Night School (1981)

JULY 11, 2014

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (BORROWED)

I don't know if we can ever get a definitive list of all the post-Halloween/Friday the 13th slashers from 1980-1982/3 - there were so damn many, and many of them independently released by distributors who are long since defunct - for every well known entry like My Bloody Valentine or The Burning, there are probably a half dozen To All A Goodnights (a Christmas slasher even an astute fan such as myself only heard about a few years ago). But I'll keep trying to see them all, and I'm happy to report I can finally cross Night School off my list, as it's been on my radar for years now. The reason I've been dodging it is simple - it's only available through Warner Bros "on demand" DVD service, which I find to be a ripoff as the titles are often 20 bucks and come barebones (maybe a trailer) on a disc that might not even play on your player model.

However my good friend Jared has no such bias, and has a similar "gotta see em all!" attitude, so I just borrowed his. Sucker!

As it turns out, it's a pretty decent entry in the slasherganza that elevated or marred the period, depending on your point of view. I will admit some Boston bias, but even if it was Chicago or whatever I'd still give it an extra point for being a rare metropolitan based slasher film - 99% of them stick to the woods, suburban areas, or a general single location (a school, hospital, whatever) but the killer here gets chased down major Boston streets, with dozens of people/potential victims around - plus you get a kill at the legendary New England Aquarium. We've all seen a head end up in a domestic fish tank, but a giant, multistory one with a big ass turtle nipping at the disembodied head as it floats to the bottom and terrifies an old lady and her grandson? Only in Night School, far as I know!

The non-isolated setting also means that the movie is slightly more logical than most slashers, and by that I mean there's a police presence. In fact the hero cop is the actual star of the movie - we're with him far more often than we are with any of the film's victims, most of whom only have a scene or two before their death scene (and they're all women - only one male is killed in the movie, and it's mostly by a cop's hand). It's actually more like a Giallo than an American slasher in that regard; there's no central "group" of characters per se, despite the "Night School" premise. Like Scream 2, the movie explains the connection between the victims before tossing it out - they're "all" students of this one dickhead Professor at the titular night school, but the next death after the cops figure that out is of a waitress who flirted with him.

It's because of this kill that the identity of the killer becomes painfully obvious, assuming you hadn't already figured it out. The movie makes the mistake of having the cop zero in on the professor and also introducing a weirdo busboy, so any intelligent viewer would know it couldn't be either of them... but that only leaves one other character as a legit choice, and even their motive is pretty clear. So it fails miserably as a whodunit, despite the best efforts (the killer drives a motorcycle and wears a face-covered helmet during the kill scenes, plus gloves and a leather jacket, making it impossible to even tell if it's a man or a woman), but still works thanks to the varied kill scenes (the opening one, on a merry go round, is fantastic) and unique-ish setting for this sort of thing (then again, all the Gialli took place in big cities too).

It's also got a few impressive sequences, such as a fun bit in the diner where we know a victim's head is SOMEWHERE in the kitchen but director Ken Hughes (of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang fame!) teases it out for eternity. Is it in the giant soup pot? The fridge? On top of the fridge, where a box of melons falls down for good measure? There's also a pretty good chase scene, one that's kind of a cheat since the person being chased is actually the killer, but in context it works - another plus of the big city thing, it's actually reasonable that a budding killer might be targeted by the average city menace if they happened to be walking alone at night. Plus it has some little quirks, like the two blue collar construction guys who apparently want beef stew for breakfast, or the cop's partner, a man who is ostensibly a cop but never seems much interested in solving the case or even listening to ideas about who the killer may be. He also advises a perp in the backseat to "go on the windshield" when the man says he needs them to stop so he can pee.

And when they go to the red herring's apartment, he's got a hockey mask sitting there on his dresser. A casual horror fan will probably see this and assume it's a little nod to Jason - in fact it even got me for a second, but it's important to know that Night School came out before even the 2nd (baghead Jason) Friday, in 1981 (it actually has a 1980 copyright at the end) - the hockey mask didn't come along until Part 3 in 1982. Was Night School - with one of the least scary costumes in slasher history - an influence on the most iconic one of them all? Probably not, but it's still kind of weird that they have that mask sitting there, it's pretty much the only thing that sticks out in his entire apartment.

Another weird thing requires a SPOILER.... the killer not only goes free at the end, but the cop knows it! He confronts him/her and asks (via metaphor) if they're done killing, to which they say yes. And that's it! There's a final scene where it seems like the killer might go do him in just to tie up that loose end, but it's actually just his wacky partner playing a gag (another Giallo thing - inappropriately timed comic relief). If there was a Night School 2 I bet the killer and the cop would team up to find a new killer. Maybe this time it'd actually take place at the Night School (seriously, there's like one brief classroom scene and a couple of faculty offices, but that's the extent of the title's prominence), or we can find out how the cop fared with his girlfriend, who he has to cancel plans with to investigate the first murder... and then we never see her again. It's like she was supposed to be a target eventually but then they forgot all about her. Heh, what a goofy little movie. Have I mentioned the paint-based shower scene?

What say you?

P.S. The film was known as Terror Eyes in the UK and was on the Video Nasties list, so I was able to cross another one off on THAT list as well!

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

HMAD Screening: JASON TAKES MANHATTAN

I know Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan wasn't the first entry in the series that I saw (I had seen 4-6, and I THINK Part 2 before), but it may be the one I have seen the most number of times. It was one of only two Fridays I had on tape as a kid, and the other was Final Chapter which I was too scared to watch alone, reducing my exposure until I grew a pair. But Manhattan I could handle - as I mentioned before, it made me more afraid of New York than Jason, as I was too young to understand that it was Vancouver (and also a goofy script). But it was just that: a tape - I have never gotten a chance to see it PROPERLY* on the big screen, so I'm happy to announce that it's the next HMAD screening at the New Beverly!

And it's the 25th anniversary to boot! We did New Blood last year for its own 25th birthday, and it was one of the more successful HMAD shows, so I vowed to do Manhattan - a film I like a lot more than New Blood - in 2014. Sure, it's no one's favorite entry, but I think it's better than it's given credit for, as so many people fixate on the "He's only in New York for 5 minutes!" (the timing varies depending on the complainer - the actual time is around 25 minutes) without bothering to acknowledge that he was on a giant cruise ship for the first hour! The whole appeal of putting Jason in a metropolitan city was that it was something different for him - I'm not sure why people seem to forget that a ship was a new environment as well. This gave him many new implements to use (sauna rock! guitar! antenna!), a wealth of victims (Jason gets one of his highest on-screen kills counts in this one - and his 2nd biggest overall after Jason X, since a ship full of anonymous students is sunk), and a welcome change of scenery - this is one of the very few entries in the series that can be identified instantly even by a casual fan.

It also marked some major milestones for the series. Most importantly, it was the first time an actor returned to play Jason - Kane Hodder was brought back, presumably because the producers realized he was the only good thing about New Blood ("in 20 years people will still defend this rubbish mainly because he looks so great!" is what they probably said), and even though this movie was not very successful he still got asked back for the next two installments. The series may never die, but I doubt we will ever again have an actor play Jason across four movies, so Kane will forever be the most prolific Jason. It was also the last entry to be called "Friday the 13th" until the remake, as the next few entries would be "Jason ____". Likewise, it was the last film for the original Paramount era of the franchise - after the film's less than desirable box office take, they opted to let New Line take over for the next 20 years or so (Paramount recently got the series back in exchange for giving Warner Bros a piece of Chris Nolan's Interstellar). If not for studios being willing to trade their properties around, this could have been the last we ever saw of the hockey masked psychopath.

