Berberian Sound Studio (2012)

SEPTEMBER 22, 2012

GENRE: ITALIAN, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (FANTASTIC FEST SCREENING)

When my good friend (and Fangoria editor) Sam Zimmerman told me about Berberian Sound Studio, I thought he was making it up - it sounded too good to be true. Toby Jones (a solid character actor who always delivers) starring in a modern giallo about a guy mixing the sound for a giallo? AMAZING! It quickly shot to the top of my must-see list for Fantastic Fest, and I was lucky to see it at the same screening as Sam, along with Fearnet's Lawrence Raffel and Shock's Ryan Turek. Horror united!

Sadly, this isn't really a giallo - in fact it's not much of anything. Jones is indeed working on a giallo of sorts (it's a hodgepodge of several different brands of Italian horror, sort of like how Cabin in the Woods was generally riffing on all teen movies, not specifically slashers or whatever), but the closest the movie gets to having a discernible story is "Toby Jones gets frustrated working on a sleazy Suspiria ripoff". I kept thinking it was just a slow burn about his gradual mental breakdown until he snapped and killed someone (or everyone), but the film just sort of trails off, tossing in some Lynchian dream logic instead of paying off any of the film's minor subplots in a satisfactory way.

The most pressing matter in the entire movie is Jones' attempts to get reimbursed for his flight to Italy, and just when it gets really interesting (someone tells him there WAS no flight in the first place), it's dropped. No one ever mentions the flight or his money again, so what happened there? Perhaps we're supposed to take away the idea that Jones HIMSELF didn't exist, which would double as a (very thin) commentary on the unsung heroes of the film industry, whose tireless efforts mostly go unrecognized by the filmgoing public at large (raise your hand if you've ever waited until the sound or production design Oscars to go to the bathroom or fix yourself another drink).

But if that's the case, isn't there a better way to go about it than inside of a movie about a guy listening to the ADR and foley sessions for a horror flick called The Equestrian Vortex? And being a worthy message, shouldn't it be pretty up front? As the guy who makes the friggin end credits for TV shows and movies, I certainly feel for those who do far more important things for a movie and get no recognition (outside of those Oscars that you fast forward), and would welcome a film that was literally about such a thing. That said, the opening titles for Equestrian are terrific - I would totally watch that movie.

So it's a shame that the titles are all we see of it. We get a ton of scene descriptions (many of which seem to be directly inspired by Suspiria, with young girls and witches in a school of some sort) and hear their gibberish dialogue during ADR, but we don't see a single frame of the film itself. At least until the very end, when nothing is making a goddamn lick of sense and (spoiler?) we see that Jones appears to be the star of the film? Also he's suddenly fluent in Italian, and the letters he's been getting from his mom are apparently comprised of lines from the script, or vice versa. Or neither. I dunno.

What I do know is this: there are more shots of vegetables in this movie than in a documentary about produce. The Foley dudes use lettuce for a variety of things, and he uses radishes to make a certain stabbing sound, plus there's some sort of squash or something (look, I'm not a vegetables guy) that they use for when a body plops to the floor. Part of Jones' character is that he's not into horror movies, and usually does documentaries and the like (he thought the movie was actually about equestrians - silly fool! Giallo titles never have a damn thing to do with the movie!), so one of the movie's few remaining strong points is watching him slowly get used to this nonsense after his first few scenes, where he's repulsed by what he's seeing.

And by "remaining strong points", I'm referring to the fact that the movie really works for a half hour or so, as it feels like it's building toward something and that our patience will be rewarded. Plus it's just amusing seeing them spoof on sleazy Italian filmmakers, who berate their actresses and (in the producer's case) do everything in their power to avoid spending any money at all. But since nothing pays off satisfactorily, it's hard to really say "Ah, it doesn't really stick the landing" - it never even lands the metaphorical plane. And again, even the subplots don't even pay off, let alone the main narrative, so if I were to watch this again, it's possible I wouldn't even like the stuff I enjoyed the first time, because now I know it goes nowhere.

But it's still got another solid turn from Jones, a few lovely Italian ladies (the receptionist in particular is stunning), and the occasional riff on giallo nonsense (a poultry tunnel!), which keeps it from being a complete waste of time. Plus it was on 35mm; always a nice little surprise in this day and age. Someday someone WILL make a giallo about a guy making a giallo, but sadly this is not it - and what it IS is a messy disappointment. If you're jonesing to watch a movie about a sound guy, watch Blow Out.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Room 237 (2012)

SEPTEMBER 21, 2012

GENRE: DOCUMENTARY
SOURCE: STREAMING (ONLINE SCREENER)

Incidentally, The first time I ever became aware of obsessive behavior was when I was about 9 or 10, when a co-worker of my mother told me that her brother watched The Shining just about every day, which even as a kid I found ridiculous. Maybe it's just my own neurotic hatred of repetition (even my favorite films didn't get watched too often BEFORE I started HMAD), but to me it just seems like there are way too many things to do with your limited lifespan to watch a movie on a nearly nightly basis. But people do, and thus it's fitting that Room 237 is, if memory serves, the first documentary I've ever seen about people who obsess over a movie so much that they start coming up with their own outlandish theories as to what it is really about.

There are only 5-6 participants in the film, which is a bit of a bummer as I would have liked to have heard more theories, even if they just amounted to a few words on a particular moment or scene. I mean, it's not like there's ever going to be MULTIPLE documentaries about Shining obsessives, so it strikes me as a missed opportunity that they couldn't find someone to offer up his thoughts on what the hell is going on with that dude in the room with the guy in the teddy bear suit. We also never see any of these folks, another thing that irked me a bit - obviously everyone in the movie is coming off as a bit of a crackpot, so seeing them might have helped their cause as I'm sure most or all of them are perfectly normal people (it also would help remember which theory belonged to which person). A faceless voice telling you that the film is a metaphor for the slaughter of Native Americans is insane, but if you see a guy sitting in his typical office, wearing a nice sweater and sipping a bottled water telling you that, maybe it sounds a little more plausible.

And yes, that is one of the actual theories presented here, and in my opinion not even the craziest. To the credit of all participants, they clearly took the time to pore over the film and find things that backed up their claims - it's not like someone just says "The movie is a metaphor for the birth of Jesus" and lets you figure out how he came to that conclusion. In fact one of the most interesting things about watching it is seeing how certain scenes are used over and over as we hear 2-3 different interpretations of the sequence. Depending on who you're listening to, Danny playing with his trucks in the hallway is referencing World War II or Kubrick's admission that he helped fake the Apollo moon footage.

That one's actually my favorite (and even though it's probably the most insane, it's also the only one I actually started to believe). The guy stresses that he doesn't doubt that they went to the moon, just that the footage we've seen is faked. According to him, Kubrick bought the rights to King's "The Shining" because his wife found out that he was involved with the faked footage, and thus the movie serves as both his apology to her and his "thinly veiled" admission about what he did. Evidence? The much ballyhooed changing of the room 217 to 237 is not because the hotel didn't want that actual room being tied to the horrible events that happen in it, but because the distance from the moon to Earth is 237k miles. And note that Danny has an Apollo 11 sweater on when he sees the room! The guy unfortunately makes an ironic mistake, when he says that the room key has "ROOM No. 237" printed on it, and that the "only other word" one could spell with those capital letters is MOON. Well, you can use all five of those letters and spell "MORON". Whoops.

This is pretty much how all of the theories work - someone gets fixated on a random prop or wardrobe choice, and creates an entire story behind it. The Calumet baking powder that's on the shelf? "Calumet" is the word for peace-pipe, so the movie is about the slaughter of the Native Americans. The photo of Nicholson fades in a certain way that makes it look like he has a Hitler 'stache because the movie is about World War II! And I can't remember the theory it supposedly refers to, but the poster of a skier in the game room is apparently not a skier, but a minotaur.

