Jill The Ripper

OCTOBER 9, 2007

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

Here’s another movie that had so much promise in the title: Jill The Ripper. So, I'm thinking: a female serial killer, preying on male prostitutes and/or strippers; totally terrifying for guys to watch... And since it stars none other than Dolph Lundgren (always my favorite of the little group of late 80s/early 90s action stars), I was pretty hopeful for an entertaining little piece of junk movie.

But my hopes were dashed almost immediately, as the credits came on screen. They used Courier New for the damn credit font. How boring can you get??? Plus, the film is set in Boston, and it’s quite obviously Canada (though they at least got the right type of police cars). And for reasons I am still a bit fuzzy on, the film is set in 1977. Luckily, being shot in Canada (not even a single establishing shot of Boston proper), the film is spared the clichéd idea of cutting to a row team on the Charles, or the Citgo sign, or whatever. So there’s something.

However, all that would be OK if the plot hadn’t been so needlessly convoluted. Rather than simply have a damn serial killer killing dudes and Dolph always one step behind, like your Sevens and what not, the movie has crooked cops, crooked politicians, a dominatrix or two, adoption memories, hookers, and Dolph’s drinking problem. And like 3 killings. Dolph may be a pretty smart guy (he had a full scholarship to MIT!) but his movies should never require any sort of active brain process. His best films (Universal Soldier, I Come In Peace, Army Of One) are straight forward and over the top, and that is why we love him.

But if he simply must make a “real” film, good Christ, at least make it interesting. The only time the film even remotely picks up is when the Red Power Ranger shows up. Granted, she’s not as hot as the Pink one, but still, better than nothing.

The rest of the film is just Dolph drinking, occasionally getting into lackluster fights with assorted goons, walking around a tunnel, macking on his dead brother’s wife, and occasionally going to the lamest fetish club in cinematic history. Christ, the film is seemingly intent on never being exciting. At one point a fight between Dolph and a bouncer is stopped cold when the bouncer recognizes him from high school, and then spends the next few minutes dishing out helpful exposition to a guy he was just about to knock out cold.

Also, like I said before, if the filmmakers are providing me with ample evidence that they don’t really give a shit, then they lose me. And that is certainly the case here, as we see Dolph look at a newspaper about a half hour into the film. The camera cuts to a close up of the headline, and:

Are you fucking kidding me? They couldn’t spend 10 min making a legit, complete front page mockup, so they had to just lazily place a bit of non-matching paper with the relevant info over a real article? Come on!

This should have been Dolph’s Eye See You. But instead, it’s his... uh... I dunno. Some other shitty movie Stallone made that was worse than Eye See You I guess.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

October Extras #8 - Wrong Turn

OCTOBER 8, 2007

GENRE: SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: DECEMBER 2005 (DVD)

Tonight I am going to see a rare theatrical screening of Wrong Turn 2, which I consider one of the year’s best horror movies (and one that I pointed out would play best to a big crowd, so I’m pretty excited). So I decided to make the original Wrong Turn my “October Extra” for the day.

When the film came out in May 2003, most horror movies were PG-13, or direct to video, So I remember being surprised that the film was going into theaters at all. And I was particularly amazed at how mean spirited it was. The axe through the head death remains one of the best shock kills in a survival horror movie ever (though WT2 tops it at least twice), and there’s a particularly high amount of gore. Even the smaller stuff, like when Desmond Harrington (that guy is fucking cool, how come he’s not in more movies?) grabs the spring on the door, cutting the shit out of his hand, is pretty uncommon in the landscape of pre-Saw/Hostel modern horror.

Plus the movie’s just a lot of fun. Jeremy Sisto is a hoot, though sadly killed too early. And the incredibly annoying Lindy Booth is killed gruesomely, which made me very happy. There’s very little slowdown to the pace, but the characters are still pretty likeable, and are given enough characterization to count for something. And while it suffers from the same problem lots of survival films do (the idea that some random folks who don’t seem very special would be the only ones to turn the tables on a group that has been doing this for years), nothing about it seemed too ridiculous.

The movie also has one of my favorite lines ever from a movie redneck. Usually they are just the butt of some jokes, and don’t get to ever make a comeback, but not here. Harrington approaches a truck driver and asks him if he knows another route to take, and the guy responds “Here’s what you do... go back to your car, fix your hair about three hundred more times....” Hahahahaha, awesome. Also, the movie has a great twist to the standard “Guy fucks with his car stereo and gets into an accident” scene. So yeah, while the plot may be pretty generic, there’s more than enough little moments like that to make the film stick out.

On the extras, Rob Schmidt goes on and on about Texas Chain Saw and Hills Have Eyes being major influences, and while that is clear, his film is devoid of any sort of social commentary, which is a big part of why those other films have endured. But it’s not a blight on the film – it’s nice to see a movie just have mutants killing folks for no goddamn reason every now and then. I’d much rather that than deal with something like the Hills remake’s totally idiotic “YOU ARE THE TERRORISTS!” scene in the middle of a Wrong Turn movie.

I’d like to point out that the chapter stops in the movie are totally at random, often coming in the middle of a scene. Come on FOX! What are you, channeling Mill Creek?

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Paranoiac

OCTOBER 8, 2007

GENRE: BRITISH, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

One of the Scotts recommended Paranoiac the other day, specifying that it’s a film that one should watch knowing little about it. Well, I knew absolutely nothing about it, other than the fact that I owned it. Which is more than I can say for some other movies (the other day I was surprised to discover The Cave in my collection. Where the hell did that come from?)

Anyway, the film stars Oliver Reed, and would it surprise you to learn he plays a drunk? I should certainly hope not. In fact, one of his first lines in the film is a response to his aunt’s inquiry as to where he was: “I’ve been drinking!” Wow, really? YOU? Rumor has it that he died on a Monday and sobered up on a Thursday. Also, and it’s tough to tell if it’s because he’s a drunk or not, but either way, he’s pretty much a total dick in the film. At one point, he leads a girl on, and once she gets into bed with him, he gets out of bed and heads off to the bar, but not before making sure his aunt sees the girl in his bed. Hahah, what an ass.

