Resurrection (1999)

JANUARY 25, 2010

GENRE: RELIGIOUS, SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: NETFLIX (INSTANT VIEW)

Well, Resurrection is a serial killer movie from the late 90s, so you should know what to expect: rainy city, two cops on the trail of a sadistic killer who has already completed half of his carefully planned, religion-based spree, a chase at the halfway point... the Se7en influence is as apparent as ever here, but it was its similarity to pair of other horror films from 1999* that really caught my attention.

Those films are The Bone Collector and End of Days, which Universal released within weeks of each other in the fall of that year and were greeted with nearly identical grosses of 66 million dollars (their average gross being 66.6 million! THE DEVIL!!!). Like End of Days, Resurrection has a hero with an unexplained accent teamed with a funny partner who are trying to solve a mystery with (again) religious connections, which is a problem for the hero as the loss of a family member has resulted in him not believing in God anymore, which leads to some terse discussions with a priest, played by someone who is known for far more respectable fare than this (Rod Steiger in Days, David Cronenberg here).

The Bone Collector ones are even more apparent. In both films the killer is collecting parts of the body and leaving cryptic clues for the investigating officers. Both films take place in major US cities (Chicago here, NY for Bone) but are largely filmed in Canada (Toronto/Montreal). Both films feature actor Leland Orser, and both films are instantly undone by the presence of a character actor who has one or two scenes of little importance early in the film, making it pretty obvious that he is the killer. In fact, Orser himself was the killer in Bone, and I am pretty sure I would have put my foot through the wall if the same thing happened here, but it wasn’t him (spoiler: it was Robert Joy this time).

I mean, I dunno, maybe some filmmakers just assume that the audience isn’t wise to cinematic shortcuts and curious casting decisions and won’t notice things like that (the only other alternative is to suggest I’m smarter than most folks - and that would be friggin’ ridiculous. I like Armageddon for Christ’s sakes.). But this makes at LEAST the fourth HMAD serial killer movie that I’ve been able to “solve” just by reading the cast list and noticing how often certain actors appeared in the film’s first act. That’s what made a film like Scream such a joy - they piled on red herrings in a believable way, and mixed the veteran actors (Henry Winkler, Courtney Cox) with the newcomers (Matt Lillard, Jamie Kennedy) in equal fashion. For the most part, the only time you could successfully discredit someone as a suspect was when they died, and if you were to pause the film prior to the party climax and tell me who you thought was the killer, I’m pretty certain that I would be able to buy that theory. Not the case here; even if the actor wasn’t being wasted until his reveal, the only other viable suspect the movie ever provides is, well, Orser, but he gets taken out (loses a leg) before the halfway point. Maybe I could be convinced that Cronenberg was supposed to be a red herring, but he’s at home asleep, Christopher Lambert wakes him up to get some info, and then races to a crime scene where the killer has just attacked someone, so he’s out as a possibility even before Orser is anyway (this scene leads to Orser’s injury).

So it’s derivative and lacking an actual mystery, but it’s still entertaining. Lambert’s always fun to watch, and his repartee with Orser is amusing. There’s a really odd scene where another officer is relating a story to Orser about someone being hit by a bus, and Lambert just hears the final line and thinks it’s the punchline to a joke, so he starts laughing. Then he is made aware of his faux pas and he and Orser giggle about it. Making it even odder is the fact that Lambert’s requisite tragic backstory concerns his son being hit by a car (in a manner that tops Meet Joe Black for unintentional hilarity - the kid is like 10 and he just drives his bike right under a car for no reason), so why he would even laugh at an actual joke about it is beyond me.

And then the end. Holy shit. Remember when Michael Jackson was dangling his kids out a window for no goddamn reason? Well, he may have gotten the idea from this movie, in which our killer is holding a baby over a ledge (upside down no less). Now, either the baby is supposed to be premature, or the prop guy is just a bit confused, but the less-than-normal size of the thing makes it all the more hilarious as he dangles it over the ledge, and then drops it (it’s caught by Lambert) when he is stabbed. They toss in a few ADR gurgles and cries to sell it as real, but it’s largely unsuccessful. Unless they wanted to make me laugh my ass off, then in which case it’s the most successful scene in the film.

Certainly unsuccessful is Russell Mulcahy’s penchant for hyper edits, stretching/skewing of the image, and other “stylish” choices that just annoyed the shit out of me from minute one. What’s wrong with just filming a goddamn scene normally? Why call attention to yourself with all of this nonsense, especially in a plot-heavy film? It’s one thing for something like Irreversible to swirl the camera around and do all this other nonsense, because it’s SUPPOSED to make you feel a bit queasy. But why would Mulcahy want me to feel disoriented while his characters are relaying important plot info?

Well, I guess if you’re a serial killer fan, you can do a lot worse. The cast is above average, and I always like scenes of a cop trying to piece all of his random clues together, of which this movie offers two. It drags a bit in the 3rd act (there’s like a 10 minute “we can only hold him for so many hours - we need more evidence!” non-suspense sequence that does nothing for nobody) and again, it’s pretty easy to identify the killer, but the concept is interesting enough to warrant a pass, and I’ll certainly take it over The Horsemen or Untraceable.

What say you?

*Resurrection was released before either of them, so the coincidences are likely just that. I will point out, however, that Bone Collector was based on a book that had been out for a while, and End of Days was in development for years. Just sayin'.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Nature's Grave (2008)

JANUARY 24, 2010

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

I didn’t take notes for Nature’s Grave, but I guess I could just use the ones I wrote for Long Weekend and write the exact same review, since Jamie Blanks (and original writer Everett DeRoche) made the exact same movie. Granted, the basic plot doesn’t leave much room for mixing things up (though I suppose they could have put the wife front and center this time around), but Christ, entire dialogue exchanges are repeated verbatim and the film as a whole goes by beat for beat the same as it did in the 1978 version. So my question is: why did they bother?

I’m particularly puzzled since Blanks’ previous film was Storm Warning, which was also about a couple on a camping trip who run afoul of an enemy (albeit a more traditional family of backwoods deviants instead of mother nature). Didn’t he get this sort of thing out of his system? Why would he want to make two movies in a row where any plot synopsis would begin “A couple’s vacation is cut short when...”? And why remake a film and not do anything different? Even the horrid Psycho remake can at least claim that Vince Vaughn had a different interpretation of the character than Anthony Perkins had, but Jim Caviezel and Claudia Karvan pretty much play their characters the same way: he’s brash and cocky, she is shrill and agoraphobic. Even swapping the sexes (but otherwise retaining the identical script) would have been at least somewhat interesting for a while, but Blanks and DeRoche don’t offer us any such alternate approach. The only major difference I caught came at the very end; instead of just fading out after the truck stops, Blanks inserts some footage of the two of them at their wedding, looking happy and such. It’s a sort of nice touch, but it’s not really relevant either; had they killed each other, it would be a nice bit of irony, but they were killed by mother nature. It would make more sense to show footage of them, I dunno, enjoying a nice day in the city or going to the recycling plant or something.

