Big Bad Wolf

SEPTEMBER 12, 2007

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

Yet another movie that was negatively recommended to me, Big Bad Wolf was actually pretty damn fun. As I’ve said before, I usually dislike werewolf movies, but I had a good time watching this, despite some groan-inducing moments, plus a big fuck you from the DVD company, who play some trailers when you hit the “PLAY MOVIE” option from the main menu. Remember kids: a movie and a trailer for other movies from the same company are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FUCKING THINGS.

Like I said, it’s not a perfect film. The wolf makes wisecracks, most of which are pretty terrible. Luckily there’s only about a dozen in the film. There’s also a truly idiotic moment where a guy breaks into the bad guy’s office to retrieve a DNA report the bad guy had stolen from him. Not only does he stick around to read the thing rather than just take it and leave, but then he stops to take a photo of it! It’s YOUR fucking report dude! Then he gets even STUPIDER, sticking around even longer by sending a text message! Christ. And while the werewolf is a genuine man in suit for the most part, the CG transformation is pretty bad (though we only have to see it once, and it’s quick).

Otherwise the movie is much better than I expected. Not only is it impossible to dislike a film that even features, let alone stars Richard Tyson (Buddy!), but there’s a lot of decent twists to what could have been a very generic movie. The first 10 minutes or so would have you believe that the film was going to be the umpteenth variation on the “A bunch of kids in a cabin get killed one by one by a monster” story, but then suddenly almost all the kids are gruesomely killed and the movie becomes more like The Stepfather (not surprising since a character’s name is Joe Ruben), implementing a surprising bit of suspense into the proceedings as the bland lead and his super cute (but unfortunately over-facially-pierced) would-be girlfriend go about trying to prove his asshole stepfather is in fact a wisecracking, refreshingly non CGI werewolf.

And the fairly-originality doesn’t stop there. The werewolf rapes one of the dumb girls, which elicits the response “She was a virgin you monster!”, and the ending is a bit of a downer. But most importantly, the movie comes up with the single best way to ‘prove’ the main suspect is a werewolf. I don’t want to give it away, but let’s just say it includes the love interest of the protagonist blowing his stepdad in order to get his DNA.

Oh, wait. Sorry.

There’s actually a lot of off-kilter sexuality in the film. In addition to the oral (the resulting fight between the girl and the kid is pretty amazing as well, with lines like “I’ll give you a call if I need someone to fuck him to death!”, complete with sad music) and the werewolf rape, there’s also a character who enjoys kinky sex with his girlfriend (the cute lead from the otherwise execrable Dead Man’s Hand), asking her if she will watch him jerk off while he wears her underwear (!!!). Later, they are making love against a tree and she keeps muttering how she can’t feel anything. What the hell? I’m surprised the director didn’t work in any incest while he was it (though there is a hint that the main kid’s uncle has designs on his brother’s wife).

There’s some other minor in-jokes and some decent gore throughout the film, adding to the enjoyment. And the end credits song is one of the best alt-rock power ballads I have heard in the end credits of a horror film since Brother Cane’s ‘And Fools Shine On’ in Halloween 6. Unfortunately the commentary is a total bore, as the director merely praises everyone (including the boom operator, and more than once) and points out filming locations and things that were shot after principal photography. Dude, you made a movie where a girl has to blow her boyfriend’s step-dad to prove he’s a werewolf; no one watching it gives a rat’s fucking ass that the driveway is in Griffith Park while the house is in Topanga.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Halloween Night (2006)

SEPTEMBER 11, 2007

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Horror fans are probably familiar with the Asylum company, sort of a poor man’s Full Moon who usually produce quick knockoffs of big budget Hollywood films. Some titles include Snakes on a Train, When A Killer Calls, etc. So it’s almost sort of a big step for them to produce Halloween Night, a film that obviously owes its existence to Carpenter's classic and its sequels (particularly Resurrection, for some goddamn reason), yet was produced and released in 2006, a year without a Halloween sequel that unsuspecting folks might mistake it for. Bravo, Asylum!

That’s not to say that the film is very good, mind you. But it’s far from a train wreck. The production value is decent, the HD DV work is well shot (looks great on an upscaled DVD player), the main theme is pretty good, and there are some nice kills (complete with mostly effective gore) sprinkled throughout. And while most of the actors are as bland as they come (and most of them resemble better actors: there’s a fake James Franco, a fake Breckin Meyer, a fake Erica Durance…) the lead actor, Derek Osedach (himself a fake Evan Goldberg), is like the Olivier of non-acting. He doesn’t act in the film so much as he just sort of hangs out in it, and nearly all of his lines are delivered in a sort of muttering, half-assed manner. It’s pretty much the exact way I would act if I was the lead actor in a direct to video movie about yet another escaped mental patient hacking up some folks in an isolated house. I was completely entranced by his pseudo-performance throughout the entire film.

However, the script has some giant lapses in both logic and pacing. For example, the film stops cold halfway through for a nonsensical prank that the lead and two of his friends are trying to pull off. The fact that the prank makes not one iota of sense AND is needlessly complicated (it involves having a distant friend annoy people at the party, a medieval torturer, fake cops, fake cop CARS, a roadblock…) would be fine if it didn’t go on for so long and stinks of padding. Plus, in a moment that rivals the scene in Halloween: Resurrection where Busta Rhymes ‘punks’ Michael Myers; the killer joins in on the prank, allowing himself to be held hostage, drive off with another guest, etc. It’s completely ludicrous, overlong, and only exists to get all the other partygoers out of the house, something Scream managed with a simple line of dialogue. And the ending is also lifted from Resurrection, as the killer swaps himself with another guy who ends up being killed by the heroine. One would assume it was just coincidence, but the writer is in fact a Fangoria writer, who would certainly be familiar with the films in question (and should know better than to recycle the lamest horror clichés, but that’s a whole other argument). There’s also a few too many homophobic slurs – it made sense in Hostel, here it just seems childish.

There are more than a few unanswered questions at the end of the film. Where did the Kendall character go? Why does Osedach carry a pinecone around with him for most of the film? Why does NO one notice that the killer (who they usually believe to be one of the other characters) has different (and quite visible) eyes than their friends? Why is the killer completely covered in burns when we see that he was merely blasted in the face with steam? And why is the fucking stereo/5.1 option placed inside the extra features, leading me to watch the film in bullshit stereo for the first 20 minutes?

I wouldn’t go so far as to RECOMMEND the film, but hey, like I said yesterday, so long as there’s evidence that the filmmakers are paying attention to what they are doing (though, like yesterday’s film, there’s a bizarre moment where the aspect ratio changes to 2.35:1) and I am more or less entertained, I am inclined to at least give the film a pass. I’ll never watch it again, but I’ve seen far worse just this month.

