Phantasm (1979)

AUGUST 18, 2008

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

I was recently sent the DVD of Phantasm IV for review, and I was like “Hey, maybe I should rewatch the whole series for some non-canon reviews first.” Then I looked at the date of release for part IV and realized that, since I had done the same thing for the film when it first came on VHS, that it had been well over 10 years since I had seen any of them! I also realized that my memories of the films were rather fragmented, so non canon my ass, you’re getting a full blown legit HMAD review for each of the films over the next couple weeks, starting with the original Phantasm.

Phantasm was released right in the middle of the golden era for modern horror. Over a 2 year period (78-80), we got Halloween, Dawn of the Dead, Friday the 13th, Tourist Trap, The Shining, and Death Ship, and Phantasm fits comfortably among all of those. Like Halloween, it was shot independently for about 300k in the Los Angeles area, had a relatively low body count, an amazing score, and is now a perennial double/triple/quadruple dip title for Anchor Bay.

The key difference is that the film’s creator, Don Coscarelli, stuck around for all of the sequels (as did the cast, with the exception of part 2, the four principals have all appeared in each sequel), giving the series more legitimacy as a result. The first one may be the best, but it’s probably the only major franchise other than Saw to have such a strong tie from one film to the next*.

To me, the best thing about the movie is its quirkiness. Some of it may just be the result of the small budget, but I like to think not. For example, Reggie drives not a traditional ice cream TRUCK, but a jeep of some sort:

There’s also a bit where Reggie and Jody play a song on the guitar. You’d think it’s a completely pointless scene, but then Reggie pulls out a tuning fork, and the tone segues into the next scene, which takes place at the constantly humming mausoleum. The whole scene exists to provide a nice edit to the next one (OK, to be fair, it’s also a bit of foreshadowing, but it’s still pretty goofy). Also, Jody is possibly the worst guardian/older brother in movie history. He gets his 13 year old brother drunk (and on a deleted scene, then takes him for ice cream! That’s the WORST thing to have when you’re loaded!), and later in the film, hands him a shotgun and tells him that “Warning shots are bullshit, shoot only to kill!”, and also instructs him NOT to stay close to him. Nice.

Speaking of drinking – what the hell is with all of the Dos Equis in this movie? Is the Tall Man in fact the world’s most interesting man?

(Yes.)

There are a couple things I don’t like. One is that the manlier brother is named Jody. The younger kid looks way more like a “Jody”. Also, Mike looks in the other dimension for about 12 seconds. All he sees is a line of Jawas walking through the desert, but yet he instantly figures out that they are slaves, why they need to be shrunk, etc. There’s also a bizarre part where Mike announces that the hearse chasing them has no driver, then after the car hits them, he says it again as if he just realized it.

It doesn’t help that you can see someone driving.

Also I have no idea what’s going on at the end, but maybe the sequels will (re)explain it to me.

My DVD is the 1999 one from MGM. Anchor Bay has since reissued it a couple times, with some extras carried over, others replaced with different extras. However, the biggest draw is that theirs has an anamorphic transfer; MGM’s does not. Still, you can’t argue that the collection of extras is impressive for a single sided disc. The commentary aside (haven’t listened to the whole thing yet, but it’s mainly nuts and bolts stuff like locations and “Do you remember this day?” conversation so far), there are a handful of deleted scenes, a 1979 talk show, Angus Scrimm hawking Fangoria, and a nice 20 minute collection of behind the scenes footage, narrated by Coscarelli and Reggie Bannister (who is strangely absent from the commentary track). I plan to get the nice “Sphere” box set from Region 2 someday, which has additional extras on the DVD for the first film.

One of the more ambitious films of the period, Phantasm holds up remarkably well. The sequels got a bit too goofy, if memory serves, but this one is creepy and fast paced, though not without humor. Like Evil Dead, it’s a great testament to how much a filmmaker can pull off with meager means and make big budget films look like crap in the process.

What say you?

*Sure, Raimi did all three Evil Dead movies, but they are so wildly different in tone from one another that it hardly even feels like a franchise.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Masters Of Horror: Valerie On The Stairs

AUGUST 17, 2008

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

It sounds a bit strange to say, but I think Valerie On The Stairs may be the first MoH that would have worked better as a feature. Mick Garris (directing, and writing based on Clive Barker’s original idea) does a decent enough job getting the important ideas across quickly, but it seems like a story that would benefit from the sort of slow burn structure of other Barker films (such as Hellraiser or even the recent Midnight Meat Train).

Within the film’s first 4 minutes, we meet our hero, discover that he is a failed writer, watch him move into the location we will spend the rest of the movie inside of, and see him react to creepy noises. All of this stuff could easily have been stretched out to 10-15 minutes, and thus later developments would work better. The demon (Tony Todd) appears about 20 minutes in, making the reasons for his appearance have less of an impact than they would had we only caught a glimpse of him here and there until the end of the 2nd act (about an hour into a regular length film). Everything is just too rushed to really resonate. Even though it’s the longest MoH ever (literally only seconds shy of an hour, most of them are about 55-57 minutes tops), it seems that 85-90 minutes would be more ideal for this particular story, to allow characters to breathe and develop, and allow the twists to come along “later”.

That said it’s still one of the better episodes. The demon makeup/design is fantastic, and the twist at the end, goofily presented as it may be, is a pretty interesting one. Richard Band’s score is incredible; I really hope some sort of MoH compilation CD is released with all the themes; the main title piece is amazing. I also liked the oddball cast (including Christopher Lloyd), and again, wish the film had more time to spend with them. Lloyd’s character suddenly becomes the most important one besides our hero, and I felt like I barely knew him at that point. And if it was some no name actor in the role, I probably wouldn’t have paid any attention to him at all in his first few scenes.

But really, how can you dislike a film where a demon Tony Todd fucks a girl (who is clearly enjoying it) after literally tearing a man’s spine out?

I was also amused by the similarities to another MoH: Stuart Gordon’s Dreams In the Witch House, which also featured an guy moving into a strange place in order to get some work done and ends up dealing with its occupants (past and present). I think Garris even saw the coincidence; there is a scene where our hero asks what is behind a particular wall. “The door to another dimension!” the landlord snaps, something that was actually the case in Witch House (I think; I was pretty baffled by that episode).

The DVD has a Garris commentary and a making of that are pretty standard (worth noting - Garris reveals that Clive’s story would indeed have been a feature had it been filmed as he envisioned). But there is also a piece on the film’s editing, which I really appreciated and enjoyed. As I am technically an editor (incidentally, I am currently working on a documentary that Barker himself executive-produced, though as of yet I have had no contact with him. Bummer), I enjoy hearing editors talk about how they put together certain scenes, how they removed a few frames to make a scare more effective, etc. I wish more editors would offer their insights on DVDs, though I can see how it’s hardly a big draw for a regular audience. The script is also included; I didn’t finish it yet but it seems to be exactly the same as the finished product, so there’s little use for it (Barker's treatment would have been a more interesting inclusion - though it is published HERE on his website) unless you enjoy seeing things in Courier New.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Burning Dead (2002)

AUGUST 17, 2008

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 3!!!)

I wonder if Pendulum had a certain set of criteria when putting together their Decrepit Crypt set. They are all indie productions that Pendulum bought later, but the 4 films I have watched share so much in common, and now the 5th, Burning Dead, is no exception. The films are all shot on consumer video, feature nudity from women of at least 30 years of age (as opposed to the younger girls you usually see nude in crappy horror movies), lots of the same names in the credits, etc.

