The Fall Of The House Of Usher (1960)

OCTOBER 11, 2013

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

I'm sure I've said this here before, but I'll risk repeating myself just to be sure: If you go all October without watching a Vincent Price movie, you're doing something wrong. I see folks watching hardcore gore films for the season, and I'm not going to say they're WRONG, but to me the old Price films are far better suited to get you into the Halloween mood, as they've got a devilish charm that matches the spirit of the holiday - something a splatter movie doesn't quite have. And Scream Factory seemingly agrees; their big release for the month is a boxed set featuring six of his classics, starting with The Fall Of The House Of Usher (sometimes just House Of Usher), which was also the first of his seven (!) Poe adaptations with Roger Corman.

And it's also where I started with the set, as I saw the film pre-HMAD and thus never wrote a review of it before (the other films on the set are mostly reviewed here, albeit without the audio commentaries and other bonus features Scream has assembled for this release). Plus, it had been so long that I couldn't remember much about it beyond the fact that it was similar to a couple of their others in that it involved a guy coming to an isolated manor owned by Vincent Price and inquiring about a loved one, finding himself at odds with the man, and, after some reveals, narrowly escaping with his life as the house (and Price) perished behind him. Corman was famous for reusing sets and such, but I suspect he was cribbing from his own scripts quite a bit as well.

That said, it doesn't diminish from the movie's power (plus it was the first one anyway), as this is a terrific start to the "franchise" and very much worthy of its inclusion into the National Film Registry (one of the few horror films to earn that honor - even The Wolfman hasn't been honored as of yet). Of course, it's not much of a horror film, as it's never made clear whether or not Usher (Price) is right when he says that the house is alive and cursed, or if he's just been driven mad due to his ailments, but it's still got a few tropes of the haunted house film. Our hero (Mark Damon) hears strange noises, is almost killed by a falling chandelier, and as per cinematic law there's a crypt in the basement (complete with cobwebs and a rat), giving the film the SENSE of a haunted house without actually being one. Nice trick, that.

Horror or not, though, it's another wonderful performance by Price, who sheds his dry sense of humor (and his facial hair!) to play a tough role of a man who may or may not be a villain. Throughout the film he urges Damon's character (fiance to Usher's sister, also "cursed") to just leave, and if you take his word about the house's power as fact, then he's just trying to save the guy's life. However, if he's just insane, he's dragging his sister (and their poor butler, the only other character in the film) down with him, making him less sympathetic. Price can easily play this gray area, and he even manages to invoke a few minor chuckles along the way; when Damon suggests that the house can't be responsible for the things that have happened, Price replies "Oh you think this is NORMAL?" without missing a beat.

See that's the cool thing about the movie - it can very easily just be a perfect storm of unfortunate events giving the illusion of a curse. The house is said to be on a fissure, so the constant shifts and rumbles may be just as "cursed" as any home along the San Andreas fault, and Price's symptoms can be explained away as Hyperacusis (sensitivity to sound), Photophobia (light), etc. It's interesting that we never see the sister react as strongly as Price, she SAYS that the light hurts but doesn't flinch, whereas Price is constantly grimacing whenever lightning strikes outside. Corman's decision to never come down hard on either side makes it more interesting, and either way it's a more melancholy film than one would expect from Corman OR Price.

Indeed, it's one of the more faithful of their Poe adaptations (at least one of which was actually based on another author's work entirely, using only Poe's title). In the original story the hero wasn't involved with Usher's sister, and actually was a close friend of Usher's instead of a "rival" as is the case here, but otherwise it sticks to the concept and the ending, with the house sinking into the moor, taking its inhabitants with it. And the story was long enough that they didn't have to add in a bunch of other stuff to make feature length, such as Pit and the Pendulum. Eventually they'd figure out that they could just do anthology films using three short stories rather than try to pad out one of them, but I never got the sense that this one felt like it was stretching even if it does come in at exactly 80 minutes (including an intro that just plays the theme over a title card before the actual credits begin).

Ironically, the one thing that COULD be construed as a time-stretching diversion, a nightmare scene around the one hour mark, is one of the film's highlights. For starters, it actually RESEMBLES a real dream one would have, and is presented as one right off the bat instead of the usual horror movie trick of trying to fool the audience. And it's got all these crazy colors and Price at his creepiest (and it's the only time in the movie you see anyone besides the four principal actors), so even if it could easily be removed, plot-wise, I doubt anyone has ever complained about its addition.

The Blu-ray has TWO audio commentaries, though one isn't full length and rather unnecessary to anyone who's already read up on Price's life. Ignoring the film entirely, it just has an expert on the man and a decent (if exaggerated) impressionist talk about the actor's love of art and cooking, and how he began his acting career. So she provides the background info, and then the impressionist guy plays Price with (what I assume are) direct quotes from his autobiography or something. Bizarre concept, but I'm all for trying new things. Of much more use is the full commentary by Corman, recorded in 2001 or so (he says it's been 40 years). As I've said before his commentaries are always must-listens (for his newer Syfy films, they're of far more value than the films themselves), and this is no exception; he covers the genesis of the project, his approach to the sets and blocking, and tells some of his always hilarious anecdotes about cutting corners or doing things the "wrong" way in order to get more production value (one highlight is explaining how he had a guy keep the fire marshal distracted during the shooting of the finale so that they could get away with more dangerous shots). Finally, a 40 minute audio interview with Price is included; there isn't much to look at (they change the shot a few times) and it seems to be part of a larger chat as it ends with House on Haunted Hill, but it's a delight to listen to him tell stories of the early part of his career. The trailer and some stills are also included, making this a special edition that would have been a good value had it been sold on its own.

The other films on the set are Pit and the Pendulum, The Haunted Palace, Masque of the Red Death, The Abominable Dr. Phibes, and Witchfinder General. A fine collection, though not even close to complete, so hopefully this will just be the first volume of an annual tradition (since most of them are owned by MGM, who seemingly has a strong partnership with Scream/Shout!, it's not a stretch to believe more could be coming). Volume 2 - the other 3 Poe films, the Phibes sequel, Theatre of Blood, and Madhouse, perhaps? Even without a bunch of bonus features (the set also includes a booklet with an essay on Price and stills/posters for all six films), it'd be great to have all of them in a shelf space-saving package and in typically solid high def transfers. Hopefully horror fans still have leftover money in their wallets (they've been knocking out must-have releases almost every week for the past two months) to pick it up and ensure that further sets are worth putting together.

What say you?

P.S. Keep an eye on Badass Digest and Fangoria for reviews of some of the other films. I won't have time to go through the whole set before it hits shelves on October 22nd, and I've already reviewed most of the other films here on HMAD anyway, but Phibes was another pre-HMAD entry and the number of bonus features on the others assures I can find something new to say about one of them (either Masque or Pendulum, I would guess).

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Dead 2: India (2013)

OCTOBER 9, 2013

GENRE: ZOMBIE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SCREAMFEST)

Taking a cue from George Romero, The Dead 2: India takes place in the same universe as its predecessor, but is in no real way related (we hear a radio broadcast about how Africa is besieged with reports of violence and cannibalism, and that's it) in front of the camera, and thus doesn't require a viewing of the original. Therefore, I would actually suggest starting with this one, because it makes improvements on what is basically the same movie (albeit in the new locale), so if you haven't seen the original it will all be fresh to you, whereas for me some of the novelty had worn off, resulting in an enjoyable experience but one I might have been more blown away by had I not seen the Ford brothers' first pass at this material.

