The Boogeyman (2012)

AUGUST 12, 2012

GENRE: SLASHER, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: CABLE (SYFY)

I thought last week was Shark Week, hence Syfy's airing of the movie Shark Week, but it's actually THIS week where we celebrate our planet's oldest living murderers. So I assume someone at Syfy was fired for choosing to kick things off with a new movie called The Boogeyman (just Boogeyman on-screen; the "The" was probably added to differentiate from the Barry Watson movie that they air every other week), which is not only shark-free, but is one of maybe 3 Syfy Original Movies (or SOMs) I've seen all year that WASN'T shark related. Who the hell made this call? What's next week? Something about the Olympics being attacked by, er, sharks?

Anyway, The Boogeyman is actually pretty enjoyable for a SOM, mainly because it's so much unlike its brethren. No sharks or scientific mutations of any sort, no cutaways to random victims that are never mentioned again, and not a single Battlestar Galactica star! The guy from Warehouse 13 is the lead here, and he's pretty charming and down-to-earth, seen playing video games with his sons, macking on his hot partner, etc. It's the sort of role Bruce Campbell might have played back when he gave a shit, and even though I've never seen Warehouse 13 and thus had no attachment to the guy, I was legit fearful when it seemed like he might have been a goner during a couple points in the climax.

He's kind of a shitty cop though. When his chief gives him a report, he asks her like 10 questions, to which she basically replies "it says right there" over and over. His kids access a gun way too easily, and when he encounters an injured victim of the boogeyman hanging from a tree, he just shoots the rope and lets the kid fall headfirst to the ground without even trying to cushion the blow. Then again the whole force seems kind of incompetent; the chief gets one of her men killed when she fails to realize that the boogeyman has rigged up some makeshift guillotine to the button she keeps pounding on despite another guy in the room pleading with her not to touch it, and the other hero cop shoots the chief when trying to take it down. Who trained these people?

But it's a fun little tale of a bloodthirsty beast who gets loose after his brother/keeper dies of a heart attack, dicing up some townsfolk as the heroes try to figure out who is behind these murders (spoiler: The Boogeyman) and how to stop it. One of the heroes has a secret past connected to the thing, and there's all these Cain and Abel allusions that prove the screenwriter actually knows how to read, which isn't a given with SOMs. The hero's sons are named Jacob and Isaac, which also have biblical connotations, though Isaac was Jacob's father, not brother (Jacob's brother was Esau, which would be a weird name for a kid). Still, it gives it a bit of weight these things often lack, which I appreciated.

In fact, I spent some time wondering if this was meant to be a real movie at some point, with a budget and an actual US shooting location instead of Bulgaria or wherever it was (there were about 700 Vs in the opening credits alone, so it had to be some Eastern Europe locale). At times it felt like it was going to turn into The Boogeyman's Assault On Precinct 13, which would have been amazing, but they keep location jumping, which is a shame because most of the locations were blanketed with a very phony looking fog, presumably to mask a bunch of foreign language signs. Some of the establishing shots even look like they're entirely done with CGI, despite just being of things like houses.

But like I said, there's no random victim cutaways, which means it often goes to commercial on a non-exciting moment (you know, like a real movie would). There's a big massacre early on, but it occurs off-screen - there's only a handful of on camera deaths in the film, and they're all more or less motivated. More importantly, they're all part of the story. The few in the first half are investigated by the police, where clues to the back-story are discovered - as opposed to their usual MO which is to just cut to some nameless schmuck being killed by the monster and never mentioned again. So it actually gives you a real reason to pay attention as the story unfolds, whereas most of these things you can leave for half of it (or keep changing the channel back and forth) and not miss anything. Not that the story is complicated, but it IS a story, not a chain of kill scenes until the 90 minutes are up.

I just wish the ending was a bit better. It comes down to someone having to sacrifice their life (well, lifeSTYLE) and become the new keeper, and they try to make it seem like one of the sons will be chosen. But you know that's not going to happen, so when the person is chosen, it's kind of out of nowhere, as there was little buildup to it. Weirder, the person seems to relish their new role, which makes even less sense. An epilogue shows them on the road with the thing in the back of a motorhome, being sinister at a gas station and looking all badass - what exactly happened to make them seemingly turn evil? The brother character seemed like he took on a "local crazy old man" to ward off innocent people and saw his role as that of a man burdened by his duty to his own flesh and blood - but this new keeper almost seems like they're going to use Boogeyman for their own personal gain. And that's fine, but it should have been established if that's the case. Perhaps a sequel is en route - hell, the other Boogeyman movies have all gotten 2 or 3 followups.

Still, an above average flick for Syfy, with some surprising wit (love the "Gay Step-Grandpa" exchange, and there's even a decent poop joke) and likable characters backing an interesting but straightforward story. And it's another solid resume-builder for Jeffrey Lando, who was also behind the fun Goblin and decent survival thriller Thirst. Hurrah for competence! Rare around these parts.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Tales From The Dead (2008)

AUGUST 11, 2012

GENRE: ANTHOLOGY, ASIAN
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

Here's a new one: a J-horror film shot entirely in Los Angeles, by a non-Japanese speaking director (who also wrote the script). Tales From The Dead probably won't win over too many hardcore fans of Asian horror, as it is noticeably more accessible and traditional than they might be accustomed to (I'd stop short of saying "dumbed down", however), but for those new to the genre it's a terrific place to start, helping ease you into their ghost-heavy and somewhat convoluted stories. You don't show Cure or Ju-On to someone whose most challenging horror viewing has been Saw IV.

As with all anthology films, the stories were a mixed lot, though thankfully there were no outright stinkers. The odd thing was that the first and fourth stories tie directly into the film's wraparound, whereas the middle two had no relation to each other or anything else. I've seen a few where the 3rd (or final) story played into the wraparound - Tales From The Hood being a terrific example - but never the first unless they ALL did. It makes the 2nd story kind of jarring, as a viewer might be inclined to look for a connection to the framing device when one didn't exist.

Anyway, the first was about a pair of ghost psychics who help solve a mystery of a young man who has been left catatonic by some event that happened months before. This one has the most traditional scare moments, including the J-horror staple of someone seeing a ghost in a video, so it can feel a bit too familiar at times. But the twist is solid and satisfying, which mostly made up for the rather humdrum haunting elements.

