The Substitute (2007)

NOVEMBER 15, 2008

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

At long last, a film in the Ghost House Underground series (besides Last House in the Woods, which I saw a while ago, pre GHU) that I can wholeheartedly recommend! The Substitute (Danish: Vikaren) is a bit light on the horror stuff (the R is only for language, and I honestly can’t even recall any F bombs), but it’s a super fun movie that delivers a lot of the promise that The Faculty squandered on “hip” self-referential dialogue and WB casting that was all the rage back in 1998.

Essentially a more serious, live action episode of South Park, the movie is about a substitute who is really an alien. And like a lot of SPs, the kids catch on and try to stop her, and their parents are morons who are easily swayed by whatever they are told. This leads to what is possibly the best scene in the movie; the teacher is taking them on a “field trip” and the kids are all crying and trying to run away as their clueless parents drag them onto the bus.

But what’s awesome about the movie as a whole is that there is none of the usual “reveal” shit; nor does the sub even really try to hide her non-human nature. In her first meeting with the kids, she berates them, displays superhuman intelligence, acts bizarrely... I love that writer/director Ole Bornedal just got right to the goddamn point. Which makes the lack of violence/gore even more impressive; the movie feels fast paced despite the fact that there is no action whatsoever until the final 10 minutes (and even that is hardly a big spectacle). I don’t need to “learn” that she is an alien halfway through the movie; that’s a plot point that would have been spoiled by any trailer or plot synopsis anyway.

I also loved the title character, because she reminded me of a character Kristen Wiig might play on SNL. I love Ms. (it IS just Ms, right? Please?) Wiig, because not only is she cute, she is also goddamn hilarious, and has turned passive aggressive behavior into something of an art form (see: Knocked Up). There are a couple of bits in the movie that I could perfectly see Wiig playing the role in the eventual remake (the movie is in Danish, so there MUST be a remake for us stupid Americans, right Hollywood?), such as the end when she is attempting to reason with our hero. First she tries to use his mother issues (his mom is dead) to win him over, and then gives up and admits she came on too strong. It’s fucking hilarious. Oddly enough, whoever did the dubbing for the character on the English track sounds exactly like Wiig’s Suzie Orman impression.

I also liked that the movie was kind of sad. The main kid misses his mom, but his dad gets plenty of choice moments as a grieving and now single father. Bornedal keeps the balance perfect throughout the film, it never gets too funny that you can’t accept the serious parts, and it never gets too serious that the funny bits seem out of place.

And longtime HMAD readers will be happy to know that the image seen on the cover of A Brush With Death (one of my more vicious reviews) reflects a scene in this movie. Since it didn’t correlate to a goddamn thing seen in that piece of shit, I wish Lionsgate would just use the cover again for this, especially since THIS cover makes it look like a zombie children movie. Goddammit Lionsgate, even when I really like a movie you have to go and fuck it up!

Bornedal contributes a commentary, and it’s not the best track ever, but it’s worth a listen if you have the time. He even points out that he’s kind of boring and calls anyone who listens to the whole thing a “hero” (NOW I AM REALLY A RUSSIAN HEROOOOO!), so at least he’s up front about it. It will also allow you to listen to the English dub (please don’t watch the dub version for when you watch the movie itself), which is terrible and thus amusing. And he takes a minute to knock the Silent Hill movie, so that’s cool.

Oh, I almost forgot: the alien transformation scene is fucking awesome too. It sort of builds itself out of a sphere (not too Phantasm-y though). Kickass.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dominion: Prequel To The Exorcist (2005)

NOVEMBER 14, 2008

GENRE: RELIGIOUS, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

It’s bad enough that Renny Harlin didn’t address the nature of his involvement with Exorcist: The Beginning, but it’s downright sinful that Paul Schrader never addresses all the reshoots and such on the commentary for Dominion: Prequel To The Exorcist, which was the original version that got completely reshot by Harlin and co. Sure, 2 hours of bitching would get annoying, but to completely ignore it is just odd. Then again, the track is about half silence, so maybe he got edited. Who knows?

What matters is the film, and maybe it’s just because I’ve been led to believe that it was terrible, but I thought it was pretty good. The biggest problem with it is that it’s slow. That worked for the first film, but by now, anyone sitting down kind of knows that they are in a horror movie, so there’s no need to kind of spring it as a “surprise” halfway through. Even the original had a couple of odd moments to let you know things were off-kilter (plus the freaky prologue in Iraq), but here it’s almost like they were trying to make you think you weren’t watching an Exorcist movie. In that respect, I can almost side with the producers.

But otherwise, on the whole it works better than Harlin’s (which I also think gets more shit than it deserves). It’s slow, sure, but it’s the good kind of slow that draws you in. Luckily, the danger is kept largely away from Merrin, putting instead Father Francis (played by the Zach Gilford-y Gabriel Mann here, in Harlin’s the role was recast) in harm’s way when shit hits the fan. Since the series has so many characters of equal importance, it’s not a “given” that the character will die simply because he wasn’t around for any of the sequels (as opposed to say, Qui Gon Jinn), and thus his fate is not sealed by our knowledge of what comes “later”.

It’s interesting to see how the films share certain, almost random similarities. The colonel guy’s scenes are all completely different, yet he still has a butterfly collection. And the odd bit of dialogue heard here found its way into Harlin’s version; the lines about the date in which the church was built (and subsequently covered) are almost verbatim in the two films. And they both have shitty CGI hyenas (so stop blaming Harlin for those!).

Despite all the superfluous changes (plotwise, and even structurally, the movies are a lot more alike than I expected, and I suspect if Mann was around for the reshoots, there would have been a lot more of Schrader’s footage in the Harlin version), the biggest is actually Stellan Skarsgard’s performance. Here he is genuinely acting, and doing a good job playing a man without direction or faith. In Harlin’s, whether it was an acting choice, a lack of discipline from Harlin, or simple disgruntled behavior, he just seems like an asshole. There’s a great scene here in which Father Francis admonishes him for trying to spread his lack of faith to others, and also a key moment when someone presents him with the age-old argument against God/Jesus: “Would such a great god allow this to happen?” and he simply mutters “Yes.” It’s good stuff, and while I admit to zoning out at times (on both films) I don’t recall anything that powerful in the Harlin film. And even if it was there, Skarsgard simply didn’t deliver the same way. Basically, the whole “priest has to regain his faith” story, used in a lot of movies (particularly horror) seemed a lot less generic in this version.

And there are still some decent scary moments. I particularly like when Merrin is finally doing the exorcism and the demon just sort of glides behind him, in and out of frame. Also, there are more genuinely horrific moments here; the kid being torn apart by hyenas in the Harlin version was more funny than anything, but I sure as hell didn’t laugh when one of the native guys wipes out a classroom of children in an attempt to keep “Jesus” from spreading in this one.