But the series has endured, which is why these screenings tend to be pretty crowded - series that are long dead don't quite have the same pull as one that's still going, as old school fans who want to relive their opening night memories are joined by newcomers who were far too young (possibly not even born) when the film was released. As of now we have no definitive special guests (but 3 maybes!), but Q&A or not it's gonna be a fun time. The New Beverly is located at 7165 Beverly Blvd in Los Angeles, 90036 (2 blocks west of La Brea). Street parking is easy to find - Formosa is your best bet, usually (just watch the signs on the other side streets as some of them are permit only). Tickets are 8 bucks cash or card at the door, or online at BrownPaperTickets. I'll have some DVDs to hand out for dumb trivia questions, and usually there's a guy dressed as Jason in the crowd so have your cameras ready! The fun begins at 11:59 pm on Saturday, July 19th - if there's a Q&A it will as always be BEFORE the movie, so get there on time!

And dig the poster by Jacopo Tenani! He's been doing these for a couple of years now but I dare say this is my favorite one that he's done. Some folks have even asked about getting a print copy - if you're interested let me know! With enough demand maybe we can have some printed up for sale. Feel free to post the image on your own site if you want to help pimp the show, but PLEASE credit Jacopo if you do!

*The Cinefamily showed it a couple years ago, but the crowd was typically awful and yelling at the screen the whole time, so I spent half the time rolling my eyes, looking back to tell someone to shut up, or exchanging sighs with my friend. So it doesn't count.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Lake Placid (1999)

JULY 4, 2014

GENRE: COMEDIC, MONSTER
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

I only saw Lake Placid once, during its theatrical run in the summer of 1999. My strongest recollection of the experience was that I had to see it at Chunky's, which was sort of like an Alamo Drafthouse in that you order food (and drink, though I was 2 years away from being able to take advantage) that's brought to you while the movie is on, but instead of a stadium theater it was a regular level one, meaning the waitresses would block your view of the screen as they came and went - I didn't go to it very often. However, our local theater chain had some beef with FOX at the time, so it was Chunky's or nothing for a lot of their mid-level releases (big stuff like Phantom Menace would play, but this, Ravenous, Office Space, etc - all MIA).

I also remember not thinking much of it; like Steve Miner's previous movie (H20) it felt like it was missing a giant chunk of its middle - there's a lot of setup and then a quick finale. Also it seemed strangely deserted; in H20 it at least had some excuse (the camping trip, though given the permission slip aspect I would think there'd be more forgetful kids or ones with strict parents that had to stay behind), but in Placid it's bizarre how rare you see anyone beyond the handful of main characters. I mean, it HAD to have been pitched as "Jaws but with a crocodile!" but there's no "close the beaches" or even an evil human character around - the one guy who was scuba diving in the movie's opening sequence seems to be the only guy who ever wanted to go in the lake. So the rest of the movie is a bunch of folks trying to kill/capture this thing, but WHY? What will be prevented?

But while it doesn't quite work as a monster movie (though Miner thankfully used an animatronic croc for the most part, keeping CGI to a minimum), it's a solid character comedy, courtesy of a script by (of all people) David E. Kelley. Anti-spoiler ahead - none of our four leads get killed, which is great as it allows for a minor, not too generic romance to blossom between Bill Pullman and Bridget Fonda (who seriously needs to return to movies - she's too damn beautiful and charming to waste), as well as a lot of fun antagonistic banter between Oliver Platt and Brendan Gleeson. Some of it is clearly inspired by Quint/Hooper, but it doesn't matter - I would happily watch a TV show of the two of these guys as mismatched partners (Ryan from Shock suggested one where they investigate cryptozoological happenings - SOLD!). It's legitimately sweet when Gleeson is the first to dive into the water to save Platt when he's in danger during the climax, considering how much they hated each other in the earlier parts of the movie.

Back to Jaws, another thing that works in the movie's favor is how they split the three character types (Brody, Hooper, Quint) among four people, making it seem less like a ripoff. There's a bit of Brody in both Pullman and Gleeson, there's a bit of Hooper in Platt and Fonda, and Quint's stuff is split between Platt and Gleeson. So not only do they seem less generic, it also makes it harder to guess who will die - if I hadn't spoiled it (sorry) you'd spend the entire movie thinking that either Platt or Gleeson would die for sure, but which one? So you get slightly more suspense than you do from the average Syfy monster movie (a sub-genre which, somewhat ironically, now includes three sequels to this), but also a full quartet of people you genuinely like in an era where making even ONE likable protagonist seemed to be too hard for some filmmakers.

And that brings me to my main criticism - why is this an R rated movie? There's a nice gore bit on that first kill, but the second (there are only two human deaths, though the croc takes a few animals down) is played almost as a ZAZ type gag, and probably wouldn't have gotten the movie an R on its own. Instead, the bulk of the R rating comes from F-bombs, but in this kind of movie (and with these kind of characters) they're not "necessary" for lack of a better word. Many of them are played for shock value, courtesy of Betty White - at the time (1999) it wasn't a cliche to have her show up and say naughty things, so I guess it's fine. Still, if you were sorting your monster movies, you would expect to see this movie alongside the tonally similar (but PG-13) Tremors and Arachnophobia - not other R rated monster flicks like Deep Blue Sea and The Relic.

But while the breezy tone and engaging characters make up for the lack of action, I can't quite forgive the repetition of the plot - the movie is basically our heroes going out into the water, having a death-free encounter, regrouping, then going back out with a new tracker toy or weapon and repeating the cycle. Again since there's no one in the damn water besides these people, it makes the movie feel stakes-free, something that could have been prevented if they changed the scenery or didn't go out in the water so quickly into the narrative (and/or stayed there once they did). Granted, Kelley isn't exactly the first guy you'd think of to plot a horror film, but Miner's been around long enough to know better.

However it wouldn't have three sequels without its fans, and despite only being half as old as their usual fare, Scream Factory has put together a pretty nice special edition for the movie's Blu-ray debut. There's no commentary, but they got Miner (and Pullman, and some other crew folk) to contribute new interviews for a fun 30 minute retrospective. Miner wouldn't contribute to any of the newer Friday the 13th retrospectives, so getting him is a nice little bonus, and editor Marshall Harvey is always fun to listen to. Then there's a (VHS?) collection of behind the scenes footage from working with the animatronic croc, a vintage featurette, and the usual trailers and TV spots, including one where a critic claims it's "This year's Anaconda!" (apparently in 1999 this would be considered a rave?). The transfer is fine; nothing that will blow your mind, but not over-DNR'd like some other Fox releases, and respectable color/detail.

At 82 minutes and without any memorable deaths (this was released only a couple weeks before Deep Blue Sea, which contains the greatest Sam Jackson exit in history - and there are a lot to choose from), Lake Placid doesn't really have much weight to it - it's not BAD at all, but it just doesn't give you much to chew on (pun acknowledged and apologized for). Fans of it will be happy with this release, but it's hard to justify a blind buy for a movie you probably won't revisit. I'd say rent it but you guys killed the idea of video stores, so I dunno what to tell you. Maybe if Scream can get a hold of the Buffy movie (also never properly respected on disc) they can do a "FOX horror/comedy double feature" release that will be more enticing at a cost?

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Deliver Us From Evil (2014)

JULY 3, 2014

GENRE: POSSESSION
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

My well documented love for Armageddon aside, there is no question that Jerry Bruckheimer's solo work on the whole pales next to the films he made with the late Don Simpson - it's kind of funny that one of the best post-Simpson films is Enemy of the State, which still listed him as a producer (I assume it was developed before his passing). Sure, he had some big hits with the Pirates series and the two (sigh, where's 3?) National Treasure movies, but for every one of those there's a couple of Bad Companys or Kangaroo Jacks. So it wasn't his name that drew me to Deliver Us From Evil, though it did add some curiosity since this would be his first genre film since 1982's Cat People* remake.

No, it was Scott Derrickson's role as writer/director that had me excited, as he was behind one of my favorite horror flicks of 2012 (Sinister) as well as 2005's The Exorcism Of Emily Rose - for my money one of the best of its type (basically #2 to Exorcist, if memory serves, though I certainly have tons of fun with the gonzo 70s ripoffs). Deliver would have him returning to the exorcism genre, but rather than a standard "this girl is possessed and after we've exhausted all medical/scientific possibilities let's call a priest" structure it would take the form of a Se7en style police thriller, with Eric Bana playing Ralph Sarchie, a real life cop with a penchant for paranormal-tinged cases.

