Beware The Moon (2009)

SEPTEMBER 14, 2009

GENRE: DOCUMENTARY, WEREWOLF
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PROJECTED BLU-RAY)

If it were up to me, every film ever made would have a full length documentary chronicling its production and/or its legacy. Nowadays, we have EPK crews following a production every step of the way, allowing for some great fly on the wall type pieces such as what became Lost In La Mancha. But for older movies like American Werewolf In London, footage shot during production is comparatively scarce. Luckily, we have guys like Paul Davis to bust his ass and put together great retrospective documentaries like Beware The Moon to satisfy our movie-doc fix.

You don’t even have to love the source material to appreciate the dedication and execution of this film. In a world where you have a “special edition” of Fletch in which Chevy Chase doesn’t even appear in the extra features, it’s remarkable how many cast/crew Davis was able to assemble here. From the big players (John Landis, Rick Baker, David Naughton, Griffin Dunne, etc) to the minor ones (the corpses in the theater, various production crew), it seems just about everyone you can hope for that is still alive appears in the doc. The only curious exception is Frank Oz, who not only doesn’t appear, but isn’t even mentioned to the best of my recollection. Granted his role in the film is small (but important, since his character’s name is Collins!), but given his relationship with Landis, I was a bit surprised by his absence. Still, when the only notable exception is a guy who appeared in the film for about 60 total seconds, you know you’re dealing with a labor of love and, more importantly, a film that the cast and crew are still willing to talk about nearly 30 years later.

Like most docs of its type, the film deftly takes us through the film’s conception, pre-production, filming, editing process, and aftermath. But in a rather unique fashion, Davis literally walks us through the entire film from start to finish. His host segments are shot in the same locations as our characters, and he manages to stick to the usual template in relation to the film as it plays out in sequence (the runtimes are even pretty close to identical). So as David and Jack arrive at The Slaughtered Lamb, we hear Landis and co. discuss their arrival in London to begin filming. Given its legacy, it would be easy to make an entire film about Rick Baker’s transformation scene, or at least get to it ASAP, but it’s not until roughly halfway through the doc that the effects work discussion takes center stage, just like it is halfway through London itself that the scene occurs.

One minor quibble about this setup - the doc gets a bit clip heavy at times. Maybe it’s because we watched AWIL right before it (and I mean RIGHT before it, the Bev didn’t give us our usual 10 minute break in between the films for some reason), but I started getting a bit restless watching the scenes again. Obviously the clips are important to give context and such, but having just watched them, I wanted to get back to stuff I HADN’T seen yet. The doc is packaged with the new release (buy it HERE); I would suggest perhaps giving yourself a day in between viewings. Or, if you’ve seen the movie a million times anyway, skipping right to the doc to learn something new, which you almost certainly will.

Having never gone through the special edition’s extras or read anything more than a brief Fangoria article on the subject, I loved watching one of these things and hearing “new to me” stuff nearly nonstop. While the Halloween and Friday docs obviously had a few nuggets of new info, for the most part I felt like I was listening to things I already knew (Haddonfield is really Pasadena! Harry Manfredini literally phoned in half of his scores!), but that was not the case here. I never knew Baker was originally involved with Howling and left for London out of loyalty for Landis, or that Griffin Dunne was actually controlling his own puppet’s mouth during the theater scene, or a few dozen other tidbits that horror nerds like me love to hear. And Landis’ recollection of John Belushi’s reaction to a particular negative review is worth the price of admission alone.

As the film is a celebration of the original classic, the shit-tastic sequel American Werewolf In Paris is completely ignored (how I would love to hear the ever-candid Landis talk about it though...), which is fine, but I was hoping for a little more about the film’s on-going legacy. Maybe I’ve been spoiled by the Jason doc (and footage from the upcoming Psycho Legacy), but I would have enjoyed hearing from a few filmmakers (past or present) discussing how the film influenced them, even if briefly. Its impact is mostly limited to Landis pointing out that the reviews weren’t great but it has become well-regarded over time, which seems to be shortchanging it a bit. It even has its own (at least one) tribute song by Wednesday 13 (quite a good one I might add)!

But the only real drawback is that the film isn’t available on its own. Not only is it worthy of its own release, but I would love to hear about ITS production in turn (i.e. the process of finding/interviewing dozens of people, finding the shooting locations, etc). It’s an incredibly professional and well-constructed film, so I hope owners of the previous release find it in their hearts and wallets to understand that this is worth the upgrade (on standard def I mean; if you are a Blu-Ray owner, there’s no question that this is a justified double-dip).

And to Mr. Davis, if you’re reading this... now that you’re in good with Universal, I am curious: what are your thoughts on Shocker?

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (1968)

SEPTEMBER 13, 2009

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

While I am usually a strong advocate of watching franchises in order, I make an exception for the (loose) Dracula series from Hammer. I've seen so many goddamn Dracula films, I figure the best chance of any of them have at this point is to be watched on its own, without knowing what came before it whether I saw it or not, so I can have as much of a blank slate as possible. Indeed, after watching Dracula Has Risen From The Grave, I discovered that it was the 4th (of 9, according to the IMDb anyway) in the series, of which I have seen the first (Horror of Dracula) and second (The Brides of Dracula), but not in order.

Anyway, it's not a bad film, but it takes a while to get going. Drac (Christopher Lee) only appears for about 2 total minutes in the film's first 50 or so. Hell, the opening scene is set in broad daylight, which is just saying "Don't expect Dracula anytime soon!" And our new cast of folks aren't particularly interesting; it's pretty obvious to spot who is standing in for who here (they barely even try to change the names in some cases; the Mina counterpart is named Zena). Newcomer Veronica Carlson plays Lucy, er, Maria, and the Jonathan Harker wannabe is some dude named Paul.

But the real disappointment is the Van Helsing fill-in, a monsignor played by Rupert Davies. He's not a bad character in his own right, but he's a lousy sub for Dracula's greatest nemesis. Hell, the guy barely even interacts with Lee, and he is injured badly within seconds of their big "fight" scene and spends the rest of his scenes in a bed. The cool thing about Dracula movies is that there's always an equally badass guy fighting him (usually Van Helsing or one of his descendents) but this movie offers no equally compelling foil. Also, the film sets up a conflict between Paul and the Monsignor (Paul is an atheist), which would have been interesting if they actually teamed up (and thus had to put aside their differences), but it just boils down to the Monsignor essentially telling him to reconsider his faith.

Another interesting element that they don't really do much with is the fact that Drac's "Renfield" of sorts is a priest who is under his control. There's one scene where he needs to help Drac by removing a cross from his intended victim's neck, but he is unable to do it because of the good that is still inside him. The film could have used more stuff like this, instead of half-hearted attempts at a love triangle between Paul, Maria, and Zena.

The plot, to its credit, does add something kind of new to the mix. A large cross has been placed in front of the entrance to Drac's castle, so he can't go inside until it has been removed. But instead of doing something cunning to go about accomplishing this (which would be fine), it ends up being yet another Dracula story where a girl falls under his spell and spends most of her scenes in bed with conveniently large windows nearby. And would you believe a staking scene goes awry? You bet it does!

