Surveillance (2008)

JUNE 17, 2009

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

Here we go, another review where I can’t really say anything without “spoiling” the movie. The best way to see Surveillance is to know nothing about it, not even the basic plot, so if you are in that camp still, please stop reading, go see the movie, and then come back to read the review. If you already know the plot and have seen the trailer, then all I’m really going to spoil is something that is so obvious right from the start, I’m not even sure if its supposed to be a twist but rather part of the plot that wasn’t spelled out until absolutely necessary.

So you’ve been warned either way....

The thing is, I liked the movie. All of the actors are great (particularly the three “witnesses”, played by Pell James, Kent Harper (who also co-wrote), and Ryan Simpkins), and I always love these “putting the pieces together” setups, where a crime has already occurred and the movie is mainly about people saying what happened. Unfortunately, the movie seems built around a twist that is not only the least surprising “reveal” in film history, but also keeps the film sort of inert until it can get to that point, which kept me from loving it.

So if you’re reading still, you know the plot: FBI agents Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond are called to investigate a string of murders in a sleepy Southwestern town, and find out that not everything is what it seems... (the “...” is part of the plot description). But anyone who’s ever seen a film before will probably figure out within minutes that Pullman and Ormond ARE the killers, and they are there mainly to see if the witnesses know anything that could jeopardize their identities. And because it’s so easy to spot, you will probably be hoping that the director just wants you to THINK you’re so smart and figure it out, only to reverse our jaded film viewer expectations with a double twist (or, like Spiral, the “no twist” twist). That or Pullman/Ormond will reveal themselves soon and get some action up in this mofo.

Sadly, neither is the case. At around the 75 minute mark, Pullman finally snaps, but there’s no real suspense to what happens next, as they are all tied up while he has a gun in his hand. Plus our “heroes” include a junkie and a crooked cop, so it’s not like we’re really rooting for them either.

Another thing that irked me was that it was compared to Rashomon by the filmmakers and even some other members of the press. Uh, no. Rashomon is great because it manipulates the way a story is told, by literally showing us something from multiple (varying) points of view. Here, the witnesses never contradict the others’ stories - everything we see on screen really happened. The “manipulation” angle stems from the fact that the crooked cop (Harper) and the junkie (James) lie about what they are doing to their interviewers (i.e. the junkie says she was on a job interview, but she was really buying drugs), so it’s hardly a compelling device either from a technical or storytelling point of view. A junkie will lie? Well I never!

To be fair, her “alibi” allows for the film’s best dialogue exchange:

Junkie: Anyway, I didn’t get the job...
Asshole cop: Oh, they didn’t hire YOU on the spot?
Junkie: No, I wasn’t applying to be a cop.

Hahaha, love it. Plus Ms. James is hot as hell, so it’s even better. But still, it would have been greatly beneficial for some actual Rashomon-style storytelling, with the three witnesses telling different accounts of the crime, which would probably distract the audience away from the obvious fact that the killers were the ones asking the questions (and the witnesses were merely lying to cover their ass for the crimes they DID commit). Also, it would have allowed for them to be viable suspects, as there seems to be some attempt to make this a whodunit since the killers wear (pretty creepy) masks made from paper-mache, but doesn’t really give us any other options for their identity.

And this is minor, but the term “surveillance” refers to someone who doesn’t know they are being watched, but that doesn’t apply here. The witnesses are talking directly to the video cameras that are recording the questioning, and Pullman (“directing” from a separate room) often talks directly to the witnesses via intercom. Then again, the movie was apparently originally about witches, so who the fuck knows how the title originated.

However, it’s still a pretty entertaining thriller. It’s nice and short, and the first 30 minutes, when you don’t really know what’s going on, are terrific. The actual murders are Final Destination-y in their level of gore and execution, so that’s good. Also, it’s surprisingly funny. The two crooked cops (Harper and French Stewart - odd choice, kind of works) are a riot, and Pullman gets in some funny moments as well. I also loved the wiseass brother of Simpkins' character, who’s sort of like Rusty Griswold (his family is on a vacation) teleported into a thriller.