So on paper it sounds like a home run, right? You get a horror guy doing what he does best working with Bruckheimer, who can bring the resources for a summer blockbuster about cops, right? But the thing is, the movie wasn't meant to open on the vaunted July 4th weekend - it was originally set for January (which would have our expectations in the toilet), only for Sony to get confident in the film and bump it up 6 months. I assume it was last summer's smash success of The Conjuring that gave them the idea - another R rated movie with "based on a true story" flair, from a director coming off a very profitable Jason Blum production (Wan with Insidious, Derrickson with Sinister). Therefore it's best to keep the "summer" part of your expectations in check - this is NOT a big budget, End of Days style megamovie that blends the action and horror genres. In fact there's almost zero Bruckheimer influence on display at all - Bana has worked with him before (in Black Hawk Down), but otherwise it doesn't display any of his input. The Christopher Young score is in line with his other genre offerings, not a Hans Zimmer-y presentation of bombast, and humor is kept to a minimum (that it's one of Brucky's rare R rated offerings should have tipped you to that - there's some really grim stuff here).

Once I realized that the Bruckheimer machine didn't overpower Derrickson's (and Paul Boardman's) script, I settled into the movie a lot easier (hey, I don't get out much these days - I was kind of HOPING for dumb action stuff mixed into the horror! Instead it starts with a dead baby about the same size as the one I was leaving for a few hours). As I said earlier, it's sort of like a possession-tinged Se7en, with our two hero cops (Bana's partner is played by Joel McHale, from the only thing I love on the same level as Armageddon) chasing a villain through their rainy city (it's set in New York but the level of rain seems more Seattle-y to me). But it's not a serial killer they're after; one night they get two seemingly unrelated calls (a domestic disturbance and a freak "accident" at the zoo) and discover that they are connected. As they track down leads and uncover an incident that occurred in Abu Dhabi (seen, briefly, in the film's prologue), it becomes clear that they're dealing with something supernatural.

Enter Édgar Ramírez as Father Mendoza, who knew one of the victims and seems to know more about what's going on than the cops. Here I was reminded of the show Grimm - we have our hero but two partners (on Grimm, which I gave up watching after a few episodes, he's got his cop partner and his werewolf partner), crowding the plot a bit and diffusing some of its buddy movie spirit (which was working quite well, with McHale busting the more serious Bana's balls but also proving to be an able fighter). I love the guy, but he could have been removed from the movie entirely or as a shock kill 20 minutes in - indeed, McHale more or less exits the movie for what seems like 40 minutes once Sarchie and Mendoza begin their alliance, only to return for a sequence where Mendoza is sitting out in a car the whole time. Also, I don't think McHale's character actually has a conversation with Mendoza, but then again no one really does. If I didn't know better I'd swear Mendoza was meant to be a ghost or imaginary character, as he bizarrely never really interacts with anyone else in the cast, despite being such a prominent part of it. There's a scene late in the film where Bana makes a phone call for backup without identifying who he called - I assumed it was Mendoza, but it's actually just two other cops that share his desk area (these two seemed like they were more significant characters at one point, but they're largely just blurry dudes in the background behind Bana).

The movie's real strength stems from its setpieces - I realized as I sat down for the movie that the trailers never really explained what the movie was about, instead offering up giant chunks from a few individual scenes (including the climactic exorcism), which was probably the right call. The investigation isn't really a mystery - it only takes about a half hour or so for Sarchie to figure out who the bad guy is, with the rest of the movie devoted to trying to find him as Mendoza convinces Sarchie about the possession part of the deal (as is typical, Sarchie doesn't believe in God and this sort of stuff and thus needs convincing). So if the trailers showed any of it there wouldn't be much to invest the audience in - best to leave that for our discovery (the reviewer says after explaining a big chunk of it - sorry) and just focus on cool/creepy stuff like self-rolling owls and a possessed dude making windows break all around him and such. Luckily the trailer didn't spoil the obligatory cat scare - it's actually one of the best in ages (oddly End of Days' one worked too - what is it about New York set action/horror films?).

Another thing the trailer thankfully avoided was how a part of the plot involves The Doors, as it would have kept me from seeing it until Blu-ray, where I could mute it. I know they have their fans and were a big infuence on later rock acts, but my GOD do I hate this band (I once stated that I didn't know what the word "pretentious" meant until I saw the Stone biopic). "Break On Through" is OK I guess, but all of their other songs just grate me on a level I usually reserve for pop garbage like Black Eyed Peas - so when one of the possessed folks started rattling off lyrics (think "Connect the cuts" from Devil Inside), and Sarchie began hearing one of their songs when no one else could (that must be what true hell feels like - no one to share the misery of "People Are Strange"), I just sighed heavily. I mean, using ANY rock song as a clue is kind of hokey (see: "All Along The Watchtower" in Battlestar Galactica), but when it's these assholes... sorry, movie, you lost me for a bit.

But overall I enjoyed it; I wish the mystery was a bit more drawn out and/or things escalated to something more unnerving (the possessed guy kidnaps Sarchie's family and we're supposed to think they might be dead, but come on), but it had several terrific setpieces, three charismatic actors in the lead roles, and an attempt at blending two sub-genres that you rarely see together. I also got to thinking - 90% of the "first time I watched Exorcist" stories are from people who saw it at a very young age and it left a deep, scarring impression on them - which can make exorcism/possession movies they see as adults harder to appreciate. I, however, didn't see it until I was 19, and so while I understood and appreciated its power, it didn't really scare me all that much, so there's less of a hurdle for other possession movies to clear. I think it's easy to dismiss all of these as "Nowhere near as good as Exorcist!" when the movie warped your impressionable mind (indeed, it may be why I can be so harsh on haunted house movies, as I saw Poltergeist at such a young age), so keep that in mind when you're reading outright pans of this one. It's not perfect, but it's a solid bit of entertainment and (obviously) a nice alternative to everything else out there right now (not a single building destroyed!). And it makes me sad that we're going to lose Derrickson for a few years while he plays in the big Marvel box - there aren't too many horror directors that are committed to grim/disturbing fare for our multiplexes. Hopefully he comes back - long as he leaves The Doors behind.

What say you?

*Cat People also featured a zoo, which is a funny bit of trivia, as one of Deliver's highlights is a scene set in the Bronx Zoo - the first film to shoot there since Altered States, from what I understand.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Monkey's Paw (2013)

JUNE 16, 2014

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

The hardest thing for me to wrap my head around when I see an adaptation of a famous story (particularly one that's been spoofed) is that it exists in a world where that's not a story. Dracula is probably the easiest example to make - more than likely, any non-comedic Dracula film will take place in a world where there aren't 3000 Dracula movies (perhaps even any vampire movies/novels/TV shows/etc at all), so you have to remember that the name "Dracula" has a very different meaning to the characters than it does to us. To a lesser but still similar extent, for The Monkey's Paw to work, you have to remember that the characters aren't already aware that these things are no good and should never be activated, because what you wish for will come with deadly consequences.

But the genius thing about this version is that one character IS aware of this trickery, as it's sort of a sequel to the original story. If you've never read it, the basic gist is that a guy wishes for his house payment, which comes in the form of an insurance check stemming from the death of his son. The 2nd wish is for the dead man to come back, and I refuse to spoil it further for you. But I will say that the character played by Daniel Hugh Kelly more or less plays the younger brother of that dead man, and knows that it's not something to be tampered with. So how does anything happen in the movie? Well, he gets a bit drunk after being laid off from his job, and while he's still kind of foreboding about it, he hands it over to one of his former co-workers. And that's where the fun begins, as he makes his first wish for a new car, and said new car gets his friend (Stephen Lang) killed. Guess what wish #2 is?

