Kill List (2011)

FEBRUARY 12, 2012

GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

For the 2nd time in three days, I found myself at a late night screening of a horror film, because the theaters (both of them Laemmle’s) didn’t deem them worthy of showing more than once a day. But while that was clearly a wise decision for Don’t Go In The Woods, there was about 10-11 folks for Kill List, which could have doubled (given the strong reviews) at an earlier time on a work night. Also, if they showed it a couple of times, some folks with time on their hands might be compelled to buy a ticket for the next showing in order to see if it made any more sense.

Before I set out to watch the film I once again queried Twitter if it was really a horror film, and all but one guy said yes. However, one of those “yes” also inadvertently spoiled what made it a horror film by comparing it to another film, an aspect I will leave out of this review (but if you want to swipe the invisible text you can see the other genre it would belong to: Cult). As many others have said, it’s best to go into this one blind, but I’d even include the notion that it’s a horror film at all. Much like Audition, its placement in the horror genre is a bit of a surprise that is intentionally held from the viewer for a while, so even having a review on this site is putting you at a bit of a disadvantage. Again, this is why an early time would be helpful – I’ve heard good things about the movie and was interested in checking it out, but since it didn’t start until 10 pm, I had to get some sort of guarantee that it could count for my daily horror movie. If it was at 2 pm I would have just gone to the theater and watched it just for the sake of watching a potentially cool movie; if it was also horror: bonus!

Back to the 2nd viewing thing, it’s not a particularly complicated plot like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy or whatever: it’s basically a movie about a hit man that starts to unravel during the process of carrying out a few assignments. However, writer/director Ben Wheatley doesn’t hand-hold or even fully explain much in the film; we’re sort of dropped into the situations with the assumption that we’ll catch up. The entire movie is akin to trying to find your place in a book that you haven’t read in months – each scene is the few paragraphs you’ll skim as you try to get to the right page. Some will make total sense, others will seem familiar, and others will be a total mystery (in the book metaphor, that would mean you’ve flipped too far).

However, it DOES stick to a three act structure, albeit an unconventional one. Our first act is an uncomfortable dinner party between our main character, his wife, his best friend, and the friend’s new girlfriend. Differences in opinion arise, the married couple snip at each other until they break down into a full blown shouting match, the buddies bust each other’s balls but seem to really mean what they say… it’s far from the most pleasant dinner, in other words. Also, at one point, the girlfriend does something quite peculiar, which won’t make much sense to us until much later in the film. This bugged me a bit; I think it was mostly due to the fact that I knew what it was pointing to (due to the Twitter spoiler), so I’m curious if totally blind viewers will think much of it, or if they’ll find it even MORE frustrating.

Anyway, the 2nd act is given to the “hero” and his buddy carrying out their assignments as hitmen. We don’t get too much info on their marks, and they all act a bit weird in the moments leading to their death (one target even pleasantly thanks our protagonist before getting shot between the eyes), but none seem like guys who had much to offer the world (one was a child molester, it seems). I should note that the thick British accents are a bit indecipherable to my ears at times, so perhaps there was some characterization that was lost on me (and people wanted to subtitle Attack The Block?).

It’s their final target/3rd act in which the horror elements really kick in, and they don’t disappoint. There’s an exciting and nerve-wracking chase sequence in a small tunnel, and even a minor home invasion bit in which the wife (The Descent’s MyAnna Buring, always a welcome presence) shows a bit of her own badass side. Again, I won’t explain who the villain or villains are, but it’s pretty hard to argue that this is a horror film when you see it/them bearing down on our main characters.

But it all just left me kind of cold. I appreciated the unconventional approach and the fact that I was never able to guess where the story was going next, but I also started getting the feeling that Wheatley was making his film obtuse just for the hell of it. Perhaps another viewing or two (and maybe a subtitle track) would clear a few things up, but I’m never big on that approach. Further viewings giving you new perspective on certain events can be a lot of fun, like realizing that Kevin Pollak is laying down in the cell in Usual Suspects – but it’s not a requirement, and I knew for sure that I loved that movie after one viewing. Thus, I wasn’t sure if I liked it; I was spending so much of it just trying to get a handle on who everyone was and how they related to each other, I was never able to just sit back and enjoy the story. It’s like when you read "Hamlet" in English class – it’s a great piece of literature, but when the teacher is constantly reminding you that you are going to be tested on it, it kind of takes the joy out of the discovery.

I can definitely attest to its technical merit; I was overjoyed to see that the Laemmle was projecting a glorious 35mm print (after watching a damn Blu-ray for Woods), because this is a dark film and an ugly digital projection would mar the deep blacks and shadows, particularly in the 3rd act (which is set in near total darkness at times). The bleak subject matter was perfectly matched to the cinematography; even in scenes of relative lightness, the pale gray/blue look and often handheld camerawork is there to remind us that this is grim and uneasy territory. It’s interesting to note that the “warmest” colored scene in the film is when a group of Christians break out into song at a restaurant where our protagonists are dining in between kills. Sure someone has some theories on that; I just thought it was nice to see the color orange for once. The film has an unnerving sound design as well; a shame this particular theater's sound system was not the best fit for it, but in a way that's kind of a win - it worked despite a lackluster setup.

Basically, it’s the sort of movie I wish I didn’t have to write a review based on one viewing. Movies like Sauna I was able to re-watch the DVD and get a firmer grasp on its content before putting my thoughts into writing, but I don’t have that luxury with Kill List (well, not for free – it’s also on OnDemand I guess). Maybe I’m just dumb, I don’t know. I can definitely say it’s one of the more challenging and unique genre films in a while, and given the high praise bestowed upon it by several of my peers, I would guess that as long as you were patient and willing to take the dare, you’ll enjoy it as well.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Love At First Bite (1979)

FEBRUARY 11, 2012

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

There are fewer actors that are as synonymous with “cheesy” (to my generation anyway) than George Hamilton, and fewer sub-genres in horror more littered with garbage than the horror-comedy, so the fact that Love At First Bite was even watchable was a surprise. That it was actually pretty fun is something of a minor miracle; while the should-be dream team of Mel Brooks and Leslie Nielsen failed to lampoon Dracula in the shockingly bad Dead And Loving It, this one actually manages to more or less work.

Part of the success is due to the fact that it’s not a direct spoof of the Dracula story as the other film was (I only bring it up because I specifically remember the "Fangoria" article about Brooks’ film dismissing this one), which keeps them from having to force comedy into situations that are ill-suited for such things. Hamilton plays Dracula, and he’s got Renfield, and as always he’s looking for his eternal love, but otherwise it doesn’t really follow the Stoker story: no Harker, no Lucy, etc. If anything it’s closer to Vampire In Brooklyn than Dracula.

Interestingly, it also has several African-American supporting characters like that film, although many of them are stereotypes (when Dracula throws a black street punk through an electronic store window, the guy loots a TV as he climbs back out). It feels a BIT racist in retrospect, but it’s not meant to be - you gotta remember that the world wasn't so damn PC back then, and thus it's no different than the language in the classic Chevy/Richard Prior sketch on SNL. And when you have Sherman Hemsley and Isabel Sanford contributing small roles (at the height of The Jeffersons’ popularity), you have to assume that they didn’t have any trouble with the movie’s tone. Hemsley’s scene is pretty hilarious actually; he’s giving a eulogy for a guy whose coffin got mixed up with Dracula’s at the airport, mostly giving the deceased guy props for all of his sexual conquests (a guy in the crowd even proudly joins in: “He banged my old lady!”).