The next also had some ghost stuff, but the story was more fun, like an old campfire tale of sorts. A detective is called to investigate a homicide in a motel room, and butts heads with the other officers while battling a cough. The twist isn't too surprising, but I still like the karmic nature of the story, particularly with regards to the source of his cough (we get some cool FX shots at the end too). And it involves one of my favorite modern horror plot devices - someone calling a cell phone to tell them about a new discovery only to realize that the phone they're calling is in the room.

The third was probably the best, which is interesting as it's also the least horrific in nature. A man who is down on his luck is saved from certain death by a man who offers him a reversal in fortune - he will pay him for his time. So like he will be given a nice stack of cash, but time will jump ahead while everyone in his life moves on without him. How much time he loses and what the stranger does with that time is best kept a secret, and it strikes a fine balance between being unnerving and rather melancholy. In fact I was kind of bummed it was reduced to an anthology story - it's a concept that might lend itself nicely to a feature (and no, Click doesn't count), or at least an hour long "Masters of Horror" type entry, rather than a 25 minute piece in the middle of a movie.

The final story is so brief it's basically an afterthought, serving only to reinforce the connection to the wraparound scenes that most folks probably would have figured out after the first story. It's also in black & white like the wraparounds (the others are in color), which further separates it from the others. Not sure why the filmmaker used this particular aesthetic - I can see wanting to differentiate between the framing scenes and the stories, but why monochrome? Different color timing would have sufficed, especially considering the horrendous quality of the Netflix stream. It looked so bad on my TV that I had to watch the rest on my PC so that it was only being stretched about half the amount (and no, it wasn't my connection - I had "full bars" according to their quality meter, and the 14 year old episode of X-Files I watched after looked terrific). The stream will be disappearing soon, hopefully if it's replaced it will be with a version that's less of an eye-strain.

As for the wraparounds themselves, eh. The inspiration is clearly from Twilight Zone: The Movie, with the two folks driving down a dark road and such, though I liked the idea of the stories being told by the driver to pass the time (in Zone the stories were just being told by Burgess Meredith's unseen narrator, basically). Again, the first story pretty much tells us everything we need to know about the nature of these segments (they also tip their hand too early with a minor subplot about some tea), so the others just boil down to "And that's why I told that story, now let me tell you this one". Basically, if you're watching the movie and want to get a soda or something, wait until one of these scenes in between stories 2 and 3, or 3 and 4, and don't worry about pausing - you won't miss a damn thing.

Overall, it's an enjoyable anthology that (thankfully) has only a few traces of the usual incoherence and puzzling nature of most J-horror tales, sullied more by the terrible transfer (the subs are a blurry mess) than the content of the film itself. None of the segments really blew me away, but they all had their merits and were paced just right. Recommended for anthology fans seeking something a bit different, but (again) J-horror fans might find it a bit too "American" for their liking.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Devil Seed (2012)

AUGUST 10, 2012

GENRE: POSSESSION
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

I'm more forgiving on Exorcist wannabes than most of my peers, but even I can't muster up much of a defense for Devil Seed, which hits all the expected beats and offers almost nothing new to the table. In this sub-genre, the deck is stacked against you from the start, so when the filmmakers just settle for the same old shit that we've seen a million times, I have to wonder if they simply lost a bet or something - what was the incentive to make this movie when we basically already have it?

The closest it gets to a new (to me anyway) plot element is near the end of the 2nd act, when the demon attacks and apparently rapes her. Now, obviously that's just a lift from The Entity (yeah, we're not just dealing with The Exorcist here - it's an equal opportunity swipe-fest; The Omen and Rosemary's Baby are given their due as well), but the twist is that her boyfriend is accused of it, and everyone buys that story because they've been together for two years and still haven't slept together. Since it's not for his lack of trying, the story is believable to the other characters, and creates a potentially interesting dynamic as the boyfriend has been sleeping with the girl's roommate to get his rocks off, and now she's conflicted as well.

But we know it's not true! This should have been the thing that kicked the plot off, not a random subplot more than halfway through the movie. We've already seen the invisible force attack her, making cuts on her chest and flinging her around, not to mention all the crazy shit she sees every 5-10 minutes to keep the movie "exciting". Plus, the guy's a two-timing asshole, so there's no reason to feel bad for him - sure, he's innocent of rape, but it's not like any sane viewer would sympathize with him when he's been presented as a lying scumbag throughout the film. And the narrative doesn't allow him to really redeem himself, so it's just a total waste of time all around, made worse by the fact that it's the only new idea here. Well, unless you count having someone go to the library to research their issue ("possession", "exorcism") but using their own laptop the whole time - why go to the library? Just to have the obligatory library scene?

Everything else is taken almost directly out of Exorcist, including the fact that the priest has had a previous encounter with the demon in question. And perhaps writer/director/producer/editor Greg Sager knew we would just roll our eyes at the familiar storyline, because I can see no other explanation for the fact that the opening scene - the only time we see this priest until the third act - is a vague, nearly impossible to follow "story" of their encounter 40 years before. When he's finally brought back into the story, it's like "Oh, this must have been the guy in the prologue," as opposed to Merrin's iconic reintroduction in Exorcist after having been absent for a while after the 10 minute, memorable and coherent opening sequence in that film. So my guess is that Sager knew we Exorcist fans would get the gist from this random montage and could fill in the blanks ourselves?

In fact, I thought for sure that the deleted/extended scenes section, which ran for over 20 minutes, would have a lengthier version of the opening, or perhaps a few more scenes with the priest that would have been sprinkled throughout the narrative (as he's essentially Merrin and Karras rolled into one - in other words, there's absolutely no religious character or story presence at all until he shows back up), but alas, he doesn't appear once. Nearly all of the excised material is just the same sort of stuff we saw in the finished version - Alex getting spooked by something only for another character to come along and see nothing, Alex's roommates being puzzled by her behavior, etc. One scene is even shown twice for some reason, where she talks to her boyfriend about where he was the night before (the scene is titled "Suspicious" the first time around, and then "Where Were You?" when it comes up again). In 22 minutes there isn't a single thing that should have even been shot, let alone gotten edited into the film and then removed, as it's all just another example of something that was already there.

The other extras are even more worthless; a 4 minute blooper reel where most of it is just the cast/crew hanging out or goofing off in between takes (though I did chuckle at one of the few actual bloopers - her urine stream during the pee on the floor scene (yep, they even do that) hilariously comes off at a 45 degree angle, so the pee hits the floor to the left of her left leg), and the trailer, which gives away most of the big scare moments. Thus, the disc is completely free of insight from the filmmakers, which I think would be kind of crucial here - did they actively set out to make a love letter to Exorcist and get so blinded by their appreciation for it that they forgot to give their movie its own identity? Was it supposed to be a Doomsday-like homage to a particular sub-genre but not as successful due to budgetary limitations or something? Or is Sager (a first timer for all his roles here) just some enterprising real estate tycoon or something trying to turn one dollar into two by taking the can't-miss route of making a genre film, knowing it will find an audience thanks to people like me? We may never know. Or care.

