The Sadist (1963)

APRIL 14, 2008

GENRE: BREAKDOWN, THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

I may be wrong (I often am, even when pointing out that I am often wrong), but I believe The Sadist may be the very first “Folks break down en route to something and run afoul of a psychotic killer” movie. Granted, it’s partially taken from reality (mainly the Charles Starkweather case), but the hallmarks of the sub-genre are all on display: the broken down car, the escape attempts, the cops showing up and nosing around, etc.

Unlike most of those movies, or, all of them, this one has an ace up its sleeve: Arch Hall Jr. If you’re unfamiliar with the lad, you’re missing out on 12% of all that is good in the world. He doesn’t act so much as he just sort of sneers and laughs (just look at the cover art!), and he often comes off more like a mentally handicapped kid playing guns than a sadistic killer. Still, he is quite effective, because he’s just so batshit and without remorse (nowadays, our killers always seem to have good qualities). It’s a phenomenal thing to watch, and luckily he’s on screen for almost the entire film.

And this IS a “film”. Not only is it one of the few in history to take place in real time (and pulls it off better than many of the other films that have tried it, such as Nick of Time, Johnny Depp’s sole attempt playing a normal guy in a normal action thriller movie), but it’s also wonderfully shot by a guy named William Zsigmond. Not familiar with the name? Well it’s a pseudonym (or really bizarre misspelling) of Vilmos Zsigmond, the legendary cinematographer who has gone on to considerably classier things, such as Close Encounters Of The Third Kind and Deliverance (and, for some goddamn reason, Jersey Girl). It’s to his credit that a movie with almost nothing happening, set almost exclusively on a patch of dirt in front of a gas station, with only five people, seems as alive and exciting as it does. Sure, it gets a little draggy near the end (the chase between Hall and one of the victims goes on forever), but otherwise, it’s an amazing achievement for such a small, obviously low budgeted movie.

Our hero, Ed (Richard Stiles) is also a delight. Early on, he delivers a howler – “I don’t want to shock you, but I don’t want to get my shirt dirty”, which he tells our heroine as he takes off his overly dressy shirt while he fixes the car. He’s wearing the tightest wifebeater known to man, and it’s obviously a bit cold during the filming of a few scenes. Really weird. He’s also incredibly inept and immune to, you know, DOING anything. There’s a bit where he goads Hall into firing off his last bullet, and then just stands there while a weaponless Hall grabs another clip and reloads. Fucking putz. This scene comes after one that had me rolling, as Ed tries to figure out just how many bullets Hall has left. He knows four shots have been fired, but then he just starts basically making shit up to account for the others, figuring “he probably shot someone else too!” and the like.

His ineptness continues to the very end of the film. Running from Hall, he tries to jump on a ledge that’s about 2 feet off the ground, and fails. He falls to the ground, then gets up and charges at Hall, who calmly empties a clip into the poor sod’s chest. Why the fuck didn’t you do that BEFORE, dumbass? The other guy in the movie is more intelligent, but he buys it early on, after a rather heartbreaking scene where Hall tears up the guy’s baseball tickets (they are heading for a Dodger game). I have a real weak spot for scenes like that, and the fact that the guy actually CRIES as Hall tears them up doesn’t help. It’s almost as bad as when someone loses their dog in a movie. Poor guy, it was probably the highlight of his year! Let him go to the damn game, Hall!

My sadness was equaled by my delight, however, when two cops show up. They are the most laid back cops in film history, as evidenced when they find a clip on the ground. “Hey, someone lost the clip to their .45.” one says, almost forlornly, before resuming his soda without any thought that just MAYBE the rather odd looking guy with a story full of holes might be up to no good.

In my notes, which were written on a napkin with a 2cm pen that protrudes from my Swiss Army knife, I have written what looks like “Faders”. No idea.

Anyway, it’s a solid little thriller, refreshingly chilling (as dumb as he was, I really didn’t expect Ed to get killed), and holds up well despite all of the films to come along since that have a similar premise. The print was also quite good (little scratchy in parts, nothing too bothersome), which was a relief – the movie is more or less public domain (it’s on the upcoming 4th budget pack – Tales of Terror!), which usually results in terrible prints. It also had a fantastic trailer reel attached, including one for a movie called The Wild Roots Of Love. This trailer may be the finest ever cut together, and I wish it was on Youtube or whatever so I could share it with you, but alas.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Lake Dead (2007)

APRIL 13, 2008

GENRE: SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

A buddy of mine was angry that I liked Doomsday despite the fact that it had zero originality to it (other than the sort of original idea of spending 40 million dollars to recreate a bunch of sequences from older movies and fashion some semblance of a story out of it). The lack of originality didn’t bother me too much, because I was having a blast watching it. The characters were fun, the locales were interesting, it had good makeup gags, etc. Entertainment for entertainment’s sake is perfectly fine every now and then. However, I cannot give Lake Dead the same leeway, because while it also doesn't have a single original idea that I could find, it failed to get the whole “fun” part right either (to be fair, they didn't seem to be intending it that way).

Ripping off Wrong Turn, Mother’s Day, Devil’s Rejects, Bloodlines (possibly – this came along after but who the hell saw Bloodlines?), and Motel Hell for pretty much its entire running time, Lake is technically proficient and reasonably well-paced, but the characters are completely terrible, the makeup is pretty much all (bad) CG, and the setting is Motel Hell, again. Both films were shot at Sable Ranch in California, and it was obvious to me from the goddamn gravel outside of the motel our characters have “inherited” that it was the same exact place. Recycling a locale is one thing when it’s an entirely different type of movie (the Griswolds, the Murtaughs, and the Monster Squad family all live on the same street, for example), but when the movie shares a few plot similarities with another one shot in the same goddamn house, it’s a bit distracting/annoying.

The film also contains one of the most idiotic plot contrivances I’ve ever seen in a movie. The girls inherit a motel when their grandfather dies, and at the funeral they tell their estranged father they are heading up there to see it. “Don’t go there!” he yells. “Please!” They say “no” and go anyway. Maybe, I dunno, tell your fucking CHILDREN that the place is run by their redneck uncle and grandmother, who plan on using the girls for breeding and/or just plain ol’ killing? He obviously knows this (he lied about their grandfather ever being alive at all, in order to 'protect' them), and yet waits a day to bother really doing anything about it. Also, for the plot to work, the girls can never question why they only have one set of grandparents (who/where the mother is – who the fuck knows, the movie exists in a world where such things aren’t important, despite the fact that almost every character in the movie is related).

Speaking of, the characters are poorly introduced. At the funeral, a blond girl is seen with our lead (also a blonde). The next time we see her, she is talking to the lead’s boyfriend. He’s telling her to hurry up and get ready so they can all go check out the motel, alluding to the fact that it’s her motel too. So we can just assume that the two girls are sisters, but the movie never explains this until about halfway through. But why is her possibly future brother-in-law the one to call her up? Do you call up your future in-laws and berate them for being late?

There’s also a third sister, thankfully not another blonde. But she IS the least pleasant character I’ve ever seen in a film (including those who aren’t “good guys”). She swears constantly for no reason, gets angry at pretty much everything anyone says to her, etc. Luckily she is the first to go, but still, the movie never quite recovers from spending most of the first 15 minutes of its running time on a character who should be instantly killed.