Also, I noticed something odd: no one in the movie wears a seatbelt. Even Jack Bauer buckles up most of the time, but none of these folks seem to find the time to drive safely (that nearly every event in the film is caused by Harper and Stewart shooting out traveler’s tires to pass the time makes this even more distracting). I was hoping it would pay off, with someone going through a windshield, but no dice.

I never saw Jennifer Lynch’s other film (Boxing Helena), and since it stars Julian Sands, I have no desire to. Going by this, I think I can safely say that she’s far more accessible than her father, but maybe too much so. There are some risqué moments in the film (Ormond and Pullman’s borderline three-way with a victim is pretty goddamn erotic/creepy), and the ending is rather dark, but it still feels like she’s pulling her punches a bit, and didn’t allow the film to get as twisty or taboo as it could have been... Look, what I’m saying is... they should have killed the little girl too.

However, her next movie (Hisss) is about a killer snake woman, so I’m there.

Nothing about this film wowed me, but I enjoyed it all the same. And I guess it’s better to aim average and succeed than to aim high and fail, so in that respect, Surveillance works. I’ll take it over her dad’s last movie (Inland Empire) any day of the week, that’s for sure.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

End Of The Line (2007)

JUNE 16, 2009

GENRE: CULT, PSYCHOLOGICAL (?)
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

I remember last fall, folks were ticked off about the poster for Quarantine “spoiling” the movie. But it was only a spoiler if you had seen [Rec], because it was the exact same movie and thus you would know where it fit into the narrative (in this case, the last shot of the film). For the millions of folks who hadn’t seen [Rec], it could have been the film’s first scene for all they knew. But the playing field is level for End Of The Line, which makes the cover art (and synopsis) not only a major spoiler, but rather misleading as well.

Going by the synopsis (and again, the cover art), it seems as if the film’s protagonists have two things to worry about - crazy cult members and some demon/ghoul things, not to mention the fact that they’re all stuck in the subway. I was actually hoping that the film was going to be a From Dusk Til Dawn style scenario, where you have the good people vs the cult nuts for the first half, and then all of a sudden these monsters show up and the humans have to team up to defeat them, which would have been pretty cool. But no! The monster things don’t show up until the final scene of the film (well, one appears for a split second earlier, but since a lot of the characters are seeing things/having nightmares you won’t think much of it), and their appearance is sort of a twist.

Then again, they could very well be just another hallucination. Director Maurice Devereaux (who also wrote, produced, and edited) is one of those “I want the audience to draw their own conclusion” guys, which I often find annoying. It’s one thing to have part of a film left up to interpretation, but he makes this point so many times on the DVD that he starts to come off as Richard Kelly-esque. My interpretation is that the monsters are not real, but if so, I like the movie a lot less, because the idea that the cult was actually RIGHT is far more interesting (because otherwise it’s just more “people who believe in religion are nuts, period” bashing - something I’m not really down with).

But at least it’s an entertaining horror movie. The kills and attacks are surprisingly gory (the hero guy seems to lose enough blood for two people throughout the film), and the characters are largely likeable, despite some woozy acting. The pacing is a little awkward - our characters hole up in a room for what seems like the entire middle of the movie - but it gets going fairly quickly. In fact the structure is similar to the original Night of the Living Dead (which also had some 2nd act sluggishness), which is fine by me.

I also liked the setting. Sure, there have been a dozen other subway-set horror movies, but it actually feels like a real subway system for once (unlike Creep), without any ridiculous underground lairs and such. Tunnels, subway cars, control rooms... it actually reminded me of the subway level from the underrated game The Condemned: Criminal Origins, and that’s a good thing. If I can buy into the reality of the setting, it’s a lot easier for me to buy into the concept.