Of course, as with any comedy of this sort, there are as many groaners as laughs (pretty much anything revolving around Renfield is laugh-free), as well as some dated material that distracts from the fun. But again, I was surprised at how much DID still work, particularly the hilariously inept psychiatrist who is also a descendent of Van Helsing. He’s a bit fuzzy on the exact ways to kill a vampire, which has some fun results: after shooting Dracula through the heart with silver bullets, he tries to get out of arrest by pointing out that he mixed him up with a werewolf and that he’s actually fine. The actor is Richard Benjamin, better known for his directing these days, but he’s got a fun sort of Steven Colbert-ish demeanor here, arrogant yet clueless, and ultimately well-meaning.

I should note that it’s barely a horror movie even by horror-comedy standards. I don’t think he kills anyone in the movie (there’s a blood bank scene to explain how he stays nourished), and most of the displays of his power are to telekinetically open doors and turn on “mood music” during his dates with Susan Saint James. He does transform into a bat at one point, which is pretty hilarious (a poor family trying to figure out how to get its next meal assumes it’s a black chicken), but even the climax feels more like a traditional romantic comedy (it involves a race to the airport!) albeit with the male lead in a cape. Not that it bugged me much, but Dead & Loving It and Vampire In Brooklyn, while inferior films IMO, definitely made more of an attempt to cater to both fanbases.

That said (spoilers ahead!) I did like that he actually succeeded for once. Most (all?) Dracula films end with him being burned by sunlight or staked, failing to get his bride, but here he successfully turns James into a vampire, and then they turn bat and fly off together. It’s quite sweet, and it’s not at the expense of the psychiatrist, who gets to walk away with the main cop (shades of Casablanca here) and Dracula’s cape, which both men are convinced will aid considerably in their romantic lives. Everyone walks away happy; it’s nice.

Your tolerance level may vary, but I found this an enjoyably silly diversion. There’s something uniquely charming about watching a movie about a guy who comes to a 30 year old “modern day” time, and Hamilton largely plays it straight, which is always preferable to trying to score a laugh every other line (though he does get the best laugh in the film with his variation on “I never drink wine”). James is gorgeous, and it never wears out its welcome. Just a nice little movie is all.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Don't Go In The Woods (2010)

FEBRUARY 10, 2012

GENRE: MUSICAL, SLASHER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

Many of my favorite movies blend genres. Armageddon is an action/comedy/romance/sci-fi thing, Pulp Fiction is pretty much every genre (even horror! Gimp is scary!), Fletch is a comedy and a mystery, etc. Thus, the idea of crossing a slasher movie with a musical, while rather silly, should be right up my alley, and if nothing else should score points for ambition. Sadly, Don't Go In The Woods fails to engage as either a slasher OR a musical, which is exponentially worse than just failing at one. Bad slashers are a dime a dozen; the world's only slasher MUSICAL (that I know of) should at least be entertaining.

This is a horror site so let's just get the musical stuff out of the way quickly. The main problem is that most of the songs are just standard emo numbers that wouldn't be out of place on a Bright Eyes or Dashboard Confessional album. Hell, most of them are actually quite good if you like that style of music ("Shadows" and the final number in particular are worth owning an MP3 of), but they lack that "musical" feel. Much like the Spider-Man musical, the songs just lack that "showtune" quality, so it just comes off as a bunch of hipsters messing around on their guitars. And not all of them are good, either: the one between the girl and the foreign exchange student is one of the most grating songs I've ever heard (sadly it's also one of the few that seems written specifically for the movie).

Plus, they don't really add to the story the way the songs in say, Little Shop Of Horrors do, and only in two or three instances do a few lyrics (never a whole song) relate to the "slasher" plot in any way, making them even less significant. Not that this sort of approach can't work - the songs in Once also don't sound like typical musical numbers, but they totally fit the vibe of the movie. You hear "Falling Slowly" and think about the two characters going on their little dates; if you hear any of these songs you'd never think about the slasher scenes.

Of course, you'd probably never think about the slasher scenes period, because they are shockingly lackluster and poorly executed; taking this as a straight slasher would rank it among the lamest ever, in fact. Vincent D'Onofrio is a terrific actor, and can be a pretty scary guy on screen, but he doesn't exactly make a good impression as a director of scary movies. For example, the killer may be goofy looking but at least somewhat inspired - he sort of looks like a giant Odd-Job with a screen over his face - but you barely ever see him! Most of the kills are more or less off-screen (someone will get dragged out of frame or you'll just see the weapon swinging), and our good looks at him are incredibly rare. He's not the shark in Jaws, Mr. D'Onofrio - there's no reason to hide him this much. The ending sort of offers a reason for his limited appearance, but since it still counts as a bit of a cheat, there's no reason to keep him so vague. Might as well go all out if that's the path you're going to take.

The only minor surprise about the kill scenes is that they are surprisingly gory. The Hatchet/Laid To Rest franchises don't need to worry about it stealing their thunder - it's all aftermath, with minimal on-screen contact, but seeing a dude with a keyboard sticking out of his neck or the killer ripping chunks of muscle/flesh from a girl's back were some of the few times I got the impression that anyone on the crew had ever seen a slasher movie before. On the other hand, they should know that 11-12 characters is too many for this kind of slasher; even ignoring the fact that none of them have much characterization behind them (which I can ignore - it's practically a given even in underpopulated slasher films), but the hook of the movie is that these guys are out in the woods sans distractions in order to write their album. Thus, just one or two girls (instead of 6 or 7) could have made the same point, and then there would be more time for crazy things like "stalking scenes", or maybe even money for "actual kill scenes". Something to think about for the sequel.

And you'd think with that many victims that it wouldn't ever take too long to kill someone; 10-11 victims in an 80 minute movie should mean you're never more than 10 minutes away from one, right? Nope. The girls show up after like 25-30 minutes, and it's another 15 before the first one dies. The movie uses the time-honored tradition of showing part of the ending at the top of the film, seemingly for no other reason than to ensure the audience that they are indeed seeing a horror movie, because otherwise they might forget by the time anything happens in the timeline. There's also a bizarre jump cut at the top of the final reel, where the closest thing we have to a "Final Girl" is watching one of her friends die and then is suddenly at the campsite with the band's lead singer. So even when the movie finally gets going, it's still denying us the sort of things we want to see.

Ultimately, the movie barely even makes an attempt at showing why the two genres should be combined in the first place. There are a couple of very brief instances where girls who are going off to die begin singing the previous (unrelated) song with new lyrics that seem to be foreshadowing their demise - THIS is the sort of thing the movie should have been built around! All they needed was one or two unrelated emo songs just to sell the idea that they were in a band, and from then on the songs should have been actual numbers that tied into the killer's actions. Hell, give the killer himself a song! It's almost as if D'Onofrio and his screenwriters (Joe Vinciguerra and Sam Bisbee, the latter of which also wrote the songs) came up with the idea: "A slasher musical!" and then figured that they could just phone everything else in, figuring the concept alone was enough to make audiences happy.

I can forgive some of the movie's problems due to the way it was produced - apparently it was made as a time-killer while waiting for another project to come together, with actors hired out of coffeehouses and such. However, I can't accept that their efforts aren't even enough to qualify this as a potential cult classic, or that most of the movie's problems are directly script related. As I've mentioned before, I'll accept any idea for a movie no matter how ridiculous as long as the filmmakers back it up. There are moments in the third act where you see the potential in the concept (particularly when the lead singer suddenly stops running from the killer in order to sing a new song), so I am confident that this COULD work; hell, the short Legend of Beaver Dam sort of counts as a slasher musical, and that's one of the best things I've ever seen. But scattered moments are not enough to save the flick from being anything more than a curiosity; something you watch only to ensure that it exists. Indeed, there IS a full length slasher musical in the world - it's just a shame that it's this shockingly dull.

