedy stars would go on to work with the two biggest modern horror directors in the 90s. Chevy Chase and John Carpenter "collaborated" on Memoirs Of An Invisible Man, and later Eddie Murphy and Wes Craven teamed up to bring us Vampire In Brooklyn. Neither film was particularly successful critically or commercially, and I think both suffered from being the unfortunate followup to two of their respective stars' least loved films (Chevy's Nothing but Trouble, Eddie's Beverly Hills Cop III) more than from their own inherent problems.

Because really it's not all that bad, especially for a mid 90s horror movie. I appreciate that Eddie was trying to do something new, and he stays remarkably straight as the vampire (as this is an Eddie Murphy movie, he plays multiple characters), with the humor being more of the dry and matter-of-fact type than outright jokes ("kind of itches a little"). Chevy couldn't help but dip into wiseass mode at times, which threw off the more serious tone more than once, but with the multiple characters, Eddie was able to play a unique role (for him) while still bringing the funny via the other two guys (who only appear in two scenes each).

He also lets Kadeem Hardison and the great John Witherspoon get most of the laughs, as his Renfield-esque "ghoul" and said ghoul's uncle, who notices that his nephew is literally falling apart but doesn't seem to find it strange. Some of Hardison's mugging gets a bit annoying, but it's interesting to see how he's basically playing Reggie Hammond or Axel Foley as a 20 year old; if this movie was made in 1982, Eddie would almost assuredly be playing the role, with someone like Billy Dee Williams in the lead.

Unfortunately, it's just not that compelling of a movie. I think it was a big mistake to let him "find" his long-lost soul mate (Angela Bassett with hideous hair and makeup) in the first 10 minutes of the movie - they could have at least milked it for a bit. He literally meets her within 20 minutes of his arrival, which is just dramatically weak on all counts. And the screenwriters attempt a love triangle of sorts with Bassett's partner, a guy hilariously named Justice, and they include some contrived nonsense about her suspecting he slept with her roommate. There's also some go-nowhere stuff about her mental health. In short, it bears the mark of a film that was rewritten heavily from its original concept (there are four screenwriters listed, including Eddie's brother Charlie), with too many characters and not enough time given to really develop them all.

It also has voiceover (by Eddie), which more often than not (for a film that doesn't involve flashbacks or a framing device) means that the film was messy on a narrative level and they needed a quick way to fix things. Maybe if it was Kadeem's character, it could have worked, since the film begins and ends with him (and he has the biggest "arc", relatively speaking), but Eddie just sounds awkward, and I failed to really see the point in any of it.

Despite the narrative problems, I was entertained. I loved the Preacher character (who convinces everyone that evil is good), and Wes was in fine form throughout (though his attempts to make an LA backlot look like Brooklyn weren't entirely successful). KNB's FX were also terrific; they don't usually do full character "normal" makeups, but they did a terrific job (particularly with Guido, a white hood that is only recognizable as Eddie from the voice). I also enjoyed the gradual transformations for both Eddie and Kadeem, with Eddie getting more evil looking the closer he gets to the full moon deadline (why'd he wait until 3 days before, anyway?) and Kadeem turning into a rotting zombie. There isn't a lot of bloodshed or carnage, but it's still a remarkable showcase for KNB's talents.

Plus, I just like seeing these guys try something new. I'll take an underwhelming Eddie Murphy vampire movie over ANY Eddie Murphy family movie, especially nowadays. I remember when he did Dr. Dolittle it was sort of like a novelty. "Oh, it's a kid's movie, but with Eddie!" (and even that was PG-13). Now it's just another sure sign of mediocrity, with no signs of him returning to edgier fare in sight. In fact this was one of his last R rated films, only Metro and Life came along after. Now we're lucky to get a PG-13. Imagine That or Meet Dave, anyone?

The disc's only extra is a pretty terrible trailer. Seeking more info, I went back and read the two Fangoria articles about it. Whether it was just him being political or not, Wes seemed pretty happy working with him at the time despite reservations (he apparently even went to Landis asking him if he should be worried), though in recent years he's dismissed the film and claimed that Eddie wouldn't do what he wanted him to (I suppose being sandwiched between two of the most acclaimed films of your career doesn't help matters when it comes time to reflect). The other article detailed the writing process, which, as I suspected, was the result of a lot of studio notes, Eddie's wishes, etc. Moral of the story - if you're a huge star and want to do something new, direct it yourself with a really good DP, instead of bossing around our horror icons.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dorm Of The Dead (2006)

NOVEMBER 13, 2010

GENRE: INDEPENDENT, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: NETFLIX (INSTANT VIEW)

Until I consulted the IMDb, I had assumed that Dorm Of The Dead was the product of a first time filmmaker who up and decided to make a movie one day as a means of teaching himself how to do it. In other words, completely terrible, but forgivable. But writer/director/DP/etc Donald Farmer had actually helmed over twenty films prior to this, so there's no excuse for how terrible it is. He should know by now how to at least pace a goddamn kill scene by now.

