Invasion (2005)

JULY 18, 2008

GENRE: MOCKUMENTARY, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

John Carpenter may have been the first director I ever took notice of and “followed”, but Albert Pyun was the first one I ever noticed was fucking terrible. I recall watching a film called Arcade and finding it incredibly bad. I looked at the credits and saw the name Albert Pyun, a name I recognized from the equally terrible Captain America movie (the one with the Italian Red Skull). “I should just avoid this guy from now on” I said, and I have mostly stuck to my guns on that matter (I watched something called Mean Guns that he did, because I didn’t know it was him)... until now.

Some time ago I heard about Invasion (aka Infection, which makes more sense. Way to go LG), that it was an “all one shot” film shot from a police car surveillance camera, and that it detailed some sort of alien or zombie outbreak. And it was directed by Albert Pyun. “Pyun making something interesting”, I pondered? Since his awful camerawork is a big part of why I hated his other movies, I figured one where the camera never moved had a chance to be OK, so I queued it up.

And it’s not all that bad. It’s just woefully half-assed. We are told right at the beginning that we are going to see 63 minutes of unbroken (pfft, right) video footage, but since the movie is 80 minutes long, that means there’s gonna be some other stuff. Well, yes and no. There is a wrap-around of sorts (possibly added later for padding) with a reporter trying to get to the bottom of everything (and failing to do so), and some onscreen text that gives some info about the outbreak, but as it turns out, the camera segment isn’t even the promised 63 minutes (it’s just shy of 60). So where’s the rest of the time?

End credits, that’s where. In what has to be a record, the end titles last 15 minutes. Consider that this movie is all “one shot”, features only a half dozen actors, and couldn’t possibly have things like a 2nd unit or multiple cameramen, it’s pretty amazing that they stretch the credits out for so long (you can watch them on fast forward and still easily read each name, with time to spare). Hell, even the ones in the LOTR movies weren’t this long.

As for the actual movie, it’s not that bad. The cheating running time actually sort of makes the final “scene” a bit of a jump, because you’re like “well there’s still 20 minutes to go, obviously our Final Girl isn’t in any real danger yet” and then BANG! So there’s something. And the score is quite good; very Carpenter inspired. There is also a surprisingly strong surround mix – you’ll hear woodland animals and footsteps coming from your rear speakers at unexpected times.

Plus, the techie/film geek in me loves the idea of a single shot movie. Whenever the story dragged (which was often), I was still having fun trying to spot the edits. There aren’t any in the first 10-15 min that I could see, but as the film goes on they become more frequent and even noticeable. Even if you never spotted the ones in the opening shot of Halloween, you’ll see at least two in this I think. Guess they just started getting lazy.

Unfortunately, it seems Pyun and co. just sort of figured that the gimmick was enough to sustain the movie. There are some taut sequences early on (particularly when the now zombied cop first approaches the two kids in their car), but after a while it runs out of ideas and it seems like they just started making it up on the spot. Our heroine suddenly sees ghosts of herself, she breaks down shrieking for minutes on end, a weird floating head makes a cameo... what the hell? [Rec] also had a similar “zombies in real time” concept, and it was a far better example of how to pace the film accordingly and yet keep it suspenseful and exciting at the same time. Pyun fails to do that here; and the randomness of the last 15 minutes (well, last 30 minutes, since 15 are credits) hurt the film more than help. Sure, a floating head might be interesting, but not when its clearly there just to add a few more precious seconds to the narrative so that it will count as a feature length film.

The reason behind keeping the girl inside the park is also incredibly weak, and botched to boot. Supposedly there’s only one road leading in and out of the park, fine. But she claims it’s being blocked, despite the fact that we clearly see the car “blocking” it being driven in reverse toward the exit/entrance (seems like he’s clearing a path for her more than anything else). Plus, she’s in a goddamn police car! Those things have those battering ram grill things that could easily take out a 1975 Chevy Pickup. Come on now. You can do better.

The DVD has a special features menu, but the only thing on it are the traditional LG trailers that you are forced to watch when you pop the disc in anyway. It IS anamorphic though, so take the good with the bad.

Not a bad film, just one that should have been great. The moral of the story – you can always count on Pyun to botch a perfectly good concept.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Eye 2 (2004)

JULY 17, 2008

GENRE: ASIAN, GHOST*
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

I got about a half hour into The Eye 2 (aka Gin Gwai 2) and realized I was getting sleepy. It’s a common thing lately; I start to doze off like 2 hrs after I get out of bed (I only sleep like 5-6 hrs, so that may be a root cause). Not wanting to miss any of the movie, I decided to give myself a shot of adrenaline by playing some Halo 3. I figured either I would win and get pumped, or lose and get mad – no matter what, I’d be energized. So I turn it on and look at my stats, and notice I am 2 wins shy of getting a promotion (which means nothing, but looks cool). “Sweet!” I said, and proceeded to win a round. Then I was in one where they said the host quit and my team won, and then I won another right out. But no promotion. I looked, and my win count hadn’t changed. This presented a third, unpredicted scenario – I win AND get mad anyway. Stupid goddamn Halo.

But it worked, and I was able to watch the rest of the film sans “eye resting”. Which is a good thing, because this one is more about story and character than scares (or a body count – by my count, the film only has one death and it’s a suicide). Not the type of thing you can miss much of and expect to know what the hell is going on, and besides, it’s simply a good movie, which deserves your full(ish) attention.

It’s admirable that a sequel would go smaller. The cast is smaller, the scares are smaller, and again, there’s no real body count to provide cheap thrills. So while nothing may rival the elevator scene in the original, it’s a movie that works better as a whole, which is preferable.

Ironically, it’s more suited to Jessica Alba’s limited acting talents, though I am guessing that if there IS a Hollywood sequel to her version of The Eye, it won’t follow this plot and/or star her anyway. Instead of having to play blind, she would only have to play pregnant, something she actually is (or was, I don’t know/care when celebrities have their babies, especially when I’m not even the father). If the movie has one flaw, it’s that for a sequel, it doesn’t have much to do with the original – no characters return, and the concept of an “eye” isn’t even really involved. She "sees" ghosts, but Christ, so does every other person in Asia, it seems (why do these people get so freaked out when they start seeing ghosts? It seems like a pretty common problem over there. I’d feel sort of gypped if I DIDN’T see ghosts, at this point).

There are also a couple other minor quirks. The main ‘villain’ ghost is a bit inconsistent regarding when the ghost seeing heroine can see HER or not, and it only seems to be that way so that a few jump scares can occur. Also, there’s a scene where the girl is at some sort of “how to be a mother” class and drowns her fake baby. Everyone seems to think its funny, and they even play silly incidental music, but I don’t see the amusement. She does it because she zones out thinking about all the ghosts she keeps seeing, a problem that may still occur once she has the real kid. This is a major concern. They also attempt an elevator scare, which is kind of silly – you can’t top the one in the original, so don’t even try. It’s like the Chain Saw remake... they knew to avoid the dinner scene. I also didn’t care too much for the constant fades to black for a second and then back up to show a jump in the narrative. It’s an editing technique I like, but they overuse it, particularly in the final act (the movie is sort of broken into chapters as it is – this makes it feel like a collection of cutscenes in a game at times).