Like the first film, the Fords avoid the two main proponents of most zombie films, the first being a single or primary location (mall, farmhouse, spaceship, whatever). Our heroes are constantly on the go; I don't think hero Nicholas (Joseph Millson) stays in any one place for more than 5 minutes - which does lead to some minor repetition as he's constantly stopping, poking around, running afoul of the undead, and then getting away in the nick of time, usually with a newly found vehicle. But the upside is the scenery is constantly changing, and the pace never lulls. As with the original this is a deadly serious look at a zombie apocalypse, so it's easy to think about The Walking Dead, which often lets long stretches go by without any zombie threat - not the case here. There are never more than maybe a dozen on-screen at once, but they're ALWAYS around and slowly lumbering toward Nicholas and Javed, the young orphan who is helping him navigate his way through the wilderness in order to reach Mumbai, where his pregnant girlfriend is locked in the presumed safety of her home.

But unlike Walking Dead - and this brings me to the second thing I was happy to not see - zombies are the ONLY threat. There are no evil humans to speak of, only a few brief encounters with scared fellow humans that do things to set our hero back (such as the guy who steals Nicholas' (found) motorcycle so he could get back to his OWN family). Fans love The Governor or whatever, and that's fine, but over the years I've grown tired of seeing the threat of zombies reduced as human villains take center stage. This is unique to this genre; some monster movies may have an evil scientist or whatever, but they usually get theirs long before the film's conclusion, keeping the threat on the monster. If Robert Kirkman were writing Jurassic Park, he'd have a few scenes with Raptors, no T-Rex, and the big showdown would be dino-free as Alan Grant faced off against Nedry or the asshole lawyer. So it's nice to see a more focused, straight-forward approach in a modern zombie film, albeit without humor and on a bigger scale.

And the kid's not annoying! Some of his deliveries are a bit clunky, but he's endearing and has a wonderful moment where he explains why he keeps risking his life for a tiny doll that he carries around with him; it's pretty heartbreaking but without any precociousness (as his the bulk of his performance), so for my money it's a step up from the original's pair, since the white guy was such a wooden actor and didn't have a particularly interesting arc (Dembele, on the other hand, could have carried the movie on his own, far as I'm concerned). Again, it's a bit similar - they have different goals and have to stick together to survive as they make their way from point A to point B, but with Millson being a more engaging performer and having a sweet bond with the kid, it's the superior take on this idea. And it's certainly better than any of the scenes with his girlfriend and her father, who disapproves of her dating a white man and seemingly can't figure out that locking his door is the best thing to do (nearly every time we cut to them, he's looking outside at zombie carnage, risking their lives to take another peek). Neither of them are particularly good actors, and even with the minor threat involved in their scenes (her mother has been bit), they just kill the momentum every time.

My only other concern was (and I'm sick of saying this) digital blood flying around during most of the impact shots. I'd actually rather they were just bloodlessly going down than see a bunch of distracting pixels flying around, reducing the impact of every gore moment. I understand the Fords had a difficult shoot and were probably rushed more often than not, but just skip the blood all together, or at least for standard "Hero runs across the room and dispatches a few random undead" shots - it's one thing when it's a big kill scene in closeup - do what you gotta do there - but I doubt anyone would wonder why there was no blood in a wide shot of a zombie with its back to us being gunned down. That said, the zombie makeup is pretty spooky; the whitened eyes alongside their lightly colored attire (no hero zombies; they're all rather anonymous) made for a nice visual.

Also, it means nothing, but I love how simple the title is. It'd be typical to call it something like "The Dead: Retribution" or whatever, but if the series goes on, and each entry got its own meaningless subtitle, fans would likely just say "The one in India" anyway, so it's great that they cut to the chase. Here's hoping The Dead 3: China (Howard Ford claims this is one idea) sticks to the proven formula while once again improving the characterization (perhaps a female lead?) while avoiding the cliches that have long since become stale.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Godsend (1980)

OCTOBER 10, 2013

GENRE: BRITISH, KILLER KID
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

A good rule of thumb is if Donald Pleasence shows up at your door, acting all Donald Pleasence-like, it's best to just phone the police and lock yourself in the bathroom until rescue (this is even more true since 1995, when he passed away). Well, since she looks a lot like him, the same rule applies to his daughter Angela, who moseys on into the home of the Marlowe family, gives birth, and then disappears, prompting the Marlowes to raise the child as their own alongside their four other children. Thus, she is The Godsend of the title, which of course is an ironic one as you can probably tell by glancing at the genre tagging - but the real surprise is how grim this movie is.

See, most killer kid movies have the little bastard take out a mailman or family friend or something, but usually leave the family unit intact. Someone might end up in a hospital, but instances where they kill one of their siblings or a parent are pretty rare - so I was kind of shocked when young Bonnie killed the youngest Marlowe child (they were sharing a crib!) 10 minutes or so into the movie. And then a few minutes later another one ends up dead (of course, we don't SEE these events and the parents believe them to be accidents, but we know better), which was a bit of a shock as I figured after the first one they'd flash forward a few years to when Bonnie was like 10 or something and would proceed to do the usual killer kid thing of going after randoms.

But no! I won't spoil specifics, but tragedy keeps striking the Marlowe family, and even when you think there's going to be a triumph, screenwriter Olaf Pooley (working off Bernard Taylor's novel) twists the knife one more time, ending the film on the downest of down notes. In fact, it's the insular nature of her vengeful acts that produce the one problem I had with the film - it's kind of slow and repetitive. It takes a while for anyone to suspect that maybe it's not all accidental, so it's death, grief, things get back to normal, death... repeat. And then there are weird jumps in time that give the film a bit of a clunky feel on top of it, something that's probably the result of adapting a full novel into an 86 minute film. But since they can't really show Bonnie doing anything, it's a pretty action-free movie until the final 20 minutes, so while I don't share the "it's boring" opinion I've heard from a few others, I can certainly see where they're coming from.

See - and if you're a longtime reader you know this - I love these kind of movies, and have always felt that there aren't enough of them (this is only the third this year, and one was a lame Children of the Corn sequel). So I'm kind of an easy mark here, and you'll have to take my praise with a grain (or two) of salt. Yes, it's kind of a bore, and the bland filmmaking doesn't help - it's shot rather much like a TV movie and primarily set inside bland locales. But, you know, our murderer is a young child who racks up her first victim when she's only a few months old, so I can forgive everything pretty easily. That said, there really isn't much to it; we never find out much more about Pleasence's character, and there isn't much of a supporting cast. Maybe it WAS a TV movie, I dunno.

The film is featured on Scream Factory's new release titled All Night Horror Marathon, which also features The Outing (which I actually SAW at an all night horror marathon), The Vagrant, which I saw and hated as a kid and am too busy to give it another chance, and finally What's The Matter With Helen?, a 1971 thriller from director Curtis Harrington. More melodrama than horror, it was too damn slow for my tastes, and it didn't help that the poster (and accompanying box art) spoils the film's twist conclusion, which would be akin to making an Empire Strikes Back poster showing a family tree with Vader above Luke and Leia. And it's too clearly a ripoff of What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, with the two aging leading ladies (Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds in this case) trying to eat the others' scenery - it's even got a showbiz plot for good measure. The final 20 minutes or so are fun in melodramatic shocker kind of way, but getting there is a chore even if you DON'T know what's coming. Helen is the only of the four films that was previously released on DVD (and it was a late swap for another title that they had to pull due to some legal issues), so the set has some novelty if you're a fan of any of the others since you can finally ditch your inferior VHS version, and it's only 9.99 - a price worth paying for any movie you like, in my opinion.