And there’s occasional lesbian action.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Fright Club

SEPTEMBER 10, 2007

GENRE: ANTHOLOGY, CRAP
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Yesterday, I got some constructive feedback from a blogger who apparently signed up just to provide his or her insight without being anonymous (much appreciated – down with anonymous!!!). Some of his/her choice comments were “You suck” “fuck, fuck”, and “Wow, you really suck.” Amidst these carefully and thoughtfully written posts was “Stop reviewing horror films.” Well, as I often do when a movie is as awful as Fright Club, I looked for other reviews of the film before writing my own, to make sure I wasn’t watching a practical joke someone had slipped into the DVD instead of an actual film someone thought enough of to release to a paying public. And I couldn’t find any! Not a single review on any DVD or review site. The IMDb message board only had one message, and Bloody-Disgusting had no information on the film at all. So I am sorry, opposer of me, but if I don’t review this thing, I ask you, who else will?

I should also probably take the time to explain my philosophy (I use the term as loosely as the word can possibly be used) behind reviewing a movie. The most important thing is story. Giving me something I haven't seen before will almost always please me. But if the story is nothing new, I simply judge a film based on how well it presents the story it is telling. Which is why, despite its status as one of the most hated films of all time, I really enjoy Armageddon. I know it’s a fucking stupid movie, and I’ve never claimed otherwise. But I defy anyone to make a superior version of a film about oil drillers flying into space to blow up an asteroid the size of Texas. The film is technically sound, doesn’t take me out of the narrative due to pointless cameos or incomprehensible camera/sound work, and delivers what it promises (the asteroid is indeed blown up). And since it is obviously a film that was made with genuine care and effort (the last thing you can ever accuse Bay and his crew of is being lazy), I am a lot more forgiving of its other faults (implausible story, cheesy ballads, silly dialogue, etc.). But if the film doesn't provide either originality OR technical competence, why the hell should I give it a pass?

You might say that I am too hard on some of these low budget horror films. Maybe, but think about it: would you read a book that had typos, varying fonts, and uneven page sizes? When someone reviews a film on the internet and it contains numerous typos, what’s the first thing someone says? “Why should I listen to you, you can’t even spell or use punctuation.” I approach a film the same way. There’s a difference between not having a lot of money and not having any respect for the audience. Unless you are telling an original story (which this certainly isn’t), making a film when you obviously do not have the money to make it right just means you’re just looking for a quick buck, a cynicism that will always translate onto the screen. And if you simply MUST make a generic movie, for the love of Christ, at least make it professionally. I don’t care if you have two dollars or two hundred million, there is no excuse for the lack of competence on display here.

For starters, the film doesn’t even have a consistent aspect ratio. It’s an anthology, and the 1st story is presented in 1.85:1, even though the rest of the film is presented full frame (and bizarrely, at one point there’s a shot of the moon, likely stolen from another film, presented at 2.35:1). It doesn’t cost a goddamn thing to give all your film footage the same dimensions, so it’s not a budgetary limitation. If the filmmakers are so lazy that they can’t even crop, mask, or zoom into their footage in order to present it in a consistent and professional manner, why the hell should I care about what’s on screen?

Especially if what IS onscreen are boom mikes, dime-store vampire teeth, and a police station that is represented by a portable wardrobe and a card table. And a wrap around segment shot through a visibly dirty lens. Yet, none of that is as idiotic as when a vampire character, realizing his reflection is beginning to fade, ALSO fades from sight, along with his reflection, due to the effects guy clearly not understanding the basic principles of simple compositing.

The film is chockfull of laugh out loud moments like that. There’s another scene in a tattoo parlor where they try to “spook” us by zooming into a tattoo on the wall of a wolf (the story is an urban retelling of Little Red Riding Hood). So what? It’s just a generic tattoo display. There’s probably a dragon next to it. It doesn’t mean a goddamn thing. Another character explains his new style of music: “It combines hip hop with gothic. I call it Goth-Hop!” Inventive.

Plus, like many other anthology films, the stories are being told by characters in a wraparound segment. But if you think about that while we watch these stories, you realize that to the people listening, the story is needlessly incomprehensible. This is especially true in the middle story, which includes layered flashbacks and recalls. So the storyteller is saying “At this point, we return to the present, where the police captain says once again, that the dead people couldn’t be vampires. So then we cut back to a scene we saw earlier…” And why are they padding their own narratives? “Then the main character goes to a hip hop club, where he watches a girl dance for a bit. Then he leaves the club and the plot resumes.”

Still, the movie offers one highlight. The film is ostensibly about a group of the director’s friends who are trying to enter the “Fright Club”. To gain entrance, they have to tell scary stories. After the 3rd and final story, the guy in charge says “You are not worthy of Fright Club.” “Those were our best stories!” they exclaim. Well then no wonder you’re not allowed! If those were your BEST stories, I’d hate to hear your worst. Christ.

Then they all get eaten as the main guy cackles, the film ends, and I wonder if I should apologize to the filmmakers of Vampire Assassin(s) and A Brush With Death, films that are positively Kubrickian in their professionalism in comparison to this wretched piece of shit. It’s movies like that that make me wish that the money men would just meet up with other money men and combine their projects into one. Had the makers of this film and say, I dunno, Death Row, pooled their money together, we’d have 1 generic but probably passable ‘urban’ horror movie instead of 2 colossally bad and totally useless ‘urban’ horror movies.

And to the guy who said I should stop reviewing horror movies – believe me, after a movie like this, I am inclined to agree.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Tell Me Something (aka Telmisseomding)

SEPTEMBER 9, 2007

GENRE: ASIAN, SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Like them or not, the one thing I have always enjoyed about Asian horror films is that they are far from run of the mill. They might not make a lick of sense at times, but damned if they aren’t trying to provide the horror genre with SOMETHING we haven’t really seen before.

Such is NOT the case with Tell Me Something, a film that’s only real surprise is how dull and uninvolving it is. Combining parts from Seven, Silence of the Lambs, Jennifer 8 (?!?!?) and all the other American films that ripped THOSE films off, only the occasional gruesome sight and familiar soundtrack lift make this a two hour trek worth taking.

Yes, for some reason, while the film is set in Korea and stars only Koreans, the soundtrack is straight out of a Dimension film. The Scream theme, a.k.. “Red Right Hand” from Nick Cave, plays a few times, and there are also appearances by Placebo and Enya, as well as some Bach and Mendelssohn to balance things out. Part of the fun of watching a foreign film, at least for me, stems from the introduction to their culture, and that includes soundtrack selections. But here, I’m constantly reminded of Scream. Whatever.

Like I said, there’s also a few nice gore setpieces that can reignite viewer interest. A garbage bag filled with body parts spills over a crowded elevator early on, and then later, another bag causes a bloody, massive car accident. Good stuff.