The story is pretty powerful and even melancholy. The incredible score (other than “ghosts”, this is about all the two films have in common; the original’s was great too) aids a lot of the more emotional scenes, particularly the big reveal which is when the movie turns from decent to simply GOOD. If anything, the movie becomes even SMALLER at this point, and it’s a gamble that pays off. There are still some horror elements (including the only real gore in the film), but it’s still completely focused on the character and story, not spectacle. Very admirable.

You also gotta love a movie in which our heroine reveals herself to be completely inept at suicide. She tries to kill herself like 4 or 5 times during the movie, and she keeps failing. Most impressive is when she jumps off a roof (of a short building, but still). Not only does she survive and then drag herself up the stairs to try again, but it’s also impressive from a filmmaking perspective. We see her jump off and land, and then MOVE, all in one shot. I’m pretty good at spotting hidden edits and fake CG people, and I didn’t catch either. Either way, the shot totally fucking SELLS.

Doesn’t matter if you saw or didn’t see the original, or even if you liked it. If you like ghost movies, this is definitely one of the more interesting and unique. It’s not a masterpiece or anything, but it’s really interesting how they were able to work in the standard Asian ghost movie clichés (even long black hair entering the frame first) and yet make the film as a whole feel very original.

What say you?

*I need more Asian films WITHOUT Ghosts - if you know of any please post in the recommendation thread. Gracias...

PLEASE, GO ON...

Candyman: Farewell To The Flesh (1995)

JULY 16, 2008

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

If memory serves, and it rarely does, I rented Candyman: Farewell To The Flesh when it hit VHS, fell asleep watching it, and didn’t bother to rewind when I woke up. There can’t be any other way to explain it, because the end seemed familiar, and obviously I had seen the beginning, but I didn’t even have the slightest bit of recognition or déjà vu as I watched the middle part of the film. Crazy ice cone salesmen, Timothy Carhart (a nice replacement for fellow “asshole actor” Xander Berkeley) being scared by a raven, some dudes outside, and his own girlfriend in a single sequence, Bill Nunn dressed as a priest, etc... none of this stuff rang even the tiniest bell.

Sadly, the “meh” feeling I recalled having then is the same one I have now. Having just watched the original a couple weeks or so ago (as opposed to about 3 years between them in the 90s), it’s easy to see what went wrong: namely, a complete lack of mysteriousness for Candyman. In the film’s very FIRST SCENE, we are given a lot of his backstory (courtesy of that one asshole professor from the original, the only non-Candyman person to return), which sort of ruins him for the rest of the movie. Then the final 15 minutes are almost entirely a flashback to his “origin”, something that should have been revealed a bit BEFORE the finale of a horror movie. Kind of hard to get scared or anything when the writers and director are more interested in what already happened than what is about to.

Plus, isn’t it a bit early for the "sympathetic" origin stuff? It took Freddy 3 movies to get some of that, and then 6 to get the rest. This one gives everything away. I haven’t seen 3, but I’m guessing any sort of revelations are either going to be completely unimportant (maybe Candyman had a fondness for apples) or revisionist. They also act like it’s a much later film in the series by not having a “2” in the title. Again, this is reserved for later sequels, so that unassuming folks won’t realize it’s actually the 8th part or whatever. If it’s only the second film, you’re just tricking people into thinking it’s the first one, which is kind of dumb. Especially when the film’s trailer has what has to be the most idiotic tagline of all time: “A motion picture that ends what the first one barely started”. What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Barely started what? Sucking?

The lead actress is no help. Kelly Rowan is someone you’d expect to see in a Wes Craven Presents* film, because she is so bland and blonde. No match for Virginia Madsen at any rate. This is probably why Tony Todd got top billing, despite being in it I think even less than the original (he only appears once in the first 45 minutes), where he got the “And” credit. Thankfully, he talks a lot less here, until the finale anyway. And when he does, it’s not gothic poetry sounding, so there’s one of the few improvements.

One thing I’ll give credit to each of the Candyman films for is having a variety of locales that play a big factor in the film’s story. Cabrini Green in the original, New Orleans here, and from what I understand, the LA Day of the Dead festival in 3. Conventional wisdom would have new folks moving to Cabrini Green and having Candyman stalk them, but that’s not the case here. Had the series continued, it could be like horror’s own travelogue series. “Candyman visits picturesque and yet war torn Iraq.”

The movie also contains what I believe is the only non-sympathetic cancer sufferer in movie history (not counting dying mafia dons and the like). Veronica Cartwright plays Final Girl’s mom, and she’s a racist snob who is dying (and drinking, which probably doesn’t help). In between passive aggressive putdowns of people who aren’t white, she points out how she won’t live long enough to see her hair turn gray or how she can fit in her prom dress again. Yeah lady, I feel real bad for you. Go die.

Another hilarious “first” is a scene in which two characters drive up to a spooky house to investigate. Usually this will involve one of them pulling a gun out of the glove box, to the concern of the other one. But nope, this movie does the scene with a cell phone (1995, don’t forget). “What’s that for?!?!” she cries, as if he had pulled out, well, a gun. “Just in case,” he says. Just in case what? You want to text your buddy? Go get a goddamn gun like every other movie character that’s just gonna die anyway.

The film’s most annoying concept is a radio DJ who never shuts up. Like the one in End of Days, he’s sort of providing global exposition, reminding us when the festival occurs, what it means, etc. He is even shown at the festival, but according to the credits he’s played by a different guy than the one doing the voice. So they shelled out dough for two people to play one annoying and worthless character. He’s like what Candyman was in the first one – namely, someone who should never open his goddamn mouth.

Unlike the original’s DVD, this one is pretty light on extras. Namely, just a commentary with future Oscar winning director Bill Condon. He’s surprisingly pretty candid about the film’s faults, even admitting the first one is better. He also reveals some things he now regrets (like the DJ!) and other tidbits. He’s also strangely silent for minutes at a time, which makes me wonder if he went off even more and the studio had it edited out. Then again, I can’t imagine any studio would care – the film was originally Gramercy in theaters, Polygram for video, and now the DVD is MGM. For a sequel to a Sony film.

How’s part 3? Anyone see it? This one wasn’t BAD, it was just so goddamn bland, which is in some ways worse. No wonder I couldn’t remember any of it from 12 years ago, it’s only been 4 hours since I watched it again and I’m already pretty hazy on a lot of the details. Did the asshole cop ever die?

What say you?