Final note - if nothing else, The Godsend demonstrates the value of the word "The". There's another evil child movie simply called Godsend, and that one sucks. Let this be a lesson to all of you film titlers out there.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Beneath (2013)

OCTOBER 8, 2013

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SCREAMFEST)

On Monday night I joined a podcast to talk horror movies, and my hatred of unlikable characters came up, how I was sick of seeing horror movies where I wanted everyone to die and found myself rooting for the bad guy, something that shouldn't be the case (with earned exceptions, as with all things). So it's a shame I hadn't yet seen Beneath (not to be confused with the killer fish movie), as I could have used it as an example of how to do it right. Our protagonists are a blue collar group of coal miners, gruff but likable, and clearly FRIENDS (I didn't mention it, but I'm also sick of the group of people who will kill each other if Jason/Freddy/whoever doesn't get to them first). In fact I even likened them to the oil drillers in Armageddon; they bust each others' balls but clearly all love each other and would risk their lives to save the other guy, something bound to come up as we are told right off the bat that there's a tragedy and they will be stuck down there, seemingly with only one survivor.

Actually, before I begin the praise, let me add another "STOP DOING THAT" to the list - starting a movie at the end and flashing back to however many hours or days ago that it all got started (four days, in this case). The movie opens with a rescue team poking through a pile of rubble and someone shouting "We got a live one!", and then we go back to the night before they went down there, giving the audience an assurance that someone makes it out alive. But that's silly - all it does is deflate a lot of the suspense, because it's obvious who will live, and the script doesn't take advantage of this assurance by pulling a fast one - it ends exactly as you would have expected even without the flash forward. On occasion this can be used effectively (I like to mention Fallen as an example), but this isn't one of those times.

But otherwise it's a pretty tense, admirably ambiguous blend of The Descent and Session 9, offering the claustrophobic panic of the former with the "is it psychological or is there a supernatural presence working against them" dread of the latter. Of course we can't see too much at first without having our answer, so there are a lot of off-screen events - characters will walk into darkness, and then we will cut to another area and interact with some other characters for a moment before they hear that first guy scream, run over to the spot, and find him dead (or missing). But the jump scares are often quite good, and director Ben Ketai keeps finding fun ways of blending the two elements of danger - there's a fantastic bit where our heroine (Kelly Noonan) is inside an inflatable tunnel that is being deflated by the pickaxe attacks of an antagonist, putting her at risk of being stabbed or suffocating until she can find her way out.

The acting is also solid, and it's great to see a horror film with mostly grown men serving as "the group". The team is led by Jeff Fahey, who is top billed though clearly wasn't always around for shooting (note how many scenes where his character is technically there but Fahey doesn't actually appear); it's really Noonan's show, along with Cabin Fever's Joey Kern as her love interest. The rest of the guys are slightly familiar character actors, a good approach as it makes it impossible to guess who will be first/last to go, and again since they're mostly likable you don't WANT any of them to get killed. There's one guy who turns into a dick the second the shit hits the fan, but it's just panic - I've seen movies where someone acts just as abhorrent before they even run into any trouble. Plus (spoiler) he's one of the first to go to boot, so it's not really an issue.

I do wish it had more survival elements. Fahey explains that there's enough food to last them a few days, but we never see them eat any of it, and at one point their makeshift shelter is ravaged - did they get the food? Water? There's also an issue with the air becoming toxic, but there's never any real sense of it being an issue - even when the antagonist destroys their oxygen tanks. It's a modern horror movie so of course we get a compound fracture (complete with the obligatory closeup of a bone sticking out of the skin with someone saying "I have to set it!" before counting to 3), but otherwise the only physical issue seems to be Fahey's cough, as he is presumably suffering from black lung disease or something of the sort. Indeed, this is his last trip down to the mine as he is retiring against his will, and his daughter (Noonan) is making things worse by tagging along for the first time as she prepares to speak against coal mining at her law school. The personal stakes are a touch generic, but Fahey and Noonan make it work, particularly in the sweet scene before they leave for the mine, with Fahey instructing her to follow his lead and write a note for her mother/his wife, something he has done every day for 35 years just in case there's a disaster and he doesn't come back. It's these little moments that give the film more of a personality than the average claustro-horror flick, enough to make up for what seems like a lot of missed opportunities to use the scenario for some truly scary/unsettling setpieces.

However, nothing makes up for Ketai's obnoxious insistence on using shaki-cam throughout the film, with the camera jerking around even during simple conversation scenes prior to them even going into the mine. I get and don't even mind the style during scenes of actual tension and danger, but when it's just someone catching up with an old flame, I really can't understand why I should be reaching for Dramamine. If you want to go hand-held to save time (or simply because a tripod won't fit in the small area), fine, but there's no reason to be bobbing around like a goddamn drunk.

Beneath kicked off this year's Screamfest, an event I look forward to with great relish every year as it's not only how I got involved with Bloody Disgusting (which led to the creation of this very site) but it's also close enough that I don't have to fly or even drive very far. In fact, this year it's even closer, being held at the Laemmle NoHo 7 I frequent all year (cheap or free parking, reasonable concessions, less than 10 minute drive from my house, etc) after last year's horrible downtown experiment. And the move clearly worked; the film sold out not one but TWO screens, a good sign for the festival as a whole. I won't be able to make every movie this year due to work duties (blah!), but I'll be there almost every night - come say hi! Buy me a soda!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Curse of Chucky (2013)

OCTOBER 9, 2013

GENRE: PUPPET, SLASHER
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

After the debacle of Seed of Chucky (the least attended entry in the Child's Play series), I figured Chucky would be dead until the inevitable remake, but I was delighted to be proven wrong when Curse Of Chucky was announced, as it would essentially be Child's Play 6 (no rebooting), and would retain the presence of Don Mancini, who had written every entry so far (unheard of in the horror genre) and would also be directing. Now, he also directed Seed, which should have given me pause, but his promise to return the series to its scary roots and largely leave the campiness of the last two entries behind was enough for me to give it a chance. And, I'm happy to say, it worked out well - this is the first time in the series' history that I've liked an entry more than the one before it (I know folks love Bride, but give me Andy Barclay - even the military academy variant - over Katherine Heigl any day of the week).

Even better, it's not an H20 kind of deal where they just ignore some of the sequels to stress that this was a "back to basics" approach. At first I assumed it almost HAD to be - how do you follow up the completely horror-free Seed in a scary film and not break continuity? Indeed, for the first half hour or so I was convinced that was indeed the case; Chucky was a pristine plastic doll once again, free of the scars he earned over the past couple of films, and there was nothing about Tiffany or Glen, or any other characters we've met along the way. But then, once heroine Fiona Dourif (a lovely, charming presence in her first lead role, and no her name is not a weird coincidence - she's Brad's daughter) starts to suspect that something is wrong with the Good Guy doll that was mailed to her and "adopted" by her young niece, she Googles "Chucky doll" and the first five entries match up to the events of the previous films (even the military academy! Yessss), putting to rest any fears that Mancini (and producer David Kirschner, another series mainstay) had opted to ignore the entries that weren't as well loved by the fans.

And there are more ties to previous entries, though spoiling them would be ruining your fun (unlike Dread Central and some other sites, who opted to put one such reveal in a headline). But the real surprise is that it actually dives into the character of Charles Lee Ray for the first time since the original Child's Play, which I found interesting as Mancini has previously said that he wasn't a fan of this concept (it was added by Tom Holland and other writers - Mancini's original script had no serial killer or voodoo). This allows Brad Dourif to appear on-screen in one of these films for the first time since 1988, and while the attempts to de-age him aren't entirely successful (the wig they gave him makes him look like Tommy Wiseau), it's great to see him still committed to this character, which could have been an easy paycheck for an actor of his abilities, something he also could have just turned down as the series continued (in 2004, Return of the King* was winning Best Picture right around the time he was doing his lines for a 5th Chucky movie!).