This brings me to another gripe: the movie’s complete lack of a mean streak. It’s like the girl is just a bitch only to ‘justify’ her death a few minutes later. The other victims are also jerks (another irritable bitch, a slut, and a guy who cheats on the irritable bitch with the slut); all of the ‘nice’ people survive. Come on! If screenwriter Daniel Couglin wrote Wrong Turn, Jeremy Sisto’s character would have survived, because he was a nice guy who cared about others. This just voids suspense – we know who will be safe just because they haven’t broken the lie/cheat/steal rules of movie heroics.

As for anything resembling fun, like Wrong Turn 2 or most of the other movies I mentioned? There is ONE sort of joke in the entire movie, and it made me retch:

Girl: “Why do I love you so much?”
Guy: “Probably because I put you in my top 8.”

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? The irony is, all of these vapid no-name actors look EXACTLY like the people who are pictured in fake spam profiles. “Hi, I’m new to Hollywood and my first “break” is starring in Lake Dead. I liked your profile pic and see that you like Shocker. Click my profile and watch my boring movie!”

Other than that, the only other thing that got me to chuckle was the final line, spoken by the “finally doing something to stop his daughters from being raped by their uncle” dad, who shoots his brother in the head and says “THAT’S how you fuck family!” Nothing like a good joke to lighten the mood, even at the expense of his children’s psychological terror (not to mention the years of therapy they will endure now that they realize that their father is also their brother, or whatever – again, who the fuck their mother is wasn’t a concern). Dickhead.

The original Wrong Turn worked because it was the first “no humor, no bullshit” survival horror movie in ages when it was released. The story broke no new ground, but it was a successful throwback to 70s horror in the dawning age of PG-13 horror, with good performances, effects, and even a decent level of suspense to boot. But now, Lake Dead does absolutely nothing to distinguish itself from the others of the past few years. In 2007, you gotta be fun or do something original. Doing neither is just pointless.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Prom Night (2008)

APRIL 12, 2008

GENRE: REMAKE (?), SLASHER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PAID SCREENING)

Well I was wrong. The new Prom Night IS an improvement over the original, at least in general. It would be easy for me to join the bandwagon, and say that this movie is an abomination, complete waste of time, etc, etc. But that's not the case. If I had to choose to rewatch either of them, I'd definitely go with the new one, and would recommend it more than I would the original as well. And hell, it's literally a 'remake' in name only; absolutely NOTHING is carried over, not even a name (it's worth noting that the original's screenwriter is not given a "Based on a screenplay" credit that is customary for remakes, even those with little to do with their predecessors). Why it's been damned from its announcement I have no idea - I'm hardly the only one who dislikes the original, and it wasn't being made by Platinum Dunes (poster child for "Let's hate it before we see a single frame of the film" mentality). And no, it's certainly no masterpiece, but it's definitely worthy of a better reception. Christ, it's not even the worst movie I've seen this week (hello there, Scarecrow Slayer)!

Let's get the bad out of the way first. For starters, the final third of the film is a bit of a letdown. Like Assault on Precinct 13's remake, and Red Eye, the screenwriter opted to set the entire finale of the film somewhere completely removed from the film's focal point, in this case, the goddamn prom. Having run out of things to do, I guess, the action shifts to the less interesting locale of... the Final Girl's house. It'd be like if the finale of Halloween was set on Christmas. This is the exact opposite of the problem the original had, which took fucking forever to GET to the prom. Again, it's an improvement, but it severely breaks the tension.

Also, the 2nd in command cop, played by James Ransone. Who the fuck is this guy? (uh, James Ransone.) He resembles a video store geek or maybe one of the extras in Chuck's computer store. They don't try to make him a badass or anything, thank Christ, but still, it looks like most of the high school kids could take him out with a stern look.

And they somehow managed to make a costume LESS impressive than the original's ski mask. Our killer wears... a baseball hat. That's it. Granted, his identity is not a surprise, we are told who he is right from the start (the movie is refreshingly straight forward - there are zero twists or last minute revelations), but even so, if the movie's a smash hit, thousands of jock douchebags will be accused of dressing like the Prom Night guy.

And yes, there are a lot of fake scares. We are supposed to accept them because Final Girl (Brittany Snow) saw her family killed and thus is jittery, but they go a bit overboard. At one point she gets scared of her own boyfriend, sitting next to her in bed (something she had initiated to begin with). It's not as bad as When a Stranger Calls (The wind! The phone! The ice machine! The sprinklers!), but I would be happy with a few less.

But that's about it for complaints (oh, those and putting the beautiful Jessica Stroup under a pound of unflattering makeup. She's made to look like Lohan at her crackwhoreist). There is actually quite a bit here that is impressive. It's completely solid on a technical level (2.35:1 to boot!), which automatically puts it higher than most of the shit I watch (even other theatrical releases). And while the rating obviously means we are spared excessive gore, there is some light splatter. More importantly, it's actually pretty violent. The body count is higher than I expected (though many are off-screen), and it's even a bit sad when a few of them die. That is due to the fact that the kids are all likable, albeit in stereotype form. There isn't much in the way of characterization, but the actors are all good in the roles. Also, and this is surprisingly rare in slasher movies, we actually see the aftermath of how the deaths of friends affects our heroine (one benefit to the disjointed finale). One of my favorite scenes in Scream 2 is when Sidney says that she has to call Randy's mom and tell her that he is dead, and then Dewey lets her know that he "already made that call". It's a sad scene, and makes the death carry more weight when you know it's actually made an impact on the other characters. Same thing here - the boyfriend of one of the dead girls gets a nice moment of grievance.

Speaking of which, the guy in question is "the black guy". And yes, he survives. As does the resident bitch girl. These two archetypes are pretty much guaranteed knife fodder, but they survive (as do one or two other "sure things"). And this was surprising to me not just as a slasher fan, but as someone who read a review where the writer bitched and moaned that the killer was killing people for no reason. If you ask me, he was pretty selective - he even had the opportunity to kill the black kid and didn't bother. The review specifically pointed out the "pointless" killing of a maid, when in fact he killed her to get a master key which he used to get around. Fine, it's hardly the most original motive, but it's SOMETHING. It's not like the Halloween remake*, where Michael was seemingly going out of his way to kill people at random.

It's also reasonably suspenseful, and ironically I think the rating has a part of that. Since it's PG-13, we know that it won't be wall to wall killings. So when someone goes into a room by themselves, we aren't quite sure whether or not they will be killed, whereas in an R rated film it's pretty much a sure bet. They're also smart enough to avoid putting Snow into any such situations until the final half hour, as we know damn well she won't be killed or even harmed until the finale. I should point out that Variety, in their surprisingly positive review, made note that the kids separate for smarter reasons than usual. And they're right - I think this is the first slasher which put a girl by herself because she was starting to get her period. And since they aren't aware of any danger, there's no reason why they WOULD constantly stick together in the first place. The only exception is when one couple sneaks off to the room to fool around, 10 minutes before the announcement of Prom King and Queen (which they are both in the running for).