I'll give him this much, the movie looks nice, and the FX are solid (levitation scene was quite impressive, in fact). I wasn't fooled by its attempts to pass off Canada as Boston, but at least they got a cutaway or two of Marlborough St (or one of those campus housing-friendly streets near Boston University, anyway), and the main girl was personable and did a fine job in possessed form as well. But when you're just going through the motions on the story level, all of that other stuff is moot - I'd much rather you told a new story (or at least a strong new take on an old one) in a movie that was shot with a camera you bought at Best Buy.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Awaken The Dead (2007)

AUGUST 9, 2012

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

Why is this movie so goddamn grainy? I can't think of much to say about Awaken The Dead, as it's an independent zombie movie where the zombie outbreak is a problem with an origin, so you can pretty much guess how it goes if you've been keeping up with your zombie movies, so let's just put in some screen caps that display this movie's obsession with looking like sand:

I mean, that has to be an intentional thing, right? You don't shoot a movie on video and not notice the mistakes on day one so you can fix them for days 2-10. And I didn't even look for "good" examples, I just clicked around and hit screenshot at random - the entire movie looks like that. The other movies on the set look fine, so what gives?

My guess is that the director (and writer, and... it'd probably take less times to list the things he DIDN'T do; I was shocked someone else played the lead role) was aiming for a particular look and didn't process it correctly. Or maybe he simply didn't output the film properly, as post-production skills seem to be lacking here. The audio mix is particularly grueling, with the (mostly grating) songs/score cutting in and out somewhat less than gracefully, overlapping room tone during transitions... pretty much every issue I discussed in this article is represented here. Again, these things are not time consuming to do, nor are they difficult or require extra plugins or whatever in your editing software, so when I see them not done in a movie, my only thought is that the film is the result of incompetence or laziness. Either way it's not exactly a good sign.

And it's a shame, because there's some semblance of a decent (if forgettable) movie here. It's not particularly original, but the idea of turning people into zombies in order to fight war (rather than waste soldiers) trumps the "toxic waste spill" type explanations, if you HAVE to have one (Romero never did, he seemed to do OK). And I like the evil government weapon against them - beacons that emit some chemical that causes the infected blood to boil. None of the FX in the film are worth a damn, but if done right that'd be pretty awesome.

The two main characters were also above average in the "interesting" department - he was a priest who used to work with the heroine's father, who is behind the whole thing. She's spunky but kind of dim (there's one scene where the priest has to ask her to stop just saying "What?" over and over), and their chemistry is enjoyable, especially compared to the others. Whenever anyone else shows up they are either insufferable assholes (the guy who threatens to kill them right after they save him from certain death comes to mind) or annoying (the Jehovah's witness was particularly trying), so I wish they had taken a page from Remains (the comic) and just had the two leads as the only humans.

Luckily, this is the last on this particular 4 pack of zombie films, and the other 3 weren't that bad (I Am Omega, Grave Mistake, and Last Of The Living, if you were wondering), so if this not-without-merit effort is the weakest of the lot, I assure you that things could have been a lot worse. Someone at Monkey Shines will walk home with it for knowing the name of a Romero zombie movie, so if that person is you, I hope you get as much "eh, fine" entertainment out of it as I did!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Nazis At The Center Of The Earth (2012)

AUGUST 8, 2012

GENRE: MAD SCIENTIST, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

With a title like Nazis At The Center Of The Earth, and a (non-shocking) Asylum logo at the top, you'd be a fool to leave your brain on for even a minute of this thing. No, this is the studio more or less throwing their hands up in the air and saying "fuck it", allowing the crew to make a kitchen sink movie that can't even pick a genre, let alone a plotline or a main character - even writing this review is sort of a fool's errand.

I'll say this much - it's rarely dull. As it jumps from a war thriller to an adventure to mad science horror to sci-fi/action, there's precious little time for the usual Asylum elements, like having everyone wander around aimlessly, or show multiple angles of a guy getting into his car or something. Hell, they can't even recycle footage, because it wouldn't fit with the constantly changing tone/locales. There aren't even too many lengthy talking scenes, and the few that exist are usually given to the guy playing Josef Mengele, who is probably the best actor in the film (and looks like Ian McKellen, so you can just pretend he's his Apt Pupil character combined with Magneto - shouldn't be hard since that's pretty much an accurate description).

I was also amused by the laid-back antagonism on display. The Nazi zombies bring a bunch of folks to the center of the earth (which has a nice hiking trail and a warehouse), and the others come to rescue them, but for the most part everyone is pretty civil to each other. At one point one of the heroes even takes an active interest in some mad science shit that the bad guy is doing and gives him a hand without being asked. One guy sells them out, but no one seems particularly angry with him (maybe they agreed with his "align ourselves with the victor to survive" theory). It's the most casual fight to the death I've ever seen.

Another thing that struck me as - oh fuck it, ROBOT ZOMBIE HITLER IS IN THIS MOVIE. It takes almost an hour for him to show up, but when he does - accompanied by what can only be described as a Nazi UFO for good measure - the movie enters a whole new level of batshit silliness. Robot Zombie Hitler is created mostly with CGI (there's an actor for closeups), and as you can imagine it's not the best visual effects work you've ever seen, though it's an improvement from the CGI snowplow we see early in the film, which looks slightly less photoreal than Thomas The Tank Engine.

And keep in mind, all of this takes place in the "center of the earth", which as I mentioned is remarkably well developed. It also doesn't seem to suffer from any sort of temperature issues, as everyone wears regular clothes and seems to be free from the extreme heat or cold that you'd expect to experience if you fell down a giant hole (made of ice, natch) and landed somewhere near the earth's core. Oxygen is also plentiful; in fact the only way one could possibly understand they were "below" would be to think about the occasional VFX shots that show a hole in the "sky" (which would be the hole leading to the earth's surface). It's a wacky locale, and I kind of love that they don't really give a shit about trying to sell it. It's even better than the palm trees you see in movies that are supposed to be in upstate New York or whatever.

