The Apparition (2012)

AUGUST 23, 2012

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PREMIERE SCREENING)

Hopefully you haven't seen the trailer for The Apparition yet (I won't embed it like I usually do*), because whoever cut it clearly hates you, the movie, and everyone involved with its production. Spoiling the entire final act and mostly selling a different movie, it's the sort of trailer that can singlehandedly ruin a film's chances of being liked, and it's a shame that an original horror movie (with a fairly small "wide" release of only 800 screens) had to deal with that extra kick to its shins.

Now, it's not a great movie, and I'd be shocked if anyone said it was. But it's got some cool ideas, and goes about its somewhat traditional haunting story in a different way than many others. There's a heftier dose of science and experimentation than usual, to the extent that it almost feels like a Quatermass type movie at times, as opposed to the Paranormal Activity/Grudge type flick the trailers sell. One of the trailer's many offenses is showing nearly all of Tom Felton's scenes as a parapsychology student who assists the hero couple with their ghost problems, but ironically one of the movie's faults is that he's not in it enough - his limited screentime never gives him a chance to become a fully realized character, and thus most of what he does is drop exposition.

Instead, we spend most of the time with Ashley Greene's character, and as a warm-blooded male I certainly had no problem with that in general. But alas, as easy on the eyes as she may be, there's only so many times I can see her get scared or question why this or that is happening in the film's first half - I kind of wanted them to get on with it (it being what the trailer showed) and be a little proactive. Or even provide a little more insight into her and Sebastian Stan's characters/relationships, as it's unclear how long they've been together, how they met, etc. Ordinarily it wouldn't matter, but as he hides his past (he was Fenton's partner in the experiment that has unleashed this evil), it keeps us at bay when she discovers it. She seems upset that he had a relationship with one of the other parapsychology students, but without that context, it just makes her sound like an idiot. "Who cares about his old girlfriend when your house is haunted?" the audience will think - but maybe there was more to it that we just didn't get to see. The movie is under 80 minutes without credits, and there are two credited editors (unusual for a non blockbuster), so it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was some tinkering.

Luckily, it does NOT appear to be the victim of re-shoots. Clearly the first directive would have been "more scares!", but the movie is refreshingly low on "Boo!" moments, and even better - none of them are fake scares. No mirror gags, no one sneaking up on their partner for no reason, etc. The only one that kind of fits the mold is when a neighbor girl bangs on Greene's car window at one point, but the girl really is pissed at her and follows her banging with an ominous message. Since I hate most of that bullshit, I was happy to see that writer/director Todd Lincoln is smart enough to know what a waste of energy these sort of scares are.

Some of the actual scares work pretty good, too. I liked the subtlety behind many, like when Stan notices that a door that swung open still had the deadbolt engaged. There's also another bit where a bureau moves as she is putting away laundry, so she ends up dropping the clothes in midair. Low-key gags like this make up the majority of the first half, until things get really intense and we start seeing more FX driven gags. CGI is thankfully kept to a minimum, and the best bits here are a little more unusual, like when she nails up a door to keep the ghost trapped in a laundry room only to discover she has somehow gotten turned around and has barricaded herself WITH her enemy. One of the ghost's MOs is to fool his victims into seeing things that aren't really there, and while he doesn't use it much, it's a cool little addition to a modern horror villain's usual bag of tricks.

But for every good scare or intriguing element, there's something amiss. Early on they establish that their neighborhood is empty (save for that one aforementioned family), and nothing really comes of it. It's such an unusual idea for a movie of any sort, so it seems weird that they take the time to establish it when there's no payoff. The back-story, laid out in the film's opening sequence, also doesn't seem to have any further information on it - as far as I can tell Greene is never even made fully aware of what they were doing back then or who the guy was. I also noticed that she seemed to be emasculating Stan in some way - she always drives him, she beats him at video games, etc - but if it was intentional, I didn't see much of a reason for it. Again, it's possible that the film was re-edited, so I am curious to see if the DVD will shed some light on these elements.

And DVD is probably where it will find most of its audience, thanks to Warner's borderline limited release and lack of advertising (that cool poster with Greene being swarmed by ghost hands? I have yet to see it anywhere around town). It's a shame, too - the movie was shot (quite wonderfully so) on 35mm by none other than Daniel Pearl, who gave us Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the opening scene's 1973 date apparently a tip of the hat) and, most importantly (to me) the trio of Michael Bay videos for Meat Loaf's Bat out of Hell II album. Speaking of music, the score by TomAndAndy is quite good, but it doesn't seem to fit this particular movie - it sounds more like a Bourne or Enemy of the State type soundtrack. The characters are just driving home from Costco (the store being a recurring motif), but according to the soundtrack, they are pursuing an international terrorist who has the detonator for a nuclear bomb.

Ultimately, it's right on the line of being something I'd recommend. If you've seen the trailer, then it's nearly impossible to expect you to enjoy it, given that it gives away most of what the movie sets up as a mystery or a reveal (Drive Angry's trailer did something similar, making it sound like Cage's escape from hell was the plot, as opposed to a twist). But if you can manage to go in blind, I think there's enough there to enjoy, especially if you're tired of the jump-scare driven PG-13 horror films that only offer one legit threat moment for every 10 involve someone backing into their friend and shrieking. Just don't expect to be at the theater very long.

What say you?.

*Instead, I'll just offer the song "Apparitions" from Matthew Goode, as it gets stuck in my head every time I hear the film's title.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

My Sucky Teen Romance (2012)

AUGUST 22, 2012

GENRE: COMEDIC, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PREMIERE SCREENING)

A while back I watched Zombie Girl, a fine documentary about a 12 year old girl named Emily Hagins who was making a feature film. I never did see the actual movie she made (Pathogen), but My Sucky Teen Romance is actually her third feature, and by all accounts her most accomplished yet. While clearly stretching its budget at times, it's a charming, good-natured horror comedy about vampires invading a sci-fi convention, and ultimately just as endearing as Hagins' own story.

The best jokes in the movie were the ones poking fun at Twilight, as our villain is a dead ringer for Edward Cullen, and Twi-fans are depicted as, well, idiots. There's a great bit where Harry Knowles (yes, the real Harry) berates a girl for asking if a real vampire could ever love her, and I loved the sight gag of another girl wandering around the convention tossing sparkles (glitter) on everyone, much to the disgust of our main characters, whose tastes are a bit more refined. The low budget keeps anything specific at bay, so all the comics and such that we see are made up, making the Twilight gags even better as it comes off as the film's only real target.

But Hagins and her team put some effort into fleshing out this world, with a couple of clips of a pretty bad horror movie called Killer Roadkill, about a Were-madillo, as well as a full sequence from a game that looks like a cross between Double Dragon and Ghosts n' Goblins (which, if it existed back in the 8bit days, I would totally play). The heroine and her would-be lover also share a love of a comic book (name escapes me, but I recall it being similar to "Max Payne" for some reason), and it looks like they put a full issue together. I don't know what the budget was (from what I understand it was a crowd-sourced film), but it seems to me that most of it went to creating a con from scratch. That it actually looks more fleshed out and interesting than some actual cons I've been to (Supernatural Convention, I'm looking at you) is damned impressive.