For no reason I just want to show you something that I noticed about the typography:

The DVD is surprisingly loaded with extras. A lot of these DTV indies have at most a lameass making of, but we get the full on deluxe edition here. There’s a 35 minute making of, a Q&A from FantasticFest (anyone want to put me up for the week so my broke ass could attend this festival? You’ll get mentioned in a review AND I’ll eat your cereal!), a deleted scene, and a strange piece about how people keep asking about the budget. Unless it’s a big Hollywood movie where you can laugh at how much they spent to make some giant piece of crap like Terminator Salvation (200+ million), I never understood why people give a shit about how much the movie cost to make. The TV ad for the film’s cult is also shown in full, and you can also listen to the entire score, which is a feature that is sadly all too rare. Finally, Devereaux and his DP (I think?) provide a commentary. As I mentioned earlier, Devereaux can get a little frustrating with his constant “You figure it out” mantra, but it’s a good track nonetheless; there isn’t a single gap as Devereaux talks about every single facet of the film’s production. Then again, after listening to that windbag on the Suspect Zero commentary a few days ago, the fact that he actually discusses the film at all is a welcome breath of fresh air.

According to Devereaux in the FantasticFest piece, this is his fourth film. I look forward to checking out the others, as he seems to be an interesting (and genre-enthusiastic) filmmaker. The script could have used a little work, and (again, assuming my interpretation is “correct”) the “all purpose” religious bashing is a bit tired, but when my biggest problem with the film is a misleading cover/synopsis that was probably out of the filmmaker’s control (indeed, the Canadian poster does not have the monsters on the cover), I consider the film a success.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Let Sleeping Corpses Lie (1974)

JUNE 15, 2009

GENRE: MAD SCIENTIST, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

It’s always great to see a zombie movie that actually works beyond my appreciation for the makeup, and goes with quality over quantity when it comes to the number of zombies/attack scenes. Let Sleeping Corpses Lie (Italian: Non Si Deve Profanare Il Sonno Dei Morti) is one such film. There are only a half dozen or so zombies in the movie, and about as many kill scenes, but they all count.

Instead of staging epic zombie horde scenes, director Jorge Grau instead relies on atmosphere, an impressively creepy tone (at least during the first half), and a fairly original story to make his film work. Of course, its 1974 and there aren’t a hell of a lot of zombie films (at least, the cannibalistic undead kind), but in a way it’s even more of a feat that the film still works 35 years later, and after I’ve seen probably over a hundred zombie films to boot.

It’s also cool that there is a (movie) logical explanation for the zombies that we actually see in action. I don’t mind the lack of explanation in the Romero films (or their remakes), and a lot of the films that DO explain it settle for radiation or some sort of chemical spill (zzzz). Here, it’s a mis-calculated formula that is intended to control the pest population. And it’s delivered by a traditional farm machine that we see all the time, which makes it a bit creepier. Next time you see that TruGreen truck at your neighbors, you might want to arm yourself.

And our hero is kind of a dick, which I love. Of course, nearly all Italian horror films feature a male with some serious issues towards women, but this guy is off in a category of his own. He is introduced at a gas station, and within seconds our heroine accidentally knocks over his motorcycle. An inconvenience to be sure, but he almost instantly demands that she drive him to his destination. Then he demands to drive her car! Later, he gives her shit for ‘being selfish”, because she wants to drop him off without going too far out of her way (she wants to visit her sick sister, he wants to help a friend move).

Eventually he turns pretty likeable though, so it’s OK. And being a slob myself, I sympathize with his character, who attracts the attention of the local constable due to his long hair and “faggot clothes”. And he stages a pretty goddamn impressive escape from a police station; first he throws a towel in a cop’s face (the guy actually falls over from this rather weak attack) before jumping out a window, deftly navigating a labyrinthine stairway/hallway area, and stealing what looks like Ecto-1 and heading back to help the heroine.

And like I said, the kills count when they come. There’s a terrific bit where a woman is literally torn apart while on the phone with her friend (this is pre-Day of the Dead, don’t forget), and the mad doctor guy meets the wrong end of an ax, which results in some nice spillage. The zombie makeup is limited to red contact lenses, but again, since there are so few of them, it allows them to be a bit more memorable. Quick, name a memorable “hero zombie” from Dawn 04 (not counting the rooftop “celebrity” hunting scene). Oh right, there weren’t any.