Now I basically wish I saw the film in production order (I watched Harlin’s cut first for the dumbest excuse ever – it was shorter. By three lousy minutes. Yeah, not too much of a good judgment caller), as the effectiveness of the story (still minor compared to Friedkin’s film) was dulled by watching a subpar version first. If you’ve never seen either, please start with Schrader’s.

Like the other one, extras are understandably slim, since Warner seems to be content with spinning their mishandling of the film (they didn’t like Schrader’s cut because it lacked gore – but they are the ones who initially approved the gore-less script!) rather than just being upfront with a situation everyone knows about anyway. So we get a dull commentary, and instead of a bland EPK, we get a bland collection of deleted scenes (none essential) with no insight as to why they were removed.

So now I’ve gone through the entire box set, and as expected, I needn’t have bothered buying it, since I already owned the original and that is the only one I’ll probably ever bother to watch again (p.s. let’s see a Blu-ray, Warner!). I find the behind the scenes stories far more interesting than the result of any of the sequels, but none of the DVDs address any of this at all. Which I don’t understand; the only people who WATCH extra features anymore (the novelty has long since worn off) are film geeks who all know damn well about the problems with all of the films, so why try to pretend that no problems existed? Even the equally lame Friday the 13th box from Paramount has some occasional juicy dirt on the commentary tracks.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Shock (1946)

NOVEMBER 13, 2008

GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 4!!!)

You really can’t go wrong with Vincent Price. Even a rather dull movie like Shock can manage to seem exciting when Price is onscreen. Honestly, whenever the movie shifts to other folks it nearly put me in a coma, but as soon as he was back on, it got my full attention. Shit, Willis can’t even do that sometimes.

And this was rather early in his horror/thriller career, so he’s not even as scene-chewingly delightful as usual. If anything, he’s sort of subdued, playing a shrink who kills his wife and then spends the rest of the movie trying to convince the one witness that she was hallucinating. It’s a grand role for him, and without doing any research whatsoever on the matter, I assume it was part of what led to his signature roles of the 50s.

It’s good that they cast him too, because other actors would not be able to strike the right balance between sinister and charming that Price pulls off, and in turn makes the movie interesting. You practically want to see the guy succeed (I almost put this in the “Hero Killer” category), because he’s just so damn wonderful. And I got a real kick out his nonsensical excuses and fake psychiatric practices that he explains to people. When the girl’s husband tells him that she is convinced she saw Price kill his wife, Price replies “Oh this is a common delusion of amnesiacs...” Hahaha, what? Why would someone who couldn’t remember who they were be able to “remember” specific murders that never occurred? Yet, not only does he convince the husband on this matter, Christ, he almost convinced ME.

Speaking of the murder, for some reason they never show his wife’s face. I expected this to be part of a twist or something, but no. The Code restrictions are obvious during the murder scenes, but why she is never fully shown I do not know. Maybe because he is later seen kissing his mistress (the murder is the result of them arguing about getting a divorce)? Was there some rule about only kissing a woman outside of wedlock if a wife character was never actually shown? Again, someone needs to do a doc about the damn Code.

Oh, and if you’re into conspiracy theories, Price begins a treatment that would kill the woman on Tuesday, September 11th. They even go out of their way to point this out, for some reason. Spoooooky.

As these 40s cheapies go, it’s not too bad, thanks to Price and a kinda cool plot. Plus the ending is a bit of a surprise, though not in a twist way, more in a redemption-y heroic kind of way. It’s very slow and absolutely nothing happens after the murder, but the fact that it’s not about a bunch of assholes in a house discussing an inheritance or whatever (which describes about every 3rd movie on the Horror Classics set) was enough for it to stick out a little.

What say you?

NOTE - Below is not the trailer, but a key (early) scene, provided by Mill Creek itself!

PLEASE, GO ON...

See Jane Run (2007)

NOVEMBER 12, 2008

GENRE: BREAKDOWN, CANNIBAL, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Since the damn title of See Jane Run spoils the end of the movie, I came up with some alternate titles for other horror movies: It’s Jason’s Mother, Michael Disappears, Helen Takes Over For Candyman, The Trees Decide To Kill Europe Instead... suggest your own!

Of course, even if spoiling the ending by simply putting the movie on my rental queue wasn’t the case, it would still be pretty easy to guess how this one would play out almost from the first scene, even if slightly valiant attempts to mix up the standard formula are made. For starters, the heroes’ car works fine; the breakdown aspect is courtesy of a drifter-y red herring. But he’s actually not the killer or even working with them, he’s just some dude. And Ryan Webb wrote a script (he also directed) that doesn’t even bother trying to pretend that the requisite gas station clerk is a good guy; we actually see him call up the killer and tell him that our protagonists are heading his way. He even tells him the right backstory to use! It’s almost like this movie refuses to allow the audience to be kept in any sort of suspense whatsoever.

And that’s one of the two big problems with the film’s script. The other is that it’s painfully generic; even with the aforementioned minor tweaks, it still follows the Last House/Chain Saw mold to a T. Even if the movie was called Jane Dies First you would know that her character would be the survivor right from the start, since there’s only one other girl (a slutty girl at that, so you know she’s dead). I expected the kind-hearted boyfriend to die BEFORE the hitchhiker, not after, but otherwise, the body count rises in the exact order it “should” based on breakdown movie traditions. You know there will be some bizarre behavior from the guy who our characters still think is a good guy, you know some minor thing will be what sets him off, you know there will be some “dark humor” concerning the nature of the meat... Honestly, the most unique thing about the movie is that there is absolutely nothing unique about it.

Luckily, it’s made reasonably well, especially for a low budget digital movie. The actors aren’t the best in the world (Jane is actually played by one of the producers), and the opening kill (Joe Estevez!) features some of the worst CGI I’ve ever seen, but otherwise it’s solid in the technical department, and Webb (curiously absent from the DVD extras) has a good visual sense, a rarity in these things.

Speaking of the extras, they are pretty abysmal. There’s a few useless outtakes of Joe Estevez, an interview with the VFX artist that is entirely unnecessary since the VFX are terrible (though if you want an awkward laugh, watch the last 30 seconds of the piece; it contains a TMI moment that I believe is a first for any DVD extra), and bios of the no-name cast/crew. Finally, there is a commentary track, which is by the producer/co-star team (again, not having the writer/director around is a bit suspect, and he is barely mentioned on the track either) of Jennifer Clary and Kevin Haberer. There’s some interesting info here and there, but it takes a lot of patience to hear it, because these geniuses didn’t bother turning down the film’s audio track. So whenever there is a song or people are talking in the movie, it drowns out the commentary. Nice work, dipshits.

So, I dunno. It’s not a BAD movie, but I fail to see why it was made in the first place. It’s as if they made it under the impression that there weren’t already 50-60 movies that tell the exact same story while bringing something to the table as well. Even Last House In The Woods has that awesome score at least.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Manster (1959)

NOVEMBER 11, 2008

GENRE: MAD SCIENTIST, MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 4!!!)