I mean, seriously. Point for getting to the zombie carnage in the first scene, but why does it take the zombies 2-3 minutes to start biting the guy? He actually makes out with the two of them (because they're hot blond female zombies and he was just spurned by his girlfriend) for a while before they FINALLY decide to follow their zombie nature and try to eat him. And in this entire time he never questions why their faces are green (their bodies aren't, however - the zombie makeup ends at the neck). And it wouldn't even be as much of a problem if the following scene wasn't more of the same (an endless makeout session between two (non-zombie) women followed by a slow, uninteresting "attack"). Then nothing happens for a half hour or so of the 74 minute movie.

Well, TECHNICALLY 74 minutes. It's ACTUALLY only 64 minutes, with a long end credits sequence featuring yet another overlong makeout/zombie sequence, one that you can't even hear due to a faux Rob Zombie song playing over the entire thing at a higher volume than the actors' non-mic'd voices. If I had to guess, it would be a scene that they didn't know where to fit in (the film as a whole stinks of "make it up as we go along"-itis) so they just tossed it in as a sort of outtake. Once it concludes we get yet another cast credit roll, which means that each cast member is listed three times over the course of the film.

One of whom is Tiffany Shepis, who deserves better. As soon as I saw her name (which was after the opening scene) I knew it would be yet another movie where she was the only good thing about it. Does she not have an agent? Or is he/she the absolute worst at it in the business? Every now and then she pops up in something that's fun even when she's not on-screen (Basement Jack, Abominable), but most of her filmography is littered with this sort of drivel. Kudos to her for sticking around for most of the film to play one of the zombies (and even then she shines - snarling and drooling while the others stand around like statues), but she would have been wise to hightail it off the set as soon as her character died.

Besides her, the most entertaining the movie got (besides the abundance of female flesh; if you're the type who will enjoy a movie simply because it has a lot of breasts, you'll find this a very satisfying experience) was a scene with the "Dean" of the college where it takes place. It's just as terrible as the rest of the movie, but the "production value" and casting elevates it into something truly special. For starters, the actor playing the Dean seems to be younger than the girl playing his student, which just made it confusing. Plus, he's wearing a suit that doesn't fit him at all, and inexplicably has a map of Russia behind him in his office. It reminded me of a grade school project, with a 12 year old playing George Washington or whatever, albeit in a film that, at press time, costs 14.99 on Amazon.

And again, it's just so damn BORING. After those initial, not particularly exciting attacks, nothing happens for another 30 minutes (at least, it SEEMS - I was actually amazed that the movie was only 70 minutes long, it felt 2x that). And there's never any real escalation, the zombie attacks never amount to more than 3-4 zombies attacking one or two people. Plus it just ends abruptly (the ten minute "discrepancy" didn't help), with our heroine-by-default watching a newscast in which the reporter's cameraman just films his friend being bitten instead of helping or throwing his camera down and running for safety. Then some of the zombies get shot and it's over. OK.

Of course, if not for HMAD I wouldn't even have bothered watching more than 5 minutes of the thing. And even then, if I knew it was this sort of junk I wouldn't have bothered in the first place. That is why I wish Netflix would separate or at least tag these shot on consumer video disasters from the legitimate films. If you look at their "Zombie" offerings, you'll find this alongside legit stuff like Survival of the Dead and Zombieland. Obviously I wasn't expecting something on par with either of those, but it's impossible to tell a legitimate/decent DTV movie (Severed, for example, which is also in Netflix's instant selection) from this nonsense until you actually start it, and I'm proud of my "ability" to not give up on a movie once it becomes clear there's no hope for it. Then again, some of these "homegrown" movies are actually pretty good, like Return In Red, and if they were separated I'd probably never bother to look in that section and thus miss out on the rare gem.

I guess the only solution is for guys like Farmer to stop making such worthless shit (and wasting good titles).

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Amityville: The Evil Escapes (1989)

NOVEMBER 12, 2010

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

For a late 80s TV movie, Amityville: The Evil Escapes (aka Amityville 4) really ain't THAT bad. The heyday of TV horror had long since passed, and while it bears a lot of the marks of a commercial-friendly production (NOT, however, the tell-tale fades to black for commercial breaks, however), there's some effort put into it, and would hardly be mistaken for the Syfy productions we get today.

I guess that's what happens when a filmmaker who actually has something going on upstairs helms your inessential TV sequel to a series that's not very good to begin with. Amityville 4 is written and directed by Pin's Sandor Stern, who wrote the screenplay for the original film, interestingly enough. It's interesting because Amityville is pretty much the loosest franchise of them all; in fact this may be the strongest (only?) personnel connection any of the sequels have to the original or one another. This would possibly also explain why the film ignores 3D, since the house was destroyed at the end of that one but is the first thing we see here.