Idris Elba was the best thing about The Reaping, and he's damn good here too, as one of the better horror movie cops in recent memory. He's smart, he's not an asshole for no reason... he's a cop doing his job. The fact that Elba is a solid actor doesn't hurt, and he even pulls off the exposition scene (which comes surprisingly early) admirably.

Is it the best slasher movie of all time? Of course not. But is it the worst? Not even remotely. It's entertaining, it's well-made, the pace is good (we get a kill every 10 minutes, not too shabby), it has a cameo by Josh Leonard and the movie Can't Hardly Wait, and there wasn't a single point in the film where I was ready to throw something at the screen (except maybe the boyfriend scare. Come on!). I even went in expecting it to be decent, not listening to the reviews (most of which were seemingly written in the writers' heads prior to seeing the film), and it was even a bit better than my expectations. If it wasn't for the poor box office of The Ruins (why is no one seeing this??), I would wholeheartedly recommend going out to see it, so long as you can accept that anyone old enough to vote is not the target audience. As it stands, it's the year's best remake, and a reasonably decent slasher to boot. It's kind of depressing that simply doing what it set out to do and absolutely nothing else is enough to warrant a recommendation, compared to all the abysmal shit that comes out nowadays, but that's the reality.

What say you?

*The highlight of the screening was when it was over, the 60ish woman in front of me said to her husband: "Rob Zombie would have made it a lot worse!" If I was 30 years older...

PLEASE, GO ON...

Bedlam (1946)

APRIL 11, 2008

GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: CABLE (TCM)

And so it ends... my Turner Classic Val Lewton marathon has yielded its final entry, Bedlam. As previously rambled, I missed Cat People and I Walked With A Zombie, so those will come down the line on pristine DVD (or, another TCM marathon). All in all, I liked what I saw. None particularly blew me away, but all entertained, and were certainly light years better than most of the 40s horror movie I watch, which come from my rather disappointing Horror Classics box (in comparison to the wonderful Chilling Classics set).

Now that I’ve wasted a good chunk of your time discussing where I get the movies I watch, let’s move on.

Bedlam is probably the least “horror”y of all the Lewton movies I’ve watched, but also one of the best. Karloff is a delightful prick early on in the film, and gets more and more sinister until the asylum inmates trovel and amontillado his ass. (<-- Hey look – two nouns used as verbs in a single sentence!). The rest of the cast is good too, particularly the Marcia Cross-y Anna Lee as the heroine. She’s sent to the nuthouse to be kept quiet, more or less, as she would like the asylum to actually cure its patients, regardless of cost. This one is due for a remake, and this very theme would be INCREDIBLY interesting nowadays, what with all the health care brouhaha. Let’s hope they get a good filmmaker behind it. And if not, well, cast Marcia Cross anyway.

My favorite character, however, was a gent named Barney. He’s not listed on the IMDb, so maybe I got his name wrong, but he’s a very fey sort of assistant to Lee’s character. He just seems so laid back and yet sort of optimistically sad in all of his scenes. He also looked like this dude I went to high school with, whose name I have forgotten but I want to say it was Tom. Anyway, he more or less disappears from the film’s final act for some reason, which is a bummer. Good guy.

The scene where Karloff takes her through the asylum and points out all of the different patients’ problems is also pretty good. I think Dr. Tarr ripped it off, because while my memories have faded for that film (uh-oh), I got a strong sense of Déjà vu at this point, particularly with the peacock guy. Still, his treatment is pretty great. “W let them think their delusions are real, and go from there.” And as almost always, none of the patients are merely bipolar or whatever, no, they’re all completely batshit, thinking they are animals or whatever. Ah, mental illness!

I must take issue with one thing though. At one point the movie fades to a woodcut for half a second and then to the next scene. Look, I love subliminal woodcuttery as much as the next guy, but here I felt it was just superfluous.

And is anyone well-versed in 18th century children’s games? At one point the bad guy’s little servant boy is sitting outside the man’s office, playing a game that looks incredibly dull. In each hand he has a string with a little cylindrical object at the end of it. He swings them at each other. What is the object of this game? How does one win? What is it called? Are there tournaments?

All that’s left, besides the titles mentioned above, is a Scorsese narrated documentary about Lewton, titled Man in The Shadows. I am interested mainly in seeing if Marty can shut up long enough for anyone else to talk, though if not that’s perfectly fine. Sadly, its nature as a documentary that IS real keeps it out of HMAD contention, but I hope to check it out in due time. However, I must ask – does it spoil Cat People or I Walked With A Zombie? Since those are his most well-known pictures, I assume the documentary covers them in greater detail than the others, and I’d hate to have stuff spoiled. But I’d also like to clear up my DVR. I’m torn!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Zombie Strippers (2008)

APRIL 10, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

Seven people. That’s how many I asked to accompany me to Zombie Strippers, and coincidentally it's also the number of people that declined. I can’t say I blame them – the screening was at the Sony lot, which is not convenient for anyone in LA, and thus not a very enticing drive (it’s the equivalent of being at 34th and Broadway in New York and asking someone to drive to the Moon). Also, it’s a movie called Zombie Strippers.

With that title I was expecting Troma levels of absurdity, nudity, and gore..ity. What I most certainly was NOT expecting was to be treated to Nietzsche quotes, lots of female empowerment metaphors, and some fairly obvious but still pretty funny topical humor (a news graphic pointing out that its currently 97 degrees in Alaska, for example). I should have known better; as I entered the screening room I was handed an “Existential Philosophy Primer” along with the press notes, and a Magic 8 Ball that didn’t work very well (every question I asked was answered with “Corner of the pyramid shaped answer box”).

I’ll get back to that later.

Honestly, the idea of melding a completely cheesy concept with some “deep” spiritual and philosophical ideas is pretty interesting, and on the page it more or less works. The best gag in the film comes when Jenna Jameson (surprisingly decent as a character who is never once required to take a cock up her ass), by then a zombie, reads from Nietzsche (as she did when she was alive) and says “Wow, this makes so much more sense now.” It’s a great line. There are a few others as well, and the humor surprisingly comes more from the dialogue than from zombie gags or whatever.

And here’s the weird thing. As I was watching the movie, I wrote down “Slaughter” in my notes, to remind me to bring up the fact that it reminded me of the movie The Slaughter, which also had bizarrely implemented sociological dialogue in the middle of what was a standard Evil Dead type movie. And guess what? SAME GUY! Jay Lee be his name, something that I had somehow forgotten, what with the 200 or so horror movies I have seen in between the two. The blend works much better here, and thankfully he didn’t have the characters turn meta in the film’s final 20 minutes like he did in his previous film. It’s definitely an improvement.

However, it just doesn’t come together as well as it should. Maybe Lee was spread too thin by directing, writing, editing, and shooting the film himself. The script is good (with some minor issues - the military plotline that takes up the beginning and the end of the film is almost completely ignored for the hour in between), but his editing and shooting are mediocre at best. In particular, it seems very disconnected – shots don’t cut together very well, and it always seems like things were shot weeks apart (which they are, on almost all movies, but we’re not supposed to notice it). Also, and this may be better on DVD, but the digital look of the film was lousy. The lighting in particular made every character look like they were composited into the background. And hell, maybe they WERE in some cases, but I don’t know one would need to shoot two actors in front of a greenscreen so they could add in a bookshelf later. This is apparently a Lee staple, as Slaughter also had terrible compositing.