Needless to say, this means that they don’t take the opportunity to improve on the original’s (minor) flaws, such as the go-nowhere subplot (more like sub-shot) where Peter’s cigarette causes a fire. Once again we see the fire start, and once again it’s never mentioned again. The guys at the bar are once again sort of creepy, but once again we never learn if they were simply trying to keep the visitors from harm by telling them that there was no beach, or if they really had never heard of it (and if not, then how did Peter hear about it? Everyone who goes there dies, right?).

Now, if you’ve never seen either version, then I wouldn’t know which one to recommend. Obviously the original is worthy of more respect, but Blanks does bring some stylistic touches here and there that the original lacked, and Karvan is much easier to bear than Briony Behets was in the original (they have also dropped the fact that she was still cheating on Peter, so she’s not unsympathetic from the start). And obviously things like the eagle attack are less goofy, so there’s something. And since everything is upgraded, we get the creepy image of a GPS trying to find its bearings in the middle of a blank area, which is better than looking at a map and saying “this road’s not on here” or something. So yeah, they have “modernized” the film, but I didn’t feel that the original was dated, so it’s hardly a good enough excuse to bother with such an exact replica.

I dunno. Maybe if it had been years instead of a couple weeks since I saw the original, I would have enjoyed it more, as I wouldn’t have been able to recall everything so easily. I mean, there’s nothing technically BAD about the movie - it’s just literally the exact same movie in pretty much every way that matters. So fuck it, let’s be positive - if you are in the mood to watch a couple of assholes get their just desserts at the hands of the animal kingdom and some trees, then you have two pretty much equally enjoyable options. Go with the one that’s easier to come by and be done with it.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Scanners (1981)

JANUARY 23, 2010

GENRE: MAD SCIENTIST
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I won’t name names, but I was surprised to hear how many people were more or less in agreeance with me that Scanners isn’t quite the classic I was expecting. I figured I’d get a “You’re an idiot!” or the old standby “But you like Armageddon” when I told folks that I was underwhelmed by it, but many of them replied “Yeah, cool idea, but...” or something along those lines. However, if David Cronenberg were to walk into the room just then and asked what we thought of it, we’d probably all tell him it was amazing. He’s Cronenberg! And he’s at a Mexican joint for some reason. Why spoil his mood?

(However, if he asked what we thought of Crash, I’d tell him it sucked. No way I could pretend to like that fucking thing.)

There are two reasons I was sort of “meh” on it. One - the headsplosion occurs in the first ten minutes, setting up a far more visual and gonzo movie than is actually delivered. Two - as is often the case with Cronenberg, the film lacks humor of any sort, which to me is not the best way to go about your story about dudes who can read minds and then blow up those minds. Some movies can have goofy plots but still work if the director takes it seriously (hell, Cronenberg himself did just that two years later with The Dead Zone), but Scanners’ story is SO goofy that I just kept wishing Dave would just loosen up and have some fun with it.

Back to the headsplosion - there’s a reason why it’s the most famous scene in the film - it’s the only one that’s memorable! Not a lot of folks are like “You know that scene in Scanners where the boring hero guy walks around a doctor’s office for a while?” Hell it’s only been a few hours and I’m already having trouble remembering anything else that stood out. The ending “battle” is pretty cool (I have a weak spot for veins, so seeing them bulge out AND squirting blood was pretty uncomfortable in a good way), but the resulting body-switch is pretty stupid, in my opinion.

I also didn’t dig on the fact that Michael Ironside disappears for most of the movie. The plot kicks into gear when the hero is recruited to take him down, but Ironside is absent for so long he never really feels like a real threat. By the time they DO meet up, the movie had already felt disappointing, and his return/subsequent battle wasn’t enough to save it.

And it’s a shame, because the concept is cool and the structure (save for Ironside’s absence) is fine. Good guy tries to find other scanners to help him, a love interest is worked in, there’s some car chases and an explosion or two, plus an “infiltrate the enemy headquarters” sequence. But it’s all done with Cronenberg’s usual cold, technical approach (not to mention his penchant for distractingly odd names - Braedon, Obrist, Revok, Trevellyan - none of these meet Microsoft Word’s criteria for a correctly spelled name!), and I just didn’t care about anyone on screen. Well, maybe the guy that I thought was Saul Rubinek, because I thought he was Saul Rubinek, but he died pretty quickly. And it wasn’t him anyway.

Incidentally, the reason I finally got around to watching the film in its entirety (I had seen bits and pieces over the years) was because I was invited to join some others for a viewing of Scanners 3: The Takeover the next day. Now, it’s probably not a BETTER film by any normal measure, but it’s certainly more fun. The villain is front and center (if anything, the HERO is the one who disappears for too much of the film), there are a lot of setpieces and unique deaths (it’s almost like a slasher at times, the evil scanner even has a few one-liners), and it doesn’t waste its best moment in the first 10 minutes (though it comes close - a scanner “mishap” causes a guy in a Santa outfit to plummet to his death in front of a little girl). Granted, Cronenberg’s film had more interesting ideas and less of a clichéd approach, but damned if the sequel doesn’t fit the bill of what comes to my head when I think of the ideal movie about guys with telepathy trying to kill each other. (I would offer a full review, but as I was with friends we were shooting the shit and mocking it, so I would hardly be able to speak on the film without just listing all the "cool" parts).

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Legion (2010)

JANUARY 22, 2010

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

I knew nothing about Legion until Comic Con, where the bulk of the elevators we used over the 5 days were adorned with the awesome shot of Paul Bettany with angel wings and assault rifles. I also covered the roundtables, where, amongst other things, one of the female stars kept looking at me while answering other people's questions (and I know for sure that I didn't have any food in my beard - because I checked), AND won me over by saying her favorite movie was Halloween (and stressed that she meant the original). And then the trailer made it look like any number of Carpenter type films (motley group holed up in one locale), with a plot that seemed patched together from Demon Knight, Terminator, and The Prophecy. In short - it held a lot of promise to be a pretty kick ass film.

Sadly it is not. It's got moments of greatness (or at least, really good-ness), but they are stretched out (and largely spoiled by the trailers anyway) far too thin, and in between are some seriously dull and borderline laughable "character" moments that always feel like little more than an attempt to add dimension to the characters so that critics won't bitch that it's just wall to wall action.