But, you know, it's about a fucking killer lamp. A wonderfully ugly lamp (I really want one), sure, but a lamp all the same. I seem to recall some of the other sequels also focused on haunted objects from the Amityville house, which isn't the worst idea, but a goofy lamp probably shouldn't have been the one they kicked off this Friday the 13th: The Series-esque plot thread. Maybe a mirror or a painting, something along those lines. Go to the lamp when you've hit part 9 and don't care anymore.

Luckily, the lamp just brings the "power" and spreads it throughout the house, sparing us too many scare scenes in which someone has to actually interact with the thing, though its first victim cuts her finger on it and dies of tetanus. Scary, demonic tetanus (also, the shot of her running her finger, which resembles a raw sausage at this point, under cold water is breathtaking)! So we get a lot of haunted house standards, like green water and malfunctioning objects (love the crazed chainsaw scene, featuring a stunt double that has different color hair than the real actor), plus a few new ones - this might be the only haunted house movie that featured a bird being toaster-ovened.

And it delivers on a garbage disposal scare! I've lost count of how many horror movies have someone digging around in a garbage disposal only for nothing to happen, but this one brings it, with the dude spraying blood all over himself AND his would-be girlfriend. Points for the execution.

But it's got a lot of missed opportunities as well. The house is on a cliff, but they never use it for any scares - it just makes the climax look a little more dynamic, when they toss the lamp out the window and it goes down the cliff (which is impressive considering the house is like 100 yards away from the edge). Also, Fredric Lehne (yay!) plays a priest who is hellbent on stopping the evil, but he's incredibly lax about it; he flies to California and then just sort of hangs around his hotel waiting for the mother (Patty Duke) to come over so he can explain what's going on. This scene also takes place about 10 minutes before the movie ends (seriously), so it means our heroine never really does anything; she's still in "Things are sure strange around here lately.... weird. Oh well!" mode until this point, which does not make for particularly compelling (or, any) heroics. Instead, she spends most of the movie bickering with her mom (Jane Wyatt, in her final film), which is about as riveting as it sounds.

Also, why bother relocating to California and then setting the whole thing in yet another old and isolated almost-mansion by the water? Why not in a downtown high-rise, or at least a modern house in the hills, or something? I'm also baffled why they had to make the address so similar - this place is on OceanVIEW Ave. The laziness also applies to their phone number: 555-2341. Way to move the '1' over a bit to make it look like you were trying.

But it's not too boring, which I had feared, since the Amityville films aren't known for their body counts (and, as I mentioned, the villain is a friggin lamp). Stern (or novelist John G. Jones) at least had the good sense to add a whole bunch of peripheral characters to the movie, since Duke and her 3 adolescent children certainly wouldn't be killed (Wyatt was fair game though). So there's a plumber, the handyman, a maid, plus Lehne, who I'm so used to seeing as a villain I kept expecting him to turn evil and get killed by Duke, who I was still convinced would actually do something before the end of the film (she does cut the lamp cord, which is tied around Lehne, and thus save his life, for the record).

So the action isn't too infrequent, and there are some howlers every now and then, like when the eldest daughter sticks her head out of a window, which promptly slams down on her noggin (she's OK though, and later claims "it was an accident!" as if she was going to get in trouble for it). I also loved Duke's reply to Wyatt's insinuation that the youngest daughter might be responsible for the bad goings-on: "Mother, if you say that Jessica did this, I will hit you!" Not like, "so help me God..." or some other vague "threat", she flat out tells her elderly mother that she will lay hands on her. Awesome. But, again, Duke doesn't do anything.

The disc comes with some extras, including a surprisingly truthful one about the real house, which points out that the Lutzes were lying about most/all of their claims and that the family that lives there now has never had any problems. I would expect they'd try to ignore that little bit considering that the "true story" aspect is about the only appeal this franchise ever had. There's also some trivia and biographical information about Duke that they probably just swiped from her IMDb page. It would be more interesting to hear more about Zoe Trilling or Brandy Gold, the actresses who played the daughters. Gold had several credits prior but never made another appearance in anything, and Trilling seemingly vanished off the face of the earth in the 90s (her IMDb bio ends with "her fans want to know what happened to her", which is pretty odd - most end on a more positive note).

While on topic of supplements - you know what would be a cool extra on TV movie DVDs? Some of the commercials that aired during its premiere broadcast. Probably be a fun little addition. Something to think about if Don't Go To Sleep (another movie about a financially strapped family going to live with their bitchy grandmother, albeit a much better one) ever hits the format.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Empire Of The Ants (1977)

NOVEMBER 11, 2010

GENRE: MONSTER
SOURCE: NETFLIX (INSTANT VIEW)

For the most part, while still passably entertaining, Empire Of The Ants is one of the weaker post-Jaws giant _____ movies, due to the lack of any good characters, a lethargic pace, and a dulling sameness to most of the "giant ant" scenes. But a decent (read: batshit silly) twist in the final reel saves it from being a total waste of time.