And I don't know if impressed is the right word, but I was certainly surprised by the occasional F-bombs and a couple of kind of gory murders in the film, as I thought it was rated PG. The first time I figured I just heard the guy wrong and he was saying "fugg", but as they continued to pop up at random (including Knowles' offering) I knew it wasn't just my ears. As for the gore, there isn't much in the way of violence, as most of the movie focuses on the budding relationship between its two leads, solving the mystery of who the vampire is, and things like that, but they make em count when they happen.

The cutesy romance stuff was fine. I'm not really the target audience - profanity and occasional gore shots aside this is aimed at the younger set - but there was a breezy, somewhat Hughes-ian charm to it all, and it was great to see actual teens playing the teen characters for a change, not to mention actually talking like them instead of someone trying to approximate and coming up with alien gibberish (My Soul To Take comes to mind). The romance between the two leads seemed to be missing a beat, however - they meet at the store where he works, and then a few minutes later he encounters the bad guy (and bitten off-screen, making it temporarily confusing when we see him as a full vampire later), and the next time they meet they're quite comfortable with each other, as if they were old pals. I don't know if budget kept them from filming every page of the script (it's quite a short movie, just over 75 minutes with credits), but it feels like they are racing to get to the convention, somewhat at the expense of character development. But then again, Hagins cited Scott Pilgrim as an influence, so we should be thankful that the movie is even coherent.

Technically the movie was solid as well. The sound was a bit "quiet" at times, like there wasn't any room tone or whatever, but it was possibly the sound system of the "theater", which was the Cinespace in Hollywood. It's basically just a bar with a converted screening room, an odd place to hold a premiere for a movie where neither the filmmaker nor most of the cast would be able to enter on a regular basis. Anyway, it was well shot and edited, and looked professional, which is more than I can say about movies like Beneath The Mississippi (directed by a guy who has been in the business since before Hagins was even born).

I wouldn't recommend the movie for those who are seeking a full blown horror-comedy in the vein of Fright Night or Suck, but if you enjoy things like Sixteen Candles and/or can appreciate a sweet coming-of-age tale with a little genre enthusiasm thrown in, it should be right up your alley. The DVD is coming soon (and has bonus features), and it's available now on Amazon's demand service, so if you fit that description - enjoy!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Devil Woman (1970)

AUGUST 21, 2012

GENRE: REVENGE, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

I can always count on Brian Quinn to program something both HMAD-able and enjoyably insane for his monthly Grindhouse nights, and Devil Woman (Cantonese: She yao jing) did not let me down*. While not as full blown insane as some others, it delivered everything I look for in such entries: a nonsensical story, curious translation problems, and a respectful crowd laughing and applauding at all the "right" moments.

The translation issue was a bit unique, however, as this was the rare dubbed Asian film. Usually the prints are subtitled by someone who most likely did not know the English language, but here the dubbers just tried to match the mouths as best as they could, giving every line in the film that had more than 5 syllables a strange cadence. Even Christopher Walken would be puzzled by some of the places where pauses were inserted, and the tone of voice was often wrong as well - questions sound like exclamations, and vice versa. The dubbing actors are also too cheerful - a character explaining that his family being poor is why he feels drawn to another poor kid is delivered with the inflection one might use to tell their best friend that they are getting married. It's not too big of an issue though, since roughly 75% of the movie is either someone calling Devil Woman's name ("Manda!") or muttering after getting their ass kicked.

See, another charming thing about the movie is that it was actually a kung fu movie with some horror stuff thrown in at random, though it doesn't start out that way. A baby is born with snakes growing out of her head, and the family hides her for a while and covers her head when she goes out, which of course gives her a very sheltered, lonely life, as well as the target of ridicule. One day when getting picked on, she uses her snake power (she can control local snakes, not just the ones on her head) to lash back at a bully, which causes his parents and the rest of the townsfolk to form an angry mob. Long story short, her parents are killed, and then 10 years (or so) later she returns to seek revenge.

So you're thinking it'll be like Stanley mixed with The Crow or something, right? Nope. Shortly after coming back and killing one of her tormentors, a Chinese doctor comes to town and instantly makes enemies with pretty much every asshole in town. Thus, most of the movie focuses on his encounters with this gang, who constantly get together, surround him, and then get their asses kicked (but never enough to just quit the gang or sit out the next fight). I'm not huge on this sort of stuff, so maybe this is par for the course, but after the 2nd or 3rd such fight I started getting kind of bored of seeing this guy take down 12-15 guys without ever being hit. At least with Jackie Chan there's some physical comedy built in as he scrambles around and uses props, but this dude just sort of stands in one general spot and kicks or smacks every anonymous goon who comes his way. I never once feared for his safety, so I wish there was more of a balance with the snake scenes.

Because the two plots take FOREVER to converge, to the extent where I wondered if they ever really would or if this was just the Filipino version of Best Defense. The only question is, would the doctor team up with Devil Woman to take down the gangs together, or would she see him as another threat? The answer is... uh, I don't really know. She has one of his enemies under her control, so when he kicks his ass she gets miffed, but otherwise they seemingly have the same goal and no real beef with each other, yet the finale finds him killing her snakes and trying to land a shot on her as well (she keeps teleporting). It's like the reverse of something like Ecks vs. Sever (yeah, I went there) where they think they are enemies and then realize that the only way to win is to join forces. In this movie, they only met because of coincidence and then the movie comes down to their fight. Not the tightest script, is what I'm saying.

There are some really great, entertaining scenes throughout though, so even if it's not perfect it's still worth a look. I particularly liked when the doctor went to a wedding (?) and was forced to take part in a boxing match. He's all like "No, please, I'd rather not" and everyone boos and the other guy sucker punches him, forcing him to defend his honor. Naturally, he kicks the guy's ass, which results in another guy getting into the ring and trying. After a few hits, the guy is like "OK I quit" and casually walks back out of the ring, while the doctor retains his "Everyone just enjoy their day" attitude. It's a delightfully unnecessary but awesome sequence. I also liked when the love interest was being kidnapped by one of the goons - she struggles and keeps brushing up against her dimwit brother, who just assumes she wants his attention and keeps ignoring her so he can focus on the fight happening nearby. There's also an odd bit where the doctor tries to enjoy a cockfight, but can't seem to get a good view of the action. All time-wasting nonsense, sure, but it beats yet another "fight" of no consequence.