So what's it actually about? Well, the Nazis want to continue their plan to destroy all non-Aryan territories, but this time they're using bombs armed with flesh eating bacteria. Then Hitler - now a robot zombie - can finally rule the world, despite his handicap. The heroes are a bunch of scientists who are either helping him to save their own ass, or people who went to rescue the others who are now trying to stop him. Some of the Nazis need new skin, too - most of the horror stuff stems from these bits, as faces are ripped off and repurposed. To be fair, the makeup work is pretty good - I was legit impressed by the scene where a girl's brain is pulled out as she laid on an operating table.

There's more to the story, but I'll leave the rest for your discovery. What I couldn't decide is whether the Asylum was perfect for this particular concept, or if it deserved a real budget and more fitting locations. It's so idiotic it can't even count as insensitive (unless you were offended by Wolfenstein, which is pretty much what this is "mockbusting"), but I couldn't help but wonder if the lo-fi FX and school play level realism of the sets and such were helping that distinction be more clear. If this was produced for 30-40 million (instead of like 200k), would it actually come off as more crass? Don't ponder it while watching the movie, because you'll miss 2 genre switches in the meantime.

The disc comes with some bonus material, including three brief behind the scenes pieces and a group of outtakes that are pretty much par for the Asylum course - the BTS clips are too short to be of any real use, the outtakes are bizarrely unfunny. But the commentary by director Joseph Lawson is unique in that he takes this shit seriously. He doesn't seem to think he's made high art, but he still approached the film with far more care and thought than I'd assume of any Asylum production, including storyboarding the entire movie and working with actors to create better dynamics among the characters. He also has strong opinions on how to use dissolves, properly lighting a greenscreen, and the usefulness of ADR, so at times it comes across like he's reading from an intro to film book (he even drops the "a movie is made three times" lesson), but there's something charming and even kind of sweet about hearing it from a guy who directed a movie where a Robot Zombie Hitler chops off a guy's head in front of a Nazi banner that's facing the wrong way.

I sure am going to miss you, Asylum. Can't imagine I'll find the time for your movies all that often once I quit HMAD; I certainly won't be watching two in one week.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

V/H/S (2012)

AUGUST 7, 2012

GENRE: ANTHOLOGY
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

If you paid attention, I never made a "HMAD Today is" tweet for V/H/S, because I wasn't sure if I was going to review it or not. Produced by my ex-boss (oh yeah, I'm not really at Bloody-D anymore - they're not doing videos for me to edit and I don't have time to write stuff for free) and with some segments worked on by pals of mine, I don't usually feel comfortable with that sort of thing. However, I noticed that the movie had no opening credits, and thus I wasn't able to tell who did what segments (and thus create a partial bias). So since I was able to watch the movie "in the dark", I figured I'd be OK.

The hook for the film is terrific: a found footage anthology, with the wraparound focusing on a group of hoodlums who are hired to enter a strange house and retrieve a supposedly valuable VHS tape. The problem is, they get there and find several tapes, and thus each segment is another (presumably incorrect) tape. The horror angle in these segments is quite intriguing - there's a corpse in a chair that seems to disappear and reappear at random, and who exactly is the owner? Why does he have so many tapes that are more or less snuff films? The film abruptly ends at the conclusion of the last segment, which is peculiar (it's a wraparound that doesn't actually wrap around the whole thing!), so the resolution is unsatisfying, but perhaps more entries are planned that can flesh out this stuff while providing the engine for more tapes to be uncovered.

But it's still a bummer that it lacks a final sequence with this group. Running 115 minutes (in line with Creepshow!), no one can accuse the movie of "needing" to be longer, but as it went on I noticed that each segment could have benefited from some fleshing out, as they often had to race through the setup so they could get to the hook. And "leave 'em wanting more" seemed to be the MO here, as many of them end with ambiguity, leading me to wonder if the movie wouldn't have improved if they dropped a segment and fleshed out the others (along with the wraparound). As a result, it's an enjoyable, but frustratingly uneven film, and to my eyes that could have been avoided with 4 fleshed out stories instead of 5 somewhat rushed ones.

So which would I cut? No question, the first segment, depicting a group of college kids who are seeking to get laid. The method of filming is a pair of spy glasses, which is the entry's best idea - no one has to question why he's still filming when things go horribly wrong. But the kids are wholly obnoxious and idiotic, and their response to the monster is unbelievable - they run into the bathroom and keep peeking out at the thing devouring their pal. Once Glasses finally leaves the room (with the monster in pursuit) it has some great POV work and a great sight gag, but it's a chore getting to that point, and a later segment covers some of the same ground anyway, making it less impressive in retrospect since the other is a much better piece overall.

The second was a big improvement, in fact it was my 2nd favorite of the bunch. Part of that is due to the fact that it's the first time (and we're like 45 minutes in) that the camera operating wasn't all jerky, nor was the image sort of ugly. A clear face! A framed shot! It was a relief, and I also enjoyed the story itself, concerning a couple who are traveling down Route 66 and have a few minor "that was weird" encounters. The creepiest bit occurs one night when the camera starts filming the wife as she sleeps and you assume it's the husband, only for it to turn and see him sleeping as well (or vice versa, I forget). The prowler steals some money (and dips the husband's toothbrush in the toilet!), and the rest of it follows them on their trip, unaware of their danger. The twist is a bit goofy (though it pays off the toothbrush gag in a very surprising way, if you think about it), and like all of the stories here seems to be missing a beat, but it worked for me.

The next entry is the most frustrating; it has a terrific idea about a killer who seemingly only exists in the distortion caused by VHS tracking issues, but the execution is sloppy at best. The backstory comes out of nowhere and has no weight to it at all, as if they skipped an entire reel or something, and the constant "glitching", while somewhat necessary, is overdone - it's actually the closest I've ever gotten to getting a headache watching something like this. The tone was also erratic - one girl's death seems to be being played for laughs, but there's nothing overtly humorous about anything else in the segment.

Things get back on track for the next segment, which is the film's best. It concerns a Skype session between a girl and her long distance boyfriend, who is trying to calm her as she is seemingly besieged by a ghost. In addition to the film's best scare by far, it also has the most novel twist of all the segments, and while it falls in line with the others by making me wish it had some more explanation, I wish the others followed suit, as nothing else was as completely gonzo. Good enough to forgive the fact that it made no sense for a Skype session to be on a VHS tape!