In a few ways it reminded me of Messiah Of Evil, which gets better every time I see it (it’s one of the few HMAD-specific films I’ve actually gone back and watched again). You got the atmosphere, the off-kilter feeling, and even the hippies. It doesn’t ever go as all out as that film (none of the scares here are as effective as the movie theater one in Messiah), but its in that same pre-“this movie is essentially an effects company demo reel” vein that I really miss, and wish someone like Neil Marshall would attempt to recreate. I’m trying to remember, and I honestly think that Prince of Darkness may have been the last of this type (where there are a finite number of zombies that can actually be contained, as opposed to a “hopeless” scenario like the Resident Evils or any movie that ends in “.... Of The Dead”).

The DVD isn’t exactly jam-packed, but what’s there is worth a look. There’s a 20 minute interview with Grau, and he is great to listen to; explaining filming locations, how certain effects were accomplished, how he got involved with the film, and why he chose a certain actor to play a zombie. He’s also wonderfully candid about actor Arthur Kennedy (“he was a drunk and his career was fading”), something I always love. The interview ends with him impersonating one of the zombies. AB has also dug up a TV spot for the American release, for which the film was puzzlingly re-titled Don’t Open The Window (“...whatever’s out there will wait!”). A still gallery and some radio spots are also included. I would have liked a compendium of all of the film’s titles; it rivals Bay of Blood in that department. I actually had to double check to make sure I hadn’t seen the film under a different title (turns out I was thinking of Tragic Ceremony, which actually DOES share some similarities). Highly recommended.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

P (2005)

JUNE 14, 2009

GENRE: ASIAN, POSSESSION
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

Back in 1996, I got a cd from BMG from a band called P. The band consisted of Gibby Haynes (lead singer of Butthole Surfers), Johnny Depp, and some other guys (I think Flea was in there for at least a couple tracks too). It’s a great, odd little disc, and I keep hoping that they put out another album. But it’s damn near impossible to find any info about them (Wikipedia has helped) because the band was simply named P. How do you search for P? If MP3s were around back then, it would have been the least downloaded album of all time (it was self-titled too, natch). Anyway, I wonder if director Paul Spurrier will suffer the same fate for his film P (not related to the band, not a prequel to P2), information on which I found to be incredible scarce, even compared to other modern Asian horror films that haven’t been remade.

I doubt a remake of this one will be happening any time soon though. For starters, its too ingrained into Thai culture and Bangkok customs (i.e. young Thai women more or less being forced into prostitution, largely servicing American travelers), so a remake would likely have to pull a Shutter and have the Americans go there and awkwardly try to fit themselves into the story. Also, well, it’s about how young Thai women are forced into prostitution. How can they make a PG-13 movie out of that with Blake Lively or whoever the fuck?

And that’s a shame, because (sadly) a remake is the best way for an Asian horror film to reach a wider audience, which this film deserves. It’s got some pacing issues (my wife came in 10 minutes in, and didn’t even realize it was a horror movie until I shouted at the TV “Get to the cannibals, movie!” about forty minutes later), but at its core is a unique blend of borderline docudrama (there’s even a scene where the rules of being a Thai whore are spelled out for us, plus a pretty horrifying verbal account of our heroine’s first dealing with anal sex) and supernatural/possession horror. Our lead, the terrific Suangporn Jaturaphut, learns some magic from her grandmother, and after using it to get revenge on a particularly detestable john, becomes overcome with it after breaking the “rules” of magic, resulting her losing control over the monster that takes over her body and feeds on others, whether they deserve it or not.

Back to the rules though, LOL, this shit makes even less sense than the ones in Gremlins, and by their description, you’d think they would be even harder to break. One is to simply not eat raw meat (a steak should be cooked medium well, you fucking savages!), and another is to not pass under a clothesline (?). And you might think that one is easy to accidentally break, it’s a big city and someone could have a clothesline between two 10th story windows that she didn’t see, but the one she passes under is in her own apartment! And she knows the rules, so why she breaks them all is actually kind of a puzzler. However, as with all foreign language films, I assume any questionable plot point was answered in dialogue that I missed due to trying to watch the film itself.