What's great is that all of this is the first 20, 25 minutes of the film, allowing the rest of it to play out as a revenge film of sorts; Lang's resurrection follows Pet Sematary rules and thus he comes back as a killer, forcing hero Jake (C.J. Thomason) to try to keep his loved ones safe while avoiding the cops, who suspect him of the murders Lang is committing (such as the husband of Jake's ex). But the cool thing is that Lang has a decent motive for what he's doing: he wants Jake to use up the 3rd wish to help him reunite with his estranged son, whom he is not allowed near due to a restraining order. Jake knows that the wish will backfire in some way, but Lang won't listen to reason, and there's the movie - the paw is just the means of getting the plot started, with wishes and curses left more or less in the background for a while. Indeed, Jake tosses the thing away early on and doesn't retrieve it until near the end, which also helped me forget that none of these people are aware of how these things always work.

Another thing that impressed me was that it, like Dead Souls, was a cable movie (for Chiller) that didn't follow the "rule" that states something exciting or cliffhanger-y needs to happen before every commercial break to keep people from changing the channel. If not for a few fadeouts, you'd probably never even know this was made for TV - it gives the characters and story time to breathe, doesn't toss in random kills for no reason, etc. I know saying "it plays like a real movie" is a weird thing to say, but it's sadly the exception, not the rule, for this sort of fare. Any Syfy monster movie will cut to an anonymous person being munched/stomped if it's time for a commercial, which might be fine for when you're actually watching it live - but it makes for a thoroughly obnoxious experience when watching on DVD. Not the case here; we stick with our core group of 6-7 characters throughout, and know the names of every person Lang kills.

Oh, and it's shot in New Orleans but doesn't dwell on the usual locales. The French Quarter makes a brief appearance, of course, but otherwise it sticks to the outskirts and not as cinematically overused areas in the city (such as Louis Armstrong Park), and focuses on blue collar types that the audience can more likely relate to. The economic hardships in the area play a part, but that sort of stuff isn't the main focus - like the paw itself, it paves the way to the real story, but doesn't take center stage. Director Brett Simmons (who previously impressed with Husk) and screenwriter Macon Blair (currently seen in the terrific Blue Ruin) seem to have understood that we've seen that stuff in a dozen other movies recently, so they do their best to stick to something less cliche and more interesting. Sure, if you were to write a 2 line synopsis it would sound like a typical "Back from the dead to seek revenge" type movie, but by grounding it in things we can sympathize with (the guy just wants to see his kid!) and keeping the supernatural elements to a minimum*, it ended up being far more compelling than I expected.

As this is a Scream Factory release, we get some extras - the trailer and a brief making of aren't anything special, but the commentary by Simmons, Thomason, and DP Scott Winig is pretty entertaining and very much worth a listen. They heap praise on the actors (Lang in particular), discuss the challenges of shooting in the area and within their budget (more than one location was "stolen"), and generally just have a good time - there isn't as much ball-busting as you often hear when there are 3 guys on a track together, but I still found it more enjoyable than average (discussion of Lang's method acting style has a great payoff when after 3-4 real examples they claim he really cut off an actor's head). It's a shame we don't hear from Blair, however - it's his sole feature writing credit and I'm curious if he planned to star in it himself at any point.

I recently lost the Chiller channel when I downgraded my cable package (I wanted to reduce it even further but alas), which is a shame if they're going to be making movies as solid as this. It's not gonna make my top 10 list or anything (actually, maybe it MIGHT since I barely get to see anything these days!), but when stacked against whatever shitty end of the world or shark movie was airing on Syfy at the same time, it's a minor classic. It's got some good actors running through a story that held my attention, a few nasty kills for good measure, and it found a way to make an oft-used story compelling once again - that's a success in my book. Hopefully Scream continues to release their films on disc for those who couldn't catch them on cable - they might look a little misplaced in their line (alongside Sleepaway Camp and Evilspeak, two of their other recent releases that baby-land has kept me from reviewing), but I'm glad that they get that extra bit of exposure, unlike the Syfy films which Anchor Bay often releases to zero fanfare alongside their (of late, often terrible) independent pickups.

What say you?

*There's even a hint that the paw is just junk and that NOTHING supernatural actually happened - I almost wish they went full force with it, but then the movie probably wouldn't have gotten made.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dracula (1974)

MAY 26, 2014

GENRE: TELEVISION, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

Now that my child is here*, I just have to count the 7-8 years' worth of days until he's old enough to watch horror movies with his old man, giving me a lot of time to think about what I'll show him and when. One thing I definitely want to do is make sure he sees stuff "in order", so that when he sees this pretty good adaptation of Dracula, it will be BEFORE he sees all of the movies (including Coppola's) that ripped off one of its new ideas: retrofitting Lucy (or Mina) into a reincarnation of Dracula's long lost love.

Indeed, since Coppola's film was one of (possibly THE) first one I saw adapted from Stoker's novel, I had assumed it was part of the story until I actually read it in college (especially when obvious inspirations, like Vampire in Brooklyn, carried over this concept). But unless my research has failed me, the idea started with this 1973 film from Dan Curtis, who was basically melding his own Dark Shadows ideas with the source material (way to branch out, buddy!). Coppola also ripped off the Vlad the Impaler idea, so for a TV movie that's premiere got preempted by a real world event (Spiro Agnew resigning), it's had remarkable impact on the undying, always strangely plotted story of a young man who travels to Transylvania and proceeds to disappear within the narrative.

Harker's even more backgrounded than usual here; Arthur Holmwood takes on the bulk of his role (including joining Van Helsing for the final battle), leaving Harker an afterthought before the halfway point. They also skip the Demeter almost entirely, opting for a "5 weeks later" title card and a single shot of the beached ship, so the already clunky shifting of protagonists is even more of an issue as Harker just all but disappears as a result (he briefly returns as a vampire). A voiceover only briefly explains the Demeter's significance ("No one on board", etc), but since I, like probably everyone (maybe even my son - I think I'll start with the Langella/Badham, if not the original Lugosi/Browning) has seen multiple Dracula movies, my mind filled in the blanks and kind of just went with it. Sort of like when you're watching one of the Harry Potter movies and mentally filling in the little side stories and character beats that weren't actually in the film.

Otherwise (and again, this is an issue stemming from the book; it's an ensemble piece where only 1/3 of the characters are worthy of the limelight) this one's pretty good. Maybe a bit TOO straightforward at times, but having just rewatched Nosferatu (Herzog version), I appreciated that element - I don't DISLIKE that film but I have to be in a certain mood to watch a bunch of folks walking around endlessly and what not. Jack Palance also made for a fine Count; I quite loved him in the "human" scenes (i.e. talking to Harker about Carfax), as he brought a fine weariness to it without being all creepy or weird. Another thing about Nosferatu - the makeup is awesome but Harker is way too OK with this bat-ghoul thing talking to him, so it's nice to see this scene play out sans distraction.

The rest of the cast was solid as well. Penelope Horner made for a fetching Mina, and I liked that Nigel Davenport as Van Helsing looked more like a gruff constable than a proper gent like Cushing (or kook like Hopkins). Curtis didn't rope in any of his Shadows stars (at least, none that I'm aware of), so even though he's borrowing some of Barnabas' character beats, I didn't think about that show too much. If anything I was more reminded of Hammer films - their style (sets, colors, lighting, etc) were clearly an inspiration on Curtis here, and since Hammer was kind of floundering at this point it's kind of funny that another group entirely was making something more up to their standards.