Without Shatner (Kingdom of the Spiders), decent effects (Food of the Gods), or variety (Food, again, plus Frogs and Day of the Animals), Empire's creators clearly realized that in order to compete, they had to think outside the box (it doesn't seem to have come from the Wells short story). Thus, rather than have the typical evil human who screws over the other humans to save himself (and possibly profit, somehow - see: Nedry), we meet a whole bunch of folks who have discovered that we can work with the ants after some simple brain-washing (delivered via gas from an imprisoned ant - sure, why not). And it's not even some crazy scientist who explains this, it's a rather dim small town sheriff, who more or less says "We should be working for the ants, they're superior to us anyway."

This is actually foreshadowed in the first minute of the film, where a narrator tells us (over ant footage): "This is the ant. Treat it with respect." and later queries "Have you ever taken a good close look at what the ant is all about?" (I must admit, I haven't, and a Bert I. Gordon movie won't change that). But I forgot all about it until the plot twist came around, because right after this peculiar prologue we dive headfirst into a straight 25-30 minutes of boring real estate talk. Our heroes are mostly prospective investors in a Florida resort, and they're all together in order for landowner Joan Collins to show them the site and convince them to invest so construction can begin. It's bad enough none of this stuff has killer ants (or even really the threat of them, save for maybe one lone POV shot of an ant watching them), but it's just unforgivably dull to boot. Unless you're a realtor or time-share partner, I cannot fathom how anyone would find this stuff compelling.

Once the ants finally show up it picks up, and admirably keeps the ant attacks coming at a steady clip. Unfortunately, they're pretty much all the same: our heroes run around for a bit, one of them will yell "Stop!" or something, and then Gordon will cut to a wide shot of our heroes on the left side of the frame with a composited shot of actual ants on the other side, complete with a big blurry oval around them. He never even reverses the approach - they are ALWAYS on the right side of the screen. When they actually kill someone things improve - some crew members will thrash our actors with scale, otherwise immobile props. Of course, this means their size is always fluctuating from the closeups to the wide shots, but at least they didn't opt for too many obvious miniatures.

Our characters are a pretty bland lot. Robert Lansing is fine, but the others are interchangeable (except for the guy who looks like Will Ferrell playing one of his spacey characters), to the extent that it took me a while to recognize Halloween II's Pamela Susan Shoop as one of the comely lasses who spend most of the movie running and screaming. Even Joan Collins (no relation, as far as I know) barely registers after a few minutes, though (spoiler) I was still surprised she died at the end, given that she's easily the biggest star but doesn't really die a hero like in your Armageddons and what not.

And what do we have for the obligatory Jaws swipes? Well, the music is a direct copy from John Williams at times, and the mayor seems to be a bit of an ass, but at least there's no big town event to worry about. There IS the sugar refinery, however, which leads to one of the film's sillier moments (one of the ladies, after being chased by ANTS for the past day or so, ponders why someone warns her to stay away from the sugar refinery) and is an obvious target, though at least that's where the wacky twist occurs, instead of something that the town higher-ups are trying to save or whatever.

One final note to people making films in the 1970s - we do not need a zoomed in cutaway of the word "FLAMMABLE" on a truck. As far as I'm concerned (based on every other 1970s genre film I've ever seen), all vehicles are a spark or gunshot (if that much) away from exploding regardless of their contents. It is understood that anything that happens to them will cause an explosion. Ironically, said explosion here is pretty lame. You'd think that with its "FLAMMABLE" cargo that the resulting explosion would be pretty huge/awesome, but it's actually fairly disappointing. Even if it was carrying, I dunno, teddy bears I would expect something bigger and better. So the cutaway was even MORE pointless!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Dunwich Horror (1970)

NOVEMBER 10, 2010

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: NETFLIX (INSTANT)

As I've mentioned before, I was never much of a Lovecraft fan, but that won't stop me from checking out the films based on his stories. The Dunwich Horror is probably the oldest I've seen (it may even be the first), and it's also one of the best IMO, but after consulting the Wikipedia entry for the short story it's based on, I see that the film took giant liberties from the story (though kept many of the names), and not all of them seem to be for the better.

For one thing, Wilbur, the "hero" of the tale, is an alien/monster thing in the short story, but in the movie he seems to be completely human (albeit a warlock). He also died halfway through the movie in an attempt to steal the Necronomicon, but here the movie improves things by staging a hilariously clunky fight scene between Wilbur and a security guard. They topple over various chairs and such, seemingly hurting themselves as much as their opponent with each hit, and it goes on for a while longer than you would expect. Since a lot of the horror based stuff is largely off screen or obscured in some way, it's actually the action highlight of the movie.