It’s also very difficult to understand how much time has gone by. In another nice surprise, the film wasn’t a “a bar full of zombies fights off the survivors all in one night” type movie, a la Feast, Devil’s Den, Dusk Till Dawn, etc. But I can’t tell how long it DOES take place over, either. It seems like a few days, but everyone wears the same clothes. Do they just not leave? Again, this is the result of poor editing and such.

And someone needs to keep Robert Englund the fuck away from characters that run nightclubs. He fares far better here than in the Masters of Horror Dance of the Dead (still the absolute worst thing I’ve ever seen in my life), but he just doesn’t work as well as a caricature, and the environment does him no favors either. He doesn’t have to play Freddy all his life (he is brilliant as the Sam Loomis type in Behind the Mask, for example), but some roles are just not a good fit for him. And it’s more of a shame when you consider the film’s technical limitations – an unknown actor without a (relatively) big salary would probably allocated more cash for an editor or better CG (which is at least consistently unimpressive; it’s better than when a VFX team blows their wad on the first couple of shots and then the rest of the movie is atrocious). However, there are a few good kills with practical effects work, especially a nice head ripping around the halfway mark.

As for the 8 ball? There’s a scene where Jameson’s zombie places a few billiard balls up her vagina and then shoots them out at the zombie she’s fighting with (this is where the female empowerment comes in - they are basically fighting for supremacy). So even the marketing for the film is strangely conflicted – they give us Nietzsche Cliff’s Notes and an 8 ball meant to simulate the one that gets shot out of a porn star’s key asset at the end of the film. I'll give it this much: this is the least clichéd horror movie of the year, if nothing else.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

One Body Too Many (1944)

APRIL 9, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, THRILLER
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 2!!!)

You don’t often get a spoiler right in the title, but One Body Too Many is an example. A guy goes to sell insurance to a man who, unbeknownst to him, has just died. That’s the One Body. But over the course of the film, which is the 33748th about people in a house fighting over an inheritance, only one other person dies, thus One Body TOO MANY. It's like, "this is what you're in for, we promise nothing more than what is in the title." Thus, I propose we change the title of Friday the 13th to 10 Bodies Too Many.

However, even with the relative lack of suspense thanks to the jerk title, this one’s actually pretty fun. The comedy is typical of the era, but I got a few laughs out of it, particularly during the reading of the will (or the introduction to the will, rather), where the guy mocked each and every one of his benefactors in writing. I plan to do the same. “And how can I forget you, Jeff and Kolleen, the schmucks who did not appreciate Joshua....”

The main guy is a hoot, too. His name is Jack Haley, better known as the Tin Man. Other than that, I've never seen him in anything else, but there’s one line alone that makes me want to watch every single movie he’s ever done just to see if he does it again. There’s a point in the film where he wants to leave, and he’s giving a big ‘farewell’ speech. At the end he goes “I’m leaving!” and then proceeds to let out a weird little groan/sigh/thing. I would spell it “Wyeeeaahhh!” It’s pure bliss.

The typically bad Mill Creek transfer results in some other laughs, such as when everyone gasps in shock at a line that was completely skipped over due to them using an obviously broken film print. There’s another scene where Haley accuses Bela Lugosi of being the bad guy (who can blame him?). He says “Then where’d you get the mud on your shoes?” At this point the camera pans down to presumably show said mud on said shoes, but damned if I can see a goddamn thing once the image gets darker with the down pan. I’ll take Haley’s word for it, I guess. Plus it’s Lugosi, he probably shot up at the bottom of a ditch between takes and they had to write his dirty shoes into the film.

Anyway, fun little movie, and even a tad longer than most Horror Classics, coming in at over 70 minutes. Audiences back then must have demanded an intermission.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Blood Diner (1987)

APRIL 8, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, HERO KILLER, WEIRD
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

Have I ever explained the strange law of the universe that dictates that whenever I work the night shift (I alternate my work schedule – one week I start at 930 am and leave at 6, the next I start at 1 pm and leave whenever everything’s done, usually round 7:30) on a night that I have something to do, I will get out late? However, if I have zero plans or opportunities, I will be out even earlier than average. It never fails. I’ve even tested it, buying tickets for a 10 o clock movie and watching as my twelve bucks got wasted as I sat in my office until close to 11, a record “late” night at the time. So my chances for seeing Blood Diner were pretty slim, as it was the first of the double feature at the New Beverly tonight.

And, true to form, I got out of work around 8:30, an hour later than usual for a Tuesday night. So I raced down to the Bev, hoping to get there in time to find parking, buy some “refreshments”, and enter in time for the start of Scream Bloody Murder, which was supposed to start around 9:30. But I had a sneaking suspicion that the movie started late, so I went to the box office before I bought beer, and discovered that Diner had only started about 10 minutes prior (due to the raffle, guest introduction, usual 20 minute delay due to the long concession line, and 15 minutes of trailers). Hurrah!

Sadly as it was dark I couldn’t find any friends, so I had to sit alone and experience this masterpiece of gloriously batshit cinema. It would pair nicely with Pieces (both movies even involve a human jigsaw puzzle!), as it’s just so ridiculous, so strangely plotted, and so damn delightful that it could only be appreciated with a big crowd. The plot finds a pair of brothers looking to appease their uncle, a talking brain with googly eyes*, by serving up human food to their diner patrons, while constructing a reincarnation of the goddess Sheetar. Nazi wrestlers, a nude aerobics class, rival diner owners, and a ventriloquist hobo also fit into the plot.

The strange thing about it was that it was eventually exhausting. I noticed that even the New Bev crowd began growing silent as it went on, with the laughs coming less frequently and not lasting as long. The finale picked up a bit, but it was a bit odd to “hear” silence for a couple minutes at a time once the film passed the halfway mark.

The funniest thing about the movie is what little concern the non-killer characters displayed for the horrible violent acts going on around them. At one point the brothers try to enter a club and the bouncer gives them a hard time. So they toss him out into the street, where he is immediately killed by a passing car. No one seems to care much. It’s breathtaking. There’s also a lot of random background stuff, such as a scene where three cops walk down a hall discussing the case. In the background, there is a scuffle between a prisoner and a few guards, which no one else seems to notice. Then again, the foreground has its own violence, as the police chief guy suddenly decks the hero cop for making a crazy suggestion (which probably turned out to be true).

How can you not love this movie?

Even weirder, it’s directed by a woman (Jackie Kong)! Almost every female character in the movie is needlessly punched or slapped around, so this little factoid, which I learned after the movie, is pretty surprising. Also, it makes Slumber Party Massacre (also surprisingly female-helmed) another fine choice for a double feature with Diner.