But that's exactly what this movie should be! 15 minutes in, we get our first demon-angel-monster thing, and from that point on, the film should be a pretty fast paced romp, slowing down for minor plot/character moments that last no more than five minutes. But I swear to Christ, the movie stops for FORTY GODDAMN MINUTES so that each character can have a heart to heart conversation with one of the other characters. Tyrese talks to Charles Dutton, Paul Bettany talks to Lucas Black, Dennis Quaid talks to Kate Walsh, Adrianne Palicki talks to Black, Tyrese talks to Walsh's daughter, and so on. The only reason that it finally returned to action is because I'm pretty sure writer/director Scott Stewart ran out of possible combinations. Look, I'm all for character development, and any one of these scenes on its own would be fine (or even all of them, save maybe the painfully stupid one between Tyrese and the girl, had they been spread out a bit). But when your movie has Charles Dutton whipping a frying pan at an old woman's head in the first reel, you can't expect an audience to sit patiently for the entire middle portion of your film while everyone airs out their backstories and "meaningful" character flaws. Aren't they in danger? Why are they all just standing around yapping? And why aren't the demon people attacking?

If I had to guess, I would wager that since Stewart comes from an (impressive) effects background, that he was worried he would be accused of "showing off" had the film been a non-stop effects showcase. And since he has planned a trilogy, I also wouldn't be surprised if he was trying to get as much story out of the way now so that he could focus more on action in the next two films. However, both approaches fail him. The effects ARE good, and thus we want more of them, and it's doubtful that the film will connect with enough audiences to get those followups.

And that's a shame, because there is a lot of potential here. Bettany is a great action hero (when he's in it - for a top billed star he doesn't seem to have as much screen time as some of the others, and after his introduction he disappears for about 25 minutes or so), and it's hinted that his character may not be as pure and good as the others would hope. Likewise, the great Kevin Durand (woefully underused) is his equal, and despite being the film's de facto main villain, he doesn't seem to be out for the count yet. And they barely even scratch the surface in regards to the baby that the whole movie centers around; Terminator at least gave us glimpses of what John Connor would do, but Legion never really explains what Palicki's child is supposed to accomplish (or why she was chosen to carry it, for that matter). Most trilogy openers work as a standalone film, but this one is maddeningly left open for followups.

I also enjoyed the supporting cast, though most of them won't be around for the sequel. Stewart does a fine job of putting them all on equal terms, so that you're not sure which ones will die, who will turn (come on, you know there's gotta be a turncoat in the group), and who will save the day. One character's death in particular shocked me; it's someone that always seems to survive a film, and they are dispatched long before the conclusion (and somewhat unceremoniously) as well. And I'm always happy to see Dennis Quaid in something, though they should have just cast Meat Loaf, since Quaid (who is friends with Loaf in real life) is channeling him most of the time anyway. There are also some funny lines here and there, mostly courtesy of Tyrese (when asked where the insect swarm went, he replies "Are you asking me to comment on the nature of a pestilence?" Heh.).

But the cast makes the abundance of generic character development even more frustrating. Most of the actors are guys we love and don't really need a backstory to latch onto in order to care about them. Quaid, for example - the guy's been around forever and has that everyman, salt of the earth quality to him. So why stop the movie to have him yammer on about how he owns the place because he thought there would be a mall opening nearby and that his wife left him because of it and now he carries around a lighter she gave him even though he quit smoking and blah blah blah... we see Quaid, we're on his side. Done. Ironically, the character that gets the least amount of characterization is Palicki, who audiences are least likely to be familiar with (she's on Friday Night Lights, a terrific TV show that no one watches) and yet is pretty much the most important character. If the characters were unique and interesting, it would be one thing, but they're all the generic-est of generic archetypes, so despite all of Stewart's efforts, in the end, after boring me for 40 minutes with their jibber-jabber, the only reason I cared about any of them is because I cared about the actors playing them.

At least it succeeds on a technical level. Again, the effects are pretty great, and the action scenes are easy to follow (sad that this has to be worth mentioning at all, but that's how it is these days) and largely exciting. There's a great sequence where Bettany and the others have to keep a parade of cars from getting to the diner, and it's both exciting and somewhat unique (it's like Michael Bay's version of a tower defense game). There seems to be some missing scenes here and there (Palicki and Black have a fight, and then they are OK with each other a few minutes later - expect many a "this was cut for time" scene on the DVD), but it's otherwise well edited, and the surround mix is terrific. Really, the only legitimate problem with this movie is the bizarrely stunted pace and far too dependent on sequels approach, but unfortunately those are pretty big problems.

(Another big problem - having a killer kid cause havoc and then killing him off-screen. Weaksauce, five yard penalty!)

Part of me wants the film to succeed, so that at least one of those sequels can come to pass and maybe deliver on the promise of the concept. But part of me also wants the film to tank, because maybe (optimism alert!) it would give studios and filmmakers some pause before greenlighting another film that's designed to only tell 1/3 of a story. You look at New Hope, or Scream, or Matrix - those films were all open and shut. There was room to explore the stories, and maybe a few minor questions (really just New Hope there, i.e. why is Vader in that suit), but if they tanked, their fans would still be able to enjoy a more or less complete story. I feel Legion doesn't quite get there, and worse, it wasn't exciting/interesting enough for me to really care if it ever does.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Beast Within (2008)

JANUARY 21, 2010

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

In a way it’s sort of awesome that Beast Within (aka Virus Undead) isn’t just a killer bird movie, because that’s what I was expecting (based on the box art, featuring a scary looking bird, and the blurb saying that it’s “The Birds meets Outbreak”). So when it turned out to actually be a zombie movie of sorts, I was surprised and engaged by the turn of events. But had I known it was a zombie movie, I probably would have been disappointed, since the zombie stuff is largely confined to the final half hour.

It sort of reminded me of Dead Snow a bit, in that it’s actually structured very much like a slasher movie - three friends go off to an isolated house that one of them inherited, and are joined by two lovely young women, and someone is watching them, etc. So I’m like “cool, a killer bird movie with slasher sensibilities!” and then all of a sudden, I’m waiting for killer birds to show up, and BAM! some zombies are biting our heroes and trying to invade the house where they are holed up. Then the birds do show up on top of that. I mean, it’s not a particularly great movie, but the largely successful combination of genres was a nice surprise.

I also liked the surprising depiction of the two female characters (spoilers ahead!) One’s the hero’s old flame, and the other is sort of a slut, and given the slasher feel, you probably assume that the latter will die instantly and the former might be the only one to make it out alive. However, the slutty one turns out to not only last a while, but sort of kick some ass as well, and the would-be heroine plummets to her death during the climax. And the goofy cop, who is set up as a sort of Deputy Dewey comic relief hero, gets killed early on. So not only am I surprised at the type of movie it is, I’m also mildly surprised with how it plays out as well. Excellent.

And it’s fairly well made too, another nice surprise. Yes, we’ve come to the point where seeing a professionally executed movie is a surprise. But it’s Lionsgate’s fault - they distribute such a wide range of DTV movies (and so many of each type), it’s impossible to tell from the cover and synopsis if it’s some guy’s backyard indie, or an import, or a legit movie that they just never released theatrically. This is an import, and it hilariously even makes a big deal out of the fact that it was shot on film on the back of the DVD. Again, this shouldn’t be necessary, but you get so many movies shot on consumer DVD these days, why not point out that the filmmakers had enough pride in their creation to shoot it on something that looked good?