It’s a good flick though, but like some others, it’s sort of been “spoiled” by all the films that were influenced by it that I have already seen. There are a lot of good twists, but to say I didn’t see most of them coming would be a damnable lie. When I have kids, I am going to make sure they watch films chronologically, to prevent such things. “Dad, I want to watch Scream!” “Well first you gotta watch Psycho. Then Halloween. And then, maybe Deadly Friend and Vampire in Brooklyn, so you can appreciate what it was like to see a good Wes Craven movie again.”

As far as the horror elements, they are pretty light, especially for a Hammer film. But there’s a damn creepy scene late in the film, where the masked “killer” is just standing behind Reed as he plays the piano. The mask the “killer” wears is pretty freaky too (considering the period the film was made – 1960):

There’s a bizarre problem with a lot of the film exposure in this movie. A lot of shots are darkened on the sides, leaving a rounded image in the light. I’ve seen this in much older films, but here it seems out of place. And during the climax, instead of just darker, the sides of the frame are smeared. Very weird. Was this an intentional effect back in the day? If so, it’s pretty ugly/distracting.

Still, you gotta love a movie that finds a guy saying “Get some sleep. And no dreaming!”

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

October Extras #7 - Halloween: The Curse Of Michael Myers (1995)

OCTOBER 7, 2007

GENRE: CULT, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: 1998 OR SO (VHS!)

I don’t think I was ever as excited in my life for a movie as I was for Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. I was 15, and it had been 4 years since I saw the last installment, which ended on an intriguing cliffhanger. At the end of that film, Michael was broken out of jail (where he was hilariously allowed to keep his mask on) by a mysterious man in black. Who was he? Why did he do it? Why hadn’t anyone noticed the Thorn tattoo on Michael’s hand before?

Arriving at the theater after being dropped off by my friend’s mom, I was thwarted by a rare enforcement of MPAA rating limitations. As the film was rated R (in case you forgot a time when that was a given for a horror movie), the guy refused to sell us a ticket without a parent’s OK. This being the day before cell phones, we couldn’t just call my friend’s mom who was probably only a minute’s drive away. So we had to call my mom, and have her drive all the way down to the theater just to say “They can go see this movie.” Idiotic.

Well it wasn’t even worth her trouble, let alone the 4 year wait (6 for those who saw Halloween 5 during its theatrical run). Not that the film was a total abomination like Resurrection was (who else is excited for my upcoming review of that? It might be the first movie review to be rated NC-17 for language), but it stank of re-editing and re-shooting (probably the first time I noticed such things as a kid). Donald Pleasence was barely in it despite being the only actor to be listed above the title; half the scenes from the trailer/tv spots weren’t even in the film (and one spot featured footage from Hellraiser: Bloodline. Fucking amazing); and worse, none of the promised answers were really in the film. The whole marketing campaign was built around explaining who the man in black was, and why Michael killed, but all that the movie really offered was Tommy Doyle (played by Paul Rudd in his first role, which is what everyone who has apparently forgotten that Clueless came out 3 months before will tell you) pointing out that there was a constellation in the sky that not only had the same design as the tattoo that magically appeared on Michael’s wrist, but also had the most lax rotation in constellation history (It first appeared in 1963, then fifteen years later in 1978, and then ten years later, then a year after that, and now it’s back 6 years later.” What???). Loomis offered some of his usual hilarious nonsense, but only in a single scene or two. And the man in black turned out to be.... a guy only people who memorized the credits of the original film would recognize (Dr. Wynn – a.k.a. the guy who says “For God’s sake Sam, he can’t drive a car!”). One would assume this one line was pretty much all the backstory writer Daniel Farrands would need to justify his decision to use this random character as the big bad villain (i.e. HE taught him to drive), but that isn’t even mentioned – the film more or less introduces him as an entirely new character.

Of course, everyone and their hamster knows that an alternate version of the film exists. This one has more character stuff (certainly more Loomis) and makes a bit more sense, but it also contains many painful scenes (“Stay away monsters, stay away ghouls...”) that were rightfully cut from the film for theatrical release, and also has an ending that isn’t even remotely exciting. The theatrical has Rudd smashing Myers to a pulp with a pipe, but in the other version, he just throws some rocks on the floor, which makes Michael the Druid stop in his tracks. Rudd yells “It worked! The power of the runes stopped him!”, and then Dr Wynn transfers the Curse of Thorn (?) to Dr Loomis, as Michael walks away wearing the man in black outfit. Well, whatever.

I call this mask Michael's "Captain Smirk" mask.

If you take the first hour or so of the producer’s cut (up until Kara goes out the window) and then watch the theatrical ending (which isn’t any better but at least features some amazingly awkward stuff from Rudd), you have a somewhat decent movie. Joe Chappelle directed some scenes (Tim and Beth’s murders, Kara’s subsequent search of the house) quite well, and unlike any of the sequels, there really is a strong Halloween atmosphere in the film. Also, Farrands’ script may have included some truly terrible ideas (Michael is not only a killer, but he rapes his niece! Making this the second “Uncle fucking” movie of the day for me), but there were a lot of good ones too, and you can see glimpses of a stronger film throughout either version (even the producer’s cut was the result of hasty rewrites and nonsensical editing). Rumors abound that Dimension will release both versions in a special edition, but I can’t really see that happening, as it would almost require them to admit that they interfered too much with what would sadly be Donald Pleasence’s final film. This also began Dimension’s long, almost unbroken streak of fucking with their movies in post production.