Plus, by making him human, you get an amazing Dean Stockwell performance out of it. His delivery is so soft and eloquent, it's almost hypnotic in a way, and he looks very 70s with his mustache and perm, which just adds to the fun. But without what he added to the role, it would have been a very dull one - there really isn't a lot to the guy in the movie, and knowing that his role was written (by Lovecraft) to be an actual monster makes him even blander. So kudos to the casting folks and producers for getting someone as watchable as Stockwell to elevate the one-dimensional role into something memorable.

Don't get me wrong, the movie would still be entertaining even without Stockwell. There are times when it threatens to out-batshit The Wicker Man, with crazy dream/hallucination sequences (some with what looks like a cheesecloth overlay, for the hell of it) and death scenes that look like something Argento would cook up on an acid trip. It's also hilarious how often Stockwell poisons the love interest; it seems every other scene finds her drinking tea and then "feeling dizzy" after. No recollective memory whatsoever on this broad. There's also an old man who delivers all of his lines like he's the ghost of Bob Marley, who dies falling down a flight of stairs after attempting to beat Stockwell with his cane. Comedy gold.

One thing kind of bugged me though - the obvious California locales. It's supposed to be in Dunwich, Massachusetts (not a real town) but the look is pure northern California, too picturesque and bright to pass for a "Lovecraftian" Massachusetts locale. It should be all gloomy and blue, but instead I'm like "Oh this looks like a nice place to spend a romantic weekend".

The ending is also a bit too rushed. Like a Ti West film, it's a lot of buildup and then an abrupt conclusion, with several things not even really resolved. Like, where does the monster go? He kills some random folks (including a young/hot Talia Shire, still going by Talia Coppola) and then just sort of disappears. In fact, too much of the climax involves peripheral characters, leaving little time for the showdown between Stockwell and Ed Begley, his would-be nemesis that the film barely has him interacting with after the opening scenes (Begley's character owns the Necronomicon).

Maybe these things were fixed for the Syfy remake, which aired last year (with Stockwell now playing the Begley role - I love when they do stuff like that for remakes). I will check it out soon, though the fact that it's directed by Leigh Scott (an Asylum vet) doesn't bode well. At any rate, this version will probably appeal more to 70s slow-burn horror fans than Lovecraft ones, and is a must for Stockwell enthusiasts.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

House Of Fears (2007)

NOVEMBER 9, 2010

GENRE: SLASHER, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: NETFLIX (INSTANT VIEW)

At long last, a decent amusement park based slasher film! While technically just a "fun house" slasher, House Of Fears gets right what Dark Ride got so very very wrong - likable characters, a good pace, and a lack of annoying/convoluted plot twists. It may go a bit too far toward the "plotless" end of the spectrum for some, but I found the straight-forward approach quite refreshing. Add a random cameo by Jared Padalecki (as himself, I think?) and you have one of the better "Never heard of this but it's on Netflix instant so I'll watch it" selections I've had for HMAD.

Basically, the plot is that the usual 6 kids get trapped inside a fun house that's based on the most common fears: spiders, ghosts, the dark, etc. But there's this supernatural totem that gets disrupted and thus their own personal fears (buried alive, scarecrows, etc) come to life as well. So you have a place designed to scare you, still operating normally while they try to escape from the other stuff. It gives the film a very fast pace, and allows for a few decent thrills even when not much else is happening. So many of these movies end up taking place in the non-ride parts of the ride (like Funhouse, largely taking place in heating ducts and offices), but director Ryan Little takes full advantage of his location. Plus, while it may be a little too big to be believable, I like that they used a lot of actual funhouse standards, such as the "spinning" tunnel and black light painted hallways. It gave it a slightly higher sense of realism than say, Child's Play 3's traveling carnival that had a multi-million dollar indoor roller coaster ride.

And they waste no time in getting there. There's an opening scene to explain how the totem got there (well, sort of, it's a bit clunky in its attempt to get through it as quickly as possible), and some of our group are introduced as they are leaving a party to go check the place out. I'd say they were locked inside the funhouse by the end of the first reel, if there were reels on a Netflix stream.

Also, again, the kids are likable! Even the obligatory conflicts aren't based on mean-spirited hate, it's actually quite believable. Our heroine (Unrest's Corri English, who should be in more stuff) is sort of an introvert and forced by her mom and stepdad to join her new step-sister at the party and thus to the fun house, so they don't really get along. And another guy was interested in a girl (Shrooms' Alice Greczyn - yum) and hoping to have some alone time with her in the funhouse, but alas she gets back with her ex a few minutes before the party, apparently. So there's some personal drama, but it never overshadows the point of the movie, nor do they become spiteful toward each other. It's quite depressing that "our heroes don't spend half the movie yelling at each other" should be considered a reason that an otherwise average film really sticks out.