*Such as Dracula 2000, which was also set in New Orleans, and made a big deal about the city’s history and such. And Hatchet also had Mardi Gras as a focal point. Which begs the question – does any horror movie take place in the non-historical, non-Mardi Gras parts of New Orleans? Is Mardi Gras a yearlong event? Is Bourbon Street the only street in town? One thing about Los Angeles, which I’ve mentioned before, is how there aren’t a lot of “traditional” shooting locales that you expect to see whenever a movie is set there. Read all about it in my new book: “Things That Bug Me That You Never Even Noticed And Certainly Don’t Give A Shit About To Boot”.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Bad Moon (1996)

JULY 15, 2008

GENRE: WEREWOLF
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Last night I went to Best Buy to buy The Ruins, which I really liked and wanted to see on Blu-Ray, as it was incredibly well shot and beautiful to look at. From there I drove to Blockbuster, and as I did, I questioned whether or not I should have bought it or simply rented it when I actually had time to watch it again (doing HMAD leaves little time for rewatching stuff I’ve already reviewed). I own too many DVDs as it is, so buying a horror movie that I probably won’t have time to watch again for months isn’t the best investment, especially when you consider I already own a lot I haven’t seen at all. Anyway, at Blockbuster, I rented Bad Moon, the 1996 werewolf movie that HMAD reader Kristian recommended some time ago. When the girl* asked if I wanted the receipt, I said yes. Not because I need to prove I rented Bad Moon, but because I like Eric Red a lot, and figured if it was good, I’d have the receipt to let me know how much it was to keep.

So when I got to my car and looked at the receipt, I was amazed to see it was $9.99 to own. Most horror movies more than a few years old (particularly ones that aren’t exactly big sellers) are like 4-6 bucks tops. “10 bucks?” I said to myself. “It’s probably not that much to buy it new!” And then, suddenly, a rush of memories flooded my brain. Like the one concerning the time a few months back when I bought a 4 movie pack of Warner horror movies... like Bad Moon.

Yes, moments after pondering whether I had just bought something I should have just rented, I rented a movie I had already fucking bought. Now, in my (small) defense, it’s not like I went out of my way to specifically buy Bad Moon, I had bought a cheap horror multipack and that film was on it. At least I was right though – I paid 7.99 for it brand new and got 3 other movies to boot.

And of course, as I watched the film I realized it WAS only worth a rental. It’s not horrible, but it’s incredibly lacking in suspense or scares. A big problem is the limited cast – we have the werewolf, the mom, her little kid, and Thor, the dog who is actually the main character. And that’s it. So it’s kind of hard to really fear for their safety, because a mom, the little kid, and the dog are the safest movie characters in movie history (unless the dog is the villain, see Cujo). And there are almost no other secondary characters, only a sheriff (who has one scene) and a con man that is obvious fodder. Maybe having a few “at risk” characters (a friend of the mother, a neighbor, a love interest... maybe a few bullies for the kid) would help things in this department. If we only really know two people, and they’re not in any danger – how are we supposed to really fear the werewolf?

Another issue is Michael Paré’s inconsistent character. In human form, he is sort of sympathetic – he is looking for a cure and he chains himself to a tree at night so he doesn’t hurt anyone. But at times he’s just the typical evil human who is seemingly embracing his lycanthropy. At one point he instigates the dog, resulting in it being taken off to the pound. He sneers as the dog is dragged off, and then urinates on the doghouse (this is payback for the dog peeing on his trailer – possibly the first urination-based cinematic payoff in history). But then later, when his sister discovers his secret, he acts like she should never have let the dog get taken away, and even sticks up for it (“he was trying to protect you!”). Huh? Also, at one point the dog is seemingly trying to prevent Paré from chaining himself up. Which makes the dog kind of an asshole.

Luckily it’s short enough (75 minutes or so) and doesn’t have any mystics or scientists rambling about cures and curses to slow things down or drown the film in exposition. It hurts the suspense factor, but it’s actually kind of nice to see such a straight forward werewolf film. There isn’t too much in the way of rewriting the rules (supposedly he turns every night, not just during the full moon, but then they show the moon and it’s full anyway, so I dunno), and the gore is surprisingly, well, gory. The transformation kind of sucks (thanks, morphing CG heavy 90s!) but that wasn’t really a surprise. The wolf itself looks cool (all man in suit stuff; the guy in the suit was actually the dude who stole Jason away from Kane Hodder) and the dog is awesome, so at least the action scenes have that going for them.

Nowadays the film would almost certainly go direct to video. But the completely horror-starved mid 90s allowed such things to hit theaters, which is nice. A stark contrast from today, where the market was glutted to the point of total burnout from the fans, resulting in great movies like The Ruins totally tanking. Hey, the review came full circle!

What say you?

*More depressing about the whole thing – I forgot my card, but the girl was like “Oh its OK, you’re in here a lot.” Since I belong to TWO online rental places, it’s sort of defeating the purpose if I am considered a regular at the actual store.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Brutal Massacre (2007)

JULY 14, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, MOCKUMENTARY
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Let me reveal right off the bat – Brutal Massacre is not a horror movie. It’s a comedy. BUT: A. I thought there was a slasher element in it (that the crew started getting picked off or something, plus the cover implies it’s a horror comedy), and B. The movie won’t be of much interest to anyone but horror fans, so I think it’s OK to count. However, from now on I will pay more attention to the goddamn synopsis – I spent the whole movie waiting for the crew to start getting killed. I could have sworn I saw a still of Brian O’Halloran’s character being dismembered, but I must have imagined it.

The film is written and directed by Stevan Mena, who made the above average independent slasher Malevolence, which has a sequel on the way (one that looks fucking great from the trailer). Several of the events seen in Massacre are in fact based on insane stuff that actually happened to him during the shooting of his earlier film (the most depressing/hilarious – he gave 200 bucks to a guy he thought was a PA in order to have him exchange it for two hundred dollar bills to be used onscreen, only to discover the guy was just some onlooker who unsurprisingly was never heard from again). These moments are also among the funniest, and helps offset the humor that DOESN’T work.

See, for every unique jokey bit like that, there is unfortunately some generic gag right on its heels. Every mockumentary about filmmaking has the same stock set of jokes, and this movie revels in them: the crew doesn’t get paid, the actors are convinced they are making high art, etc. Each and every joke built around these concepts is too clichéd to really amuse, and it’s a shame that Mena & co. fell back on them so often during the film. I wish that everyone had stuck with the more batshit ideas and setpieces (like when they are suddenly shot at during filming) than tired old “There’s no catering?!?!?” type stuff.

Another issue was the “documentary” presentation. Like Diary of the Dead, they really don’t do a very good job of selling the idea that everything we are seeing is from the eyes of a participant in the proceedings. Conversations are covered from opposite angles, but we never once see a cameraman on the other side. There’s a scene with Ken Foree giving a monologue about shitting his pants (there is a lot of poop humor in the film), and there are two angles on it, one of which would CERTAINLY catch the other camera had it been “live”. Since the “talking to camera” stuff and narration is mostly forgotten after the first 20 minutes, it’s a wonder they even bothered with the idea at all.