In fact, it's Dourif's continued presence that brings me to one of the odder aspects of this entry - the "Good Guy" voice is completely different. The usual lines ("I'm your friend til the end!") sound way off, even though there's seemingly no in-movie explanation for this (and would seemingly be an easy enough thing to duplicate). Similarly, his face is much different, even though it's the same doll (unlike in say, part 3, where his blood just went into a new doll). It's not that big of a deal in the long run, but it was kind of perplexing that they'd go out of their way to retain continuity for certain things but not even come close on others. That said, the puppetry behind the doll is pretty good; there are some unfortunate CGI touches on the face and at least one all digital shot that looks horrendous (I almost want to bet money that it was taken from the aborted video game), but otherwise they stick to a practical puppet just like in the old days, and considering the lower budget (about half of the money spent on the original - the previous "lowest budget" entry - and that's without even factoring for inflation) it's a pretty effective display of old and new tricks working together.

Faring even better with the limited funds is the set. The movie takes place almost entirely in one night and in one location, as Mancini wanted to put Chucky into a 1930's style "Old Dark House" movie, with constant lightning, creaking doors, windows opening on their own, etc. Hell there's even an inheritance subplot of sorts - Fiona's character is being visited on this night by her greedy sister, who wants her to sell the house (it belonged to their recently departed mother) and split the money. She brings along her husband, child, and nanny, and there's a priest (A Martinez) around for good measure - only thing missing is a Bela Lugosi-esque butler. And like those films, he milks the suspense for a while regarding the identity of the villain, except not quite as successful since we kind of know it's Chucky (though it would be ballsy to have the doll arrive but just be a doll, with a human character doing all the killing). Still, the best suspense bit in the entire movie is mostly Chucky-free - we see him pour poison into one of the bowls of chili that are about to be served, and then we get to watch everyone eat without knowing who has the poisoned bowl.

I do wish he made his grand re-appearance earlier - hands and feet are all we get until about the 50 minute point, and I get the thinking but at the same time - it's Child's Play 6, we don't need to milk it like Jaws. Plus, at 96 minutes its the longest entry, and didn't really need to be as the story only gets complicated (for lack of a better word) in the 3rd act, when the Charles Lee Ray stuff comes into focus. I thought this might have been because I was watching the unrated version, but (for a change!) the extra stuff IS the sort of thing the MPAA would have a problem with - there are some surprisingly gruesome kills that rated folks won't get to see in all their glory. The R rated version is also missing a fun post-credits scene (one without any sort of violence) for whatever reason, so make sure you're watching the unrated one (it runs 96 minutes instead of 94). Don't get it from Redbox!

The Blu-ray also has a few more bonus features than offered on the DVD. Both owners will get a pretty bland 15 minute EPK making of (hey, the actors all liked working together! Hey, the set was sort of like a character itself!) and some deleted scenes of little merit, but the commentary track by Fiona, Mancini, and FX man Tony Gardner is quite enjoyable - all bases are covered and Mancini offers some thoughts on what he was going for and why he opted to return to the darker style of the original (though he neglects to mention if the shot of Chucky sitting up behind Fiona was indeed a reference to Halloween! I tweeted the query but he didn't answer me) (UPDATE - he answered in the affirmative! Bump my non-existent grade up a half point!). He also explains why the remake never happened (legal issues between MGM and Universal), so hopefully that is dead forever and they can just move on with a 7th film (which he also teases). Exclusive to the Blu-ray are a pair of more interesting featurettes; one has the cast and crew discuss the legacy of the series and talk about their favorite kills (props to the actor who seems to be the only person besides me with a fondness for part 3), and the other shows how the puppet was created for this entry and how they blended a practical animatronic device and CGI for some shots (I'm still baffled why his face is totally CG for the electrocution scene - it doesn't look anything like the way he looks in the rest of the film).

I'm sure it's mostly nostalgia driving my appreciation for parts 2 and 3 (and being older, may also explain why I didn't care much for Bride or Seed), so for me the best possible approach for a new film would be to go back to the style of the original, which holds up nicely (I can tell when it's my nostalgia - this isn't one of those times). It's a shame Universal didn't think this could be a viable theatrical release (especially this year, when October is barren of major horror releases for whatever reason), but if the smaller budget meant they were able to do something a bit riskier (i.e. hiding Chucky for half the film), I'm all for it. It's not a home run, but it's the first time I walked away satisfied from a Chucky movie since I was 11 years old, so for that I'm pretty grateful.

What say you?

*Technically, he only appears in the extended edition of that one. But still.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

House On Haunted Hill (1959)

OCTOBER 2, 2013

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Every horror fan knows who Vincent Price is, but unless you were around at the time (or have done your homework), you might assume he was already an icon when he signed on to House On Haunted Hill for William Castle back in 1958. But in fact it's only his 4th horror movie EVER (one of which was The Fly, where he played a supporting character), which in a way makes his performance all the more spectacular - there's something sort of iconic about the role and how it is used in the film, to the extent that you might assume the script possibly called for a "Vincent Price type" and then they just went ahead and got the real thing. So if you, like me, adore the man and his horror roles - this is the one that started it all, really (his other two films - House of Wax and Mad Magician, were years prior and he was still doing costume epics and musicals - after this such films were the exception, not the rule).

That it's a fun flick makes it all the more essential viewing, especially during this time of the year. Sure, it probably won't cause any nightmares the way The Haunting would a couple years later, but it's so damn ENTERTAINING that it hardly matters, and it's not like any William Castle flick is known for terrorizing its audience anyway. No, he was all about the showmanship and the gimmicks, with the movies being just part of the spectacle (at least at this point in his career). And unlike The Tingler, this one works even without the bells and whistles ("Emergo", in this case - a skeleton that would float over the audience at key moments in the film), taking an "Old Dark House" scenario and adding Price to the mix. And it's better than most of those ODH movies from the 30s and 40s; the pacing is better for one thing (Price introduces each of our characters via voiceover at the top of the film, saving some time on doing it the traditional way), and it's not about someone trying to steal an inheritance from their niece or whatever, so that's a big plus.

Plus (spoiler for 54 year old movie ahead!), I don't know if it's intentional or not, but either way it's kind of genius that the not-always-great effects make sense in the plot, since we find out that Price has literally been pulling the strings on many of its events. The reveal doesn't quite explain everything (how'd they get the wife on the 2nd floor window?), but it's so funny to me that anytime you see a string or a shitty prop, you can justify it as realism! Of course, this lessens the amount of true scares the movie can offer (not to mention the possible body count - Price isn't going to kill these random folks), but it still has some fun little jumps, and naturally makes for a fine choice to show your kids if the season has gotten them begging you to watch some horror movies.

But if they're too young they likely won't be able to fully appreciate the dry banter between Price and Carol Ohmart as his wife Annabelle. There's a wonderful bit where he's talking to their guests and says "If I die tonight..." and then pauses to laugh and give a knowing look in his wife's direction - I've seen the movie more than once and it cracks me up every time. Indeed, the one thing I liked about the remake was that it retained the love-hate relationship between these two characters, with Geoffrey Rush having a ball in the Price role (and the ravishing Famke Janssen in Ohmart's), and it's that sense of playfulness that also elevates this above most films in the sub-genre, which were content to have bland heroes and heroines going through the motions at their center. I'm kind of curious how well received Price's performance was in 1959 - again, he's an icon now, and it's hard to remember that he WASN'T when this was originally released. It feels like a pretty typical kind of character for the actor, but back then - 4-5 years after his other horror turns - it might have been oft-putting. "Why's the guy from Ten Commandments being so sinister?"