Other than the Apollo stuff, the most interesting thing in the movie is the dissection of the film's sets, how rooms have windows when every other scene shows that the room is in the middle of the building, or that staircases lead nowhere. There are also strange continuity errors that seem like they would HAVE to be intentional, like a sticker that disappears on Danny's bedroom door. This stuff I totally believe; I'm sure some of it is just a mistake in the set building, but it makes total sense that Kubrick would try to disorient us on a subconscious level, and that's a wonderful way to do it. Certainly makes more sense than a guy inexplicably using a haunted hotel movie to tell the story of World War II.

Horror fans will be delighted at one aspect of the movie's strange decision to be created entirely out of existing footage with new voiceover, however. While most of the footage is from Kubrick's filmography (I think every one of his films is represented), they use a lot of the early theater shots from Demons to represent a crowd watching The Shining or whatever in a movie theater. At first I thought it was just some wishful thinking, as it was just a wide shot of the back of their heads and I was like "is that Demons? No, can't be..." but then they use closeups of the main girl and that one asshole that took his wife to a free screening for their anniversary. Also, if you're a fan of the amazing short film "The S From Hell" (from the same director, I realized later), make sure you stick around until the very end of the credits.

Obviously, if you're a fan of The Shining or of conspiracy theories, it's definitely worth a look. Whether or not you agree with even a single one of these people is sort of irrelevant - it's just fascinating to see how much effort someone will put into dissecting the (possibly/probably not intentional) meanings of a movie. That it happens to be a movie that is considered one of the greatest horror films ever by many just makes it all the more appealing to us horror nerds. I wish they had a little more fun with it, and again the lack of actual interview footage was distracting, but it's certainly a fun "alt" way to enjoy the world of the Overlook Hotel.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Sinister (2012)

SEPTEMBER 21, 2012

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (FANTASTIC FEST)

The great thing about Sinister is that it was described early on as a found footage movie, but that's not actually what it is. Instead of someone filming every move with a digital video camera, it's actually ABOUT finding footage! Ethan Hawke is a true crime novelist who discovers some disturbing home movies in the attic of his new home, and the film is about the nature of that, er, found footage. I've been joking for years about making a movie about the guy who finds the footage for all these Paranormal Activity wannabes, but I'm lazy, so unless you steal my idea this is the closest we're going to come to it.

As a true crime buff of sorts (in that I've wasted more than one afternoon watching Unsolved Mysteries clips of unsolved murders/disappearances, ditto the similar Wikipedia pages), I totally dug the idea of centering a horror film around a guy like Hawke's character, who had a lot of success with a book called "Kentucky Blood" (which sounds like a "Thin Blue Line" type account of a botched police investigation), but his followup books haven't had much success, and they're moving to this new house because they can no longer afford the old one (which we see, briefly, and realize just how successful the book must have been - it's practically a mansion). Thus, like with Amityville and some others, there's a strong throughline of the stress brought on by financial hardship, and Hawke's obsession with delivering another bestseller goes beyond his ego - he's also a guy trying to provide for his family. At times Hawke can come off as a bit dickish, but understandably so, and he's a likable enough actor that he can coast a bit off that bond with the audience.

Also, he's discovering this case along with us, so we're never too far ahead or behind him. He's moved to this area in order to research an unsolved murder of a family that lived there, but he discovers that they might just be the latest victims of a serial killer that has been operating since the 60s. Every few scenes brings another revelation, and I wouldn't dream of revealing more than I already have, but suffice to say I would advise skipping the trailer, because the joy of discovery is part of the fun, and also what gives the film much of its power - rarely has a "this goes much deeper than you initially believed" type plot been paced so well, perfectly balancing the plot driven (read: somewhat talky) scenes with the scares.

Oh yes, the scares. If you've read enough of my reviews, or just know me, you'd know that I don't scare easily (which makes it kind of funny that I've written over 2000 horror movie reviews - who the fuck am I to tell you what movies to watch when I don't find them scary?) but I got two or three good jolts out of this one, which is two or three more than normal. But even better than a good jump scare is being genuinely unnerved or creeped out, and that's where Sinister excels. It's a grim flick, but not a nihilistic one, which is a distinction I don't see often enough. Usually, especially as of late, grim equals a bunch of folks being tied to chairs and taking blowtorches to the face or something, but there's actually very little on-screen violence in the film, with nearly all of it occurring on the super 8 videos he finds.

And that darkness has a balance, mostly courtesy of Deputy So And So, a character who is never given an actual name. He's a fan of Ellison and his books, and unlike the other local cops, is willing to assist him in digging up old records for research. He's not stupid, just sort of nervous and slightly naive, and provides some laughs in the film where they are most needed, but never so much that it starts to become a comedy. Hawke also gets a few subtly hilarious moments, particularly with regards to how much he has told his wife about their proximity to the murder scene he is researching.

Basically, it just WORKS, dammit. The pace can get slightly "off" at times (Ellison finds a peculiar link between two of the murdered families and it's another hour before anyone follows up on it, for example), and the female lead apparently drops into a coma when she sleeps because she never seems to wake up when Ellison screams, crashes through the rotted attic floor, etc. But those are minor quibbles, and the pros far outweigh these tiny cons. It's a perfect October release, filled with scares and creepy moments, but R rated and more adult in nature than the other seasonal offerings (Paranormal 4, also from Blumhouse). Plus, it's an ORIGINAL R rated horror movie coming out in October, which are even more rare. Out of the year's nearly 300 HMAD entries, this remains one of my favorites - hopefully that's a good enough pitch for you!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Non Canon Review: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012

GENRE: COMEDIC, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION))
LAST SEEN: 2010 (REVIVAL SCREENING)

For the life of me I can't remember his name, but for my first 2-3 weeks of my junior year at college, I had an extra roommate due to a housing issue, which drove me nuts as I was the type who hated having even one roommate, let alone another (the chosen roommate was my friend Steve. We haven't talked much since that year, incidentally). But I did try to make nice in my own way, and thus one night we watched Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, which had recently come out on DVD. I don't think he liked it much, but he got his correct room not too long after that, so he was spared further horror movies.

I bring it up because I think it was the only time I watched that version of the DVD, which had OK picture but TERRIBLE audio, and zero bonus features. The 2006 release (dubbed the "Gruesome Edition" and boasting new box art that looked like a Saw film) had a superior transfer plus lots of bonus features, and thus I tossed out that old one. Now, again six years later, we have the film's first Blu-ray release, which is just a port of that 2006 one, albeit with the image obviously improved thanks to Blu-ray's higher resolution. It's not a "night and day" transfer - in fact I was more impressed with the jump from the 2000 to 2006 versions (both on standard DVD!), but I guess one can't really complain about a solid representation of what was an improved transfer. It's an intentionally grimy looking movie - it's never going to be demo quality. Still, if you already own that edition, I should note that it's identical in every way as far as the bonus features (and box art), so the slightly improved image is really the only reason to upgrade.

But if you're still stuck with the original DVD from 2000, by all means run, don't walk, to the nearest store and pick this baby up, as it's loaded with great supplements and a much improved audio track - you want that chainsaw duel to sound amazing, not like it was recorded through a wall like it did on that hideous disc. Plus, this is one of those movies that just gets better every time I watch it; I pick up on more and more humor (and with a much clearer audio track, make out some of screenwriter Kit Carson's wonderfully gonzo dialogue and colorful profanity). Yes, this movie is more of a comedy than the suspenseful extreme horror of the original, but to me that works in its favor - they've already done that perfectly, so why copy it? Instead, they tried something new, and mostly succeeded.