However, Burning Dead has something going for it that the others didn’t: Hilariously cold/mean spirited dialogue! There are some lines in the movie that are just so strangely matter of fact, I couldn’t help but laugh out loud and love the movie a little bit as a result. Example:

Guy: I was married for about five years, and then everything went bad about a year and a half ago.
Hero: What happened?
Guy: She died.

He says “She died” in the same way one might say “She’s at work,” when asked by a friend where your wife/girlfriend was. Now, for all I know it might just be incredibly bad acting, but I like to think it was intentionally delivered in this strange manner. There are some other lines/conversations in the film that have the same “style”.

It’s also a pretty insane plot. This guy (who looks like Jeff Daniels dressed up as the Nickelback guy) is returning to his hometown, which he left years ago when he apparently burnt the ENTIRE TOWN to the ground, including his parents (another hilarious line – someone asks if his parents lost anything in the fire, and he says “Their lives,” with all the sadness and remorse one might have if revealing that they lost their china or maybe some particularly nice boots). But he didn’t do it to kill everyone; he did it to stop a power hungry wizard. For real. So now he sees these zombie type things all the time, which are supposed to be the ghosts of the burn victims.

I know I usually don’t give any sort of synopsis, but I feel I must for this film, because it has no IMDb entry. I can locate some of the cast and crew, but this one is left off their resumes for whatever reason. In all my years of watching indie horror movies, I’ve never ran into a case where it didn’t even have its own IMDb page; even unreleased films that the director personally sent me a copy of have that much. Google turns up a single other review as well as some merchant links for the set(s) that the film is included on, but nothing else.

The movie also has some incredibly forgiving characters. At one point, the hero is possessed or something, and he tries to cave in the head of his little nephew. The parents stop him in time, and then try to throw him out of the house. Suddenly, a few of the zombie “apparitions” that have been haunting him appear, and the parents see them too. “I’m not crazy!” our hero announces, and they instantly forgive him for the attempted murder of their child. The notion that whether the zombies are real or imaginary doesn’t change the fact that he is apparently prone to mind controlled kiddy-cide is ignored; I guess they don’t really care about semantics at this point.

It’s still pretty bad though. The “actors” aren’t, blocking is confusing, and the plot is far too complicated to pull off in a visual sense with the budget they had. For example, when the wizard guy is supposedly pulled down into hell, we see some guys in bad makeup literally wipe paint on the wizard’s face and sort of knock him over. When you have no money, it’s best to keep your ideas grounded in reality, befriend the subtle scare, and milk the premise for every penny, like Blair Witch, Halloween, and Paranormal Activity. This script, goofy as it may be, would probably make for a pretty fun movie if it had about 10 million or so to pull it off. I mean, the whole thing is built around a fire that somehow destroyed the entire town, you’d think you’d see a pile of rubble or something every now and then.

Still, it’s miles better than the first few DC movies I endured (not as "good" as Dead 7 though), so kudos to director George A. Demick for that much.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Hunger (1983)

AUGUST 16, 2008

GENRE: VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Until recently, I was always more of a Tony fan than Ridley, Scottly speaking. His last few movies are damn near unwatchable (Domino, Déjà Vu, and even Man On Fire at times), but his output in the late 80s and most of the 90s is solid excess, the type of thing I love. Except for the misstep known as The Fan (with its ridiculous monsoon baseball game), his hit streak is unparalleled – Beverly Hills Cop 2, Revenge, Days Of Thunder, Last Boy Scout, True Romance, Crimson Tide, Enemy of the State... all good/great movies. So long story short – I don’t know why it took me so long to get around to The Hunger, which is his first film (always an interesting viewing for a director you admire) and a horror movie. With lesbian sex to boot.

I was pretty much sold on this one right from the start. In addition to a hilariously cheesy rock performance by Bauhaus and a pair of gory kills, the credits were minimal, something much appreciated. I am all for giving credit where its due, but really, do you need to know who the costume designer or casting people were right from the start? No. All you need to know is the stars, the director, the writer, the makeup artist or artists (if it’s a genre film), and the producer(s). Everything else can wait until the end. Whoever did the credits on this obviously felt the same way, so that is pretty much all they offer. We want to see a movie, and not have shots obscured by telling us information that is going to be repeated at the end anyway.

I also like how the credit for Dick Smith and Carl Fullerton’s makeup work is referred to as “Illusions”. Because that’s essentially what it is – an incredible illusion. Smith is synonymous with old age makeup, much like Rick Baker is with apes, and his work here is among his all time best. In the film’s best scene, we watch David Bowie, patiently and sadly waiting for Susan Sarandon’s character to come talk to him. As he waits, he ages rapidly, to the point where there’s no way anyone would even be able to know it was David Bowie. Yet, the makeup is incredibly believable.

Speaking of the cast, there are a lot of younger faces here. Dan Hedaya is like 4th billed for his 3 minutes of screen time, playing a detective, and Willem Dafoe pops up as a street punk. But the most perversely entertaining bit of casting is Cliff De Young as Sarandon’s lover. DeYoung is probably best known as playing Brad Majors in the Rocky Horror sequel, so to see fake Brad with real Janet is kind of funny. Bowie sadly checks out about halfway through the film, but it's one of his best performances, and the rare occasion where he plays a more subtle character.

Unfortunately, his exit gives the movie a rather odd structure. He’s pretty much front and center for the first half, and then suddenly its all about Sarandon. It’s like the inverse of Psycho or whatever, but not as effective. His character was more interesting than Catherine Deneuve’s, so I wish he was in it more. Of course, had her character died halfway through instead, we would be spared the lesbian sex scene, so I guess it evens out (not that it’s the all time best scene of its type, but it’s just entertaining to see a classy lady like Sarandon making out with a chick and biting her arm and what not).

There’s also a scene where a monkey freaks out and kills another monkey, so there’s something. And Deneuve’s death sequence is among the longest I have ever seen in a film; it makes Paul Reubens’ death in the Buffy movie look restrained.

The only extra on the disc is a rather dull commentary by Scott and Sarandon. They are recorded separately, and neither of them really comment on what we are seeing, instead focusing on more general things. There are also frequent gaps (Sarandon disappears for like a half hour straight), and Scott occasionally just narrates. Entirely skippable.

Like Cronos or the recent Let The Right One In, The Hunger is one of those vampire movies that eschews most of the typical lore (these vampires have a reflection, which pays off quite nicely in a quick little jump scare early on) and isn’t about big fangs and setpieces. It’s a mood piece, very heavy on character and dialogue, and hardly the spectacle one would expect from Tony Scott if they were familiar with his recent work (though it DOES have some of his trademarks – lots of blue tinted shots, smoke and/or sunglasses in just about every shot, etc).

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Mirrors (2008)

AUGUST 15, 2008

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

I like how Kiefer Sutherland’s career has worked out. By 2001, his movies were going direct to video, and so he took a TV job as Jack Bauer on 24. And that show was so popular that he was able to return to wide release starring roles in movies like Mirrors, which puts his name above the title and everything. Unfortunately, it’s movies like this that led to his box office clout eroding in the first place. Circle of life...