What say you?

P.S. The one LA theater showing this (the Laemmle Music Hall 3) only has it on one showing per day. At first I thought this was a bit silly; granted it's not going to be a "line around the block" movie, but with only one screen they could surely justify a few showings per day, right? Nope - I was the only one there. The box office for Don't Go In The Woods on its opening day in the biggest movie city in the world was 11 dollars. Of all the crap I've seen, this was the first time I've had a theater to myself since I moved here (something my good friend Phil Blankenship manages to do fairly often). It's kind of nice, I didn't have to stifle my burps! Also, it was showing on a Blu-ray; always nice to be reminded of how far the paid theatrical experience has fallen with the damn player menu projected on a screen:

PLEASE, GO ON...

Warlock: The Armageddon (1993)

FEBRUARY 9, 2012

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

I wasn't a fan of Warlock, but I figured if Warlock: The Armageddon somehow managed to get its own Sega Genesis/SNES game (which looks like a Castlevania knock-off), it must be pretty good, right? Plus, any time I look up Armageddon on some site this movie comes up as the 2nd match, so I am tired of silently judging it when that happens ("No, not you, you stupid Julian Sands movie, the REAL one!") - it's time I finally see what this movie is and THEN judge it.

Surprisingly, while I wouldn't go so far as to call it GOOD, I at least liked it more than the original. Julian Sands is in it more this time (at least it seems so), and he's kind of doing a Wishmaster/Leprechaun thing here where he's basically just being a giant asshole. His goal is to collect six stones that are scattered around the country, and for whatever reason he can't just take them, so he's gotta trick everyone into handing them over. This always results in their deaths, some of which are pretty wonderful (the bit where he turns a guy into a Picasso-esque sculpture is amazing!). It gives him the menace that I thought he lacked in the original, so in that respect it's simply a better horror movie.

Also, whenever he's on-screen it means we're not watching the far less successful scenes of the film's hero going through some half-assed "Refusal Of The Call" nonsense, where he discovers his dad and dad's drinking buddies are all Druids who have sworn to protect the town and blah blah. Anyway, they need him to join, and at first he's all like "No way this is silly!" and then they switch to a Star Wars motif (with Richard Donner regular Steve Kahan in the Yoda role) as he learns to harness his powers and such. The music is even sort of Williams-y here, and coupled with the woefully bad FX, these bits are a drag. Obviously an entire movie of Sands wandering around killing folks would get repetitive after a while, but I couldn't help but wonder if the only reason I liked his stuff here was only because it was infinitely more entertaining than watching this bland kid (and his blander girlfriend) learn how to set things on fire.

Another thing I liked were all the bit roles and cameos from horror vets: Joanna Pacula as a designer who owned one of the stones, Zach Galligan as a would-be date for another owner, Buck Flower pops up as a random town resident, etc. Plus Kahan's drinking buddies are RG Armstrong and Charles Hallahan (Norris from The Thing), and Bruce Glover plays the priest who assists in their quest to rid the world of Julian Sands. I wish ALL of the stone owners were folks that had some horror cred (director Anthony Hickox's buddy Bruce Campbell would have been great as the aforementioned "Picasso victim"), especially since the scenes seem to have influenced Wishmaster (where nearly all his single scene victims were icons like Kane Hodder and Tony Todd), but it's always nice to see most of these folks, particularly the late Hallahan. Norris rules.

Hickox is also a better director than the original's Steve Miner, giving the film some flair. He LOVES diopter shots especially; Brian De Palma would be proud of this one. Again, the FX are mostly terrible, but at least he gives the film a slight energy that the original lacked; it only really lulls whenever they focus on the heroes' generic romantic subplot. And unlike the original, there are scenes set at night in this one! Crazy for a horror movie, I know, but that's the kind of maverick Hickox is, I guess.

Speaking of the original, it's barely related. There's very little about true magic and hexes and such, and the Grimoire that was so important in that one isn't even mentioned. The Warlock doesn't seem to need human fat to fly anymore, and he's pretty much used to the present day by now I guess - there's not a lot of "fish out of water" stuff this time around. Granted, I didn't like the other film so anything they can do to make this one different is fine by me, but I assume that film's fans might be a bit disappointed that this one is more like a spinoff than a true sequel.

So who was the target audience for this movie? No idea. Those who like seeing Sands be a badass will probably dig it for the most part, but otherwise it's sort of schizo. His scenes are very R-rated and dark, but the stuff with the hero is straight out of some PG fantasy adventure movie like Sorcerer's Apprentice. And again, it's so far removed from the original's story/characters that I can't even imagine it satisfying whoever might be a fan of the earlier film. But if you, like me, didn't care for that one at all and need to watch a movie every day, I guess you could do worse.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Return Of The Fly (1959)

FEBRUARY 8, 2012

GENRE: MAD SCIENTIST, MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Apart from being a black and white sequel to a color film (good to know FOX disrespected their franchises even back in the 50s), the most surprising thing about Return Of The Fly was discovering how much of 1989’s The Fly II took from this film. I always assumed the two sequels were nothing alike (like the two Halloween IIs), as they were sequels to films that had their own identity and thus would branch even further apart, but this was oddly quite similar.

For starters, both films follow the son of the original “Fly” following the death of his mother. The circumstances are different (well, storywise anyway; in both cases it probably had more to do with the availability of the actress playing the mom), but it’s interesting here because the sole returning cast member from the first Fly is Vincent Price, who I would think they would want to pit as a mad scientist. Instead he once again takes a backseat as his nephew meddles, gets in over his head, and is turned into a man fly, much like Price’s brother in the first film. In fact he has even LESS to do here; while he got to at least play a bit of a hero in the first film, here he gets shot around halfway through and spends most of the rest of the movie lying in a hospital bed. I love Price, but they give him nothing to work with here. Interestingly, according to the IMDb trivia, he agreed to do the film based on the first draft of the script, which was then heavily rewritten, losing the things that appealed to him. I don’t doubt it; I can’t imagine he’d be excited about anything in this finished film.

Another similarity is that (spoiler!) this time it has a happy ending. Like in the other film (by the way, I’m only comparing because I assume most of you folks have seen that one but not this one, or like me saw the 1989 one first – if you saw them in order then this probably doesn’t interest you in the slightest and I apologize), our Fly-man is successfully reversed at the end. As far as I’m concerned this sort of thing would just fuck them up even MORE, but what do I know about fictional movie science? It takes a while for him to become Fly-man, and he only has two guys to go after (the sequel added in random guards to up the body count), so there’s not a hell of a lot of action here, but at least it ends happily for our young lovers. But not the poor housefly; the look it gets at the end from one of the other characters makes it pretty clear it’s about 2 seconds away from being smushed with a newspaper, as if it was HIS fault that this stuff happened.

Hell it even has a horrifying animal scene! While few scenes in movie history are as gut-wrenching as Fly II’s “dog”, this one has a bit with a guinea pig that is pretty disturbing. A guy is mixed with the poor thing, and he sports giant paw-arms while the rodent has human hands. One of the villains steps on it, and it just squeals and howls for like 20 seconds straight until he finally opts for something a bit heavier than his foot to finish the job. It’s the only bit of action in the first 50 minutes though, so I guess I shouldn’t complain.