You know, I had heard the title The Manster before, and just assumed it was made up, like as a gag in a movie that had a scene making fun of such movies. But nope, it’s an actual movie. And I own it.

(On a budget pack. It’s not like I went out of my way to place a movie called The Manster in my collection on purpose; even my ironic purchasing budget has a limit.)

However, it’s not the worst of its type. Its type, for the record, is a combination of Wolf Man (our guy even sounds and looks a bit like poor Larry Talbot, and his name is indeed Larry as well) and Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. But, in the spirit of things, the movie Double Garden seemingly took a lot of inspiration from THIS movie, so I guess it evens out.

Like Garden, the movie takes place in Japan and features a really ridiculous monster. In this one, the “Manster” is just a guy with some half-assed Wolf Man makeup on, and a paper-mache head (or something to that effect) glued to his shoulder. Near the end of the movie, it splits apart and becomes its own thing (and is killed about 19 seconds later), but by then it was too late to really fear the goofy thing; especially since I spent the previous 70 minutes thinking about the (intentionally) goofy 2nd Zaphod head on the HG2G BBC series.

But it does the job. After a slow start it moves along nicely, and there’s even some occasional bloodshed. However, the one thing that particularly delighted me about this movie was the odd obsession with drinking. When some cops show up to the home of the monster-to-be, he angrily greets them with this peculiar phrase: “Come in you know where the drinks are!” He says it in the same manner one might say “Shut the door you’re letting the heat out!” or whatever. Later, he is being questioned, and the cop says “You remember when I saw you in a bar after that old voodoo priest was murdered?” As opposed to when he saw him in a Fuddruckers after an old voodoo priest was murdered? Are old voodoo priests being knocked off with alarming regularity in Japan?

Like Wolf Man, we feel bad for the monster, because he was unwittingly turned into one. But oddly enough, the mad scientist is kind of sympathetic too, because he also inadvertently turned his wife into a monster and is trying to save her. He euthanizes her at the end too, which is a bit of a rare occurrence, especially in 1950s movies. Another minor uniquity is that the cop still plans to arrest Larry at the end. Usually the monster guy dies entirely, or is OK and instantly forgiven for all that he did when under the monster’s hold. But that’s something that bugs me usually, because monster or not, HE is the one who killed a bunch of folks, and if I was a family member of a victim, I’d want the guy to at least pay a fine or do some community service. Kudos.

So, it’s dumb and derivative for the most part, but it’s the rare late-era 50s monster movie that still has some of the charm that made those movies so big in the first place. And for that alone, AND my feeling guilty over assuming its title was fake, I’ll give it a pass.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Leprechaun In The Hood (2000)

NOVEMBER 10, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC (?), CRAP, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: CABLE (FEARNET)

Apparently, I have Fearnet. I don’t know when this development occurred, but it must have been recent. Part of what I love about HMAD is that I often don’t know what I am going to watch, so having a revolving group of a dozen or so horror movies (free to view) at my disposal is pretty grand.

And that, of course, is the only reason I found myself watching Leprechaun In The Hood today.

No one puts on a Leprechaun movie and expects to be blown away with its story, performances, or even production value, but for the love of God, this is truly wretched in every sense of the word. I never saw the one where he went to space, so maybe this movie has a lot of subtle thematic payoffs to ideas presented in that film, and they were simply lost on me. But even with that benefit of the doubt, this movie is still complete horseshit.

The first movie was kind of fun in a B (ok, C) movie way: it moved along, had a couple of nasty gore effects, and was just so ridiculous that you couldn’t help but be entertained every now and then. I mean, the last line was “Fuck you, Lucky Charms!” – awesome. Plus, how fucking cute was Jennifer Aniston in that movie? THIS, however, I can’t even find the smallest shred of entertainment value. For starters, the fucking Leprechaun is barely in it; he pops up every now and then to say a limerick, but half of his scenes don’t even seem to be related to the rest of the movie. I almost suspect that a really abysmal gangster/rapper movie was made, and then some drunk exec decided to film twenty minutes’ worth of Leprechaun footage and try to work it in somehow.

For example, at one point, we see Leprechaun go into an apartment owned by a blind woman, who tries to feed him. Where the scene came from and where it goes is anyone’s guess; one can assume he was looking for someone else (maybe 2nd billed Ice-T, who also barely appears) and got the wrong place, but one shouldn’t have to be drawing their own conclusions for a Leprechaun movie. Plus, half of his scenes have him sitting down doing nothing except rhyming, and Warwick himself doesn’t even seem to be having as much fun as he used to.

But the real problem is how god awful the main story is, which concerns a trio of rappers looking to make it big (they use Leprechaun’s magic flute – don’t ask – to secure a gig playing in Vegas). That would be fine, but the movie seems to be almost trying to reinforce negative stereotypes about African Americans, which just makes the whole thing even more insulting. For example, their rap music is positive, so Ice-T admonishes them for singing about being positive, when kids only want to hear rap songs about smacking bitches and shooting homeys. This leads to our “positive” heroes robbing the guy and shooting him in cold blood. Oh yeah, pretty much every character in the film is either a gangster, a crackhead, a pimp, or a prostitute (not to mention a lot of cross-dressing), and since there are no Caucasians to be found (except for a wannabe record exec who appears for about 12 seconds near the end of the film), it got to the point where I couldn’t tell if the movie was exceedingly racist or merely trying to parody other Afro-centric movies.

It’s also a waste on the horror angle. Leprechaun kills maybe 3 people in the entire movie, and Ice-T gets shot a couple times, but that’s about it. Lep DOES show off a cool move where he uses “magic” bullets that blows someone’s chest apart, but that’s hardly enough to rescue this thing from crap status. Christ, they don’t even bother using the “he has to clean shoes” trick. The one thing they could play for laughs concerning inner city “gangsta” folks would be the sneaker culture; you know some of these guys have like 100 pairs of sneakers in their closet. That would be amazing! No, we get a fucking Coolio cameo instead.

I never thought I’d see the day where part of what I hate about a movie is that it fails to meet the Leprechaun standard, but there you go. I honestly don’t even think that anyone involved even bothered to watch the others, as this one is both gore and cheesy-charm free. On that note, I also assume that the space one didn’t end with him being sent into a Los Angeles ghetto, but even if so, fuck this movie.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Stepfather (1987)

NOVEMBER 9, 2008

GENRE: BLANK FROM HELL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

The best thing about The Stepfather is that it first took me forever for me to accept Terry O'Quinn as John Locke on Lost, as he was just so damn iconic in this role. But after almost 5 years of "The Island brought us here!" , and the fact that I haven't seen Stepfather (or it's way better than expected first sequel) in like 20 years, now it's hard for me to picture "Locke" as a guy who would possibly stab a little puppy.

Well, maybe crazy 3rd season Locke, but he's OK now.