It’s not a terrible movie by any stretch, but the fact that it’s merely underwhelming and dull is somehow more disappointing. At least with terrible garbage (like what Kiefer’s half brother is starring in) you can have fun mocking it and such. But this movie takes itself too seriously to allow the audience to have any fun, intended or not. Every now and then we are given a taste of insanity (mostly in the film’s final 15-20 minutes, which includes Kiefer holding a gun on a nun, an old woman exploding, and a wonderfully downbeat ending), but for the most part it’s surprisingly dull, which is something you can’t often say about Alexandre Aja.

Maybe it’s some sort of meta-“mirror”-commentary, but this movie is the opposite of his previous two films. Those started out strong and ended weak, due to a badly implemented twist (High Tension) or completely misguided “social commentary” (Hills Have Eyes remake). In Mirrors, we are almost numbed into boredom by the time the movie finally gets going. After a major character is killed (well, major in that she’s famous, but she only has about 7 minutes of screentime), Kiefer pretty much turns into Jack Bauer, shooting stuff for no reason, flipping bitches on the expressway, yelling “Dammit!” every 5 minutes, etc. And again: NUNS AT GUNPOINT.

But until you get there, you gotta watch a lot of half-baked family drama (Kiefer is, naturally, burnt out, and estranged from his family), two lengthy sequences of Kiefer walking around the burned down department store where he works, looking at mirrors and “seeing things”, lots and lots of shots that keep the whole duality/mirror image thing going (just about every shot in the film has some sort of reflective surface), etc. And maybe it is yet another sort of “mirror” type motif, but it seems we get two versions of every scene in the film. Besides the two “store walkthroughs”, there are two scenes of Kiefer going through medical documents and such, two scenes of him driving to talk to some “answers” person in the middle of nowhere, two scenes where his sister tries to give him advice and he brushes it off, etc.

Plus, it’s simply far too serious than any movie about killer mirrors should be. Given how nonsensical the plot is, I really wish some of the actors and Aja (who wrote the script, as usual, with Grégory Levasseur) just had some fun with it, instead of being so dour and upset all the time.

The movie is also strangely lacking in other characters to put in danger. Kiefer’s job is to watch a condemned department building (it suffered a major fire), but he never actually has to do anything. Why not throw in a homeless person or maybe a looter for the mirrors to kill? Kiefer also has a buddy on the force who helps him unravel the mystery via providing him with medical documents and such, but he is kept entirely out of the action. So basically, Kiefer and his family are the only ones ever in any danger, which is to say that there is no danger. If Kiefer dies it won’t be until the end, and since this is an American film, there’s no way Aja will be allowed to kill off the two young kids (ages 6 and 8) or their mother, as that would mean the kids would be placed in foster care or with their burn-out dad, which is a major bummer either way. In the end, more CTU agents are killed in a single episode of 24 than are killed in the entirety of this 2 hour, R rated movie. Not that a body count is essential to an effective horror movie, but if you can’t really believe any of your characters are in any danger, you lose a lot of the potential for suspense, something more problematic when your movie is about a half an hour too long as it is.

On Jim Steinman’s album "Pandora’s Box", there is a spoken word bit about how the main character in the song has to feed people to the hungry mirrors. They show him a reflection and he has to find the person in it, and then let the mirror eat them (this was also sort of the plot for one of the stories in From Beyond The Grave). That song not only has a way more interesting story, but it’s also much creepier than anything in this movie. The first time you see a reflection start to “stray” from its owner, it’s a cool effect; by the 10th time, you just want to get on with it.

I really wanted to like this movie, and there’s definitely a good version of it in there somewhere (it’s partially based on a Korean film; maybe that one delivers). Like M Night Shyamalan, I think Aja is a very gifted filmmaker, but should really allow someone else to write the scripts. It’s kind of ironic that his least disappointing script (if not a particularly great one) was the one he let someone else direct (Franck Khalfoun for P2); maybe it’s time he tried it the other way.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Rest Stop: Don't Look Back (2008)

AUGUST 14, 2008

GENRE: BREAKDOWN, CRAP, GHOST
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

I fucking hated the first Rest Stop, for a number of reasons. One was its almost unparalleled amount of padding to make it a feature length film. Another was its incredibly unlikable “heroine”, played by Jamie Alexander. A third was the incoherent nature of the film’s villains. Were the inbred religious nuts in the motorhome working with the guy in the truck, or against him? Did they even know each other? Did it fucking matter?

Well apparently, which is why we now have Rest Stop: Don’t Look Back, which features a Return of the King style opening flashback that explains the origin of one of the villains, before heading into sequel mode, as Tom (the brother of the dude in the first movie), and his girlfriend go looking for them. As I sat down, I was prepared to submit “Better Than The Original!” as a quote for the eventual DVD cover, but as the movie unfolded, I realized that simply wasn’t going to be true.

Unlike the first movie, which had some decent scenes (the ones where Alexander wasn’t talking) and a somewhat admirable 70s feel, this one just has absolutely nothing going for it. When a horror movie’s best scene involves a guy driving along talking to (actually, AS) the toy dinosaurs that litter his dashboard, there’s something rotten in DTVmark.

The guy I refer to is Tom’s friend, played by Graham Norris. This may be the most useless character in horror movie history. The movie is about a road trip, more or less, and when he makes it clear that he is coming along, Tom’s girlfriend Marilyn protests. “It’s a long drive, we’ll need all the help we can get,” Tom explains. Fine, but the guy takes his own fucking car! If anything, he even slows the process down because every time he needs to stop to piss or fix his shitty car, the heroes (you know - the ones who actually have a stake in the quest) have to stop too. Real helpful, douchebag.

Then again, their journey doesn’t really make sense in any area. Even if we buy that the guy really thinks he can find his brother after a year of other people looking (he was in Iraq until now, so I guess he was off on another fruitless search), why bring two others along when all signs point to foul play? And their starting point is a bit unclear, but he hopes to make it to El Paso, TX on the first night, so... let’s just say Alabama, for argument’s sake. But on the first night we see them cross into California before stopping for the night. The next day, they drive for what seems like hours and are still in the desert, even though if you’re traveling from Texas to California, you’re probably on route 15 and thus you got about 3 hrs’ driving tops from the border to well populated civilization.

They also draw the ire of the trucker before they even stop at the titular locale. We are told that he only goes after sinners, but I guess that would be a pretty demanding job given the relative proximity of Las Vegas. And even though their sins are incredibly weak (the girlfriend drank and fooled around with a guy while Tom was overseas, big whoop), he manages to single them out before they even get to his hunting ground? What an asshole.

They also fail to get more use out of the most interesting characters: the family in the RV. Whenever the creepy little midget or the even creepier Ian Somerhalder clone twins are on screen, the movie is kinda interesting, because you’re never quite sure what they’re up to. Maybe they plan a 3rd film that focuses entirely on them, but it’s still a wasted opportunity for this one. Especially when the people we DO spend most of the movie with are as generic and uninteresting as horror movie characters get.

The only time (other than Dino-talk) that I enjoyed the movie was near the very end. Apparently, Tom’s army unit allows him to take home heavy artillery from the war, as he pulls a couple of handguns and a gen-yoo-ine assault rifle out of his trunk and begins blasting at the yellow truck. It’s so goddamn stupid that I had to laugh.