As always, the IMDb page for these things tends to be a bit slim, but this time it's not really their fault - the movie itself had no end credits at all, which is why I don't really know anyone's name besides Devil Woman's, because it was said about 9000 times ("Manda!"). I don't even know who played the hero! And it has like 5 other titles (including, yes, Manda The Snake Girl - I am fascinated by the fact that all the titles are about the character who only has like 1/3 of the movie to herself), so good luck tracking it down if you're so inclined. It doesn't appear to be on DVD anyway, but either way I'd suggest just hoping to see it with a crowd - I am sure nearly all of my warm and fuzzies are due to the infectious energy an audience of one can't possibly muster.

What say you?

*He also showed Legend Of The Wolf Woman, but I sadly kept dozing off and thus can't write a proper review. I did see one of the most casual stabbings in cinema history, however, so I feel comfortable recommending it as well.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Theatre Bizarre (2011)

AUGUST 20, 2012

GENRE: ANTHOLOGY
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Since it was two hours long, I opted not to check out The Theatre Bizarre during its "theatrical release" earlier this year, as it only played at midnight and thus I knew I was too likely to fall asleep and screw myself out of a proper review. A bummer, since I'm always happy to see new anthologies being made and would have loved to have supported it theatrically. Let's quit with the midnight only releases, folks - there's gotta be a movie or two that's doing poorly anyway and thus it can be replaced for a prime (7:30pm) show for an evening, same as a theater has to do for a premiere or test screening.

Anyway, like pretty much all anthologies (especially those with different directors for each segment), it's a mixed bag - some work, others don't, and part of the fun is discussing your picks with someone who saw it differently. However, one thing about it is quite rare - I actually found the wraparound segments to be the most entertaining part. As a fan of Udo Kier (who isn't?), nothing else in the movie's two hour runtime delighted me as much as seeing playing an automaton that gradually became more human like as the film progressed. He's sort of the MC of the titular theater, telling the stories (which are represented by their own automatons) to a girl in the crowd. At first he's almost unrecognizable, and even when the makeup starts to shed and his real face shines through I was so impressed with his jerky, robotic movements that I considered some digital trickery was at work, only to remember that the budget was too low for that to be the case. It's creepy as hell, and sets the tone nicely for the segments, which are often garish and strange as well.

They're also nicely balanced, in that I liked every other story. The first, third, and fifth entries suffered from poor acting, obnoxious dream plotting, and a horrendous voiceover, respectively, while the even-numbered tales, while not perfect, brought out the best of their filmmaker's abilities and held my attention. Unfortunately this made for a bit of a bumpy viewing experience - just when I started getting really into it, a new, lesser story would begin. They're also tonally all over the place; black humor is a big portion of many, but the 4th and 5th are quite serious. And the 1st story is supernaturally based, which is an odd start considering there's only one other that isn't real-world based.

I don't have much to say about the first tale, about a guy looking for the Necronomicon, finds a witch of some sort, fucks her, and then she turns into a frog or something. It was quite silly, and the two leads (the guy and his girlfriend) weren't very appealing as actors, nor did they have solid chemistry, so it just didn't work. I do like the concept, however - it's certainly unusual. Perhaps the original short story would be better, where you can spare yourself both bad acting AND come up with your own vision of the monster.

But things get back on track with "I Love You", which comes from Buddy Giovinazzo, the director of Combat Shock. Like that film, it doesn't really qualify as horror until the end, but it's compelling enough as a drama for that to not really matter. Our hero is a weak-willed man who learns his wife is leaving him (for a close friend, if I'm understanding correctly), and the piece depicts his pleas for her to reconsider. Things, naturally, go awry. Both actors are terrific, and unlike most of the entries, I could actually see this being a stage play, which fits the film's Grand Guignol-inspired motif. It also has the best "sounds silly but it's kind of awesome" anti-romance line I've heard since Closer's "It tasted like yours only sweeter!", so there's something.

Tom Savini directs the next installment, which would have been fine as a Tales From The Crypt episode 20 years or so ago, but just feels too dated now. A guy who is cheating on his wife gets his just desserts, but to get to that point we have to watch roughly 800 million dream sequences, all of which end with the guy's manhood being mangled in some way. I would have preferred something that built off the film's obvious "twist", rather than a bunch of hooey until it reached its obvious conclusion, but at least Savini (who also has a small role) seems to be enjoying himself, and it's certainly a step up from his entry in Deadtime Stories.

Now, so far all of the stories have basically been about the consequences of fucking people you're not supposed to, which is what makes Douglas Buck's segment such an oddball in both placement and theme. If it had been placed second, it could have perfectly set the tone for the film as a whole, a sort of "You don't know what to expect" type thing. But with the first three seemingly following a theme, it really makes this one stick out even more than it already would have, since it's also the least horrific of the bunch. No, it's actually a quite melancholy (and great) rumination on death, as seen through the eyes of a child, and I can't help but wonder if it should have been dropped from the film and used elsewhere, because as it stands it's sort of like dropping a bit of caviar into a McDonald's hamburger - both have their merits, but they just don't belong together.

The 5th story also avoids the "sex = death" concept for something a little more Twilight Zone-ish, where a woman can extract fluid from someone's eyeballs and insert it into her own in order to experience their memories. Like Savini's, you can probably figure out where it's going right off the bat, but it might have been less of an issue without the droning voiceover. If I wasn't trying to ignore it by concentrating elsewhere, maybe I would have been caught up more in the on-screen action (which includes lots of shots of needles going into eyeballs - you've been warned!) and less likely to "see it coming". Voiceover: always reconsider it.

Finally, David Gregory's 6th entry fits more with the first three; it's not as sexually graphic, but it similarly combines death with a deadly sin (in this case gluttony), and the main character is a woman who is fattening up her boyfriend so her and her upper class pals can feast on him later. It's the most disgusting one of the lot, as the snobs (who mostly dress like the assholes in Hunger Games) literally stuff their faces (one even eats her own puke) and slobber all over each other - nothing like ending on a memorable note. It's not the best story ever, but there's something admirably insane about the whole thing, and anything that can get me to not want to eat for a while (I eat like an asshole) can only be a good thing.

In addition to the 2 hr movie, the disc comes kind of packed - 40 minutes of interviews (with my good friend Ryan from ShockTillYouDrop) featuring Gregory, Jeremy Kasten (who was behind the wrap-arounds), and Giovinazzo, who talk about how they got involved, the production of their shorts, working with the others, etc. All worth a look, unlike the behind the scenes material, which is literally just a bunch of random, context-free shots of the production of a few of the segments (one even ends on someone asking the director a question!). Skip it, because you'll need more time for the commentary. Buck sits out, unfortunately, but the rest all deliver breakneck tracks for their respective pieces, with Kasten and Kier (both of whom sound like they're on speakerphone) piping up for the framing scenes. I much prefer this style than say, the Chillerama version, which had all four filmmakers sitting together through the whole thing and not really being 100% relevant to what segment was on - if you hated a piece you can skip over it and not miss out on potential information for the others.