One final issue is the main character, Harry Penderecki (David Naughton!), and the fact that he is kind of an asshole. We want to root for him, and there’s a really sad scene where he goes to the video store and sees all of his movies in the dollar bin, but a lot of the time he’s not really sympathetic. It is frequently alluded to that he sleeps with his younger co-stars, he doesn’t care when one of his long time collaborators dies on the set (it’s an accident), etc. It’s clear that the movies of Christopher Guest were an inspiration, but the difference is that those characters are flawed, but still lovable. Harry’s flaws nearly result in him simply being unlikable.

That stuff aside, it’s definitely an amusing movie, and a real treat for horror nerds. Cameos by Gunnar Hansen, Mick Garris, and Tony Timpone (who can’t even play himself right – at no point does he offer a “Big Fango welcome” to anyone he is introducing to the stage) are highlights, and Ken Foree and Ellen Sandweiss play large roles. Sandweiss in particular is a delight, it’s the second of her movies I’ve watched in the past week (after Satan’s Playground) and she is clearly having a blast playing the harried producer, as opposed to doing almost nothing in Playground.

There are also a number of lines/bits that made me laugh out loud. There’s a running gag concerning a van full of kids who yell obscenities at the film crew and ruin their shots that killed me every time, and a hilarious metajoke about bad dubbing. Another highlight is a location scout early on – they are looking for the “perfect” killer’s house, and some of the choices include a gas station, a condo that’s only halfway built, and a mansion. Good stuff.

There’s also a making of piece, but instead of being a making of the actual film, it’s a making of the documentary in the film? So everyone is in character, and it just comes off as a collection of deleted scenes. Which is odd, because there actually IS a collection of deleted scenes, almost all of which were rightfully left out. In addition to more “Wow, Harry sucks” type scenes, there are more of the non-documentary gaffes; for example, there’s a scene of Mick Garris behind the stage at the Fango con, and Harry enters. They talk for a bit and then Mick quietly asks who the guy is with Harry. Harry explains that it’s the documentarian and that he is doing a movie about him – but why didn’t Mick notice the camera guy filming him, even before Harry entered the room?

So basically, the extras are kind of worthless. Since the joke isn’t all that funny to begin with, I think they took it too far. I enjoy meta humor as much as the next guy, but I would have actually liked some real insight on the process of making the film, hiring unknown actors to play unknown actors, how Mena used his real life experiences in shaping the film, etc. At least we are spared a Harry Penderecki commentary track.

LA folks can check the movie out with the lovely Miss Sandweiss providing a Q&A afterwards, this Friday (the 18th) at the Sunset 5 (midnight screening!). Like I said, horror fans will definitely appreciate all the little injokes and cameos, and even though it’s uneven, I still appreciate the concept and had a good time watching it overall. Bring on Malevolence 2!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Slash (2002)

JULY 13, 2008

GENRE: BREAKDOWN, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

It really bums me out when I get a DVD that is so half-assed. Presentation is very important, and when your movie is as generic as Slash, it could use all the help it could get. But no, a full frame, badly washed out transfer (even my wife noticed that!) just makes its flaws all the more apparent. Adding insult to injury, the final scene of the film is presented in widescreen for some reason, as if only to make sure I knew it wasn’t a full frame movie to begin with or something. The sound levels also bounce around at random – you’ll either have to turn it up to hear the dialogue (should you choose to do so) or turn it down when the random songs begin blaring.

Like I said, even if the presentation was top notch, the movie itself just doesn’t have a lot going for it. It’s technically OK enough for a low budget film, but the script almost dares you not to doze off (a dare I lost). The slasher sequences are few and far between, and hardly impressive anyway. It’s almost like they wanted to make a real character drama about a kid who has to choose between living his dream (of being the leader of a rock band called... wait for it... "Slash") or sticking by his family, which by now is just his dad (Steve Railsback!), and helping on the family farm (their last name is Macdonald too, in case you were wondering). Even the breakdown aspect seems legit – it’s not like the killer threw some spikes on the road or punctured their gas tank, I think the damn thing literally broke down (maybe this was explained in the 5-10 minutes I dozed off). Hell, the obligatory “the killer isn’t dead” scene is presented as such; director Neal Sundstrom seems more interested in showcasing the band playing their first big show.

There are also a lot of survivors; five I think (it has no real effect on the band's touring plans at any rate). One is the film’s best character, a seemingly simple handyman for the farm. At first you think he’s a redneck, but as he starts to reveal that he’s actually quite intelligent, and so THEN you probably start to think he’s probably the bad guy. But no, he’s just a really cool dude, and he joins the band, and seems pretty happy to do so. If you’re the type who likes to see a real character arc in a bad slasher movie, at least Slash totally offers that much.

But again, that sort of just goes along with the whole “let’s make this the least horror-y movie ever” feel of the film. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the horror elements were thrown in at the last minute before filming began. At one point they just cut away from one of the drama scenes to quickly show a guy being killed (no setup whatsoever) and cut right back to the drama as soon as possible. Maybe it was a budgetary thing, but since the horror backstory is so generic (yet another “sacrifice for the crops” type thing) it doesn’t seem likely. Hell, even Dark Harvest was at least proud of its horror roots.

The movie also features the least convincing car wreck in movie history. They don’t really show it hitting anything, which is fine. But right after, the girl in the car pretends to play dead, and the boyfriend is hardly concerned. I don’t care – when you get into an accident, or even a close call, you’re sort of fucked up for a few minutes. These assholes don’t even seem to mind that their car is probably wrecked.

I should note the rock music in the film. It’s not all that bad. Anyone who knows me knows my taste in music is a bit questionable (I’m looking forward to the new Hinder album, for example), but whatever – I liked it. Some of the stuff reminded me of a band called Jeremiah Freed that put out an album in 2002 and have never been heard from again (at least, not by me). I don’t think it was them though. It’s probably the only reason to keep watching the movie, provided you like that kind of stuff. Otherwise, it’s not good enough to recommend and not bad enough to laugh at, so it’s just sort of worthless to all but Steve Railsback completists.

The only extra feature is a trivia game. You’re either right or wrong, they don’t tell you what the answer is if you’re wrong, you get nothing for getting them all right. You can also watch the film’s opening scene without the credits, after the movie ends (another bonus – because of this, the movie is actually five minutes shorter than the time counter would have you believe). Great.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Satan's Little Helper (2004)

JULY 12, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, SLASHER, SUPERNATURAL (?)
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

There’s a scene about halfway through Satan’s Little Helper that delighted me more than any movie I’ve watched since Cathy’s Curse. The scene involves “Satan” (whether he actually IS or not is never explained) and his eponymous helper running people over with a shopping basket in a parking lot. The kid thinks it’s all a game, and gleefully yells “50 points! 100 points” as these poor people (including an old man, a baby, a pregnant woman) are mowed down. I don’t think any of them are actually killed, but it’s still a real treat for fans of ridiculous, mean-spirited horror.