In fact only the last one seemed to follow the whole VHS aesthetic down to the camera level, as it took place in 1998 when mini-dv and such was not as commonplace. As with the first story, the camera is permanently attached to the character's head (though it's not really explained - we just see him in mirrors without a camera), but it's a far more successful story. The characters (another group of guys, this time en route to a Halloween party) aren't as obnoxious, and the story is much more interesting - they get to the house where the party is supposed to be and find it empty, but apparently rigged as a haunted house. The outcome isn't too surprising, but the lo-fi aesthetic works like gangbusters during the FX heavy finale - there's something about seeing Poltergeist style floating objects and other CGI elements via low quality digital video that has always impressed me (those old PS2 era Ratchet & Clank commercials are a fine example), and it has the best ending of the bunch to boot.

But as I said, there's no return to the framing story - that's the actual ending of V/H/S as a whole! The segment ends and the credits roll, allowing us to finally know who did what. I was legit surprised by the answers, especially when the two segments I liked least were by the directors whose previous films I liked a lot (and the one I liked best was from a filmmaker who I've never had much interest in). I never even heard of the guys behind the last segment, in fact (I guess making web videos is their specialty), and in fact that's part of why I didn't say who did what in the review. I think your best bet is to go in blind, as your preconceived notions of certain filmmakers may warp your judgment some, and plus part of the fun was being surprised: "He did *that* one? Wow, I thought for sure he did THIS one."

Back on the credits, I was super impressed by how they nailed the font and mode of VCR on-screen displays (with a giant PLAY followed by a smaller "play" in the top left corner), as well as the off-black that makes up part of the reason why I have no nostalgia for watching movies on the device. Sorry, I like actual black and proper contrast levels. Still, I certainly watched enough movies like that and retain my memories of fiddling with the tracking, and the distortion (I called it a "gweep") that would occur at the end of something that was taped over original (longer) footage. I was also charmed that, despite all of that (and the movie's release, which will favor VOD over theatrical), the movie was shown on 35mm, which means I can host a screening at the New Bev someday if I so desire!

Earlier this year I bemoaned the lack of anthology films, and some pointed out that it feels like an outdated way of presenting a feature, so it's awesome that these guys found a way around that potential "dating" by utilizing the found footage aesthetic. Likewise, the biggest problem with FF movies is that they have to kill too much time to stretch it to feature length, so the anthology format allows them to get to the point quicker. The result is uneven, but I am duly impressed by how the two styles compliment each other, and I look forward to future entries (preferably with a revolving talent pool).

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Do You Wanna Know A Secret? (2001)

AUGUST 6, 2012

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

I've seen Do You Wanna Know A Secret? offered on Netflix Instant for a while now, and even though I'm always up for a whodunit slasher, I kept passing it up until now. Why, you may ask? Because the plot sounded too much like I Know What You Did Last Summer (with the box art backing it up - same font even!), a movie I have next to no affinity for. So why would I want to watch a knockoff?

Well, I should have gone with my gut instinct, but perhaps my boss should have told me beforehand that I might be stuck at the office until almost 8 o clock (should have been out by 6) so that I might have planned ahead instead of having to stick with Instant, which is rapidly running out of qualifying HMAD entries for me to watch (most of them are Asian horror). They better step up their game or else I'll have to stop the site even earlier due to a complete lack of available films!

Anyway, the movie's a crushing bore. It's the usual crap about a group of friends being menaced by a killer who leaves them messages, and it seems to relate to a tragic event that occurred a year before, but without any of the style, interesting characters, or decent kill scenes that can elevate such a well-worn premise into a worthwhile film. It takes forever for the killer to start offing the core group, and when he does he gets three of them over like a 2 minute period (though one is just knocked out), and another one is killed off-screen entirely at some undetermined time, in order to make a "surprise" when the killer produces the person's decapitated head during his "this is why I'm killing you" moment to the Final Girl. Well, he hasn't been seen for like 20 minutes, and it's clear that another guy is going to be the hero, so who is surprised here? Idiots? People who have never seen a movie before?

In fact the only good parts in the movie have almost nothing to do with the slasher plot. Perhaps realizing that no one wants to see a modern slasher that doesn't have a single kill in the first hour (save for the obligatory opening kill, which is a shot for shot copy of the big one in Exorcist III), the movie takes a random detour to a nightclub, where the Final Girl is the would-be target of a roofie. Male lead Joseph Lawrence catches on to the guy and confronts him, which leads into the clunkiest, most laughably staged "fight" I've seen in ages. Later, the wannabe rapist is killed by the murderer, which leads to the movie's other highlight: cop Jack McGee telling a random story about Ted Bundy making a sandwich or something.

But the slasher plot is such a colossal failure, it's not even worth watching for these out of nowhere bits of inane silliness. In addition to the glacially-paced kills, the mystery is as half-assed as they come, with the killer's identity so obvious that it's a wonder they even gave him a mask (which looks like a mix of Peter Lorre and ET). Note to slasher filmmakers - if you're going to do the "character disappears and is presumed dead" bit, you need to go about it in one of two ways: Urban Legend style (Pacey really IS dead) or My Bloody Valentine style (Axl disappears during a tense chase and we're too caught up to think much of it - we also think it's Harry Warden). What you DON'T do is have the guy disappear early on when absolutely nothing else is happening, and then present scenes where the killer couldn't possibly be most of the others. Guess what this movie does?

Oh, and all of the onscreen kills are throat slashings. I assume the makeup designer got a good deal on throat applications and forgot to buy anything else; even the disembodied head is botched - they don't actually show the face! The only way to even know what is happening is because the girl says "When ____ gets here, he's going to kick your ass!" (or something equally banal) and the killer says "Oh yeah?" and holds up the obscured head in a wide shot (the closeup just shows the head from the back).

Bit of fascinating trivia - the film was co-written by Del Tenney, who directed the MST3k-ed Horror Of Party Beach, a monster film where the heroes figure out what can stop the monsters pretty early on (sodium) and then never get around to using it until the movie is almost over. 40 years later, he still doesn't understand the simple concept of pacing. Oh, he and co-writer Kermit Christman (awesome name, for what it's worth) gave us the woeful Descendant. I need to make sure I avoid these two for the next 200 or so reviews.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Shark Week (2012)

AUGUST 5, 2012

GENRE: PREDATOR, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: CABLE (SYFY)

If you've seen Shark Night (and I suggested you should during its theatrical run, only to discover it did not hold up at all on a second view), then you'd know that the kids weren't just the victim of random attacks - in a twist, we learn that the sharks were specifically put in the lake near their house by vengeance seeking hicks who also wanted to film the carnage and sell it to cable for "Shark Week" programming. And that makes Shark Week the yin to its yang, as that's the actual plot this time around but has nothing to do with "Shark Week" at all (and also has more scenes set at night, for what it's worth).