A sequel is already in production, so obviously the ambitious gamble paid off, and I applaud them. It's not a home run, but few anthologies are (especially when they're joint efforts), so I can't really complain about a few lesser entries as it's almost a given. I think the overall viewing experience could have benefited from re-ordering (I'd go with 3, 4, 1, 2, 5, 6), but I'm sure every sequence was considered during the post production process, and perhaps they have reasons for doing it this way that I'm not privy to. Either way, definitely worth a watch if you're a fan of the format.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Sand Sharks (2012)

AUGUST 19, 2012

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

Considering how many shark movies I've seen, it's strange how few of them are intentionally funny, mocking themselves and the overbearing glut of shark movies that have come before it. So I was a bit taken aback when I realized that Sand Sharks was intentionally ripping off Jaws for comedic effect, barreling through the usual setup scenes and presenting caricatures of its iconic characters - how is this the first time I've seen a parody of Quint's offer to kill the beast that's hurting the town's livelihood?

But my favorite joke was earlier than that, when the town's (only?) two cops find a head on the beach, with tracks indicating that the killer was on land and thus not a shark. Even though they literally just found it, one cop informs the other that the mayor has demanded that the beaches stay open anyway, even though it doesn't seem possible that the mayor could even know about it yet - the joke being that there's no reason to go through the motions when we know that's what will happen anyway. It's the kind of comedy I like, where they're not doing Mad magazine spoofs of a specific movie but just sort of generally having fun with a sub-genre's tropes (not unlike the less sight-gag driven parts of Airplane, or the first Naked Gun).

But it gets less silly as it goes on, probably because they figured the joke would wear thin BECAUSE so many of these movies are unintentionally hilarious anyway, due to the shitty FX that plagues this one as well. Best as I can tell, apart from maybe a couple of fin shots, they use CGI for every shot of the sharks, with no practical heads for closeups or anything like that. Of course, this allows for sillier shots than would be possible for these productions, like when one of them dive bombs a pier and takes out like 20 people at once, but come on! There's a bit where one comes up through the floor inside a little shack, and we don't even get any real interaction between it and the actors, despite the close quarters.

And this focus away from goofiness actually pays off, as the movie kills its most sympathetic character at the end of the second act, which legit shocked me even though I wasn't exactly invested in the proceedings. I even contemplated the possibility that I had missed something and another person wearing similar clothes was the one who actually gotten bit in half, because I was so sure that this person would be its Ripley. But maybe I was still mad that Gina Holden's character had exited just ten minutes prior; it was bad enough she wasn't in the movie as much as I would like (every frame) to begin with, so that I had another 40 minutes to go without her presence (a main reason for watching it) was a bummer.

Otherwise, my main concern as a viewer was whether or not I was watching a sequel to a film I hadn't yet seen. Throughout the movie they discuss an incident that occurred some years before, where certain people (Corin Nemec's mother among them) were killed due to a shark attack of some sort. I even broke down and looked at the IMDb halfway through, only to discover no "original" movie existed. It's a strange device to use for an original movie, and the characters are even introduced as having prior histories that we should be aware of, such as Nemec's relationship with the female cop. Considering how different they are and how they are utilized in this movie, it's impossible to comprehend how they ever could have lived together or even gotten along, so perhaps the screenwriter WROTE two movies and just made the sequel first? It's really odd.

Back to Jaws, one thing that I found kind of charming is that they copied an element not from the movie but the source novel, which is that the Mayor was mixed up with the mob, something that was informing a few of his (bad) decisions. Nemec is the Mayor's son here, and owes money to the mob, which is why he needs his planned event (Sandman, a big Spring Break type event that, in typical Syfy (or Syfy-esque) fashion draws about 40 or 50 extras) to go on without a hitch, and so he covers up another death after a Sand Shark is killed and the problem is presumed to be over by everyone else. Since they're not even trying to hide the fact that they're riffing on Jaws, I admit I was kind of impressed that they went all out and even borrowed stuff from Peter Benchley's book.

Speaking of the extras, keep an eye on them during the big attack on the Sandman festival. Director Mark Atkins clearly just told them to run around at random, so you see them running every which way even though, you know, OFF THE FUCKING BEACH would be the only sensible option (some even appear to run for the water!). Then there's a particularly large guy with no shirt on who is seen running left to right in one shot and then back the other way in the next. Since the tone veers from parody to somewhat serious (relatively speaking), it's hard to tell if this sort of stuff is supposed to be sloppy for a joke, or if it's just sloppy.

No hints are available in the disc's only extra besides the trailer, a "Making Of" which is primarily Atkins talking about his cast, with about a minute or so about the production itself. I can't imagine a world where anyone would find this stuff interesting, but if you exist, they got you covered. And it's a Phase 4 DVD release, which means there are several hundred hours of trailers at the top of the disc, so if your menu button is broken you can go make yourself a sandwich (or an entire Thanksgiving style meal) and come back when they're done and you can enjoy this uneven but mostly charmingly odd take on the killer shark movie.

What say you?

P.S. Instead of the trailer, which gives away most of the best gags, I will post this short, which I saw on HBO or something when I was a kid and thus was scared of being killed by sand sharks for a while.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Awakening (2011)

AUGUST 18, 2012

GENRE: BRITISH, GHOST
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

A few weeks back I had to choose between press screenings of Red Lights or The Awakening, as they were both at the same time on the same night. I chose the former, and while I enjoyed it I haven't thought much about it since until today, when I was surprised to see that the two films not only shared a press screening date but nearly identical opening scenes of our hero debunking an alleged haunting. They also both have polarizing twists, but I'll get into that later.

Otherwise they're pretty different, as this is a traditional period ghost film in the vein of The Others and Devil's Backbone, complete with unusual children and a refreshing lack of the bullshit that unfortunately springs up too often in modern haunting films, such as computer research and haunted video cameras. Indeed, one of the film's more charming moments is when heroine Rebecca Hall (a wonderful presence) breaks out her equipment, which includes things as high tech as bells on string and some sort of powder that will leave residue on the feet of any "ghosts" (read: prankster children) that happen to walk through it. She has a meter that detects temperature changes, but otherwise she's forced to rely on her intellect and own two eyes to get to the bottom of the case, not a surveillance camera that records everything that happens while she sleeps.

As for the mystery, it's a pretty good one, and thankfully not too complicated. I think that the more you have to think about how the plot works, the less likely it is that you'll be scared - you're not able to "settle" enough for the boo moments to have their full effect. The Halloween series is the best example - the more we knew about Michael and why he did things, the less scary it became. Same sort of idea applies here, as thankfully the back-story isn't too intricate, and its clues are doled out at a nice pace that emphasizes character (and scares) for most of its runtime. Of course, this results in a bunch of exposition near the end as we are given the full story, but it's not a "cheat".