The movie’s biggest blunder, however, is introducing a supernatural angle to the proceedings. In this movie just about everyone is a goddamn ghost (the kind that can be seen and interacted with until the plot just has them vanish into thin air), and there’s some supernatural nonsense about having to burn the eyes so that the ghost’s soul can rest (and by rest they mean stop running people over in his truck, which is also a ghost, apparently). This culminates in a scene where Marilyn KNOWS that the eyes are inside an RV (it might be the same RV, I couldn’t tell and didn’t care), so she and Norris look around for it. They eventually just blow the whole thing up, which is what they should have done in the first goddamn place, but then how would the movie live up to the original in terms of needless padding? Besides, maybe I’m just too dumb to understand how 2-3 minutes of looking in hilariously stupid places (kitchen drawers, the glove compartment) for a pair of eyes that were cut out 35 years ago is actually vital to the film’s plot.

And it doesn’t work, apparently, because at the end the ghosts are still driving around the deserted “Old Highway”, and while no one is ever actually killed on screen in this fucking movie, we find out that pretty much all of our heroes are now ghosts too. Whatever. This is one of the most pointless movies I’ve ever seen; its only reason to exist is to get people to say “Hey, maybe Rest Stop 1 wasn’t THAT bad.”

Oh, and even Alexander, who starred in Hallowed Ground, had enough good sense not to return for this one, so her role (another fucking ghost) is played by someone else, with all the footage from the first movie edited in a way that we never see her face. So an actress decides not to return, and rather than just write her character out, they have someone else play it, even though any sane person would realize the role is fucking stupid anyway and should be removed entirely.

I want to close by pointing out that I have seen both Rest Stop films, which pretty much exemplify why DTV gets a bum rap, in theaters. And I’m such a moron I’ll probably go see the third one (god help us all) if the opportunity arises.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Alligator (1980)

AUGUST 13, 2008

GENRE: PREDATOR
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

I guess it’s just an odd coincidence that Blockbuster shipped Alligator the same day I rented Rogue. I never look at my queue; with an occasional exception, most of the movies I get were queued up ages ago. Part of the fun is not knowing what I’m gonna get! But even stranger, Alligator had a scene in which a snake is forced to shoot its venom in order for someone to study it, a scene that also occurred in yesterday’s Stanley. Take that, Quint!

Alligator is a shitload of fun, too. It’s great to see Robert Forster in a lead role. I know he was pretty big in the 70s (hence why Tarantino gave him a good role in Jackie Brown) but most of the time I see him he's just in small roles in garbage like Dragon Wars and Rise: Blood Hunter. He’s kind of a big ol’ softy in the film; he buys a puppy, yells at a dude for exploiting animals, and gets butthurt whenever someone points out that he’s going bald. Even when he gets the standard “You’re off the force!” scene, he puts up very little resistance. He doesn’t even pound his fist into his locker or whatever; he just takes his stuff out quietly and even removes his name off the door, which I’m sure his replacement will appreciate. Since John Sayles wrote the movie, you get some better character development and dialogue than you’d usually find in a monster movie like this, and Forster gets the best stuff.

There’s actually a lot of stuff you don’t often get in a movie, if ever. The ‘gator kills a kid quite bloodily; it makes Alex Kinter’s death look downright bloodless. The animal also carries out a Jaws: The Revenge style vendetta against the evil lab who inadvertently created him, as it skips across half the city to take out the scientists at a wedding. Also, a nosy reporter, who you expect to dog our hero throughout the film, gets it early on, and his camera not only gets photos of the creature, but it’s pretty much believed by everyone who sees them. Usually you get a skeptical asshole who will say the photos are faked or whatever, but not here.

Also, an early scene where a mad bomber threatens the police station contains what HAS to be a first. In any countdown/bomb sequence, those of you counting along will notice that the clock runs pretty goddamn slow. The one in Armageddon when they disable the nuke is my all time favorite – they have like 45 seconds left, and Willis sits down and delivers a teary speech, THEN they disarm the bomb, and each closeup of the clock reveals it’s only down a second at most from the shot before (at one point they cut in two shots of a fraction of one second!), despite several seconds, and clock BEEPS, in between. Anyway, in Alligator, we can tell from the dialogue that there aren’t any jump cuts in time, but the clock goes down like 20 seconds in about 5. I guess it’s sort of making up for all the other movies.

Like Rogue, this movie is not for dog lovers. Forster’s pooch is thankfully spared, but the evil lab makes it a point to test only on puppies (“How about a stray cat?” the animal supplier asks. “No. PUPPIES,” Doctor Evil Jerkass replies). Nothing onscreen, but we get a horrible shot of the supplier putting garbage bags with dead pups in a pile. Then we see the supplier dump them into the sewer. Terrible. The supplier is played by that one nebbish-y guy from Cuckoo’s Nest (“Piss on your fucking rules!”), so it’s good to see his ass get chomped. I looked him up on IMDb, and he’s dead now, so that’s sad. He’s a fun presence.

I also love the captain in the movie, played by Godfather II's (and several other mob movies') Michael Gazzo. I never caught his name, so I just called him Captain Growl Face. This is because he delivers all his lines in a hoarse shout, like Uncle Paulie in one of his more drunken moments. He never actually DOES anything in the movie, but I like that he backs up Forster for most of the film, even if he despises Forster’s lack of shaving skills and such. He’s dead now too.

Blockbuster’s DVD kept freezing and skipping, so don’t rent it from their online service if you live in LA (I can’t imagine they have more than one copy). But the DVD is from Lionsgate for some reason, so I cannot condone purchasing it either (don’t give those fucking bastards a single cent!). So if you find it used, or trust your rental service, definitely check it out!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Impulse (1974)

AUGUST 12, 2008

GENRE: HERO KILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

Along with Stanley, director William Grefe was also on hand to discuss the 2nd film of tonight’s double feature: Impulse, which stars the inimitable William Shatner. Apparently, much effort was made to get Shat down for the screening, but he was stuck on the set of Boston Public. Fine, do your Emmy-winning work instead of coming to talk to drunks at 1 in the morning about a gloriously awful movie you made 35 years ago, jerk!

I actually liked Impulse more than Stanley. Not only is Shatner simply more entertaining than the former’s Chris Robinson, but it’s also a more “action-packed” movie. Shatner goes apeshit and attacks someone every 15 minutes or so, and the whole movie is pretty much about whether or not he will murder a little girl who saw him kill someone else. At one point, he even says “She deserves to die!” because she lied about something. Harsh dude.

There are so many hilarious bits in this movie, and I was so half drunk, that I couldn’t possibly remember them all. But some include Shatner kicking Harold “Oddjob” Sakata in the face (Sakata seems sort of confused by the whole thing), a drunken man trying to teach a young boy how to make love to a woman (the kid’s mother being the intended target), Shatner picking up a little girl without any real concern that such behavior is an arrestable offense, a character simply named Moy, etc. I don’t think I went more than 2 minutes without laughing out loud at SOMETHING.

Like Tim/Stanley, he’s also a pretty ineffective killer. At the end he stabs a woman, then chases the little girl until she falls down the stairs and seemingly breaks her neck, and then he attempts to drown another. But while he’s drowning her, the stabbed woman suddenly grabs his leg, impeding his process. And then the little girl comes back and stabs him! 3 women, and Shat couldn’t kill a single one of them properly. However, this results in a truly amazing moment; the little girl and the mother are walking out of the house, crying hysterically. Then the girl sees Shatner, dead, and points as she cries even louder, as if she just noticed that he was dead. It’s fucking bliss.