The downside is, he's so damn fun that it makes the other characters kind of boring in comparison, and the movie can be a touch draggy when he's not around. Hero Richard Long is handsome and charming, but watching him wander around looking for hidden rooms or comforting Carolyn Craig every time she gets scared will never be as entertaining as watching Price and Ohmart spar. Elisha Cook Jr. is also on hand, playing one of his several dozen "scared, kind of drunk guy" characters, and I can only hope if ghosts ARE real that he is currently haunting the fuck out of whoever cast Chris Kattan to fill his role in the remake. I mean, sure, Price is irreplaceable but you can certainly do worse than Geoffrey Rush, and Janssen was a step up as far as I'm concerned. But KATTAN? That's insulting! But back on point, I wish some of its 75 minutes were devoted to more scenes of the entire cast interacting (usually fun) or maybe some more action for Long - it'd be even more fun and take some of the weight off of Price's shoulders.

This is the 2nd "classic" I've watched this month (yesterday's Frankenstein was the first); I'm putting together a list of "must see" movies for October and also looking for ones I've never actually reviewed on HMAD during the old days (I can't believe it's been over 6 months since I quit the daily part), plus I'm on a bit of a Price kick thanks to Scream Factory's new boxed set. However that's on Blu-ray and I'm stuck at work with only a DVD player, so it had to suffice until I got home and I honestly couldn't remember if it was any good. But I needn't have feared - this is a perfect movie for the season and holds up splendidly, and thanks to its public domain status chances are you already own a copy on one multi-pack or another (I think I have 3 copies myself). I doubt there are enough skeletons left to do any proper "Emergo" screenings, but if it's playing at your local repertory theater I highly encourage seeing it on a big screen.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Frankenstein (1931)

OCTOBER 1, 2013

GENRE: CLASSIC, MAD SCIENTIST, MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Is the 1994 version from Kenneth Branagh the only major adaptation of Frankenstein to include the Captain Walton bookending scenes? I can't recall, but I DO know that I sure miss it in the otherwise terrific 1931 version, as its own bookends stick out like sore thumbs - particularly the goofy happy ending where the Baron Frankenstein enjoys a drink with a bunch of giggly nurses. This scene was (rightfully) ignored for Bride of Frankenstein, where Henry is "dead" for a bit before being revived (here he just survives without question), and it's so clumsily inserted that I wish there was an option to just cut from the fire at the windmill to the credits.

Otherwise, man, what a great film. I actually had a chance to see it on 35mm two years ago at the New Bev, but I dozed off and missed like half of it, so this is actually the first time I've watched it since 2004 when the Legacy Collection set came out on DVD (and remained untouched until I began HMADing my way through it in 2007). It's a mere 70 minutes long, and no time is wasted - there's grave robbing almost right off the bat, and the famous "It's alive!" scene occurs at the 23 minute mark or so - even some of the sequels, where the Monster was already established, didn't hit the ground running like this. Popular opinion is that Bride is even better - I'll watch it later (again, only for the second time) and decide, but this one is pretty hard to top.

I do know this much - James Whale made the right call to bring Colin Clive back, as he is simply phenomenal in the role; even though I had seen a couple other versions first, it's clear that this is the standard by which all other Frankenstein portrayals should be judged. He strikes a perfect balance between hero and villain; charismatic enough that you want him to succeed (and clearly would be a good husband to his fiance if he could stop fiddling with his science experiments), but with that sense of madness that the character requires. I was saddened to learn of Clive's fate - I knew he died young thanks to his alcoholism, but apparently he was sort of abandoned after - his ashes went unclaimed for forty years! Huge bummer.

The real villain of the movie is Dwight Frye as Fritz (not Igor! This was a trick question at Horror Trivia a couple months back), since he not only takes the wrong brain but is also a real piece of shit to the Monster. It's possible he would have turned out OK if not for Fritz terrorizing the poor bastard at every turn, and while the other deaths in the movie are bummers, I cheered when Karloff strangles him. And kudos to ol' Boris for his portrayal - this time around I looked at some trivia during my viewing and discovered that his shoes weighed 13 lbs each and the appliances hurt his back, so it couldn't have been fun for the 41 year old man. Hell, I only had to suit up once to play a monster (while wearing fairly light boots) and I was a whiny bitch all night. Then again I won't get to be on a postage stamp, so there's not as much motivation for me to suck it up.

The disc has a commentary track by film historian Rudy Behlmer, and while it's not as enjoyable as one of Tom Weaver's track (he really sets the bar for such things, in my opinion), it's jam-packed with trivia and background info on the production and pretty much every single person involved with its making. You can tell they actually had to edit his lines together to cram it all in (it's not often he directly mentions the scene that's playing), and he's clearly reading from prepared notes, but you can practically walk away an expert on the film after listening, and it's funny to hear about things that had to be censored back in the day (a line about feeling like God was excised for years - and some areas refused to show it with the words intact!). The transfer is good too; perhaps a bit TOO good in spots (dig the wrinkles on the "sky" behind them) but that's even more impressive when you consider how old the movie is - not a lot of films (particularly horror ones) from that period have been so lucky with regards to being preserved/restored properly.

Last year (or maybe the one before) Uni put out a Blu-ray set with the originals of all their monster movies (plus Bride, and I THINK the Spanish Dracula, don't quote me); I never picked it up because I had all of these, but if you haven't yet experienced these movies, it's probably where you should start - watch em all, then pick your favorite (mine is Wolf Man, for the record) and get that movie's Legacy Collection release. This is the first of my "October must-see" entries for HMAD, which means more reviews as it'll be a lot of stuff I saw pre-HMAD and thus never reviewed, and you really can't ask for a better movie to start the month off and get you in the holiday spirit. It might not be SCARY in a traditional way, but it hits every note so perfectly in all other areas, you won't even notice.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Aberration (2013)

SEPTEMBER 29, 2013

GENRE: GHOST
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Being a "credits guy" (if you don't recall, doing titles on stuff is how I make my living), I tend to pay attention to them more than I should, which can sometimes affect how I look at the movie. For example, if I didn't notice that Aberration's female star also wrote the screenplay, I could just shrug off scenes where characters tell her she's beautiful, and chalk up the fact that she seems a bit too old to be playing a high school student to the usual strange casting decisions that plague horror movies like this. But knowing that SHE HERSELF was behind a script where she (23-24 years old at the time of production) was a 17 year old that found herself desired by two handsome fellas, I can't help but roll my eyes a bit. Not to mention have flashbacks to Soultaker (from MST3k) and Kiss Of The Vampire, both of which had the same problem.

I mean, sure, it's better than writing yourself as an ugly jerk that no one wants, but it just feels a bit self-serving, and twice as bad when you're too old to be playing the role. Why couldn't she just set the film in a college? I could buy her as a senior, even a junior, but when there's a scene where her mother accuses of her of having a beer, it feels a bit silly. And when the climax rolls around, and the killer is explaining that he just killed his own girlfriend so he can finally be with her because she's so beautiful and perfect (while mocking her boyfriend's own obsession with her), I can't help but wonder if this was some sort of Twilight fanfic that got turned into a movie somehow.

Of course, if that was the case they'd be pretty impressively ahead of the curve. Despite just hitting DVD now, the movie was copyright in 2006, a full two years before the first Twilight movie (and barely into the book's run), so that can't be it. No, it's actually an attempt to join the sort of movies that were in vogue at the time it was produced; namely: J-horror remakes and ripoffs. Our heroine keeps seeing a little ghostly boy with blackened out eyes, and eventually has to determine if he's friend or foe while solving the mystery of his death - same as any half dozen others adapted or directly ripped off from our Eastern brothers. So it's actually kind of helpful that it's been collecting dust for a while - it actually comes across as retro now. If it was actually new they probably would have done it found footage.