Pleasence’s death, and the fact that the movie didn’t really make any goddamn sense resulted in the series “reboot” with H20, which led to Resurrection, which led to the remake, which is the biggest tragedy of all. Still, it didn’t stop me from writing a fan script when I was 16 that picked up right where Curse left off. I can’t recall too much about it anymore (it was written on a “digital word processor” that is no longer functioning) as far as explanations, but it all took place on a farm outside of Haddonfield, owned by the father of the Tina character from Halloween 5. The doctor from part 4 that Michael Pataki played also showed up, as did Hunt from Halloween II. Laurie Strode showed up at the end and killed Michael once and for all (I was probably ripping off Jason Goes To Hell there). And someone died with an electric beater to the mouth.

...I liked it, at least.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Flowers In The Attic (1987)

OCTOBER 7, 2007

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: CABLE (TMC HD)

I saw Flowers in the Attic when I was like eight, and remembered only one thing. “Eat the cookie! EAT THE COOKIE MOTHER!” Why that stuck with me, I don’t know. Maybe because I also eat cookies. But that’s all I remembered, I didn’t even recall that Kristy Swanson played the girl who said that “classic” line.

Apparently the book had a great deal of incest between the older brother and sister, which was dropped from the film. But I think there’s still certainly enough left. The father gives Swanson (his daughter) a gift that sounds more like a proposal (saying “I only live to see you happy” or something as he hands her a ring), and the brother takes his time helping her wash her back. There’s also another bath scene where he’s talking to her, and yet she only feels compelled to cover herself when their grandmother walks in. And we find out early on that their father was actually their mother’s uncle. Hey-o!!!

The score by Christopher Young is pretty good, but wildly inappropriate a lot of the time. There’s a scene where they are trying to climb a rope down the side of the house to escape, yet the music has more of a “Montage of writing love letters to an overseas lover” feel to it. Young of course did Hellraiser, and is the subject of a hilarious story about Danny Elfman and Sam Raimi falling out during the post production of Spider-Man 2. Google it sometime, you won’t be disappointed. It involves pod people.

I’d like to point out the complete idiocy of the brother character in this film. His little brother is so weak that he needs to cut open his vein and feed the little sod some of his blood (yep, incest AND vampirism!), yet when he finds a way to escape the room they are locked in for whatever (however long they’re in there for is never made clear – it could be years but the director keeps putting a desk calendar in frame that’s always on May 27th), he spends all his time looking at clothes and bedrooms instead of going to the goddamn kitchen and securing a sandwich or two. Fucktard.

I can’t tell if this movie is pro-religion or not either. One would certainly suspect that the writer believes that being devoted to the teachings of the bible leads you to be a total bitch like Louise Fletcher (did this broad EVER play a sympathetic person?), but the kids also find hope in some Bible passages. Where is the line drawn?

...I’m probably putting too much thought into a Kristy Swanson movie.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

October Extras #6 - Urban Legends: Final Cut

OCTOBER 6, 2007

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: 2001 OR SO (DVD)

I believe I pointed out before that the killer’s motive in Urban Legends: Final Cut ranks as one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard in an otherwise legitimate movie, and thus paved the way for the insanely idiotic motives I come up with for my “supposed to be stupid” cartoon. Thanks, Urban Legend 2!

Otherwise, I gotta admit this one’s pretty decent. The script is pretty dumb at times, but there’s some moments of genuine wit, and John Ottman’s direction is quite above average for this type of junk. Plus, and maybe this doesn’t appeal to everyone, but being a former film student, I have to love a film that features, of all things, a sinister director of photography. How many times has “Find yourself another DP” been used as a borderline threat in a movie? There’s also a sinister producer, sinister PA... they’re all red herrings, but it’s still quite amusing. Shortly after I first saw the film, I began working as an editor on a student film, where I also played like three different zombies and sometimes held the boom mike, and on one occasion did makeup.

This is why I must take issue with the presentation of the kid’s film projects. Holy shit, what are the budgets on these movies? The opening scene is set on a giant stage where they have recreated an entire airplane, with a crew of about 30. Uh.... no, we film inside one another’s dorm rooms and whatever local business is willing to open up 3 hours early, and the guy operating the Nagra is probably also the producer. The same scene also features an annoyance of mine – overlong “film within a film” scenes. Apparently, these film students are able to film two kids getting out of their seats, going to the back of the plane, fooling around, getting scared, being chased by a killer into the cockpit, and getting killed, all at once! Wow!

I must discuss Hart “Ellis” Bochner in the film, who also appeared in Terror Train. He plays the film professor, and he’s OK. There’s a hilarious scene where he is talking to a pretentious film professor that kills me every time. But he’s playing David Duchovny. His mannerisms, speaking style, and even his appearance all suggest Mulder on his day off. It’s pretty amazing. He does work in a very Ellis-y “babe” at one point though, which is A+.

The 3rd film, other than being my introduction to Kate Mara, was pretty worthless, and the original I still think is the best post-Scream slasher other than Hatchet. This one falls squarely in between. The college setting is underused as a slasher locale (for obvious reasons – they can’t be as isolated as a high school at night), so it was good to see them put to use for the two films (especially after being mostly botched in Scream 2). It’s no masterpiece, but I’ll take it over the I Know What You Did movies or pretty much anything else that came along in the late 90s/early 00s any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Plus it stars the hot girl from House MD!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Fear Of Clowns (2004)

OCTOBER 6, 2007

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

As it finally came to an end, the only thing I could think of is that Fear of Clowns is supposed to help people who are legitimately afraid of clowns realize how boring clowns are, thus eradicating their fear. That must be it. Because director Kevin Kangas cannot possibly believe he has made a genuinely scary or even interesting film, so my theory is pretty much the only thing that can validate this atrocious movie’s existence.

Clocking in about 30 minutes more than necessary is the least of the movie’s crimes. The acting is uniformly wooden, with many of the actors doing little to hide the fact that they just memorized their lines just prior to Kangas yelling “Action”. The direction is completely uninspired as well, not to mention just plain amateurish, with eyelines that almost never match; awkward scene transitions (try an establishing shot now and then, it’ll save time on rendering out fades), etc. No one is particularly likeable, no one is interesting, and even the kill scenes are dreadfully boring (the killer, who walks slow as it is, is often seen in slow motion to boot). Oh, and here’s the movie’s idea of being “clever”:

Hah. Fuck you.