If the entire movie had this sadistic sense of humor, I would be singing its praises to high heaven. But unfortunately, about an hour in, the kid’s father is gutted right before his eyes and the rest of the film is pretty much without humor. It also drags out incessantly (the sudden lack of humor making it even more noticeable); shaving 20 minutes off the running time would do everyone a world of good. Once little Dougie no longer thinks its all a game, it loses a lot of its odd charm. Plus, since he’s not the hero, he also sort of disappears from the movie at this point, adding to the disjointed feel of the final act.

And when he DOES appear, he acts borderline retarded. The premise is goofy, but they sell it well and you don’t really question the kid’s mental abilities at first. But after he discovers his friend really IS killing people, you’d think he’d be weary of a guy in a Jesus mask and a cop in a human mask (both the killer, again). But no, he quickly accepts these people at face value and puts his family in danger yet again. Stupid fucking kid.

Also, the “50 points!” stuff comes from a game he is playing on his fake PSP. It is, without a doubt, the worst fake video game I’ve ever seen in a movie. In addition to being a lousy game, it doesn’t look or play anything like one (it’s like a Flash cartoon). Obviously they had to pay someone to make a dummy game for the movie – why not just pay for the rights to use a crappy game no one remembers anyway that involves a devil looking guy killing people? There’s gotta be a few. Since the whole movie rests on the idea that this kid is so obsessed with the game that he thinks it has come to life, it’d work a lot better if the game looked worth playing at all, let alone consuming you.

There are also a few unexplained things. At some point in the movie, the town is overrun by a few looters. Why they are looting, who they are, etc is never explained. There’s even an entire scene of them beating the shit out of a vacuum cleaner for some goddamn reason. There is also a red herring that’s so badly implemented that it’s a wonder they even bothered. Especially since they never quite explain if “Satan” is indeed Satan or just some guy – just a few too many vague story elements for one movie.

And in my notes I have “doorbell”. This refers to the really annoying doorbell the main family has in the movie. It rings, I dunno, some 582 times during the 95 minute film, and if I ever hear it again I can’t say for certain that I won’t hunt down writer/director Jeff Lieberman and smack him for it.

Even more annoying is the way that the DVD is set up. You hit PLAY MOVIE and you are forced to watch a few trailers (even when you select the commentary track under extras). This is bullshit – put that shit BEFORE the main menu, like everyone else. The fact that all of the movies look fucking awful doesn’t help (though one trailer is for a movie I almost rented the other day – so I guess it’s a sign I should). Also, it appears that they got bootlegged copies of the green MPAA rating info screen:

What sort of crap is that? Where’s the “The following PREVIEW has been approved for ALL AUDIENCES....” stuff? Weird. Speaking of the commentary, it’s not really worth a listen; Lieberman is very monotone and just sort of talks about low budget filmmaking, which anyone who watches commentaries has already heard a million times by now (by livelier folks). There’s also a nice little behind the scenes bit which Lieberman narrates (and is seemingly more interested), showing the filming of two key moments. I wouldn’t have minded if it went on a bit longer, in fact.

Anyway, the movie is definitely worth checking out. It’s a shame it loses steam (remember – the ending of your movie is what often forms the overall opinion of it) because the first hour really is something unique and wonderfully insane. I haven’t even really talked about a lot of the nutty moments (for example, the kid wants to marry his sister, and the mom (Amanda Plummer!) doesn't really try to dissuade him), because they should be experienced first hand. Definitely check it out.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

One Missed Call (2003)

JULY 11, 2008

GENRE: ASIAN, SUPERNATURAL, TECHNOLOGY
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

For like, 8 or 9 months, I’ve had the original One Missed Call (aka Chakushin Ari) on the top of my queue on Blockbuster online, only to continually face a “Very Long Wait” status. I had intended to see it before the remake, but no dice. So I had to let out a very loud “Oh for the love of Christ!” in the actual store the other day when I realized that they had the damn thing on the shelf. Considering their rather weak horror selection (new and old – I’m actually almost out of options there for HMAD entries), I don’t know why I never noticed it sitting there before, but oh well. Let movie-availability bygones be bygones I guess.

After watching the film I became even more annoyed that I saw the remake first, because the two films are practically identical. Almost nothing was changed, structure wise, and the only real difference is that the original version had character development. In particular, the main girl’s backstory about her abusive mother is an actual plot thread, not something quickly mentioned and forgotten about 5 minutes later as it was in the American version. If I had seen the superior original first, I probably would have liked it OK enough and enjoyed seeing the film unfold. But instead, I saw the weaker version first, so all the story surprises were already “spoiled” as I watched this one.

Pretty much every addition to the American version made the movie weaker. The candy here is introduced halfway through and only seen once or twice. In the American one, the candy laughably falls out of each character’s mouth as they die. The remake also added a death scene at the beginning, whereas in the original the first death is only mentioned. Subtle foreshadowing > distracting cameo from flavor of the month actresses (Meagan Good).

Also this version has good acting. Ed Burns can act when he wants to, but he clearly wasn’t in the mood in the remake. And I’ve never seen any evidence that Shannyn Sossamon can act at all. Plus she was too old – the theme (our over reliance on technology and all that) works better on an 18 or 19 year old who is constantly texting and talking than it does on a 30ish introvert who probably only uses the damn thing once a day.

There are, however, two exceptions. One is the actual ringtone. This one is annoying, but the one in the US one is actually kind of creepy (I actually keep looking to see if I can get it). The other is the location of the tape/camera that contains the crucial information as to why the ghost is so pissed off. In the remake, unless I’m remembering wrong, it was hidden inside the girl’s bear doll, which paid off why she always had it around. Here they find the camera just sitting there, barely hidden, but the tape is gone. And even though she has the bear, it doesn’t tie into anything. Someone later just says “we found the tape with her things” and that’s that.

Remake comparisons aside, it’s still one of the lesser efforts of the sort of “Asian ghosts possess our technology” movies that make up a hefty chunk of the Asian horror films that get nice releases in our country. The tension is severely lacking, even when the heroine gets her own call and has x amount of hours to solve the mystery (a gimmick way better implemented in The Ring, either version). Plus it’s just a lame backstory to begin with, and there have been just too many of these damn things. People bitch about the excess of “Torture Porn” here – there are probably more “Asian ghosts haunt peoples _____ device” movies. And then they all get remade so there are twice as many.

The DVD has a whole 2nd disc’s worth of extras. First is an hour long making of that I found pretty interesting. Other Asian horror movies with behind the scenes stuff usually reveal that filming is pretty technical and meticulous – it’s planned out to exact details and filmed accordingly. But a good chunk of this particular doc shows Takashi Miike exploring scenes with his actors and coming up with new ideas on the set. Interesting. There is also an alternate ending (which I think might be a joke) and some interviews, nothing particularly exciting. It’s worth noting that they seemingly take their DVD interviews very seriously – both Miike and the guy playing the lead are dressed in tuxedos for their interviews.