But he sells this movie and singlehandedly elevates it out of generic serial killer movie land. Jerry Blake's complete belief in that what he's doing is OK never falters, and O'Quinn is effortlessly perfect in selling that idea. Like near the end of the film, when he uses the wrong name in front of his soon-to-be-"ex"-wife. Other, shittier movies would have the character panic, and/or try to cover his blunder with another lie, but Blake acts as if he merely dialed a wrong number. "Who am I here?" he wonders. It's a great little bit.

The opening of this movie is still one of the best in horror history too. Despite sort of being spoiled by the blood on his face/clothes, we watch Blake shave his beard (a hint I did not take!) and apparently get ready for work. Then he heads downstairs, and nonchalantly heads out the door, past the corpses of his entire step-family. Holy shit! When I saw it as a kid, this freaked me out so much. Now, of course, being a bit buzzed and watching it at 1 am in a theater in which I sometimes spy cockroaches, I just laugh and cheer along with everyone else.

The funniest (in terms of ironic revival viewers) thing in the movie has to be the guy who spends the entire movie seeking Blake, as it was his sister and family that were shown dead in the opening scene. He's super cheesy, and when he finally finds Jerry, he shows up at the house and gets killed instantly. Dick Hallorann launched a more effective rescue. But that's just part of what makes this movie work; it's refreshingly simple. There are no plot twists, no multiple red herrings, nothing beyond what is necessary. They don't even waste time making Jill Schoelen (who has a nude scene, something I DEFINITELY didn't remember. Stupid 8 year old BC!) suspicious of the guy; she's pretty much calling him a psycho from her first scene with him. If anything, it COULD use a bit of that, as it does get a bit slow at times, due to the fact that Jerry doesn't re-snap until the final two reels, which means a lot of scenes of people just sort of watching each other.

Another thing I did not recall from my youth was the cheesy score. It's a bit Nightmare on Elm St-y at times, and while that score is perfect for that movie, the style doesn't really fit this one. Blake's whistling of "Camptown Races" is far more creepy than any of the score by Patrick Moraz.

Still, minor complaints for a minor gem. Region 1 never got a DVD release (I don't think any of them are on DVD, actually), but I'm sure the upcoming remake (from the Prom Night folks!) will change that. Hopefully someone will put out Jeff Burr's sequel as well, as it was a very worthy followup (and had a fucking awesome blood-soaked finale at a wedding!).

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Haunting In Connecticut (2009)

NOVEMBER 8, 2008

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (TEST SCREENING)

Why is it that Paranormal Activity, a fake movie made for a couple thousand bucks, straight up feels more real than The Haunting In Connecticut (the only one ever!), which IS based on a true story and has all the resources a studio movie can provide? When the ending of the film came up I was like “oh man that is so fucking lame!” and then I discovered it was supposedly what actually happened. LOL, whoops?

Also, why is this movie coming out in a few months but Paranormal is still MIA?

Anyway, as “based on a true story” haunted house movies go, it’s better than average, thanks to a genuinely interesting backdrop; the oldest son of the family is dying of cancer, and his experimental drug may cause hallucinations. Is he crazy, or is the place genuinely haunted? Once the answer is clear, the movie gets less interesting, but for a while I was engaged with the sort of “both sides of the story” idea, a la Emily Rose (which the lovely woman who sat next to me was a big fan of, and she made me realize it had been way too long since I have seen it. Good flick!). Also, the human drama was far more engaging than say, Amityville’s “I wish they’d call me dad” nonsense. There’s a really great/sad scene where the kid is getting worse, and we get a montage of the family reacting in their own way (mom cries, dad smashes stuff, etc).

Making the scene sadder was a haunting track from Thin Red Line, one of the all-time greatest film scores (which has now been used in TWO test screenings I’ve attended this year). This one also had bits from Dark Knight/Batman Begins, and I think I heard Unbreakable in there somewhere. One thing that always tickles me about test screenings is that the comment card asks you what you thought of the music, which makes no sense because it’s all from other movies and, except for very rare occasions, will be original score when it’s finished. And I was all prepared to make a note of this on the card, but we didn’t get any. For a test screening, this makes no sense. Why are we there if we can’t tell them the best way to reshoot and ruin the movie?

The movie also scored a few metaphorical points with me by putting both Elias Koteas and Martin Donavan in the cast. Both men are great actors who have recently found themselves being the only good thing about really generic action movies (Koteas - Shooter; Donavan - The Sentinel), so to see them in something that’s actually pretty good is nice. They never really share any scenes together, which is a bummer, but oh well.

One flaw of the movie is that it can’t seem to decide whether its PG-13 or R. There’s some occasional gore, and the backstory is a bit on the disturbing side, but there are also a lot of the same sort of generic fake scares one would expect for a movie aimed squarely at 15 year old girls. Like when someone knocks on a door REALLY LOUD for no reason other than to make 1-2 people jump and have the asshole exec next to me beam to his buddy.

Oh yeah, the execs. Had I gotten a comment card, I would have given it a grade lower than it deserved if only to piss off the two gigantic fucking assholes who sat in between me and the lovely Emily Rose fan (they ran out of “VIP seats”). The movie’s a Lionsgate release, so chances are these two were already on my shitlist for something, but they went above and beyond with their douchebag behavior: sending texts, showing each other said texts (not even bothering to put the shit on vibrate to boot), and literally smiling at each other every time a line or scared got the crowd to react. To be fair, any reaction besides the snoring from the guy behind us is definitely an improvement, but even so: shut the fuck up, put your fucking blackberry away, and watch the movie. Or leave. Especially if you’re sitting with the people whose opinions you are there to collect; my enjoyment of the film was altered because of their behavior. Had someone been with me (this was a solo trip) I would have began pointing out the movie’s flaws and logic lapses loudly to him/her so that the execs could hear, but alas, I would have just looked like a crazy person. Which I AM, but I didn’t want the lovely Emily Rose fan to know that.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Brotherhood Of Blood (2007)

NOVEMBER 7, 2008

GENRE: VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

I wonder what the world of DTV horror would be like today had Rob Zombie never turned to filmmaking. After Corpses and Rejects, it seems every third horror movie I see on the shelves has Sid Haig, Ken Foree, Bill Moseley, Irwin Keyes, Leslie Easterbrook, William Forsythe, or some combination of two or more. Before Zombie’s films, you’d see those guys in MAYBE 1 movie a year. Brotherhood Of Blood sports Foree and Haig, and surprisingly enough, they are actually in the movie for more than 2 minutes a piece (another tradition is that these guys’ names will be plastered on the DVD cover even if they are only in a scene or two). All hail the Firefly family!

And actually, another rarity among them: the movie isn’t a complete waste. Had it been filmed for any money whatsoever, and maybe undergone another draft or two, it would actually be pretty good. But it’s kind of hard to see the film’s strong points when everything is dulled by the ugly camerawork (consumer DV, from the looks of it) and nearly universal bad acting.

Things start off on an odd note; there are no production company logos or even production company names. The instant you hit play, you are inside a cave or something, and there’s a title saying “3 weeks ago”. Three weeks ago from what? The DVD menu? Then the cast roll begins as we see a guy look at a mural and cut his finger. And then there’s a cut to “present day”. So three weeks ago, a guy was somewhere and got a scrape. Granted, the scene eventually figures into the plot, but its placement is pretty awkward and hilarious.