By mostly, I refer to the film's odd structure, which puts the film's biggest chainsaw kill scene in the first 10 minutes (the two yuppie assholes in the car) and then pretty much leaves any chainsawing out of it until the very end, when Leatherface has his battle with Dennis Hopper's dual wielding (and equally insane) lawman. The only other kill in the film is LJ, who is mostly done in by Chop-Top and his hammer. There was a big massacre scene in a parking garage where the family took out more yuppies, but it was cut for pacing - possibly the first time in horror history where a big kill scene was removed because it was slowing the movie down. It also would have been the only actual "massacre" in a Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie, so its removal is a bummer.

Otherwise, the movie is just pure gonzo greatness. Hopper's nutty turn as Lefty can stand proudly alongside his much more "respectable" roles in 1986 - Blue Velvet and Hoosiers, the latter of which earned him an Oscar nod. The male protagonists in all five of the other films tend to be boring and forgettable compared to the Sawyers (or Hewitts) and their hysterical, ass-kicking heroines, but TCM2 offers not only Hopper's Loomis-esque nut but also LG, played by the late Lou Perryman. He doesn't get to do much, but his puppy dog crush on Stretch, colorful dialogue, and INSANELY high pain tolerance make for a memorable side character - it's a shame none of the following movies saw fit to have a character in the vein of either one of these guys.

It also gives an expanded role to Jim Siedow, who unfortunately had to pretend to be a good guy for half of his screentime in TCM1. Here he's allowed to drop the act for most of the film, save for an amazing bit early on (his first scene, in fact) where he wins a chili cookoff. Of course, WE know the secret to his tasty meat, so the scene is just a black comic treasure, with everyone (including our heroes) cheering on their unsuspecting cannibalism. And Siedow is firing on all cylinders here, playing a role that can be considered the most normal of the Sawyer clan in one moment and the craziest in the next. Or sometimes simultaneously - check out the bit where he orders Leatherface to kill Stretch but can't help but feel a bit of fatherly pride that his "Bubba" is crushing on her.

Plus: BILL MOSELEY. Possibly the most underrated genre actor working today (in that he can actually disappear into a role and play sympathetic easily, something that eludes guys like Robert Englund who always feel a bit creepy), this was his first big role, and like Siedow, gives it his all, making Edwin Neal's performance as the Hitchhiker in the first film (who is the twin brother of Moseley's character) look somewhat restrained at times. Keep an eye on him during scenes that are otherwise focused on other characters - out of focus and in the background he may be, but he's still completely committed to Chop-Top's human Tazmanian Devil routine.

I could go on and on: Savini's FX are top-notch (particularly the human skin faces), the set/production design is Oscar-worthy, it features the longest bridge in the world, etc. But it's been over 25 years - you're either on board by now, or you're missing out. Your loss!

For us fans though, again, this is a great special edition. Tobe Hooper's commentary is unsurprisingly low-key - he's never been much of a talker, and most of what he says is just repeating what the moderator says. He does get into some of the film's social commentary and a few production stories, but otherwise it's a track that is in need of a couple of Red Bulls. Luckily, the other commentary, with Moseley, Savini, and Caroline Williams (moderated by Michael Felsher) more than makes up for it - it's a terrific mix of information and trivia, shooting anecdotes, and just enough jokes about the movie to let you know that they're aware it's not perfect, but not so much that it becomes MST3k. With four participants there's some interruptions and talking over one another, but

Then there's "It Runs In The Family" a six part documentary that runs about 90 minutes all together (you can Play All or watch them individually). Hooper and Hopper are absent, but pretty much every other principal that's still alive is here, with a hefty part of the doc focused on Carson, whom we've rarely heard from over the years, so that's a great bonus as he discusses the constant rewriting and budgetary issues (it's amazing this movie is even watchable, let alone good). Everyone has great stories about the grueling production, and it covers just about everything you could want.

Less satisfying are the deleted scenes, as they are in the roughest of rough shape - seemingly taken from a duped VHS workprint, they aren't even close to complete. Sound FX and music are gone, dialogue is occasionally left out (subtitles provide the missing words), and they're stretched out to boot. Obviously it's interesting to see these things, but is this really the best they could do? There's gotta be a better copy (if not the original negatives) for this footage somewhere, right? Anyway, the aforementioned massacre scene is a hoot, as is the Joe Bob Briggs cameo (for which he still receives credit). There's also a little more between Lefty and Stretch, and a minor bit where we get proof that Chop-Top was blown up at the film's conclusion. Honestly, all of it should have been left in the movie; it's a longer film than the original but it never drags, and I don't see how any of this stuff would hurt it if it was edited and mixed properly.

As with Jeepers Creepers, FOX/MGM didn't see the need to give the film an actual menu screen, so the movie just starts up and will loop forever if you leave it on, which is fine since like I said it just gets better every time you watch it. So if you're watching it for the first time and don't care for it, but can't find the remote, just let it play again - you might be surprised to discover it's pretty dang good.

What say you?

Film score: 8/10 AV score: 7/10 Extras score: 8/10

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

House At The End Of The Street (2012)

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012

GENRE: TEEN, THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (ADVANCED SCREENING)

The first time I saw a trailer for House At The End Of The Street (somewhat portentously referred to as "HATES" on Twitter), I thought "This looks like another Dream House", referring to that time-waster's "What REALLY happened in that house?" plot and hints at big twists that probably wouldn't make up for the running in circles required to make them work. However, I just now realized that the two films were written by screenwriter David Loucka, and since both are so lackluster, I don't think I'm going to allow him a chance at a third strike. Though he wrote The Dream Team, which I quite liked, so I dunno. Maybe he should just stick to Michael Keaton comedies and leave horror/thriller to those who are a little better at it.

Then again who knows who is to blame for this movie's script, as it has seemingly been through a lot of changes in the past NINE years when it was first announced as a project between Jonathan Mostow (directing) and Richard Kelly (writing). Kelly's name is nowhere to be found now, but Mostow has story credit with Loucka getting solo screenplay honors. Add in what was most likely a producer/studio insisted PG-13 rating, and you have a film that's been way too overcooked to have much of a chance of really working.

Now, I don't like to harp on the PG-13 horror films - many of them have worked quite well and you don't need gore to be scary or tell a good story. But in this particular case, the story almost REQUIRES the ability to go into some dark territory - once we know what the villain has been up to, it's actually kind of disturbing... but only on paper. In the actual film, it's sandpapered down to a mere nub, presented in far too safe of a way to really be effective, even to the younger audience who probably won't bother to take the time to think about what the villain was doing. Indeed, the crowd I saw it with was skewed to the teen side, and while they were shrieking at the film's many jump scares (no one ever walks through a door in this movie unless something happens to them immediately after - to be fair one of them actually gave me a jolt), as the film went on they were giggling more often than not, and the mock gasps when the twist was revealed outweighed the real ones.

It also gives its supporting cast absolutely nothing to do; usually you have to watch every season of a long-running serial program to see this many dropped subplots. Jennifer Lawrence quickly makes friends with another girl and joins her band, but both of them disappear at the end of the second act, never to be mentioned again. Gil Bellows' cop character (one of the least effective police officers in history, I might add) is introduced mid-scene, and somehow becomes best friends with Lawrence's mother (Elizabeth Shue) as we see his cell phone only has three numbers with hers being one - what's up with that? And I can't explain in detail without giving away the twist, but there's a giant unanswered question that seems like it would have made for a huge part of the 3rd act reveals, and is instead ignored entirely.