As the film began, I wondered aloud if it would be directed by Terence Fisher or Freddie Francis (it's the latter), and by the time it ended I wondered if Fisher may have been a better choice (according to the IMDb, he WAS the original director, but had to bow out following a car accident). When the story finally picks up, Fisher's strange reliance on colored filters distracts from the narrative. It would be fine if he just colored the scenes orange or red or whatever, but instead he just colors the SIDES of the frame that way. When the camera isn't moving it's not as bad, but it looks really stupid when the camera pans to follow a character and the red/orange space (with normal color in the middle of the frame) tracks along with them. I actually thought the film was damaged at first.

So I dunno, it's watchable and all, but there's so many ways it could have been better, and even back then, there were simply too many Dracula films for this one to really stick out. The "cross in front of the castle" plot is fine, but it's often lost in what is essentially a remake of the original story, albeit with far less interesting characters. Though I guess it was the first film to ever be rated by the MPAA, so there's something.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Haxan: Witchcraft Through The Ages (1922/1968)

SEPTEMBER 12, 2009

GENRE: DOCUMENTARY (?), RELIGIOUS
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

Undoubtedly the most unique HMAD entry, Haxan: Witchcraft Through The Ages is only a horror movie in the general sense (and in the sense that IMDb lists it as one, though it was also recommended by HMAD reader Garv), due to the subject matter (Witchcraft, Satan, Germany) and batshit presentation. You’d think with all the Grindhouse movies I’ve seen there over the years that I would have seen a baby being eaten before or several monsters climbing out of a woman’s vagina, but Haxan I believe was the first (it’s certainly the only one to offer both).

It also must hold the record for the most iris close/open “wipes” in film history. Sometimes you get three or four in under 20 seconds, as director Benjamin Christensen uses them in at the top and bottom of each shot of a particular sequence (there are a lot of montages that present examples of witchcraft via photos displayed in succession). This 1968 version is actually a bit reworked from its original 1922 incarnation, so I don’t know why he never reconsidered removing some of these in the 40+ years he had to give it some thought.

Other than that it’s a wonderfully strange and engaging film. I’ve already mentioned the baby-eating, but there are quite a number of on-screen elements that threw me for a loop, given the film’s age. You hear about how Hitchcock nearly got in trouble for showing a toilet in 1960, so you just sort of assume that everything before that was even tamer. But this movie offers up visuals that might get MPAAed into smithereens even today (the Devil suggestively churning better got many an uncomfortable laugh), not to mention some that are just plain... icky (fat guy, fat woman, love potion that works a bit too good.. you do the math). It also poses whether or not “possessed” or Devil-controlled people are simply suffering from mental afflictions, which is an area I wish to see more of in films (horror or documentary - both are fine by me).

I also dug the occasional stop-motion animation. This is obviously long before Harryhausen (but after Méliès), and it’s great to see such skill when cinema was still relatively new. It also blends fairly well with the live action stuff (all limitations considering, i.e. they didn’t have After Effects), which also impressed me greatly. The costumes/makeup effects are also quite impressive. Christensen himself plays the devil, and it actually looks better than half of the modern movies’ versions I’ve seen, as do the various demons and imps that are dancing about in every other scene.

Afterward I discovered that the film had a different version that ran nearly 30 minutes longer. But no footage was deleted; instead it merely had more title cards and a slower speed. The version I saw had new narration by William Burroughs, which is what replaced a lot of those time-consuming title cards. I’m all for that, but it also had a new jazz score that I hated. I’m not a big fan of jazz to begin with (there are far too few songs about Bats out of Hell and people experiencing Paradise in the vicinity of Dashboard Lights in the jazz genre for me to give it much adulation), but the score just didn’t fit at all. Ignoring the obvious anachronistic problems (don’t recall reading about jazz musicians grooving about during the middle ages), it just never quite fits the images on the screen. Thanks to Internet Archive, I was able to watch the original cut (with all the titles intact) that has the original score, which is obviously far superior. Unless you’re a big jazz (or Burroughs) fan, I think it’s worth the extra 27 minutes or so it takes to watch the original version. Ideally, the narration would be blended with the original score for the best of both worlds, but alas.

Regardless of which version you see, you’ll be a better horror fan for it. It’s nearly a hundred years old at this point, and yet it contains effects that still hold up, themes that are still explored today, and is undoubtedly the vision of one guy (as opposed to various producers and executives adding their own two cents to the narrative to justify their job, regardless of whether it even makes sense - which is pretty much all we get today). Plus, again - BABY EATING.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Drifter: Henry Lee Lucas (2009)

SEPTEMBER 11, 2009

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

With his 3rd serial killer movie (at least) in the past few months, I am starting to suspect that Michael Feifer is trying to win a bet with fellow serial killer churner Ulli Lommel to see who can make the most in a single year. But at least Feifer’s are watchable, so he’s got the edge there. Drifter: Henry Lee Lucas is, much like Bundy, a surprisingly decent movie, though it suffers from many of the same issues that that film (and BTK) did.

For starters, Feifer seemingly has a strong opposition to what some folks might call a timeline. His films always start at the end of the killer’s spree and thus the whole film is presented in flashbacks. But the length of time between scenes is always annoyingly unclear, and in some cases, I can’t even tell if we are back in the current time or if he is simply recounting another time that he was in jail (Lucas, like most serial killers, was imprisoned and let go or escaped at least once or twice before his final incarceration). In Lucas’ case, it KIND OF works, because Lucas lied about a great number of his kills and thus establishing a firm date for something that might not have happened wouldn’t make much sense. Still, it’s frustrating to never get a sense of context in terms of the characters. We see Becky and Henry arguing - have they been together for years or for months?

He also tends to gloss over the more interesting elements of the real case. Henry would confess to crimes he did not commit in order to get special treatment (some reports claim he would be given the security codes for certain offices in the police station where he was held), but this aspect is limited to him being taken out to buy cigarettes. They also don’t spend enough time on his insane upbringing, limiting it to a few flashbacks (within flashbacks!). But we get a full 3 minutes of him and Ottis Toole (“Plug it in!”) driving around and acting up on the freeway.

But otherwise it largely works. Antonio Sabato Jr is surprisingly strong as Lucas (though it’s a bit distracting how much he looks like Mark Ruffalo and sounds like Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain). My only familiarity with him stems from half-remembered episodes of Melrose Place circa 1995, so I don’t have too much of a sense of his range, but regardless - he’s quite good here. This is the first “real” Henry movie I’ve seen (Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer was very loosely based on the case and skipped Henry’s upbringing (and glass eye) entirely), and I suspect his take on the role will be the one to be judged against in the future. The other acting varies (grats to Feifer for managing to find an actress even MORE awful than the ones that played BTK’s family in that film), but Sabato Jr’s performance makes up for it.