MPI released the film on Blu for the first time this week, offering a new transfer that is quite good - it's either funny or sad to see a television production given better treatment than some megabudget Hollywood films (I have a pristine 2K transfer of this but I'm stuck with a non-anamorphic DVD of The Abyss?). There are a few extras as well, obviously from a previous release as both Jack Palance and Dan Curtis both died in 2006, but their interviews are enjoyable all the same. Palance talks about his hesitance to take the role and how he approached it; it's a little dry but it's rare to see this sort of thing with the Oscar winner (though it does seem to be cribbed from a longer, career-spanning interview. Curtis' interview is even shorter but more thorough - he mutters about being ripped off by Coppola and keeps trashing it (when he comments about werewolves, it seems he's just taking another shot at the 1992 film's transformations), so it's pretty amusing. A collection of outtakes and, hilariously, a bunch of TV edits are offered as well (I had to laugh in the latter's case since NBC's Hannibal season finale just topped most R rated fare in the blood department), along with the trailer. The film's subtitles are also a bonus feature of a sort; I had them on frequently (volume low so as not to wake the baby when applicable - this took a few sittings to watch, obviously) and I was consistently delighted that the score was described. "Eerie music" "Sad, romantic music", etc. It's a good score, I should mention - it's even advertised at the end of the movie, rare for a television production.

On that note, I assume this was a theatrical release in some territories; honestly it could have played in theaters here too - it's a bit workmanlike, but again, sometimes it's nice to see a Dracula movie that's just "Dracula", not Dracula in space, Dracula in New York, Dracula turns into a CGI Mantis, etc. And I've never shined much to Curtis' body of work, so I was surprised I enjoyed it as much as I did.

What say you?

*I know I said I wouldn't be reviewing anything here for a while, but for some reason I thought this Dracula was from 1979 and planned to do a piece on Badass about all four of that year's Drac films (the Langella, Love at First Bite, and Herzog's Nosferatu being the others), but since this was 1974 that wouldn't work. So that piece (minus this one) will go up as the next Crypt, and you guys get a bonus review after all! Everyone wins very little.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

A New Beginning comes from Final Chapter's end, or something

MAY 22, 2014

GENRE: KILLER KID (?)
SOURCE: MY BEDROOM ABOUT ALMOST 9 MONTHS AGO

Last year, when I retired the daily part of Horror Movie A Day, I gave all of you wonderful folks a bunch of reasons why: getting a bit tired of repeating myself, wanting to explore other avenues, reduced amount of time, etc. But there was another one I didn't really share publicly (to my memory): I wanted to start a family. I've been married for almost 10 years now and while we've talked about kids a lot, we never quite found the best time to do it (with that couple at the beginning of Idiocracy constantly in my head). But around August of last year we started "trying" (not a single joke involving my wife and a euphemism for sex "A Day", please) and one night in October she surprised me with the good news.

According to both of our OBGYNs (the first one wasn't very personable) our little guy was due around June 14th, which scared me because if he came a day early it'd be FRIDAY the 13th, and thus of course I'd have to endure every lame "Surprised you didn't name him Jason!" joke under the sun for the rest of my life. Well, apparently the kid wanted to make sure it wasn't even close, and after a night of what we thought was just the obvious discomfort of being well along in her pregnancy, my wife went to the hospital just to make sure it was normal, only for the nurse to tell us that she was fully dilated (!) and thus we'd be going home with our baby.

90 or so rather shell-shocked minutes after arriving at the hospital (with my wife not even wanting the wheelchair!), William "Will" Robert (named after my uncle and father, respectively) Collins was welcomed into the world by a very confused mom and a dad who had to sadly inform his horror trivia teammates that he wouldn't be able to make the game that night.

I joke, but it's truly surreal how many emails and phone calls I had to make about things I had planned over the next few weeks (some might say I was "going all out" while I still could - I even had requested a press pass to that Great Horror Campout thing in 2 weeks - the request was approved right around the time I was finishing my first diaper change), as everyone told us the first baby was usually late, if anything. I should note that he had reached full term of 37 weeks on that day (May 22), so while he's a little smaller than he'd be if he popped out on time, he's perfectly healthy and has passed all of his tests so far. His main problem is that he looks exactly like his goofy dad (I know people say that, but check out the comparison photo my sister made) and had to come home to an apartment that wasn't quite ready for him (luckily the bassinet and changing table WERE set up, as was the car seat).

So why am I telling you all of this? Well it's been 3 days and this post took 4 sittings to write. I'm sure some of you have kids and thus totally understand, but for those who don't - you truly can't comprehend not only how time consuming the little guy can be, but how you can't even think about what you're not doing anymore (I guess the new X-Men is great, but I can't even be bothered to read a review to know what I'm missing). I know I didn't do as many updates as I originally planned when I "retired", but even THAT much seems an insurmountable task at this juncture. Some folks are smart enough to have family nearby when they have a baby - our moms, siblings, etc are all 3000 miles away. Long story short, I'm afraid this site is going to get even quieter for a while. Even if I managed to find time to watch something beyond my Netflix assignments (which are nice for the paycheck, but more often than not are awful movies I can barely finish, let along find the energy to write about even BEFORE my bundle of joy arrived), the odds of finding time or even the brainpower* to write about it are so slim that it's not even worth the optimism. I don't even know if I can continue doing my New Bev screenings - I might just do the intro and then rush back home, if that.

But I'll be (hopefully!) still doing my Collins Crypt articles for Badass to keep from getting rusty, and when things settle down(ish) I'd love to pop in and surprise whoever's still reading this site with a fresh review. And since they take 20 seconds (and I can hold my phone with one hand while the baby's in the other) I'm still tweeting my usual nonsense (as is Will - follow @BabyCollins23 for some silliness), so at least I'm around in some capacity. But for now, my main concern is raising a kid who won't make the same mistakes I did, and by that I mean he'll appreciate Halloween III the first time he sees it instead of joining the "Where's Myers?" bandwagon. Wish me luck!

*Ask me how many times I couldn't remember why I was in a particular aisle when I went to the grocery store... for 3 things. I also went to Babies R Us to take advantage of a buy one get one free sale, and picked up 3 of the items in question leaving the second free one behind.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Godzilla (2014)

MAY 16, 2014

GENRE: MONSTER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

I, like every single person with a brain cell that is living on planet Earth, thoroughly disliked the 1998 Godzilla, and as a result I wasn't inspired to watch any of the originals that I had missed along the way. I had seen bits and pieces of a few of them thanks to Sunday morning cable broadcasts, but even now, 16 years later (Jesus that makes me feel old) I've seen very few of them. However, this new Godzilla (2014) has corrected that, as it was not only enjoyable on its own but helped me understand WHY people love these movies so much, and using my good friend Evan's guide that he posted, will be doing my best to catch up over the next few months - maybe I'll even review a few of them for y'all!

The main thing that makes this movie work as well as it does, oddly enough, is a "lack" of giant monster action. Don't worry, several cities are destroyed by the time it ends, but it's not "disaster porn" like most big budget movies of this type are nowadays. Director Gareth Edwards is smart enough to know that audiences have seen enough buildings get knocked over in the past few years, and so he keeps that sort of "Let's pull back and admire the view of what is assuredly causing massive casualties of innocent people!" thinking to a minimum. Like any good big monster movie, he teases us with glimpses of his creation, but even after G has been revealed in full, he keeps things grounded, always showing us what's going on from the perspective of someone on the ground. One of the (many) problems I had with Pacific Rim* was that it was often impossible to get a good sense of the scale (especially during the underwater final battle, where they're fighting what's supposedly the biggest Kaiju yet but it looked pretty much the same), but that's never the case here. Whether it's from one of the hero characters or just some anonymous guy who opted to stay in his office, we always see it through a human's eyes, which means we can't usually see the entire beast at once. It's a tail, or a scale on his back, or a foot... we're always in awe of truly how massive this thing is.

Of course, this might lead to some impatience for audience members who are children (technically and/or mentally). There's a good 40 minutes or so before anything gets destroyed, and Edwards doesn't want you to be numb to his money shots before the final battle. Again, we stay with humans, so when G faces off against a "Muto" (a bat/spider thing that serves as the movie's true villain/obligatory other monster for Godzilla to fight, another thing Emmerich and Devlin bungled), we only see it for a couple seconds before the human being we're with (Elizabeth Olsen, in this case, perhaps cast to soften the blow in this exact moment - it's hard to argue with keeping a camera pointed at her) ducks inside and obscures our view on the monster bashing. We also see television footage of destruction or aftermath more often than not - again, this isn't a movie obsessed with showing us shot after shot of CGI debris crumbling down around us. So for the final battle, when Edwards lets them at each other in full widescreen glory, it's something WE HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN YET, a concept that is forever lost on Bay, Emmerich, etc.