Basically, the movie lacks any details. It's almost a surprise they bothered giving anyone a name - seems a bit too specific compared to everything else. Lawrence is solid, giving her character more spunk and wit than similar characters have gotten in recent thriller fare, but everyone else (even Shue) might as well be the anonymous peasants you meet in role playing games - they have one bit of information to provide, and that's it. I knew it was going to be Lawrence's show, but it's ridiculous how little the other characters seem to matter in the long run, not to mention how infrequently they interact - Bellows and Lawrence never even meet.

Also, director Mark Tonderai (who, oddly enough, wrote and directed Hush, which was a lot like Mostow's Breakdown) apparently misplaced his tripod for most of the shooting schedule, so bring your Dramamine. As with the PG-13 rating, there's a time and place to employ shaki-cam, but Lawrence and Shue talking about dinner or Lawrence playing out one of the 57 scenes in the movie where she hears a noise are not among them. He even tosses in a ridiculous 360 scene when folks are talking about that most exciting of topics: REAL ESTATE! Does it ever occur to folks to just make their story more interesting rather than move the camera around a lot to make the dull scenes seem more exciting?

But really, its biggest crime is that it's completely mediocre. You might miss some of the details, naturally, but anyone who has seen a few thrillers could probably tell you more or less exactly how the film will play out after about 15 minutes. And that is the worst thing that could happen to this type of movie - the element of surprise is too essential for thrillers, and this plays it overly safe at every single turn (including the non-death of a character seemingly killed). I'd love to see what earlier drafts looked like, before all of its personality and danger was excised for one reason or another, until all that was left was this well intentioned but completely hollow husk.

What say you?

P.S. This was shot in 2010 and the copyright is 2011, which means that it was just sitting on a shelf somewhere, likely unearthed only because Lawrence starred in one of the year's highest grossing films. Thanks a lot, Hunger Games!

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dead Sushi (2012)

SEPTEMBER 19, 2012

GENRE: COMEDIC, WEIRD
SOURCE: STREAMING (ONLINE SCREENER)

Roughly an hour into Dead Sushi (Japan: Deddo sushi), the enemy gains a new power, to which a character yells "Things have reached the point where they no longer make any sense!" The joke is, next to nothing about the movie has made any sense so far, making this line the final bit of evidence that we aren't supposed to take any of it seriously, and instead should just enjoy the total insanity and laugh at/cheer for whatever comes next.

Of course, if you're just not into these things, I highly doubt that or any other line would have much of an effect on you. Even I have rolled my eyes at some of them, but I'm happy to say that this one hit the spot, providing 90 minutes of nutty entertainment without ever really boring or annoying me. And it was perfect timing for it; I'm stressed out trying to get ready for Fantastic Fest (I leave Friday morning), behind on the site thanks to an influx of late arriving Blu-rays I needed to review (none of which could count for my daily new movie), and it's the busiest time of the year at work as the new fall season is launching. A challenging, cerebral horror movie would likely make my head explode - this one has a disembodied head fly across the room and "land" on the owner's girlfriend's own head for an impromptu/disgusting "make out session". But I wouldn't expect any less from Noboru Iguchi, who gave us a few other entries in this "Robo Fart Ninja Zombie" genre, after a (seemingly abandoned) career in adult films where he gave us classic titles like Beautiful Girl on The Toilet 2 - Secret Excrement.

The movie throws a new curveball at us every few minutes, keeping it engaging and never too repetitive, at least with regards to the antagonists. The movie takes place in and around a spa/restaurant, which obviously isn't too big of a locale, so you see a lot of the same rooms and hallways over and over, and the structure never strays too far beyond having two or three people realizing they're in danger, running from the threat, getting stuck, and then one or two of them will get killed in gory (but silly) ways. Then we cut to another trio and the same thing happens. Eventually there's one hero and one villain left standing, and they have a hand to hand fight that wouldn't seem too out of place in any comedically charged martial arts film, except I bet this is the only one that ends with one of them being kicked out of a window, flying several hundred feet above ground, and then exploding.

But the titular sushi keep changing. They fly, they form weaponry, they possess corpses, they even sing at one point ("Any sushi that sings can't be all that bad.") - it seems any nutty idea anyone had would find its way into the movie, somehow. There's even a humanoid sushi - the film's human villain injects a serum and becomes a fish-man, who uses found weapons (great use of an ax) to add to all the carnage. And I particularly liked when two of the sushi began having sex against a tree, resulting in a spawn of baby flying sushi that swarm around like insects.

Plus it's entertaining even during the non-sushi scenes, a big help as some of these other movies are overloaded with rubbish subplots (Vampire Girl vs Frankenstein Girl comes to mind). This one stays focused on the main story of a wronged man seeking revenge against his former employers (via... sushi), with the few diversions being character based, such as the "tragic" (read: hilarious) back-story for one of the male heroes, where we learn he accidentally stabbed his wife to death during a cooking mishap and is thus now afraid of knives. Of course, when his flashback ends the person he's talking to points out that there's a knife rack nearby, and thus the movie resumes being frantic and silly as he begins freaking out until the knives are taken away. Definitely not a "for your consideration" moment, at any rate.

My only real complaint about the flick (raising concerns about its lack of a coherent plot would be besides the point) would be the obnoxious sound FX, where characters can't even reach for a pair of chopsticks without an accompanying WHOOOSH sound. Some of them aren't even in sync properly, making it sound cheesier and sloppier than it already did. They dial it back a bit as the film goes on, but in those early scenes, where I was still unsure if this was going to be worthy of my limited time, it was a near fatal flaw. But it recovered, and before long I was giggling frequently, eyes widening as things got more outlandish and the blood splatter (a mix of practical and CGI - fine) kept coming.

Needless to say, if you're not a fan of this particular brand of "horror movie" from Japan, this certainly won't be the one to change your mind. Then again, I think they are an acquired taste of sorts; I find myself enjoying each one I see a bit more than the last (though I admit I might enjoy this one more than Vampire Island simply because it's 30 minutes shorter). It's just a shame that I had to watch it on a screener because it didn't appear likely that I'd make any of its FF screenings due to conflicts (or simply not being there), as that would be the ideal setting for such a thing. Then again, maybe that's a compliment - I was able to enjoy the film by myself on a tiny monitor, which means it'd probably be even better in the appropriate setting. So if you've only seen one or two of these things, unless you've downright hated every second of them, give this a chance when it comes your way.

What say you?

P.S. I wrote this review a few days late as is, and planned to format/post when I next had some time, but when that time came, the review was gone. So now even more time has passed, and my brain is fried from seeing 20 movies in between. Thus, forgive the fact that this writeup is a bit vague. Blame Blogger.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Blu-Ray Review: Halloween II Special Edition

SEPTEMBER 18, 2012

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

Universal really screwed over Michael Myers fans last year when they put out the first Blu-ray of Halloween II, opting not to include several already available bonus features nor commission any new ones, and pouring salt in the wound by replacing Moustapha Akkad's credit on the top of the film (it was later corrected, but the insult was never satisfyingly explained). Thankfully, Shout! Factory has managed to right the wrongs just a year later, providing a real special edition that has pretty much everything we've been asking for.

And that includes the "Television Cut" of the film, which is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the "Rick Rosenthal Cut". However this moniker is inaccurate (why would his cut have one of the scenes John Carpenter directed?), his original cut remains lost, though I'm sure this one is close enough to get the idea of how his version went. Either way, I prefer the theatrical version - while there are some nice character moments here and there, and it's great to have the explanation for the hospital's darkened state (Myers cuts the power - a subplot excised entirely from the theatrical version) and Laurie's sudden comatose state (they drug her up again during the blackout scene), most of the changes are not for the better.