The only thing that was interesting in the entire movie was the bizarre usage of blurs over the movie posters during the film’s climax. We see a Shanghai Knights poster quite clearly several times, then it’s suddenly blurred out in one shot (even more noticeable when you see that none of the posters next to it are blurred). Also, an Underworld poster is blurred, but not posters for other Sony films. What the hell’s going on here?

In my notes, I have written “Blur – front – rze (?)”. I don’t have the slightest goddamn clue what the hell this could possibly mean, but I don’t even care anymore. There’s a commentary and some other features, but I don’t care about that either. The only thing even remotely scary about this movie was my discovery that there is already a sequel. Jesus asschristing hell. HMAD reader Lillian, why did you recommend this to me? What did I ever do to you?!?!? LOL.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

October Extras #5 - The Descent (2005)

OCTOBER 5, 2007

GENRE: MONSTER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: JULY 2006 (THEATRICAL PREVIEW)

Before I became "press", I used to go to a lot of free movie screenings via radio station/newspaper giveaways. They were usually pretty annoying, since the whole "free" aspect tended to bring in a lot of folks who ordinarily didn't go to the movies, they would be 'hosted' by DJs or whoever (in one amazing display of idiocy, a DJ tried to get the crowd pumped for World Trade Center. "Are you ready for World Trade Center??? WOOOOOO!" - actual quote. Astonishing.), and you had to wait in long lines and not even be guaranteed to get in. But one such screening that stuck out was for Neil Marshall's The Descent. On the way in, we got little penlights. At first we thought it was just a promotional giveaway, but once we got into the theater, we saw they were quite useful. In order to try to replicate the pitch black setting of the film, they shut all the house lights off (not dimmed - OFF) while everyone was trying to find their seats. It was a clusterfuck, but it was fun, and there was some damn good gropage.

The movie itself is a near masterpiece of modern horror. Marshall's previous film, Dog Soldiers, was a fun little movie, sort of Evil Dead with werewolves, but this was just a remarkably solid film. Deftly combining both a standard monster movie with a truly sad psychological story (one that was somewhat dampened with the US edit, which removed the film's final, haunting, depressing shot), it set the bar pretty goddamn high for any subgenre the movie belonged to.

The great thing about the movie is how scary it is before the damn monsters even show up. I legit yelped the first time I saw the film at a particular shock scare early on, and the scenes of the girls getting stuck in tiny passageways as they navigate the cave system are pretty terrifying as well. Plus, Marshall is a master of subtle reveals, giving the film enormous rewatchability (check out the scene right after the cave in, when Sarah is looking around with her flashlight - there's a monster's hand or something without a single musical sting or scream to accompany it). Like the best survival horror movies, there are nature elements as well as the monster/killer to worry about, and Marshall's script never lets one really overshadow the other.

Plus, it's gory as hell. Those cannibalistic humanoids that dwell under the ground (I wish they had a simple acronym to use to describe them) spray their innards everywhere when killed, and they have a knack for likewise killing the girls as gorily as possible. Again, Marshall succeeds in both areas - he's made a chilling psychological horror film, AND a splatter film, and whether you consider it one type of film or the other, it works just as well. I should note that some folks believe the monsters don't exist at all; that Sarah killed her friends herself. And while I don't buy into this theory, it certainly has some evidence to support it, and gives the film another level of interpretation. Can't say that about Captivity.

So are there ANY flaws? Well, maybe the film is TOO subtle for a modern audience. A good friend of mine totally missed that the Juno character was fucking Sarah's husband, and thus didn't really connect with the ending, as she felt it was needlessly cruel and unjustified. But is that really a flaw? It's more the fault of Marshall's peers for spelling everything out for us so often (ahem, Saw 3) that when someone actually respects audience intelligence, the effect is lost because everyone is used to shutting that intelligence off before they sit down in the theater (Note - this wasn't a problem for me. I am well versed in the cinematic language of "cheating whores").

I haven't gone through the DVD yet, though it has a nice collection of extras in theory. The R2 one has even more (plus DTS!) but given my limited time to actually watch the damn things lately, I probably won't import it. I WOULD like to have an HD version (it's currently on BluRay), since like 80% of every frame in the film is total blackness, I think it would look amazing and reveal more detail (in terms of shades of dark) than can be seen in a standard def one.

It was my pick for best horror film of 2006, and watching it again didn't make me reconsider that. The Descent is simply a great fucking movie, and if Doomsday turns out good, Marshall will officially be the only modern genre director I think will be revered in 20 or 30 years the way John Carpenter and Wes Craven are now.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Brides Of Dracula

OCTOBER 5, 2007

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

You gotta love a movie called The Brides of Dracula that features as many references to Dracula in the film as it does in the title (for you math wizards, that’s ONE). Now I know where Soisson and Lussier got the nerve for their idiotic, almost entirely Dracula-less Dracula 2000 sequels.

Not a bad flick though. I haven’t seen too many Hammer films (not even their Christopher Lee-starring Dracula, which this film is technically a sequel to), but the ones I have are all pretty similarly paced: not a lot happens for 80 minutes, then there’s a big finale with a fire or explosion, and then the film ends immediately once the villain is dead, without a single word uttered from the heroes to wrap things up. I love that. If I am watching a horror movie, I want to see horror. Once the vampire is dead, there won’t be any more horror, so why drag on? Ever see the show Smallville? The villain of the story always dies/is captured with like 15 minutes to spare, and then the rest of the episode continues in Return of the King-style fashion, with ending upon ending delivered without any of the excitement we tuned in for. Plus the show sucks.

One thing I liked about this movie is that there were a lot of female roles. Even in the standard scene of someone ending up at a spooky castle, there is no Count, only a Countess (who delivers the unintentional howler “We had gay times... balls...”) and some female servants, one of whom looks like what I suspect Sandra Bullock will look like when she’s like 60 or so:

Would still smash.