But the story itself is a bore. I guess it’s good to know that vague, dark, dirty cities in Korea are also stalked by mysterious killers who leave cryptic clues for cops to find in the middle of a downpour, and that their cops will begin to get “too close” to the case by falling for a key witness, and that they also have an abundance of burnt out factories and condemned apartment buildings to search, but otherwise there’s little new to offer here. And if you haven’t figured out or just assumed the twist ending beforehand, ANYONE can figure it out simply by looking at the ‘time remaining’ display and realizing there’s only one character left alive and 15 minutes to go.

And even though the film is overlong, it would be even longer had it been edited correctly. Several scenes end jarringly, as if there was still another line or two to be spoken, or at least a reaction to what was being revealed, that somehow got removed. “Where did you find that?” someone might say, and then SLAM! We instantly cut to the next scene, as the cop is investigating the next clue. It’s really annoying both in a storytelling and an editing sense.

But still, if you’ve never seen a film before, you might enjoy it I guess.

I also must point out the insulting manufacturing of the DVD. Being a foreign film, you have the option of a dubbed track or the original, as well as corresponding subtitles. But the menu programming is seemingly done by folks who never actually saw a DVD before. In addition to not including a “Play” option right from the setup menu, like every other DVD ever made, it also automatically goes back to highlighting “Korean” regardless of what option you pick, instead of “Main” (or “Play”, if it was actually there). Making matters worse, you cannot switch the audio or sub tracks while the film is playing, nor is there a “Resume” option on the main or setup menus (another button you would expect due to the fact that every other DVD developer in history took the time to include it). Now, this wouldn’t be a problem, but I decided to watch it dubbed because I wasn’t in the mood to read the movie. This proved impossible, however, as the dubbing was fucking atrocious, not to mention seemingly only done by about 4 people, making some scenes incomprehensible because the same guy would be doing both sides of a conversation. So I tried to switch it to Korean with English subs, but I had to go back to the main menu to do so, then fast forward back to where I left off. Assholes. Then, making matters worse YET AGAIN, the subtitles dipped below the image, into the black, which meant I couldn’t zoom in to correct the non-anamorphic image (at this point I almost expect the DVD producer to ignore us silly folks who spent upwards of a thousand dollars in order to watch their films in superior quality), because the subtitles would be cropped out as a result. And at one point, the sound just disappears entirely for two minutes. When a DVD is so un-user friendly and shoddily produced, it’s like they are saying “Fuck you” to the person who bought it.

Well you know what? Fuck you too, Kino On Video.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Bride (1985)

SEPTEMBER 8, 2007

GENRE: MAD SCIENTIST, REMAKE
SOURCE: CABLE (HDNET MOVIES)

Also known as "That Frankenstein movie that stars Sting for some goddamn reason", The Bride is another one of those films where I wasn't sure if it was even a horror or not. Sure, it's a re-telling of the Frankenstein story, but the description referred to it as a drama about feminism (!!!). However, the opening scene, which assumes everyone knows the Frankenstein story by now and simply begins with Frank making a bride for his Monster, has blood, a crazy head that babbles, and some makeup effects, so I think it will do for this.

You gotta appreciate a fairly unique take on the story, which is a minor remake of Bride of Frankenstein. While Frank (renamed Charles for some goddamn reason) teaches the Bride (named Eva) how to talk, eat properly, and read Shakespeare, the Monster (Clancy Brown, great as always) teams up with a midget to steal from churches and join a circus. These scenes are vastly more interesting than the ones with Sting and Jennifer Beals, since A. they aren't very good actors and B. come off as a gothic version of My Fair Lady a bit too often for my tastes.

Also the opening credits promise Cary Elwes, but he doesn't show up until about halfway through, around the time Beals hilariously shrieks at the sight of a cat ("I thought it was a tiny lion."). Elwes plays the same sort of vague non-villain he always does, and oddly disappears without any sort of conclusion to his character arc a few scenes later. You don't fucking do that to Wesley!

There's also some other totally dropped plot threads, such as The Monster and Eva's apparent psychic link, which seemingly comes and goes at random. I never understood things like this in a film. You have to assume that other scenes concerning these subplots were filmed and then dropped, but doesn't anyone involved with the production ever notice that as a result, their film looks unfocused and incomplete? If a half asleep asshole who has trouble following the plot of Heroes can notice, everyone should!

Still, the film offers two delightful bonuses. One is a great twist on the "Monster meets a blind man" scene that seemingly finds its way into every Frankenstein movie, and the other is full frontal nudity (and an ass shot) of a female character in a PG-13 film!!! Hey-o!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Hatchet (2007)

SEPTEMBER 7, 2007

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

A quick search of Hatchet will reveal I’ve plugged the film some 49059785 times on this blog, but now that it’s actually in theaters (!!!) I feel I should back up my praise.

Suffice to say, this will be one of the easiest reviews I’ve ever written.

Quite simply, Hatchet is the type of movie that can re-ignite someone’s interest in slasher films, after said interest had been all but completely annihilated by lame sequels (Halloween: Resurrection, I am looking at you), unfocused remakes of slasher classics (do I even need to name an example?), or worse, failed “throwback” alleged slasher movies like Dark Ride, Drive Thru, and A Brush With Death.

Those last examples are the worst offenders. The filmmakers are seemingly of the impression that all you need in order to make an effective slasher ‘homage’ to the classics of the early 80s is excessive gore, idiotic characters, and rampant nudity. The problem is, they are missing one very large and important ingredient: basic CHARM. There is absolutely nothing endearing about Drive Thru, a film which constantly insults its audience, is cynically produced on every level, and rips off other films blind without even the slightest bit of evidence that the filmmakers understand why those older films have endured. When some new format comes along to replace DVD, Halloween and Black Christmas will be upgraded to the new format due to fan demand and appreciation. Dark Ride will not be so lucky.

Hatchet, however, will be placed along those aforementioned classics (at least, if there’s any justice in the world). Because writer/director Adam Green succeeded where many others have failed, and made a film that not only oozes with genuine appreciation for the genre, but also proves that a new slasher film can be made in the post-Scream era.

For starters, Green has taken the time to infuse his script with genuine CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. Shocking, I know, but it’s true. Sure, there are a few characters that you’ll want to smack in the mouth more than once, but even those folks are given more than ample time to grow, resulting in the rare slasher film that will actually make you feel bad when one of them dies. But therein lies part of the genius of Green’s script. No one is simply stabbed or whatever. No, Victor Crowley literally tears apart most of his victims, making each death scene unique and memorable. So while you like the characters, you’ll still cheer at their demise because of the basic awesomeness of it all.