It’s also largely accurate, compared to what (admittedly little) I know about Lucas. Where BTK seemed to be largely made up, this is more like Bundy - sticking to the facts. But also like Bundy, it perhaps works with too large a canvas, instead of focusing on one time in his life and making it really compelling, it sort of takes a fly on the wall approach to every major event from his documented life, rarely spending more than 2-3 minutes on an event. It’s like the "Cliff’s Notes" of Lucas’ life, which is fine if you don’t know anything about him, but those who have read a book or seen a CourtTV piece about the guy will likely get bored due to the lack of any real depth.

As always, Feifer provides an audio commentary, where he is joined by Sabato Jr. If you’ve ever listened to one of his other tracks, you know what you’re in for: he points out friends and relatives in (thankfully) small roles, plugs his other films every chance he gets, and points out shooting locations that he likes to use over and over, such as the one small stretch of desert road where Lucas has at least three different kill scenes. But it’s also sprinkled with anecdotes and discussions about filming a Texas-set period piece in modern day LA, so it’s worth a listen. A still gallery is also included, for people who can’t just hit pause when they see a frame from the movie that they particularly like.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Skeleton Crew (2009)

SEPTEMBER 10, 2009

GENRE: POSSESSION (?), SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (SCREENER)

When I interviewed Wes Bentley for P2, we talked a bit how important it was to make his character sympathetic in the first few minutes, for the people who might turn the film on someday without knowing anything about it (as opposed to people in the theaters, who knew damn well his character was the bad guy). Those folks are probably the target audience for Skeleton Crew, which spends so long trying to trick us that by the time they get around to it, I've already invested more interest in THAT story than the real one.

See, having the DVD in front of me, I knew this movie was about the film crew of a horror movie getting killed in their location (a creepy abandoned hospital). But it takes a full 22 minutes to get to that point (up until then, we are watching the movie they are making), which is far too long. Because then we have to re-introduce our characters, set up the real plot, etc. By the time the actual killing begins, I had already lost most of my interest.

It doesn't help that the fake film is less cliche than the real one. The film they are making seems to be a Finnish remake of Autopsy (sweet!), but the film Skeleton Crew is, at its heart, yet another meta-horror movie in the vein of The Back Lot Murders, Cut, Scream 3, Urban Legend 2 (which itself began with the movie-in-the-movie, but they were wise enough to pull back the curtain within 5 minutes), and probably a half dozen others I've forgotten. Worse, it's rife with tired Scream humor, with characters talking about the rules and saying things like "Why should you be worried, you're the obvious heroine!" or whatever. The least they could do is actually invert these rules, and kill "the obvious heroine" in the next 5 seconds, but no. There's some novelty in hearing NEWER films getting referenced (Saw and Hostel are brought up), but not enough to change the fact that this particular brand of humor has long since grown stale.

Also there is precious little suspense to the proceedings. We know who our killer is, which deflates about half the fun of a non-sequel slasher right from the start. But the kills are presented so matter of factly that you might actually miss them, and he never bothers to stalk anyone or whatever, which makes them even more dull. Near the end he starts getting creative (love the one where he puts a camera on a sloped dolly track, letting the camera (which has a large knife sticking out under the lens) roll down and into a guy), but it's too little too late.

Plus, I never got if the guy was actually possessed by the place (or the zombie-ish ghosts that pop up in a single shot), or if he just went crazy. Either way it's sort of a Shining riff, so it's just another "seen it before" deal. There is definitely some supernatural shenanigans going on though - at one point our remaining characters find a Moviola with the film Skeleton Crew playing on it. They even fast forward and find the scene that they are actually in (you know, like in Spaceballs - "When will THEN be NOW?"). But this is not used for any meaningful effect, and the finale comes down to a standard (and brief) chase, sans any sort of supernatural-based elements.

And I HATED the ending. I'm all for downer endings, but only when they are earned. This one is simply nihilistic - our heroine shoots herself in the head rather than get killed by the guy, but she survives and he blowtorches her to death. The rest of the movie is sort of light, so I'm not sure what possessed (heh) them to end it on such a grim tone.

Any highlights? Well, the few previously mentioned creative kills are nice, there's a 10 second lesbian scene that comes out of nowhere (presumably placed in the film to jog folks like me back to full attention), the location is suitably creepy, and the HD looks better than usual. Plus, it takes a full hour and six minutes before someone makes the obligatory "This is like a bad horror movie!" joke; possibly the only instance in the film where something that took too long to get to was a good thing. And Bruce Campbell fans should get a kick out of the blowhard actor named Bruce who is constantly name-dropping the bigger names he has worked with as he slums in this low-budget production. But all of these little moments are simply not enough to change the fact that this is a generic, horrendously structured, and largely uninvolving slasher. And it's a pity, because I like the Finnish.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dead Wood (2007)

SEPTEMBER 9, 2009

GENRE: SLASHER, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (SCREENER)

When someone actually re-invents the wheel, I hope they start from scratch and come up with their own thing. If Dead Wood directors (and writers/producers/editors/DPs) David Bryant, Sebastian Smith, and Richard Stiles were to do it (seriously guys - learn to assign roles), they’d make a standard wheel for the first 75% of their manufacturing time, and then start doing the re-invention. And it might work, but by the time you got to their changes, you’d already be thinking it was the same old wheel, and.... OK, I’m losing the metaphor here. Let’s just stick to straight explanation.

The problem with Dead Wood is that it spends so much time lulling you into thinking that you’re watching the umpteenth “Kids go into the woods and get killed” movie, that you’ve long since gotten bored with it by the time it starts mixing things up. The actual plot is actually kind of cool, with a great creepy way of killing people (that we really only see once, but I guess it makes it all the more memorable) - just a shame that these elements don’t come into play until the movie is almost over. We’re over 40 minutes in before something bad even happens, and then it’s another 20-25 minutes before the killer’s MOD is revealed. By then, there’s only 15 minutes left of the movie including credits (and a dumb “final scare” epilogue that negates the effective finale). I mean, I guess it’s better than a movie that blows its creative wad in the first 10 minutes, but it’s still a silly way to implement a good idea.

Another problem is the atrocious quality of the “HD” video that was used. You know when you use the zoom function on a DVD and the image starts getting all smeared? That’s what this movie looks like at its native resolution. Not sure why - usually my problems with HD are just a lack of detail and pitiful contrast ratios, but this just looks like ass on every level. The audio isn’t much better; it seems like it’s all ADR (and not very good ADR at that - there’s a shot where a guy is clearly saying stuff but we don’t hear his character).

Now, despite all this, I can still give the movie a pass. For starters, as limited as it may be, in the end it’s NOT yet another slasher, so there’s something. And the kids are natural-looking and believable, instead of vapid CW wannabes. Plus, not only did I not identify the Final Girl, there’s a moment with her character that legit made me jump (and then laugh, because I’m an asshole. If you’ve seen the movie you probably know what I’m talking about). I also enjoyed the unusual soundtrack, which is primarily female singer-songwriter stuff. It may not be perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction, which is always preferable to taking a step back (The Evil Woods), or simply treading water (Rob Zombie).