This also makes the order in which they die hard to peg; they're actually all likable enough that you don't really welcome any of their deaths. Even the obvious "first to die" guy (OK, the black guy) actually makes it pretty far, and since he was the one who had the inside info on the funhouse (his dad owned it), I figured the nerdy guy would be around for a while to deliver exposition, but he actually bites it first.

I'm really surprised it's not a PG-13 film though (it's "unrated", which usually means an R equivalent). None of the kills are particularly gory, and I believe it never gets any more sexual than a kiss or two. It could have even enjoyed a theatrical release (albeit a throwaway one like Molly Hartley). So many PG-13 horror films are ghost/haunted technology (read: J-horror remakes) based; it probably would have been exciting for teens to go see a slasher film that actually worked within the limits of the PG-13 rating (ironically, the reason Padalecki was in the film is because he was dating the girl playing the sister, whom he had starred with in the awful PG-13 slasher Cry_Wolf).

Keeping up with the positive notices, the Netflix transfer was quite good, though the specs online claim that the film is 2.35:1 scope, however this transfer was 1.78:1. Not sure if it's misinformation or a cropped transfer (it didn't SEEM cropped, for what it's worth), but if it's the latter it certainly wouldn't be a rare exception. Part of my problem with Netflix as this alleged "successor" to physical media is the number of poor/cropped transfers, with no way of being able to tell beforehand. If they really want to beat DVD at its own game, then they should provide more information about its transfers, including overall quality (is it taken from a VHS or a digital remaster?). With DVD you can use the price as a gauge of its quality (i.e. if it costs 99 cents at the drugstore - it's probably not going to win any technical awards), but Netflix groups everything together.

I do have one question about the film - what's with the "aging wood" opening titles? They look really cool, but they have no discernible connection to the film. The totem is stone, no one's afraid of wood or trees... weird.

Anyway, it's a bit mechanical at times, and the fact that it's aimed at teens may be a sore spot, but it's also a lot better than you'd expect given the history of funhouse/fun park movies. I enjoyed it, plain and simple.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Assault Of The Sasquatch (2009)

NOVEMBER 8, 2010

GENRE: INDEPENDENT, MONSTER
SOURCE: NETFLIX (INSTANT VIEW)

I can’t recall how I discovered it in the first place (most likely someone sent me a link), but one of my favorite Youtube regulars has to be Don the DVD guy, aka Coolduder, who has a series of videos that consist of him talking about all the DVDs he bought that week. Sometimes he reviews them, other times he just talks about how he bought it because it has a new cover (the Martin Lawrence film Blue Streak, for example). He’s entertaining enough on his own, but I mainly watch him because it makes me feel better about my spending habits. I didn’t even buy Blue Streak ONCE and it came out in 1999, the year I was buying DVDs at a rate of 4-5 a week (thanks to the now defunct reel.com shopping service). So this dude was NUTS. Anyway, I was overjoyed to see him pop up in Assault Of The Sasquatch, basically playing himself (along with Murph, his co-star) and having no real relevance to the movie.

In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if their scenes were filmed at a different time than the bulk of the production, as they never interact with any of the main characters, and even seem to be in a different movie entirely. While not completely without (intentional) humor, the bulk of the film is somewhat serious, with a lot of deaths (and not always at the paws of the Sasquatch) and a somewhat depressing tone (dead mothers and such). But Don and Murph seem to have stepped in from an 80s comedy, even spying on a girl in the shower at one point. Plus Don delivers each and every line as if he was Gilbert Gottfried’s over-caffeinated cousin.

But rather than make the movie schizo, it just adds to its charm. For starters, the “Assault” in its title is no accident; this is more or less Assault on Precinct 13 with a Sasquatch, as a collection of cops, criminals, and random civilians spend a good chunk of the film “trapped” in a police station with the ‘quatch outside. I’ve always wondered why the basic plot of Assault isn’t ripped off more often, so I was thrilled to see it used for something as random as a Bigfoot.

Even more thrilling – the kills in this movie are actually kind of awesome. I’ve been conditioned to expect the worst from these things, but they put the effort in here, with Sasquatch hands going through human heads, lots of general evisceration, etc. But my favorite has to be the guy who just gets pummeled by random objects – Bigfoot throws chunks of cement, a tire, even a goddamn mailbox at this poor bastard.

The actors are the expected mixed bag, but I sort of love the old crusty poacher guy. Whether he’s using his real or an exaggerated “angry old bastard” voice, I don’t care. Every time he opened his mouth I laughed. Again, the movie’s not particularly good, but it endlessly entertained me, more often than not by intentional means. I never got a whiff of the delusions of grandeur that plague such things.