It's ironic, then, that he succeeds by sticking with the humans more often than not that the movie works despite the characters not being particularly interesting. Aaron Johnson is the main star, and for the life of me I can't see what this guy's appeal is; he's got a Hanksian everyman look to him, which is fine, but he's just not that exciting to watch (I couldn't help but think of his Savages costar Taylor Kitsch; he's a much more interesting presence to me, and it's a shame HIS shot at starring in a big budget invasion movie was the lousy Battleship). His character also lacks any real purpose beyond a knack for mirroring the monsters' journey from Japan to San Francisco; he's one of those bomb-defusing guys (like in Hurt Locker) but the movie never has him defuse a bomb - he's SUPPOSED to do one but something gets stuck and he just helps the older soldiers go with Plan B, which is taking out to the ocean and letting it detonate away from the populace. The ability to just say "OK let me help" and do what everyone else is doing is a skill even I possess, so I'm basically just as qualified to be the hero in this movie (incidentally, the opening titles are fantastic and way more inventive than anything I would have come up with). There's also a bit where he and like 15 other soldiers parajump onto Godzilla (you've seen the sequence in the trailers), but bizarrely we lose track of all of them except Johnson, who lands expertly despite, you know, not being a parajumper, as far as we know. Why not have someone land on the big guy and have to clamber his way down or something? Why even bother with the jump if they're just going to cut to everyone elsewhere later on anyway?

Then again maybe this stuff was shown and just edited. It's about two hours long, which is all it SHOULD be, but that counters the thinking of every big studio action movie of late, which demands that these things be 145-150 minutes no matter what. Olsen's role has seemingly been trimmed as well; at one point she's inside the hospital helping people, and then the next time we see her she's for some reason out on the streets, about to run away from the giant monster she already knew was rampaging around - why did she go outside? (FIRST ACT SPOILER AHEAD!!!!) But the real bummer is Bryan Cranston; I don't think we lost much of his role, it just didn't seem to be that big to begin with; his entire character arc relies on proving to the world that there's a SOMETHING out there, and once they know he's right, well... let's just say he doesn't need to be in the movie anymore, and thus, er, *leaves*.

Johnson does figure into one of the movie's best (and scariest!) scenes, where he's on a train with a nuke and has to go with a couple other soldiers to investigate the bridge's integrity before proceeding. Naturally, one of the monsters shows up, leading to a pretty tense bit where they're trying to avoid detection and also keep the monster from destroying the bridge so that they can continue on their mission to kill it. If we're comparing to Jurassic Park, this would be akin to the first T-Rex sequence in the jeep, with lots of "stay still" and unnerving closeups (and of course, a device that could blow their cover; the flashlight there, a crackling radio here). Bizarrely (SPOILER, SORT OF, AHEAD), the movie isn't interested in offing any of its human characters after the first half hour or so, so there isn't much tension for any of the action sequences, but this is an exception (Johnson's fellow soldiers being fair game). This is actually one of the only things that it has in common with the 1998 piece of shit; there's a bunch of characters that could have died to justify their existence, but they're all left standing at the end.

That said, there are two interesting characters here; one is Ken Watanabe as the obligatory scientist who knows better than the military folk. He lost his father at Hiroshima, and thus takes it personally when the army guys want to nuke the monsters to hell. His much more crowd-pleasing option is of course, the right one - "Let them fight". I dunno HOW he knows this, but he knows Godzilla will wake up from wherever he is, kick the shit out of the Mutos, and then go back to sleep after, which may result in some destruction (it's not like Godzilla CARES about the humans, after all) but will at least prevent more nuclear chaos. The other good character is Head Military Guy, played by David Strathairn with his usual stern authority, but what I liked about him is that he wasn't the usual gung-ho asshole that laughs at the science folk - he actively seeks out their advice and is legit torn between the two options. On that point, while they didn't have much to do, I liked that Johnson and Olsen's characters were a happily married couple, not the usual estranged one that uses this horrific disaster to realize they still love each other and should give it another chance.

The FX are, unsurprisingly, incredible - Edwards did a great job on his own computer for Monsters (which I hope more people are checking out, now), so with 200m at his disposal they should be among the best ever, and he doesn't disappoint. In addition to just LOOKING great, the monsters have a weight to them that most big budget action movies often lack (the Transformers films are notoriously awful for this); when one of them stumbles you can feel the impact, and they aren't graceful, another problem with most CGI beasties that move too perfectly to ever be believable. So you should do the filmmakers and FX wizards a favor and NOT see the film in 3D, as it's pretty bad and most certainly not worth the extra dough (and I say this as someone who likes the "gimmick" when it's properly applied). It's a post-conversion, and while I'm never truly impressed with any of them they have improved over the past 4 years, but this is susceptible to all of their usual problems: strange glitching whenever people run past the foreground, flat faces giving off a "pop up book" look to the proceedings, and (more than often) an obvious difference when a CGI effect is in the shot with an actor (as the CGI can have the 3D effect properly applied, unlike the traditionally shot live action portion). And when nothing is going on, you won't even notice any effect at all anyway, something that wouldn't be the case if it was shot with 3D cameras, as even the "boringest" shot will offer something impressive when properly filmed. The DP for the film has urged people to see it in 2D, saying that they didn't shoot planning for the extra dimension later like some converts are, and he is 100% correct.

The emphasis on small-scale action as opposed to toy-selling "hero" moments might mean the kids are a bit bored, but I for one walked away quite impressed that Warner and co. opted to aim their giant monster movie at adults. It was only a year ago that they made the kids' version (Pacific Rim), so there's nothing for them to complain about. If you want mindless action for your inner or actual 9 year old, you have that movie. If you want something a little more impressive and "adult", but still quite fun (I cheered two or three times; there's a Godzilla fire breath moment that should make ANYONE applaud, even if this is their first Godzilla movie and they weren't aware that it was something he could do), they got you covered, and have done a fine job of wiping away the stink of the last remake AND the summer's previous big budget action spectacle ("He shot at me he lied to me....").

What say you?

*I enjoyed it as a decent summer time-killer, but I expected much more from Guillermo.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Rosemary's Baby (2014)

MAY 11/15, 2014

GENRE: CULT, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: TELEVISION (NBC AIRING)

OK, The Exorcist, you're pretty much the only one left. Any list of the "Top 5 horror movies of all time" would likely include Rosemary's Baby, and now it (like fellow "greats" The Omen, The Shining, Halloween, and Psycho*) has been remade, albeit as a TV miniseries. Usually I'm pretty lenient when it comes to remakes, especially when it's a "remake" of a film that's based on a novel - my philosophy is, you don't consider any Dracula movie that comes along to be a "remake" of a Bela Lugosi film, so why should it be any different for The Thing or whatever? But the Polanski version of Rosemary's Baby (based on a book by Ira Levin) is unusual in this field in that he stayed almost precisely with the original text, not being aware that it was OK to change things, as it was his first adaptation. So that, in addition to the movie's much deserved stature as one of the best horror films of all time, makes any attempt at a redo rather puzzling: why bother? They can't use the "we're sticking more closely with the book" excuse (usually a bullshit one) that others can get away with, and it's not Polanski screwed anything up the first time.