As the DVD is a screener, it has none of the extra features that the release copy has, including a commentary with the trio and a bunch of deleted scenes/outtakes, plus special effects comparisons. For once, I would actually be interested in those things for my own benefit (as opposed to making sure I have a complete review), as there are some clumsy character introductions (or removals) that may be explained via deleted scenes, and I always enjoy listening to a commentary for a film that suffers from technical woes.

So this is as good as a time as any to reveal my plans for this year’s “October Extras” series, which will be entirely reader oriented. As always, I’ll be watching movies I’ve already seen - but this time, I am limiting it to movies I’ve already REVIEWED. Think I was too harsh on something, or not harsh enough on something else? Or in cases like this, should I be watching the extras on the DVD to give me a new perspective on the film? Let me know! I am only going to do movies that readers suggest (so, unless I get 31 or more suggestions, it won’t be a daily column), so it’s up to you. If it proves to be successful/interesting, I might make it a regular bonus “column” on the site, like once or twice a month. I’ll post this information as a regular post when we get closer to October, but start thinking about titles now! I know Wind Chill is one I want to revisit for sure (which has already been suggested by readers), are there any others? And for fans of Dead Wood - are the extras going to help change my mind on the film or forgive its blemishes (i.e. “it’s blurry because the lab fucked up and it couldn’t be restored”) or is it just the directors rambling about how much they loved everyone? Or do they at least explain how THREE fucking guys work as the DP on a film?

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Silent Venom (2009)

SEPTEMBER 8, 2009

GENRE: MONSTER, PREDATOR
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Tom Berenger... man, what happened to you? This man has worked with Robert Altman, Oliver Stone, Ridley Scott... why the hell is he appearing 3rd billed in shitty Sci-Fi original movies* like Silent Venom? It's not like he ever pulled a Tom Sizemore and started getting arrested for drugs or beating women every other week. Sizemore earned his current fate, but I don't think Berenger has.

But even Sizemore deserves better than Silent Venom. It's the worst kind of bad movie - the BORING bad movie. Other recent amphibian monster type movies at least had the good sense to keep the deaths rolling along - this one only manages to knock off I think five guys in the whole movie, leaving as many survivors at the end. No one cares if Luke Perry's buddy or the ambitious new captain guy survive, so why do they? All we want is to see it come down to the hero (Perry) and the girl (Krista Allen) doing something together to kill the final snake, and then making out for good measure. But no, Allen hardly does anything at all, and spends her final scene in a hospital, blatantly hitting on an oblivious Perry, who goes off to Hawaii without her. Thanks for bringing down the lonely romantics who enjoy these goddamn movies.

And I had expected more from this one, because it was directed by Fred Olen Ray, B Movie king and director of classics like Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers and Beverly Hills Vamp (plus he wrote and produced the legendary "shit-pickle" Jack-O). I figured at the very least, the movie would have some of his personality and over-the-top setpieces, but it's as by the numbers as they come. Half the deaths involve a normal sized snake biting a guy who stumbles away and dies a few hours later. Ooh, exciting.

The setting never pays off either. As the snakes start off normal size and eventually mutate, there could have been some real excitement with either version. The small ones can pop out of nowhere and attack, the large ones can block hallways and such, limiting an already claustrophobic setting. But no, all of the snake scenes have as much suspense as Rob Zombie's version of Michael Myers - they just appear without any buildup, do their thing, and move on.

Worse, half the "suspense" stems from an enemy sub nearby that may attempt to fire on our guys. This would be fine if we actually SAW the other sub or even knew who they were, but no. So we have two antagonists; one we don't know and the other we don't believe exists due to the shitty CGI. Riveting stuff really.

Luckily, the disc comes with no extras whatsoever, unless you count a few trailers that are inaccessible from the main menu. One is for the Joe Lynch-less Wrong Turn 3, which I wasn't interested in much anyway, but now am even less so since the spot gives away pretty much every kill. I expect nothing less from FOX (these are the same people who put a shot of Hanks returning to civilization in the Cast Away trailer, after all), but still - it's not like this movie had much going for it anyway, why ruin all of the surprise now, weeks before its even due on shelves? Then again, if the spot only appears on Silent Venom, I might be the only one that has seen it, so maybe they are just trying to spite me personally.

Either way, don't bother with this junk; it barely even lives up to the ever lowered bar I set for Sci-Fi originals. Only reason I'm not calling it crap is because after Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus, I'm just happy to see a fairly realistic submarine control room again.

What say you?

*At least, I THINK it's a SCO - it certainly resembles one. Anyone know for sure?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Rock N' Roll Nightmare (1987)

SEPTEMBER 7, 2009

GENRE: COMEDIC (?), SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

After I reviewed Black Roses, several folks asked (dared?) me to watch Rock N’ Roll Nightmare (titled The Edge Of Hell on the film itself), and to each and every one of them, I say THANK YOU. What a gloriously stupid, inept, wonderful piece of crap. If I could see a movie this inane just once a month, then I will gladly do HMAD until the end of time.

Things start off laughably bad as soon as the first shot comes on the screen. We have two establishing shots of the same house, one only slightly at a different angle from the other - less than 8 seconds in and we already have bad editing. Then we get a “vertigo” shot with no apparent subject to remain in place as the background shrinks. My best guess would be one of the random shrubs near the house, but since the cameraman doesn’t quite pull off the shot, it’s hard to tell. And then a woman is sucked into an oven, a fact her husband doesn’t seem to think is really strange (seeing the oven shaking around, he just casually says “Honey? You in there?”). All this in the first 3 minutes, folks.

We then watch a van drive along for about 10 minutes, and this is a problem that continues throughout the entire movie. Either they simply didn’t have enough legitimate footage to make a full length film, or the editor suffered from whatever the exact opposite of ADD is. It never gets as bad as this part, but shots going on longer than necessary seems to be an issue at least once per minute. And that’s ignoring whether their respective scenes should be left in the movie at all - there are at least three scenes revolving around people doing dishes, with as many if not more that concern people discussing the need to do dishes. A bit of advice for any filmmaker, especially those making horror movies - NO scene in your film should revolve around making dishes, unless it is the setup for a garbage disposal and/or detergent-based kill.

Oh and the laughably cheap events just keep coming. The little demon puppets are clearly socks, and they don’t even bother to put a hole where the mouth is. A typically “OK, cut now!” kill scene is played entirely by watching shadows on the wall, which would be fine if the shadows actually resembled killing motions in any way. But the highlight has to be the final battle between our hero (John Mikl-Thor) and the devil (another puppet). After Thor lists off every possible name for the Devil, the devil begins to throw starfish at Thor (odd form of the Hadoken), but since they aren’t actual weapons, Thor is clearly catching them and pressing them against his skin to simulate being attacked. And, it should be of no surprise by now, it goes on forever - he does this with at least a dozen starfish, not a single one ever appearing frightening.