Needless to say, it’s not really a great followup. It’s enjoyable enough, but it’s obvious that they didn’t have the dough to do much, and thus drag their heels and contain the characters into the same sets from the first movie for the most part. It’s basically a few flashback sequences shy of being the Silent Night Deadly Night Part 2 of its day, which is hardly a ringing endorsement. And I could forgive the cheapness if they at least took advantage of the fact that it's a sequel, but the pacing actually feels SLOWER than the original film, which is just totally against sequel "law".

On the other hand, at least there’s a body count. No one really died in the first; the fact that a few folks die here is pretty much the only instance of the sequel kicking things up a notch. The makeup is also fun (read: kind of goofy, but charmingly so), and since the cat is out of the bag he doesn’t feel the need to hide it this time around. Hell, I’d even argue that the B&W film stock is not really a detriment; sure it was done for budget reasons, but since most of the other 50s mad science/monster movies were B&W, it feels a bit more natural.

Basically it’s a great “double feature” sequel, which is probably why it’s on the same disc instead of on its own release. There’s little need to watch it on its own, but if you’re watching the original and have the time, or if you’re a repertory theater and can’t afford the Cronenberg remake, this is a perfectly acceptable 2nd feature, for those die-hards that want to stick around for another 90 minutes. Same as the 1989 one, really.

What say you?

P.S. Hopefully it won’t take me another 2+ years to get around to seeing Curse Of The Fly!

PLEASE, GO ON...

Circle (2010)

FEBRUARY 7, 2012

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, SLASHER
SOURCE: CABLE (TMC ON DEMAND)

If one ever wanted to show a movie to a film school class on how to botch potentially exciting/interesting ideas, Circle would make a fine candidate. I could list the bullet points about the movie and your first thought would be “that sounds pretty great!” But if you actually watch the movie, you’d know that there is nothing “great” about it, as it spends its runtime seemingly going out of its way to bungle the job.

For example, our main group of young pretty folks are part of a psychology class who are assigned to go to the childhood home of a killer and see what made him tick (except without Busta Rhymes and Dangertainment to guide them), and the teacher adds that they will not be working with their usual group, because out in the field you’ll be working with strangers and need to learn to adapt. So I’m thinking, this is great – for once there will be a reason that these people are together when they won’t be getting along, and perhaps the lack of a prior friendship will allow for some actual character development for a change. But no, the TA who is “randomly” assigning the kids to a particular house (I guess there are a lot of serial killers in the area?) picks his girlfriend, her best friend, and another guy they seem to be friendly with, so there goes the whole idea of being with people you’re not familiar with. The only wild card is some stoner dude whose presence in the class makes zero sense (advanced psychology is hardly a throwaway class), who brings along his crazy Latina girlfriend in order to even things out to 3 guys and 3 girls, I guess.

The killer is also heavily influenced by Numerology, which is an under-mined area for movie serial killers, many of which often just go by the Bible or Satanic ritual or whatever. Finally, a different kind of killer! Well, all it boils down to is the fact that he leaves FOUR cars arranged in a particular way or kills SIX people in a semi-circle for reasons that have already escaped my mind. I think it’d be better (or just enjoyably silly) if he sought victims that had 21 letters in their name or whatever, but instead we just get scene after scene of a couple of cops trying to decipher his clues, which would be fine if A. we didn’t know who the killer was and B. we didn’t know where he was going. Alas, our killer is shown in the first scene, and it’s not too difficult to figure out that he’s going to his damn house where all of our slasher victims in training are waiting.

Unfortunately, and for reasons that baffle me to no end, the movie is heavily skewed toward the cop scenes instead of the kids, as if writer/producer Brad Tiemann assumed watching some folks trying to figure out what we already know is somehow more exciting than watching our victims do their thing, where at least we’re not sure in which order they will be killed off, or if they will find out something interesting about the killer during their “research” sessions (mostly just wandering around the house going through his stuff). I’d say for every minute of kids we get two minutes of cops, when it should be more like 10 minutes of kids for every 1 minute of cops. I mean, it’s fine that they add a police presence, and it’s good to check in on their progress every now and then, but why dedicate 2-3 minutes of screen-time to them wondering where he is, or 5 minutes on a “clue” that he left for them, when the audience already knows these things?

Worse, it takes forever for him to kill any of them, and when he does, it’s almost all off-screen. Adding insult to injury, all kills occur in a 15 minute chunk at the top of the 3rd act, so everyone’s dead except for the final girl, the killer, and (SPOILER!) the TA, who turns out to be his brother/fellow numerologist. Oh and the cop, who has finally figured out that the killer is in his own house, and arrives on the scene just in time to scramble around in the dark for a while before doing anything. This results in a criminally awful “climax” in which not one but BOTH killers get away by outrunning a trained police officer (a chief, in fact!). Come on, even Chain Letter’s ending was better than this halfassery.

Oh, and the Linda Vista is used as a shooting location, as if to say “Look, we refuse to put any effort into this whatsoever.” I swear, the day that place burns to the ground because some film crew knocked over a light and started a fire will be the happiest day of my life (assuming no one is hurt in the process). I assume it’s just super cheap to use, because otherwise I can’t imagine for the life of me why any filmmaker would want to shoot there when it’s been used so many times. Don’t they want to stick out? Find cool places that haven’t been overused (or used at all) in dozens of other movies? Even if they have to shoot inside, can’t they at least steal an establishing shot from any other building in the state?

Incredulously, this thing got a theatrical release in 2010, playing two theaters, which is one more than necessary (every movie should play in a theater once). Were you one of the ones to go see it? If so, why?

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Nightmares (1980)

FEBRUARY 6, 2012

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

It’s always fun to hear about a movie for the first time and find yourself watching it a few minutes later, especially when it belongs to an era/sub-genre that you greatly admire. So for me, finding a previously unknown slasher film from the early 80s heyday is sort of like finding a hundred bucks in an old pair of pants. Unfortunately, when said movie is as bad as Nightmares (aka Stage Fright), it’s just a major drag – I would have rather have kept on living my life totally ignorant of this movie’s existence.

Barely escaping the “Crap” heap due to its short length (79 minutes) and admirable excess of sleaze (including a closeup on a woman’s vagina being fondled! Isn’t that technically porn?), the film offers nothing to the genre, which is even sadder when you consider it came out before many of the other slasher films folks can name off the top of their head. In fact it’s almost more like a Giallo at times, due to the loose plotting, excess of sex and assholes, and crazy flashback motifs, but it lacks style. If nothing else, a Giallo should deliver some nice setpieces, but one of this film’s biggest issues is how shoddily constructed it is. There AREN’T any set-pieces, scenes just sort of come and go at random throughout the film, leaving the viewer without any clear indication of how much time has gone by since the last one (that they all fade in/out to black doesn’t help). The only thing that ties it all together is the Brian May (not that one) score, which is either ripping off Psycho or trying to do a better job of it than Harry Manfredini, I couldn't tell.

Another major problem is that the killer’s identity doesn’t seem to be hidden in terms of the plot – any time someone’s about to die we see flashbacks that only our main character could have been present for, so we know it’s her right off the bat. However, the kills are all presented in POV, which is only acceptable for a movie in which we DON’T know the identity of our murderer. Even a total cheat like Friday the 13th would have been preferable to this, as it denies us both some fun slasher scenes, but also a mystery of any sort. Worse, we don’t really get to know anyone else, resulting in thoroughly boring kill scenes. There’s a bit near the end where one of the actresses from the play is being chased around for a while, and it more or less functions as the film’s final big chase (complete with a “find the dead friends” scene), yet I couldn’t even remember the “heroine’s” name, because she was just one of the anonymous “other folks” in the film. She didn’t earn the title of “Final Girl”, it’d be like the random girl who got driven home from the party in Halloween II (the one who refused to ask Eddie Lee for a ride) showing up at the end and taking on Myers.