There is also some surprising humor in the film. Obviously seeing a guy who took advantage of our heroine getting his dick bit off carries some cheer-worthy amusement, but I particularly liked the resident “magic man” who helps our non-demon-possessed heroine understand what is going on. There is a terrific gag where she goes to his apartment, and it’s a typically “mystic” type place, i.e. really dark and lit by candles. But suddenly, halfway through the scene, a bunch of traditional electric lights turn on, and he happily announces that the power has come back after being out for a while. Hahahaha, so good.

The Blu-Ray came with a whole bunch of extras, unfortunately I couldn’t access any of them besides the trailer. Whenever I selected the "Director's Scrapbook" on the extras page, which I assume is the documentary/deleted scenes/etc that is promised on the back cover, it just took me back to the main menu. There is also a commentary, I assume that works but I just don’t have time to listen to it right now (as it is a Blu-ray, I cannot just watch it at work like I usually do for commentaries; it’s hard enough for me to watch a 2 hour film at home with my soul mate, aka Xbox360, sitting right there and enticing me). Hopefully this is just an issue with the PS3 (or even better, my particular disc) and the extras will be accessible to everyone else. Of course, I looked to see if anyone else reported the problem, and I can’t find a single review of the DVD or Blu-Ray. Mine may be the first!

Anyway, it’s a pretty solid, interesting, and certainly non-generic genre film. The horror elements may be a bit slighter than some may like, but I didn’t mind it too much, especially considering how gory the kills are when they do come, and also considering the grim ending. And since I know it’ll be hard to find (I can't even figure out the name of the company who sent it to me for review!), just to recap: It’s called P (sometimes The Possessed), the director is Paul Spurrier, and it’s out on Blu-Ray. Seek it out.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Night Of The Demons 2 (1994)

JUNE 13, 2009

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

Since I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with the original Night of the Demons, I have hopes for the upcoming remake. The filmmakers behind it have had twenty years to know what worked (lipstick) and what didn't (the pace) and fashion a better film from the concept. And if it turns out well, I hope they do the same for Night Of The Demons 2, which I honestly feel exactly the same about as I did the original.

It literally suffers from the same problems while keeping my interest with the same highlights, to the extent where I'd have to flip a coin to decide which one was better. It's more or less the exact same movie - Halloween party, Angela, sluggish pace, great makeup... even the goddamn lipstick makes a return. Since it's an entirely different creative team (original director Kevin Tenney sat this one out, though he returned to write the third one), you'd think they would try to put their own stamp on things, but if there was any, I missed it.

One thing that did impress me was that it was hard to pinpoint who the survivors would be. You'd think it was Christine Taylor's character, and not just because she's the only one that has gone on to have some semblance of a career. She is slightly more sympathetic than her fellow sorority sisters, doesn't get naked, and doesn't allow her boyfriend to get past 2nd base. Typical Final Girl behavior, but alas she is demonized, seemingly cured, and written out of the movie without any sort of wrapup for her character. On the other hand, the hot redhead gets naked and at least has the intent of having sex (a scream disrupts her boyfriend putting the condom on), but she is our Final Girl. Likewise, the presumed male heroes are offed, leaving the rather bland one to take on Angela during the finale.

At least, in theory he would. This movie has one of the most baffling conclusions I can recall, and keep in mind I've seen all of the Phantasm films. An ass-kicking nun gets her head lopped off, but another one pops up in its place (she credits this to having faith). Angela tries to get her sister to cut off someone else's head so she can gain her power (going by Highlander rules, I guess), but a holy water super soaker saves the day and everyone is OK. Except the spirit/demon/whatever has somehow found its way back inside the goddamn lipstick tube again.

In a way, though, I actually found this kind of charming, because it's so damn "huh?" worthy. Sort of like the opening scene, where a bunch of nearly nude guys spy on the not really nude girls across the street with a pair of binoculars, or when a blond guy's head is cut off and a dummy head with black hair is seen hitting the floor. Not so charming, however, is the movie's insistence on having a (non demon-y) Angela seduce another female character only to cut away as soon as they begin to make out. Bad form, movie, bad form.

And this seemingly bothered/amused me too, but I haven't the slightest goddamn clue what it says. Tudor? Quiddar? 9 wd hr? You try and decipher it.

The others are "Cow Suit", "Black Hair" and "Huh?", for clarification.