I had never heard of this one before it was announced for a screening at the Bev (apparently it's a quasi-remake of Blood Feast, which I haven't seen either), so I thank them again for letting me discover it. And Scream Bloody Murder was just as delightful as it was when I first saw it, though the laughter of the crowd resulted in my beloved “Who ever bought you a steak before?” line being completely drowned out. I should point out that the laughter was from an earlier line in the film, and NOT the annoying woman sitting near the front who kept MST3king the movie. The occasional comment is fine (preferably if it’s actually funny), but for the most part, these movies are funny enough on their own. We don’t need would-be Tom Servos borderline ruining it for everyone else. And the thing is, no one laughed at a single thing she said! Other occasional comments from other folks in the crowd were met with a small smattering of laughter, but hers fell flat every single time. You’d think after a few duds that she would realize that the rest of the crowd didn’t “appreciate” her genius and shut the fuck up, but no. She just kept saying random things that barely even made sense half the time. Luckily, one of the guys who run the Grindhouse told her to shut her pie hole after a while. Thanks pal!

What say you?

*They were actually regular eyes, not googly eyes, but the amazing SNL sketch with Christopher Walken was still fresh in my head, so everytime they showed the damn thing I had flashbacks and laughed my ass off. “Eye contact is important!”

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dead End (2003)

APRIL 8, 2008

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

Two goddamn full frame movies in a row! This is unacceptable! (It’s also the 2nd movie in the past few days to be adorned with a quote from B-D). Though, take the good with the bad – Dead End was distributed by Lions Gate long before they became the bane of the home video world, which means that while we have to suffer through a full frame transfer, we do NOT have to suffer through 18 trailers for truly awful movies like The Eye or whatever.

And the movie is pretty good. The cast is a big part of its success; few can pull off darkly humorous hysteria like Lin Shaye and Ray Wise, and the kid playing their son is pretty good as well (if overly, and randomly, homophobic – of all the people in the car who’s definitely NOT gay, it’s his sister's boyfriend, yet he consistently alludes to him being a homosexual). With a less capable cast, this one would probably be a giant bore, but Wise and Shaye keep you entertained with their off kilter reactions and dry delivery. At one point, Shaye, who is going a bit crazy after the death of her son, draws a picture of her daughter’s boyfriend, who was found dismembered all over the road, and shows it to her:

Bahahahaaha.

It also doesn’t feel too padded, which it easily could since the movie is essentially four people in a car driving on a road without an exit. Unlike the similar Wind Chill, writer/directors Jean-Baptiste Andrea and Fabrice Canepa had the good sense to keep the movie moving along, make the characters somewhat likable, and consistently seek ways to keep the movie from becoming too much of a Moebius strip, even when at its core that is precisely what it is. Nice job.

Alexandra Holden is also in the movie, as the daughter (once again, she plays the daughter of two genre faves that don’t resemble her at all, a fact written into the plot). She’s pretty much the only character who never made me laugh, which is a bummer. Oh well, still hot.

The theme of the movie appears to be dirty secrets – everyone eventually reveals something about their past that comes as a shock to everyone else – Holden is pregnant, Shaye had an affair, etc. It’s a nice idea but I would have liked to have seen it worked into the finale, which (spoiler) is merely a decent twist on the ‘it was all a dream’ ending. It was all a dream, yes, but everyone else is STILL dead, which is a plus. Makes it easier to swallow (the underrated Reeker had a similar denouement). However, this presents a few holes, or at least provides some genuinely disturbing information about the surviving character. There’s a scene in the movie in which the brother goes off into the woods to jerk off. But if this was all one of his family member’s hallucination, why the fuck would they be imagining that?

All in all, a decent little movie that deserves a better DVD (in addition to the shitty video, the sound is merely stereo) . Region 2’s release is widescreen, with a few extras to boot. If you can watch R2, I urge you avoid the region 1 disc. Had I watched it at night instead of 11 am, it’d probably be even more effective, as it’s the type of low-budget creepfest that would scare me as a kid when I’d watch them when it was dark and everyone was in bed. Watch it in the dark, folks!

I'd also like to point out that this is the 3rd "Dead End" film in HMAD history, following Wrong Turn 2: Dead End, and Dood Eind (aka Dead End). How many more will there be? Call now and vote!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Scarecrow Slayer (2003)

APRIL 7, 2008

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

Jesus Christ, Scarecrow Slayer makes Scarecrow look like Scarecrows. HMAD reader Jordan – you were right!

Yes, as bad as the original was, this one is even worse. Filmed for what seems like negative money, it features hands down the worst CG effects in the history of cinema (rest easy, Stephen Sommers... for now), abysmal acting across the board, horrendous attempts at humor, and yet: a pace that makes all of that seem boring. When you merely yawn at the sight of yet another badly composited scarecrow shot, something is rotten in Denmark. Not to mention in your DVD player.

Who are the audiences for these movies? Blind, drunken, mentally challenged 3 year olds? Who else could possibly be entertained by this crap, even on a “So bad it’s good” level (which the original at least KIND OF had, at times)? It offers absolutely nothing, even to me, the guy who recommends The Hitcher and Black Xmas. If you can’t even entertain ME, even mildly, you’ve really fucked up your stupid scarecrow movie.

The CG is what really kills the movie. The bad CG on the kill scenes is to be expected (thrill as “wounds” slide around unnaturally on people’s skin!), but this movie has more digitally “enhanced” shots than a Star Wars re-release. The Scarecrow seems composited into every shot, even when he’s just standing there, and several other shots in the film (featuring the human characters) suffer from the same problem. And the film predates Sin City and Sky Captain, so the “let’s film everything in greenscreen and add CG backdrops” attitude wasn’t in vogue yet. At one point, our hero is composited into a shot that doesn’t have anything in it! It’s just a dark background, yet clearly filmed separately from the actor. Whatever.

Director David Michael Latt also felt the need to put orange, blue, red, green, and whatever other color blurs over most of the film. And at one point, our heroine is shown in color while everything behind her is needlessly de-saturated to the point of almost being black and white. It’s like one of the editors had a bet going that he could use every single After Effects filter in the film, whether it made sense or not. Worse, they add CG effects when they are not even necessary. To show a cell phone not getting service, they (badly) paste some CG wavy lines and static on the cell phone screen, which looks as unnatural as an effect possibly can.

I’ve also never seen the camera as many times as I have in this movie. Sometimes it’s more subtle, like when you can just see some light glaring off the lens (in another blank background shot), but other times it’s hilarious how blatant it is. At one point a truck drives out of frame and you can see the camera, (with tripod, red light, the whole nine yards) on the left side of the screen. What makes this example even more inept is that the shot is being held too long, and had they just cut when the truck began moving out of frame (maybe even employing one of those Lucas-style vertical wipes!), the camera wouldn’t have been seen. If you make a bad edit that shows off the cinematographer’s ineptitude, do they cancel each other out? Nope. Adding to the cheapness is the audio, which frequently blows out when people shout or scream. And like the original, it’s presented in fullframe, despite the “making of” showing the clips in the 1.85:1 ratio.

The film’s only sort of saving grace is this guy Gavin. He’s the ex of our heroine (Nicole Kingston, who looks like Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and he’s kind of a noble jerk. The irony is, he’s like the only one in the film who’s not trying to be funny, but since no one actually IS funny, he comes off as the best part. He also has one of the quickest turnarounds in film history – the heroine is trying to convince him that the Scarecrow is coming to get them. “There’s no such thing! It’s a myth!” he yells. Then we hear a fairly small thud coming from down the hall. Instantly, he believes her ridiculous story and springs into action. It’s amazing.