To its credit, the filmmakers behind this version DO try to make their own movie; in addition to the new plot points and characters the extra hour affords them, they've changed the locale (Paris), the jobs (Guy is a writer now), and even the dynamic with regards to the Castavets (more on that later). Unfortunately, the movie they made is dreadfully dull and almost entirely suspense-free; I spent most of the time watching wondering who exactly the audience for the movie was, as it seemingly couldn't possibly intrigue fans of the original (or the book) OR newcomers. Fans would be annoyed by the changes, drawn out plot points (if you watched it live you had to wait 2 hours just for the "This is really happening!" moment, at which point you'd have to wait four days to see what happened next since that was the break point in this two-parter), and general "They don't GET it" feeling it will provide, while newcomers will merely be bored, watching without being armed with the knowledge that things eventually get more interesting.

Indeed, part 2 was an improvement over part 1, but by then it was too late anyway. The first half was a complete disaster; I can happily look at Zoe Saldana all day normally, but director Agnieszka Holland (an odd choice; I guess they thought this story should only be adapted by Polish directors?) and screenwriters James Wong (NBC's shortlived The Event) and Scott Abbott (Queen of the Damned) turned this into a chore, tossing her around various Paris locales and having her occasionally freak out or faint, or going from sickly and miserable to cheerful and trusting of her neighbors with no rhyme or reason. Abbott and Wong did not write it together it seems (dropping some trivia on y'all here: their writing credit is denoted with an "AND", which means they worked separately, an ampersand "&" would mean they wrote together), but I began to wonder if one man actually rewrote the other, or if they both wrote their own versions and Holland just grabbed pages from both at random to assemble her film.

See, as I mentioned earlier, the dynamic between Rosemary & Guy and the Castavets is different from the original; the John Cassavetes version of Guy found his neighbors to be weirdos at first, but gradually depended on them more and more, and while he seemed to harbor some regret over his actions at the very end (when he turns away, post birth), he was with them until that point, as Rosemary grew more and more mistrusting. Here, there's a period where he's at odds with Roman (Jason Isaacs); there's a baby shower scene where Rosemary is all grateful to them, but he's cold and has a face-off with Roman in the bathroom - this momentarily gave me hope (well, as much hope as I could muster three hours into the damn thing) that they'd do something really different and, even if it didn't work, give us a new experience for the grand finale. But alas, before long he's back on their side with her against them, and the movie's final 20 minutes or so play out almost word for word as the 1968 one did, save for a useless epilogue.

Oh, and (spoiler) a few shots of the baby, something Polanski left up to our imagination. This isn't a "he did it so you must do it too!" thing that I'm annoyed by (if anything I like remakes that do as much different as possible while retaining the basic story), but it's just dumb, because they retain the "He has his father's eyes" thing and when we see the baby it's just that the eyes are really blue. It's not a cheat, as the actor playing the Devil has striking blue eyes (indeed, he is credited as "Blue-eyed man"), but it's a giant shrug of a "reveal", and again, I can't imagine who'd be satisfied with this. The credits say that the movie is based on both the original novel and Levin's batshit sequel "Son of Rosemary" (where the now grown baby has 12 disciples and a betrayer named "Judith"!), which I kept hoping would actually play into the movie somehow, but ultimately, it just does the same thing as the original, albeit in nearly twice the time (again, with commercials).

So what do they do to fill up that other time? Well, lots of dream sequences, a friend for Rosemary (who meets her end in a scene that MUST have come from Wong's part of the script, as it's a Final Destination-y sequence of accidents resulting in a gruesome/funny demise), and other stupid stuff like that, plus a lengthy portion at the top where we have to get Rosemary and Guy into the building next to the Castavets. Rather than just have them move in so they can, you know, get on with the goddamn plot, first we meet them in LA, where she has a miscarriage. Then they go to Paris, and live in a dinky apartment. Then Rosemary gets robbed, and finds another wallet, which leads her to the Castavets, who invite them to a party and give them a cat, and then their apartment catches on fire, so finally THEN, some 40 minutes or so in, our protagonists move next door to the antagonists so we can start the part of the movie anyone who knows the story knows is going to happen. Going into prequel territory can actually work sometimes (it's working out great for Hannibal, which was bizarrely not advertised very much during the movie even though it should attract the same audience), but none of this really has any weight, because it's all just getting pieces into place and delaying the inevitable without giving us anything to really chew on in the meantime.

Another baffling choice was to cast Jason Isaacs as Roman. I love the guy, but unlike the original version of the character, you'll never understand why Rosemary OR Guy would ever trust him - he's Lucius goddamn Malfoy! He LOOKS sinister and even acts it, with his acts of generosity always coming off in the same way a mobster might when he offers to protect your business, before reminding you that you owe him. I kept thinking that they were just trying to fool us; maybe he'd turn out to be a mole within the group or something (or just doing like Snape, acting evil just to gain the real threat's trust), but no. It's just yet another of the many decisions that I don't disagree with just on principle, only on execution.

And that's the thing - I was actually kind of intrigued by the idea of doing a modern update of this story. All of my favorite horror movies (Halloween, Dawn of the Dead, Texas Chainsaw, and even Carpenter's The Thing, sort of) have been remade, so it's not like I can get mad about one I quite like but probably wouldn't place in my top 50 all time favorite films (just horror, sure, but spanning all genres - there would probably only be like 10 horror films in there, actually). Plus, it's 46 years old at this point; we live in a world where we get remakes in under 20 years sometimes (or less if you go beyond horror; Amazing Spider-Man came along a mere 10 years after Raimi's version), so it's not like they were jumping the gun on anything. Also, and maybe this is most important (so of course I'll bury it at the end of my review), my own son will be born in just four weeks, and it's getting to the point where I get choked up over even the SLIGHTEST upsetting parent/baby issue in a movie or show because I'm so excited/worried about the upcoming arrival. So there's never been a better time for me to get taken in by this story, but it was so flat and uninvolving, I barely ever even made the connection. I think the extent of my identifying with the movie was noting that having a baby shower on a ship was a weird idea since they'd have a lot of gifts, remembering that it took me a while to bring ours in from the car. That's just a total failure on their part.

Based on the ratings, you all skipped this thing, and I doubt they'll rerun it anytime soon. I'm sure it'll end up on disc someday, but I urge you to avoid it unless you're a Saldana completist. It's possible that someone can update the story and do a great job with it, something even the people who consider Polanski's version to be their favorite movie of all time can at least respect if not love, but this certainly ain't it. Even the TV version of The Shining managed to get a few things right; this is just a complete waste of time that seems hellbent on reinforcing purists' belief that it was an awful idea to even try.

What say you?

*Silence of the Lambs is probably safe for a while as well thanks to rights issues; the TV show might do a VERSION of it, but it'll be without Clarice.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Doc Of The Dead (2014)

MAY 5, 2014

GENRE: DOCUMENTARY, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: STREAMING (ONLINE SCREENER)

If a documentary's worth was measured in the number of A-list talking heads it got to discuss its subject, then Doc of the Dead would be a must-see. Over 80 or so minutes you get to hear Bruce Campbell, George Romero, Stuart Gordon, Simon Pegg, and even Alex Cox give their thoughts on the surging popularity of the zombie sub-genre, its history, and how their own contributions fit into this particular world (Campbell stresses that zombies and Deadites are different, but that the Evil Dead films have both). Unfortunately for its filmmakers, this is NOT how we judge a doc (or, at least, we shouldn't), but rather by how well it explores its topic or presents a new take on the subject - and in this regard it falls flat.

Now to be fair, I've read more on this topic and seen more films in the zombie sub-genre than the average person, so I don't go in expecting to learn much or even find out about an older film I missed along the way, though it's always a nice bonus if I do. For example, Going to Pieces explored the slasher sub-genre, which I'm even MORE "tuned into", and there were still a few nuggets of info I never knew before, and it was the first time I heard about Pieces, funnily enough. But apart from some indies that don't look all that exciting, there was nothing here to discover; if anything there were some major oversights - not sure how Plague of the Zombies (1966, i.e. a couple years before NOTLD) got skipped over, or why Zombieland wasn't given any credit for helping to bring them to the mainstream. To be fair, it's more of an exploration of all kinds of zombie culture (books, the popularity of "zombie walks", etc), but when they spend time going into non essential elements like the Big Daddy zombie from Land of the Dead, it's strange to see such glaring oversights when they're specifically focusing on how zombies made the transition from voodoo-driven "drones" in films like White Zombie to the overexposed phenomenon they are today.