But whereas the villain in Night just had a beef with one girl and the others were collateral damage, our bad guy here has assembled the group of eight people for a very specific reason: to avenge the death of his drug dealing son. Everyone that he kidnaps and brings to his island compound had a hand in the young man's death (in his eyes, anyway): the cop who shot him, the junkie who sold out his location, the OTHER drug dealer who was supposed to be there instead, etc. Personally I like when it's more like Saw II or Deadly Game, where everyone had wronged the villain in different ways, instead of "how are we all connected?", because there's no way for us to figure it out, which makes for a dull mystery. To be fair they get most of it out of the way pretty early, unlike Saw V which made it like a big reveal that meant absolutely nothing (and never did), but it just seems perfunctory to explain it and then proceed without it having any bearing on what happens for the rest of the movie. They might as well have just been random people plucked off the street because they were dumb enough to get caught.

It's also time that they could have used to create more interesting characters, because simply knowing what their jobs are ("I'm a reporter", "I'm a judge", etc) doesn't quite cut it. While no one is really hateful, they're just bland stock characters; the only way to even identify the Final Girl is due to the fact that there are only two other women, and one of them is older while the other is a junkie. Process of movie-logical elimination. Picking which guy will last is a bit trickier, because I could barely tell most of them apart, but I was thankful that it was NOT the guy playing the doctor because he was without a doubt one of the worst actors I've ever seen in a non-found footage Asylum film. I also liked how long the asshole businessman lasted, if only because it kept me guessing exactly WHEN he'd follow the lead of all asshole businessmen characters in horror history and sell out one of his fellow victims in order to save his own ass.

But bland characters and a less than thrilling story is hardly a surprise when it comes to this stuff. What WAS surprising is how relatively slow paced it was, with a body count of 10, 4 of which were in the final 10 minutes. Usually these Syfy films, particularly the shark ones, offer up tons of random carnage to keep people from switching the channel, but it took its time here. Hell, half the movie doesn't even take place on water, as the protagonists take multiple treks through the jungle or along the beach safely out of shark's way (a minefield tries to make up for it, but come on - the movie isn't called Minefield Week).

Thankfully, there is a variety to the sharks - little "pups", a hammerhead, and of course a Great White, but Chris Olen Ray (yes, Fred's son) directs them as incoherently as possible (or was forced to cut around typically bad CGI); the hammerhead scene in particular is just a disastrous collection of shots with next to no connective tissue, rendering it nearly impossible to tell what is going on as close-ups of the shark show it by itself while the "above water" shots with the humans show them practically hugging the damn thing. Some of it is remarkably half-assed, too - one major character falls in the water and then a shark jumps up (and roars, sigh) and presumably eats him; the camera is like a half mile away from the action and thus you can't actually see what happened.

And that's the film's primarily problem - it's too slow paced to work as one of their usual brain-dead but carnage heavy entries, but also impossible to take seriously as an actual movie, which can get away with this sort of pace if it has a good story, interesting characters, and satisfying payoffs. No, Shark Week has a villain that resembles the World's Most Interesting Man on the World's Least Flattering Bender (plus his wife, Yancy Butler, who looks ready to nod off during most of her scenes), actors so bad or bland that Syfy couldn't even be bothered to credit them at the top of the film even though they're on-screen for 90% of the movie, and... well, a story about a guy flying people halfway around the world to kill them with sharks. It also makes no explanation for the frequent surveillance shots we see, where the camera not only moves as if hand-held but occasionally even cuts to closeups. None of the characters ever notice these cameras, even though at least one of them would had to have been floating above the sand a few feet away. He also speaks to them through some sort of PA system that we never see, and we see a "elimination screen" (for who's benefit? No one is watching this but him and his wife - can't they keep track of 8 people they're watching at all times?) whenever someone dies, giving me unwelcome flashbacks to Doomed. Come on guys, if you're not going to deliver a fresh kill every 5-10 minutes, then you gotta at least try with the stuff you're giving us instead. This movie is the opposite of having your cake and eating it too.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Hazing (2004)

AUGUST 4, 2012

GENRE: COMEDIC, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

I have a few friends who like to tweet the days until Halloween pretty much year round, and often to the "tune" of "Silver Shamrock" ("275 days til Halloween, Halloween, Halloween..."). I don't really get that itch until September, but The Hazing (aka Dead Scared) threatened to change that here in early August; not only was it set on Halloween, but it was so damn good spirited and charming, it made me wish I was watching it at a party while dressed as a Kurt Russell character.

The movie is pretty much a love letter to those sort of movies; Night of the Demons, Evil Dead, and Hell Night have all played to many a Halloween party crowd, and their influence is clear throughout. Evil Dead is even acknowledged directly, there's a Bruce Campbell "cameo" in the form of an autograph (I truly wish we saw one of them waiting in line at a con and forking over 20-30 bucks for this "privilege") and someone even mentions the film at one point. Hell Night is mostly just in the setup, as they have to spend the night in this old creepy house as part of a sorority/fraternity initiation (and thus it carries over the minor plot hole of these sort of initiations still taking place by the time Halloween rolls around).

But Night of the Demons is the main thing here, with a random approach to a story that includes possession and vengeful spirits and such. The tone is also similar, where you're a fool if you take any of it seriously and will probably laugh more often than you'd get scared. However, they improve on one thing - the pace! Whereas NOTD took forever to get really going, Hazing gives us a couple of murders early on and unleashes the evil force around the half hour mark, where the villain (Brad Dourif) possesses the first teen. And even though it's not horror, the scavenger hunt sequence is much more entertaining than the slow crawl to get everyone into the house in the other film, so that's another bonus.

I also liked how they had fun circumventing the stereotypes. The blond bimbo turns out to be pretty smart, the Asian "nerd" (Hatchet's Parry Shen) wasn't interested in computers and (spoiler?) lost his virginity before any of the others probably did, etc. And everyone was pretty likable; even the guy who is possessed for most of the movie is kind of charming in his own way. Dourif wasn't particularly menacing, but I don't think he was intended to be so - he's certainly capable of being scary, but he seemed to be just having a grand old time here.

In fact, even though the film owns its R rating (nudity, F-bombs, gory deaths), the overall tone is more like a PG-13 horror film. Folks like to think of Evil Dead as something "fun", but it has that tree rape scene, which I wouldn't say is particularly charming - there's nothing like that here. There's a sense of good natured glee to the proceedings, and while there is a body count, it doesn't feel like writer/director Rolfe Kanefsky set out to kill his cast. Hell he even lets one live after seeming death, rather than take the "let's shock the audience by killing this 'safe' character as well" route.