The entire movie jumps back and forth in time. In fact, it’s ultimately a sort of vampire version of Usual Suspects, right down to the fact that the entire big action event (killing a bunch of vampires, basically) is actually a front for taking out the one guy standing in the ultimate villain’s way. The vampire even has a weird “cool” sounding name that I already forget. And in theory, that’s a pretty sweet concept, but again, I just wish it was applied to a movie with resources to match.

The only other recognizable star in the movie (to me) is Victoria Pratt, who, like Haig, was in House of the Dead 2. It’s not a coincidence; it’s the same writing team behind this movie (they actually work with Boll a lot, so they are OK by me). She’s sexy as hell and not a bad actress, but her role largely requires her to yell at Ken Foree and glare at people. I was hoping to see her kick some major vampire ass, but as it turns out, there’s very little action in the movie (the big vampire “villain” is merely shot to death). I didn’t mind too much, since the story was kind of cool, but it definitely could have used another big setpiece in the first act. At one point we watch Pratt and a few others look around a vampire nest (read: Los Angeles apartment) for what seems like 20 minutes straight.

And for some reason, they are all after
a broken stickman from Blair Witch.

Back to the DV/camera though; I don’t see why folks continue to film on this garbage. Why assemble talent, hire makeup crews, the whole nine yards, and use the worst possible format to show their talents? Even 16mm looks better than this stuff; I often felt like I was watching behind the scenes footage instead of the actual movie.

Indeed, there IS an actual behind the scenes look on the DVD, which is incredibly brief and thus not very informative. There is also a trio of interviews with the three stars, but half of each interview is included on the making of, so it’s a bit pointless. A storyboard comparison is also included, something I usually skip but I took a quick look and learned that the storyboards are more visually interesting than the film itself. Seriously, whoever drew them should do a comic or something, the art style was fucking great. Finally, a commentary track with the directors and Haig, and they don’t say much beyond “this was filmed (wherever)” and things of that nature. Haig also points out that he’s been in vampire movies but has never played the vampire, which is a bummer since his vampire character doesn’t get to do any cool vampire shit in this movie. Someday he will get his moment in the sun!

Oh wait, vamps can’t go in the sun. Well, you know what I mean.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)

NOVEMBER 6, 2008

GENRE: RELIGIOUS, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Any horror fan worth his salt knows that Exorcist: The Beginning was the result of possibly the largest studio reshoot in history, after Paul Schrader’s Dominion was rejected by the studio heads and Renny Harlin was brought in to “fix” it. His result was an almost entirely new film (apparently only 10% of Schrader’s footage was eligible to be re-used, and not all of it was), which drove the budget for the project as a whole up near 100 million dollars; which meant that in order for it to be worthwhile, the movie would have to outgross the original (not counting inflation). Needless to say, it didn’t.

But the irony is, it really isn’t as bad as you would expect, given its production history. It’s certainly better than The Heretic, and had the CGI not been among the worst ever seen in a movie, I would put it on par with III, with maybe a few extra points for being the only sequel in which an actual exorcism was part of the plot, not something shoehorned in for the hell of it.

That CGI though.... Christ. Stephen Sommers himself would probably be ashamed at some of the work here (incidentally, this film was released the same summer as the epitome of bad CGI: Sommers’ Van Helsing). It seems that nearly half the movie is generated; pretty much every non-human element (insects, hyenas, birds), blood, backgrounds... if it didn’t need to talk, it was made in a computer! This wouldn’t be so much of a problem if the effects were actually GOOD, but they are pretty abysmal throughout, with even things like a shot of Stellan Skarsgard (pretty much the only leftover cast member from the original version) walking around in Rome looking impossibly and laughably fake. If not for A Sound Of Thunder, I would consider this movie the alpha and omega example for why CGI use should be limited to Spielberg and Bay (the only two directors who consistently use it correctly).

But from a storytelling point of view, it’s surprisingly... well, not good, but un-terrible. I expected a lot more inane gore and action from Harlin, so it was nice to see that the film was rather slow paced, like the original, and light on setpiece based filmmaking (at least until the final half hour). The “priest re-discovers his faith” story is hardly a new concept, but compared to yesterday’s abysmal hero priest movie (Shadows Light), it’s Oscar-worthy. I honestly think that it was the idea of Paul “Taxi Driver” Schrader being replaced with Renny “Cutthroat Island” Harlin that drove people insane more than anything. Hopefully I will get to Schrader’s version in the next few days; I would love to see how they compare in a back-to-back setting.

I also like the downer ending. When you have a prequel, you can’t kill the guy you know survives, so Alexi Hawley’s script has just about everyone else in the movie getting killed, including the female heroine. Speaking of her – she turns out to be the one that’s possessed by Pazuzu, an idea that never quite makes sense. There’s a little kid who’s obviously not himself throughout the whole movie, but in order to give the movie a trendy twist, it turns out that he’s OK. Then why was he acting so weird? Why did he let his brother die?

On that note though - you can’t really hate a movie in which a little kid is torn apart by hyenas (even if they are terrible CGI ones).

But otherwise, there’s nothing in the movie as insanely incoherent as the first sequel, nor is it as needlessly overwritten as III. The original is a masterpiece, but it’s also rather simple in terms of storytelling, something that the previous sequels apparently didn’t notice. Also, it FEELS more like an Exorcist followup than II or III did. III was admittedly a sequel to the book, so it doesn’t really follow plot points from the original (hence why Kinderman was suddenly Karras’ best friend), and Christ, I can’t even understand enough of II to know what exactly Pazuzu was trying to accomplish.

One thing it DOES follow is that like the others, it definitely has its own style and feel to it. It’s sort of like the Alien franchise in that way; everyone has their favorites, and the four films are different enough that there’s a film for pretty much every mood. Like, if I was at the New Bev, The Heretic would be the way to go, but when I’m home and feeling lazy, The Beginning would be my top choice. No film should be for everyone anyway, so kudos to everyone in the entire franchise (even Heretic’s crew) for putting their own stamp on things.

Harlin’s commentary is pretty terrible though; he completely ignores Schrader’s version and the reshooting, and just points out how much he likes the actors and such. He also talks about old vs. modern horror, but somehow I don’t think that the director of The Covenant makes for the best authority on the subject. There’s also a dull making of and the trailer, which has about as much footage from the first film as this one.

Hopefully, the Exorcist franchise will get its own tell-all book someday, a la "Crystal Lake Memories". It seems all four films were made under stressful situations, and as long as no one was holding back, it could very well be the most entertaining thing in the entire franchise. I’d even contribute a foreword, if they wish.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Shadows Light (2008)

NOVEMBER 5, 2008

GENRE: RELIGIOUS, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I can’t remember who sent me a screener copy of Shadows Light, but can I please send it back? It’s not listed on the Secondspin site, which means I won’t get any tradein for it. And I wouldn’t want to bore any of my friends (or enemies) with it by giving it to them for free. Also, I couldn’t even get through the writer/director commentary track (I got 46 minutes in before self-administering heavy doses of Hinder to resuscitate me), so the ones with the “actors” and producer certainly aren’t enticing.