In addition, the movie is flat out FUNNY. And the humor is genuine and natural, thanks largely to the well above average performances of Deon Richmond, Perry Shen, and Joel David Moore (who endeared himself to me by wearing a Newbury Comics shirt throughout the entire film - I love a good New England shoutout). They aren’t winking at the audience, or turning the film into a parody, they are just REAL. One of the funniest lines in the film simply comes from Richmond’s affinity for a particular Denny’s meal. Nearly all of the jokes sound like something any normal human would say, as opposed to something like Jason X, where someone watches their close friend die on a random corkscrew and then says “He’s screwed.” That’s not funny, and no one would ever actually say that (well I might, but I'm an unfeeling asshole). But Moore’s “Oh you gotta be fucking KIDDING ME!” is something anyone might say in the situation, and I laughed just as much the 2nd time as I did the first (a rarity for ANY movie humor for me). The balance between humor and horror is near perfect, with one never overpowering the other.

So are there any flaws? Well, no, not really. Some might wish the killing would start a bit earlier (despite its marketing campaign, the film’s pace is closer to that of the original Halloween than a Friday the 13th sequel), but that didn’t bother me in the slightest, as I enjoyed ‘hanging out’ with these characters. And the carnage and mayhem that ensues is nearly nonstop once it starts, which should more than make up for any ADD viewer’s problem with going a half hour or so without any kills. I wish the marketing campaign had emphasized this a bit more, but oh well. It's also a bit short (82 minutes), so I would have liked maybe another obstacle or something to spread out the mayhem in the film's third act. Not that it feels rushed, but another 5 minutes or so certainly wouldn't be a problem with me.

Also, I should mention the gore. It’s been widely reported (well, on horror sites and messageboards anyway) that the film had to be edited to receive an R rating. Well that’s true, but I have seen both versions of the film, and I only noticed one cut. It’s still balls out gory, with plenty of blood spraying and limbs torn asunder in each and every kill. This isn’t My Bloody Valentine or Friday the 13th 7 (films that were rendered incomprehensible at times due to the MPAA hackery). Green and makeup supervisor John Carl Buechler (ironically, the director of F13 7, probably the most MPAA-abused film of all time) were smart enough to make the kill scenes WAY over the top, which gave them bargaining room with the MPAA. So let’s say in a normal slasher movie, the killer will take one or two hacks with a machete. The MPAA would say “no machete hacking can be seen”. Green and Buechler, on the other hand, had THIRTEEN machete hacks. So the MPAA allowed them four or five. The result? Four or five more machete hacks than you’d normally get.

I cannot stress enough how fucking good this movie is. I’ve watched 230 of these goddamn things in a row, and anyone who has read the site enough knows I very rarely flat out love a film. And more importantly, the film was made 100% independently, and even its theatrical release is born out of hard work and self promotion. Some of you might not even know the film is playing (there are no TV spots or billboards, and the trailer aired with few films). It’s only playing in about 80 cinemas, which almost guarantees that some of you won’t be able to see the film this weekend. But if the film does well over the next three days, it WILL open wider. Halloween Remake will be dropped by lots of theaters next weekend (the 14th-16th), and any theater would love to have a new horror movie take its place. If Hatchet performs well this weekend, you can almost guarantee that the film will be playing in your area in the next week or so.

And if it IS in your area, I IMPLORE you, PLEASE buy a ticket and show your support this weekend. If you’re reading this site, you must have an interest in horror movies, so there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn’t be interested in this. Come on, do you really want Halloween to be the only horror success story this year? Even if for some reason you dislike the movie (I’d LOVE to know why if that’s the case), you have to agree that we need more films like this in theaters. Much like the upcoming Wrong Turn 2, a film made without studio enforced limitations, and made by genuine horror fans, will always be better than committee-written, focus-group appealing studio shit.

Regardless of the film’s theatrical success, Adam Green and his crew deserve every prop in the world for getting the film into theaters in the first place. It’s like horror’s own version of Rocky. And if I haven’t sold you on the film yet, just Google “Adam Green” and “Dee Snider story”. It’s the story of how Adam’s inspiration to keep at his dream, of which Dee inexplicably played a huge part. He told it at Comic Con and damned if I didn’t almost shed a tear (something I NEVER do unless Bruce Willis is saving the world AND his daughter’s fiancée with one rip of an oxygen tube). If you watch that story and still aren’t inspired to check out what the fuss is all about, then you’re just not human, and there’s nothing else I can do to convince you that Hatchet is the best horror film in a very long time.

Oh wait, you also see Harmony from Buffy’s tits.

OK now I really got nothing left.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Toybox

SEPTEMBER 6, 2007

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, WEIRD
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Not that my genre classifications are in any way definitive, but I think the one for Slasher is pretty accurate. That said, The Toybox, described as a slasher on the back of the DVD, is NOT A FUCKING SLASHER MOVIE. Assholes. Just because some folks die (mostly offscreen, for the record), doesn’t make it a slasher movie. I don’t know what the hell it is, but it’s not a slasher.

It’s also not very good. There’s some good, even great ideas presented here, but they are horribly botched by the Peter Jackson wannabe camerawork, nonsensical plotting/structure, and giant plot holes. For example, at one point the main character is seen fading into invisibility as she walks from one house to another. Why? We never know. There are some occasional hints that she has magical powers, but if that’s true or not is never made clear. There’s also a scene where a guy types some quote on Microsoft Word for some reason, then reads it himself, which suddenly gives him an idea. What? Imagine writing down “I need pie" for no real reason, and then looking at it and saying “Hey, I need pie too!” and then running off to the store for some. That’s about as much sense as it makes.

The film also opens with a child’s game that neither makes sense, nor does it seem like a game any kid would find interesting. It’s called “Freddy’s Gone Missing”, and apparently the object of the game is to hide your pet mouse while the other kid covers his/her eyes. Then, once they open them, you say “Freddy’s Gone Missing!”, and the other kid goes “Where?” and then… you show them. Why have them cover their eyes if you immediately say where the goddamn thing is? How is that fun? Then, naturally, the stupid kid puts the mouse in the blender and then turns it on for some reason. Nice.

The rest of the movie combines the “dysfunctional family at the holidays” plot with the “brother is possessed by the spirit of an old legend, one that involves him anonymously sending his father pictures of clowns in the mail and quoting Black Sabbath” plot. In theory, fine, but while the movie begins quite good, it eventually just spins off the rails, to the point where it’s not only unclear as to what is going on, but also what the point is of anything that happens. It takes a certain kind of talent to tell a story that involves a masturbating grandfather, a mother who seduces her daughter’s boyfriend, a magic amulet, and occasional hints at a brother’s lust for his own sister, and yet make a film so dreadfully uninvolving. I wouldn’t even mention that the eponymous toybox never really figures into the plot, at least in any way that I can understand, but I just did.