Oh, and there's a guy with a cow suit at the party. Since it's Halloween, you can expect all manner of costumes, but either because they couldn't afford enough costumes, or all of the anonymous student characters were simply lazy, because I'd say only about a quarter of them are dressed up for the occasion, making the cow guy stick out. I don't know if this is common to all big cities, but back in Boston, there was a guy in a cow suit who would seemingly always be at every concert or sports event. Anyone from Boston know who I'm talking about? He still around?

So I dunno, if you loved the first one, you'll probably love this one too. It's more of the same, albeit slightly more comedic (and even slower paced, it takes 55 minutes to get going as opposed to 45 or so), but the last act is fast paced, the girls are hot, a guy is eaten by some boobs, and it features a nun getting her weaponry together a la Ash in the Evil Dead films. Entertaining, but forgettable.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Dead Next Door (1989)

JUNE 12, 2009

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

Every budding filmmaker with a love of horror movies has attempted to make his or her own zombie film with resources primarily consisting of dedicated friends, local businesses owned by relatives, and more often than not, a pretty decent local makeup/effects guru. I myself tried it when I was 18 (we shot about 1/5 of it; none of the zombie action), and worked as the editor for one when I was 21, and let me tell you: it’s the hardest I’ve ever worked in my life. And that’s why a movie like The Dead Next Door, while far from perfect, will always get my seal of approval: merely pulling it off is an achievement on its own, and this one has some highlights to boot.

For starters, the sheer amount of zombie action is unparalleled. Even some of Romero’s films didn’t have as many shootings, dismemberments, and beheadings as this one does. And the effects are quite impressive, particularly the squib work. To see a zombie run over to a human, and then the human spins around and shoots the zombie, with a big ol’ exit wound spraying blood everywhere - ALL IN ONE SHOT - is pretty rare in these films. Usually it’s “zombie runs over” - CUT TO A DIFFERENT ANGLE - “blood sprays from a suddenly immobile zombie”. The zombie design is pretty good too; it’s the standard Romero look, but considering how many zombies are shown in certain scenes, it’s nice to see how many of them got fully made up.

And they go to the goddamn White House! Holy shit! Some other DC memorials are visited as well, but the White House! A+!

I also loved how quickly it got going. Few zombie films take more than 10-15 minutes for the outbreak, but when you’re dealing with a no budget entry (if you factor in inflation, this film cost less than Night of the Living Dead), you can forgive them if they want to take their time. But no dice here; the opening credits are set over a fairly convincing and widespread zombie invasion of Ohio.

In fact, that fast pace results in one of the few things about the film that I had trouble with: it’s way overplotted. Early on, our heroes are sent from DC to Akron, where the outbreak occurred, and I thought that would be the main plot of the movie. But they get there instantly, find the guy they are looking for, and head back and forth between there and DC throughout the film. Then a cult, evil scientists, serums, talking zombies, brainwashed teenage girls, and probably a half a dozen other subplots get tossed into the mix. It’s fine to try to stick out with a new story, but there’s no need to bog it down with so many characters and tangents. Plus, being an indie, it wouldn’t surprise me if certain scenes never got shot, as certain plot threads and character arcs are rushed to the point of minor confusion, particularly during the 3rd act.

Also, I can forgive the whole “Naming all of the characters after horror legends” thing that was so big in the 80s, but not how much writer J.R. Bookwalter beats it into our heads. A character named Savini will be referred to by name sometimes 3 or 4 times in a single scene (by the same character more often than not), and likewise for characters named Raimi, Romero, Carpenter, etc. Also, the source of the outbreak seems to be at the house belonging to a guy named Bow, which they repeatedly refer to as “Bow house” (not even THE “Bow house”. So I kept thinking of Bauhaus. The unnecessary dialogue padding isn’t restricted to names, there are a lot of puzzlingly redundant phrases throughout the film, such as “The human cannibals” (as opposed to the kitty cannibals?) and reference to someone “committing their own suicide”. Maybe it’s supposed to be a cheesy joke, but it doesn’t come off that way.