Top-billed Tony Todd gets killed 25 minutes in, and spends most of his screen time sitting in a chair or laying down in a bed. It’s probably the closest the movie got to creativity – it makes him look like he’s in it a lot (in the first 25 minutes anyway) but his scenes probably took all of 4 hours to shoot.

Am I being too tough on the movie? No. When you make intentionally bad crap, there should be some charm to it, or actual fun. This movie fails to achieve that, even occasionally. Its worse crime isn’t being so woefully under-budgeted and pointless, but simply being boring. Even the scarecrow showdown at the end is dull (plus, the scarecrow seems to have lost his kung fu powers), and even if it wasn’t it would be far too little, too late.

And there’s a fucking THIRD movie! Which, judging from the decline in quality from the first one to this one, is very likely the absolute worst thing in all of existence. Yet, I’ll watch it.

I’d like to note that my disc from Blockbuster is obviously a copy from a real video store, and not Blockbuster (it has the original store’s logo on it). I like to think someone took a huge shit on the original copy, and then realized it would be a brown spot on their account, so had to buy the movie pre-viewed from a bricks and mortar store and send back that disc.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Changeling (1980)

APRIL 6, 2008

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

I hate when a movie introduces a character like an hour before they become relevant to the rest of the film. Such a thing occurs in The Changeling, and it sort of ruins a bit of the creepiness. We know damn well that this character has some sort of involvement, or else they wouldn’t have spent 3 minutes of screentime having someone explain who he is and what he does. But then it’s another 50 minutes before he’s mentioned again, blah.

Luckily the movie is still pretty good. In fact the movie only really falls apart at the very end, with a silly fire and somewhat confusing turn of events. This old senator dude appears to be in two places at once, and it left me baffled. Did I miss something? Someone explain!

But the earlier part of the film is pretty solid. There are a couple of genuinely creepy sequences (the séance, and subsequent tape playback, for example), and Peter Medak frequently employs a frenetic POV of the ghost, long before Sam Raimi did the same in Evil Dead. Plus, the film is 10 minutes shorter than Blockbuster said it was, so wooo!

I also really liked the opening, in which George C. Scott sees his wife and child get completely DESTROYED by a car. It’s that 70s sensibility that is now pretty much gone; today maybe the wife would die but the kid would live in coma for the rest of the movie. And come back at the end with the cure for Crohn’s or something. Oh and she’d have a dance recital. Not in the 70s though! She’s TOAST. However, her death WOULD have been avoided had her mother had the good sense to push the kid out of the way or something, instead of merely knocking her over and laying on top of her, right in the path of the car. Nice move, schmuck.

One thing I dug about the movie as well was how old everyone is. Scott of course was never young, and everyone else in the movie (except for the dead kid(s), obviously) is pushing 50 or so. I like that, it’s nice to see old people get scared every now and then instead of teens. However, to be fair Scott doesn’t really seem scared by anything, just merely sort of annoyed. His reaction to all of the water in the house turning on is no different than mine when I realize I forgot to buy milk.

Which I forgot to buy this morning! Fuck!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Nightmare Man (2006)

APRIL 5, 2008

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

A word of advice for horror filmmakers: When you set out to make a fun horror movie that’s not supposed to be taken too seriously, make sure it’s actually fun. Because if it’s not, you end up with a movie that eventually just bores, such as Nightmare Man. There’s nothing particularly BAD about the movie (other than the horrible digital video, made worse by a lazy and flat transfer), but there isn’t much to recommend, either. The films that the movie emulates and pays homage to (Evil Dead, Trilogy Of Terror, and even The Entity for some reason) are all vastly more entertaining and a better use of your time.

Remember that one Futurama where they try to explain something to Fry and after a few seconds he gives up trying to understand it and just goes “Magic, right”? That’s kind of how I feel about a lot of these horror movies that are supposed to be “fun”. Any plot hole, lazy screenwriting decision, etc, can just be chalked up to “Hey you’re not supposed to take it seriously!” But the problem is, there is a way to make a fun horror movie that DOES make sense, to a certain degree. There is nothing as glaringly stupid in Hatchet or Scream as the fact that the girl runs from her car to the house where most of the action takes place in about 5 minutes, yet it takes 40 for her husband to drive the car there. Or why the husband would say “You have company in the trunk” to his wife, when the trunk contains the very thing he doesn’t want her to know he has brought along. Fun? Not really, plus once the reveals started coming I was mainly just wondering why the guy would go through all this trouble to fuck with his wife (it's also one of those movies where the person being set up has to behave exactly as the villain needs them to for his plan to work, another pet peeve of mine).

Also, as I said, the movie has a bit of Entity in it, as our heroine is raped and presumably impregnated by the demon/ghost/whatever thing at the end. Uh... yeah that’s not exactly keeping in the spirit of fun, is it? Even though the movie never got a laugh out of me, it was at least better when they were trying, as opposed to the complete 180 for the ending.

Speaking of the ending, it’s partially spoiled by the film’s own opening credits, which promises an appearance by Richard Moll (who appeared in the more successful "fun horror" movie Headless Horseman). Since he doesn’t appear before the isolated action begins, nor is he revealed to be the killer, it’s pretty obvious that rescue WILL arrive in the form of Bull, so suspense is tossed aside as well.

And yes, I said that he wasn’t the killer. Despite the movie’s attempts to make us believe that the killer in the film is a demon, I never bought it for a second. Why? Because the fucking thing has tennis shoes on! Oh wait, “It’s not supposed to be taken seriously!” Then why bother with the whole ‘demon’ thing at all? The audience knowing for sure it’s just a guy in a mask, but not the characters, could lead to some fun situations. Or not, who knows.

And yet this is the most packed of all the After Dark DVDs so far for this year. There’s a commentary (buried in the setup menu) which actually isn’t too bad, as the director and Tiffany Shepis just pal around and point out some of the movie’s flaws. Plus some making of and deleted scenes, and Shepis’ own ‘video diary’ which is about 10 minutes longer than necessary but still kind of fun. Shepis is an engaging presence and can usually elevate a film with her natural charm (see, or not, Scarecrow) but even she can’t manage to get this one going, so at least the extras don’t betray her likability. All in all, not counting the commentary, there’s an hour’s worth of stuff here (which may have added to the abysmal transfer), which is far more than is necessary for a movie that stops cold for three solid minutes while a couple (non-amusingly) discuss their issues shortly after one of their friends is murdered by a demon wearing Converse.