Peter Cushing, as Helsing, is his usual dry self, but since he’s a lot younger here than most of the movies I am familiar with him from (such as Star Wars), it’s nice to see him actually doing some physical action. The finale has him jumping off ledges and such, and it’s totally him most of the time. Also, gotta give the movie props for two ideas I haven’t seen before: One, Van Helsing being bitten and cauterizing the wound himself with a hot poker and holy water (more physicality on display from Cushing here), and also using a windmill’s blades to make a giant cross that kills the vampire guy. Sweet!

Like many of the Hammer movies, the film is quite colorful, and the lavish sets are still impressive. It’s nice to know that there was a time when the people who made horror movies actually took the time to make their film look GOOD. This year’s Dead Silence was one of an increasingly rare number of modern horror films that were actually worth watching again simply to marvel at the aesthetics (all the more impressive when you consider Dead Silence was from the same guy who made Saw, a film that one may be tempted to take into the shower with them).

This movie is on a set with seven other Hammer films, though none of the big titles are on it. Anchor Bay has (or at least had) the rights to several others, but as far as I know there is no collection available. Still, 20 bucks for eight films (all of which have widescreen transfers – take THAT, Mill Creek!) is a hell of a deal, especially if the others turn out to be as well done as this.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

October Extras #4 - The Gravedancers

OCTOBER 4, 2007

GENRE: GHOST, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: OCTOBER 2006 (SCREAMFEST)

Pretty much every time I watch an After Dark release, I mention how it doesn’t live up to the promise of The Gravedancers, which was the first of the eight films that I saw, which resulted in higher expectations for the rest (unfortunately for them). Had I seen Dark Ride first, I’d probably be claiming all of the other 7 the greatest horror films of all time.

The thing I loved about Gravedancers was that it was essentially a kid’s horror movie, but aimed at adults. The plot is something out of Goosebumps, but it’s executed in a manner that doesn’t seem cloying or just plain stupid. Not that the film is taken seriously (the ghostly head monster at the end is certainly proof of that), but it’s very rare to see a horror movie starring people over 30 that isn’t the cerebral or psychological type. Plus, it’s nice to see a movie about people being haunted by long dead folks that has nothing to do with them moving into a house (in fact the premise is pretty original for this type of movie – I can’t think of another one about, well, gravedancing).

Mike Mendez and David Armstrong (who also shot the Saw sequels) have created an extremely nice look for the film, creating a very natural look albeit with lots of high contrast and strong primary colors. For a low budget independent film, this is all the more impressive, as usually the most I expect is an image that isn’t blurry or washed out due to poor digitizing. I’m glad I saw this one in theaters; even if it wasn’t designed for an audience to enjoy as a ride, it would still be a shame to never see a lot of these scenes on a genuine film print.

Tcheky Karyo is in the film. This is pretty much all the recommendation anyone should ever need. He plays the occult expert that always seems to be in town when folks begin getting haunted in horror movies, and he’s a riot. There’s a sight gag involving one of his “research materials” that made me laugh out loud even a 2nd time, and his back and forth with the stars is equally enjoyable. In fact all of the actors are good (even Purcell is a bit more engaged than usual), with the exception of Marcus Thomas, who’s a bit awkward, and seems uncomfortable playing a loser (he was hilarious in Drowning Mona though – one of the most underrated movies of all time).

Even if you don’t like horror, you gotta give props to Mike Mendez and his crew for creating true cinematic history:

If you notice, Dominic Purcell’s shirt is buttoned all the way up. Within minutes it is unbuttoned, as it remains for the rest of the film, but for just one brief moment, we are spared the sight of Purcell’s chest even though he is onscreen. It’s a tradition with the guy throughout all his roles, particularly Prison Break and Primeval, where he has a bare minimum of three buttons done at all times, regardless of the weather or social situation.

The DVD is pretty packed, with behind the scenes stuff, some deleteds, and even the original trailer Mendez shot in order to get funding for the film. And for what I think is the first time, there’s a commentary track for EVERYTHING. Not just the film, even the making of and the trailer have an alternate track. The one for the film is great, as Mendez and composer Joe Bishara invent a drinking game called “Lamp” that is bound to leave you dead of cirrhosis if you play it properly.

Like I said in my Abandoned review, it is utterly baffling that Lionsgate and After Dark would give that film a wide release and not this. Not only is it just as impressive on a technical level (which is more than you can say for some of the others), but it’s far more “audience friendly” than Abandoned, and also plays better in theaters than Nacho Cerda’s film does (which works better at home). Hopefully some of you got the chance to see it, either at Screamfest or at the After Dark festival, but if not, I strongly urge you check it out now.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Blancheville Monster

OCTOBER 4, 2007

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE (?), PSYCHOLOGICAL (?)
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK!!!)

The most terrifying part of The Blancheville Monster was a single chord on the soundtrack, struck instantly after hitting play. Before an image even appeared onscreen, theree was a loud DUNNNNNNNNNN! that scared the bejesus out of me. Sadly nothing else in the film was even remotely as exciting.

Similar to The Ghost or The Game, here we have a horror movie in which everything is fake, leading me confused as to what kind of horror movie it even was. I don’t feel like making a new genre for “Girl who walks around a castle and sees the image of her father, who she thought was dead”. Because that’s pretty much all that happens until the final 15 minutes.

That fifteen minutes save the film, as we get someone buried alive, a decent surprise as to the identity of the “killer”, and the truly hilarious sight of a guy trying to evade capture while running through the woods wearing the largest cape I have ever seen. Dude, take the fucking thing off! Then there’s a hilariously abrupt cut to a “6 months later”-y scene that wraps up some subplots we weren’t really interested in to begin with.