The fact that this and the following “fight” (the two just locking arms and spinning around for about 6 minutes) plays without any actual sound, just another hilariously hair metal song, makes it all the more ridiculous.

Of course, I say none of this to be negative. If you rate a film strictly by how much you are entertained while watching it, it’s the greatest film ever made. I was never bored (well, maybe during the dishes scenes), the soundtrack is damn Shocker-y (not to mention the Tourist Trap-esque score, which largely consists of a choir-like “Ah!” sound every 5 seconds or so), the cheap puppets made me laugh out loud every single time, and, again - the climax involves Satan throwing starfish at a guy that looks like a cross between Dolph Lundgren in He-Man and a female Vince Neil impersonator (indeed, when he begins a sex scene in a shower with a red haired girl, I momentarily thought the film was giving us a lesbian scene). It’s 83 minutes of bliss.

The weird thing about it is that it LOOKS much newer than it is. The DVD transfer must be immaculate, because I seriously thought I was watching something from the 2000s that was just SET in the 80s. And possibly parodying such films. In fact, I’m still not sure if they were being serious or not - like Suburban Sasquatch, it’s missing that winking-at-the-camera feel of other intentionally goofy movies (such as Die You Zombie Bastards).

Listening to the commentary by director John Fasano and Thor doesn’t clarify things. They mock the film (and its "actors") and frequently bemoan their lack of money to pull off proper effects and such, which leads me to believe that they wanted to make something that was fun but not intentionally stupid, and over the years have come to grips with the fact that that is precisely what they ended up doing. Either way, it’s a fun track, and some of the behind the scenes stories are priceless. For example, there’s a scene where the band’s producer brings some groupies to the house and asks them to take their tops off, which they all refuse to do. In reality, the ‘actresses’ refused to take their tops off as well, resulting in the scene becoming meta and the actor becoming legitimately angry with them.

The other extras aren’t as enjoyable. There’s a retrospective with Thor that’s a bit too delusional at times (by delusional I mean he seems legitimately proud of this thing), and two behind the scenes pieces shot during the film’s production. Not only do they follow the film’s habit of being assembled instead of edited, but they are lacking context. Though, you do get to hear Fasano yelling at the child actor and berating him for “ruining shots” - and you find out on the commentary that the kid is his stepson, making the moment even more uncomfortable - so there’s something. Then there are a couple of music videos by Tritonz.

Oh yeah - the character’s name is John Triton. So I guess this movie is a prequel to The Marine.

The movie wasn’t half over before I was asking Phil at the New Beverly to screen it (as a double feature with Dark Floors - another ridiculous, metal band-centric horror movie). Even if it’s on a goddamned DVD (do prints of this thing even exist?) I would relish the opportunity to watch this with a bunch of drunks. Someone make this happen!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

La Chambre Des Morts (2007)

SEPTEMBER 6, 2009

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER (?), THRILLER
SOURCE: CABLE (SUNDANCE ON-DEMAND)

After watching Inglourious Basterds, I thought of two things: 1. "This is the first Tarantino movie since Jackie Brown that reminded me of why I loved him so much to begin with", and 2. "I need to see more films with Mélanie Laurent". So I nearly shrieked with joy to discover that she appeared in a serial killer movie called La Chambre Des Morts (aka Room Of Death), because it would allow me to combine my desire with my “job” of seeing a horror movie every day.

Unfortunately it’s not really a serial killer movie in the usual sense. A comparison to Silence Of The Lambs would be reasonable, as there is a heavy procedural element, a female investigator with a tragic past (that would be Laurent) who is belittled by some of her male peers, and lots and lots of scenes where cops investigate isolated structures on grey-lit days.

But the villain isn’t really a serial killer! More like a kidnapper who fucked up. They have a girl for ransom, but the ransom money is stolen, so they kill the girl and kidnap another. The only other deaths in the film come at the hand of the A Simple Plan-esque characters that stole the ransom money, who, in standard movie fashion, let greed get the better of them, with tragic results. Toss in Laurent’s backstory (which is never made completely clear), her blossoming relationship with her Ben Chaplin-y partner, the trouble of balancing her work with her home life (she has infant twins, the father is out of the picture), some stuff about taxidermy, mythological references, and even a goddamn S&M club, and you have a narrative that goes out of its way to avoid being mistaken for a traditional serial killer movie.

But I chalk my confusion up to the synopsis writer. According to it, the film is “A creepy murder mystery that follows a young female detective in a race to stop a killer who makes his victims look like dolls”. Well, as I said, the ‘killer’ only kills one girl, and while the killer does prop the corpse up like a doll, it’s hardly an important factor in the grand scheme of things. To mention it in the synopsis makes about as much sense as mentioning Ben Tramer in a quick summary of Halloween.

Luckily it’s still an interesting thriller. The backstory, while a bit muddled, has a unique mystery behind it, where we know that the two girls in the flashbacks are two of our current characters, but you’re not sure which one is which. And Laurent is, obviously, a joy to watch - beautiful and quite natural in the role, instead of coming off as ACTING! like some of her peers (I mean you, Jolie). And when she needs to look something up online, she uses Google, not some “GenriCo Web Search 2000” nonsense like we usually get.

What really caught my attention were all the little quirks in the movie. There are not one but TWO scenes where there is music that you think is the film’s soundtrack, only to find out that it’s music someone in the scene is playing (and the 2nd of which, she shuts off the song and then the actual movie score kicks in!). One of the killers, attempting to perform an autopsy (or something) on a monkey, gets frustrated and tosses the poor thing’s carcass across the room (all I could hear in my head was the guy on The State: “Monkeytorture”). And my favorite has to be when a former suspect (who they had already mocked for no reason, another delight) stumbles on a major clue and informs them. If a cop ever insinuated that I had murdered a child or even stolen a goddamn candy bar, I sure as hell wouldn’t bother to give them a hand in their investigation. I guess the guy is just not as stubborn and vindictive as me.

So while it’s a bit over-plotted and not really suspenseful enough to rank high on the list of all time serial/thriller movies, it works as a character drama, as well as an “alt” thriller. It shouldn’t surprise anyone to learn that it’s based on a novel. And like every movie I see based on a novel, I hereby announce plans to read it - plans that shall be forgotten by the time I hit “Publish Post”.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Landlord (2009)

SEPTEMBER 5, 2009

GENRE: COMEDIC, INDEPENDENT, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I try to limit the number of not yet widely distributed movies I watch, for two reasons. One, it sort of goes against the original purpose of the site (to “talk” about movies) as they are not widely seen, and two - I’d hate to put out a negative review for a film that hasn’t yet found distribution. But The Landlord has been playing lots of festivals (check out updates at the OFFICIAL SITE), the cover seemed to be referencing Psycho III, and I gave myself enough time to watch something else if I didn’t like it. Luckily, I did!