If you’ve already seen Pulse, Ring and/or Shutter, there’s really no reason to watch this. It offers nothing new, isn’t particularly exciting, and the pace is all over the place (two people die almost right after they are met, and then other scenes go on forever). It’s superior to the remake, but that’s about all that it’s got going for it. Had there been no remake, it would probably already be forgotten by all but Miike faithful.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Red (2008)

JULY 10, 2008

GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

I had a sneaking suspicion that Red wouldn’t really count as a horror movie, which is why I watched Prophecy as a backup before I went to the screening. And it’s not, not really, but since I counted The Lost (also written by Jack Ketchum) I figured it “sort of” counts, and since I had to write a review anyway...

Red is much better than The Lost (or Girl Next Door for that matter) as we aren’t meant to side with people doing reprehensible things, nor are we required to suspend our disbelief so that poor casting decisions don’t prevent the film from making sense. It’s also a story that is much easier to identify with: that of a man looking to avenge the senseless death of his dog.

Killing a dog is sort of cinematic short of hand – no matter what you will instantly hate the killer of said dog. It’s an easy way to characterize a villain, and thus it is used often. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie that is ABOUT the killing of a dog, and so I went in a bit unsure of how much I’d enjoy the film, as a dog lover who can’t even stand it when it occurs offscreen in a subplot (anyone ever see Dominic and Eugene? That one is just BRUTAL and it’s an accidental death). Luckily, they don’t give you much of a chance to sort of “fall in love” with Red, as he is killed pretty much in the 2nd scene of the film. If there was a half an hour of the dog playing with kids and doing cute shit, and THEN he got killed, I probably would have had to leave (like two folks did). But it’s gotten out of the way quickly, so that the film’s real story can come into focus.

See, it’s not about Cox turning vigilante and hunting down the kids who did it. The film is a parable about righting the wrongs, making up for one’s mistakes, etc. Around an hour or so into the film, Brian Cox delivers a backstory about his character’s family, and suddenly his reasons for trying to get the boys to pay for their actions (not in the Bronson way, but in the “tell the police what you did” way) make a lot more sense, and you realize that the film is more about HIS redemption than that of the kid who pulled the trigger.

It’s a far more human story from Jack Ketchum (adapted by Stephen Susco – another surprise as he is responsible for the character-lite Grudge films), erasing the idea that he was a one trick pony. After the other two films, I expected Red to go one of two ways – either we would follow the asshole who shot the dog around and try to make him into the sort of antihero, or Cox’s character would turn out to be a reprehensible asshole himself, and the movie would turn into Changing Lanes, where you can’t really root for either party after a while. But it’s light on violence and retribution, and throughout the film it’s all character. Scenes go by without a word, and even characters with small roles, such as Robert Englund as one of the boys’ fathers, manage to become three dimensional in only a few minutes of screen time.

The writers (I haven’t read the book so I don’t know who is responsible for what) also manage some great trick foreshadowing. There’s another one of those quiet scenes where Cox just simply leaves his bedroom, mourning the lack of his pal beside him. As he shuts the door we see several scratches, obviously made by the dog. So you’re thinking “Aw, he’s always going to have this reminder of how big of a role the dog played in his life”, and probably not much else. But later, during his revelation, we discover the true nature behind the scratches, and it not only makes you love the dog even more, but proves that the filmmakers were definitely not into doing anything for the sake of doing it; everything is there for a reason.

It’s even more impressive that the film came together so well when you consider the behind the scenes drama. Lucky McKee was the original director, and was “removed” halfway through production and replaced by Trygve Allister Diesen (Angela Bettis also was replaced by Kim Dickens – which I’m OK with, it seems a better fit for Dickens). The whole story has yet to become clear, but it’s obvious that the changes were not amicable. But it’s not a schizophrenic ordeal like The Invasion (also the victim of a different director for half the film), and honestly there is not a single thing in the film that feels rushed, incomplete, or just plain “off”. The only exception is a rather schmaltzy ending, but apparently the book ended the same way so that’s no one from the movie’s fault.

It’s not a horror film, but it definitely has appeal to fans. Apart from Englund, we are also treated to Ashley Laurence (still incredibly beautiful) in a small role, as well as some other familiar faces (Amanda Plummer, Richard Riehle, and of course the original Hannibal, Cox himself), and Tom Sizemore delivers his best performance in years as the asshole's even more asshole-ish father. Plus, if Ketchum has a niche, it is definitely the sort of “real horror” that is usually based on a true story (not sure if that is the case with Red), as opposed to monsters and masked killers and such. In the end, losing one of my pets in the manner shown here is more terrifying a thought than anything else I’ve watched recently. Highly recommended.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Prophecy (1979)

JULY 10, 2008

GENRE: PREDATOR/MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

The other day I mentioned how I had rented The Prophecy (the "Walken as angel" one), but as it turns out it was actually the lesser respected Prophecy (The "the"-less killer bear one). What confused me was the addition of a “The” to the title on Blockbuster’s envelope, and the fact that I DO have THE Prophecy queued up, as I want to watch the sequels and figured a non canon review of the original would be nice. My sincerest apologies for this boring error.

Boring is the order of the day with the movie, however. For a goddamn killer bear movie, there’s a distinct lack of killer bear scenes. Hell, it’s more of a killer raccoon movie for a while, as while the sole bear attack in the first hour is off-screen, we get to see a couple of raccoons viciously attack our heroes for no apparent reason. Finally, the bear kills a family, but again we are sort of ripped off – he only kills one on screen. Surprisingly, it is the youngest kid of the group who gets the bonus of an on screen kill, presented in still-o-vision:

He rises, laughably constricted in his bag.

The bear howls

He swats him

The kid (in the bag) goes flying...

...and turns into a sack of feathers?

Of course, I’m not too surprised that the film has an actual story, character development, blah blah, because it was directed by John Frankenheimer, a pretty classy guy (Manchurian Candidate, French Connection II, etc). But since even he isn’t good enough to make the killer bear scenes look anything less than ridiculous, I wish they had gotten someone who would truly embrace the concept and go all out, rather than someone who kept trying to make the thing legit. As a result it doesn’t really work either way – it’s too slow to be “awesome”, and the attack scenes are so goofy that they undermine the efforts seen in the serious scenes.

Frankenheimer also skimps on the death scenes. It’s forgivable to not deliver when a minor character is offed, but two of the main characters are killed in a very half-assed manner (one offscreen, AGAIN, and another just gets swiped by the bear and dies instantly, never mentioned again). Come on, man! You gave more of a death scene to that one guy in Reindeer Games who turned out to not really be dead (and was actually the villain)! You can at least show some of (eco-villain) Richard Dysart’s body being eaten by a half mutant bear at the end of the film!