(SPOILERS AHEAD - skip the next paragraph if you don't want hints about the film's resolution)

You do, however, have to buy into the idea of repressed memory, something I have trouble with in movies. I don't doubt that people can literally forget major trauma, but I also think that movies tend to take great liberties with how those memories resurface. Take the movie The Number 23 (please!) - he reads a book HE HIMSELF WROTE, among many other things, before finally realizing all of these things were his own doing. It's not as extreme here, but it seems to me that the character with those repressed memories probably shouldn't have taken so long for something to set them off. That, along with an ambiguous ending, might kill your enjoyment of the film, especially if you're not even familiar with PTSD and its effects (the movie doesn't go into the disorder - being set in the early 1900s I'm not even sure if there was a name for it yet).

(END SPOILERS)

But until then, unless you simply have no patience for slow burn, atmospheric horror films, it'd be hard to find much fault with it. Again, Hall makes for a great lead - she's witty and able to give as good as she gets, and has wonderful chemistry with Dominic West, a school administrator who brings her in to investigate even though he thinks her studies are rubbish. And watching her find it increasingly difficult to explain away the things she is seeing is a fun journey, particularly when it reaches a turning point during a scene involving a dollhouse. I won't spoil the specifics, but it's easily the best dollhouse related scare I've ever seen (which is quite a bit, actually), and even better - it's not even the film's best scare.

The location is also terrific - an old manor rebuilt as a boarding school, allowing for several unused rooms for ghosts or people to hide, hidden passageways, etc. There's also a lake nearby and a creepy wooded area, both used sparingly to retain their sense of dread but not ignored to the point where you forget that they're there. Director Nick Murphy also gives us a good sense of the school's layout, so that when people are separated and in danger it's clear how far apart they are, an issue that plagues many "single location" horror films even though you'd think it would be a given that they make it clear, since we're there the whole time.

The film got a rather large release for this sort of thing, hitting 70 screens over the weekend (for comparison, Red Lights, with bigger stars and a more established distributor, only made it to 18), but it doesn't look like it made much of a splash, with a pretty low per screen average. Not surprising at all, but still a bit of a shame, considering how horror-starved this summer has been and that, you know, it's a good movie. Silver lining - it doesn't REQUIRE big-screen viewing, and will work just as well at home when it hits VOD and rental later this year (possibly even by Halloween time, since these smaller releases tend to hit video a lot faster than the big budget offerings). If you enjoyed the films mentioned, keep an eye out for it (or go see it - it's not too late!).

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon (2008)

AUGUST 17, 2012

GENRE: MONSTER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: CABLE (SYFY)

Apparently I should have been paying more attention to Syfy's schedule, because there's usually 2-3 HMAD-able entries airing per week, and because they're trapped on my cable box, I have to make efforts to finish them before I go to work (if I am on the night shift). That leaves more time at work for Spider Solitaire! Thus, Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon, which aired a week or so ago, made a fine option for today (notice that this is the first review to post the same day I watched it in quite a while).

It's also not a bad little movie, and I can't help but wonder if there are other reasonably decent movies from this period, where Battlestar was bringing the channel lots of new viewers but they didn't have too many other original shows competing for attention (and presumably, money). Hell, the monster is a guy in a suit more often than not - they only opt for a CGI model when he has to jump long distances (like Riggins in John Carter!) and a few quick running shots. But when he's actually doing stuff of note - i.e. killing the human characters or (in a particularly odd moment) cuddling with one that he kidnapped, it's a good ol' fashioned guy in a big furry suit, which is exactly how I like it.

Another thing I appreciated was that they spent a lot of time on the basic survival aspect of their plight. I think I'd prefer something more like The Grey where they were picked off one by one as they tried to trek their way back to safety, instead of just sitting around the fuselage, but the need for food, fire, etc made up more of the movie than the Yeti, which is probably why they were able to go with a guy in a suit - he was probably only needed for 2-3 days, as they use him sparingly. And there's some creativity to this stuff - at one point a guy uses a disembodied arm to splint his own.

However, you have to give the script WAY too much leeway with regards to the logic of these scenarios. For example, the plane was supposedly in the air for hours (why they were flying over the Himalayas en route from the US to Japan is beyond me), and yet there's supposedly only a handful of candy bars left? The plane splits, but they go find the tail section, so between what should have been a pretty decent stock of food/drink and the snacks in people's carry-ons, they should have been fine in this department. Shit, my bag alone can usually feed someone for a week. I guess they just eat snow to make up for the lack of water (we never see it), but considering how little they eat over 5 days, there's no way they'd be able to carry on as they do during the film's climax.

No one seems to have too much problem with the cold, either. They complain, sure, but there's no frostbite or hypothermia of any sort, despite the fact that they're all just wearing pretty much what someone might for a late winter ski trip. I mean, yeah, it's a Syfy flick, so it's not like some stupidity kept me from enjoying the movie (someone on the IMDb was bitching about the fact that the altitude they claim wouldn't have trees - yeah it probably wouldn't have A GIANT FUCKING SNOW MONSTER EITHER), but if they're going to focus on this stuff more than the monster (i.e. what people came to see) then it'd probably be a good idea to make it a little more realistic. Meet us halfway!

I was surprised by the film's low body count for 90% of its runtime; the Yeti only kills 3 people throughout the main part of the movie, as he focuses more on the corpses of those killed in the crash. Apparently he realized his folly as the end drew near, doubling that count in the finale (including one guy I thought for sure would make it). Luckily, the survival elements keep it interesting so you're not just waiting for the next kill, but I have to assume some of the Syfy producers were nervous about how infrequently he appeared in the first hour or so - at one point they just cut to him randomly walking around, as if to say "Don't forget, at heart this IS a killer yeti movie!"

However there was an interesting little beat that I think could make for a cool movie on its own (not a Syfy one, a real one). The group's requisite asshole is the first to suggest cannibalism, which the others are opposed to. Later, a body disappears, and the others blame him for eating some of it and hiding the rest - which would be an AMAZING mystery for us if we didn't already see that it was the Yeti. I think it'd be a cool movie - a sort of "Ten Little Indians" scenario but where one of them is a cannibal. Or a Yeti.

My 4th note, right before the one about the cannibal segment, just says "Huh?", which means something confused me right around there. I can no longer remember what it was, but I'm guessing it didn't matter in the end. Just in case, I give this one a mild recommendation with the caveat that somewhere around the 45 minute mark (without commercials) there's an element that doesn't make any sense. But take it from me and my terrible memory - it's not a crippling flaw!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Gnaw (2008)

AUGUST 16, 2012

GENRE: CANNIBAL, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Nothing makes me happier than discovering Blockbuster or Netflix has listed the wrong runtime on a movie. In Gnaw's case, they said it was a standard 90, but it was actually a scant 76, allowing 14 extra minutes that I probably wasted on Twitter or something. But still, awesome. However, the IMDb also led me astray, claiming this was a horror comedy, and being British, I thought I was in for a Severance-like take on Texas Chainsaw Massacre. As it turns out, there's no real humor in the movie at all - it's just Texas Chainsaw Massacre with different accents.