One bummer about both movies for tonight was that the film prints were devoid of all color for the most part. I am used to the pink/red tint for older films, but I can’t recall any this bad. They seriously had no color left in them for a lot of the time (both prints seemed to be assembled from a few different prints, so every now and then a reel would actually look pretty good). But you sort of get used to it after a while.

I’ve never even heard of Grefe before tonight, but now I am a fan. I plan to check out some of his other movies (if I can find them) and certainly buy this one on DVD when it’s out (they said a special edition is in the works). Like Scream Bloody Murder, Impulse is the type of wretchedly hilarious 70s “hero killer” movie that I could never get enough of, and wish would have a permanent place on the bi-weekly Grindhouse roster. Please, if you know of any other movies in which the star is sort of the hero but he freaks out and kills people for no real reason, list them in the suggestion thread.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Stanley (1972)

AUGUST 12, 2008

GENRE: PREDATOR, HERO KILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

I’ve never seen the original Willard, but I quite enjoyed the remake. And after seeing Stanley, which was admittedly inspired by the original film, I really should get on that. But that’s a review for a whole other day. Maybe a Thursday.

Stanley is about Tim, a weirdo with a deep affection for his pet snakes, particularly two named Hazel and, you guessed it, Stanley. Early on they have little snake babies, and it is very precious. But there are some redneck locals, and assorted other undesirables, so you should pretty much know how the movie plays out.

But, like a lot of 70s movies, it’s just really “off”, which makes it lovable. The last 15 minutes are particularly batshit, as Tim kidnaps a girl who doesn’t seem to mind much, and even when he threatens to rape her, she’s pretty much OK with the situation (they then make consensual love and she seems more interested in him than he is in her!). This is preceded by an endless montage of the two of them traveling down the river, set to a song that reminded me of Julian Lennon’s “Valotte”. Also, Alex Rocco, as the film’s primary villain, is just gonzo. He wears a very effeminate robe, constantly lifts 1 lb weights, checks out his non-sculpted physique, etc. His death scene is also hysterical – it includes a nonsensical freeze frame that I actually thought was the end of the film.

Plus it’s just funny how ineffective both Tim and the snakes are, as most of the deaths are sort of the folks’ own fault. The big bad’s two henchman, for example, just drown in quicksand trying to escape a snake-waving Tim. He just wanted them to leave for all we know. Later, a 3rd henchman kills Hazel and the snake babies, and it takes Tim like half an hour to kill him.

I also want to point out the depressing/hilarious outcome of this series of events – we see Tim burying Hazel with a little makeshift cross above the ‘grave’, and then the camera pans to reveal three SMALLER crosses and dirt piles for the baby snakes. The only way the scene would be more amazing would be if Tim (or Stanley, even better) looked to the sky and let out a good "Nooooooooooooooooo!"

There’s also a great bit where Tim randomly walks into a strip club and sees a woman eat a snake’s head. So he stalks her and the club owner, who sleep together on the couch (but don’t get it on), and then breaks in and throws an endless number of snakes on them (or it’s just one snake shown being thrown 20 times). It’s a completely extraneous scene, obviously meant to pad the film and add some more bloodshed, but it’s still a delight.

Director William Grefe, Chris Robinson (not Black Crowes’ guy, the guy who played Tim), and writer Gary Crutcher were on hand for the screening, a rare trifecta for these Grindhouse night movies, as the guys are often dead or no one knows where the hell they are (one night they had the film’s sound recordist and no one else). Their Q&A was enjoyable, if a bit long (Grefe likes to ramble), and they also signed posters. All that, combined with the other movie (Impulse), resulted in this being one of the longest Grindhouse nights ever – we didn’t leave the theater until 1 am (we sat down at 7:30). But it was, as usual, a blast, and I urge you to check out the film when it hits DVD later this year.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Unborn (2009)

AUGUST 11, 2008

GENRE: RELIGIOUS, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (TEST SCREENING)

A few nights ago, I got a test invite for a movie in which they wouldn’t tell me the title, the actors, the director, anything. The only time they don’t tell you the name of the movie is when it is high profile and they want to keep it from getting overcrowded with fans of that particular film (due to the actor, the franchise, whatever). All the guy would tell me was that it was for a PG-13 horror movie aimed at females. So I’m racking my brain trying to think of what it could be, and then I see a poster for Twilight. HOLY SHIT, I thought (actually I might have said that aloud). While I have no interest in that movie, I do know that the fanbase for it is completely insane, and having possibly the first review of the movie version would be very good for my little site (well, presuming that those crazy Twilight fans bought shit from Amazon). So I go to the screening, and I had to sign an NDA. The NDA said something about “Crystal Lake Productions”, which got me even MORE excited. We all know what Crystal Lake is. But then I saw David Goyer drive up, and I knew it was The Unborn. Goddammit.

Not that I was completely disappointed. I like Goyer, and I knew the film starred two key draws. One is Gary Oldman, a guy who doesn’t sign on to just any movie, which signified that this one might be at least interesting, possibly actually good. The other is Odette Yustman, from Cloverfield. She could star in one of those movies about a girl who joins a prestigious dance studio and becomes the big star and I would see it, because she is almost nonsensically hot. So while I was still disappointed (why all the secrecy? It’s not like it’s a high profile movie that they would need to control a rabid audience for), I was still eager to see it.

And for the first 40 minutes or so, it’s a pretty solid film. It’s a bit like a J-Horror film, in that weird shit is happening (including a creepy kid) and we don’t really understand why. Information is delivered in small chunks, not large expositionary speeches that stop the movie cold. Some of the scares are cheap (thousands of bugs!) but others are quite effective (rare for a PG-13 film; I actually jumped at one part). And I really liked how the backstory involved Jewish religious beliefs, an area that is not often explored in horror films, even ones aimed at older audiences.

Another thing that made me want to grab Goyer and kiss him (or at least say “nice work”) is the very first scene of the film. We see Odette jogging, and she sees a child’s glove on the ground. This puzzles her, so she stops and picks it up. At this point, any self-respecting horror fan should know that it’s a dream, because who the hell would care about a discarded glove on the ground? So then some typical dream shit occurs, and then BAM! We cut not to Odette waking up and gasping, but later the next night, when she is on the phone with her friend talking about the dream we all know damn well she just had. Granted, a shot of Odette in a nighty would be perfectly fine, but I actually almost applauded that Goyer spared us the cliché moment.

Unfortunately, the 3rd act blunders, and badly so. Gary Oldman is introduced far too late, and no explanation is given for why Odette seeks him out. But worse, Oldman turns out to be not very important, because he pretty much hands the exorcism over to Idris Elba (in a scene that makes even less sense – he gives the “I don’t believe you, but I believe you believe” speech, right after he sees an upside down headed dog. Does he see that type of thing so often that he can’t be bothered to believe it is a sign of the supernatural?). Elba is another actor who elevates his material (see: The Reaping) but his character and Oldman’s really should have been combined. Worse, almost as soon as Elba is introduced, the movie essentially switches to its final scene, which is the exorcism. Before you know it, the exorcism is botched, Elba is turned into a monster, some folks are killed, and the movie is over (with a predictable epilogue to boot). Elba actually spends more time in possessed/zombie makeup than he does without, and I actually got the impression that Oldman didn’t want to do heavy makeup again, so Elba’s character was added to the script just to have some sort of demonic priest “highlight”.