This is the kind of movie where it’s obvious that the writer had a story he really wanted to tell, but just didn’t have any of the resources (save for some fairly decent monster makeup effects) to tell it properly. Not that the script is a masterpiece by any stretch, but if it had good actors, production value, maybe a better editor, and nudity, it would at least be passable entertainment.

On the nudity note, I should point out that one of the characters is a stripper. This leads to a nudity-free strip scene. What the fuck is the point of that? It’s the O’Douls of movie scenes. Either cut the scene and shed some running time (a far too long 95 minutes) or hire an actress who would be willing to show her cans.

Sadly, No Tits one of the better actors in the movie. She’s still bad, but you can see that she’s at least trying to emote, even if it often sounds like someone trying to dub another language and keep their lips in sync anyway. The hero is OK too; he has zero screen presence but he can at least deliver dialogue in a manner that sounds natural. Everyone else in the movie though; Christ. Worst is the villain, who makes porn actors (actually, guys PRETENDING to be porn actors in regular movies, doing generic “I’m the milkman...” type shtick) look good. I’m sorry, but a movie of this type (bad guy wants to take over the world type crap, at least I think; the actor was so bad I couldn’t even focus on what he was actually saying) rises or falls on the strength of its villain. You know, take End of Days: not a very good movie, but its watchable thanks to having a guy like Gabriel Byrne play the Devil. But this guy? He wouldn’t cut it as Henchman #4 in a DTV Seagal flick.

Then again, why bother trying to act when you have dialogue exchanges like this in your movie?

Someone: “A limo?”
Girl: “Yeah, a long black one!”

(As opposed to all those short white limos driving around?)

The dialogue isn’t the only aural insult in the movie. The film seems to have been recorded with the camera’s microphone, or maybe a mic that was simply taped to the camera. Either way, whenever someone is far from the camera, you get two results: obvious ADR or inaudible dialogue. The sound editing made me sick as well; particularly during one of the two lightsaber duels; the audio kept popping and clicking with each cut, because the editor didn’t bother to put some damn crossfade over the audio tracks. Totally amateurish, and insulting when you consider that this movie is commercially available. I put more effort than that into the free videos that I edit for Bloody Disgusting (and I don’t even get paid for those!).

Back to the two lightsaber duels; it almost seems like this movie is actually a pilot and then an episode of a (boring) TV series. The first duel occurs right around the halfway mark, and then all of a sudden, our hero works for a different church, a new character is introduced (and we’re supposed to consider her an important character, so all of a sudden our hero won’t shut up about her, despite never bringing her up once in the first half of the film). Its really jarring, and my suspicions were furthered when the end of the film found our hero and his new buddy going off to walk (well, drive) the Earth after taking part in the obligatory lightsaber duel. I kept waiting for Ben Murphy to show up with some Tripolotine.

The only thing I liked about this movie was the director’s idea of heaven, which is apparently a world where your loved ones appear composited over some blown out shots of the Grand Canyon. Seems nice.

Like I said, the commentary was dreadful, so I shut it off halfway through. Director Stephen Zimmer was either narrating the onscreen action or pointing out how great all the actors are and where he found them (to hear him tell it, it seems as if Lexington, Kentucky is a hotbed of amazing acting talent). There are two other tracks, but I’m not that much of a nihilist (I say that as a man who once watched/reviewed 5 movies in one day). There is also a 15 minute interview montage with the actors, who are all badly composited in front of grade school class photos backgrounds, and an overlong look at the FX which is actually kind of interesting, since the FX were occasionally decent; and since its long enough to have some depth, it may be of some use to budding makeup artists.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Ghouls (2008)

NOVEMBER 4, 2008

GENRE: CULT, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

When you rent a movie with a title as generic as Ghouls, and the movie itself is pretty generic, is there anyone to blame but yourself for bothering? No one’s forcing me to see these things. In a way, I’d almost rather the movie was terrible, instead of just dull and bland, because then it would at least be fun to write the review. This... man, I dunno.

This movie has two things going for it: competent direction/cinematography, and William Atherton. There is a surprising amount of shotgun action in the film, and despite what couldn’t have even been a 7 figure budget, it’s decent and occasionally exciting to see a guy toss grenades and blast ghost/ghoul things that look like they are the Ringwraiths and the Orcs combined into one thing (at one point, LOTR is even mentioned directly, so they can’t claim they never saw the designs). Also, a lot of it takes place during the day, which is an admirable choice when your CG ghosty things look like ass (if it was dark, the poor compositing wouldn’t be as noticeable). And Atherton seems to be having a good time during the early parts of the movie, as he gets to play a rare good guy (until the predictable “twist” anyway). Good to see him in his third non-bureaucratic asshole role of the year (after Headspace and Girl Next Door).

Everything else pretty much misses the mark. The general idea (girl finds out she is to be sacrificed and take over a cult) isn’t the most original thing in the world, but it’s a perfectly serviceable story. The problem is that the script (by no less than 5 credited writers) never throws anything unique or interesting into the mix. I guess we are supposed to think that the dad is a good guy and that his new age-y girlfriend is working with the cult, but come on, you know it’s the other way around right from the start.

And apparently, it's a Scream prequel.

And why can’t any of these “It’s your birthright!” chicks in movies ever be into their upcoming transformation? They’re always like “no, not ultimate power!” Just once I’d like to see this plot get used on a really laid-back girl who’s like “Yeah, OK, sounds good!” when informed that she is about to become the next cult Queen or whatever the fuck. Also, for a heroine, the Jennifer character is incredibly annoying and dull; not only does she not have any personality to speak of, but the actress delivers nearly all of her lines in a whiny voice that grows tiresome after, oh, 9 seconds. Not that anyone could really pull off a howler like “You have to kill me now or the whole world will descend into darkness!”, but she has trouble with even the more traditional lines.

She’s not the biggest cast problem though. That would be James DeBello (aka the “For the nougat?” guy from Cabin Fever), cast as... wait for it... a Druid badass. Yeah. This is an example of the “Matthew Lillard as a prince” Boll school of casting at its finest. I mean, it’s almost kind of amusing to hear him say “I’m a Druid” and be totally serious about it, but that can only provide so much amusement before you eventually realize that no one in the production cared, so you shouldn’t either.