The kills also lack any sort of inventiveness. The thing that set her off as a kid involved broken glass, and so every present day kill requires a nearby mirror or window to work, which gets tiresome. After 3-4 of them I just started wondering if there was any glass left for her to break inside the theater. On that note, I should mention that nearly the entire movie takes place in the theater, which they also botch. The single location slasher is fine if it all takes place in one night or so, but this is spread over a couple of weeks (again, there’s no way to tell how much time has gone by, but it starts with the audition and ends on opening night, so it had to have been a while), so it doesn’t quite work, either – it basically adds to the movie’s disjointed feel.

And we barely even see any of the play! I mean, on one hand I’m glad that the production doesn’t miraculously tie into the events of the story, but why even bother when it’s such a non-point in the story? It creates a ton of logic holes in terms of how many folks involved can be offed before anyone notices, and has no real bearing on anything. The closest it gets to being relevant is the addition of an asshole critic (hey!) who is just looking for an excuse to pan the production, which I guess is supposed to add tension to the movie as a whole. “Oh no, they can’t afford to even mistime a cue, let alone GET KILLED! Drama!!!” But he dies before the damn thing even goes live (if I am following the plot correctly – like most things in the movie, it’s sort of vague), so it doesn’t matter.

Actually none of this movie matters. Just don’t watch it.

What say you?

P.S. Remarkably, Severin – who usually has better taste – put this out on DVD with a commentary that is apparently kind of crazy. Anyone hear it? I shudder at the thought of sitting through this thing again but I do like a candid commentary…

PLEASE, GO ON...

Metal Shifters (2011)

FEBRUARY 5, 2012

GENRE: ALIEN, MONSTER
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

One of my favorite things about Tremors is that it actually has a LOW body count. While some horror fans equate success by the number of kills per hour, I’d much rather folks were continually in danger, darting from location to location while trying to figure out how to stop their enemy. So with that in mind, I must say I enjoyed Metal Shifters, despite the cheapness (and an awful title), because unlike most Syfy movies less than half of the cast got killed, but I never stopped believing many of them COULD be killed.

Intentional or not, it was pretty smart of writer/director Paul Ziller (also behind the above average Sea Beast) to kill off a certain character early on, because the way that the movie was designed up until that point, you would think it would be about these two particular characters, not unlike Tremors’ Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward (or to use a Syfy example, the “frenemies” in Ice Road Terror), making his death not only somewhat shocking, but also removing the idea that just about anyone else was “safe” at any given time. Yeah, the two top billed folks would be fine, but everyone else was fair game, at any time.

And Ziller was wise enough to keep everyone broken into smaller groups in the 2nd half. The bartender holds the door closed as the monster tries to get in – he could die! The town drunk and the guy who inadvertently built the monster attempt to figure out a scientific way of stopping the monster – they could die! The kid from Dear Mr Gacy who keeps risking his neck to protect the heroine’s daughter – he could die! You get the idea. And our heroes are proactive; sometimes you get into a situation where the heroes sort of sit in safety while the fodder goes off to die and thus they only spring into action when no one else is left, but top billed heroes Kavan Smith and Nicole De Boer are constantly on the move once the action kicks into high gear.

The monster’s also a little more interesting than their usual blend of Swamp Sharks and such. An alien rock crashes through a satellite and morphs together (I guess?), producing a virus that spreads through metal. And it just so happens to end up at the junkyard of a guy who has just build an 18 foot statue from scrap metal, which he keeps calling a Golem even though it’s not made of clay. Anyway, the thing ends up inside the statue, which comes to life and starts lumbering around like a reject Transformer (or maybe a scarier looking Bionicle), seeking human victims as he lives on the iron in their blood. At first he’s just going after random folks, but after a while our core group of eight or so residents hole up in/around a bar as the monster disassembles and uses his smaller parts to get at them.

If I had any complaint about this stuff (other than the baffling idea that this guy would make such a weird, scary statue as a gift for the town ceremony), it’s that when the monster regroups its random parts, he becomes the same thing he already was. It seems like he just took the original form out of convenience, but once separated he should have taken on a new form when it came time to regroup, perhaps something more beast-like or maybe 3-4 beings of a few feet each. Obviously the CGI isn’t going to win any awards (though it’s better than most Syfy movies, to be fair), so perhaps if they went with something more manageable they could have just built a robot puppet or two to use (as it stands I think his arm is the only practical effect). It also would have given the finale a little more variety, which would make up for the unique but cinematically dull method that they use to stop him/it.

I also would have gladly taken 25-30% less monster action in exchange for a better shooting location. While the attempt to make Canada look like Idaho is decent enough (a closeup on a speedometer with KMH listed over MPH was a dead giveaway though), the main three locations are a bar, an inn, and a police station – all of which look like brand new condos. The inn is being renovated, so its new look is acceptable enough, but the bar exterior looks completely ridiculous. Who the hell would want to get drunk somewhere that looked like it should have a welcome mat and a key hidden under the fake rock next to the flamingo? And the police station is just as silly, hell I’d love to spend a night somewhere that cozy looking! The fact that all three buildings looked alike also made me wonder about something else – where is everyone else in this town? We never see another soul; you’d think they’d have some shot of some randoms running away from the thing, but every single person we see in the movie (save for maybe a couple extras in a pre-monster town scene in the first 10 minutes) has a name and purpose.

But, you know, who cares. These movies are like episodes of a TV show; you deal with their shortcuts and questionable plotting the same as you accept that there isn’t a single night of the week that Norm, Cliff, and Frasier have nothing better to do than go to a bar with a staff that never gets a night off, or that no one else ever sits in the comfortable couch/chairs in the middle of Central Perk. All that matters is if they deliver on their promise to entertain you for 90 minutes (or two hours with commercials) on a Saturday night, and in that regard Metal Shifters delivers. The action moves nicely, there are some decent thrills, and best of all, I liked the characters. The kid from Gacy was a bit of an idiot at times, but otherwise I was glad to see so many of them survive. Any modern day monster movie that has two guys in their 50s/60s turn into action heroes during the finale is fine by me (one old guy is Doc Cottle from BSG; in fact pretty much everyone in the movie is best known for some genre TV show from Canada).

Anchor Bay’s disc comes with only one real extra besides trailers for it and other company releases (including Corman’s World, yay!), which is a making of that runs about 12 minutes. It’s pretty much fluff, and overly clip-heavy, but it’s fun to see the attack in the police car as it’s seen in the film next to footage of it being shot, which amounts to a couple of guys waving a giant metal stick around over the actors’ heads. I also enjoyed the fact that instead of the usual tennis ball, the FX guy waved a little toy robot around in front of the actors to give them an eyeline for what would eventually be the CGI creation. We also learn that the original name was Iron Invader, because that’s what everyone calls it (and probably what it originally aired as), though no one explains why it was changed to something far less enticing (“Metal Shifters” sounds like a Discovery Channel show). Not essential, but not the worst way to kill 12 minutes either, in other words. The transfer is also as spot on as always with their discs, no surprise there. It’s not a particularly great looking film to begin with, but I highly doubt it could ever look any better than it does on this blu-ray.