What really impressed me was how many action and effects shots were in the film. A lot of these indies keep such things to a minimum for obvious reasons, but that’s not the case here. The demons phase in and out of scenes, the finale features a building being destroyed, a door to hell... the CGI is a bit cartoonish, but it matches the film’s goofy feel, so it’s not an issue.

It’s also surprisingly plot-heavy (maybe a bit too so - the end gets a bit muddled). The demons eat people that live in the apartment (the title character being their sort of unwilling partner), and the new resident has a crazy ex who is coming after her. Meanwhile, the landlord’s sister is a dirty cop who, with her partner (with whom she is having an affair) works with vampires, letting them eat drug dealers while they keep the money/stash. All of these subplots converge in a gonzo ending, resulting in a film that never gets boring, due to the sheer amount of stuff that is going on.

I also dug the irreverent humor. The introduction to our heroine takes place at a shithole hotel, where she is trying to get a room (her failure to obtain one leads her to meeting The Landlord, you see), a scene that is broken up by a robber who plans to rob the joint, only to be scared by the girl arguing with the asshole hotel clerk (he decides to go rob the liquor store instead). And I always love characters with a laid-back attitude toward death, a trait pretty much every character in the film has. Plus, the city is called “Gacy City”, which is just distasteful enough to be funny but not actually offensive.

(Slightly more on the potentially offensive side, though certainly not to me, is a ridiculous anti-abortion commercial that occurs around the halfway mark - it’s Troma-esque in its brashness and in turn, awesomeness.)

But most importantly, it balances the horror with the humor quite deftly. You never forget you’re watching a horror-comedy, because director Emil Hyde never favors one over the other. I can’t tell if some of the gore gags are cheap-looking as a joke or cheap-looking because the budget was roughly the same as Blair Witch Project’s, but either way it keeps the goofy tone alive. For example, the hero needs something to protect the girl from the demons - traditional horror scene. But he gets one of those yarn and popsicle stick “God’s Eye” things, which the bored psychic assures him is the genuine article. Funny stuff.

My only real issue is the length. It’s only 95 minutes, but I think it could be even shorter. Some of the character subplots don’t really have much of a payoff, and there are a few too many scenes devoted to the sister being a dirty cop (it seems to me she’s actually in the movie more than the landlord). Some tighter editing and maybe another pass at the script (with an eye on reducing the page count) could have done wonders.

The DVD seems to be a professional release (it has a bar code and everything), but the transfer is kind of lousy - it seems like the 3:2 pulldown is off (nerd speak for “you see shifting horizontal lines when things move fast”), which is kind of a bummer as its otherwise a technically proficient film (again - for 22k, and lots of effects, this is quite a feat). We also get lots of extras; a making of, a commentary, deleted scenes (don’t bother), a funny short film, trailers... the whole package. The commentary is quite candid and enjoyable, but its surprisingly short on production info. Usually these type of things are like “We had to shoot this without permission” and “This is my cousin’s house” but they largely focus on pointing out story changes and telling anecdotes. In short, it’s a fun track, but not one that will be of any use to budding indie filmmakers.

Like any indie, it suffers from some woozy performances and less than stellar production value on some of the sets, but I think Hyde has got a good career ahead of him, and could work wonders with the proper resources. It’s rare I see something like this where I say “I want to see what this guy does next”, but that is certainly the case here. Check it out.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Sentinel (1977)

SEPTEMBER 4, 2009

GENRE: RELIGIOUS, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

For movie nerds, there's nothing more delightful than watching an old movie and seeing an early (or debut) performance of a current beloved actor. Jack Nicholson in Little Shop Of Horrors is pretty much the holy grail of such things, but the movie The Sentinel (recommended by HMAD reader Phil Fasso) gives it a run for its money in a "quantity over quality" way. In the 90-odd minute film from 1977, we have Christopher Walken, Jerry Orbach, Beverly D'Angelo, Jeff Goldblum, and a boyish Tom Berenger. Hell, even William Hickey looks healthy.

Sadly, the sprawling cast (I haven't mentioned the number of established actors - Jose Ferrer, John Carradine, Burgess Meredith, Martin Balsam... it's like Irwin Allen cast this thing) is also the film's biggest flaw. It was based on a book, and while I am sure the novel is hundreds of pages, 90 minutes is too short of a time to have so many characters. They would have done well to drop or combine a few. Our heroine (the beautiful Cristina Raines - how have I never seen her before? Must remedy) and her boyfriend (Chris Sarandon, in a wonderful non-performance) get ample time, but just about all of the other actors I mentioned have only a scene or two each. Walken barely even speaks. By constantly introducing new characters, the actual story gets a bit lost.

Which is a shame, because the story is kind of cool. It's essentially a grown up Exorcist of sorts, with Raines being manipulated by evil forces that are trying to drive her to suicide, which will prevent her from becoming the next in a long line of holy guardians that can keep the doors to hell from opening (or something to that effect. Again, the story is a bit - hey look, Richard Dreyfuss!). But SHE never seems to be aware of this, it's mostly Sarandon who figures shit out. It'd be like if that bland guy from The Unborn was doing all the work while Odette Yustman kept seeing bugs.

But it gets a lot of stuff right, too. A nightmare sequence is incredibly realistic, in that it actually feels (and is even presented as) a dream, not some ultra-real nonsense that is REVEALED to be a dream, something that annoys me more every time it is used. And even if the cast is too large, the novelty value of seeing so many folks looking so young keeps it feeling short; I actually thought the film was less than 80 minutes. Time goes by fast when you're being distracted by a still young and fully naked Beverly D'Angelo.

And Burgess Meredith tops even his Manitou performance here, playing a whacked out neighbor of Raines. He is introduced with a bird on his shoulder and a cat by his side, and then begins to confuse Eisenhower and Herbert Hoover. Later he throws the cat a birthday party. And since the plot is wacky anyway, he gets to deliver some nonsensical dialogue in the climax, also a delight. He actually reminded me a bit of his Foul Play character (eccentric pet loving neighbor of the heroine), something that doesn't bother me in the slightest.

The climax features a bunch of circus freaks (playing demons). Most of them are legit deformed, something that director Michael Winner got in trouble for apparently. It's a freaky visual (giant lip deformities creep me out greatly), and kind of a shame that they weren't a more prevalent factor in the film. I also would have liked to have a little more info on the "casting" process, as it's kind of odd, but alas, the disc only has a single extra feature.

That would be the trailer, and it's a doozy. Not only does Movie Voice guy try to talk directly to the characters ("Turn around, Allison! Someone is behind you!"), but it also pretty much spoils every single thing about the movie. It's common to see things like the kills being given away in spots from the 70s (Halloween's trailer, for example, pretty much spoils every scare), but to have so many plot points ruined the ad is a bit odd. But if you've already watched the movie, you can appreciate the over the top narration all the same. The only copy of it on Youtube has embedding disabled (fuck you, Youtube user IMACACI!), so enjoy this less spoiler-y fan edit, set to that Requiem For A Dream score that gets used on 90% of professional trailers.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Borderland (2007)

SEPTEMBER 3, 2009

GENRE: CULT
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Two cult movies in one week! All hail Satan.