Of course, the flipside is that the movie is so breezy it's almost weightless - I'm having trouble remembering some specifics just a few hours later, and the focus on fun means there are a few too many bad puns and clunky jokes. The limited cast also results in some wheel-spinning, as two characters need to talk forever to distract them from the only other thing going on at the time (and keep the movie from running out of room too quickly - as it is, it's pretty short and includes some padding). One or two more characters in the hazing might have helped mix it up a bit.

Still, if you're in the mood for this sort of "party" movie, it should hit the spot. It doesn't demand your full attention, but it offers enough to keep it all the same. Plus, as I've said before, any movie with Tiffany Shepis (who would go on to appear in the actual Night of the Demons remake) is automatically somewhat entertaining, and her role here is quite large (a bit of a surprise since the other girl is the one on the cover).

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Haunting Of Julia (1977)

AUGUST 3, 2012

GENRE: GHOST, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

When you've starred in one of the most acclaimed and influential horror films of all time, it's probably pretty easy to turn horror scripts down - why bother? So when Rosemary's Baby star Mia Farrow DOES appear in a horror film, it's probably worth a look (or it's The Omen remake. But come on, after forty years she's allowed to slum for a paycheck), so I was excited to see The Haunting Of Julia pop up on Instant (especially since it's apparently not available on DVD). Not only was I in the mood for something in the ghost genre, but I was all but assured high quality, being that it was one of the very few she made post-Rosemary.

Well obviously it's not as good, or else it'd be getting name-checked every time someone asks an A-list actor if they like horror movies and they say "Yeah, I like things like Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist", because they know those are safe answers no one can argue with or suspect that they have any real affinity for the genre (how awesome would it be to hear Charlize Theron or Keira Knightley be like "I love things like The Burning and Stepfather 2"). But it's a solid little chiller, telling a fine mystery of a murdered child with a winning blend of "is she crazy or is there a ghost?" intrigue that (spoiler) is never actually answered - you can go with either option at the end and it will hold up, I think. Some of the deaths might take a bit more creativity to explain, but if you consider what you DON'T see during all of them, I think it works.

I also liked how they paced the mystery, more or less confining it to the 2nd act but not where it was too late to explain things properly. At first, it's just a traditional haunting type story, with Farrow seeing things and having to chalk it up to her personal tragedy (the death of her child), only for others to get drawn into the mix. The film's best scare goes unnoticed by any of its characters, in fact - Farrow's estranged husband (Keir Dullea) is snooping around her house and thinks she is the one making noises, and we see the reflection of the ghost (?) run past while he looks in another direction.

The only issue with the pacing is that the bulk of the 3rd act consists of Farrow going to see elderly people (the child in question was murdered nearly 40 years prior), explaining who she is, upsetting them in some way, and being scared off or forced to leave by their caretaker (which all but one such character has). Also, the death heavy 2nd half has another issue, particularly with Dullea - no one seems to notice his absence. We see him with another character often, and we can assume he has friends or family, but even though he dies around the halfway point or so, no one ever calls on Farrow asking if he's been seen. For a movie grounded in reality, it's a strange oversight, even if you go with the theory that she's doing all of this stuff herself.

Oh, and maybe it was a real headline, but seeing "Hitler Keeps The Peace" splashed across the top of the paper that has the story about the murdered boy is a bit of an odd choice. I assume it was to remind us of the pre-WWII environment, but as the movie is about a murdered German child, it's an awkward way to do so. Speaking of this scene, who else misses library scenes in horror/thriller films? Someone Googling shit just isn't the same.

Curious, has anyone read the novel by Peter Straub? From what I understand, Dullea's character was far more significant there, but otherwise it sounds fairly similar. Not that I'd ever find time to read it, but it sounds like a decent page-turner, and getting into Julia's head a bit might answer some questions (for better or worse). Speaking of the novel - the adaptation was by Harry Bromley Davenport, best known for blessing us with Xtro (and damning us with its sequels). Interestingly, it's the only writing credit he has for a movie he didn't direct himself (Richard Loncraine, who would go on to give us the tedious Harrison Ford "thriller" Firewall, handled directing duties here), so I wonder if he was up to direct at one point. Loncraine does a fine job though, and kudos to whoever came up with having the end credits over the closing shot - it's creepy as hell.

Final note - the original title sort of gives the ending away once you know what's going on, so it's good that they changed it.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dead Season (2012)

AUGUST 2, 2012

GENRE: ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

If I was one of the filmmakers behind Dead Season, I'd want to give whoever wrote the DVD synopsis a swift kick to the balls for claiming that it was an "riveting new spin on the zombie genre!". In actuality, it succeeds because it does pretty much the same thing as dozens of other zombie movies, but does it quite well. It looks better than most, the FX are quite solid (and mostly practical), and the pace rarely lags - all without actually contributing anything you haven't seen before if you've kept up with the sub-genre for the past decade.

I could be a jerk and just list all the movies it reminded me of, but since I walked away impressed by what they pulled off, I'll refrain (except for noting that we as a species really need to stop aping the 28 Days Later score). Zombie movies are nearing slasher territory at this point, where there are so many it's almost impossible to make one that's completely original; even if the filmmakers think they're doing something new, chances are it had been done (indeed, on the commentary they point out a line that was also used in Zombieland, which had just come out when they were filming). And that's the other thing - some independent productions take so long to get distributed, it's possible that some of the movies it was reminding me of were actually shot later.

So what IS the story, here? Typical stuff - zombie outbreak, our hero meets up with some other survivors, they make their way to some assumed safe haven, everything seems great, things go bad, and (spoiler!) the movie ends with them on the move again. I could have just described 28 Days Later or Dawn of the Dead, so what's the "riveting new spin" here? There isn't one. It's just a solid, straight-forward zombie film. The closest I could imagine anyone thinking was new would probably be the fact that they get to the island at the end of the first act, when "an island" is traditionally a generic end location for our heroes to get to by the END of the film (the Dawn remake, for example), but once they get there things proceed as they would if the location were a mall or a fort, so what's the difference?