I also loved the score, but I could swear I have heard it before in another movie. It's in the trailer - give it a listen and see if you recognize it. I wanted to say like Midnight Meat Train, but that ain't it. Something on those lines, perhaps? I dunno. Either way I want it as a ringtone.

The only technical gaffe is some bad dubbing, which is only noticeable because it only seems to affect the female characters. Everyone seems to be speaking English (unless the German translation would require almost identical mouth movement), but the female characters, even minor ones, all have that detached sound to their voices. It was a constant distraction for me.

I was also a bit puzzled as to why the film was given the moniker Wolf Wolff’s Beast Within. Mr Wolff was one of two directors (the other being someone named simply Ohmuthi), and he did not produce or write the film at all. Kind of brazen if you ask me. And he doesn’t seem to be any sort of big deal, he has two other films, one of which doesn’t even seem to have been released (what with only 8 votes on the IMDb), and the other isn’t well known in the States, so I doubt it was a marketing ploy from LG. I wonder if Mr. Wolff refers to the film as “Wolf Wolff’s Beast Within”, just like Wes Craven actually refers to Nightmare 7 as “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare” (I actually heard him say this - I was delightfully baffled). The DVD doesn’t have any extra features to find out (unless you consider 5.1 sound and Spanish subtitles to be extra features, because that’s where you will find them on the DVD menu).

So look, it’s not a great film, but it’s a solidly entertaining one all the same, and I think if you go in blind, or even just going by the DVD cover, you’ll probably enjoy its kitchen sink approach and largely old-school (save for the CGI birds) feel.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Homicidal (1961)

JANUARY 20, 2010

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, REVENGE
SOURCE: NETFLIX (INSTANT VIEW)

Poll: were audiences simply not trying to get the jump on the films they were watching back in the 60s, or were people just stupid back then? The twist in Homicidal is so blatantly obvious that I was actually caught off-guard when I realized it was supposed to be a twist. “Oh, you mean - I’m not supposed to know that thing? Oh, OK. Huh.” I mean, it’s still a fun movie and all, but yikes, I’d be embarrassed if the ending came around and I was like “WHOOOOOOOOOA!”

(Spoilers, obviously)

I dunno though, maybe some folks aren’t paying attention, or don’t notice things like facial structure. And thus, they will indeed be surprised when the end of the film “reveals” that the awkward looking male character who is obviously dubbed and never appears in a scene with his alleged wife, a quite attractive woman, are in fact the same person. Those folks will probably also enjoy the twist in Amusement, another film where the filmmakers prayed that an audience will blindly accept that two characters with different identifying characteristics (hair-styles, glasses, etc) are indeed two different people. I wonder if they also found Fletch confusing. “Who is this guy on roller skates? Why’s he so interested in Fletch’s case?”

But like I said, it’s still fun. As un-surprising as the final twist was, I sure as hell didn’t expect her to freak out and stab a judge 10 minutes into the movie (it’s pretty bloody too). Nor did I think poor Helga would get decapitated on her stair-ascender wheelchair thingie. I also enjoyed the lovably dated references, particularly with money. During a wedding scene, the would-be groom balks at the fact that it’s going to cost 50 bucks (which is the “charge you extra” rate due to the fact that it’s in the middle of the night), and later, a traveling knife sharpener (why not?) charges two dollars to sharpen every knife in the house, but he lucks out as she only wants him to fix the one in her hand. Someone’s eating steak tonight!

I was also tickled by the heroine’s name: Miriam Webster. Now, of all the goddamn names in the world, why would you use that? It’s like the writer went to get a book of baby names for some ideas, but saw the dictionary first and was like “Ah, fuck it.” Hilariously, a guy even says that there are probably “lots of women” with that name in the Southern California area. No, because I don’t think ironic names were that big of a rage in 1961.

1961 is, of course, after 1960, and thus after Psycho. And boy does it show. No one involved pretended that it wasn’t a Psycho cash-in, but some of the steals are a bit too blatant for my taste. The young pretty blond on the run early on, getting paranoid when she sees the police (hilariously, after she calms down and goes on her way, she blows through a stop sign. Way to keep the cops from noticing you!), money, motels... it’s all a touch familiar. There’s even an Arbogast type character who shows up in the film’s second half. And the climax revolves around a dead woman propped in a chair, a cross-dressing killer, and a big old house. Come on Castle, at least TRY to distinguish yourself!

Castle, of course, has his usual gimmicks to give his film its own identity. This one has a 45 second countdown clock in which scared audience members could leave the theater, but they would be called cowards and have to sit in the “Coward’s Corner” in the theater lobby. It has been suggested that anyone actually in the corner was a paid plant (I probably would have done it for the hell of it - especially since I already had the ending figured out) and apparently the movie had some trouble being booked because of the nonsensical logistics involved with managing such a thing, but I think it’s funny. I sure as hell wasn’t taking the movie seriously anyway, so the fourth wall break smack dab in the middle of the friggin’ climax was pretty funny to me.

You may have noticed that I watched the film on Netflix instant. I am aware of the irony - had Castle been alive today, he would probably be disgusted at the idea of people watching low quality versions of any film, let alone his, at home instead of in a theater, since the moviegoing experience was so integral to his appeal. For what it’s worth, it WAS in Netflix HD (which approximates the quality of say, a non-anamorphic DVD zoomed in on an HD set, as opposed to the just barely better than VHS quality of the rest of their movies), but still, seemed wrong to be watching it that way. I’d love to see a week-long festival of his films (PRINTS!), with all of the gimmicks (Tinglers, floating skeletons, life insurance policies, etc) intact. Or as a day-long event at a horror festival. Someone make this happen!!!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Night Of The Zombies (1980)

JANUARY 19, 2010

GENRE: ITALIAN, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

I often bemoan the act of retitling Italian films for US distribution, because then I don’t know if I have seen it yet. That they are all so similar doesn’t help, it’s like they have a magnet-poetry kit with the words “City”, “Dead”, “Living”, “Hell”, “Zombies”, and “Night” (or “Nightmare”) and simply come up with different combinations. So as I was stewing at work for missing City Of The Living Dead, I discovered that it was actually Nightmare City, which I had seen just a few months ago. And I got out of work in time for Night Of The Zombies (Italian: L'inferno Dei Morti Viventi, but also known as Virus and, sigh, Hell of the Living Dead), which I most definitely had not seen.

Now, it’s a terrible movie in the conventional sense. The plot careens wildly around without ever becoming remotely coherent, there’s an abundance of stock footage that seemingly goes out of its way to not fit into the narrative (after we see some stampeding elephants, one of the characters advises the other to try to not make any sound since it’s so quiet and their position will be given away), and the characters are a terribly boring lot, largely stolen directly from Dawn of the Dead, except there are four officer types instead of two.