The DVD is jampacked with so much stuff I didn’t even have time to watch it all. We get a wonderfully fun commentary with Bookwalter and some of the crew, with no stone untouched and loads of information, plus a confirmation of my suspicion that the lead actor was redubbed by Bruce Campbell, who he resembles anyway (I wouldn’t be surprised if the role was meant for him from the start; an early scene has some folks watching The Evil Dead and telling the character that he could “learn some things” from the movie). Bookwalter also provides commentary for some deleted scenes/outtakes, as well as behind the scenes footage. Then there’s a boatload of other stuff, including a reunion from a horror con, a retrospective with new interviews from just about everyone involved with the film, storyboards, the original video test footage (video was the original designated format for the film, before it was changed to Super 8), auditions, a music video... if Anchor Bay plans to double dip this one, they haven’t left themselves a lot of room to add stuff.

It’s a not-very-secret “secret” that the film was financed by Sam Raimi, knowledge of which is a big part of why many folks (including myself) have checked it out. And like Intruder, sometimes Bookwalter is a bit too eager to try to live up to his hero with his camerawork and such, but it’s not detrimental, and there are just as many Romero homages as there are Raimi ones. And you got to keep things in perspective; there may be a million of these things around now, but back in 1985 (when the film first went into production, it was finished four years later), this was borderline revolutionary in terms of what a small, inexperienced (they were all just out of high school) crew with meager funds/resources could pull off. It’s a terrific example of how to make the best of what you got; and that plus the informative extras make this a must for anyone who plans to helm their own zombie epic in their own backyard.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Suspect Zero (2004)

JUNE 11, 2009

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: IREEL.COM/DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

What’s with all the serial killer movies lately? I try to spread the genres out a bit, and while some (Slashers and Supernatural) obviously come up more than others (Puppets), it’s still rare to have four films from a single genre over the span of less than 2 weeks. At any rate, Suspect Zero is probably the best of the lot, thanks to solid acting, a slightly unique version of the same old “law enforcement guy with troubled past becomes obsessed with finding a killer” plot, and, most importantly, a refreshing lack of dumb twists.

See, throughout the movie, we never actually see any of the killings occur. Ben Kingsley’s character is seemingly hunting other killers (keep in mind this pre-dates Dexter and keeps the dry humor out of it), but he does it all off-screen. He is now after another killer whose face we never see. So I put two and two together and figured that we weren’t seeing the killings because our FBI agent hero, Aaron Eckhart, was one of the killers (he even throws in a reference to split personalities early on, but that turns out to be a red herring). But that’s not the case, thankfully, and the killer turns out to be some random guy.

And that’s fine, because the movie is really about “remote viewing”, in which someone who is not at the scene of a crime (or whatever) trances out and starts “seeing” specific details about the area. So, for example they write down like “Needle” “Cloudy” and “panhandling musician” and from that one could assume that the crime was occurring in Seattle. It’s a cool process, and according to the extra features, anyone can do it with some training. Cool.

There are a lot of little details I really appreciated too. For starters, our hero is an FBI agent, but he works a desk job (not even his own office!). So many movies with FBI agents make it seem like they just get to shoot and chase people 24/7, but we watch Eckhart fill out paperwork, investigate evidence from his desk, and make his own coffee. Also, whenever there is a newspaper clipping, the article actually makes sense and is relevant to the photo. A lot of movie prop photos just put a picture in and the article is gibberish or about a town hall meeting or something, but if you pause the movie and read the article, you actually get some backstory.

I also loved the art that Kingsley does during his remote viewing experiences. It looks a lot like the art of Ben Templesmith ("30 Days of Night"), particularly the final one of Eckhart’s character, which could easily be mistaken for line art from one of Templesmith’s "Wormwood" series. I even checked the credits to see if it WAS him, but I guess not.

Also, again, the hero is Aaron Eckhart. How can you not like this guy? There’s a reason his name is tossed around for the lead in Captain America: he’s an old fashioned movie star type (unfortunately, his leading role films tend to sink at the box office, including this one). And unlike a lot of his roles, he’s not cynical or anything like that, so it’s nice to see him play full on sympathetic for a change. Plus, he’s one of those guys who can’t be a follower; there’s a great bit where he goes on his first investigation in New Mexico (he’s been re-assigned there after bungling a case in Texas) and keeps getting put in his place by his superior officer and even a tow truck operator, but somehow manages to look like he’s in charge of them all anyway. That’s exactly what we need for Captain America. Kingsley also has some nice moments, such as a scene where a cop pulls him over. He gets a little hammy at times, but nothing compared to his Bloodrayne “performance”.