The DVD’s only extras are a bunch of trailers for other terrible looking DTV nonsense like Cyborg Soldier, which doesn’t even seem to be trying to distinguish itself from Universal Soldier. There’s also one called Sharks In Venice which I assume was greenlit based on the presumed success of Snakes on a Plane. Stephen Baldwin (who co-starred with Atherton in Bio-Dome, a movie they both probably thought would be their low point until these things came along) stars in that one. It looked hilariously bad, so look for a review soon!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Room 205 (2007)

NOVEMBER 3, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Anyone who reads this site often knows that I watch a lot of obscure movies. So occasionally I check the IMDb’s “external reviews” page for proof that anyone else has ever even heard of the damn thing. One site that almost always comes up is slasherpool.com, and while I don’t always agree with them, I’ve come to respect their opinion a bit (I DON’T respect their abysmally small font on their reviews though; it’s easier to read cereal ingredients). So when I saw their praise on Room 205 (Danish: Kollegiet), calling it a “Fast Paced Supernatural Teen Slasher”, I figured it would be, if nothing else, a lot better than the other foreign slasher I’ve seen from the Ghost House Underground set (that would be Trackman). Sadly, that's about all it manages.

Before I get into the movie, I want to comment about the rather misleading nature of the quote, since the same review says that the story is cliché, the plot badly written, the actors bad, etc. You’d think that they would use quotes from a fully positive review, but that is not often the case. I still tease Spooky Dan about “loving” the Halloween remake, which he only sort of enjoyed, but they used one of his out of context quotes on the ads.

Also, slasherpool is a goddamn liar, because this movie is anything but fast-paced. If anything, it’s BIGGEST problem is that it’s deathly slow. Our total body count in the first hour is one. For a “slasher” (and this movie is not really a slasher, unless you think that The Grudge is a slasher), that’s almost a sin. Even Halloween, the patron saint of slashers, and probably the one with the lowest body count of all, racks up three by the hour mark.

Now, that wouldn’t be a problem if the story/characters were interesting, but they are not. Our heroine is “sheltered girl whose mother died” horror female #758934, and the rest of the characters are slasher stereotypes in every sense of the word (a bitch, a jock-y cool guy, a loner...). And the story is right out of any old J-horror film; there’s a ghost haunting mirrors, and as it turns out, it’s the ghost of someone who is seeking revenge for her tragic, accidental death. Zzzzz.

Speaking of mirrors, it’s actually a lot like Mirrors, in that you have this goofy plot, but there’s almost zero levity in the entire film. There’s also a jaw rip (well, an attempt at one), so maybe Aja saw it (it’s been completed for a while, it actually played Screamfest LAST year) before making his disappointing film. So that’s also a problem; at least if they went for a more funhouse, rollercoaster ride version of this story it would liven things up a bit.

But it’s not awful; it’s competently made and the actors are good. And once it finally gets going, it’s kind of exciting, and the deaths are surprisingly cool when they actually occur. To be fair, the slow pace would actually be a benefit if the story was a bit more original or interesting, so it’s nice to see that they are at least TRYING to develop character rather than just present you with wall to wall kills like a latter day F13 movie. Also, I’m pretty sure that this is the first teen horror movie in which our Final Girl snorts cocaine, so at least they aren’t slaves to the “rules”. Finally, there is a pretty rocking song during the end credits that I very much enjoyed, from a band called Marvel Hill. I should note that the new Hinder album nearly gave me a boner though (I highly recommend “Thing For You”), so use that as a gauge for judging my musical taste (you can also just read my Armageddon review, since I judge this kind of junk music the same way).

Also, it’s the 2nd movie in a row I’ve watched that had a character named Olaf.

The DVD has a commentary (in which director Martin Barnewitz also claims it’s a slasher movie) and a making of, neither are essential but props to devoting a lengthy section of the making of to the sound design, which is one of the movie’s strong points. The commentary also has a film critic along for the ride, and it’s kind of ironic that they spend so much time dissecting (and dismissing) slasher movies that are far superior to this one, and talking about what makes an effective horror movie, when Barnewitz failed to do so. Oh well, at least one of them points out that the backstory is the same as (the superior) Shutter, so I don’t have to.

Also, I want to discuss the back of the case, as it includes the longest and most spoiler-y plot synopsis I have ever seen on a DVD. You ready for the whole thing?

“Wanting to start fresh, Katrine moves from the province into a dormitory in Cophenhagen and enrolls athe University. But when she crosses conniving Sanne by getting to gether with Sanne’s ex, all hell breaks loose.”

Now, that would be enough, but:

“Sanne and her friends try to bully Katrine out of the dormitory. They frighten her with an old myth surrounding the ghost of a former resident. Yet the myth very soon becomes a reality. By accident, Katrine sets the ghost free and it starts a terrifyingly gruesome attack on the dormitory’s residents. Only Katrine knows the fate of the remaining residents if she doesn’t stop the actions of the ghost. However, no one believes Katrine’s story and they accuse her of the series of mysterious murders. She seeks help from the former resident Rolf. While the residents continue to die around them, Katrine and Rod embark on a desperate struggle to stop the ghost before it kills those who are left.”

Jesus Christ. Why not explain HOW they stop it while you’re at it, guy who writes the back of DVD cases? Luckily, I don’t even look at the back of DVDs (unless I’m crunched for time and need to make sure that the movie is short and/or featureless), because that monstrosity would make me NOT want to watch the thing, especially since it makes me feel like I already did.

So to bring this writeup full circle, here’s my submission for a quote: “A dull, generic, J-horror esque faux slasher with a decent ending!”

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Die You Zombie Bastards! (2005)

NOVEMBER 2, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, INDEPENDENT, MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

I forget if I ever explained the term "independent" with regards to my genre tagging, so let me do so here: there is a big difference between “low budget” and “independent”, as far as I’m concerned. Pulp Fiction is NOT an independent film. Tarantino was given 10 million from a movie studio (one owned by Disney no less) and a pretty impressive cast of A-list talent who needed to stick to a shooting schedule. On the other hand, Die You Zombie Bastards! has no stars, was filmed for a few thousand bucks, and was shot over the course of a few years, with filming resuming whenever director Caleb Emerson could scrape together enough dough and find a crew willing to work for free for a few days. THAT is a truly “independent” film. Or to put it in simpler terms: if you ever had to cancel a shoot because your DP couldn’t get the night off from his “real job”, you’re an independent filmmaker!

Anyway, Zombie Bastards is definitely not for everyone. “Worst movie ever made” comments will probably be common on the IMDb messageboard, because morons often don’t understand that terrible effects, bad acting, etc. are sort of the point in movies like this. I never met the man, but I am willing to bet that Emerson knows his actors are so far over the top that they make Christopher Walken look subdued. I mean, Christ, the finale of the movie features a large battle between a sea monster riding a bike, a dozen demons, a serial killer superhero, a giant mosquito, a couple of robots, and a guy with a dogface. Restraint is hardly a factor.

Of course, all of this is even more hilarious when you consider the only restrained thing about the film was its budget. IMDb claims that the budget was about 150k, and yet the movie has more action, gore, and sheer variety than bigger budgeted “independent” films such as Cabin Fever or Jack Brooks do combined. And again, the cost-saving measures add to the fun; it’s a lot more entertaining to see a fake spaceship (it seems they went out of their way to make it look bad) attack a bunch of “Asians” (regular dudes in Raiden hats) than it would be to film all that stuff professionally.