For starters, it's missing way too much footage - whatever television station this was prepared for was more irrational than the MPAA, as some of the excised material renders certain scenes incoherent, such as when Michael gets the knife from the Elrods - Mrs. Elrod just turns around, a shot of Michael (from the hospital!) is randomly inserted, and then she screams - we have no idea what actually happened. Hell, they didn't even allow the closeup of the blood-scrawled "SAMHAIN" on the blackboard at the school, making this already extraneous scene even more worthless. All but one of the scenes featuring the kid with a razor blade in his mouth (one of the film's few nods to its namesake holiday) are gone, as is the death of Janet, which means her character (along with Dr. Mixter and Nurse Alves, who always died off-screen but at least had their bodies discovered) just completely disappears from the film without explanation. The only missing death that helps is the pointless killing of the Elrod's neighbor (another Carpenter shoot), but all of the above, plus some strange alternate takes, makes this version nearly worthless to anyone but the insanely curious. Plus, unlike the original film's TV version (which had new scenes specifically shot for it), it's only available cropped, which kills some of Dean Cundey's trademark widescreen scares (like Michael wandering around the nursery behind Alves and Karen). This version also has a bunch of nonsensical voiceovers and dubs, including the unforgivable reworking of Bud's "Amazing Grace" parody.

So, stick with the theatrical version, which has its own problems but is easily the superior of the two. While I'm not crazy about the fact that it's more of a typical 1981 generic slasher than the original Halloween deserved for a followup, it certainly delivers on that lesser level. Donald Pleasence's role is greatly expanded, and it's probably his most out-there incarnation of Loomis - I love when Marion is trying to tell him about Laurie and he interrupts her to tell her about pagan rituals for no real reason. Plus it has one of his all time weirdest lines: "It's a TRIBE! One of their number was butchered, this is a WAKE!" (to which Officer Hunt just sort of nods and carries on as he would had Loomis not said anything to begin with), and I've always loved his weird murmuring during the climax.

However, I still can't get past how Laurie is used here. She was such a great heroine in the original, and while I don't expect or need her to become Ripley this time around, anything would be better than having her lay in bed for an hour before crawling around and whimpering for the rest of the film - apart from shooting him in the face (which, according to the sequels, did absolutely nothing), she does NOTHING in this entire movie! Add in the hideous wig (all the more apparent in this high def transfer) and the silly dream sequences (which are expanded in the TV cut, another red mark), and her role in Halloween: Resurrection almost looks good in comparison. At least she was proactive there.

But after 30 years, any fan of the film is bound to own a copy already, so who cares about all that? The real question here is whether or not this is worth the upgrade, and that is a definite YES. Unless Terror In The Aisles is your favorite movie of all time, there is nothing about last year's Universal release that surpasses what you get here. For starters, it retains the deleted scenes and alternate ending footage that was available on that one, but this time it adds optional commentary from Rick Rosenthal, explaining why each scene was cut and other little tidbits of info not previously available. And I'm not sure if this is a new transfer or not (I never actually got last year's release, finding the Akkad credit issue too insulting for my money), but it's certainly a huge step up from the previous DVD, with the high def transfer providing a much needed boost in contrast during the darker scenes. The color timing isn't much different; I did notice that this one is a bit cooler (bluish) than the DVD I have, though to me that just makes it look more like the original film - perfect for double features!

Then we have two all new commentaries, one with Rosenthal and Leo "Bud" Rossi, the other with Dick Warlock, moderated by Icons Of Fright's Rob G. The Rosenthal commentary is a bit of a snoozer; it seems neither of them have watched the movie in a while, so there's a lot of silence as they just watch it, occasionally chuckling or offering a brief comment. But when they're actually talking, it's fun to listen to - they have some great stories and plenty of kind words for just about everyone else in the film. Warlock's track is much better, however - there isn't a lot of silence, and Rob keeps the questions coming so things never get too far off track (unlike Tom Atkins' commentary on H3). Warlock's memory isn't always completely accurate (or at least, doesn't always match what we've heard elsewhere), but he's got a fun blue collar attitude about it that I much enjoyed, and speaks highly of the other guys to play The Shape.

All of the above, and more, take part in a new retrospective documentary from Michael Felsher, which runs a little over 40 minutes and covers the usual bases with an impressive amount of candidness. It's a shame Carpenter couldn't have been roped in to offer his side of the story on certain aspects, but no one seems particularly bitter about anything that was changed; Lance Guest even graciously points out that his character's apparent demise is fine as "the movie's about Jamie Lee, not me" (the original ending had him riding in the ambulance with her at the end; now it appears he died from his head wound after making his way to the car). There's also another edition of Horror's Hallowed Grounds, where we see most of the important shooting locations as they look today, though sadly the hospital where most of the film was shot has been torn down, though the building used for the exteriors is still there and seen briefly (they weren't allowed on the property itself so they just film it from the car). The trailer, some typically over-enthusiastic TV spots, and a stills gallery round things out...

...on disc 1, that is. Disc 2 houses the television cut, a nice move as it allowed more disc space for the film and the more exciting supplements on Disc 1. While 2nd disc is actually a DVD, not a Blu-ray, it's great that they opted to do it this way, and it also means it'll be easier for most folks to get at disc 2's other item: a PDF of the shooting script, which you can access by popping the disc in your PC's DVD drive. There isn't much here that isn't in either version of the film (it mostly follows the TV cut version, though it includes the violence that it lacked such as Janet's death), but it DOES have the rest of the reporter subplot (the one who instructs her assistant (Dana Carvey!) to get a statement from some kids), which was excised at some point - perhaps it was never even shot as it has never appeared in any form. Also, it has a lot of directorial instructions from Carpenter, which is funny considering he didn't direct it.

Obviously if you just bought the release last year then it's probably pretty frustrating to be presented with another one already, but I assure you that it's worth the re-upgrade (if you only have one of the previous, featureless DVD incarnations, there's no question that you should double dip). The bonus features are superior and worth your time, the transfer is terrific, and it gives you an alternate version of the film, which even though its inferior, still has some merit thanks to the added scenes (some of which aren't in the separate deleted scenes section) in addition to the curiosity factor. At 20 bucks or less, the new bonus features alone make it worth the cost if you're a fan, and Shout! has done you another solid - the cover is reversible, so you can have it on your shelf with the original artwork (the skull inside the pumpkin) for the first time EVER on disc format as every single release - from the 1999 Goodtimes disc to Universal's original release from the early 00s to last year's Blu-ray - has had some (typically terrible) new art. They designed their own cover as well, but they give you the option of using the original - THAT is how you do a special edition for us nutty Halloween fans!

Film score: 7/10
A/V score: 8/10
Extras score: 8/10

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Ab-Normal Beauty (2004)

SEPTEMBER 18, 2012

GENRE: ASIAN, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

Not many people attempt to combine a slow character study with a serial killer movie, but I can certainly appreciate anyone who tries. Oxide Pang split from Danny to make Ab-Normal Beauty (Cantonese: Sei mong se jun), which any plot description will "Wonderful Life" it up by describing the third act since the main part of the movie won't sound very interesting on paper. Of course, this means the best way to go into the movie is without knowing anything, rather than read a plot description and sit around for the first hour wondering if you were watching the right movie.