But that's also part of the problem - the movie lacks focus, attempting to cover far too many things within a 90 minute feature. Worse, there's no flow to the topics at all; they will just suddenly drop one topic and go into another. I get why you'd want to get to footage of (blockbuster) World War Z as soon as possible, but why do they bring up the real world voodoo practices (one of the film's better segments) long after they discuss White Zombie and the like? Wouldn't it make more sense to segue from the real world practices to the films that drew from these traditions, instead of going back nearly a half hour later? And why does the entire last 20 minutes or so focus on zombie survivalist folks, a topic likely to bore an audience that was drawn in by the likes of Romero and Pegg (who barely appear at this point)? It's funny to see Tom Savini dismiss them for being "prepared" for a zombie outbreak with their supplies and bunkers, but for rational thinking folks, all this does is give them an excuse to shut the movie off prematurely.

And again, by jumping around so much, they can't really dig deep into any given topic, so I'm not even sure who the audience for the movie is. I joked on Twitter that it was probably for the people who still need that scene in a zombie movie where they have to "figure out" that a shot to the head is the only way to do them in (usually, with respect to Return of the Living Dead), but that's actually kind of true. If you've seen maybe one zombie movie or heard good things about Walking Dead (which, unsurprisingly, is given lots of attention), it might be an OK primer for what is a very expansive topic, but they don't make a strong enough case for why they've endured, or why any of the specific things are important. Italian zombie movies are skipped entirely, so if you didn't know better this movie would have you believe that George Romero's Dead films were pretty much the only ones that existed between 1968 and 2002 (when 28 Days Later and Resident Evil came along), and they barely even make a case for why HIS films are so significant (Dawn in particular is glossed over). There's very little in the way of critical analysis of the sub-genre's heavy-hitters; if the movie is aimed at complete n00bs on the subject, fine - but why aren't you making an effort to explain why so many people worship at the altar of Dawn of the Dead?

See, that's my problem with these "jack of all trades, master of none" style documentaries - it's fine to show that there's more to zombies than just some old movies and an AMC show, but when you're just scratching the surface, there has to be something in there to convince the audience to dig deeper on their own. Had I not known anything about the undead, and just watched this movie, I'd walk away with the understanding that people sure like zombies, but precious little explanation WHY. And due to all of the topic skipping, I wouldn't even know where to start to learn more - they don't even differentiate between the value of something like Day of the Dead and the XXX Walking Dead parody (which features Rick convincing Carl to fuck a zombie). Speaking of clips, it seems the director didn't take advantage of the fair use law when it comes to making his points; how else to explain why his examples of werewolf and slasher films are Werewolf in a Girl's Dormitory and Scream Bloody Murder - hardly the sort of "go-to" examples one would use unless all they had their disposal was a Mill Creek budget pack. Also, not for nothing, but getting Max Brooks for your film and showing clips from World War Z without going into how much different the film is from his book just seems like a giant wasted opportunity.

That's actually the movie in a nutshell: there are so many topics that could probably make for a good doc on their own, and Doc of the Dead glosses over them in favor of just throwing more shit at us (like Campbell officiating a zombie wedding). It's fun at times, but by refusing to spend more than 5 minutes on anything before abruptly jumping into another topic, it serves no real purpose. It's basically 90 minutes of scattered anecdotes; if you are still inclined to check it out, know you can hit the chapter skip button (or just shut it off after a while) and you won't really miss out on anything of significant value.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Blood Glacier (2013)

APRIL 30, 2014

GENRE: MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (SCREENER)

Halfway or so through Blood Glacier I realized something kind of amusing: it was a better remake/prequel of The Thing than the actual one we got in 2011. It's an ecologically based monster instead of an alien, but it's impossible to ignore the similarities: a research team in the middle of a frozen nowhere is besieged by a variety of monsters with almost no chance of escape, and there's even a scene where three men are awkwardly sat on a couch listening to another talk, framed exactly like the one in Carpenter's film (albeit without such a glorious punchline). Oh, and dog lovers might want to steer clear or at least keep a finger near the fast forward button if watching at home, just fair warning. A bit of The Mist creeps its way in as well, making this a feast for monster movie fans - it draws from the best while still giving us something we haven't seen before.

The title is kind of misleading, however - the titular glacier is not the real menace of the film, but instead where it originated. I had visions of a Blob like glacier terrorizing our heroes (sort of like THIS!), but what happens is, the "blood" that oozes from the glacier infects people and wildlife, which is why we get a variety of creatures - director Martin Kren offers us something different in nearly every big sequence, from insects to slug like things to a giant condor like thing. Any one of these infected creatures would make for an intriguing movie villain, but by offering them all (and others) it keeps you on your toes and pumps up the variety in a surprising way. It's sort of like Frogs in that regard; they were hardly the only antagonist (or would it be protagonist?) in that movie, letting turtles and snakes and whatever else get in on the action.

Another thing I appreciated was that it doesn't get too preachy with the ecological message. Some text at the beginning is the most direct the film gets to placing blame anywhere; in the narrative itself it's an issue they have to deal with, and nothing more. We get an explanation for HOW it's formed (infected blood mixing in the stomach with other things the host body ate, producing a new organism - it's awesome), but no specific party is to blame for the toxin (and it's HUMANITY'S fault that the ice has melted enough to set it free). Had they gone the Prophecy (bear, not angel) route and introduced a human villain specifically responsible for the monster, I don't think it would work nearly as well as it does. That said, I would love to see more eco-horror; the 70s produced its fair share of them, but there haven't been many since. With all the issues we deal with now (and more scientific proof that they're not just theoretical fears), I think the sub-sub-genre can really thrive, but it needs something bigger than a German-language monster movie (or a found footage movie dumped by Blumhouse) to really come to prominence. Maybe Godzilla can kinda sorta pave the way?

But really, the film's strength is that it does things right. The glacier is found within the first ten minutes, after we've been introduced to some (not all) of our protagonists. There's a bit of humor, some suspense, some suspense WITH humor (I don't know if there's an award for best pissing scene in a horror, or best punchline to said pissing, but if so this movie's got a lock on the win), and a big cast of folks (of different ages, but thankfully no kids) that Kren isn't trying to kill seconds after their introduction, putting this firmly alongside Tremors as the best kind of monster movie. You don't want to see anyone die, and the filmmakers let them escape the monsters time and time again, peppering a few deaths along the way to keep the stakes high, but never reducing it down to people you know will live.

And the scenery keeps changing as often as the monsters, as we divide our time between the group at the science base and a motley group making their way there (including the ex wife of one of the base guys, giving it some human drama that, shockingly, actually benefits the movie instead of dragging it down, though to get into specifics would be spoiler territory). So you'll get some time at the base, maybe a quick scare, and then it's off to the others who are dealing with their own problems (read: different monsters). They don't all meet up until almost the one hour mark, which works splendidly - by then we are invested in the situation that spending the rest of the time in one spot isn't an issue. In fact, I only had one issue of note, but it's at the very end and thus I can't get into it for fear of spoilers (it's a payoff to the human drama thing I mentioned earlier, but a very odd one that should result in too many questions from the other characters).

That's it though! Everything else worked as intended, and I had a damn fun time watching - even the appearance of the title was enjoyable! Kren's previous film, Rammbock, was enjoyable but too slight (64 minutes with credits) to really make an impression, so this is a much better showcase of his talents, offering an exciting story in a sub-genre that isn't overused, some unique monsters (a blend of CGI and practical), and a few deaths that rival the best of the Feast series. IFC is putting it out, which means you probably won't be able to see it theatrically unless you live in a big city - but if you're one of those lucky folks grab a bunch of friends and enjoy on the big screen. Otherwise just settle for VOD or whatever; it's worth the cost.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...