I’ve often wondered why they bother with single film releases for these things, as again they’re basically episodes in a TV show called “Syfy Original Movie”. Seems like they might actually move more units by grouping a few of them together by theme (not unlike how Shout Factory releases the MST3k TV series). The market for people specifically wanting to buy Metal Shifters is probably pretty small, but I’m sure there are lots of folks that would drop 30-35 bucks on a set of 4-5 giant alien robot movies. Something to consider!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Cat O'Nine Tails (1971)

FEBRUARY 4, 2012

GENRE: GIALLO
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

On an interview dated 2001 on this very DVD, Dario Argento says that The Cat O'Nine Tails is his least favorite of his films. I wonder if he first offered this sentiment before he more or less lost his mind and made 1998's Phantom Of The Opera, but I guess since said mind was lost it would kind of fit that he'd single out a movie that wasn't bad at all. A little slow, perhaps, but I'd rather sit through it on an endless loop for the rest of my life than endure Phantom again.

I'll give him this much: it's too conventional. While it dips into weird territory every now and then (like when hero Karl Malden inexplicably acts like the villain for 30 seconds), it's pretty easy to follow, and Argento never seems to let his stylistic flourishes get in the way of the story. If not for the closeups on eyeballs and a few memorable kill scenes (particularly the girl in her apartment, drooling as the murderer chokes her), one might not even realize it's one of his films. The other entries in the "Animal trilogy" had a lot of his themes and trademarks already on display, but this one is fairly bland in that regards. Hell, the hero isn't even considered a suspect at any point!

What makes it work is the fun chemistry between Malden (who plays a blind ex-reporter who now seemingly designs puzzles) and Chuck Heston look-alike James Franciscus as Giordano, the main reporter who would seemingly get nowhere in the case if not for Malden's hunches and ability to "see" stuff no one else can, such as the loud clicking noise he hears while talking to a suspect might be important in some way. At first he's just dropping by to give Franciscus a lead, but by the 3rd act they're enjoying home-cooked meals together. It's cute, but it's also the rare Argento film with two male leads who are both decent guys - usually one turns out to be the killer or is just a total asshole.

And again, it's pretty easy to follow, and the killer's motive doesn't really come out of nowhere. The character is a bit underutilized throughout the film (it took me a second to recognize him/her), but their explanation for each murder more or less makes sense. It's also funny how it's revealed - Malden just wants to know where his niece is, and doesn't really care about the motive, but the killer just keeps explaining himself anyway. Thanks, pal. Rather hear it from him than some cop a few seconds later.

It's also got some great comedic moments, some unintentional. I know we're supposed to be horrified by a guy getting nailed by a subway train early on, but the ridiculous over-the-top approach just makes it a riot, with a closeup of the dummy head being slammed by the front grill followed by a shot of the body flopping around on the curb. Then they top it, all the folks watching instantly forget about it when a movie star steps off the train - one guy even goes something like "Oh yeah, the starlet!", no longer concerned with the dead guy inches away. There's also a cop who seemingly serves no purpose except to offer culinary tips to his fellow officers; there's half of a pretty great sounding ravioli recipe in this movie.

As for the deaths, there aren't a lot of them, and it seems half of them are in the first act. The train murder is probably the most eye-catching, but there's a fun one inside a darkroom that's aided considerably by Ennio Morricone's score. It's not one of his most memorable scores really, but they do this great thing where the music cuts out at key moments, as if to suggest something's about to happen, only to then start over when nothing does. It's like an inverse fake scare! So fun.

Anchor Bay's disc has some nice extras, nothing substantial but worth a look. Argento and Morricone provide a new interview, the music section is obviously more in depth than the rest (and a bit over my head) but it's always fun to listen to the candid Argento, who explains a bit why he thinks so little of it (something about it being too similar to Crystal Plumage). Then there are radio interviews with Franciscus and Malden, which run about 8 minutes each. Malden talks about training to play blind and how many movies he's done; Franciscus talks working in Italy and with Malden. He doesn't have much to say about the beautiful Catherine Spaak, however, merely saying she's a "nice girl" or something like that*, which is a far cry from his amazing pickup line in the movie, in which he gets her in bed by more or less pointing out that there are a bunch of other people doing it at this moment so they might as well join them. Smooth. Some trailers (including one that spoils the ending), still galleries, and bios round things out. I should note this disc was re-released by Blue Underground a few years ago, but I couldn't detect any difference with regards to the bonus material or the transfer (uncut, anamorphic) - someone correct me if I'm wrong.

So it might lean closer to the "for completists" only side of things, but compared to anything in the past decade or so, it's a winner. If it's passed you by all this time, might as well give it a look to see how much better a "bad" Argento movie used to be.

What say you?

*I later looked at her IMDb and saw that she got divorced after this movie, so my guess is that they totally boned. No disrespect.

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Woman In Black (2012)

FEBRUARY 3, 2012

GENRE: GHOST, HAMMER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

Now THIS is how to do a book adaptation, Hammer! While not a bad film, I will forever be disappointed that Let Me In (the first movie out of the gate for this Hammer revival) was not an adaptation of the source novel, but a remake of the Swedish film, copying scenes/shots almost line for line at times while continuing to leave out elements from the novel that hadn’t made it into the first movie (and also retaining some of that movie’s deviations). But The Woman In Black carries only the basic plot over from the 1989 version – and it’s a better movie to boot.

Right off the bat it goes into new directions. While the other movie has the main character’s wife still alive, our hero here is a widower (in the original book – which I should note I haven’t read – he doesn’t get married until after the main events of the story), which doesn’t really make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, but at least it’s showing that they’re making an effort to do their own thing separate from the other productions. They also spend more time in the town than the other film, and condense the events to a few days, whereas the other movie seemed to take place over a couple weeks. At no point did I get the sense that this team was looking at the old movie for any sort of guidance or inspiration - which is exactly how ALL "remakes" should be (I don't like to use the term for adaptations, but Let Me In is a remake of Let The Right One In, plain and simple).

But ignoring all that, it simply WORKS as an old-school ghost/haunted house type story. I never realized it until pointed out the other day, but Hammer never actually tackled a ghost film in their heyday – the closest of the ones I've seen would be Night Creatures, but that doesn’t count because (spoiler) the “ghosts” were guys in costumes (though they were clearly shot as actual ghosts in the first hour or so of the movie – they floated!). However it fits right in with the films of old; not only is it a period piece (few Hammer films took place at the time they were produced) but it’s got the Gothic mansion at its center, and the fog machines constantly cranked to 11, and even a town populated with suspicious folk. It’s a damn shame when they resort to a pretty obvious CGI effect for one scare around the one hour mark – otherwise the film could have been a well preserved relic in terms of its technical aspects.

(That said, I truly hope you can find a theater showing it on 35mm – the digital transfer I saw was pretty lousy and was a giant mismatch with the film’s old-school approach.)

Otherwise, my only real complaint would be an over-abundance (not reliance) on jump scares punctuated with a BANG! on the soundtrack. I was hoping that the success of Insidious – which doesn’t have a single fake scare in the entire film – would kick-start the death of such silliness, but alas – a faucet, a bird, a wind-up toy… all these things provide an attempt at a scare, and while they’re not all unsuccessful (the faucet one actually works well), it starts to put the movie closer to bad teen horror remake territory (When A Stranger Calls and Prom Night being the worst offenders), when it’s otherwise a more “adult” horror film.

Speaking of adults, I guess I can’t not talk about Daniel “Harry Potter” Radcliffe, in his first feature lead outside of the magic world. He’s pretty good, actually, especially considering he spends most of the movie by himself and not talking – there’s a segment that runs at least 15 minutes in which he only utters a single line. It’s not easy to command the audience’s attention without saying much or interacting with anything besides old papers and candles, but he pulls it off well. He might be a bit young for the role – the character has a four year old son and he shot the film when he was 20 – but he’s clearly got what it takes to move beyond Potter and continue a successful career if he chooses.