The DVD’s mastering is equally inept: as the DVD starts there’s a trailer for a movie that looks just as pointless, only you can’t skip it. There’s also some inappropriate early 80’s new wave-y style music playing over the menu, and the commentary track (the discs only extra) is hidden in the setup page. What if someone had a regular TV with no surround sound – they’d have no reason to enter the setup menu, and thus would miss the commentary. Idiotic.

At least it’s anamorphic.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Sasquatch Hunters

SEPTEMBER 5, 2007

GENRE: CRAP, MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Sweet merciful Christ, who in the name of Zeus’ butthole puts the money up for shit like Sasquatch Hunters? Are they blind? Retarded? Jerks? All of the above??? Like I’ve said before, there is NOTHING wrong with making a movie when the primary goal is to make some green. That’s all Halloween was, but the difference is they made an excellent film at the same time (and so help you Jebus if you think “which version?”). It was original, it was technically incredible, and the cast was made up of actual actors.

You can’t say any of that about this goddamn thing though. Other than besting the woeful Trigger Man by also having three redneck-ish hunters, only giving them more dialogue and character development in 3 minutes than Ti West provided his characters with in the film’s entirety, there is absolutely nothing nice I can say about this movie.

Oh wait I take that back – the score, which is ridiculously inappropriate and quite obviously recycled from something else, is quite nice, sounding like a decent enough (and random enough to appreciate) cross between Jurassic Park and Meet Joe Black. There. And they killed off the most sympathetic character like halfway through. That’s all I will give you, movie.

For starters, the title doesn’t even make sense. The folks are not hunting sasquatches, they are simply wandering aimlessly around the woods looking for artifacts. Or maybe it means that the sasquatches themselves are the hunters? Well it doesn’t matter, because there are no sasquatches in the film, only animatics of a gorilla whose size changes from scene to scene.

I say animatics because there is no way in hell that these are supposed to be finished effects. I literally laughed out loud every single time they showed the goofy thing "running" around the forest in money-saving closeup. See, there’s a big difference between bad CG and a costume where you can see the zipper. With the zipper, there’s a sort of charm to the cheapness of it. And at least it shows they were sort of trying. But bad CG carries no such benefit. Bad CG (especially in a film where an occasional genuine monster suit is utilized) just screams of laziness and, well, dickishness. It doesn’t take much effort to at least composite your goofy CG gorilla with the background properly. The fucking cartoon robot I made for my still unfinished short film looked more realistic, and I didn’t have the benefit of money, investors, etc.

The acting is also abysmal from start to finish. Most annoying – the actors swear a lot, and yet they ALL manage to sound like a 4 year old saying ‘shit’ for the first time. It’s almost surreal that even after saying it 30 times, an actor can’t make a line like “We have to get the fuck out of here!” sound convincing. Since all of the kills are off screen (and the film has many TV movie style fade outs), you gotta wonder why they didn’t just tell the actors NOT to swear, since they don’t even know how, and make the film a PG thing for kids or Fox Family Channel viewers to enjoy. It would at least be less insulting.

The story of how I came to learn about this monstrosity is vastly more entertaining than the film itself. In line one day at Blockbuster, I began to chat with another patron who noticed I had Grudge 2 in my hand. “That movie stinks,” he told me. I explained that I enjoyed watching bad horror movies. He then said “Oh, I got one for you then. It’s about a Bigfoot, only there’s a bunch of them…” As he droned on, I began to suspect he was referring to Abominable, a film I not only enjoyed but was directed by a buddy of mine. As I was about to strike him (or, more likely, insult his stupid bald head) he said “I think it was called Sasquatch Hunters.” Crisis adverted; I queued the film the next day (and consider how long ago it was I watched Grudge 2, which should give you an idea of how long my queue is).

OK, maybe it wasn’t more entertaining than the film. But the point is, Abominable is a pretty good movie. And Grudge 2 was at least entertaining. This movie is a flaming pile of shit.

And once again, my movie for the day was non-anamorphic, just adding insult to fuckfacery.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Skeleton Key

SEPTEMBER 4, 2007

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: HDDVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Ah, The Skeleton Key. The latest (well, when it came out it was the latest) in a (too) long line of alleged horror movies starring respectable actresses. It seems they all have one, and they are all uniformly bad. And since this one is written by Ehren Kruger, one of the worst prolific screenwriters in recent memory (he also bestowed upon us Scream 3, Reindeer Games, and The Ring Two), I figured I would be in for one god awful ride.

So I was surprised to find the movie was merely dull. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone except Peter Sarsgaard completists, but I never once wanted to kick my TV and defecate on the disc, so there's something. And it's got sort of a downer ending, which is odd when you consider it's a big budget, big studio PG-13 horror movie.

Kate Hudson is damned hot when you can't see her ridiculous ears, and we even get some side boob, so the movie at least manages to occasionally hold your attention. But, and it seems like I've said this a million times, the film's story isn't complex or deep enough to warrant a full length film. This could have certainly been done in a Twilight Zone or Masters of Horror episode. By stretching it out to 1:40, we get lots of padding and extraneous shoe leather, not to mention a healthy dose of repetition.

As you may have noticed, I watched this on HD DVD. Which means I won't be watching the commentary or most of the extras, since I can't bring myself to listen to commentaries at home anymore. That's a "work watch". I did check out the deleteds, but they were mostly useless.

According to the Wikipedia page for this movie, "the house resembles the one used in the 2003 remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". No it fucking does not. And even if it did, how the hell is that trivia? Christ.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dead Man's Hand: Casino Of The Damned

SEPTEMBER 3, 2007

GENRE: COMEDIC, CRAP, GHOST
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

I believe it has been over 10 years since I have subjected myself to a Full Moon movie. I think the last one was Demonic Toys, a delightfully bad movie that features a line I often repeat, apropos of nothing: “I’ve been imprisoned in that corpse for 66 years.” Even as a kid, I never shined to FM’s filmmaking style – painfully low budget movies trying to be big budgeted movies. It just doesn’t work. If you only have $100,000 or so, maybe NOT make a movie about a miniature man fighting aliens, for example. Yet, I rented Dead Man’s Hand, assuming maybe either they have gotten better with age, or perhaps I would be more accepting of their style.

Nope.

This movie is even worse than the ones that made me shrug off the company in the first place. Not that I have a lot of good memories about dreck like Bad Channels or Arcade, but I don’t recall bad music playing NONSTOP over the entire goddamn movie, or idiotic subplots about a guy pretending to fuck his girlfriend so his friends won’t suspect that he is impotent, or dialogue like “You looking to get punched?” (said by an alleged ‘good’ guy to his girlfriend). Dead Man’s Hand has all this and more!