Also: COCONUT HEAD FACE MAN. His scene/story seemingly has no bearing on anything in the movie, and that is a shame, but when the movie otherwise stops cold to tell us his tale, I became completely enamored by the film. It reminded me somewhat of the batshit nonsense stories that I make up when I’m bored (my dream is to make a buddy action/comedy film about bitter enemies: a hitman named Domingo Sally (a man) and a CIA agent/Bichon Frise who unwittingly join forces to take on a demon who has taken control of the Versailles mob), so I felt a kinship with it.

Another thing I loved was the rather random map overlays (think Indiana Jones) that provided occasional scene transitions as our hero made his way around the world. They are all completely wrong (West Virginia is apparently located in Norway), which of course is what makes them so funny. Making fun of cinematic convention is a staple throughout the film; I particularly liked whenever Emerson would obviously use the same cutaway/reaction over and over during a scene, overdoing it to the point that you know that it’s a joke and not just a low budget penny pinching technique.

In a way it reminded me of Repo, in that the movie is so fucking OUT THERE that you need to sort of adjust your senses to get on board. The first fifteen minutes or so made me want to quit doing HMAD forever, but by the time our hero (a serial killer; no one seems to care much though) goes to a police station to try to get them to help him find his kidnapped girlfriend, I knew I made the right choice to stick with it. So for those impatient folks out there; just let it sink in. It’s like, yeah, "Pablo Honey" is a great album, but you gotta sort of forget about it if you ever want to enjoy "OK Computer".

The DVD has a pretty expansive set of extras, though none are as fun as the movie itself. There’s the obligatory commentary, which is exactly the type of track you’ve come to expect from a no-budget film (“that’s my brother, this scene had to be reshot because there was no tape in the audio recorder”, etc). But it’s kind of funny to hear a commentary that namedrops a bunch of towns I know well, like Medford (I lived one town over), and he also mentions going to Spookyworld, a beloved locale for New England horror nerds. Then there’s about 40 minutes’ worth of behind the scenes footage, which isn’t exactly essential, but it’s interesting to see how often the film would start and then shut down again due to budget/cast/whatever issues. Then there are about 8 minutes of ADR sessions that should have been 3-4 tops. Also a couple of poorly shot band performances, an interview with the late (and incoherent) Hasil Adkins, and the only really worthwhile one in the bunch: an interview with Emerson.

This is a movie that sort of defies judging. It’s not love it or hate it; its love it or don’t bother. It’s a shame that Emerson has gone on to work on truly abysmal stuff like Splatter Disco (he was the DP, though to be fair the only thing about that movie that I remember liking was that it was well shot for DV); let’s hope he lines up another feature of his own (in this vein, not some bullshit remake or whatever) sooner rather than later. Also – it was shot in Gloucester, MA, which is about a half hour or so from my hometown. I wish I knew about this movie back during one of its productions; I totally would have been a PA or whatever.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Lost Voyage (2001)

NOVEMBER 1, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, HAUNTED HOUSE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

At long last, October is over!* Back to one movie a day, and time to actually watch it without cutting into sleep. Kicking things off is Lost Voyage, which I own because Gamestop was having a ridiculously appealing “Buy 2 get 4 free” sale on used DVDs. I can’t even remember which two I bought because I actually wanted them, but I do know that it took me like an hour to find 4 movies I’d even want for free. And if this is any indication of their overall quality, I needn’t have bothered.

To be fair, it’s fairly competently made, and it’s probably the LEAST incoherent “haunted boat” movie I’ve ever seen. But otherwise, there isn’t a hell of a lot to recommend here. And you can tell right from the start, as Lance Henriksen’s name is spelled incorrectly (HenriCksen) in the credits. And for those keeping score, they get it right on the front of the DVD, but the back has it as “HenricksON”. It’s like they weren’t sure which was right, so they used every variation they could think of to ensure that they got it right at least once. Hey, beats asking the guy, or maybe checking it against one of his GOOD movies.

But Lance is probably the only guy in the movie who gives it any effort (as he always does). He’s the captain of the boat, and despite being listed as “And Lance Henri(whatever)”, he’s actually in it quite a bit, and is the last to die as well. His character wildly swings between being an uptight asshole to being cordial and generous with the reporter who is doing a story on the allegedly lost boat, but hey, any Lance is fine by me.

Especially when our hero is Judd Nelson, who apparently couldn’t be less interested in trying. He is fucking awful here, and worse, his character doesn’t DO anything in the movie. His biggest moment as a hero is watching a guy get crushed to death by chains, waiting until blood is coming from the guy’s mouth before thinking to use the nearby ax to break the glass in order to get to him. The guy tells him to flick a switch (outside of the room, for some reason) which will stop the chain from falling, which Judd does, after the guy has already died. Nice work, Bender. His would-be rival is a guy who looks like Desmond Hume, who had a drinking problem until the “network paid for his rehab”. Yes, because a cameraman on a basic cable ghosthunter show is completely irreplaceable!

Another character problem is the character of Julie, played by uber-sexy Scarlett Chorvat. Her problem, besides never getting nude and improving this movie’s visual excitement (hope you like watching guys fiddle with meters! It makes up about half of the film), is that her character keeps disappearing from the movie. It’s almost like she was added in later, Eddie Murphy in Best Defense style. There will be scenes of the “group” discussing a plan or whatever, and she will be totally MIA. Christ, when they are all heading to the boat, I didn’t even know she was on the helicopter with them until the sequence was nearly over. “Let’s not get coverage of the hot girl. More shots of Jeff Kober please!”

As I was saying before, nothing much happens in the film either. There are only about 4-5 deaths, and most of them occur offscreen. As this was a TV movie, I’m not too surprised, but there is a scene of Lance and Kober screaming FUCK YOU! at each other, so if they could add that back in, why not a gory death or two to keep things slightly more interesting? Then again, since the DVD is as barebones as they come (and full frame to boot), I sort of doubt anyone was putting that much effort into it in order to entice fans of this masterpiece to buy the damn thing.

Also, how can you make a movie about the Bermuda Triangle (with allusions to the creepy Mary Celeste story as well) and make it so damn dull? Damn you, writer/director Christian McIntire (whose entire career is made up of movies with titles that sound created by a computer: Interceptor Force, Dragon Fighter, etc.). Plus, it’s almost like he forgot about half of the movie’s ideas; Judd’s character goes to the ship because his parents were on it when it initially disappeared, but he barely even mentions them once they are on board.

Well, it’s a Sci-Fi movie. I’m sure someone watched it on the air and decided to buy that one brand of soda or maybe went to a Toyota dealership the next day, so it served its purpose.

What say you?

*Oh wait, I have the Halloween convention this weekend. Looks like November 3rd will be the official end of the month. Fuck!

PLEASE, GO ON...