But through the magic of a full crowd at the New Beverly, it is, of course, a masterpiece. Each baffling plot turn inspires a bout of joyous laughter, each use of random stock footage is greeted with applause, and... well, the characters still suck, but when they die, it’s a glorious reward for all of us who have endured their nonsense for the past 90 minutes.

And nonsense it is. At one point, the most annoying of the group randomly puts on a tutu and begins prancing around like a jackass, despite the obvious danger around him (I like to think he is the cousin of the blood pressure obsessed goon in Dawn of the Dead). About 2/3 of the way through the movie, we are treated to a lengthy session of what I assume is supposed to be a crumbling UN, where all but one of the remaining consulates get up and leave once 5 pm rolls around (zombies or no, arbitrary shift end times must be observed). But the real raison d'etre has to be when the lone female of the group strips down and covers herself in “tribal” paint in order to distract the native zombies that are holding them up. It’s the sort of ridiculous, “why the fuck not?” moment that only exists in Italian horror movies, and would probably be parodied incessantly had the film not been so obscure.

But as obscure as it is, it’s almost a wonder it was released at all. The Wikipedia “production history” section for the film seems book-worthy, considering all of the production issues that arose (and those are just the ones that were reported - it was long before the internet and director Bruno Mattei has been dead for over a decade). Footage that had to be junked due to not matching the other footage, rewrites that weren’t reflected in the parts of the movie that was left intact, the stock footage... no wonder I didn’t really understand the plot (and I was sober!). I mean, it’s not exactly Southland Tales baffling, but suffice to say, I learned more about the story from reading the wiki synopsis than I did in the film itself, and others I talked to after the film seemed just as mystified by some of its plot points (such as what exactly the commando guys’ mission was).

Oh, and there’s an early scene where our commandos take out a group of terrorists, many of whom are unarmed when they are killed by our “heroes”. Along with the “outbreak” scene, in which we see the same shot of a control board with sequential green lights FIVE TIMES, set the tone nicely for the film that followed. I think having just watched Cemetery Man, in which the opening scenes are about zombies and the final third of the film is not, helped me appreciate this movie all the more. They tell you it’s a zombie movie in the first scene, and by god they keep it that way until the end, in which our heroine’s eyeballs are forced out of her head by the zombie hand reaching into her mouth.

In closing, I just want to once again reiterate my love for the movie-going experience and why anyone who tells me that digital downloading and watching things on your iPod is the way of the future is likely to earn my eternal scorn. Under any other circumstances, this movie would be unwatchable, but with the crowd, and on a somewhat scratchy but otherwise well preserved film print, it was the most fun I’ve had all month. People like to praise the convenience of things like Netflix instant, and I admit it’s a nice thing to have (it’s saved HMAD’s streak on several occasions), but it’s just that - a nice thing to have, not a replacement. And I can PROVE that it’s detrimental to the film - my first experience with the service was with the film Graduation Day, and I didn’t like it much. A year later, I saw it in a theater and had a ball. Yes, there are some inconveniences (parking, line-waiting, etc) and there might be a dickhead in the audience who can’t wait 90 minutes to check his Twitter feed, but Christ - if you truly love movies, then none of that stuff should factor into your decision to watch a blurry, possibly full-frame version of that film at home instead of seeing it properly alongside an appreciative crowd.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Cemetery Man (1994)

JANUARY 18, 2010

GENRE: WEIRD, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

My introduction to Italian cinema came in 1995, when I bought a bootleg of Cemetery Man (aka Dellamorte Dellamore) from a mail-order company in TX (if memory serves). In retrospect it’s a horrible place to start, since zombies are pretty much a subplot (not a single one appears in the film’s final 25 minutes or so, for one thing) and there isn’t a lot of the unfiltered splatter that makes something like a Fulci film so much fun. And that’s probably why I didn’t like it much then, but when HMAD reader Samantha recommended it I realized I couldn't remember a damn thing about it.

Well, all but one thing, which is part of why I didn't like it when I first saw it: GIANT NEEDLE INTO PENIS SCENE. As a maturing 15 year old, that was the most horrible and upsetting thing I had ever seen in my life (and still is, I think), and I had no desire to see it again. In fact, as I sat down to watch it tonight, I realized that it was the only thing about the movie that I could recall. I couldn’t even remember why I didn’t like it much, and I never even got the usual déjà vu that accompanies a viewing of a “forgotten” film when I take another look at it 15 or whatever years later. You would think that the horribly cheesy “fireflies” (with strings more visible than the flying saucers in Plan 9 From Outer Space) would leave an imprint or at least ring a bell, but nope. I spent half my viewing tonight wondering if it was even the film I had seen.

Then the goddamn penis needle scene came up and I knew for sure.

Anyway, it’s still not one of my favorites, though I do appreciate its ‘out-there’ approach and emphasis on character and (intentional) humor over typical zombie action. I just wish it was structured differently so that the zombies would still play a part in the 3rd act. Not necessarily a big action finale, but SOMETHING. Kind of weird to think that if someone were to come in late and only see the last 30 minutes of the movie, they wouldn’t even know it was a horror film.

But it works as a comedic romantic fantasy drama... thing. The recurring appearance of Anna Falchi (good lord, this woman) in different roles (or are they) keeps things charmingly strange, and I love the character of Gnaghi, who “hates to see dead leaves blown away”. At times it feels more like a Jeunet film than an Italian zombie flick, and having seen so many, I think it’s the better for it. The irony, of course, is that the zombie movie stuff is interesting as well, and worthy of its own dedicated story, instead as a sort of segway to the romantic/existential stuff that Michele Soavi is more interested in.

For starters, the zombies come back after seven days, and our main character (Rupert Everett - whatever happened to this guy?) is a cemetery watcher who helps keep it under control. There’s a quick throwaway bit where he is checking off which graves have been taken care of (i.e. shot in the head so that they won’t return), and some humor about the paperwork needed to continue his duty... stuff like that, coupled with a full blown zombie movie, would be pretty fun, I think, and more importantly, would feel fresh, instead of the usual “trap everyone in a location” type execution. I mean, Christ, Soavi has the balls to include a scene where the zombies are all boy scouts (!), but you could almost delete the scene from the film without any consequence. Again, weaving the zombie stuff throughout the film instead of front-loading it, I think, would have resulted in a more solid (and accessible) film.

Splatter fans will be disappointed for sure. Most of the zombie kills are entirely bloodless, and only the rare human kill has any arterial action. The makeup effects for the zombies aren’t particularly exciting either, and some of them talk, which I never care for. I suppose there’s some irony that one of the more celebrated zombie movies has such minimal zombie action, but it’s still bound to disappoint some who think they are in for a visual feast. Again though, it’s not that the movie is bad, but I wish that whenever the film was heralded that it would include a little disclaimer. “Warning: This movie has as many goddamn fireflies as zombies.”