For a movie without a single new idea in its head, it's not too bad. Again, it was only 76 minutes (and that's with credits and a hilariously overwrought opening text about how many people go missing each year), so I couldn't be too offended when it began following TCM beat for beat. It's like when kids make backyard versions of their favorite movies - there's something almost kind of sweet about it. Plus, they DO make one big change at the very end that's impressively grim, so props for that one.

I also liked the killer's disguise, though the digital video was never good enough to get a really great look at it. One difference from Chainsaw is that there are only two villains, basically Leatherface and the chef (a woman here). But the masked guy looks pretty normal, so he does his thing without it sometimes. I'm not sure if we were supposed to be surprised that they turned out to be the same guy, but if so it was a waste of their time trying to implement it, as I never doubted it for a second.

And they go all out with the cannibalism, which was nice since the last couple of Chainsaw sequels/remakes more or less ignored it. People find teeth and hair in their food, the chef bakes a tongue, and at the end... well, I'll leave that little surprise to you, but I will say it's kind of incredible. And unlike the insufferable Squeal, the guy takes his cannibalism seriously, trapping folks and taking care of how he cuts them, instead of just hacking away like that movie's Pig-men did more often than not.

I do wish the characters were a bit more likable, however. Once again we have a group of friends who seemingly don't really like each other - the nerdy guy everyone picks on, the girl who is banging her friend's boyfriend... why are these groups always so dysfunctional? I can assume that the idea is that they're so caught up in their own drama that they don't notice when people go missing for long periods of time, but that doesn't really come across, and even if it did - can't you find a better way to handle this issue, rather than making everyone we're supposed to be worried about kind of obnoxious?

The disc has a nine minute making of that's worth a look, if only because it actually provides some real information about the film's production. You certainly won't find anything like that on the commentary by director Gregory Mandry, who speaks so infrequently that I often just found myself watching the movie again and then getting disrupted by him actually saying something. Plus some of his comments are merely narrating the action or pointless "it was cold in here" observations, so it is entirely a waste of your time. The trailer rounds things out, and I'll link it below with the warning that it is not work safe (nor is there a "red band" to warn us).

Basically, if you like these sort of movies, you can do much much worse. Sure, I'd like to have been surprised by some more of its storyline, but it met its minimal goals and didn't offend my eyes or ears with poor filmmaking. So it's a fitting entry for this week - maybe it's the heat or something, but everything is "Yeah, OK, good enough". Maybe I'll hate tomorrow's movie so we can get some kind of a grading curve, here.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Children Of The Corn IV: The Gathering (1996)

AUGUST 15, 2012

GENRE: KILLER KID, POSSESSION, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

One left! With this viewing/review of Children Of The Corn IV: The Gathering, I only have one of the nine (NINE!) Corn flicks to review for HMAD (that would be part II, aka the only other one to get a wide theatrical release). I feel that only then can I consider myself a true American hero. Have YOU reviewed all nine Children of the Corn movies? Did you even know that there WERE that many?

Anyway, it's halfway decent for a movie that has fuck all to do with the series. There are children, and it takes place in the midwest (not Gatlin, however), but otherwise there's no real relation to anything before or after - even series mainstay He Who Walks Behind The Rows sits this one out. It's a shame that they didn't follow up on the cool ending of Urban Harvest, which saw the "magic" corn being shipped all over the globe, but alas - that would obviously be out of this movie's budget range. Hell they didn't even really go to Nebraska - it was shot in Austin and LA.

But at least it was replaced with an interesting story about a boy preacher who was murdered decades ago and is now looking to be reborn. To do so he needs the blood of the towns-children, as well as someone else who was lied to and abandoned as he was. It takes not one brain cell to determine who that child may be, but it beats the usual religious nonsense, and packs in a surprising number of gory murders, including a hilarious bisection of the town doctor. It also has a curious choice of weapon - apparently mercury is the only thing that can stop Josiah, so you have mercury bullets and even a mercury shower during the climax. Hey, beats silver.

The problem is that it's not particularly exciting or suspenseful. The murders help some, but the pacing is ill-suited for such things. The first time we see Naomi Watts (yes, she's the star of this one) at her hospital job, it seems like all the kids in town are already sick, so there's no buildup to it whatsoever. But then things slow down again for a subplot about a family who planned to move that night and were stopped when the wife was killed by the children and the husband was accused of it. Nothing against these folks, but they're clearly just there for padding, and the two stories take too long to really intersect. Worse, we know the answers to all of these "questions" - we know he didn't do it, we know the kids aren't just having the flu, etc. Basically you're just waiting around for the backstory.

Oh, and for Watts to "reveal" that she is in fact the mother of the little girl she is calling her sister. The girl is told her mom is actually Karen Black, which even though she's only like 5 or 6 she should be smart enough to realize is complete bullshit. Come on movie, you're already asking us to believe that Black could produce Naomi Watts - you expect us to believe she's still having children in her 50s (especially when Watts' character has come back home after suddenly leaving years ago)? Come on.

Speaking of Black, it's a strange choice to cast her as a character who has seemingly suddenly gone crazy. Throughout the film she acts like pretty much every Karen Black character (a demented weirdo), so it's incredibly difficult to understand why everyone is suddenly so concerned (or why Watts would be compelled to return home after all these years). It's like in True Lies where Jamie Lee is supposed to be shocked that her giant husband is not a computer salesman but an Arnold Schwarzenegger type. Dee Wallace or someone - that would make sense. Also, Watts has another kid that is wholly unnecessary - they could have used it for some Sophie's Choice type silliness (she lied/abandoned them both, no?) but he's just sort of around, like they wrote his character out of the script but forgot to tell the actor.

Since the movie wasn't grabbing my attention I began wondering how cool it would be to have all these different sects meet up for some sort of summit, where they can determine their powers, actual goal, etc. It seems every movie has a new group of murderous, corn-loving children, with their own backstory and leader, so it'd be funny to see them all meeting in the basement of a Holiday Inn or something and figuring out territory and what not. I think it'd be a real treat for the series' 10th installment.

And on that note, I gotta say - this is probably the longest running horror series in which not one entry could be described as a really good movie, or even far and away better than the others. You'd think in nine goddamn films they'd get it right once, but the best in the series (basically, the two versions of the original) are "Pretty good", with a couple others being terrible and the rest just being "eh, fine" - the scale of the entire series is like C+ to D. Maybe that serial killer version that my cable box described for Revelation will come along and finally get it right. Even if it takes years, I'd even resurrect HMAD for that one.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Blu-Ray Review: Jaws (1975)

AUGUST 14, 2012

GENRE: PREDATOR
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

I already reviewed Jaws a while back, and gushed about it at length in this week's Collins Crypt for Badass Digest, so I'll skip what you already know: the movie is damn near perfect, it runs over 2 hours and yet seems like it's over before you know it thanks to Spielberg's already expert skill, and your life isn't really complete until you've seen it, preferably in glorious 35mm.