But I got a review to write, so just stop reading if you haven't seen it yet, armed only with the knowledge that it's about the things that happen to a disturbed girl. Also, that despite being an Asian horror flick (from one of the guys behind The Eye no less), it's actually pretty gory/violent at times and has not a single supernatural element, so if you're in the mood for something along the line of their other horror films, look elsewhere

Basically it starts off like a typical Asian horror movie - a girl is taking pictures and she snaps a shot of a fatal car accident. Ordinarily this would mean she'd be menaced by the victim's ghost, or her camera would become haunted or something, but in fact the accident is never really mentioned again (and apparently it's related to an event from Danny Pang's Leave Me Alone, which he was making on his own at the same time). Instead, this begins our heroine's fascination with death, and so she goes about taking photos of dead birds and demanding that a butcher kill extra chickens so she can film that as well, and at one point she even takes dozens of shots of a person who is jumping to their death.

In between these morbid scenes are a few isolated freakouts (she's also a painter, so she'll throw paint over someone or herself, screaming and yelling) and flashbacks, where we learn that she was molested by her cousin as a young girl, which explains her troubled state as well as her near hatred of men (her mom is usually off on business, too, which doesn't help). So it's basically a stylish and grim drama for this first hour, something that's more or less in line with Shame or some drug addict movie except her vice is death (and art, I guess). And not a bad one, either - Race Wong is quite good, taxed with a far more demanding role than 95% of Asian horror movies would ever require. Her real life sister Rosanne Wong is also good as her best (only) friend, who wears her kid gloves around her and does her best to keep her from going off the deep end. There's a wonderfully sad scene late in the film where she helps shower Race after one of her paint freakouts, and then helps her destroy some of her disturbing photos/art - I wish I had a friend who would help me through such a catharsis! When I quit HMAD, will someone come over and help me throw away all those terrible screeners for movies I'd never want to watch except to fill my daily quota?

And then, almost exactly at the one hour mark, the "plot" kicks in, as she receives a mysterious videotape containing what appears to be a snuff film. Some investigation follows, and then another comes, "starring" someone she knows. So it basically turns into a serial killer film, albeit one that's only got about a half hour to start/conclude, so it's no surprise that the identity of the killer, hidden for most of this time, isn't particularly interesting - it's a character we haven't really met, but it would kind of have to be since there weren't any other characters of note in the movie. Luckily, it doesn't really matter much who it is, as it actually ties in quite nicely to the film's actual story, of a girl who needs to shed her obsession with all things terrible.

It's a shame that the ending almost derails it, however. There's one final bit of information that is delivered with a still frame and a voice-over, almost like they forgot to mention it earlier. It's not even that important in the long run, but it certainly could have been revealed earlier, or at least delivered in a less clunky way. I mean, imagine if at the end of Citizen Kane someone said "Oh, by the way, it's his sled." - that's about as graceful as this bit of info is given to us in Ab-Normal Beauty.  And don't give me shit for comparing the two, since this is pretty much the Citizen Kane of movies about death-obsessed girls who learn how to paint normal stuff again.

It's also got a terrific score, particularly during the opening photography montage (which is aided by some stylish visuals that play with taking the color out of the image and such) and the closing scene - it's quite melancholy but lush, reminding me a bit of the score from Sauna, which I now want to listen to but can't. Thanks a lot, movie. Speaking of being reminded of other films, I was quite amused that the killer (who has an AMAZING mask, by the way) had a dungeon that looked like it was ripped off from Saw, but these films were in production at the same time on opposite sides of the world, so it's just an awesome coincidence.

So overall, it's one of the better films from the Pangs, but that's not saying much, and it probably won't satisfy those looking for a full blown horror film. I think if the serial killer plot had been threaded into its first two acts (even as a background element) it probably would have worked better and been easier to recommend, but at least as it stands it's more interesting than I expected. Plus it's sad, and I'm a sucker for a sad horror film.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

DVD Review: Halloween III Special Edition

SEPTEMBER 17, 2012

GENRE: CULT, TECHNOLOGY
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

When I hosted a screening of Halloween III back in 2010 and moderated the Q&A with director Tommy Lee Wallace, it was filmed for what was originally going to be a special edition DVD from Universal, who owned the rights to it and the 2nd film. However, last October saw only Halloween II released by Uni (poorly at that), with Season of the Witch once again getting screwed over. Luckily, Shout! Factory has shown to be the smarter of the two companies, giving this underrated sequel the special edition DVD and Blu-ray it has always deserved, just in time for its 30th anniversary.

As any fan of the film will tell you, the biggest problem is the title - people wanted another Michael Myers adventure, because that's what a Halloween movie promised. I'm sure if they hadn't done H2 it wouldn't have been as big of an issue, as there would be no precedent that a sequel had to be about Myers (after all, no one minded that Friday the 13th Part 2 wasn't about Mrs. Voorhees, right?), so it's just another reason to reconsider Halloween II's slightly OVERrated legacy. It's taken literally decades for H3 to get its due, probably partially due to the later sequels being so bad that it was just starting to look better by comparison regardless of who it was about - same as I asked the audience: Would you really rather watch a movie with Busta Rhymes kung-fu fighting Myers? I would certainly hope not.

Now, it's not that Halloween III is a masterpiece. It's laughably cheap-looking at times (that orange sky effect when Challis and Ellie run out of the factory is just pitiful), the pacing can be a little slow at times, and yes, the plot holes are aplenty. One could point out that not a single thing about Cochran's plan makes the slightest bit of sense, and it'd be hard to argue beyond "Well yeah, he's insane!". But you have to look past that and see that the film is just a really creepy, blackly comic take on a Body Snatchers type film, where the only folks who see the truth are looked at as insane and thus not believed. This movie wouldn't work if it was a whole team of folks trying to stop Cochran, but when you have just the two (and one of them is Tom Atkins), it plays great.

And it's drenched in enough Halloween atmosphere for TWO movies, and believe me, if you watch them all you'd realize that the others could use it. While they all have pumpkins and usually some trick or treating or party, this one is the only one (except maybe Curse, sort of, and that one scene in Halloween II) that really ties into the holiday's origins, which are spelled out wonderfully by Dan O'Herlihy in his 3rd act speeches. It's also the only one with a lot of build-up to the night itself - most of them start on the 30th (Halloween II, obviously, starts at around 9pm on Halloween itself!), but we start a full eight days before here, giving Wallace and co. time to build up the characters and the season itself, not to mention a lot of spooky daytime scenes that the others barely ever have time for. I love the bit where Challis and Ellie drive into Santa Mira for the first time and everyone is just kind of watching them, not to mention the slowly building mystery of the autopsy for the guy who blew up in the parking lot in the film's opening reel.

However, if you're still in the "it sucks" camp, there's probably nothing here that will change your mind. The commentary by Tommy Lee Wallace is mostly fan service information - I'd say half the track was devoted simply to pointing out shooting locations (since Horror's Hallowed Grounds host Sean Clark is a co-moderator, that isn't surprising), with lots of admiration for Atkins' seeming irresistability to every female character. Nigel Kneale's original script, the film's initial backlash, etc - none of these things are discussed in detail, making the track a bit of a letdown (especially since Clark and Wallace also provide a 20 minute episode of HHG that repeats the shooting location information anyway). The track with Tom Atkins, moderated by Michael Felsher, is much more interesting, but only if you're an Atkins fan. The two don't talk much about this particular film, but Atkins tells stories about working with Sinatra, Carpenter, William Peter Blatty... even his recent work on My Bloody Valentine 3D comes up. Sort of like the AV Club's "Random Roles" feature but in audio commentary form - it's great if you love Atkins (and why wouldn't you?) but again, if you're looking for someone to convince you that you should like this movie after all, it won't be of any use.