Of course, there were still a lot of problems – some truly atrocious ADR and more than a few bizarre edits among them. It starts off really rough, with a too dark scene with the poachers cut back and forth between two cops in a car who don’t seem to actually be in the car at the same time (plus they’re both constantly looking to their right the entire scene, which is just awkward whether they’re together or not). And the lead girl is the worst actress, which always bugs me – it’s not like any of these folks have star power or anything, so why not use one of the better actresses (the ones in smaller roles) as the lead? She doesn’t even partially resemble the guy playing her dad (the ages don’t seem right either, I thought he was an older brother at first).

Also, according to my notes, the opening credits went on too long, but I mean, come on BC, that’s nitpicking.

Mainly I just liked that it wasn’t being taken too seriously. I’ve seen too many Sasquatch films that were just dull as dirt because they were trying too hard to be legit. This one’s a lot looser and goofy, but the characters (save Don and Murph, and in some instances, the Sasquatch) are playing it straight, not cracking one liners and mugging around like jackasses. In short, it’s a good little time.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Humongous (1982)

NOVEMBER 7, 2010

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

While it’s great to see any old horror movie projected in glorious 35mm, I really dig when it’s a movie that’s never been released on DVD. Not only does it make it a lot easier to justify driving around Los Angeles at 2 am (when it’s over), but it also presents a challenge for me – if I fall asleep, I can’t use it as my daily movie (and I LOVE seeing a midnight movie for HMAD purposes because it gives me a “waking day off”). Something like Manhunter, I can just grab my DVD and see what I missed. But Humongous? If I doze off, it’s goodbye midnight movie review, hello spending part of my Sunday with something on Netflix.

Luckily I managed to stay awake through pretty much all of it, missing only part of a kill scene (basically the stalking; I fell asleep when one character went off on his own, woke up as he was being killed). Between this and Madman, it’s becoming a habit! Maybe someday I can see an entire midnight movie!

Anyway, it’s definitely one of the odder early 80s slashers, thanks to a rather melancholy tone (seriously, the opening credits are like something out of a WC Fields adaptation) and some hilariously odd moments, like when one of our will-be victims carries a bunch of blueberries in her bosom, getting juice all over her chest and then giving herself a bath to clean it off (before laying half-naked on a guy who claims to be suffering from hypothermia). It also opens with a rather brutal rape scene, completely incongruent to the rest of the film, which is more in line with a Friday the 13th (kids being kids, light tone, silly “I think he’s dead” moments, etc).

Oddly, the rape is heavily R-rated while the rest of the film is largely blood free. Some of the kills just seem light on the splatter by design (such as the dude getting crushed by Humongous’ bare hands), but others are noticeably edited, such as when he kills Blueberry girl and frozen guy, which is cut so rapidly it actually becomes kind of confusing (it reminded me of the TV edit of Friday the 13th part 5, where they cut so much out of two kill scenes that they appeared in back to back quick shots that were in no way comprehensible). I guess the MPAA had it in for the Canadians back then; while our homegrown films were still plenty bloody even with some MPAA censoring (Halloween II, Friday the 13ths 1-4), Canadian flicks such as this and My Bloody Valentine were left almost completely neutered.

Speaking of those other movies, it seems director Paul Lynch (Prom Night) and screenwriter William Gray have seen them, too. At one point during the climax our Final Girl pulls an Amy Steel and pretends to be the killer’s mother, scolding him until he backs off enough for her to escape. Immediately after that, she goes out to the hallway and he appears behind her, knocking her over the railing and down the stairs, a sequence practically stolen shot for shot from the original Halloween. Lynch also tosses in some diopter shots to give it some De Palma flair.

But it’s got its share of original moments too. I already mentioned the wacky blueberry scene, but there’s a lot of others, like when one of the brothers fires a gun near his sibling’s head for no reason. The backstory involves dog-eating, and at one point a character who we thought was dead runs out and basically says “I’m not dead!” only to be instantly killed (for real) 3 seconds later. And any movie where the killer is dispatched with the obligatory/ignored “No Trespassing” sign is automatically worth some applause.

And again, it’s just sort of melancholy. The characterization isn’t very deep, but you will still sort of feel bad for pretty much everyone in the movie, even the killer. He’s the result of a brutal rape, raised by his mother on an island (the rape left her kind of hating people) with only some dogs as his friends, and when she died he was forced to eat the dogs to survive. Poor bastard. And then the heroine is left obviously scarred from her ordeal – the freeze frame final shot is very similar to one of the photos of Mrs. Humongous during the opening credits. There are grim slasher movies that bum me out because of the deaths of the characters (Texas Chainsaw The Beginning), and then there’s this, which just bums me out because of pretty much everything. But in a sort of charming and appealing way. I chalk it up to the Canadian accents.