Let’s see, there’s the requisite cat hiding in the closet scare, only we don’t actually SEE the goddamn cat, only hear it (Movies On A Budget 101’s primary lesson!). There’s effects that look like they were rendered on a Commodore Amiga, acting that ranges from awful to terrible, and of course, ugly, laughable puppets like this:

Yep.

The ending is as lazy as they come. Sid Haig, playing the devilish ghostly casino dealer, makes a deal with the heroes. The heroes win, and then Haig... lives up to his end of the deal. Scary villain, huh? He literally shrugs, snaps his fingers, and disappears. The movie then ends.

Now, considering that none of the characters seem particularly frightened or even interested in the ghostly blackjack dealers who are wandering about killing their friends, one must assume the film isn’t meant to be taken seriously. Which is fine, except that there is only one genuine laugh in the entire movie (when a ghost bets for one character’s cookies – random enough to make me giggle), and everything else is painfully unfunny.

There’s also a scene at the beginning where the two heroes are canoodling and rambling about their upcoming marriage. After what seems like an eternity of this drivel (complete with the never ending, omnipresent score), the girl casually mentions their friends, who are revealed to have been sitting there the entire time. Kind of like that scene in Shaun of the Dead, only completely stupid and again, unfunny.

The only extra feature (oh, and the movie isn’t anamorphic either – thanks assholes) is a behind the scenes montage, mostly of interviews spliced with un-matching film clips (“We wanted to be original, and scary” – as they cut to an exterior shot of the casino). Band seems convinced he is making a worthy successor to The Shining, and everyone praises him, which would be less annoying if he wasn’t the producer of the goddamn thing (I’d like to be in the editing room when Band gave his approval of the piece. “I think we need just one more shot of someone saying how great I am, otherwise it’s great!”). There is also a full FIVE FUCKING MINUTES (more time than the film itself spends on the idea) of the cast and crew explaining the "Dead Man’s Hand" (aces and eights) over and over and over, sometimes even in the same goddamn phrasing. And then at the end, Band threatens us with Dollman 2 and Doctor Mordrid 2, as well as yet another fucking Puppet Master movie. Christ.

Main girl is cute though.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Driller Killer

SEPTEMBER 2, 2007

GENRE: EXPLOITATION, SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK!!!)

This review should be read LOUD!

How can a movie called Driller Killer be so goddamn boring? Come on! This one reminded me of Naked Massacre for some reason, but at least that film, itself no masterpiece, moved along fairly nicely. This one took FOREVER to get to the driller killering and then it moved so fast I couldn’t even understand what was happening at times.

The ending, however, is pretty sweet, and rescued this one out of the crap label. Like yesterday’s Alone With Her, it’s a downer ending. It’s also given one of the strangest cinematic presentations I can recall. The film fades to red and we simply listen to the climax. More ideas like that that could have made this film worthwhile.

The rest though is as generic as they come. There’s the usual padding, awful acting, nonsensical asides (why is Reno on the roof watching a guy get randomly stabbed?), kills that make little to no anatomical sense, etc. There IS a brief lesbian scene though, so there’s something. We are also given the world’s most over-populated band (there’s a scene where a couple of their back up singers fight some of their OTHER back up singers!!).

This one’s being remade. I am all for it. Remaking films that were good ideas done badly should be a lot more common than it is. I just hope that someone, someday, can make a decent movie out of Vampire$.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Alone With Her

SEPTEMBER 1, 2007

GENRE: BLANK FROM HELL, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

You gotta love that as apparently every horror fan in the world was in theaters watching a relatively big budget film with all the potential and resources in the world at its disposal turn out to be a total bore, I was watching Alone With Her, a film made for less than I make a year (that’s the REAL scary part) and starring Tom Hanks' son and the girl from that god awful My Boys show. The film managed to do all the things Zombie’s film failed to; namely: be suspenseful, disturbing, and take time to develop a goddamn character or two.

Storywise it’s your standard “Boy meets girl, boy becomes obsessed with girl, boy forces himself into her life” movie, but that’s not a concern of mine. The film is presented entirely via fixed angle cameras that the main character has placed around the girl’s apartment, or from another camera he has hidden inside his shirt button or something. So while some of the plot developments are pretty standard for the psycho stalker genre (pretends to like her favorite band, her best friend distrusts him, etc), the presentation is unique and near flawlessly implemented, which more than makes up for it. And more importantly, we get to know and care about the protagonist.

Also the ending not only surprised me, but also left me unsettled. Last time a movie did that? No idea, but it sure as hell wasn’t during the Horror Movie A Day period. Kudos to writer/director Eric Nicholas for doing what 200+ other horror movies have failed to do (which is, scare me).

It's a damnable shame this one didn’t do too well in its VERY limited theatrical run, but hopefully the DVD is doing well. Highly recommended!

P.S. the DVD includes an inferior alternate ending that some of you might prefer.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dracula's Daughter

AUGUST 31, 2007

GENRE: CLASSIC, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

One of the Scotts recommended Dracula’s Daughter after I pointed out how much I loved the part in Herzog’s Nosferatu where Van Helsing gets arrested for murder. I wish he had pointed out that the rest of the movie wasn’t as interesting, or that Van Helsing was needlessly renamed VON Helsing in the film. I like to be prepared.

Instead, DD, as its known to me, is otherwise pretty goddamn slow. There’s some interesting ideas thrown in here and there (not to mention some always welcome lesbian undertones), but there’s too many things copied from the original. There’s still a girl in peril, an aversion to “drinking… wine”, and a town full of folks who don’t seem to mind living in an area with an abnormally high fatality rate.

It’s also pretty lazy. It’s supposed to take place directly after the original, but technology is of the era the film was produced instead of from the period setting of the first film.

Not that it’s a bad film; it’s just there are only so many Dracula movies a man can take in one year. This makes I think 6. Enough I say!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Ghost (aka Lo Spettro)

AUGUST 30, 2007

GENRE: GHOST (?)
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK!!!)

Well The Ghost started off promisingly enough. The instant the film begins, someone says “That’s enough for tonight.” Who he is, what they are doing, and how long they have been doing it is none of our goddamn business. It’s enough, and that is all we need to know.

But then it goes downhill, as it’s a slow and fairly standard “Horrid shrew of a woman plots with her lover to kill her rich husband” movie. And there’s no ghost. When the title of a film only has one actual word, you’d think it would describe something in the movie. But not here. There’s a guy PRETENDING to be a ghost, but that doesn’t count. The end of the film is also too needlessly loaded with double-crosses. All of these people are despicable, so I don’t even know if the good guy ‘won’ or not.