He’s aided considerably by the great Ciarán Hinds (who was in the last Potter himself; and I’ll also mention here that the guy who starred in the 1989 version was the actor who played James Potter!), who plays the only guy in town that doesn’t give him the evil eye. Some of their stuff is similar to the other movie, but Hinds creates a wonderfully conflicted, interesting character as opposed to that one’s rather dull exposition machine. There’s a terrific, underplayed bit where he drives Radcliffe to the mansion after dismissing the townsfolk’s crazy superstitions, yet he still stops his car short of the front gate and makes him walk the rest of the way. Little tidbits like that (as well as a well-placed sight gag involving his wife’s “twins”) give the character much life – it’s almost a bummer he’s not around more often. Note - if you enjoy his performance here, please check out the underrated/underseen The Eclipse, in which he stars as a widower himself.

As for the horror stuff, it’s pretty good. The jump scares are thankfully balanced with some wonderfully subtle bits, including one of those great “you don’t realize a ghost is in the shot until it moves” shots, which is thankfully NOT given a musical sting to alert us to it. Director James Watkins (Eden Lake – a movie I really need to watch again; Fassbender! The insanely gorgeous Mary Reilly!) also has fun with reflections, particularly a very cool bit in which the reflection of a candle makes it look like the glass eyes of various dolls are moving to watch Radcliffe as he walks past.

And the production designer should be given some sort of award on the spot; not only is the house a TERRIFIC find (way better than the rather bland one in the other film), but the various children’s toys are all remarkably “odd” in some way – even when they’re not being wound up or used for jump scares, there’s something unsettling about them (the rabbit in the trunk? Gah!). It’s a wonderful looking film too; the scope imagery is a great fit for this sort of thing, where your eyes will constantly be darting around the frame looking for ghosts. The casting director also did a fine job with the “locals”, many of them seemingly stepped out of one of the old Dracula or Frankenstein films. Radcliffe and Hinds are the only recognizable folks in the film (to my eyes), and since they play most of their scenes alone or together with no one else it actually sort of fits their antagonistic relationship with the town: they stick out in more ways than one.

Also, I won’t spoil it, but kudos on the ending scene, which is different than the book and other movie, but still quite satisfying. A buddy of mine pointed out what he thought was a plot hole in the film, but this “hole” combined with the ending fits into something I feel we don’t see enough of in horror films (swipe at your own risk): a hero who is actually wrong about how to save the day. Might not be the most conventional choice, but horror movies are cheap enough to produce that they shouldn’t care about such things. Yeah, you can’t kill off Megan Fox at the end of Transformers 2 when 300 million is on the line, but when you’re dealing with movies that cost less than what most Hollywood movies pull in on their opening weekend, there should be more freedom to do the unconventional thing – even if it’s a PG-13.

Speaking of which, the PG-13 rating is a fairly harsh one – I could definitely see the MPAA giving this one an R, same as they did with the similarly “old-school” Dead Silence, which was designed for that rating only to be screwed over by Universal who wanted to capitalize on the filmmakers’ ties to the Saw series. The two films would make a lovely double feature in fact; this is more successful overall, but Dead Silence has the originality going for it (and a better score). At any rate, it’s no game-changer, but it’s the most fully satisfying film yet from the new Hammer, and should satisfy the teens who just want to be scared as well as the adults who want an interesting story to go along with it.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Julia's Eyes (2010)

FEBRUARY 2, 2012

GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

It might be an issue for some viewers, but one of Julia’s Eyes' (Los Ojos De Julia) greatest strengths is its refusal to stick with one genre for very long, keeping you from ever getting too comfortable or feeling like you know where the story is going. It starts off as a mystery, dips into Giallo territory for a while (!), and finally enters the realm of cat and mouse thriller. And it’s all wrapped up in a fairly touching drama about a woman dealing with the loss of both her husband and her sight.

That it’s produced by Guillermo Del Toro is not too surprising. Not only is it similar in tone to The Orphanage, it also has the same lead actress: the utterly wonderful Belén Rueda, whom I can only assume has no interest in transferring to Hollywood – if they haven’t been after her for high profile roles in studio movies, they’re even more insane than I thought. She plays twins here, but since the movie is more or less about a woman trying to find out why her sister killed herself you can rightfully assume that her second role is fairly brief. I figured they might have flashbacks or something to give her more fun with the dual role, but once she’s gone (a few minutes into the movie) we barely see her again. No matter, Rueda is in nearly every frame of the film, and if I were in the mood for bad jokes I’d say something like “we see the entire movie through her eyes even as she loses them”.

But Del Toro also brings his trademark genre blending; a bit horror, a bit romance, a bit mystery… not to mention that, as usual, his villains have a bit of humanity to them. Our guy here IS a killer, but there’s a sympathetic slant to his actions that makes him a lot more interesting than most of his type. Especially when it’s fair to compare the movie to a Giallo – most Giallo villains barely even have a coherent motive, let alone strong characterization. At first I was surprised that his identity was revealed so long before the movie’s end, but again, the film never settles into a real routine, so it’s not really an issue (not that there are many possibilities for the killer’s identity anyway).

I was also surprised how well the mystery tied into the slight romance plot. Our heroine’s husband doesn’t want her looking into it, so she has to hide it from him. Thus when she suggests a weekend trip, he thinks she’s trying to go along with his wishes, but in reality the hotel she suggests is one where her sister was seen a few days before she died. The pieces of the puzzle are revealed at a pretty good rate, and the story gets more intriguing with each one, which is sadly rare in these kind of stories. More often than not, the more you find out the less interesting it all is, so it’s fun to be drawn in along with the characters for a change. There is one aspect to the back-story that is a bit unnecessary (and, unless I missed a line or two, possibly just made up), but it still held my interest.

And writer/director Guillem Morales always pays off each bit with a fun scare, most of which are somewhat unexpected. For example, Rueda learns that her sister frequented a physical therapy place nearby, and when she arrives she overhears the other guests talking not too flatteringly of her sister. And since they’re all blind, she is able to eavesdrop without them noticing, until one catches her scent. So you think the scene will carry out with her trying to get out before they discover her, except they DO find her after a few moments… only for one of them to realize someone else is there too. This is where the Giallo elements start to come into play – our guy has the tendency to show up pretty much everywhere, and he even has black gloves for good measure. One could question the logic of it, but if you think about him/his goals as a whole (once they’re revealed), it’s pretty solid.

Less successful is part of what alerts Rueda that there must be more to her sister’s death than the police have told her, because a particular song was on her stereo and “she HATED that song!” As we learn as the story goes on, the two weren’t really close anymore, so how she’d be so aware of her sister’s listening habits is a bit silly. I mean, folks often know what their loved ones LIKE – my sister texts me every time she sees Meat Loaf on TV – but what they don’t? I have no idea what songs anyone I know/love hates. That said, if I am found dead and “Pumped Up Kicks” is on my iPod or whatever, alert the authorities. No way in hell I’d be listening to that fucking waste of aural space.

And again, it’s kind of sad. I don’t know why I’m such a sucker for horror movies that tug my heartstrings a little, but like Premonition or The Eclipse, it’s one of those movies that’ll make you wanna give your spouse an extra hard hug or kiss when you get home. Again, there’s a bit to the back-story that has a negative impact on the drama, but based on the film’s final scene, one can safely assume that this tidbit was either made up or forgiven. But if love’s not your thing, don’t worry – there’s a nice throat slitting, an electrocution, even an old lady whacking someone over the head. The body count is pretty impressive by the film’s end, even a character you KNOW will be safe gets it (possibly worse than anyone in the movie, in fact). Something for everyone!