The film is strangely shot, as if the cinematographer or director were afraid to have to edit footage together later. Instead, they pan around wildly to get everything we need to see. But when the camera is actually staying on a person or item, it’s not shakicam. They literally pan the camera around while it’s on a tripod or whatever. Very odd. And annoying. “Look! Over there!” someone will say, and a few seconds are wasted while the camera pans over to whatever it is we should already be seeing.

Also, what kind of goddamn name for a monster is Blancheville? That’s the least foreboding name in all of human history. The Smith Monster would be more exciting.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

October Extras #3 - Haunts

OCTOBER 3, 2007

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK!!!)
LAST SEEN: OCTOBER 2006 (DVD)

I remember it like it was about a year ago... I was at Best Buy, buying the best things I could find, when I stumbled upon what seemed like a treasure in DVD form: 50 horror movies for 20 bucks. Seeing such well-known titles as Deep Red, Bad Taste, and Driller Killer in the mix, I assumed all 50 films were of equal merit, just not as well known. So I plunked down my 21.64 (fuck you, tax!) and went home.

Opening the box and reading the capsule descriptions for each film, I was bummed to discover that a lot of the movies sounded pretty terrible. In fact, it took me like a half hour to find one that sparked my interest enough to inaugurate the set: Haunts, which promised a slasher movie with a twist ending.

(Note - a few weeks after I bought the set, I bought a new TV, HDTV/16:9 blah blah. The horrendous video quality (not to mention full frame transfers) meant that I would never again watch a film from the set at home. Haunts remains the only one I didn’t watch at work (not to mention the only one I didn’t watch specifically for Horror Movie A Day).)

Now that’ I’ve worked my way through about 90% of the set, I can safely say that Haunts is definitely one of the more interesting movies, worth far more than the 40 cents or so each one set me back. The description makes it sound more like a slasher film than it is, but that’s OK. The film is a strange, atmospheric psychological drama about a woman slowly going nuts as some pretty terrible childhood memories began to resurface. Few people fully enjoy the film, and it’s amazing how many random (read: wrong) sub-genres the IMDb lists it under (among them, Zombie, Demon, and Supernatural – all in a film without so much as a single non-realistic element).

About a month after I first saw the film, I saw the highly underrated The Return, which was similar in pace and “Not really horror!” tone (and, like Haunts, was marketed as a totally different type of movie). Given my undying love of excess, one might assume that a film as sparse and “slow” as these would be the bane of my existence, but that’s not the case. In fact, I love slow movies just as much as fast ones (my two favorite non horror movies this year certainly support this statement – Shoot Em Up and The Assassination of Jesse James...). There’s something about being slowly drawn into a fairly simple story that appeals to me. In Haunts' case, I’ve already described the entire plot; there’s very little else to the narrative. The occasional murder is more or less a macguffin, the film is really about this poor girl’s sexually repressed lifestyle sadly getting the better of her. It doesn’t exactly get the adrenaline pumping, but it works, at least for me.

I mean come on, this guy is the "killer". Would
anyone really make a slasher film based on him?

And also, Cameron Mitchell plays the uncle, which puts him in the cast of a record 10% of the Chilling Classics set. I don’t know if that’s something to be proud of or not, but there it is. As always, he’s pretty bad, but that’s our Cameron! And for some reason he plays the final 10 minutes of the film with his hair drenched in white paint (or perhaps milk).

See?

The transfer on this film is among the poorest on the set, with some sort of odd “Auto-contrast” option being used that turns almost every intentionally dark shot into an ugly, washed out and murky gray. Far as I know, it’s not available by itself on DVD, but I understand the VHS (!!) is actually of better quality.

And how’s this for a weird coincidence – both this movie and yesterday’s "October Extra" were scored by Pino Donaggio (this one’s almost as good too, if a bit too 70s). Note I said ‘weird’, not ‘interesting’.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Gothic

OCTOBER 3, 2007

GENRE: HORROR?, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK!!!)

There is nothing that pisses me off more than when someone waits until the cashier gives a customer their total to take out their wallet (this is even more offensive when it’s a place like target, where you slide the credit card yourself and can do so while the cashier is still scanning your stuff). But running a close 2nd is when I read a plot description that is fascinating, and then the movie turns out to be borderline incoherent, like Ken Russell’s Gothic.

According to Mill Creek’s write up, the film is allegedly about the insane night that Mary Shelley got the idea for Frankenstein. She was partying with Lord Byron and some other folks, everyone got high, things got out of hand, etc. That could make for a great movie, wouldn’t you say? Doesn’t say much about Mary Shelley (“She was a drug fiend who hung out with deviants, and viola: one of the greatest stories in all literature”), but still.

Well the actual movie is simply Gabriel Byrne, inexplicably made to look like the brunette guy from Air Supply, and his friends literally laughing and running around like assholes in a mansion, set to a wildly inappropriate score (a game of hide and seek – and mind you, these are grown men and women – is set to music that might accompany the “We won!” music in a Disney movie about a ragtag sports team who comes back and beats their rivals in the championship). Meanwhile, Julian Sands (between this and Phantom of the Opera, I think I’m gonna ban this guy from my Netflix queue) and another guy spend most of the film spinning around and spouting off “insane” dialogue that seems made up on the spot. And the Mary Shelley character seems more or less an afterthought.

The film doesn’t really have a narrative that I can discern, but is more just a series of “shocking” events and “scenettes”, such as this pointless encounter. Gabriel Byrne looks at the floor and sees this:

Then the camera cuts to this:

Then he pokes it and it turns back into the pig head. Fine, movie.

I won’t call the movie crap, because there’s something undeniably appealing about it. In fact, if I was in the mood, I’d probably spend the entire movie laughing, especially during the last half hour, which features a guy saying “Pot pig... pot penis.... pot belly...” and a woman with eyes where her nipples should be:

I bet that creepy thing from Pan’s Labyrinth would love to hit that.

Also, the production value and Russell’s direction are inspired; you can watch any one scene out of context and be left intrigued. But it adds up to nothing, and you’ll find yourself saying “Where the hell did THAT come from?” with every other scene. I’ve seen better narrative flow while flipping channels at two in the morning. Way to mostly waste a potentially interesting concept (as a horror film or not)!