Because of this insanely rushed and underdeveloped third act, the cut of the movie I saw was only 78 minutes long without end credits, which is ridiculous for a movie with a fairly detailed backstory, several surviving characters (one of Odette’s friends, and her dad, disappear from the movie entirely after a half hour or so), etc. And Carla Cugino plays Odette’s mother, seen for a total of 8 seconds in a home video. Why bother hiring someone of Cugino’s stature to appear in what can’t even be considered a cameo? Cameos should be used for A-list talent who show up as a surprise. Like, Sean Connery in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves – THAT’S a cameo. This is just a case of a well known actress playing a glorified extra.

Granted, I’m not the target audience for the film. I have a penis and can legally rent a car, and legally buy beer to get drunk and subsequently crash that car (12 dollar a day full insurance, wooo!). But I’d rather a film just sucked all the way through rather than start off strong and suddenly veer so much off the rails. Given the fact that they are obviously a long way off to release (I have to laugh at the guy who thought my “secret” movie was Mirrors, which is 3 days away as of this writing), hopefully there is still time to beef up the 3rd act, utilize its supporting cast more properly (Odette appears in all but two scenes of the film – give the girl a break!), and yet keep the most important scene of the film: the one where Odette appears in her underwear.

Because it was actually the scene I jumped at! It’s a scary mirror sequence! My enjoyment had nothing to do with the underwear.

What say you?

(NOTE – This review was based on the test screening version. I checked out the final version on opening weekend and nothing really changed. There was a classroom scene that I don’t really remember, and I think another flashback scene with Carla, but otherwise all of the things I liked/disliked remained exactly the same, right down to the nonsensically rushed third act.)

PLEASE, GO ON...

Steel Trap (2007)

AUGUST 10, 2008

GENRE: SLASHER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

The signs are looming... I think Dimension Extreme is turning into Lionsgate (I guess it’s only polite, since Lionsgate has apparently stolen Dimension’s business model of fucking over filmmakers at every turn). I rented Steel Trap, a movie that features a dirty/bloody blond girl on the cover, trying to make her way through what looks like an air conditioning vent that is overflowing with saw blades and things of that nature. All well and good, except the girl isn’t in the film, the saw blades are not in the film, and even the tagline (“Surviving each floor is the name of the game”) isn’t in the film, which all takes place on two floors, one of which they weren’t intended to visit anyway.

Plus it’s a shitty movie. I’m gonna have to spoil the identity of the bad guy, so heads up for those who may actually be surprised by it when it comes.

So like all these "Ten Little Indians" knockoffs, the killer is someone in the group. In this case, a woman named Kathy who hosts a cooking show. But while most of those movies have a pretty interesting backstory that is ultimately revealed, this one is just the same ol’ shit – the girl was fat and the other people were mean to her. Of course, in order for this idiotic plot to work, none of the other characters can remember that they met her sometime ago, everyone would had to have shown up to the same party, specific people will have to go off on their own when required, etc.

Also, Kathy is based on and even somewhat resembles Rachel Ray. Now, I can’t stand that woman either, but writing an entire movie about what a loathsome woman she probably is isn’t the best concept for a movie... especially a shitty slasher/Saw hybrid with some of the worst dialogue ever spoken in a horror film.

Yes, apparently at some point, writer director Luis Camara decided the movie should be “funny” and thus just about every character speaks in puns, “witty” quips, etc. The problem is, not only is none of this shit actually funny, but it’s also clunky. Not a single line sounds natural or even human. One woman in particular, played by Julia Ballard, should be given an award for having the most unfunny and awkward lines in a single movie. And of course, she dies almost last. Thanks, Camara.

The killer’s mask sucks too.

It’s also badly paced. There are only seven people, and you know it will come down to two of them, giving us a total of five kills. Well three of them occur in the film’s first 45 minutes, so the final 50 is primarily a series of boring arguments between the four survivors, one of which you’ve probably already figured out is the killer and one of which is the obvious last man standing. Occasionally they do things like look in computer monitors and see the “killer” (Ray-lite has hired a guy to stalk them around, presumably to make her reveal more of a “shock”) or run down a hallway or whatever, but it’s hardly exciting. And since all of our characters are introduced via their bad personalities (being two-faced, being a whore, etc) and not really developed in any other manner, you honestly won’t give a rat’s ass about any of them.

The 40 minute making-of reveals part of why the movie is so worthless. Apparently they were just about to start production when they discovered another movie that was very similar (maybe the one advertised on the cover?), forcing them to re-write the script to be more original. And to be fair, I don’t know of any other movie that makes a point of hating on a TV cooking personality, so I guess they succeeded to a degree. They also admit they didn’t have much time for casting and were constantly changing the script during pre-production. With all these problems, one must wonder why they didn’t just skip making the movie entirely, but what do I know? There’s also a commentary but I couldn’t be bothered to listen to it.

This is a German movie, ironically enough. Ask and ye shall receive garbage.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dead & Buried (1981)

AUGUST 9, 2008

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (BACKYARD SCREENING!)

My buddy Mike had been pushing his screening of Dead & Buried a bit more than usual, and I didn’t understand why. I had never seen it, and neither Bruce Willis OR Chevy Chase had nothing to do with it, so how good could it possibly be? Well, shit Earl, it’s fucking great. It’s becoming an increasingly rare event when I see a movie so enjoyable that it makes doing this Horror Movie A Day stuff worthwhile, but when I do, it’s all the more sweet.

It kind of reminds me of Messiah of Evil at times, what with the creepy atmosphere, the non-zombie zombie town, the doomed hero, etc. It’s just the type of movie you don’t see quite enough – where they take a fairly silly concept and not only milk it for all its worth, but play it mostly straight (apparently it was actually intended to BE a comedy, but they pulled a Sudden Death* and shot it the scary way). The result is something pretty original, always entertaining, and just plain delightful.

One high point of the film is seeing all the future “stars”. Robert Englund is the most prominent in terms of cast and future career (this was before Freddy though – his role was an actual actor’s role and not a gimmick-y cameo like some of his later stuff), but Barry Corbin also pops up as a local. Corbin is best known for Northern Exposure (and now No Country For Old Men), but to me he’s the head of the family in Who’s Harry Crumb, John Candy’s Fletch ripoff that featured Shawnee Smith at the peak of her hotness (a peak that she has actually maintained for almost 20 years now, if you ask me). But the big one for me was Glenn Morshower, aka loyal agent Pierce from 24. He’s like, I dunno, 25 here, but I recognized him instantly. He’s only in a few shots, but it’s still funny to see him so young. And Prince of Darkness’ Lisa Blount plays another of the town “zombies”, who shows some skin and has a blond ‘do that will satisfy those who disliked her strawberry locks in Darkness (I am not in that category). Someone named Lisa Marie is also in it, but it’s not the Lisa Marie anyone cares about, so that doesn’t count.

The score is also fantastic. Some of it sounds a bit ripped from Friday the 13th (which came the year before) but it’s very haunting and surprisingly soothing as well. I bet it’s on one of those CDs that cost 50 bucks at Fango cons, but if not I will be picking it up someday. Stan Winston’s effects are also impressive, no real surprise there. There is one gag that stuck out though – the hero rips a piece of a zombie woman’s cheek off for no real reason. You wouldn’t think much of it, until you realize that the director of Dead & Buried is none other than Gary Sherman, who also directed Poltergeist III, a film with it own inexplicable buccae-based removal.