In addition to the Hallowed Grounds episode, the other big supplement of note is the new retrospective piece, featuring new interviews with Wallace, Atkins, Dean Cundey, Stacey Nelkin, and others. Running just over a half hour, it covers the usual bases, but with a nice coda, ending on that New Beverly screening (I pop up for all of 12 seconds), showing Wallace meeting fans as he talks in interview about how much the screening meant to him. As a huge fan of this particular entry who has had to defend it several times over the years, I can't tell you how proud I am to have played a tiny part in this moment (and please don't see my appearance as some sort of bias on the DVD as a whole - it's literally less than half a percent of the runtime of one bonus feature). The film's nutty trailer (which makes no effort to explain that this is a new story) and some fun behind the scenes stills round things out. The transfer is also much improved from the previous DVD; they didn't send me a Blu-ray but based on how it looks in standard def, and how good their new H2 transfer is, I have no doubt that the Blu looks terrific as well.

For fans of the film, you really can't ask for a better special edition. The commentaries might be a little underwhelming, but they're with the people you want them to be with (Atkins and Wallace, as opposed to someone who was in 2 scenes and the film's costume designer or something), and the updated transfer and retrospective doc alone make it worthwhile (and according to Wallace, nothing besides "shoe leather" and similar elements was edited from the film, so like the original there aren't any "deleted scenes" of note, if you were wondering). I also like the new box art, but if you don't - Shout! has put the original art on the flipside, so you can have your cake and eat it too. At long last, Halloween III has been given the treatment it deserves!

Film score: 8/10
A/V: 8/10
Extras: 8/10 (since the moderators were barely asking anything, I wish they just had Wallace and Atkins do one commentary together - probably would have been akin to Carpenter/Russell tracks, albeit on a smaller scale).

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Fever Night (2009)

SEPTEMBER 17, 2012

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL, WEIRD
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

I honestly don't know what to make of Fever Night (aka Band of Satanic Outsiders), which has an intriguing premise and could have been a really cool independent scary movie, but the filmmakers were more interested in being weird and attempting some David Lynch-style surrealistic take on that premise. Thus, someone like me, who doesn't get stoned before watching a movie (or after, or during...), really has no use for this thing.

To be fair, it's relatively well made, considering the low budget and drawn out shooting schedule that it had (per the IMDb trivia). The directors were seemingly inspired by Argento or something, as it seems the entire 3rd act is drenched with red filters, but they knew what they were doing (or their colorist did), so even with the unnatural color, the image doesn't bleed or anything like that. As anyone who's ever attempted to use a color filter can tell you, you really gotta know what you're doing to boost up a particular color without sacrificing the necessary contrast while keeping the other levels (in this case, blue and green) in check.

They also have intentionally fake looking FX shots, sort of like a lot of the driving scenes in Natural Born Killers (at least, I THINK they're intentionally "off" looking), which adds to the surreal nature while showing off the breadth of their imagination. Demonic half man/half animal things, purplish ghost faces in the sky, a car with a mind of its own - all of these things surface with some frequency, and since like half of the movie is without dialogue, you might as well just sit back and enjoy each image as it comes, rather than try to make any sense of it.

But again, that's not really my cup of tea. I liked the initial premise - three Satan worshiping 20-somethings head out into the woods to perform a ritual, only for one of them to end up seriously injured less than 10 minutes into the movie. The other two then have to figure out what to do in order to get her help, and that's where the movie takes off as they seemingly can't get very far and are menaced by hallucinations and real world threats. Sort of like a Blair Witch type thing, but, you know, completely incoherent.

And it's just too repetitive; one guy will have an experience, the other guy will show up, they'll argue or talk, then that 2nd guy will have his own little setpiece. Back and forth, back and forth, until one dies (or something) and the girl finally resurfaces. Then it's more of the same, but at this point I had more or less checked out and simply sat there looking at the weird images, occasionally nodding in admiration in between seeing how much time was left on the Netflix display. As the film goes on there is less and less dialogue, and since there was no traditional narrative to speak of, it became difficult to gauge where I was at in the "story" - was that death part of the climax, or a plot point to get us there? And does it matter either way?

But clearly these guys aren't interested in cookie cutter stuff, which is admirable in the modern horror market, overloaded with found footage movies and what seems like another wave of Exorcist wannabes. They're currently in post on their next film, an adventure that features Tom Sizemore, so color me intrigued. This may be one of the last movies I've seen this year that I'd ever want to revisit, but at least it was doing something new - like it or not I have to respect that.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Bait 3D (2012)

SEPTEMBER 16, 2012

GENRE: PREDATOR, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

After catching a press screening, my good friend Ryan Turek from Shock Till You Drop said that seeing Bait 3D with a crowd (and with its extra dimension intact, something I can't do at home) was the only way to go. So despite having the Blu-ray sitting on my couch, I drove 40 minutes south to Torrance, which is depressingly the closest (only?) theater in Los Angeles county that is showing the film - Anchor Bay couldn't even get it at the Mann's, which is where a lot of their movies tend to play.

Naturally, while I got the 3D version I couldn't get at home, there was no "crowd" to speak of - just two other people, one of whom remained stone cold silent throughout the film (me and the other guy laughed heartily at some of its more memorable moments). Granted, the locale wasn't ideal, but it's still pretty pathetic that the one theater around showing this thing couldn't even fill up an entire row with the number of people attending one of its five daily shows on a weekend. Really wish horror fans could get it through their heads that the reason movies like this get such small releases is because they don't support the originals that DO go wide. I mean, I go out and support every one I can, but that's just one ticket, you know?

Of course, if it was a mind-blowing, amazing and stunning piece of horror cinema history, it would be much more of a downer, but come on - it's a movie about sharks in a supermarket. Personally I think it's the best 3D shark movie yet (and I'd include the two modern Piranha 3D films too for good measure), but that's saying so very little, isn't it? The 3D, too, is nothing groundbreaking - the shots of the shark gliding slowly toward camera and popping out of the screen are quite good (and won't be obnoxious in 2D), and director Kimble Rendall does a fine job of providing depth in the film's two main locales (the supermarket itself, and its even more flooded parking garage), but some shots also seemed like they were shot normally and post-converted - there was a "pop-up book" feel to them that I found distracting. There's not a lot of information about the film's production online (under "Production" on its Wiki page is just a bad review from THR), and the Blu-ray only has a (fairly extensive) storyboard gallery for bonus material, so until I hear otherwise, I will assume that the film was shot with 2D and 3D cameras.

But the film itself works, mainly because it's a lot more serious than I was expecting. Unlike the overly campy Snakes on a Plane, the stakes feel real, and there's a pretty sad drowning scene early on to remind us that they have more than just the sharks to worry about. The tsunami scene that traps everyone is also quite good; maybe it's because I just saw the way low-budget version in the similar Malibu Shark Attack, and also have a recurring nightmare about being trapped in one, but the suddenness of the wave's appearance and excessive damage and death it causes in such a short period made for a very effective sequence.

The characters are the usual mixed bag; there's the estranged couple, the troubled girl and her policeman father, the store manager... it's a pretty stock group, right down to the fact that there's a human villain that will of course throw someone to the shark to save his own ass at a crucial moment. I couldn't tell you any of their names just an hour later (I think the hero's name was Josh, however - and he's played by the kid from The Loved Ones, another Aussie flick that deserved a better release here in the US), but apart from the asshole they were all fairly likable and not any stupider than they needed to be in order to keep this (a horror movie) moving. The only "are you KIDDING ME?" moment comes near the end, when a guy drops his flashlight into the water and jumps in to get it, because it didn't seem like he needed it much; even with the dimming 3D glasses the movie wasn't too dark, so it seems like he could have been fine without it. Luckily it's quick (I don't think the shark even notices him jumping in and out), and again it's pretty much as dumb as anyone gets.