For no real reason I should point out that this movie is one of the very few on the Chilling Classics set that retains the film’s end credits sequence, giving it an air of legitimacy among the others. Had I taken notice of the dialogue editing, it’s nice to know that I could give credit to Peter Pennell for it without having to do any research.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

October Extras #2 - Tourist Trap

OCTOBER 2, 2007

GENRE: BREAKDOWN, SLASHER, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: AUGUST 2005 OR SO (DVD)

God I love this movie.

From the opening circus-y music by Pino Donaggio, to the fact that it’s a breakdown movie that begins after the car has already broken down (!!!), to the opening murder (which is explained to death on the DVD’s surprising wealth of extras), you know that Tourist Trap is far from something you’re used to for a slasher movie (which it only really qualifies as in loose terms) before the 10 minute mark. And it keeps getting better.

Several times on this site I have pointed out that the House of Wax remake from 2005 was really more of a remake of this film. And it’s not really a joke: both films feature a car full of teens that breaks down in the middle of nowhere, both have “two” killers of a sort, both involve an abandoned town, and both utilize wax (well, plaster in Tourist, but used the same way) and mannequins. Also they’re both pretty awesome, though Tourist adds more than just a touch of weirdness, putting it a few notches above Paris Hilton’s film.

There’s a scene about 1/2 of the way through the film that ranks as one of the creepiest and yet hilarious scenes in slasher history. Tanya Roberts finds herself in a room full of mannequins, and then, one by one, the mannequins let out a choir note (“La!”) and fall onto her. Eventually there’s like 10 mannequins on top of her. It’s one of my favorite setpieces in any horror film ever, and now, anytime I pass a mannequin at the mall or whatever, I usually let out a “La!” before throwing one on top of Tanya Roberts.

I hope this is how I check out.

If you haven’t seen the film (for shame!), you can probably ascertain from my examples that it’s a bit off-kilter. Chuck Connors’ character is a hoot, going from sad and melancholy one moment to needlessly angry the next. And the film does a pretty good job of covering its twist. Also, the killer “speaks” in a manner not entirely dissimilar from Billy’s in the original Black Christmas at times; other times he simply sounds like the “Fitter, Happier” guy speaking through a tracheotomy box. And man, the score in this thing is so damn good, I nearly paid 40 dollars for a vinyl copy of the soundtrack (I don’t even have a turntable to play it on). I’d also love to dress as the killer for Halloween, but since the movie is relatively obscure (for some goddamn reason) I’d probably spend all night explaining that I wasn’t dressed as the gender-bending Leatherface from TCM 4:

You can probably see the similarities.

The commentary track is definitely worth a listen. He repeats some stuff, but among one of the many great tidbits to learn is that while they were shooting in LA, John Carpenter was on the other side of the mountain shooting parts of Halloween. Making it all the more impressive – it’s a damn good slasher film that WASN’T spawned off of the success of Carpenter’s film.

Also, I should note that this is one of maybe 5 movies with Charles Band’s involvement that I would actually recommend to a person of taste.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Tenebrae (1982)

OCTOBER 2, 2007

GENRE: GIALLO, ITALIAN
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

I think I’m about halfway through the Dario Argento filmography now, thanks to Tenebrae (aka Unsane). Also, I’ll use this space to point out I will be adding more tags so folks can find a collection of reviews more easily. I have added Chilling Classics, and now that I have about a half dozen, I’ll be adding “Argento” as well. Hurrah!

This one’s sort of similar to Deep Red, except the main guy is a novelist instead of a musician. And it’s a lot more coherent. In fact, this may be the most logical and accessible of Argento’s films (at least of the ones I’ve seen). The murders aren’t overly graphic (the victims even seem to have skeletons for once), there aren’t too many “Huh?” moments, and there’s even a relative lack of nightmare scenes (the few that we do see are actually flashbacks of a sort). Granted, there are a few things that require the characters to do things for no reason (like when the main character puts his bag down at the airport and walks away), but that’s nothing compared to the utterly baffling nature of something like Phenomena (aka Creepers). The strangest moment in the film is probably when John Saxon, apropos of nothing, demonstrates how stable his hat is by sort of headbanging. There’s also a delightful scene where Saxon laughs at some guys fighting in the background (something that occurs a few times in the film – there’s almost as much background violence as there is murder scenes). Good to know ol’ Chief Thompson enjoys other folk’s misery.

I watched the English dub, which was quite good (I’m pretty sure most of the actors were speaking English). The only time the Americanization is ever evident is in the first scene, where the killer is reading a book that is written in Italian, yet magically translates to English for close-ups. Also, in this scene, Argento demonstrates that when he speaks English, he sounds like David Warner (though maybe this isn’t Argento’s voice, he says it is but maybe he means the Italian dub version).

As always, the music by Goblin (not actually called Goblin here for some legal reason I can’t recall) is fantastic. Hilariously, the characters seem to like it too, as one of them is actually listening to the score on her record player at one point. Another character even yells “Turn it down!” OK, so maybe the movie is a little weird.