And admittedly, it's not THAT bad, as these things go. The mystery isn't terrible in theory, but it unfortunately does take a while to kick in, as the script keeps dragging its heels with bland teen drama (no one in town likes her boyfriend! Mom works a lot!) and the sort of scares we've all seen a million times. We know it concerns some years old tragedy that no one wants to talk about, but the entire thing is solved by a trip to the library where Kristy does a quick Google and finds out the whole story from like two articles - the movie could have been over in 20 minutes if she thought to check the internet sooner. Plus, we know the boyfriend is innocent, because duh, so all the time spent on trying to cast suspicion on him just feels like a waste of everyone's time - it'd be like if Nightmare on Elm Street spent the entire runtime with Rod saying "I didn't do it!" and Nancy not sure whether or not to believe him, and only finding out about Freddy's existence with 10 minutes of the movie left.

I also have to admit I was surprised to discover it was shot in the United States (Wisconsin, to be precise). I heard more than one "abOOT" and the male characters are seemingly all on the local hockey team, so I thought for sure this was a Canadian production (that the sheriff's American flag patch on his uniform was reversed didn't help matters any). That it was so steeped in local businesses and seemingly populated only with local actors (I didn't recognize a single person, though I will keep an eye out for the lovely Bobbi Jean Basche who played the best friend) gave it a fun "Let's put on a show" vibe I don't see too often anymore (especially since everything is secluded, claustrophobic found footage movies). Sure, you know that the over-gestating extra is probably someone's uncle, but there's a charm to that sort of thing, and when you add in the fact that it's practically a relic, I couldn't help but be somewhat endeared to the whole thing.

The credits list a "Behind the scenes director" or something of that nature, but that will be lost to the ages - the DVD is completely featureless save for the scene selection (not even subtitles, which I discovered when I thought I heard a character say he was inviting over his male friends for "some porn and shit" - three rewinds later I realized it was "SUPPORT and shit", referring to their friend who had recently died). The movie is shockingly low on online information as well; usually these long-shelved movies tend to turn up a 3-4 year old posting of its trailer and an IMDb post saying "Where the hell IS IT?", but there's absolutely nothing about it older than 2 months ago - not even a goofy "Hollywood comes to Wisconsin!" type news article about its production. It's as if the movie was made in total secrecy and then time traveled to this year in time to be released for the Halloween season, where it should make a fine Redbox rental for your 14 year old's slumber party (there's no rating, but it's PG-13 equivalent).

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Blu-Ray Review: Halloween (1978)

SEPTEMBER 26, 2013

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

I often joke to my superiors at BadassDigest that all I write are Halloween-related articles - between this site and theirs (plus my time at Bloody D) I've probably amassed enough for a small book on the series (and that's not counting my appearances in things like Halloween: The Inside Story). But the funny thing is, I've never actually reviewed the original Halloween in a serious manner - I did the April Fool's joke review a couple years back, and my running commentary take for the first batch of "October Extras" in 2007, but never once have I given it the proper review treatment (I may have even said I never would, now that I think about it).

But it's been a couple years since the film was last re-released on disc with new bonus features (for a movie that was made before the idea of "special editions", it sure has enough of them), and so here we are with a new release of the film from Anchor Bay for its 35th (!) anniversary. Sure, one could make the not-that-big-of-a-stretch joke that it's also the 35th release of the film from AB, and what I'm about to say isn't the first time you've heard it, but I stress - THIS is the edition you want to have in your collection. Throw the previous Blu-ray away if you own it, this one blows it out of the water with its new, Dean Cundey supervised transfer, and apart from the occasional defect (the shot of Loomis outside of the Myers house, right before discovering his own car across the street, is noticeably blurred), is the best home video presentation of the film yet. You know I've seen this movie a lot and scrutinize it more carefully than any other, so I assure you you can take my word for it.

The biggest improvement is the color timing, which was the source of much controversy and aggravation for a decade now. Beginning with the 2003 (25th anniversary!) release, a new transfer has always been used, one that was done WITHOUT Cundey and given a much brighter, "oranger" look. I know on paper that sounds fine and even appropriate (orange = Halloween, no?), but what it actually did was have the rather ironic side effect of making the film look exactly like the setting it was shot: spring in sunny Southern California. The orange tinted look on those wonderful daytime scenes and reduced blues for the nighttime scenes looked "great" to the untrained eye who wasn't considering the source material, but the flatter, colder look is what it's SUPPOSED to look like - it may be shot in California, but it's supposed to be Illinois on October 31st, when it is indeed cold and drab outside. Cundey and Carpenter weren't trying to make their film look "ugly" - they were trying to make it look REAL, and hide the Los Angeles-ness of the image (save for the occasional palm tree). If my memory serves, the last release to look correct was the 1999 one (which originally came with the TV cut on a second disc), which was anamorphic but not high def, obviously - so this is the first time we've gotten a release that resembles how wonderful the film looks on a proper 35mm print.

But detail is also improved over the previous Blu-ray; again, this is a movie I've pored over several times, and the new transfer was sharp and clear enough for me to make out new, completely superfluous things (like a fingerprint on the windshield in front of Laurie during the "I'd rather go out with Ben Tramer" scene, or a few more signs in the background that can now be read). Of course, no one buys a movie to look at the backgrounds, but if the new image is good enough for me to spot things I never noticed before despite 50+ viewings, then it's pretty obvious how great the actual IMPORTANT stuff looks. And again, with the proper color timing, it combines to make a spectacular image that you'd have to be a goon to look down upon (I've seen a few complaints that the new color is "wrong", it's sad).

Of course, a new transfer wouldn't be enough to get folks to shell out another 30 bucks when they probably all have at least two copies by now (I believe this is my 6th, and that's with me recently parting ways with one of my VHS copies), so Anchor Bay has put together some nice supplements to sweeten the deal. The most extensive is an hour-long documentary about Jamie Lee Curtis' first (and last, she says) appearance at a convention. Put together by Sean Clark for a Horrorhound convention, the goal was for her to make this one-time appearance and raise money for the Los Angeles Children's Hospital by donating some portion of the proceeds (the specifics aren't mentioned) from her autograph and photo op fees. Of course, at the time of the 25th anniversary release, this would have been a bit weird, since paying stars for their autograph or for a photo at these things was rather unusual (I know, because I've never paid for one in my life but I have several Fangorias and DVDs that would seem to suggest otherwise), but I guess that's just the reality now. Sad, but at least it was going to charity, and while the photo sessions seem pretty rushed, we see plenty of video footage of her engaging with the fans who had stuff for her to sign, even posing for a few candid shots and leading at least two renditions of "Happy Birthday" for fans who were celebrating more than just meeting Laurie Strode. It's a bit long overall, and poorly edited (Tom Atkins' appearance is completely left to our imagination) with a lot of unnecessary "reel change" type graphics thrown around (to show the passage of time I guess) and truly terrible titles, but it's great to see Ms. Curtis interacting with fans and being so candid (a shame only a snippet of her hour long Q&A is shown, as it's more exciting than seeing her sign the 406th Halloween poster).