One bit baffled me though, due to a flaw in the film print. Our hero discovers what’s going on when talking to the “bad guy”, and then runs outside and confronts a few of the zombie people before running off. Then the film skipped and suddenly he was back with the bad guy, where he received even MORE twist-y info (I don’t want to spoil anything, because it’s not as well known as the movies I usually spoil). The way that the film was cut made it seem like this was a flashback, not the next scene. But either way, I have no idea why he went back there. Mike let me borrow his DVD but I haven’t had time to go through the commentaries (there are 3!) yet to check it out.

I did watch the 2nd disc, which was interesting but not really worthy of its own disc. Stan Winston, Robert Englund, and Dan O’Bannon (2nd O’Bannon film this week!) each get their own 15 minute interview/recollection, mixed with film clips and some behind the scenes photos. All great stuff, but it could have been put on the 1st disc. Scam! It's sad to see Stan too, the interview is only a couple years old and he shows zero signs of ill health or anything. His interview is done in front of a bunch of his designs, and you only have to look at a single frame of it to be reminded of how much he has contributed to genre movies over the past 25 years. *Bows*

If you haven’t seen this one yet, I highly recommend it. It’s from 1981, but it feels right at home with some of the more classic but lesser-known 70s gems.

What say you?

*Sudden Death was written as a parody of Die Hard type movies, but Van Damme and Peter Hyams didn't quite get that, I guess. Which is why there's a scene of Van Damme fighting a guy in a big mascot costume. And why the movie doesn't make a goddamn lick of sense.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Rogue (2007)

AUGUST 8, 2008

GENRE: PREDATOR
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

I wasn’t on the Wolf Creek bandwagon; I didn’t like any of the three people we were following, and thus spending 75 minutes with them before anything “happens” was a bit too much of a chore. I liked how uncompromising it was, however (in that only the dude lived, almost completely unheard of) and how matter-of-fact John Jarratt’s killer was, but it was too little too late. However, I could see promise in Greg McLean, and so I was really looking forward to seeing Rogue when it arrived. Sadly, Dimension never gave it a wide release, and so I had to experience it for the first time at home on a relatively small screen (compared to a theater screen) on DVD. Lame.

Luckily, it’s a bit of a small film compared to Jaws or Lake Placid. For starters, the body count is pretty low – I count four deaths, all but one completely off screen. There are also a couple of animal deaths, and someone inexplicably survives an attack, but still, it seems rather low-key. Like Wolf Creek, it’s more about atmosphere and suspense, but better in two ways. One is our characters are more likeable (ironically enough, John Jarratt, nearly unrecognizable, is the most endearing), and two: it “gets going” around the half hour mark.

The only real blunder in the film is that we are presented with a large roster of characters (about ten) and more than half of them survive. But unlike other “lots of folks get away” monster movies like Tremors, most of them just disappear for the film’s final act. They are told to run, leaving our two main heroes behind, and.... they do. We never see them again until the final moment when everything’s all happy. I kept expecting Michael Vartan, our “hero”, to find their bodies or something, but nope, they’re OK. But since they are just completely written out of the movie, McLean missed a giant opportunity to milk some suspense out of their fate. We KNOW Vartan will be fine, he’s the goddamn star of the film. But Jarratt’s character has 50/50 movie odds, so putting HIM in danger would be a lot more exciting.

Speaking of Vartan, he apparently went to the Tom Welling in The Fog school of heroics. The editor is responsible for making him the hero, because they keep cutting to him even though he doesn’t actually DO anything until the final 20 minutes. So they’ll have like 20 seconds of 4-5 people putting together a rope bridge or finding supplies or whatever, and then a full 10 of Vartan simply looking at them doing that. I think it’s an hour into the movie before he even has a line of dialogue that is comprised of more than a half dozen words. It’s actually kind of remarkable.

Another odd thing about the movie is that McLean was apparently afraid to kill any of the female cast members, possibly the result of the “misogynist” type critical jabs he received on Creek (in which only the women died). This makes one death particularly shocking, because it’s a character you kind of expect to be around until the very end and THEN die, but it also makes Radha Mitchell’s survival seem really ridiculous. The croc pretty much bites her in half, but she survives and Vartan has little trouble getting her to rescue (the damn thing even helpfully leaves her in his cave while he sleeps). But also, some standard “group movie” horror victims (a hysterical whiny woman, a fat broad, an older woman who is suffering from some disease) are inexplicably allowed to survive. Come on now!

One thing I liked is how subtle a lot of the character moments are. One of the guys on the boat steals a camera from a tourist family, but not only do they not notice, it’s never even mentioned. Jarratt’s character is on the boat to spread his wife’s ashes on the river, and again, they don’t really spell this out for you by having him explain it away to someone. I was also happy to see that the croc was merely an angry croc, a bit bigger than average but not gigantic (on the extras they say that their croc is actually half a meter smaller than the largest ever recorded). He wasn’t a science experiment gone wrong or the result of toxic spilling, he’s just a pissed off animal. This is not only good because it’s not so generic, but also it keeps the focus on what really matters – whether he’s a mutant hybrid or just a regular animal, the audience is here only to see it eat someone.

Nicely rebounding after the featureless Triloquist, Dimension Extreme has provided Rogue with an ass-ton of extras. We get a 45 min documentary (good stuff) plus some making of featurettes (the one on the fantastic score is a nice touch but the others are generic) that last another 45 minutes combined, a look at the “real” Rogue (very short and covers stuff we’ve seen in the other features, so it’s kind of worthless) and a fairly interesting commentary by McLean. He points out what was added for this UNRATED! Version (shocking surprise, none of it is even PG-13 material) and some other interesting tidbits. But he also reveals that he is either daft or Dimension fucked him over, because he starts the commentary by asking you to listen to him blather on for “two and a half hours”, for a 95 minute film. There are some occasional gaps too, so who knows, maybe he actually has a 150 min cut which he watched for the commentary, and then the Weinsteins went back later and recut it again. OR, he’s just daft. But the wealth of extras (all presented anamorphic too – thank you!) makes the film’s transfer all the more amazing – I swear I thought I was watching a Blu-Ray at times. Bang up job, all the more important since it’s an amazingly well shot movie (when it’s light out, and thus no croc attacks are occurring, it comes off as a travelogue from HD Travel channel) and deserves the best transfer possible. Of course, a 35 mm film print would look even better, but oh well. Dimension can’t do two things right at once.

One thing on the extras I found funny – the actors keep bitching about how hot it is in the behind the scenes stuff. “It was 52 degrees” they will moan, but on the long doc, they never actually specify that they mean Celsius (on the shorter featurettes this is not an issue, so don’t watch it if you don’t want to chuckle like I did). So for us Fahrenheit loving Americans, it sounds like they are incredibly lame people. Man up!

Final note to dog lovers – don’t watch this movie.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Last House On The Left (2009)

AUGUST 7, 2008

GENRE: RAPE-REVENGE, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (TEST SCREENING)

I love when strange coincidences change the way my day plays out. I had originally intended to see a double feature of David DeFalco’s Chaos and Nick Palumbo’s Murder Set Pieces tonight at the New Bev. While I consider MSP to be among one of the worst movies ever committed to celluloid, I have never seen Chaos. That film was originally a true remake of Last House On The Left, but then David Hess dropped out so the filmmakers pretended it WASN’T a remake, even though by all accounts it’s essentially the exact same movie. Kind of hilarious. But, as luck would have it, I got a pass to a test screening of a REAL remake of Last House On The Left on the same night, and opted for that instead.