Still, there’s enough here to warrant a view. The scene where Barbara Steele goes nuts and slashes one of the other characters to death is pretty gory for its day (1963 by my watch and warrant), and, well, it stars Barbara Steele. Mmm. There’s also an exchange that may or may not have given Jim Steinman the idea for one of his most famous songs:

“If you loved me you’d do anything.”
“Anything, yes. Not that.”

Hahahaha whoa! So maybe that’s what “that” is! Meat Loaf would do anything except plot to kill his lover’s husband in an attempt to get his gold! Oh Meat, you old softy.

There’s also a guy who sounds like Vincent Price, and another named Canon Owens. It’s a fairly stupid name (won't just Canon, or just Owens, suffice?), but it’s made even more nonsensical in the scene where he talks to the husband, who is named Dr. Hitchcock. For whatever reason, the two of them continually repeat each other’s name as they talk. So it’s like:

“Hi Dr Hitchcock.”
“Hi Canon Owens.”
“How are you, Dr Hitchcock?”
“I am fine, Canon Owens, and you?”
“I am very good, Dr Hitchcock. Thank you for asking.”

But this got me thinking – I realize when I write a lot of my reviews that I have to go back to the IMDb or something to find out the characters’ names, and that’s because no one writes like that anymore. You get a character’s name spoken maybe once in the movie (if that), and that’s it. You have to pay attention these days!

Well I don’t want to! I have ADD, and I want my viewing experience to be perfectly...

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Ju-On (2003)

AUGUST 29, 2007

GENRE: ASIAN, GHOST, REMAKE
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

The release of the American remake of Ju-On, called The Grudge, nearly ended my desire to go to the movies. The kids in the audience were so fucking annoying, I am still amazed I got out of there without bludgeoning one of them with a Milk Dud (it’s possible). Suffice to say it wasn’t an enjoyable theater experience, and I was so irritated I still to this day have no idea if I actually liked the movie or not. I don’t think I did though, so I was in no rush to watch the Japanese original that the film was based on (itself a remake – confused yet? I aren).

This was more or less confirmed while watching Ju-On today. It’s a movie with almost zero plot and yet told in a needlessly confusing manner. Following multiple timelines, characters who don’t get introduced into well over an hour into the film, and ghosts with apparently no ‘rules’ seems like a lot of work for a movie that essentially boils down to “if you go into this house you’ll die”.

That’s not to say the film is horrible, but when you consider that there is something like 834 versions (and respective sequels) of this movie, I would think it should be a compelling and unique enough story to warrant all the attention. But it’s not. And besides, I’ve gone on record with how un-scary I find the idea of little Japanese kids looking at me and croaking.

Still, there IS a strange sort of appeal to the film. I think it’s probably due to the fact that the film is essentially an anthology film, so no character really wears out their welcome. And since everyone dies, and it becomes more of a matter of WHEN they will die, there is some minor suspense to be had when they are in danger (unlike say, Ob-Ewan McGregor in the prequels, who was constantly in danger we knew perfectly well he would escape from). “Will they die here, or in the next scene?” Usually it’s the former, and then another character comes along.

The DVD has an odd extra: a commentary by Sam Raimi and Scott Spiegel. Raimi produced the remake; Spiegel I guess just had nothing better to do. They chat about horror movies in general, how much they like this movie, and offer some delightfully bad puns throughout (“I married my wife for her looks, just not the ones she’s been giving me lately”), making it worth a listen. Spiegel needs to brush up on his IMDb though, attributing Cat People to John Carpenter (???). They also contradict themselves, saying at one point that when a horror film gets too complex that it becomes harder for an audience to be scared, and then marveling at how the audience is expected to figure out most of the film’s timeline and plot threads themselves a few minutes later.

There’s also some deleteds and interviews, but I had no interest.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Raw Meat (aka Death Line)

AUGUST 28, 2007

GENRE: MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Every now and then, I get a movie from Blockbuster that just sort of puzzles me when it arrives in the mail. Such was the case with today’s movie, Raw Meat. I didn’t know anything about it, have no recollection of adding it to my queue, and in fact wasn’t even sure if it was horror movie for a while (other than the title).

The film begins with a guy who looks like Magritte’s Son of Man endlessly walking around a blurry city as the opening credits drag on for eternity. Ordinarily this would be enough for me to shut it off to at least confirm it was a horror movie, but since I spied both Donald Pleasence AND Christopher Lee in the cast, I figured it HAD to be. About a half hour later I got my confirmation, as a mutant guy living underneath the subway slits a dude’s throat and lets the blood pour into the mouth of his wife (also a mutant thing). Hurrah, it’s horror!

Even if it wasn’t I probably would have kept watching though, because Donald Pleasence is an absolute delight in this one. He’s not as batshit insane as usual; instead he just seems sort of drunk throughout the movie. He randomly throws darts around, obsesses about tea (he IS British), makes inappropriate jokes, etc. He also reminds me a bit of John Hodgman, one of the best Daily Show personalities (and fellow blogger!). There’s a scene late in the film where he just sort of argues with a bartender while his partner plays pinball that had me in stitches. Oh Donald, why couldn’t you have survived watching Halloween 6? Everyone else did.

As for Christopher Lee, I am at a loss to explain his appearance here. He almost literally appears out of thin air in the middle of a scene, has a little face-off with Donald, and then is never seen or spoken of again. I suspect he happened by the set one day and they quickly threw him in there and had him just say whatever came to his head (Donald’s reaction to his appearance certainly seems to support this theory).

This one isn’t too well known, and that is a shame. It’s a wonderful little British chiller with a decent enough horror villain (by the way, the film Creep, with Franke Potente run Lola running around a subway chased by a monster, really ripped this one off) and as said, a truly wonderful Pleasence appearance. I urge you to go check it out at once.

“But the first thing you gotta do is get some TEA!!!”

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Relic

AUGUST 27, 2007

GENRE: MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Back in 1997, I read an interview with Tom Sizemore (of whom I was a big fan from his work in Natural Born Killers, Heat, etc.), concerning his starring role in The Relic. He pointed out that it was his first starring role, but in a film people were seeing for the monster. “No one goes, ‘Hey let’s go see the new Tom Sizemore movie,” he was more or less quoted as saying. I showed it to my friend Mike, who was also a big fan of Sizemore, and we were like “We do!”

Well I didn’t go see it. And Tom got arrested on opening weekend for slapping his girlfriend around. But hey, still a big fan.

Ten years later I finally got around to seeing the film (though I did try to watch it at a hotel once, but I fell asleep before Sizemore even showed up). In a way I am almost glad I waited until I had a TV with a 10,000:1 contrast ratio to view it on. Since this is a Peter Hyams film, the levels of black and slightly less black that make up 90% of the imagery require a strong picture in order to see what the hell was going on. Had I seen the film in the best theater around at the time of the film’s theatrical release, that would not have been possible. Oh Hyams... you light hating bastard you.