The disc’s only real extra is a 30 minute retrospective about Soavi and the film. Rupert’s nowhere to be seen, but Falchi (who is even more alluring now, if you ask me) and some others offer their thoughts, detailing the film’s inception and a bit about the (aborted) attempt at a remake during Everett’s quick stint on the Hollywood A-list. Soavi also reveals that he initially couldn’t even finish the source material because he didn’t get it, so I don’t feel too dumb for not understanding the ending (are they in a snow globe? Was the whole movie a dream?). A bio for Soavi is also included, as is the trailer, which sells the film as more of a Dead Alive style romp. There is also a curious trailer reel, as it focuses entirely on the small set of other FOX/Anchor Bay co-distribution releases. So instead of the newest Evil Dead release or Hatchet or whatever, we get Freaked, Bad Dreams, Visiting Hours (!), and something called Warning Sign, which looks sort of like Chosen Survivors to me, except with some sort of bio-monster instead of bats. It also has a hilarious voiceover where the guy says the tagline and the title of the movie, and then randomly adds “Sam Waterston. Kathleen Quinlan.”, but without saying “Starring” or adding the director or the MPAA rating. It’s like he just started reading the credits and they cut him off. At any rate, I now know that there is a horror movie with Sam Waterston, so I’m excited.

The package also includes a “8 page” (fuck you, it’s 6 - covers don’t count!) booklet with additional info about the film. AB used to include these things all the time, but haven’t bothered lately. Hell, they don’t even include a single sheet with the chapter names or maybe the original poster reprint like all studios used to provide. Enviro-friendly action, or another example of how DVDs became the standard and thus the studios dropped a lot of the added incentives to buy them? You be the judge.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Blade II (2002)

JANUARY 17, 2010

GENRE: COMIC BOOK, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I'm a big fan of most comic book movies. I'm a big fan of Guillermo Del Toro. And I'm a big fan of things that look like vaginas. So why did I find Blade II to be such a boring film? I thought the first one was fun, if nothing special, but with the talent (and bigger budget) on hand for the sequel, I felt comfortable thinking it would be superior, or at least equal. Sadly this wasn’t the case, and all I got out of it was saying “Well, now I can watch the 3rd one.”

See, Blade II came out at a time when I was busy on a student film, as well as very broke. So I missed a lot of movies I otherwise would have seen on opening night. Then it came out on DVD when I was trying to save up for my upcoming internship (and this was before Netflix, or at least before I was a member), so I didn’t get it then either. I finally picked it up in 2004, because I knew the 3rd one was coming out and wanted to catch up. So I bought it, and put it on one night, got about 20 minutes in, and proceeded to sleep through the entire thing, occasionally waking for maybe a minute or two. I don’t think I ever even saw the characters played by Matt Schulze or Karel Roden. I think I caught Perlman snarling at one point, but I can’t be sure. At any rate, what I saw didn’t impress me much (I wasn’t as bad with my dozing off back then - if I slept that much it was because of the film's quality), and had little interest in re-watching it. And, suffice to say, I skipped Blade: Trinity in theaters (though that was more due to the poisonous word of mouth).

But having time for a two hour movie today, I figured I would give it another chance. I’d become an even bigger fan of Del Toro in the meantime (my only exposure to him at the time I originally tried to watch Blade II was Hellboy and Devil’s Backbone - which is still my favorite of his films) and with all of the more traditional vampire movies I’ve watched for HMAD, I figured I would appreciate the change of pace (i.e. action over romance). Sadly, this was not the case - I stayed awake this time, but I remained bored throughout most of its running time.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a well made film. The budget isn’t as big as other Marvel efforts, but it’s all up on the screen. Effects, most of the acting, all fine. It’s just a fucking bore. There is a reason Blade never got his own on-going series (even one of the limited series got canceled halfway through!) - he is simply a one-note and thoroughly uninteresting character. He only goes after vampires, his personal tragedy doesn’t seem to affect him the way Uncle Ben’s death affects Peter Parker (if anything it just seems like the creator’s way of giving him cool powers and explaining away any potential plot holes), and the villains lack the “gray area” element that makes someone like Magneto (who wants his kind to be accepted) or even the friggin’ Lizard (a scientist who became a victim of the research he was using to try to grow back a missing arm) interesting enough to watch during the non-action scenes. Hell, I don’t even know exactly what it is that the bad guys in this movie were trying to accomplish, but there sure as hell wasn’t anything really noble about it.

And the movie is 115 minutes long but they tell you everything in the first reel. The bad vampires approach Blade to seek his help in taking down the even worse vampires (not the worst plot, honestly), and almost instantly, Blade says that he thinks it’s a setup. And guess what? It is! But it takes another 75 minutes or so to get to that point. It would have been far more interesting to set up the betrayal as an actual surprise, and maybe have a few moments where a vamp saves Blade’s life (or vice versa) or they bond or whatever. But no, the part in between these two scenes is pretty much two overlong action scenes (test audiences actually complained that the film had too much action!), and Blade disappears for large chunks of each as we focus on the “bad-but-not-AS-bad” vampires like Perlman and Tony Curran.

Of course, the exception is a woman vampire, which is a subplot that is as painfully generic as they come. Blade of course hates all of the male guys, but he has a soft spot for her, protecting her, making sure she’s OK, and even letting her drink his blood when she is injured. So Blade’s not gay, that’s about all that these scenes accomplish. Again, it would be far more interesting to see him either A. treat her, a perfectly sexy woman, with as much contempt and hatred as he gives the rest of them, or B. have him bond with one of the males on a personal level (maybe they were both turned against their will or whatever), which would at least add a layer of depth to the guy beyond “dude wants to fuck”.

The action scenes also go on for so long that they too become boring. Sure, I like watching a vampire explode/melt into ash as much as the next guy, but after I see it 5 times in the first sequence I’m kind of tired of it. And the scene where they track the bad ones around a night club is not only a bit reminiscent of the Blood Club in the original, but it goes on FOREVER, to the point where I started wondering if the film was going to play out entirely in this one location, after the initial set up, like The Rock or whatever. The next long one (in the sewers) is a bit better, as they introduce ridiculous things like UV light bombs and (briefly) have Blade and Ron Perlman’s character fighting side by side instead of engaging in their generic chest-puffing (which is as far as it goes - the two never really fight; their big showdown is about 4 seconds long), but it’s also repetitive and in dire need of editing. And Blade’s fighting is as dull as his character - he just spins around a lot, makes a lot of “whoosh” sounds whenever he does anything, and keeps his sunglasses on and his head pointed down at all times. I actually began longing for an Underworld style shootout, just to mix it up a bit.

I was also a bit disappointed how little of Del Toro himself showed through (though apparently all of the vagina-esque visuals were his idea). Even Mimic had more of his signature style and personality. I kept expecting the villains to reveal some sort of magic powers or something, but nope. Apart from a brother-sister dynamic that was also present (and far more effective) in Hellboy II, and a couple of the cast members (Perlman, Roden, Luke Goss), there’s nothing here that really feels distinctively Del Toro. And his reliance on CGI here was a bit disappointing; granted the technology wasn’t where it’s at today, but still - why did he use a CGI ninja instead of hiring an actual martial artist who could somersault and fight? The “character” is wearing a mask for Christ’s sake, it’s not like they couldn’t find a convincing look-alike to double for the actor.