It also has a relatively low body count - I think more people survive than get turned into shark food, which gives it an extra layer of suspense over something like Shark Night, where as soon as someone goes off by themselves you know they're a goner. In fact I thought for sure two characters would end up dead (one by the halfway point, the other during the climax), plus two more wild cards, but all of them survived. Obviously I wouldn't want to go 90 minutes without seeing some folks get chomped, but I love when a filmmaker isn't in a hurry to kill everyone off - it actually makes things scarier. And by showing the drowning early on, again, we're worried about other things - the slowly rising water, the frayed cables threatening electrocution, the aftershocks that send parts of the building crashing around them... it's a full blown disaster flick (albeit on a smaller scale than most, being in one location) with the added bonus of killer sharks. And in 3D!

I was disappointed that they didn't give Sharni Vinson much to do, however. As the ass-kicking heroine of You're Next, I was very excited to see her spring into action against a great white, but honestly her character is nothing but a motivating factor for the hero. She's not a damsel in distress, per se, but she just sort of hangs out nearby, occasionally shouting "Josh!" or lending a hand to another in need, but most of the heroics go to the male characters - kind of lame. To be fair, this was shot before You're Next, so perhaps they didn't know about her ability to be AWESOME, but even so - what kind of horror movie doesn't give the females a shining moment? Her and the 2-3 other females in the climax spend most of it just sitting on a platform while Josh and Julian McMahon do everything.

Quibbles aside, I had a good time with it; it's fast-paced enough so that you probably don't start thinking about plot holes until later (like the fact that the store apparently didn't have any back exit), the shark action looks pretty good (and the kills are gory - making up for the PG-13 Shark Night), and it's told with a straight face without being too serious, which is probably the best way to go about this sort of thing. It's not the type of movie you'd want to watch over and over, and the lack of bonus features is disappointing, but it's pretty much a perfect rental - especially if you can get the 3D version.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Mr. Hush (2010)

SEPTEMBER 15, 2012

GENRE: VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

The first scene in Mr. Hush takes place on Halloween, which I guess sort of justifies the horrendously blatant theft of the Trick 'r Treat box art, but it's the description on the back that confuses me: "a throwback to the slasher films of the 80s". Um, huh? It's a vampire movie (this is presented as a twist, but it's more of a surprise that Michael Myers is the killer in Halloween), so I don't know why they are calling it a slasher at all, let alone a throwback to the ones of the 80s, which look/sound nothing like a single moment in this movie.

Even if the villain WAS a slasher instead of a vampire, it still comes across more like a really slow, half-assed revenge movie, with the titular Mr. Hush having a very specific vendetta against our hero, Holland (Brad Loree). In the film's opening sequence, Mr. Hush kidnaps Holland's daughter and kills his wife (who seems to be young enough to be his own daughter), and then we cut ten years later. Holland is now living in a tent and pretty miserable, but he starts up a relationship with a single mother and things start looking up... and then Mr. Hush returns and kills her, and also again kidnaps the daughter. I was really hoping they'd cut 10 years later again and repeat the cycle, but alas, Hush kidnaps Holland as well and finally explains his beef with him, which is so howlingly stupid I wouldn't dare spoil it here.

Because, as awful as this movie is, I recommend it wholeheartedly. I dubbed it "The Room of DTV horror" over Twitter, and while I hate repeating myself, there really isn't any better way to describe it, as shares many of that film's strange qualities. For starters, the dialogue seems written by an alien who is approximating English; you will recognize the words, but nothing sounds like anything a human being would actually say. At one point Loree is chained up and his girlfriend's teenaged daughter helps cut him loose - his response is "Good job, sweetie, I'm so proud of you!" Huh? Who would say that in that situation? Hush's big speech about why he's so mad at them is also stunningly inept; it was like 95 degrees in the house when I was watching it and I thought for sure I was just having a heatstroke or something, because it made more sense than anything he was saying OR the idea that someone would read this script and think "Yes, I want to be a part of this."

Plus the movie has more padding than actual narrative, so you can enjoy things like a corned beef recipe, a bartender's problems with a guy named Maddog (neither character ever encounters Mr. Hush and thus have no connection to the main narrative at all), another character's explanation of how he accidentally poisoned his wife, Loree's musical tastes (he's said to be "stuck in 1988", yet Meat Loaf comes up as one of his favorites - Meat Loaf was in semi-retirement at that time and coaching little league; he didn't have a single real hit throughout the majority of the 80s), and a dream sequence where Loree talks to his grandmother, who clearly died before he was even born because she looks younger than he does. Oh, and after a few credits, the movie comes back and we're treated to a 4 minute scene of Dante from Clerks - a character we haven't met or even heard of, I must stress - driving around PA back-roads on his way to visit Holland, only to get lost and then killed off-screen by Mr. Hush's "Renfield", an annoying character played by Stephen Geoffreys (top-billed on the DVD box for what amounts to maybe 7 minutes of screentime). Really, the two wife-killing scenes, Hush's explanation, and the final battle are all that you need to see to get the whole story; everything else is just filler, not unlike The Room's random football playing scenes and breast cancer subplots.

Naturally, I was laughing out loud throughout the entire movie. The awkward performances and totally bonkers dialogue never stopped amusing me, and since the plot was so flimsy I never knew what was important and what was just filler until it was all over. It's like, "Maybe the bartender is connected to Mr. Hush, or perhaps he will come to Holland's rescue and sacrifice himself at the end, so these scenes where he just goes about his business will pay off- oh, nope, there are the end credits and we never saw him again after he yelled at Maddog, so I guess not." Said bartender is played by Steve Dash, best known for being screwed out of credit for playing Jason in Part 2 (the guy who got the credit was only in a few shots), so I guess he's just there to give the film some horror cred. So this stuff will be even funnier a second time around, because now I know it has no point whatsoever.

The DVD comes with some extra material that just adds to the near surreal experience that is this insane (but boring) movie. There's an intro to the film that is buried in the bonus features menu - note to the filmmakers and DVD producers: people don't usually check the bonus features for things they're supposed to watch before the movie starts, so if you want to include an intro, actually put it at the top of the movie like Lloyd Kaufman does on Troma DVDs (pretty sad to say "Do it right, like Lloyd Kaufman," I must admit). Then there are three trailers: the original, the theatrical (your guess is as good as mine what the difference is), and the DVD, none of which make the movie look particularly good. A blooper reel is there but nowhere near as amusing as the movie, and then there's a music video for the film's Huey Lewis-esque theme song, paying off Loree's character's 1988 obsession.

Then there's a commentary by the writer/producer/director (plus a half dozen other roles, as well as a very awkward cameo where he just makes weird faces while painted up like a Carnival of Souls extra) and the guy who played Mr. Hush. They sound like normal enough guys, so I'm puzzled why they couldn't channel some of that "human being" feeling into their movie, but either way it's a pretty dull track. They praise everyone over and over and talk about shooting locations, and gush about Fright Night a lot, but never seem to notice that their characters might as well be speaking in tongues.

I really wish I found totally gonzo nonsense like this more often. It's a terrible movie, but a memorably terrible one that entertained me start to finish, which is way better than an average/generic horror where I struggle to remember anything about it by the time it's time to write the review. Obviously you need to have a decent tolerance level for this sort of stuff, so if you're up for this peculiar brand of WTF (My Soul To Take would be another example of this "genre"), have at it! Everyone else, just enjoy this hilarious screenshot from the end credits and try to decide what's funnier - that cinematographer is spelled wrong, or that the entire sound department consists of one guy who handled "sound"?

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...