There are also some rather silly plot devices. At one point they find shelter, only for one of the guys (Armand Assante I think) say that it won’t do any good. Why the hell not? Unless the bear is carrying out a Jaws: The Revenge style vendetta against you, I’m sure sitting inside a well built cabin and leaving him the fuck alone until help arrives would be a pretty safe plan of action. And Talia Shire goes to great lengths to keep a baby mutant raccoon (or badger or bear or whatever the hell it’s supposed to be) alive, rather than just put the poor thing out of its misery and cutting off a leg or whatever they need for a sample to prove the evil lumber company (does a movie ever feature a good, wholesome lumber company?) is poisoning the water with mercury.

Too bad Frankenheimer died before ever mounting a sequel, as there are two great possibilities. At the end of the film, what looks like a mutant eagle bear is seen RAWRing in the woods as our heroes fly away, which means that any feather-based children who wander into the woods are still unsafe. Also, Talia Shire is pregnant and she has eaten some possibly contaminated fish. So one movie would deal with eaglebear(pig), and then another one could detail what happens when Shire’s fishbaby grows up and goes apeshit somewhere in urban or suburban Maine. Maybe they could have him terrorize Old Orchard Beach and erase the stink of that Off Season movie. If only Frankenheimer had a son that was known for making high concept crap...

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Antibodies (2005)

JULY 9, 2008

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

I really thought that Antibodies (aka Antikörper in its native German, which is a way more awesome title) was recommended by a HMAD reader. But I must have had it confused with Anatomie, which stars fellow German Franke Potente and was recommended by a HMAD reader named Gwen. Oh well. I’ll still keep an eye out for that one, and you, Gwen, should watch Antibodies to even it out.

For a serial killer movie that clocks in at 128 minutes, the body count is pretty low. Since most of it takes place after the killer is captured, this sort of makes sense, but it doesn’t make the film’s length any easier to digest. Not much happens, the plot is pretty thin (it’s more a character study than a typical serial killer flick), and the ending is a copout. At least if the ending was awesome it would be worth the wait, but that is not the case (spoilers follow!).

Not that it’s a bad ending, it’s actually a nice one and has a good message about family first and all that. BUT, this is a GERMAN film. No one watches German movies for the sunshine and rainbows, even ones that are about sunshine and rainbows. So when I watch a German serial killer movie in which the hero’s Jared Padalecki-ish son is made to look like the actual murderer of a particular victim attributed to the bad guy, I WANT him to be the damn killer! I don’t want this plot to be quickly and confusingly explained away by a notebook that was smuggled out by some lab technician or whatever. And even if the kid is innocent, they should have at least gone with the idea they were going with (think The Mist), which would be a shock and also retain the German standards of depression and morbidity.

Otherwise it’s a solid serial killer movie in the “cop gets TOO CLOSE” mold. Like many of his peers, the cop has to talk to the killer in order to extract information, at the expense of providing the killer personal details about his life. As usual, this results in the cop angrily fucking his wife (this traditional scene has a truly disturbing coda) and hurting himself to see... whatever it is cops on the edge see when they began blurring the lines between good and bad and all that stuff.

Unlike Hannibal or Horace Pinker, Gabriel (the killer – not the angel. Though coincidentally, the same day I rented this from the store, a copy of The Prophecy arrived at my house from Netflix) has no charm or endearing traits that make the audience side with him. He’s a horrible man, and they never stray from that. Which is good – we don’t need to see Gabriel Rising someday, explaining how he’s only a child raping murderer because some dudes burned down his cabin or whatever. Also, since he looks like T-Bag from Prison Break, he’s even easier to dislike.

The best setpiece in the movie is also the first. It’s the capture of Gabriel, which for some reason features a cameo by Norman Reedus (not a German, not a big enough name to warrant a cameo in anything). Gabriel spends the entire scene naked, even when he dives through windows and doors. Not only is it an exciting scene, but it also quickly demonstrates how insane he is: anyone who displays a lack of concern for his own cock is truly psychotic. It’s also a very dark (as in nighttime) scene, a stark contrast to the unusually bright 2 hrs that follow.

Another great thing about the prologue is that it helps delay the start of the opening credits until the 12 minute mark. I’m always tickled when credits come in really late, I have no idea why. The Fugitive was like this too, I think it’s about 20 minutes in by the time they end.

Unsurprisingly there isn’t a lot of levity in the film. The only bit of it stems from the cop’s partner, a guy who uses the term “jerk-off” with alarming frequency. His first line in the film is “I think this jerk-off is OUR jerk-off”, and he finds a way to use it roughly every 5 minutes thereafter (once even appropriately: the killer begins to pleasure himself and he yells “Are you jerking off?” Why he fails to refer to him as a “jerk-off” as well is a mystery – the version I rented has no extras). So again, coupled with the length and the lack of action, it’s not exactly a “drunk with buddies” movie, but it’s still pretty good and worth sticking with. Some of the subplots are never really explained (why is the cop furiously cleaning a piece of valuable evidence? Why does he type up his reports outside?) but the performances, truly sick killer, and above average direction by Christian Alvart more than make up for it. And at least it doesn’t have a scene where the cop is accused of “getting too close!”, so there’s something.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dr. Phibes Rises Again (1972)

JULY 8, 2008

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

Not that I am any sort of scholar on the man, but for my money, Vincent Price’s shining moment was The Abominable Dr. Phibes. Since he’s so sinister, and yet so charming, what better role to give him than as a man who violently seeks revenge for the most noble of reasons: avenging his wife? It’s almost a shame it came about so late in his career, I’d love to see him play the character again and again, even if it made no sense anymore. Sadly, we only got one sequel, Dr. Phibes Rises Again (a third was written but never made), which lives up to the original’s high standards, despite a slight decrease in the novelty department.

Anyone who really likes the Saw films would be right at home with Phibes. He’s a dying man, like Jigsaw, and his victims aren’t exactly noble. He sets traps to kill them (no pussyfooting here – these folks aren’t given a chance to free themselves), and it’s all in the name of love. Of course, being the early 1970s, this means that the films aren’t excessively gory; if anything, the sequel is less violent (I saw the original a while ago, but if memory serves he killed 8-9 people, here the body count is only 6 and one is so offscreen that it’s difficult to tell what even happened). Indeed, the original has been re-rated PG-13 (from PG), but not the sequel.

That doesn’t make it any less fun or exciting though. For starters, the sequel retains the original’s surprising amount of humor, mostly of the dry British sort. The cops and assorted “good guys” all seem rather blasé about the proceedings, which results in moments like this, when a corpse is discovered:

Guy: Hackett! (the corpse’s name)
Guy 2: He has nothing to say.

Hahahahaha, awesome. And of course, Price is a complete delight. One of his character traits is that he is a musician of sorts, and the film serves up a number of scenes where he plays the organ along with a creepy/hilarious clockwork band that he designed. The band also figures into one of the film’s creepier moments, as he places one in the desert (the movie takes place in Egypt or some similar location) and it is discovered by an eventual victim. I dunno about you, but if I was in the desert and I came across a clockwork band member who looked like the killer from Tourist Trap, I’d freak out.