Then again, maybe he was overruled on certain things. Unusual for any film, let alone a big budget production based on an existing property, both the film’s star and its writer were also producers on the film. Thus, it wouldn’t surprise me if the film was the result of too many cooks spoiling the broth. Some evidence of that appears on the commentary by Snipes and Goyer, where they occasionally point out things Del Toro wanted that they vetoed (or let him do it and express confusion as to why its there). And the only reason I chose this commentary over Del Toro’s was because the two men would go on to hate each other on the next film, to the point where Snipes sued Goyer over the direction it took (can’t blame him - the film underperformed, Snipes hasn’t had a theatrical release since, and Goyer went on to co-write the Batman movies with Chris Nolan), and you can already sense some minor animosity between the two (Snipes doesn’t seem to want to do the commentary at all, and gets a bit perturbed when Goyer indirectly suggests that Snipes isn’t the only reason that the films were successful). Add in the likely demands of Marvel, and New Line, and it’s a wonder the film even makes sense.

There’s a 2nd disc full of stuff, but I haven’t had time to check it out yet. Maybe I’ll get around to it and update, but since the film was well-made and it obviously did well at the box office, there isn’t likely to be anything on there that would interest a non-fan (i.e. no tell all documentary where everyone bitches at each other for the film’s faults). I’m in the minority on this one it seems, and that’s fine. But if you are a fan and are in the dark, there’s at least three hours’ worth of stuff on there to enjoy, plus the other commentary by Del Toro and one of the 5798 producers.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Shattered Lives (2009)

JANUARY 16, 2010

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Like last year's (for me) Frayed, Shattered Lives owes a bit to the original Halloween, but in a way that I found refreshing instead of annoying. It's not a perfect film, and it gets a bit too melodramatic in its third act, but it's a step in the right direction for independent filmmakers seeking to put their own stamp on the slasher film, which is of course the most over-mired subgenre in all of film history, not just horror.

Spoilers ahead!

Instead of copying Halloween's structure, Shattered Lives merely finds a way to put a spin on its opening shocker (that our killer was a little kid) that actually works. After an opening slasher (and fairly splatter-y) segment, the film details Rachel, a girl of maybe 6 or 7 whose mind is cracking under the stress (for lack of an age-appropriate word) of her parents' failing marriage. She starts conversing with two imaginary clowns (living embodiments of two of her dolls), and they eventually convince her to stab her mother, in a scene that actually managed to shock despite being set up for at least 20 minutes prior to its occurrence. And there are other little references to Carpenter's classic, such as a scene played out through the eye-holes of a mask, or the 2.35 image (very rare for these things). But that's why a film like this works when something like Offerings fails - it obviously owes a debt to Halloween, but in a way that feels unique. Whereas some films seem like the director watched Halloween and took a few notes while saying "I can do this", this feels like the product of a filmmaker who saw Halloween as a kid, loved it, and is paying homage to it (possibly even subconsciously) when he goes off to make his own film years later.

I also dug the balls of Carl Lindbergh to start the film off with his biggest setpiece and then more or less present a character based psychological drama for the next 75 minutes. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the overlong and rather pointless hyper-edit replay of the opening massacre that comes near the end of the film was the result of a producer or distributor demanding more "action" in the finale. Not only that, but we discover the nature of the killings, which adds another layer of tragedy to it. It's interesting, early this morning (12:01 am to be exact!) I finally saw the French film Irreversible, and that film also shows us a brutal killing, and then later tells us why it occurred. It's not quite as justified here as it was in Irreversible, but it's the same sort of thing, playing with our ideas of violence.

Another ballsy move? Creating the most hateful mother I've ever seen in a film. Seriously, the mom from Baby Blues is a better mother than this (four letter word I shouldn't say but is really the only one to use here). She takes her daughter to the park so she can make out with her paramour (she even lets the kid watch) and then later has the guy over the house with her daughter there (dad's at work)! Then when the dad surprises her with plane tickets to Hawaii for just the two of them, she starts bitching at him for that too. At one point she even gets angry because her husband loves their daughter "differently" than he loves her. Uh, I think there are laws about a guy loving his daughter the same way he loves his wife, so that's sort of a good thing on his part. She also threatens to leave and tells the girl it will be her fault if their marriage ends. Honestly, it's amazing it took two rhyming and imaginary clowns to convince the girl to stab this bitch.

Ah yes, the clowns. They don't really do much beyond look creepy and rhyme, but they add a layer of quirky originality to the film all the same, and even though they get annoying, they are a huge part of what keeps this movie afloat. In fact, there are a lot of odd little moments throughout the film, such as when the girl has a tea party with her dolls and Lindbergh provides closeup cutaways of each one. Or the fact that the family's refrigerator inexplicably has a painting of a rooster on it. It extends to the technical side of things as well; the aspect ratio occasionally changes to 4:1 for some reason (yet it doesn't appear to be an anamorphic error - everything we see is scaled correctly).

The DVD has no extras, which is a bummer as I would have liked to have listened to Lindbergh talk about the process of making his film (which he wrote, directed, produced, and edited) and maybe explain why his child actor (who isn't the best in the world, honestly) looks nothing like her parents (though the grownup version does look a LOT like the mother, to the extent that I was momentarily confused). And of course, verify my beliefs about Halloween, cuz if it was just coincidence I'd feel really bad for chalking these moments up to homage instead of creativity. At any rate, it's more than just a notch or two above the usual indie junk LG puts out, and I look forward to Lindbergh's next film Bunnyman, despite the fact that it sounds a lot like a concept I had been cooking up recently. BUT maybe in 20 years I can make my movie and then some movie reviewer can theorize that I was influenced by Bunnyman. That'd be funny.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Martin (1977)

JANUARY 15, 2010

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

During a recent screening of Knightriders (which I had never seen) I was embarrassed as a horror nerd to realize that I wasn’t sure what John Amplas looked like, as he was the film and I knew he was the star of Martin. I had started watching the film back in high school, but as was often the case with me, I fell asleep watching it and never went back to finish it (I used to go to school all day and then work all night at the mall, so sue me!). Of course, seeing Martin didn’t really help, since Amplas played a guy who was always in clown makeup in Knightriders, but hey, at least now I’ve filled two gaps in my Romero exposure.

It’s kind of sad that Romero can’t get a film off the ground these days unless it has zombies (and even those he can barely get released), because Martin (and Knightriders, for the record) are really unique and interesting movies, unlike pretty much anything else I can recall. Even though his zombie films are usually a little off the beaten path, they are still zombie movies with a lot of the usual zombie movie trappings. But with Martin, I had no idea where the movie was going even as it was winding down, and even when I was occasionally reminded of other films for whatever reason (Cannibal Apocalypse kept coming to mind; John Morghen’s character’s arc in that film was similar to Martin’s at times), it never felt like a direct response to a film that had come before. And more importantly in these days of remakes and ripoffs, I never felt like I was watching a film I had already seen a dozen times due to seeing the films that “paid homage” to it (you know, like if you see House of 1000 Corpses before you saw Texas Chain Saw Massacre). It’s its own thing through and through.