But not everyone is blessed with local repertory houses, so what's the next best thing? The answer is the stunning new Blu-ray, released to coincide not with any particular anniversary of the film (though I'm sure Kevin Smith - who references the film in nearly all of his own - is thrilled that it's the film's 37th birthday), but Universal's own 100th year of operations. As part of the festivities, they have chosen 14 of their most beloved titles and given them deluxe new transfers. Jaws is one of three from Steven Spielberg (the others are ET and Schindler's List), and as it is his oldest film to be released on the format, many have been curious how it would fare in high def.

Well, fear not - this transfer is immaculate. I watched it a few days after seeing a pristine 35mm print and I was still blown away by how gorgeous it looked, with the detail in things like the Mayor's hideous July 4th suit popping in ways never before dreamed. And the color is magnificent; I never appreciated how vibrant the beach scenes were until now. My sound system isn't advanced enough to take full advantage of the new 7.1 sound mix, but from what I could tell they did a damn good job of separating the tracks without disrupting the way it originally sounded. I remember for Halloween's remaster they added some thunder during the drive to Smith's Grove early on, and it drove me completely bonkers - there was none of that nonsense here (though it would have been funny if they added some shark roars to keep it in line with Jaws: The Revenge).

In addition to the beautiful transfer (seriously, I can't stress enough how good it is - on par with Alien for library titles that I've seen), the Blu comes with all of the extras from the previous DVD release in 2005, including the full version of the retrospective documentary by Laurent Bouzereau that was inexplicably cut in half for its first DVD release. It's a fine doc, if a bit talking head heavy. Every now and then they show behind the scenes footage or some of production designer Joe Alves' concept art, plus appropriate clips, but I'd say 90% of the time you're just looking at standard interview shots of Spielberg, Richard Dreyfuss, Roy Scheider and the rest, which grew a touch tiresome after two hours. But the stories they tell are terrific, including one about a tension-relieving food fight that broke out after months of the legendarily grueling shoot. Spielberg also tells us of his original casting choices for every role (seems NO ONE was his first pick except for Murray Hamilton), and how he imagined the score before Williams surprised him with his iconic, rather simple cue that has been parodied and ripped off more than probably any other piece of score in movie history.

In fact, for all the time we've been waiting for this movie to hit the format, there are really only two new bonus features besides the transfer. One is a brief look at the restoration process, where we see the original negative dug out and the dustbusting process that removes any flecks or scratches from it (we're told that a single frame can take hours to clean up - for a movie with around 173,000 frames, that's a pretty hefty job), as well as some before and after shots for the color timing that has fixed a few "off" shots in the original version (mismatched sky coloring, primarily). It's only of use to people who care about the work that goes into remastering, obviously, but as one of those folks I was thankful to have it.

The real "get" here is the new documentary The Shark Is Still Working, though when I say new I mean "new to home video", as various cuts of the doc have been screening at festivals for years now. At one point running over three hours, it clocks in at around 100 minutes for this presumably final cut, and thankfully doesn't cover too much of the same ground as the other doc on the disc. While some set stories are repeated (Dreyfuss, now 10 years older, tells the story that gives the doc its name practically word for word the same as he did in the making of), most of Working focuses on the film's legacy - the merchandising, the festivals, (briefly) the sequels, etc. We even talk to the people who own editor Verna Fields' old home, where she apparently left some of the film cans and her Moviola. But while the theme is pretty consistent (essentially "Jaws has a life beyond the movie"), it doesn't flow from topic to topic as well as I'd like. And apparently Uni or someone agreed, as they broke it up into segments where you can pick a topic you like or just "Play All" (it's worth noting that they did NOT do this for the other doc). It's all interesting, and it contains the last on camera interview with Peter Benchley (not to mention narration from the late Roy Scheider), but after years of hearing about it, I think I was hoping for something a little more cohesive. And now I can't help but wonder if the constant re-editing robbed it of some of its power, or if it was even more scattershot in previous incarnations.

Then we get the other stuff that's always been there - the deleted scenes (Quint in the music store is something that I'd think you were making up if I hadn't seen it myself), the trailer, the extensive collection of promotional material, and the brief promo clip from the time of the film's 1974 production, and thus it's important to note that nothing has been lost, as far as I can tell. I can't tell you how many movies I "had" to keep my DVD after upgrading to Blu-ray because they didn't port over a commentary or some of the other supplements (hurrah for OCD!), so I'm happy to report that someone at my next screening (this Saturday, in fact!) might walk home with my 2005 DVD. And really, even if there was nothing new on the disc, it'd be worth the upgrade for the transfer alone - a perfect movie deserves a perfect presentation.

Score:
Film: 10/10
Extras: 9/10
A/V: 10/10
Overall: 10/10

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Malibu Shark Attack (2009)

AUGUST 14, 2012

GENRE: PREDATOR
SOURCE: CABLE (SYFY)

Now that it's actually Shark Week, and with the glorious new Blu-ray of Jaws hitting shelves, I figured I should do my duty and find a new shark movie to watch. Unsurprisingly, Syfy came to the rescue, airing their 2009 effort Malibu Shark Attack over the weekend. I've about had my fill of their stuff lately, so I wasn't expecting much, but it was surprisingly humor-free and populated mostly with adults, which kept me more or less entertained and even caring about a few of the folks.

The best thing about it was that it mostly took place in confined spaces, giving it a bit of a Deep Blue Sea feel instead of the usual high seas scenarios. Our heroes are trapped in a lifeguard station that's been half submerged and cut off from the mainland by a tsunami, so the sharks can still get at them by ramming through the floor and walls. And then there are a few construction workers (including the boyfriend of one of the lifeguards) who have their own problems nearby as they try to rescue them. So instead of the usual boating scenes, you get sharks swimming through construction material and submerged hallways (like in the first Resident Evil game!), giving a creepier, claustrophobic feel to the proceedings.

It also takes place more or less in real time, which is unusual. They skip a chunk of time from day to night, but otherwise we track everyone every step of the way. This of course means it's not as fast-paced as some viewers may like (the body count of the entire movie is like 6 or 7, and a record five people walk away at the end), as they realistically attempt to barricade themselves in one spot rather than constantly moving, but it kept it fresh. Hell they barely even rip off Jaws; apart from some cues on the soundtrack undoubtedly inspired by John Williams, there's nothing in here that's recycled from Spielberg's classic: no "close the beaches" element, no Quint like shark hunter, etc.

In fact that's the other thing I dug - they kill the sharks with power tools! Once everyone is grouped at the construction site, the humans use handsaws and nail guns to fend off the "Goblin" sharks, with surprising and admirably gory results - you haven't lived until you've seen a guy take a chainsaw to a shark and get covered in its blood. Makeshift and household weapons are always more interesting than "Let's blow it up!" (or in outer space movies, sucking it out of an airlock), so I was elated to see 2-3 of the sharks go down thanks to the same sort of shit I have in my own home. I am prepared to kill a goblin shark!