Unlike the first film, this one gives Phibes a sole antagonist, a man named Biederbeck who also seeks the same fountain of life that he is looking for (in order to return his wife to life). Biederbeck is kind of a complete ass, but his intentions are somewhat noble as well, like Phibes, he does what he does to be with the woman he loves (and does so without killing folks). They only share two scenes together, but Price and Robert Quarry (a real life rival of Price) have a nice repartee in these moments.

It’s also a fast paced film, and even though there aren’t as many of the death scenes (nor are they always as elaborate), it moves along almost breathlessly, especially for an older film. Of course, anything with Price is bound to be entertaining on some level, but even he wasn’t enough to save other AIP films (such as Tomb of Ligeia, a film so dull I couldn’t even be bothered to write up a review of it when I saw it a few months ago), and the fact that this came about only a year after the original makes it even more impressive. Apparently some of the film’s more elaborate sequences were cut due to budgetary reasons, but it doesn’t really show; the only evidence is Price’s voice, which has a different tone to it on occasion (he had to come in and explain stuff that was cut out – apparently they didn’t have the technology to filter his voice properly).

Both films are on one DVD, and it’s often available for under 10 bucks, making its purchase almost a requirement for any horror fan. I will write up a full review of the original someday, but don’t wait for that – these movies are too entertaining to miss. And I’m sure a remake is in the works (may I suggest Geoffrey Rush, who did an amazing job channeling Price in the otherwise worthless House on Haunted Hill remake), so if you want to be on the “this remake is gonna SUCK!” bandwagon, act fast!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Satan's Playground (2005)

JULY 7, 2007

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

A lot of the 70s movies we all love don’t really have complex stories. Halloween, Chain Saw, Hills Have Eyes... they are all essentially one line ideas, maximized to their full potential by the ingenuity of their creators. So when a film like Satan’s Playground attempts to recreate that feel, one can’t really fault it for being pretty thing in the story department. You CAN, however, fault it for being repetitive, padded, and eventually sort of pointless.

The repetition in this film is almost unparalleled. We have at least FOUR scenes of someone coming up to the obviously “bad” house in the middle of the woods and asking to use the phone, only to be attacked by one of the two crazy women who live there. Hilariously, at one point, a girl we’ve never seen before runs up and, of course, asks to use the phone, and Felissa Rose, the film’s Final Girl who actually answers the door, basically says “that’s what I’m here for!” The random girl then tells Rose that she “obviously has a lot of things to deal with” or something of that nature and takes off, never to be seen again.

That’s just one of many segments in the film that is simply there to pad the running time to a feature length. At one point, Edwin Neal, playing one of the crazy family members (way to stretch Ed), cuts Felissa Rose loose, only to tie her up again somewhere else. He then unties her AGAIN and lets her go AGAIN later on in the film. Why? Well, if he just killed her, like everyone else, the movie would be about 60 minutes long. We also have a cop showing up out of nowhere (4 minutes), another cop taking his sweet ass time looking around the house (4-5 minutes), a mute character coming up to the door, presumably to sign “Can I use the phone?” and just standing there looking off into space (3-4 minutes)... etc. Since there’s no actual story, all of these elements just stick out even more.

The film is also horribly cast. Not that the acting is bad (it ain’t Oscar-worthy either) but it’s rare I’ve seen a supposed family look so little alike. Felissa Rose and Ellen Sandweiss (who has barely aged since Evil Dead, if anything she’s even better looking) are supposed to be sisters, Rose has a son that looks about 2 years younger than her, and she’s married to a guy that looks old enough to be her dad, plus a few extra years for good measure. They also have zero chemistry with one another, which is kind of a problem when a good chunk of the movie revolves around one trying to save one of the others.

The Jersey Devil is given short thrift. We don’t really see it (which is fine) but it doesn’t really do anything either, it kills two non-main characters and is then forgotten. Coupled with the inherent scariness of the legendary New Jersey Pine Barrens (best Sopranos episode ever!), this would be more than enough backdrop to make a good breakdown/survival horror movie, but writer/director Dante Tomaselli also tosses in a cult and backwoods crazies.

At least, he sort of does. The Satanic/cult aspects of the movie are so limited and inconsequential that they feel like they are left in from another movie (hey, there’s an idea – maybe Tomaselli can make a film that revolves around the cult members and the random girl who shows up for a single scene). I still can’t even tell if the crazy people are with or against the red-robed cult folks (Neal sort of saves Rose from one the first time he unties her only to tie her up again). But does it matter?

Of course, if you are to believe the commentary track or the interview with Tomaselli on the disc, the film is supposed to have a dream-like quality, which, to be fair, could explain all the random elements that aren’t really explained. But it’s not implemented strongly enough – movies like Suspiria really sell this idea because they are so out there, but Playground is otherwise rooted firmly in reality, with only light “dream” elements. And since Tomaselli is certainly no Argento, it comes off as poor screenwriting more than anything else. Still, watching the film with that knowledge from the getgo might increase your enjoyment of it.

Also, since that’s about all the useful knowledge you’ll gain from the commentary and extras, you can skip them entirely if you know about its alleged “dream” status. Otherwise, Tomaselli just blandly rattles off pretentious babble (“The music here really captures the circular crescendo-like structure of the film.”) without any emotion, like he’s reading from cue cards. It’s like a commentary on a Criterion disc by some film scholar; from the detached way he talks, there’s absolutely no evidence he’s even involved with the film, let alone its creator. He also continuously mentions his other two films by name (descriptive name in fact, it’s not “Desecration”, it’s “my first film Desecration”), which gets incredibly annoying. I will give credit where credit is due though – he gladly points out the (superior) films where he got a lot of ideas from, everything from Mother’s Day to Halloween to, YES!, Tourist Trap are namechecked here. On the interview (which I watched first) he wears sunglasses even though they are indoors, which instantly made me think he was a douchebag, and other than his occasional honesty, the commentary didn’t really change my mind. There is also a pair of trailers – a teaser and an extended one. Apparently, an “actual trailer” was never cut, if so it’s not on here. Take your pick – do you want a trailer that doesn’t tell you the slightest thing about what the film is about, or one that spoils just about everything?

It’s technically well done (the Super 16mm film wasn’t given the best transfer to DVD, but still looks good and evokes the right feel) and the cast gives it their all, but as usual, it all comes down to the rather lousy script. And the almost laughable number of antagonists here (the cult, the crazy family, the Jersey Devil, the simple fact that they are lost in the woods, etc) makes it even more disappointing that it simply lacks suspense. There are good bits here and there, but it’s all so disjointed and random that it fails to ever be compelling or exciting, and there are far too many similar movies that are just plain better. For breakdown completists only.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...