The disc has a few bonus features, all pretty worthless. The “making of” is merely B-roll footage from the EPK, which just means a bunch of quick/random shots of Rueda running through a take or people pointing at lights or whatever. Then there are interviews with Rueda, Del Toro, Morales, and co-star Lluís Homar, which are too brief to be of much use, and also seem to come from the EPK as everything is pure fluff. Homar’s interview is LITERALLY just him saying how much he loved working with Rueda – it’s not even worth the effort of scrolling through the menu to select it. The trailer is also included, and it’s not bad but if you look quick it spoils the killer’s identity (again, not really a big deal; more of a “well now I know it’s NOT this or that character”).

Now, twice this week I’ve bitched about movies being too long, but this was also just under two hours and yet I was fully engaged throughout. Sure, I’d love to watch nothing but 90 or under movies every day, because that just means more time for Skyrim or catching up on ABC’s Revenge (best new show by far!), but in the end I don’t care if it’s 65 minutes or three hours long – if you have a strong lead and a real story, the length won’t be an issue. One of my favorite movies of all time is Dawn of the Dead, and that’s still one of the longest mainstream horror movies ever made (and if we go outside of horror you’ll find a ton of 2+ hr films on my list – hell I love Kevin Costner and that dude’s only made 2-3 movies that are UNDER two hours). I might not have the time for it, but if every horror movie I ever saw again for the rest of my life was this “long” but also this satisfying, I’d have nothing to complain about.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Exit 33 (2011)

FEBRUARY 1, 2012

GENRE: SLASHER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (SCREENER)

There are precisely two interesting things about Exit 33, which to be fair is two more than most indie DTV slasher movies. However, that isn’t exactly an endorsement, and since it bungles pretty much everything that counts, I can’t say I’d recommend seeking it out (seems to be relatively hard to find) over others that you’ve probably missed. If you find yourself watching this before something like Forget Me Not, your slasher card should be revoked!

Anyway, interesting thing #1 is that it stars Kane Hodder as the killer, but he’s not in any makeup whatsoever. Apart from a couple of real life serial killers (BTK, Ed Gein), I believe this is the first time he’s played the main killer in a movie without being drowned in latex and foam. Also, as with Hatchet or whatever, he actually gets to act a bit – his character in the present day is a standard giant killer type for the most part, but he’s got a little son that he talks to every now and then, and in flashbacks we see him all happy with his wife and such. The scenes don’t really gel with the present day stuff in any meaningful way – they eventually tell a tragic story and explain a certain character’s whereabouts in the present day, but how that translated into him becoming a ruthless killer is a bit fuzzy. It’s not like his wife and/or kid were killed by local teens and now he’s sworn to kill them all or whatever; there’s absolutely no relation between these two aspects of his character. But at any rate, he delivers the only memorable performance in the movie, and the twist, while obvious to seasoned vets*, might surprise a couple folks.

The other interesting thing is that director Tommy Brunswick is actually a woman, despite her 99.9999% commonly masculine name. She’s actually helmed a number of films over the years, all of which I have managed to miss (though one, The Remake, sounds awesome – queued!). I guess it’s good to know that women are just as capable of making mindless torture trash as their male counterparts; there’s no feminist angle on display here, as women get beaten with tire irons, have their eyes spooned out, etc. One is even knocked out cold with her boyfriend’s decapitated head (I laughed at this bit). Actually it almost seems a bit MISOGYNIST at times, if anything, as Kane tends to kill the men quickly and even let a few of them go free, while the women spend most of their time screaming and chained up. It’s not a particularly well shot film (it’s incredibly dark, for one thing), but gorehounds will probably dig it, and I hope they take the time to realize that it was a female behind all this carnage.

Otherwise, it’s just too repetitive and bland to really register. The movie is little more than an endless cycle of people stopping at Kane’s gas station and asking for gas. If he decides he wants to kill them, he tells them to use pump 9, which is apparently filled with water or something because everyone who uses it breaks down 5 minutes down the road. If he wants to let them go free, he has them use pump 3, and as luck would have it, everyone manages to pull up to the exact pump he wants them to! A better script would build a little moment around someone using one when he wants them to use the other, or have him try to figure out a reason for them to move their car back/forward to the appropriate pump to see him sweat a bit, but nah. There’s also a subplot about his jerky that never really pays off – is he serving flesh? Is the movie more of a Texas Chainsaw ripoff than previously established?

It’s also one of those movies where you can tell that it was written around actor availability. It’s ostensibly about a group of friends who are going off to a cabin somewhere (Kane’s gas station being along the way), but the friends never interact. Apart from Kane, no one in the movie has more than 10-15 minutes’ worth of screentime, including the “final girl”. You’d think they’d at least have a scene at the beginning of them all hanging out together before taking off in separate cars, but a few phone calls is all we get. Not that it matters much – you won’t care when any of them die, but it’s still kind of awkward that the movie essentially recycles its cast every 15 minutes or so.

The few attempts at humor are kind of painful too. Kane’s character deadpans the truth when people ask him about the strange noises they hear or whatever (“I have a girl chained up in my barn,” he’ll say, and the other guy will think he’s kidding), which is about the closest they get to a successful laugh. Other examples include not one but TWO lengthy shots of a guy sitting on the toilet reading porn while defecating (we get appropriate sound effects for this too), before realizing that there’s no TP so he has to wipe with a page from the magazine. Ugh, movie. They also can’t resist having Kane thumb through a “Fangoria” with Jason X on the cover before tossing it aside and snorting “Yeah, REAL scary.” I dunno, I’m sure some folks will laugh their ass off at that, but that sort of humor just hasn’t appealed to me in years (it’s not even the first time Kane’s done that sort of thing; he played an out of makeup character in Jason Goes To Hell that refers to Jason as a “pussy”). To me, the best laugh in the film came from the woefully bad greenscreen effect during a driving scene, which managed to look less realistic than the one in Airplane where it was SUPPOSED to be a joke! Hahaha, I love that scene. “Ass-HOLE!”

Oh well. Again, there are certainly worse movies out there, but it just reeked of cynicism. They clearly spent all of their money on hiring Kane, and his presence is the only thing that will get the movie noticed. Replace him with some no-name (or even one of the other Jason actors) and the movie has absolutely nothing to offer that we haven’t seen before. The script is credited to the executive producer, which is all you need to know about how this movie came together: Norman Koza had a buck that he wanted to turn into two, and that’s the extent of this movie’s merit. He didn’t have a real story to tell or even an interesting location –it was written by a guy who wanted to spend as little money as possible to maximize profits. Well, I wish him well. I hope the car he bought for himself was worth clogging up the shelves with yet another pointless horror flick no one will remember in five years.

What say you?

P.S. Over the years I’ve developed an interesting ability to instantly spot a character who is obviously being played by someone related to the producer. Sure enough, when two guys walked into the store and bought cigarettes (and didn’t get killed), I instantly thought: “Producer, producer’s nephew.” The actual tie is unknown, but one is listed as a co-producer and the other shares Koza’s name. Nailed it!

*OK, this is just for the folks who saw this already - at the end, were they trying to suggest that the ENTIRE MOVIE was his imagination and he was just killing deer all that time? Or am I giving them too much credit?

PLEASE, GO ON...