The other big "get" is a new commentary by Carpenter and Curtis - this time recorded together, unlike the previous commentary (featuring Debra Hill as well) where the they were recorded separately. As you know, ANY Carpenter commentary is much more fun when he's bouncing off someone, and it's clear that the two still have great affection for each other. Plus, Carpenter doesn't exactly jump to talk about this movie much anymore (like me, he's pretty much talked out about it), but he's having fun reminiscing with Jamie and thus doesn't come across as a grump like he might in an interview or Q&A (though he seems to (rightfully) get a bit exasperated with Curtis' constant narration of the plot and fixation on the film's continuity errors). Of course, some of their comments mirror the ones they made on the last track, but it's vastly more interesting to hear them share such anecdotes and laugh about them, so it's not a big deal. And it's not "new" of course since she died in 2005, but there's a little piece on Debra Hill where she talks about the film and its locations (with some extra input from PJ Soles) that I've never seen before, so if I'm not mistaken it's "new" to an Anchor Bay DVD (UPDATE - I was mistaken - this featurette was on the 2003 Divimax DVD). The TV footage is also present; I guess we will have to wait for the 40th anniversary set (or some unceremonious one in between) for a Blu-ray version of the TV version in its entirety. An essay by Stef Hutchison is also packaged inside the digibook case, which will stick out on your shelf (OCD alert!) but is otherwise quite lovely.

And then the usual trailers and TV spots are there; they might be different than the last one, they might not - I honestly can't tell anymore. Someone on Twitter was bemoaning the lack of the old commentary track, and the various other retrospective pieces (and that behind the scenes material) that appeared on previous releases are also MIA. Anchor Bay seemingly has a real phobia of doing any sort of "ultimate" release with this film - every time around they seemingly create new stuff but port almost nothing over from the last one (unlike Scream Factory's "Everything you had and more!" approach). I don't particularly care about the old commentary since it's not like I listen to them multiple times anyway (in fact I think I HAVE listened to that one twice, so I almost assuredly won't be doing so again), but it would be nice to reclaim some shelf space as I'd like to have the other making of/retrospective material. But you can definitely ditch the 2007 Blu-ray if you have the 2003 Divimax DVD (of which it was basically a port), as it doesn't have anything else on it you won't have elsewhere beyond an incorrectly colored high def image.

(Heh. Still didn't review the movie itself.)

(What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Green Inferno (2013)

SEPTEMBER 23, 2013

GENRE: CANNIBAL, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (FESTIVAL SCREENING)

During the Q&A for The Green Inferno, an audience member asked if the Peruvian government had given Eli Roth and his team any sort of grief over their portrayal in his newest film, and the filmmaker practically laughed. He then explained that their government doesn't care, that they understand that it's a fictional movie and that you'd basically have to be stupid to think it's a proper reflection of their country. It was a relief to hear, especially when you consider that Wrong Turn, a movie even more ridiculous than this one, caused some official from West Virginia to denounce the film at the time of its release, while assuring the rest of the world that folks wouldn't run afoul of mutant hillbillies when entering his state. It wasn't even shot there!

But it's a fair question, because Green Inferno is very much in line with films like Cannibal Holocaust and The Man From Deep River, both of which (and many others) the victim of much scrutiny and outrage - some of it even deserved. Those films have their fans (I enjoy most on my one viewing; I rarely have any desire to revisit them), but are largely considered to be trash thanks to some unfortunate storytelling decisions - i.e. a lot of rape and the on-screen murder of a few animals. Add in the usual approach to Italian genre filmmaking in that era (basically, rip off and top the guy who did it before you) and you can see why the sub-genre has been dormant for so long - who could possibly get away with such a thing in this day and age?

Eli Roth, of course. He's been MIA from the director's chair for far too long (six years, not counting the Hemlock Grove pilot), focusing mainly on acting and producing, and to his credit he didn't dip his toes in the shallow end for his comeback - he dove right in and has delivered what may be his most violent film yet. It's certainly got the biggest body count: our protagonists are a large group of activist college students who fly to the rain forest to prevent their destruction, only for their plane to crash (a horrific sequence that provides a few of the film's gory deaths) and to find themselves captives by a tribe of natives who look at a human being the same way we look at a cow or pig.

So in some ways it's directly in line with Roth's Hostel films - once again Americans go to another country and get killed by locals (you can even reduce it to "if you travel you will die" and include Cabin Fever in the group), and with the previously mentioned films (and the more extreme Cannibal Ferox) being an acknowledged influence, one could levy the complaint that there's no new ground being broken here. But that's not true - this film will be going out on just as many screens as his other movies, a luxury never afforded to Ruggero Deodato or Umberto Lenzi. This will be the gateway film for many audience members, and Roth is happy to introduce that subgenre to newcomers - the end credits even list the primary entries one should seek out in chronological order. I can honestly say this has to be a first - I don't see Scream or Hatchet's credits encouraging viewers to go back and see the original Halloween or Friday the 13th.

Also, it's the first I've seen that can be considered "fun". It can be grim at times, but there is thankfully no sexual violence of note (the head woman of the tribe checks to see if any of the girls are virgins, but it's not graphic and most certainly not misogynist in tone), and the local turtle population didn't have to worry about any of the actors chopping their heads off on camera. The cannibalism is in line with the others, but Roth's usual gonzo approach to kills (and the makeup FX by the similarly minded folks at KNB) keep it from being too unpleasant an affair, and there's even a damn poop joke to lift our spirits. Hell he even holds back at times; at least one major character's fate is left open ended, and another one is killed off-screen (with proof of her demise executed not unlike the "I never sliced anyone" bit in Rocky Horror Picture Show). I'm not saying "Bring the kids!" - this movie definitely earns its R rating* - but Roth clearly wants the audience to have a good time, something that is next to impossible for even a genre audience with something like Ferox.

This was a make or break film for Eli, as far as I am concerned at least. Hemlock was nearly unwatchable, as was his production of Last Exorcism II, and I wasn't overly thrilled with Aftershock (which showed at last year's FF). But this (and The Sacrament, which he also produced) has put him right back around the top of current genre heavyweights. And even better - he seems HUNGRY; I don't think we'll have to wait another six years for another film (though I was disappointed to hear he's working on a sequel to this already - I guess Thanksgiving is just never going to happen), and he is forming partnerships with other filmmakers like Nicholas Lopez and Aaron Burns (who was the 2nd unit director here and plays the film's most sympathetic character besides our heroine, the daring and lovely Lorenza Izzo) to keep those creative juices flowing. Welcome back, sir.

What say you?

*This was the R rated cut; not sure if there IS an unrated one but Eli claims that he had a very good experience with the MPAA on this one.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Bloody Homecoming (2012)

SEPTEMBER 23, 2013

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I just got back from Austin's Fantastic Fest, where more than once I had the thought that some of the movies I saw seemed designed specifically just to play in Fantastic Fest, and thus felt soulless. So it was fitting that I came home to a reminder that Bloody Homecoming was hitting DVD today, as I thought it was next Tuesday and thus quickly put it in my player so I could get my review up on time - otherwise I would have waited until the weekend and I might not have appreciated the fact that while it's not exactly a classic, I never doubted for a second that its heart was in the right place.

By now there are about as many "throwback" slashers as there are the genuine, original ones such films are paying tribute to, and most suffer from the mistake of having their characters be intentionally terrible people and played by awful (or overly campy) actors. This approach baffles me; the thinking is seemingly "the actors in those movies were terrible! It's part of the joke!" but for every poor performance you may find in Friday the 13th or The Burning, you will find one that's also quite good - remember that a lot of these movies served as introductions for future megastars like Tom Hanks (He Knows You're Alone), as well as solid, working actors that continue to appear in small film roles and on TV with regular frequency, like Fisher Stevens in The Burning or The Dorm That Dripped Blood's Daphne Zuniga. The majority of Homecoming's actors may never reach that level (time will tell), and some are pretty bad, but there's no sense of irony to it - it's just a bunch of inexperienced kids doing their best, and for that I can give the acting a pass.