The great thing about the movie is that it never quite provides a definitive answer as to whether or not Martin is indeed a vampire. I lean towards no, but the film works even if you think he is (provided you accept that a lot of the traditional lore doesn’t apply here - i.e. he goes out in the sun and such). His flashbacks could indeed be flashbacks, or they could be movie-infused hallucinations. Or some sort of reincarnation memory (like, his ancestor WAS a vampire but he is not). I always enjoy these sort of interpretive movies, and I could see myself giving it another look in ten years and having an opposing theory. That said, since I DO think he was just a fucked up kid (and Romero says the same on the DVD extras), I think the movie could have used a scene of him watching a vampire movie. Certainly enough of them were in the public domain that it could have been affordable (even with this film’s pitiful 80,000 budget), and I don’t think such a scene would have been “too telling” or whatever. If anything, it would have helped the argument; maybe he was watching it to get ideas, maybe he was just amused by its depiction of his nature. Then again, the movie was once 160 minutes long (cut down to 97 minutes almost instantly; the “full” version no longer exists) so maybe there was a scene like it originally. Just seems odd, any “he’s just confused” theory will point out that these black and white flashbacks are the result of a kid having seen too many movies, but for all we know he doesn’t even watch TV.

I also liked how abruptly it ended, giving even American Werewolf In London a run for its money in this category. However, as is the case with many Romero films, there is a little coda of sorts that plays over the end credits, as we listen to the radio show that Martin frequently called during the film as the host wonders why he hasn’t called in. And we hear this over footage of his uncle burying the poor sod in the garden. Heh.

The DVD has some nice features, including a commentary with Romero, Tom Savini, composer Donald Rubinstein, and DP Michael Gornick. There are some gaps, which is odd as there are FOUR guys in the room, but it’s a good track with lots of great stories and anecdotes. I only wish Romero had done one solo or at least felt comfortable saying something that didn’t include the others, as the story and themes are hardly addressed at all. Technical talk makes up the bulk of the insight, so if you’re looking to know more of where he got the idea or why there’s a drug deal scene in the middle of the climax, you’re out of luck. You WILL, however, learn the pros and cons of certain cameras and editing systems. There is also a retrospective with the four men (where the hell is Amplas?), where Savini admits the blood looks awful (“like melted pink crayon”) and Romero talks about how depressing it was to see dying Pennsylvania towns in the 70s like the one where they shot the film. Then there’s an overlong trailer and a TV spot, and some other trailers for other Lionsgate releases (this is back before they would force you to watch them at the top of the disc). As I thought it was a barebones release, all of this stuff was a nice surprise, though I almost missed the commentary track, as it is buried in the setup menu. DVD designers - a commentary track is a special feature, and doesn’t belong in the set up page. No one looks in the set up menu unless they are watching the film and discover that the audio is inexplicably set to French mono.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Slaughter Of The Vampires (1962)

JANUARY 14, 2010

GENRE: VAMPIRE
SOURCE: NETFLIX (INSTANT VIEW)

Hey, filmmakers - stop doing the "Dracula" story. Don’t do it straight up, don’t contemporarize it, don’t put it in fucking space, and CERTAINLY don’t just rip it off, like Roberto Mauri did for Slaughter Of The Vampires (Italian: La Strage Dei Vampiri). At least if it has “Dracula” in the title I know what I’m in for, but here I sit down to watch what I think is a different take on the vampire story, and after a half hour, sure enough, the vampire has fallen in love with the new love of a well-to-do man, and he has to team up with a doctor to save her from the vampire’s spell. There’s no Renfield, but that’s about as close as they get to mixing things up once the story kicks into gear.

And it’s a shame, because it DOES start off differently, with the townsfolk chasing some vampires and taking them out, and then there’s a couple on their honeymoon, and a nice dance... it’s not the most thrilling movie ever, that’s for sure, but at least I didn’t think I had seen it 47 goddamn times already.

All that said, it’s not bad as these things go. It’s only 75 minutes long, so it’s not a heavy investment, and every 5 minutes or so, something peculiar or laughable occurs, providing the energy for me to get through the entire thing without feeling like I had entered a time warp. For example, the doctor examines a guy who had been attacked and straight up prescribes him a “nice glass of beer”. Thanks doc. And I also enjoyed the occasional laziness in the screenplay, such as when someone needs a blood transfusion and the doctor just tells a woman to “get blood from the townspeople”. Uh... don’t you need to know his blood type, at least, let alone theirs? Or is the entire town Type O? Or is the screenwriter assuming that the audience gets the jist and doesn’t need details, sort of like when a guy in a movie goes into a bar and just orders “a beer”?

The laziness applies to some of the filmmaking too. The girl gets bit on the neck and then two scenes later we can clearly see that there is no bite mark. And when the vampire dies (spoiler!) they do one of those “let’s just fade in and out to different stages of his decomposition” things, but they move the camera around so much in between shots (and change the position of the corpse) that it’s damn near impossible to tell what is going on. In fact, the only way I DID understand it is because I had seen it done in so many other movies. There you have it, a film where you need to see other movies to understand it, but will then be bored by it because all it’s doing is copying other movies.

I also noticed something that puzzled me a bit. Like a lot of old films, you can see the “cigarette burns” on this home video release, which means that when the film showed theatrically, that would be where the reels needed to be changed. But they come awfully rapidly in this film; I think I counted three in the first 20 minutes (which would normally be the amount of time for one). So I started suspecting that maybe I was watching an edited version, but I can find no evidence to support such a thing - by all accounts, the movie was always 75 minutes long. Weird.

I also got to thinking - why doesn’t Dracula or his simulacrums ever fall for poor women? It’s always some broad with ties to the local higher-ups, and she lives in a mansion and all that. I guess its so they can get that cool shot of the vamp entering her window - WHICH IS ON THE SECOND FLOOR!!! Scary!! But then, why not set it in a slum, like Cabrini Green or whatever. There we go - Dracula On Chicago Avenue. He could fall for a hooker and the gangs could get all noble and fight him off to save her. Of course, that would be yet another Dracula movie, so even if they made it I’d be pissed off at having to watch another goddamn Dracula movie, so don’t bother on my account.

Well, whatever, it’s mildly entertaining (and female lead Graziella Granata is quite sexy, for what it’s worth) but not very good, and the generic Drac riffs keep it from being worth anyone’s while, unless you are the world’s biggest "Dracula" fan and have a compulsive need to watch every single film that uses Stoker’s story as a guide. Then by all means, seek out Slaughter Of The Vampires!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...