According to Phil, the VHS of this movie is so dark that it’s impossible to tell what is going on, though it DOES have some restored gore footage, apparently. Hopefully no one will have to deal with it and a DVD will come along sooner than later. Either way, I hope Phil and the rest of the New Bev crew can continue to dig up prints of these not-on-DVD titles. It’s a great diversion to the usual cult classics and the type of thing HMAD is meant for.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Damned By Dawn (2009)

NOVEMBER 6, 2010

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

Sometimes I’m really baffled by the quotes on DVD cases. I mean, it’s one thing to say a movie is great when I think otherwise, but then there’s stuff that truly confounds me, like the one on the cover of Damned By Dawn*: “Sick of waiting for Evil Dead 4? Check out Damned by Dawn.” Look, Damned is not a bad movie by any means, but that’s sort of like saying Analyze That could be considered the 4th Godfather film. They have similar subject matter, but the tone is completely different, and I think if you go in expecting ED-style horror/comedy you're bound to be disappointed.

For one thing, Damned is a fairly humorless movie. There’s some dry silliness concerning the family’s lack of culinary skills (the father stirs coffee with his finger, the sister’s cooking is so bad that they send out our heroine’s boyfriend for pizza), but otherwise it’s more like a Hammer film, where it’s all about the atmosphere and fog machines going haywire. Even the occasional gore doesn’t seem very splattery or over-the top, it’s just what you’d expect from the wound being given. Plus, and I’ve said this before – it’s not “fun” to see a family get killed in a movie. This girl loses her sister, grandmother, father, and boyfriend over the course of a single evening. A bunch of partying friends – fine, but a family getting picked off one by one is just kind of grim.

And that’s a shame, because there are some scenes here that would have benefited greatly from Sam Raimi’s crazed touch and humorous performances. Late in the film, our heroine and one of the other survivors (not for long!) are attempting to drive away from the house where most of the action takes place, only to be swarmed by flying skeleton ghost things. When the ghosts are hit, they turn into mud that splatters all over the point of impact (i.e. the windshield), which of course limits their visibility. It’s a cool scene, but its played for scares, which is slightly problematic since the CGI is a bit underwhelming. Had it been played for laughs the CG wouldn’t have been an issue.

But it’s not a bad flick. I dug the old-school approach mixed with the new “toys”, such as CGI and (LOTS of) color correction – the final shot is the only one where we see someone with natural color. Everything else has been given a dreary and cold blue feel, which works perfectly (it’s almost jarring to see the non-colored shots in the behind the scenes). And the Banshee is a monster that doesn’t get enough cinematic love, if you ask me.

Also, it does take a while to get going (first kill is around the 30 minute mark), but it’s pretty non-stop from there, as our characters are constantly being besieged by one thing or another. Plus, the action often takes place in two locales (folks are always finding an excuse to go outside while something’s going down inside), so it helps keep up the frenetic pace without becoming repetitive. And there’s variety! Cockroaches, skele-ghosts, the banshee herself, even a random zombie of sorts all make things tough on our heroes. The low budget may be apparent, but so is the ambition, and that is to be commended.

Even if you didn’t like the movie you should give the making of a look, because it’s a pretty comprehensive and entertaining look at how they pulled off what they did considering their meager resources, with lots of funny anecdotes and revelations (one might want to go back and re-watch any scenes with the father running through the woods). It also offers a brief look at some deleted scenes and some of the team’s early (impressive looking) short films, which is nice since the making of is the only video based extra on the disc (besides the trailer) – I wish they had put some of the shorts on the disc as well. The only other supplement is a pair of commentary tracks, one for cast and the other for crew (writer/director/producer Brett Anstey is on both). The crew track repeats some of the information found on the making of, but it’s a non-stop chat fest, with a lot of anecdotal production information and a general sense of camaraderie that I always enjoy.

The video quality is quite good. They didn’t use the best digital camera in the world, but with all of the post production coloring helped (just compare it to the rather soap-opera looking deleted scenes in the making of, which aren’t color corrected), and the codec handles the very dark and muted look of the film quite well. Audio isn’t demo material (though the Banshee’s wails will give your entire setup a nice workout), but sounded crisp and clear, which is good since they strangely provide no subtitle track.

So it’s got a shaky start and carries the weight of some unfortunate comparisons splashed all over its DVD case, but if you can keep your expectations in check you should enjoy the film. It’s well made, fast paced (once it starts) and tackles an under-utilized monster myth, and on a meager budget to boot. I look forward to the next Amazing Krypto Bros. production.

What say you?

*I did “see” the movie back in 2009 at Screamfest, but I slept through a great deal of it and couldn’t remember anything. Plus I understand it was reworked some since then for this release version, so I feel it’s a perfectly acceptable qualifying entry for HMAD. However, I also saw Trash Humpers today, which IMDb called a horror movie. I wouldn’t necessarily agree, but it’s definitely on the weird/creepy side of things, and mainly defies reviewing. I believe I referred to it as “The Strangers meets Dancing Outlaw”, if that is of any help. See it if you can!

PLEASE, GO ON...