CGI wasn't too bad either; the sharks rarely interacted with the humans in a single shot (lot of "and then the water turns red" kills) but at least they looked OK when they were swimming around in the water, as most of these can't even get that much right. I wish they had more (any?) practical snouts or something to interact with for at least one good chomp scene, but I think that the fins are the extent of what the actors had to work with. Guess if they get one thing right they have to sacrifice another...

There's a weird love triangle plot too. The main lifeguard guy (who was in Apollo 18, the poor bastard) used to date the main lifeguard girl, and she's with the head construction guy now. So those two guys face off, and everything's nice and generic, except for two elements. One - the construction guy actually rescues them both, which makes him more of a hero than the ex. Yet, after this, she starts making moves on the lifeguard as if they're going to get back together! Shouldn't HE have been the one to rescue her for her to have this change of heart, like "Oh, I CAN count on him to be there for me after all!" or something (the reason she left him is never made clear). Construction dude risked his neck to save them both and now she's going to ditch him? What the hell?

The 2nd thing is even weirder - both men survive, and she asks them if they want to share her, which they all laugh about. So that's how it's gonna be? Some weird threeway situation? Why not just kill one of them off in sacrifice, Armageddon style (except both being lovers, not a father/son thing), and give it a real solid ending instead of this weird shit? Speaking of odd plot points, the movie continually cuts in a reporter who talks about the devastation, all of which is quite ridiculous considering that the tsunami we see didn't look very tall (she also talks of inland homes being washed away, which makes me wonder how the shack ON THE BEACH remained completely intact). The construction folk are right there too and they don't even get wet, yet somehow 850 people were supposedly drowned and hospitals all the way to Las Vegas are taking in the injured. I think it would have been better to just ignore whatever effect the wave had on the other areas, since they obviously couldn't afford to show any of it (or even where the reporter was in relation to the rest of the characters), and her descriptions often sound a bit hyperbolic - at one point she says it was bigger than the one that hit Indonesia in 2004!

So it's got issues, but I was relieved that they were specific to this movie. I spent my time either engaged or puzzled, but none of it rolling my eyes at failed attempts to copy other movies (though there WAS a reference to Jaws 3D, of all things). And a movie where a guy chainsaws a shark is automatically worth my HMAD-ified time.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Ubaldo Terzani Horror Show (2010)

AUGUST 13, 2012

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

Had I realized that Ubaldo Terzani Horror Show was from the same director as Last House In The Woods, I wouldn't have put off watching it for so long (I got the DVD for review like 8 months ago - I suck). But there's a fun little silver lining - in that time Gabriele Albanesi has shot a sequel to Last House called Kid In The Box, so if I watched the DVD when I got it I might have missed out on this info. Supposedly it's coming out in Italy next year; hopefully it won't take 2-3 years to come to the States.

Anyway, Ubaldo Terzani is an interesting but somewhat stock attempt at a modern giallo, fused with the all too common "Guy gets into the head of a killer" sub-genre. If you've seen enough of either type of movie there's not a lot here that will surprise you - our hero meets a strange but arrogant author (Terzani), starts having vivid nightmares about killing people, realizes his new friend might be dangerous, etc. "Is there a scene where he is seduced by women he never would have spoken to prior to the film's events?" you might ask, but you really don't need to (yes). It's a good thing they changed the title, too - discovering some parallels to In The Mouth Of Madness (Terzani is sort of a Sutter Cane type) was one of the few surprises, and later I discovered the original title was "In The Mouth of Ubaldo Terzani"!

Now, Last House was also kind of derivative, but in addition to a great score, it had a real energy to it, plus some surprising minor twists in the 3rd act. This one never matches that level of energy - if anything it's kind of slow-paced and with an abrupt ending, and the "twist" is pretty obvious from the start. The ironic ending is a nice touch, but even that is kind of "Oh, of course that's what happens." The concept itself is fine, but Albanesi's script lacks ambition, and thus it feels like a missed opportunity.

And it's a shame, because it starts off great, with the real world problems of modern Italian filmmaking playing a part. Our hero is a horror aficionado who wants to make genre films, but his agent has to break it to him that it's impossible to get funding for such things anymore. And this is true - how many recent Italian horror films do you see on HMAD outside of Argento's (hardly stellar) productions? They focus on other areas, so guys like our fictional hero feel kind of held back, unable to fulfill their creative needs in their own country. Hell I'd rather the movie was just a drama about this guy trying to find funding in an unfair system, as I found this section of the film far more interesting than the murder stuff, especially since there's no doubt as to what is going on.

Then again, if there weren't any kills, we wouldn't get to enjoy the work of Sergio Stivaletti, who did the work on classics like Demons and Opera (plus most of Argento's films after), and even directed Wax Mask, which was supposed to be Fulci's comeback film (the script was written by him and Argento). There are some great prosthetics here, and lots of grue - so nice to see a fully practical horror film again. But Stivaletti had nothing to do with the film's most special effect - the impossibly gorgeous Laura Gigante as the hero's girlfriend (and object of desire for Terzani). The best thing about the script is that it expands her role as it goes on, as she was not only wonderful to look at but also the one minor question mark in the plotting. Would Terzani seduce her, or have the hero kill her? Or both? I'll leave that up for you to discover, but I assure you that you couldn't ask for a more appealing wild card in something like this.

Someone on the production must have felt the same way, as the DVD offers her screen test but no one else's, and is in fact the only behind the scenes type material here. The other extras are two trailers and a short film called Braccati that Albanesi had made in 2001. It's a bit long, but it's a fun western story about a standoff that takes an odd turn, with Albanesi giving some props to Sam Raimi with his camerawork and editing. Finally there's a commentary track by Albanesi and Antonio Tentori, a screenwriter who was behind Fulci's Cat in the Brain (as well as Argento's upcoming Dracula 3D). The two mostly discuss the various influences and analyze the characters' actions ("He is like Dracula here", one says of Terzani's attempts to seduce Gigante), and compliment the actors and crew when appropriate. It's all very pleasant, but didn't give much insight (other than the fact that we're apparently supposed to wonder if parts of the movie were all a dream? I thought it was pretty cut and dry). One odd thing though - it's great that they provide subtitles for a commentary track (though you have to switch them on manually), but why don't the subs translate the titles they mention? I can tell what a few are ("Il Padrino" is The Godfather), but other times it's hard to understand the context of what they are discussing because they used an Italian title that will likely not mean anything to the English speaking viewer who is reading the subtitles.

Perhaps Albanesi had bigger ideas that he couldn't afford to pull off (the film is noticeably cheap looking, though his actual direction has improved since Last House - he's way less zoom-happy for starters), so I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt here. It's not a bad movie by any means, but I felt I had seen it all before, and the lax pacing didn't help. Still, it's great to see modern Italian horror films being made, and hopefully these will lead to bigger and better things down the road. Viva la Italian horror!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...