I can’t call it crap, because everyone was clearly trying and having a good time, and it’s far from soulless. But it seriously needed another couple of drafts, possibly by legitimately funny writers, to make itself stick out amidst the 28 million other movies that throw a few young folks in a cabin and hope for the best.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Grizzly Park (2008)

APRIL 4, 2008

GENRE: PREDATOR, SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PREMIERE)

One thing about living in LA is that when you see someone who looks like a celebrity, there's a damn good chance it really IS them. So tonight when I went to see the premiere of Grizzly Park, I sat next to a guy who looked suspiciously like Ron Howard. If I knew for sure it was him, I would obviously grab him and yell "GIVE ME BACK MY SON!", but since I wasn't sure, I opted to just sit down. However, fate was on my side, as the trailers began, and there was one for a documentary/thriller thing about the same subject matter as Da Vinci Code. Halfway through the trailer, the woman who was on the other side of him asked "Is that your footage?" Bingo.

As it turns out, Ron is a very nice guy, and we continued to make small chat through the rest of the trailer reel. I wish I could have talked to him more about a few of his films, such as Apollo 13 (easily the best of the series) and, obviously, Ransom, which is my personal favorite of his films. Sadly I didn't get the chance. Oh well.

You might be wondering why I've devoted two paragraphs to a guy who has nothing to do with the movie. Well, that's because the movie is pretty bad. But it's NOT soullessly bad, like your Drive Thrus and what not. No, it's obvious that everyone was trying really hard, but that the film was noticeably shot without anywhere near the budget the script required. The result? LOTS of padding, very little action, ridiculously bad prosthetic effects, and just an overall feeling that had they had a decent budget, this one could have been a lot of fun.

Part of the problem is the lack of, well, GRIZZLY action. The bear only shows up seconds before he kills someone in a hilariously edited manner, amounting to probably less than 3 minutes of actual bear action. He's not even the only killer, as a wolf takes out one (possibly two) of the eight kids, and honest to dog, a SERIAL KILLER also accounts for 1/4 of the killings.

Yes, an escaped prisoner impersonates the cop who is supposed to be taking these delinquent kids (the "bad kids cleaning up" plot is lifted from the superior See No Evil, right down to the 'freezeframe w/crimes listed' sequence serving for introduction) into the woods, and he offs the real cop and another ranger before becoming the first (and for over and hour, only) bear victim. Hilariously, the guy seems pretty intent on impersonating the cop right down to the last detail, kindly bringing up sleeping bags and supplies for the kids.

And that's part of the problem with the film. 90% of it seems like deleted scenes from a better, funner movie. Why would the killer bring the goddamn sleeping bags up the mountain? Because it takes 2 minutes of cheap screentime up. At one point they just cut to poor Glenn Morshower (the film's sole bright spot) putting a clipboard up on a wall. Why are we watching this? There are also about a half dozen scenes of the kids discussing their crimes, none of which matter in the long run. And when the "twist" ending comes around, it renders some of what we saw earlier even more useless.

The twist(s) are so idiotic, I can't possibly spoil them for anyone (especially since the film isn't out on DVD yet, which is where I'm guessing 99% of its audience will see it). Suffice to say that the first twist is rendered pointless since it involves someone who dies literally 30 seconds later. Then the second twist is so dumb I actually joked about it 10 minutes before. Again, I won't spoil it, but let's just say that when I made the joke, it never crossed my mind that I was actually calling something that would actually happen, because it is so ridiculous. In between these two twists is a random, abrupt news report sequence in which the reporter says "(So and so) reporting live, from the woods", at which point I nearly lost my shit and probably scared poor Ron Howard.

I feel bad dumping on the movie, and to be fair, besides Morshower, it does have some good moments. The kills are nice (bad prosthetics aside), and there's a fantastic payoff to a minor subplot concerning one of the female characters' fake breasts. But honestly, I just fail to see why it was shot when they didn't have the money to pull it off correctly. It's not like the low budget horror scene is spread really thin and they needed to make SOMETHING to keep the genre afloat - it will probably be one of 29 horror movies to come out on DVD that week. And it bums me out, because I know that one of those other theoretical 29 movies will have the right amount of resources, but waste it on a totally worthless script. Team ups, people, team ups!

And why was Mr. Howard there? His dad, Rance Howard, was in the film for 2-3 minutes, also unnecessary padding. Ron also proved himself to be much smarter than me, dozing off for a good 20 minutes. He missed nothing. After the movie I told Ron that his dad fared far better in Sasquatch Mountain. But still, the guy needs to stay away from "Monster in the woods" movies.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

13: Games Of Death (2006)

APRIL 3, 2008

GENRE: ASIAN, COMIC BOOK, THRILLER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

The central concept of 13: Games Of Death (aka 13 Game Sayawng) is a fantastic one (a guy is unwittingly placed in a game show that has him carry out thirteen tasks for an increasing amount of money; if he loses one or quits he gets absolutely nothing). It's a fantastic "what would I do if this happened to me?" concept (a sentiment shared by HMAD reader Chris, who recommended I watch it). But there are a couple big problems that keep it from being a fantastic movie as well, and instead it’s just “pretty good”.

One such problem is the length. It’s just shy of two hours, but the film tries to wring suspense out of whether or not he will do a task as they get more and more morally questionable. We know damn well he will get to the final task, so don’t delay us getting there! Luckily, two or three of the tasks are sort of glossed over (number 12 is one, and it seems to be backtracking: after having him unknowingly wipe out an entire group of bike riders, 12 is apparently “Eat some cow intestine”?) which keeps the film from being OVER two hours, but still, maybe just weeding it down to ten tasks would have helped.

Another problem is a plot hole that is impossible to ignore. He is playing this game and everyone around him seems baffled by his actions. But the game seems to be quite popular as well. Wouldn’t some of these folks know that he was playing? And with all of the cameras around, wouldn’t THOSE be noticeable by the bystanders (not to mention the police who just assume he’s a criminal)? It’d be like trying to sell Truman Show without putting his entire world in a dome first.

Still, it’s an engaging thriller, and the lead guy (Krissada Terrence) is an unconventional hero, which is a nice plus. The movie does a good job of establishing his desperation (financial and personal) rather quickly, so that when he begins the game, we can easily buy that he will go along with it, despite the fact that we don’t really know TOO much about him. There’s also a fantastic (if never quite explained) opening scene with a kid, an old lady in the road, and a bus. You do the math! And the aforementioned bike rider scene rivals the opening of Ghost Ship in sheer “Holy fuck!”ity.

This is based on a comic book I have never heard of, and some of the later developments in the film (particularly the “reveal” of the villain) probably work a lot better in a fleshed out comic than in a film. If it’s in English maybe I’ll check it out. Speaking of, I watched some of the movie in English because reading subs puts me to sleep and I was already a bit tired. The dubbing was strange – in an attempt to match the mouths of the real actors, the dubbers speak in. An. Oddly stilt. Ed man. Ner, rather than try to sound natural. It’s kind of amusing, but after a few minutes I promptly switched it back to the Thai language. And dozed off for a few minutes.

This one comes courtesy of Dimension Extreme, which, after a VERY bad start (Buried Alive and Broken... Christ.) has become a fairly and surprisingly dependable source of good movies (with the best, Inside, yet to come!). It’s kind of ironic that the studio once synonymous with horrible, “filmmaking by committee” garbage has become one of the few bright spots for modern horror releases. Then again, it should be noted that not a single one of these films were made under the watchful knife, er, eye, of the Weinstein brothers.