It even goes down the overplayed "evil human" route, though thankfully it's not a major element, and the guy in charge isn't really all that bad. When things get bad it's because of one of the men in his employ, whereas he continues to help our heroes - that was a relief. The actor had a bit of a Michael Biehn thing going on, which actually helped - as with Biehn himself, it's hard to tell if he's on your side (Terminator) or the enemy (The Abyss). And the subplot with his daughter was actually kind of amusing, our heroes (a man and a younger woman) gain favor in his circle because she's close to his daughter's age and can talk to her about "girl stuff".

On that note, it seems most of the filmmakers' previous films were comedy-horrors, so I am relieved that they went for a mostly serious approach this time, as I've seen enough "zom-coms" to last me a lifetime. While there are sprinklings of humor throughout, it's mostly character-based - someone will make a little joke to cheer up their friend or something. In fact I was impressed with how serious it got at times, such as when a young kid has to be dispatched after being bitten. None of the characters were intriguing enough to really care when they died (maybe someday there will be a zombie movie that DOESN'T decimate 90% or more of its cast*), but I was certainly more invested than I was in... well, whatever the last attempt at being the next Shaun of the Dead I watched was.

And again, I was impressed by the practical FX. There's a lot of real fake blood splatter, a guts being torn out scene (one NOT a shot for shot recreation of Day of the Dead, for once), and some fun prosthetic work with machetes and the like - I particularly liked the little touch of the machete going through a guy and scraping the wall up behind him. The action also came at a fairly steady rate; there's an attack or two before they get to the island, another one shortly after, big climax... with Walking Dead pretty much being the benchmark for zombie entertainment these days, it's nice to see full scale sequences instead of isolated "moments" that tide us over until the season finale. And the zombie cast is HUGE, with dozens of folks listed for its two filming locations (Los Angeles and Vieques, which is in Puerto Rico).

The disc comes with the standard extras; you can skip the behind the scenes as it's just about 10 minutes of random footage that tells us nothing, but the outtakes are actually kind of funny for a change, and the deleted scenes includes a big attack scene that was cut (for pace, I assume). The commentary is also a notch above what I'm used to as of late, as they actually have some interesting behind the scenes stories revolving around the Vieques location. Apparently they are the first production there since the original Lord of the Flies, as the government in between was crooked and didn't want productions there. They also tell amusing stories about the fire department and such, and speak a bit about their original sound guy who quit because he didn't get to spend enough time relaxing with his wife during the shoot. Some of it is in-jokey and they try a bit too hard to make jokes at times, but overall it's an enjoyably breezy track with just enough actual info to make it worthwhile.

Dead Season isn't a classic of the genre or anything, but it hits its marks and gets the job done. And since we're in between Walking Dead seasons, it should hit the spot for those who want their undead taken seriously, as well as those who (like me) are tired of independent horror movies that look like they were shot on cell phones by people who didn't know what the hell they were doing. Good work, gents.

What say you?

*Meaning, since so many zombie movies kill just about everyone off, it's never worth getting invested in anyone but the main two characters (if that). Zombie movies would do well to take a page from Tremors and have a big cast of likable people, put them in danger often, but kill sparingly. Or go back to Dawn and just have four people with time to care about them, so their deaths have weight.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Crucible Of Terror (1971)

AUGUST 1, 2012

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Despite the momentary feeling of stupidity, I actually like when I jump the gun and write something negative in my notes only to have to cross it out later when all of the information has been presented. Such was the case with Crucible Of Terror, where I was annoyed that the killer was being kept off-screen during the murder scenes, only to discover it was part of a pretty decent twist. Good on you, movie.

A shame, then, that the twist didn't elevate a better film, rather than pretty much salvage it singlehandedly. Since the kill scenes are a bit awkward as a result of this MO, they hardly make up for the film's slow pace and time wasting. Maybe as a novella it would work better, where the narrator could just say "the murderer" and not have to hide their face from the audience. Especially when it starts off with such a bang - a model being bronzed while she's still alive, which would suggest some sort of Bucket Of Blood/House Of Wax (Price, not Paris) type film.

But as it turns out it's more of a mystery thriller with gory kills, as two guys are trying to convince this eccentric artist (Mike Raven) to make some new pieces for them so they can sell them and pay off some other guys. Complications ensue, including one of them having to drum up some money to commission the paintings - we actually watch him make phone calls and pitch this to secondary characters. In terms of how exciting this is and how important it seems to be to the story, it'd be like watching the government guys in ET going down to a warehouse and filling out the forms in order to secure that big plastic tubing that the use to get in and out of Elliott's house.

Raven's another problem, as he is simply not a very good actor despite his efforts to be a Christopher Lee or Vincent Price type. In fact he often comes off like actor Larry Hankin goofing off while doing a Lee impression, and thus I couldn't help but wish I was watching that instead, because Hankin is awesome (so happy he popped up again on Breaking Bad) and Raven is just sort of ridiculous. Worse, he's forced to play the movie in some sort of limbo because we're supposed to think something about his character that turns out to be untrue. This sort of twist CAN work, but not for the entire movie - making the reveal around the halfway point or maybe the end of the second act if you're really clever would be ideal. The movie Wanted did something along those lines, and it was far more successful.

Luckily, actress Mary Maude more than makes up for Raven's deficiencies. Not only is she a better actor, but she is impossibly gorgeous to boot - how was she not one of the top Hammer Girls? I can't find much info about her, but she was a star on a UK show and this was also a UK production, so it's safe to assume she ran in some of the same circles. She's been in two other HMAD entries (Terror and The House That Screamed), both of which I liked a lot more than this, so it's odd that the weakest one is where I really noticed her (though for House I did note that many of the ladies were "fetching"). I also enjoyed the drunken son character, as he looked like an elder Weasley brother and seemed to be wandering in from a different movie entirely at times. He also has the best death scene after that opener; he is pelted with rocks for a while and then bludgeoned, holding on to his booze right to the end.

Another disappointment: this was some generic budget DVD instead of the remastered (and widescreen) version that Severin put out last year. When I first began HMAD, I used to take each issue of Fangoria and Rue Morgue that I read and add all of the titles they mentioned in their review/new-to-disc sections, and only maybe 1 in 5 titles wouldn't turn up on Blockbuster or Netflix. Now it seems to be the other way around, and worse, the ones I DO find are cheap budget versions more often than not, as outfits like Severin usually acquire films from other outlets and present superior editions to what was previously available. Thanks for killing the need for physical media, streamers!

But if you can deal with the pace or think you might enjoy what almost feels like a low-rent British version of a giallo, the movie is worth a look for Maude and the twist alone. Maybe play it on 1.5x speed so you can still hear everything but get through it in the hour or so that it should have been in the first place.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...