It’s not the worst film I’ve ever seen, but it’s painfully generic. The Jurassic Park influences are annoying (and now, dated), and the effects are fucking terrible for the most part (especially when the monster runs around aflame during the film’s climax). I got the impression I could walk out for a half hour or so and know exactly what I missed, since the film works off of a template. 1:10 into the film – time for Sizemore to deliver some personal back story. 1:25 – time for the human character we dislike to get his just desserts. Etc.

There’s a scene early on that makes the film worth watching though. The monster kills a security guard off screen. Sizemore is investigating (via being a prick that is smarter than all the other cops), and Penelope Ann Miller walks in and sees the bloody mess. Her scream provided me the biggest laugh I’ve had in ages. Thank you, Ms. Miller. Part of the film’s problem is trying to make her into an interesting heroine. She isn’t, and having Sizemore sit the climax out while she runs around screaming (and delivering the lamest final line in a monster movie ever) certainly doesn’t help.

And why the hell is David Proval, a recognizable character actor who had already chalked up a number of good roles by the time this movie was released, play a vague security guard who appears for maybe two minutes during the 3rd act? His partner, as well as almost everyone else in the movie that wasn’t Sizemore, Miller, or Linda Hunt, is some no name, so what’s he doing stooping to their level?

Anyone ever play the game Shivers for the PC? It came out in the mid 90s. It was a Myst style adventure game where you are trapped inside a museum. I kept thinking about that game when I watched this movie. Good game.

Not a very good movie.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1978)

AUGUST 26, 2007

GENRE: ALIEN, REMAKE
SOURCE: THEATER (REVIVAL SCREENING)

Tonight, at the last minute, I found out about a great double feature, John Carpenter’s The Thing and Philip Kaufman’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers. They were showing at the New Beverly Cinema, aka the best revival theater in LA. It’s a great idea for a double feature: both were superb (and in Carpenter’s case, superior) versions of 1950s films, and deal with paranoia, isolation, etc. while delivering the suspense and scares one would want from a movie about alien takeovers.

The Thing of course I have seen several times, so it’s ineligible for a Horror Movie A Day review. Suffice to say I think it’s a masterpiece, one of only three in Carpenter’s career (the others are Assault on Precinct 13 and of course, Halloween). The cast is perfect, the makeup is phenomenal, and I still jump at the blood test every goddamn time.

But the ‘78 Body Snatchers was new to me, in fact it was the only one of the four “legitimate” versions of Finney’s novel I had never seen. And like the original and 1993 ones, I dug it a lot. The sound design alone makes the film worth seeing, as it is eerily quiet at times, and unnervingly loud at others. There’s a scene early on, before anything has even happened, with a random Robert Duvall as a priest on a swing, that is more terrifying than anything in the new version with Nicole Kidman. And he’s just swinging! The makeup effects, sparingly used, are also fantastic.

Why aren’t more horror/thriller movies filmed in San Francisco? It’s got such a distinct look, and when used right (The Game comes to mind) it really does become a character in itself.

The great thing about all versions of the film (even the new one) is how it was able to tell the exact same story and yet totally reflect the fears of the respective era: Communism in the 50s, post-Vietnam lack of faith in the government/cover ups in the 70s, pro-war/military might in the 90s, and self medication/global war in the 00s. The 80s were pretty much covered by They Live.

Jeff Goldblum made one of his earliest appearances in this one, and he’s already got his trademark oddness down to a science. But, and I don’t know if it’s intentional, for some reason Leonard Nimoy seems just as cold and alien-like when he’s human as he does when he’s taken over. The Kevin McCarthy cameo is great, and while it’s a bit of a wink at the audience, it’s far more effective than Veronica Cartwright’s likewise appearance in the 2007 one.

Also the film offers a nude Brooke Adams back when that wasn’t a horrible thing to imagine.

There’s a new 2 disc DVD of this one, I can’t see why you shouldn’t own it if you’re a fan. Since it’s such a sparse, somewhat intimate version for the most part, I think it would play even better at home.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Bloody Reunion (aka To Sir With Love)

AUGUST 25, 2007

GENRE: ASIAN, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

What is this? A modern slasher movie I am totally behind? One that’s not Hatchet??? And even more surprising, an Asian horror movie I really like? Is Bloody Reunion a fluke, or have I just not been watching the right ones?

This one was recommended by... someone (I apologize I can not find the comment with the name, but regardless I thank you for the suggestion). For a slasher, it delivered what I expect – one or two kills I don’t see coming (at least not at the time they do), some decent splatter, an interesting killer disguise (a giant bunny mask! Gah!!), non ignorance of basic suspense, and a good back story. The back story is what impressed me the most. Sort of like Lost, we learn mainly through quick flashbacks what led the characters to be the way they are today. And I admit I was pretty surprised at what was revealed along the way.

Which brings us to the ending. Some folks have hated the “twist” in this one, but I am not two of them. And I sort of have to spoil it to talk about it, so apologies in advance.

See, the ending reveals none of the movie really happened, that it was all a story told by the “final girl”, similar to High Tension in a way. But the difference is, we KNOW right from the start that the whole film is her account of what happened. In Tension, we didn’t, so the twist seemed more of a cheat than it does here. Hence why I am not as angry as I was after I watched that movie.

That said... I’m not sure if it all adds up. Being an Asian horror, there has to be SOME confusion, and this is no exception. Some of the characters’ individual traumas are never fully explained, and the ending seemingly has a giant chunk missing (how do the two survivors, one of whom is telling the story from the hospital, end up back at the house?). But that’s forgivable, and possibly even explained if you watch it a 2nd time (something I certainly plan to do).

The only real flaw is the director’s ridiculous usage of zooms in a couple of scenes. There is one where two characters go to talk to the teacher and he just keeps zooming in and out, multiple times in one shot. It makes no narrative sense and it’s headache-inducing. Christ, Fulci himself would declare the zooms unnecessary. To be fair, he admits it as a weakness on the extras (one good thing about Asian imports over American movies – they will admit their mistakes. Whereas we get the Scarecrow guys talking like they made the next Halloween). There are also some bizarre subtitling quirks, such as putting everyone’s last name in ALL CAPS and substituting “me” for “you” (“Good to see you!” “Yes, me too!”), but again, forgivable.

Like almost all Tartan releases, there’s a good deal of extras on the DVD, most of which are subtitled. The making of is refreshingly lacking in “I love this person and this person and that person” type asskissery and focuses on more “day in the life” type footage, so I highly recommend it (though it does spoil some of the ending). I just wish they would stop forcing me to watch their promo reel at the head of the DVD though – you can’t skip it or go to the menu until it’s complete. Annoying.

So whoever recommended it, thanks and recommend more like it!!!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...