(NOTE - I have since seen the final version and it is identical to the version I saw here, save for having the final score. Review remains intact.)

The invite gave no real information about the cast or crew. It claims that Wes Craven and Sean Cunningham were involved, but that’s about it for crew. And the only cast member listed was Sara Paxton, from Aquamarine. This triggered an alarm in my movie-fied brain – if the only cast member worth mentioning is a tween idol, then this movie will probably be pretty weak. Maybe not PG-13, but certainly not as vile and hard to watch as the original. And she would probably live.

(Note - SPOILERS FOLLOW in the next paragraph, but the entire review is based on the idea that you have seen/know the idea of the original, so if you've never seen it, just skip the review entirely.)

Well, she does. But it actually works. In the original, the daughter originally DID survive, but they decided to kill her off during production (I forget why – as if the movie was too light and they needed another kill?), so it’s not a total “Hollywood” decision. I liken it more to the two endings of The Descent – it’s simply the execution of a different idea the original filmmakers had. However, and this is what I found surprising: Paxton is the only one who is raped. Her friend (the cute Melanie Lynskey-ish chick from Superbad) gets off pretty easy, merely stabbed and that’s it. But that is how the movie as a whole is in comparison to the original: the truly sadistic and awful stuff has all been pretty much removed, and in a way it makes the rape seem more brutal (and thus the parents’ actions seem more justified). In the original, EVERYTHING was just so depraved, the rape barely stuck out as anything worse than the other things they endured. Not the case here, and so while some may cry foul that the movie is too toned down, I think it’s a good decision. Later on I was talking to other folks, including horror filmmakers, and they all said the same thing about the 1972 version: it’s not that it’s a bad movie, but it’s a movie you never want to watch a second time. There is little entertainment value (in the traditional sense) to be found in that film, and the ‘light’ moments (chicken truck!) just don’t work in context.

One problem I DID have with this version is the final minute of the film. The gang has been killed and the family, reunited, leaves the house in their boat. All well and good. But then they suddenly cut to a flashback, with the father torturing Krug, the gang leader. Not only is it completely unnecessary, it’s just a really stupid scene to boot. The dad paralyzes Krug, and then sticks his head in a microwave, turning it on. The result (an exploding head) is pretty “awesome”, but it just feels so tacked on and gratuitous, as if the studio felt the audience needed to cheer at the very end of the film. Plus, and I wrote this on the comment card: YOU CAN’T RUN A MICROWAVE WITH THE DOOR OPEN! Earlier in the film, they set up the microwave being broken, but what kind of microwave “breaks” by allowing it to run even if the door isn’t shut? And how would he have noticed this anyway? It’s like the scene exists just to pay off the goddamn broken microwave bit, as if anyone cared. Completely unnecessary, and I hope like hell it’s gone by the time the movie is released.

(END SPOILERS!)

Another, less minor issue is that the Krug and Sadie characters are pretty different than their 1972 counterparts, and thus should have been given different names. Like I’ve said numerous other times, the best thing a remake can do is not give the audience any reason to keep thinking about the original, and thus giving the killers the same name (in a movie that is, structurally speaking, an exact copy of the original) wasn’t the best decision, since they aren’t the same at all. Garret Dillahunt’s Krug is a much more calm and collected killer, a sort of icy criminal mastermind type, not a loose cannon like David Hess’ version. And Sadie is pretty mousy here for the most part; she takes her top off and bitches about rich folks, but that’s about it. The other 2 gang members have different names, so other than simple “iconic” reasons, I don’t see why they couldn’t just go all out and give everyone a new name.

Otherwise, it’s pretty goddamn solid. Tony Goldwyn is in top form as the dad, and it’s nice to see him again (he’s mainly been directing lately). And Monica Potter (the mom) is always welcome on a big movie screen. The toned down nature means we are not allowed to see her go down on a dude, which is a shame, but on the plus side, we are also spared the painful outcome of that scenario. They also feel like a real couple, and it’s great to see a modern horror movie that depicts a rather normal marriage. 9 times out of 10 the couple is on the brink of divorce, or the mother is in fact a stepmother, or whatever. Not here, they are just a normal family. And the film actually does a better job than the original in displaying the family bonds; when the “Weasel” type character is dispatched, director Dennis Iliadis goes out of his way to show the parents working as a team to kill him. It’s a nice little touch.

Iliadis seems to be trying to show off a bit too often though. Early on there is a shot of Paxton running around a boathouse, and for some goddamn reason he zooms all the way into the side of the building, and then tracks along the wall. The result is simply a pointless, shaky, and blurry shot. There are also far too many cutaways to the house’s exterior, as if we haven’t yet got the idea that this is a “perfect and normal” home. And he likes to cut back and forth in time, something that’s also a bit confusing. At the beginning, when they establish Paxton’s character is a champion swimmer, he keeps cutting between her swimming and her standing still, holding her breath underwater. Since we can’t really see their faces clearly in either “moment”, I actually though it was two different girls. And the stupid ending I mentioned; I actually can’t tell if it was a flashback or if the dad just went back to the house later on. He also keeps cutting to different angles of the same person (usually Krug), something that is supposed to make us feel on edge, but it’s mainly just annoying and calling attention to the fact that it’s only a movie (ß heh), not to mention breaking the tension.

But like I said, on the whole it works. They don’t really change much from the original, but most of the changes are for the better. It’s not necessarily a better film; while the original may not be fun to watch (this veers more toward “crowd-pleasing”, albeit in hard R rated form), the raw feel and up front attitude is a bit missed at times in the remake. The acting is certainly better (Dillahunt is great, in fact), and since we are conditioned to believe a studio film will pull its punches, it’s actually pretty suspenseful and unnerving at times. “He’ll just slap her or something” you think, and then WHAM! The girl’s head is slammed into a sink. And even though you don’t really fear for the parents’ lives at any point, they still manage to generate an ass-ton of suspense. There’s a bit where “Weasel” comes to the house and talks to Potter, who is trying to keep him from seeing a photo of their daughter lest he figure out what she already knows, and it’s a terrific, nail-biting sequence. And even though we know damn well that they’re doomed, the scene where the gang first encounters the two girls is another nerve-wracker. It’s also surprising how much abuse everyone suffers – I think every single character in the film takes a pretty sharp blow to the head at some point or another. And again – since we are spared the real depraved over-the-top stuff of the original (there are no intestines in this film, for starters), it actually makes the violent moments more effective, because they are used more sparingly.

If you’ve never seen the original, I would almost suggest seeing the remake first. Some folks walked out during the obvious moments, which means it’s still a tough film for some, but compared to the original it’s borderline “fun”. And since the two films are so similar, seeing one will “spoil” the surprises and development of the other. So go with the one that is an overall more enjoyable film viewing experience, and if you really dig it, go back and see if you can stomach Craven’s original.

Either way, score another one for Rogue, who also produced The Strangers. Now that Lionsgate has turned soft (and utterly reprehensible), they are probably our best hope for consistently solid studio-based horror.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...