Otherwise, this is a pretty solid entry in that sub-sub-genre of slasher films that act as if Scream never happened and just go about the usual business as if competing with a dozen others in the glory days of 1981. Plus, unlike some other recent ones that seem to think their brand new killer is already an icon, the killer is refreshingly simple - he's got a fireman outfit with an air mask to conceal his face, sticks to basic weapons, and (thank Christ) remains silent until the reveal. Yes, it's a whodunit, and while the mystery isn't particularly interesting, it's not overly complicated either - it's basically just a combination of Prom Night and Friday the 13th's motivations (albeit without a family tie), with a touch of The Burning for good measure since the opening scene tragedy involves a fire (and it's possible that the killer is that thought-dead student seeking revenge).

But Prom Night is the clear influence - it's really just a better paced remake, since the second half is set at their homecoming (a queen is crowned!) and it comes down to (spoiler) "You killed someone and got away with it so now that it's a random number of years later I will have my revenge!". But it's also got another thing that made me happy - chase scenes! Specifically, chase scenes featuring girls who are not the heroine. I recently rewatched a couple of the Friday the 13ths and was reminded that their climaxes all went on for far too long; Jason (or Mrs. Voorhees) would make quick work of the rest of the folks and leave too much time in the 3rd act with only one victim (one we know won't get killed anyway). So it's fun to have such fare in the middle of the movie, especially in one like this where more than one person survives.

Finally, the practical gore is much appreciated. I'm guessing they couldn't afford CGI, and there aren't a lot of impact shots or heavy prosthetics, but seeing real red syrup pooling around a victim's feet a few yards away from dancing students (seems like a nod to I Know What You Did Last Summer) warmed my slasher heart, because so many soulless producers will explain that they didn't use practical gore because they wouldn't have time to clean it up. Thanks for budgeting in the time to do it right, Bloody Homecoming producers! It's actually got a respectable body count - 10 or 11 I think, right in line with the sort of films director Brian C. Weed and writer Jake Helgren were clearly influenced by, and on that note I tip my non-existent hat to whichever of the two came up with the name Annie Morgan, a combination of the character and actress name of the girl who was the first present day victim in Friday the 13th. THAT'S how you do an in-joke name, not with distracting silliness like "Sheriff Savini" or a pet named Jason. It'll just go over the heads of anyone but the hardcores that will appreciate it most, and at the same time, tells us that they're not shoving their "expertise" down our throats. Indeed, even with the aforementioned influences, the film doesn't have any overt references and has its own identity (though it bizarrely cribs its sad theme from Armageddon, of all movies), allowing me to forgive its flaws more easily.

That said, again, it's not great. It gets stuff right, but it might take a surplus of exposure to horribly shitty slashers to recognize it - if you've only seen the Fridays and what not, you might find this to be pretty unbearable. And I have to remind you that I'm a pretty easy sell for whodunit slashers, so temper those expectations - it's a serviceable slasher at best. However, I think these guys have the right approach, and if they want to apply what they've learned here on their next feature (Helgren is currently on post on another slasher that he directed himself), perhaps with a little more money and a couple of experienced actors, we can get something truly solid to enjoy. I look forward to seeing it either way.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Facility (2012)

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013

GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: STREAMING (ONLINE SCREENER)

If you've ever watched a zombie movie where the outbreak is caused by some sort of faulty medicine or experiment gone wrong and wanted a prequel to it, The Facility (previously Guinea Pigs) should hit the spot. It's not a full blown horror movie, but the afflicted characters DO exhibit symptoms not unlike the "rage" zombies of 28 Days Later, and the confined space/dwindling cast motif certainly gives it a bit of a John Carpenter flair (it's even widescreen!), so it won't be totally out of place in Fangoria (or Horror Movie A Day!) - I just hope none of its distributors attempt to pass it off as a full blown zombie flick.

Taking place only over a day or so, the film depicts the (supposedly true) tragic events that occurred during the testing for a new drug, with the willing participants exhibiting strange behavior a few hours after their dose. For various reasons, the group is locked off in a wing of the facility where no one will be able to see that anything is wrong, and for security reasons they're all without cell phones or any other means to contact the outside world - it's a pretty basic but still effective way to isolate everyone in an otherwise fully functioning facility (unlike say, Halloween II - were there NO OTHER patients at this hospital with a staff of 5?). And the setup allows for a reason for folks to offer up a lot of personal info - they're all strangers and thus are sort of obligated to give their names, a bit about their jobs, etc. This sort of material is usually shoehorned into a narrative in a clumsy manner (if they bother at all) because the "group" usually knows each other and thus has no reason to say what they do for a living or whatever; in short, it makes the characterization stronger than the average modern horror flick.

It also allows for a varied group; most of them are 25-30, but there's an older guy who apparently makes his living being a paid guinea pig for such things, and a young girl in the Juno Temple mode. Their occasional fights are understandable being that they're all stuck together in a shitty situation (as opposed to lifelong friends who inexplicably turn on each other instantly at the first sign of danger), and watching friendships form is always more interesting to me than watching them dissolve. I particularly enjoyed the friendship between Alex Reid (Beth from The Descent) and Aneurin Barnard (the dude from Citadel), which gave the film more of an emotional center than I was expecting.

And that leads me to a sort of puzzling notion about the screenplay - it tells us exactly the order in which the patients will turn. As they were injected in a certain order, an hour (or whatever) apart, they begin to turn crazy in the same order, so once that's figured out (before the halfway point!) it loses a crucial element in such movies: the "Who will be next to go?" idea. It'd be like if at the top of Scream 2 someone said "OK, CeCe goes next, then Randy, then Haley, then Derek...". We're even told about who WON'T turn (as they were the "control" and thus got a placebo), deflating the suspense even further. Sure, there's still the possibility that they get killed by one of the crazed fellow patients, but it still seems to me like the movie would be more fun/suspenseful if there was a chance anyone could turn at any moment.

Otherwise, it's a pretty enjoyable, small-scale thriller. I liked just about everyone (the only one I didn't went out early), and I LOVED that it wasn't overly complicated - no nefarious mad scientists watching them from behind a monitor, no reveal that they were developing some sort of new bio-weapon or whatever - it remained grounded and focuses on the characters' basic plight of being stuck and suffering from a potentially fatal injection. Also (sort of spoiler) the ending has a gutpunch of a twist that reminded me of a recent medical-horror movie that I also quite enjoyed (one that was more of a drama than a thriller), though I can't reveal the title without giving too much away for both. I actually wish they dragged it out a bit more; it happens quick and then we get on-screen text to wrap it up in full - I'd rather see the surviving character(s) hear that information, just to twist the knife a bit more.

Speaking of the on-screen text, the movie starts by telling us that it takes place a couple years ago and a final card saying "this is what happened". This led me to believe that the movie might be a goddamned found footage exercise, which would have resulted in a very fast closing of the tab. Luckily, it wasn't the case, but the irony is that if it WAS this would be the rare movie to justify it. Being that they were undergoing tests, it would make some sense to have monitors up all over the place, and it wouldn't be too much of a stretch for the doctor to give them all video cameras so they could keep a running journal or whatever. But nope! It's filmed like a real movie, and quite well I might add. First timer Ian Clark can rely on shaki-cam a bit much for my tastes, and some obnoxious hyper-editing during the more action-packed scenes (especially when a body is thrown through a window - there's something like 20 cuts in 5 seconds), but the widescreen images are often well blocked without much wasted space, something I see quite often by budding Carpenter wannabes. And it moves along nicely, drawing us into the situation and getting to know our heroes before all hell breaks loose.

The limited "horror" elements (i.e. kills) and emphasis on character in the first half might turn off the gorehounds, but otherwise I found this to be a refreshingly stripped down and suspenseful flick, the sort of thing I'd catch at a festival and would walk away happy that it wasn't the same old crap but also wasn't aiming too far beyond its means. Worth a look!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...