Also I should note that the horror elements are rather light, and one should CERTAINLY not pay any attention to the blurb on the back written by some broad from Hollywood Reporter who boasts about it being a "Supernatural thriller!". There is absolutely NOTHING supernatural in this film at all. Moron.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Invisible Ghost (1941)

APRIL 2, 2008

GENRE: POSSESSION
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 2!!!)

Did they have trailers before the movies back in the 40s? I like to imagine they did, and that there was a particularly sarcastic audience member who pointed out how many of the movies coming out were identical to the one they were about to see: bunch of folks in a house run by a horror icon, a couple of murders, a street smart detective, the idea that the causes for the murders is supernatural when its not, and really kind of lame to boot... Imagine going to see Shutter and seeing the trailers for One Missed Call, Pulse, The Eye, The Grudge, The Ring, and Dark Water... Christ.

Anyway, The Invisible Ghost (which doesn’t feature a ghost, or Chevy Chase*) is just like a bunch of other movies I’ve already watched/written about from the Horror Classics set, so I really don’t have much to say about it. It’s good to see Bela Lugosi in a rare ‘normal’ role (he’s the killer, but he’s possessed when he kills, and the rest of the time he’s quite pleasant, if terrible at chess). Also, the African American character (Clarence Muse) isn’t played as a stereotype, unlike Jeff in King of the Zombies, so that’s a plus.

He also has my favorite line in the movie. At one point the cops suspect him of being the killer. One cop says “Where were you the other night?” to which Muse responds “Have you had your coffee yet?” The cop says no, and instantly forgets all about that whole ‘possible killer’ thing. I plan to use this very same ruse the next time I am suspected in a murder. I just hope I have some coffee around. It’s always embarrassing when you try to distract someone away from the idea that you are a bloodthirsty murderer by offering them some coffee, only to discover you’re completely out.

The one good thing about all of these old movies is that they are ridiculously short. At 64 minutes, this one is over before you realize how boring it is. Lugosi’s possession sequences aside, the rest of the movie is just folks talking about not very interesting things, or accusing one another of killing everyone else; which is kind of moot when we are shown almost right from the start that Lugosi is the killer. Oh well.

What say you?

*Speaking of which, Memoirs Of An Invisible Man is airing on the HDNet movie channel this week! See the only film Carpenter didn’t put his name above the title on in glorious high def! Watch Chase’s career (this was his last non family movie) disappear literally and figuratively in 1080p!

PLEASE, GO ON...

Mulberry St (2006)

APRIL 1, 2008

GENRE: INDEPENDENT, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

No it’s not an April Fool’s joke (I did enough of those on my other sites): the After Dark film Mulberry St. is by far the best they have offered this year (so far) and ranks up there with Gravedancers as the best film with any sort of ties to the company (don’t forget non-festival offerings like Skinwalkers and Captivity!), period.

It’s also one of the few films in the festival (good or bad) that I can genuinely dub “independent”. Unearthed, or even Gravedancers, don’t really strike me as independent films. They have big actors (well, big for horror films), budgets of a million or more, myriad producers, etc. To me, an independent film is one that quite frankly wouldn’t be made if the director decided not to do it, populated with people you haven't seen in Saw sequels. If Matt Leutwyler decided to walk off Unearthed, once Emmanuelle Vaugier and Luke Goss had already signed on to do it, you can bet that someone else would take his place. But if director Jim Mickle (who wrote the film along with Nick Damici, who plays the lead) gave up on it, it’s pretty likely that Mulberry would never be completed. And that would be a shame.

Ostensibly a zombie movie, Mickle does a good job of selling the idea that New York is under quarantine. Since he’s not exactly Francis Lawrence, he can’t really shut down whole areas of the city, so he sells these ideas via a near constant stream of news and TV broadcasts that mix footage from what I assume is from 9/11, the blackout, etc., along with standard “quick no one’s around let’s film this street” type stuff. It works well. Most of the action is confined to a single apartment building, and thus doesn’t require such extravagant shots like a deserted Times Square in order to get the point across.

The cast is a huge part of that success. With one exception, I don’t doubt for a second that any of these characters (mostly blue collar types) are genuine, hard-working New Yorkers who get caught up in a horror movie plot. Damici in particular is a fantastic lead, and carries the film effortlessly. Big actors wouldn’t work for this particular movie. I always hate when I’d see a Schwarzenegger movie that tried to pass him off as a regular family/working man (like 6th Day), because there’s no way in hell I can believe him as anything but a larger than life character. Even a character actor like Ed Harris wouldn’t be as effective in this particular film, because it would be harder to sell the whole “New York is quarantined” idea. I know Ed Harris is not a New Yorker (well, maybe he is, but you know what I mean), so I’d be less inclined to believe he was trapped in Harlem without being able to actually SEE the city being closed off. But this guy, who I don’t know from Adam? I buy it. Even Larry Fessenden, the patron saint of indie horror, pops up in a quick cameo, and it doesn’t distract from the illusion.

The only exception is the girl playing his daughter. While not a bad actress per se, she didn’t really feel as genuine as the others, seeming more like an actress playing a role than an actual person (ironic since her resume is one of the less prolific – hell, I’ve actually SEEN Damici in other films and didn’t recognize him). Her scenes also take place around the city, and in these scenes the small budget and obvious lack of an actual quarantine begin to become a bit more apparent. Luckily, the apartment stuff takes up the bulk of the film, so it’s not really a big deal.

It’s also smartly paced. The first 40 minutes are like old Cronenberg in a way, with just the feeling of impending dread instead of in your face gore sequences. We just see these guys going about their day, with minor mentions of rat problems and such sort of presented in the background. Then the 2nd half of the film (it’s only 82 minutes long, hurrah!) is an almost nonstop series of ‘zombie’ attacks (they’re more like the ratty vampire things from Dusk Till Dawn), and despite the low budget, we are treated to some good action and gore. Not to mention some unique cinematography; there’s a great camera angle from the top of a door that the monsters are trying to open, so the shot slides back and forth along with the budging door. Nice stuff.

It’s also one of the few modern horror movies to deal with any sort of social commentary. Greedy land developers and such are given their due, the heroes of the film are hard-working blue collar types who are just trying to survive. Sure, it’s hardly original, but since so few modern horror films (especially the ones Mulberry is lumped with) have anything to say, it SEEMS original.

The DVD comes with what seems like a substantial amount of extras, but sadly they are not really much to write blogs about. The video quality is poor on several, resulting in a “What the hell am I looking at?” feeling on the outtakes and makeup test portions. A pair of deleted scenes are wisely cut, and the sketches/storyboards are only of minor interest. Still, the film itself is the real bonus. This is exactly the type of film After Dark SHOULD be releasing (in the festival or not) – true independent films that would be otherwise lost on the video shelves without the promotion AD gave them. You think something like Tooth And Nail, with Michael Madsen, Vinnie Jones, etc. would completely disappear if not for After Dark? No way in hell. But movies like this, with no stars, no big effects to promote, etc.? If I wasn’t watching a horror movie every day I’d probably never give it a second glance. Hopefully, if they do a 3rd festival, AD seeks out more truly independent films like Mulberry and gives them the recognition they would not only otherwise not receive, but undeniably deserve.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...