Not sure how Borderland got by me when I was going through all of the After Dark films; I’ve already seen all but one (Butterfly Effect 3, because I haven’t seen 2) of THIS years’ fest, and the newest one is fast approaching, making it almost two years old. Sorry about that, Lions Gate. Even more of a bummer, it’s better than half of the other entries, so I wish I had gotten around to it sooner.

Being part of the weakest of the three lineups is the film’s burden, but on the same token, it benefits from my late viewing as I’ve seen so many terrible Hostel ripoffs in the past two years (such as Train, the worst of the worst). I expected this to be equally banal, but as it turns out, it’s relatively decent. It’s engaging for the most part, well-acted, somewhat unique (since it deals with a cult instead of random torture mavens), and largely proficient on a technical level.

Two big red marks in that area, though. One is some truly hideous ADR work in a few scenes. The not quite syncing with the actor’s lips I can almost forgive, but the fact that it still SOUNDS like it was recorded in a sound booth (instead of on a crowded city street) is a major distraction. Also, there’s an overlong “drugged” sequence where the characters go to a carnival after eating a few shrooms. It’s fine to have the overused “let’s smear the colors and give everyone a Snorri-cam” look when they are riding the rides and such, but when they are just standing around talking it’s fucking annoying. Director Zev Berman also has everything play at like 10 frames per second, which is even more irritating since the characters are talking and you can’t focus on what they are saying because you’re probably starting to wonder if your DVD player is broken (it actually looks like you’re watching a poorly compressed Youtube video with a lousy connection).

But like I said, it’s better than the average “Never travel anywhere” scare piece, due to the cult stuff. You see a movie like Train, which sucks enough without them trying to give the villains a gray area by shoehorning in the “they want your organs for poor people” stuff, and you really can appreciate the fact that these guys are actually evil. They kidnap tourists and sacrifice them, using body parts as necklaces and such. And it’s not the usual slasher type setup, where every 10 minutes another kid is taken and sacrificed. It’s more about the two pals looking for their buddy (Rider Strong), and we cut between their often hindered investigation and Strong’s attempts to escape. To the film’s credit, the obvious hero is never taken, because one of the writers was obviously smart enough to understand that a hero being help captive is never as suspenseful as a co-star being held while the hero tries to rescue him.

It does start to flounder near the end though. After a great sequence of one of the other guys trying to evade capture, it becomes a generic sort of “exact revenge” series of fights, with our hero (who looks exactly like Jim Caviezel) going after these guys and somehow subduing them all despite the fact that they have been obviously doing this for years and he couldn’t even handle himself in a bar fight earlier. He also kills an unarmed cult member who was never really part of the sacrifice/torture stuff, which doesn’t sit too well with me. It would be like John McClane pumping Theo full of lead at the end of Die Hard just for good measure.

I had forgotten that the AD films used to have extra features (nearly all of this years’ films were bare bones). Best of the lot is a half hour look at the real case that inspired the film. I would definitely NOT watch it before watching the movie, because the real story is far more interesting and even somewhat more disturbing than the fictionalized version (for example, the real cult guys had fake police badges that they would use to lure people; in the movie, Strong just gets in the car with them for no real reason). Another “holy shit” fact is that the cops found the bodies thanks to a cult member who truly believed that no harm would come to him (there’s video footage of the guy casually pointing out who killed the guy, where he was buried, etc), due to the leader’s teaching, which is an idea that the film completely glosses over. Then there’s a segment where Berman talks about the film’s production and some of the things he was going for, all the while coming off as a guy who thinks he’s re-inventing the wheel (“People don’t want to see the tired genre conventions!” - he says about a film where a guy claims he has to go to the bathroom and uses the distraction to mount a failed escape). Because of this, I didn’t listen to the whole commentary (which he shares with the main star, his DP and a producer) because I didn’t want to listen to him anymore, despite the fact that he sounds like Paul Giamatti, which is kind of amusing. But to its credit, the track seems to be, like the film itself, slightly above average; enough to warrant a listen if you’re not annoyed by the guy talking to you like you’ve never seen a film before.

So now I’ve finally finished the After Dark 2007 list. Mulberry St. remains the best, Lake Dead is still the worst, and Borderland is somewhere around the number 3 or 4 position (with Ian Stone). The scope is larger than any of the others (it’s actually the one film of the set that I could reasonably see getting a wide release; I assume the box office failure of Turistas and Hostel Part 2 factored into its eventual fate as a glorified DTV film), but the rather generic ending turns it from a nice surprise to just another OK movie.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Forest (1982)

SEPTEMBER 2, 2009

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

Among the online journalists I completely respect is Mr Beaks from AICN, and today provided a perfect example why. After tweeting my plans to make The Forest my horror movie for the day, I appended a shoutout to the Pang Bros. film Re-Cycle, because it was a great film from the same directors. But since Beaks actually knows his shit, he pointed out my error; the film I had was not the Pang bros film (which is actually called Forest Of Death), but this forgotten 1982 slasher. And that’s why you gotta love Beaks - dude can recall 27 year old slasher movies, whereas many of his peers (sadly) don’t actually love movies enough to remember ones that came out last year.

As to WHY he remembered the damn thing, I have to assume that its due to how goddamn all over the place the movie is. The opening scene is straight up slasher, with black outfit and a killer whose face you can’t see, and then it’s a cannibal movie for a while. But then we learn about the cannibal’s backstory (before he turned into a cannibal), which paints him as a sort of tragic hero. And then it’s a full blown ghost movie for some goddamn reason.

And shockingly enough, none of these elements really work. The slasher stuff doesn’t work because we have no idea who the hell the characters are (and once you watch the rest of the movie, it makes no sense that they are attempting to hide the killer’s identity). The cannibal stuff is too light to really resonate (though it DOES culminate in a guy eating his own wife, thinking that it’s deer meat), and they never really explain why being cuckolded makes you want to eat people. And the ghost stuff is more baffling than compelling, as there are little ghost kids that are seemingly trying to prevent their dad from being killed by the ghost of their mom, but they also try to help our heroes, which of course would mean their dad would starve to death. So who knows what their deal is.

But there’s still some fleeting moments of oddball hilarity that make it KINDA worth a watch. Like the flashback scene that shows our eventual cannibal coming home and finding his wife fucking the refrigerator repairman. The wife doesn’t seem to care that she was caught (I swear PTA saw this movie before doing Boogie Nights, it’s exactly like any of the scenes with William H. Macy and his wife), and for some reason she has locked the kids in the closet while she nails the dude. So the guy sends the kids out, kills the wife, and then goes outside to take care of the repairman, who is hilariously enough fixing the refrigerator (he’s a man of principle, I guess). They then carry out the most awkward, inept fight in horror movie history, with our killer taking more of a beating than even Ghostface did in the first Scream.