The commentary is pretty great, despite the usual gaps I’ve come to expect on an Argento track (since it’s always been like 15 years since he last watched the movie). “She was kind of a whore, right?” someone comments about a particular actress, “A bitch?” And they all get confused at the pop song placed over the credits, which none of them are familiar with, leading to the otherwise unheard of extra feature “Alternate End Credits” which features the song they got so miffed at (as the DVD producers went back and put the right song in for the feature after Argento complained). DVD is not anamorphic, but otherwise it’s a nice little package. But apparently, out of print, hence the lack of an Amazon link. Figures. A rare movie I not only recommend to fans but non-fans as well, and I can't help you buy it. Yet, goddamn Fright Club is easily located for sale! Fuck you, whoever invented moratoriums.
UPDATE: Anchor Bay has re-released the film. Woo!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

October Extras #1 - The Evil Dead

OCTOBER 1, 2007

GENRE: INDEPENDENT, POSSESSION, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: HALLOWEEN 2004 (DVD)

It’s amazing how revered Sam Raimi is in the horror community when you consider that he’s really only made one true horror movie: The Evil Dead. The first sequel was half comedy, the 3rd film wasn’t horror at all, and all of his other films fall more into the action/fantasy realm. The closest he’s ever gotten to a straight up horror movie (in a directing role anyway – let’s ignore his Ghost House productions) in the past 25 years is The Gift, and even that was more of a mystery anyway. Still, it contained the most terrifying image in horror history: I knew the film had a nude Katie Holmes (back when it meant something), so when they pulled her nude, rotted corpse out of the lake, I was terrified. “That was it?!?!” I yelled. Luckily, a true frontal shot came along near the end of the film. Anyway, back on subject, while he may never make another legit horror movie again, the goodwill he earned from this one has yet to expire.

The DVD of The Evil Dead (any of the 7,000 or so that Anchor Bay has released will do) should be given to budding filmmakers in their first year at film school, if they didn’t have it already. From the very first frame, Raimi and his crew’s inspired (and infectious) delivery of their otherwise simple little tale is 100% evident; you never feel like they were going through the motions or anything like that. When I saw the film for the first time as a 14 year old (I watched the entire franchise backwards, which is cool because I got to see it get “better” instead of worse, since I think Army of Darkness is not only the weakest in the series but possibly Raimi’s weakest ever), I was borderline aroused by how cool it was, despite not having any of the perks I was accustomed to from a horror film (this was in the early/mid 90s, when most “Horror” movies I was seeing were things like Bram Stoker’s Dracula and the Village of the Damned remake – big budget, glossy studio pictures).

I should note that I chose this film to kick off my "October Extras” at Horror Movie A Day because it was recommended in one of the comments by someone who couldn’t think of the title. All they remembered was “kids in the woods with a tape recorder”, which was all I needed to identify the film. Because, like Halloween (which, it shouldn’t surprise anyone, will be the “closing night” film for October), it’s a film that exceeds in taking an almost non-existent story and getting as much as possible out of it. Raimi and Carpenter got what so many other horror directors didn’t (and still don’t) – it’s almost impossible to be scared if your brain is too busy trying to work the plot out. Keep it simple, and you keep it scary.

Is it a perfect film? Heavens no. Bruce Campbell is barely competent at times; there are continuity errors and the like, etc. But it doesn’t matter in the slightest. This is a film for people who genuinely love film and more importantly, filmmaking. It’s obvious right from the start that they had no money and little crew (and even the actors sometimes disappear out of scenes), which makes the effects and camerawork all the more impressive once all hell breaks loose. If you’ve ever had even the slightest interest in “how to make movie magic”, then you can’t tell me that you watched the film and didn’t wonder how they did the tree rape scene (and if you’re a would-be Raimi, wonder if you could pull it off yourself).

Also, the film is just fucking FUN. Although Bruce is the recognized hero of the film, Scotty is a hoot as well (I still laugh out loud when he yells at the hitchhikers early on: “Aw go to hell I’m not honking at you!”). And the girls are pretty cute. Basically, none of them are annoying fodder that you want to die. While it barely ever slows down, it does inject some decent characterization. I might tear apart something like The Roost for some of the same things Evil Dead is guilty of (continuity errors, mismatched editing), but the difference is, Raimi and his buddies didn’t stop the film cold over and over to pad the film into feature length territory (even more impressive when Dead started off as a short film). I assume both films had roughly the same amount of money (with inflation), so a miserly budget can’t be used effectively as an excuse for a boring film.

There’s a book that covers the franchise, though the first one gets the most attention. Along with the commentaries, and perhaps Bruce Campbell’s autobiography, there’s a wealth of information and anecdotes about the shoot that are every bit as entertaining as the film itself. The limitations the crew faced, and Raimi’s borderline insane dedication to seeing the project through, are the stuff of legend. It’s an ironic shame that Raimi’s most recent film, Spider-Man 3, had literally a blank check for a budget (reported to be the most expensive film ever made) and yet wasn’t half as fun or exciting as this, possibly one the most literally “independent” movies ever made.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Hands Of A Stranger

OCTOBER 1, 2007

GENRE: HERO KILLER
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK!!!)

The thing about movies like Hands Of A Stranger is that they are all more or less the same. Guy gets new body part, at first he’s all excited, then things get weird, and sooner or later he’s killing folks. Part of why I like Body Parts is that it actually had the original owner come back for his appendages (though this was introduced so late into the film it felt very awkward).

This one also takes quite a bit of time to get going. The sympathetic people take far too long discussing whether or not the guy should be given new hands. Since there would be no movie if he didn’t, it’s sort of a waste of everyone’s time to spend like 10 minutes debating the matter. Hilariously, the sister of the eventual killer even points out that she fears the hands will be those of a psychopath and thus her brother will turn into one as well. I guess she’s seen some of the other movies (though I should point out this one pre-dates all the others I know of, such as Oliver Stone’s The Hand).

But there’s some good stuff here and there. One of the first victims basically dies of her own clumsiness, knocking over a lamp and causing a fire. And then, as she becomes engulfed in flame, her body immediately turns into a lump of ash and collapses in a heap on the floor. It’s hilarious.

Also, there’s a child murder, always a plus. And the kid is so goddamn annoying, you gotta figure the guy would have killed him regardless of whose hands he had. The guy tries to play piano, and does miserably, leading the kid to say “Wow mister, you sure do stink!” or something. Fuck you, you little brat!

The film’s ending is also worth a chuckle. After the jerk killer is killed, the cop and the doctor who performed the surgery look into camera for a full minute or so, barely emoting at all as they say their “What a shame” style offerings. We are then told, for whatever reason, in full screen letters: “What is past is prologue!” ....True?

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...