And being an LA resident this week really made me appreciate the introduction to our heroes, as they bitch about the excessive heat as well as the air quality (if you’re reading this review at a time much later than the posting date - LA has mostly been on fire this week and the temps regularly around 100). They also bitch about the traffic but that’s common. There are also lines of dialogue and character actions that SEEM to make sense, but really don’t when you give them a moment’s thought. Like when they get to the park and notice that there seems to be no one around when it’s usually quite busy. So either A. everyone else has learned about the cannibal killer and decided to vacation elsewhere, or B. he has killed an excessive number of people and no one has noticed. Then their car breaks down, and the mechanic bills them 140 bucks for four hours’ work. But he does this with a shit-eating grin on his face... dude, you just spent four hours doing what seems like a quick job! You could have been relaxing or watching the game or something, but you were taking your sweet-ass time underneath a car on a hot summer day. Yeah, you showed em.

Oh and the hero cries for awhile after hurting his leg. Not like, as he tries to bandage it up or anything, like in Die Hard - he just sits there and weeps like a baby. Bold.

But for every moment like that, there’s four or five that simply find our characters wandering around the woods, yelling at each other (the two guys always seem to be about one harsh word away from coming to blows, or hate-fucking the shit out of each other), or the ghost kids providing information to the living for no reason. And Don Jones is a pretty lousy director: close-ups rarely match, it’s never clear how close/far the characters are from each other, and it shifts from day to night with little rhyme or reason. And the blocking! At one point the Final Girl is watching the cannibal, and yet when she is distracted by something about 10 degrees to the left of the guy, he somehow manages to get behind and sneak up on her. When a film has so few scare scenes, they can at least be competently executed.

But it must have its fans, or else Code Red wouldn’t have bothered to release a special edition DVD, featuring a nice anamorphic transfer, a photo gallery, 13 minutes of interviews and some trailers. It also has two commentary tracks (buried in setup), one with Jones and the DP, and the other with Gary Kent (the killer) who is joined by Jones again. I listened to the latter, and unfortunately it’s one of those tracks in which the participants don’t have any sort of sense of humor about anything in the movie (they’re a bit more candid on the interviews). Towards the end Jones loosens up a bit, but Kent never lets it get too out of hand before he starts bringing up real life serial killer David Carpenter, or asking boring questions like whether or not Jones prepared storyboards for establishing shots. But as it was like 95 in my apartment, it was quite useful in helping me fall asleep (I watched the rest of it later at work). So thanks, fellas!

I forgot to mention that the film has a theme song. And it is beautiful. Sounds like David Bowie doing a Labyrinth demo. If anyone has a copy of this thing, PLEASE send it to me for my 80s Slasher Themes compilation CD (I put the clip below in lieu of the trailer). Thank you.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Race With The Devil (1975)

SEPTEMBER 1, 2009

GENRE: CULT
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Another ugly hole in my horror input has been filled today, thanks to a long overdue rental of Race With The Devil. This is one of those 70s movies I always hear about but never got around to seeing, even with the occasional threat of a remake (I HATE seeing a remake, or even having a remake in existence, before I see the original). But as it turns out, it’s that rare sort of film that I both really enjoy and would endorse a proposed remake (in the right hands).

Now, don’t get me wrong - there’s nothing about the film that makes me cringe and say “This can be fixed”. On the contrary, it’s a blast. We’re on the road fairly quickly, and they stumble across the cult around the 20 minute mark (and up until that point, we’ve seen two dirt bike races AND a brief appearance by the late, great Paul “Franklin!” Partain). And from then on it’s pretty much our heroes trying to escape the cult OR trying to find out more about them and getting thwarted by the creepy townsfolk, some of whom may be with the cult. And the finale seemingly influenced Road Warrior’s, as we get a multi-vehicle chase/smash em up scene that features not one but two nonsensical explosions (one of which occurs the second the car starts to go off the road, before it even hits anything - YES!).

But of course, stunts and action scenes have gotten more complicated over the years, and even a relatively low budget modern film like Breakdown featured more destructive action for its (quite similar) finale. As a fan of ‘splosions and cars flipping over and guys shooting other guys that are clambering about their giant RVs, I would LOVE to see a remake with a 40-50 million budget, allowing for MORE destruction, MORE cars blowing up for no reason, and MORE anonymous cult guys getting buckshotted to death. It’s not often we get the action/horror hybrid (last major one I can recall would be End of Days, though the upcoming Legion seems to fit the bill as well), and a successful remake of an established story (one with a great title to boot) might usher in a few more. I could live with 2-3 Race With The Devil knockoffs a year.

(Oh, and my dream team for said remake? David Ellis - director. Peter Fonda role - Kurt Russell, Warren Oates role - Kevin Costner. And maybe Madeline Stowe and Rene Russo as their wives, since they’re still hot)

One thing I really liked was how Fonda and Oates are amused by the cult at first. Nowadays, people are just too cautious and worrisome in horror movies; it’s nice to see some guys stumble upon a cult and find it kind of funny rather than instantly panic and draw attention to themselves. Just seems a lot more realistic, and also makes the “Oh shit” moment all the more interesting, because the only reason we are expecting it is because we’re watching a horror movie, as opposed to modern horror films where the characters seem to know that as well.

In fact, the only real foreshadowing is the nonsense with the dog. Like any sane human being, I don’t like seeing a dog get killed in a movie, but I like it even less when its telegraphed a full hour before it occurs. Just as our heroes are about to embark on their trip, Fonda shows up with the dog and explains that their dog-sitter had to bail so they will have to bring the pup along. Gee, you think that will work out OK for little Ginger? Then, as if it’s not upsetting enough, there’s a little scene where Fonda buries the poor thing, and puts her collar and little bow on top of the fresh dirt. Christ, the Devil himself might choke up a bit here. And since our villains are just a bunch of anonymous cult weirdos, it doesn’t make the audience really hate the villain more (the only reason to kill a dog - cinematic hate shortcut!), so it’s just largely unnecessary.

The DVD comes with a retrospective from Peter Fonda, and also a commentary track by producer Paul Maslansky and co-star Lara Parker, moderated by DVD producer Perry Martin. Both are interesting for the same reason: the respective participant’s obsession with money. Fonda seems to hold the film in high regard primarily for the good salary and profit points that he received (as well as working with Oates again - this was their third film together), and Maslansky is particularly proud of the film coming in under budget despite a director replacement halfway through production. But the track is never silent, and the two offer a number of amusing anecdotes and production info (apparently, the downer ending was completely made up in post-production). An above average track, though I wish Fonda could have sat in as well; he was obviously around to do the new retrospective.

With the right director (and as long as it retains the 40+ leads) the remake can be a lot of fun, but as it has been in development for years with little progress, it might not happen. Luckily, the original holds up quite well, and I would love to see either version on the big screen with an appreciative crowd. So many modern action movies skimp on the car chases (and when they do they never blow a car up), and I’ve watched The Rock, I Come In Peace, Striking Distance, etc so many times (those three films have what are among my top 10 favorite car chases of all time). It’s nice to see a “new” one that delivers the goods just the way I like it.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...