The only real problem with the movie, which kept it from being great, is the lack of real stakes or suspense. It would be cliché to put a family member in danger or whatever, but the end hinges on the rescue of a little boy. Yeah, this big studio movie with A list cast members MIGHT end with the death of a small child at the hands of a serial killer. And this is the only sort of chase scene in the movie, so it’s a bit of a downer. Not that Seven has to be the template for all serial killer films, but a scene halfway through with the killer trying (and succeeding) to escape from our heroes would have been beneficial.

Of course, once you turn on the audio commentary, you discover that it’s a wonder the film has any suspense at all. The director, one E. Elias Merhige, is clearly a pretentious windbag who wanted to make a movie about the mind and the essence of being and all this other horseshit. Those of you who want to hear about how things were shot, working with actors, etc, better steer clear, since he never even mentions a single person from the film (cast or crew) during the entire commentary. Instead, Merhige offers us “Again from his dream, he hears the echoes, the voice. The voice that drives him forward. Pictures of ancient traditions, rituals, the modern age. It screams, comes out, from that distant blackness.” Is this an audio commentary or an open mic night at some New York art school?

The rest of the extras are equally un-movie like, though at least they are interesting. We get about a half hour about some real remote viewers and the history of it all (government experiments factor in, unsurprisingly), and then 10 minutes where Merhige tries it himself, and actually (or is that allegedly) correctly finds the location he saw in his mind, not to mention comes off far better than he does on his commentary (i.e. I didn’t want to smack him during it). Even the deleted ending revolves around remote viewing, which makes it even more fascinating when you discover that this whole aspect of the movie was added in during script rewrites. Per this script review at AICN, it was originally a straight up procedural about an FBI agent hunting a killer of killers, with none of the remote viewing stuff.* I wouldn’t mind reading the original script myself. Not that I found the RV stuff really bothersome, but it definitely distracted away from the FBI/serial killer plot(s).

I just wish the DVD had a bit more honesty; the script had been around for years, got rewritten by everyone under the sun (including Ben Affleck!), was shot in 2002 but didn’t come out until 2004... that’s a lot of fascinating behind the scenes stuff, don’t you think? But it’s never even hinted at. I think putting all that stuff on there would actually give people a higher impression of the film. If you know how troubled the production was, you’d be amazed that the film was even coherent, let alone pretty good.

Speaking of the DVD, you may have noticed that this movie has two sources. That's because my disc was scratched and about ten minutes' worth were unplayable. Luckily, there's a new site called iReel that lets you stream movies for a nominal fee per flick (or you can pay a flat monthly rate), with hundreds of movies already available (including Suspect Zero) and more being added. And while I can't vouch for every single title, every one that I checked was NOT available for instant viewing on Netflix, making it even more enticing. While the presumed death of physical media terrifies me, I can't deny the fact that being able to watch whatever the hell I want at a whim is a pretty great advancement for mankind. The quality was quite good and scanning ahead worked even faster than Netflix (which needs to buffer for quite a while). I also dig the option to let you choose your high speed, which would minimize rebuffer times should your connection slow. Very cool. Definitely check it out if you're a fan of instant viewing.

Back to the movie though, if you’re like me, and have just watched a bunch of bad serial killer films, then Suspect Zero should help restore your faith in the sub-genre. It’s far from a slam dunk, but there’s enough originality and some terrific performances to enjoy, and it’s pretty short to boot. Hardly the worst use of your time.

What say you?

*I kind of like the irony of Moriarty writing this article about how adding a fantastical element to a script “ruined it”, seeing as how he was the one that added Hell monsters to the otherwise “real world” script for Carpenter’s Pro-life episode of Masters of Horror.

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Rage: Carrie 2 (1999)

JUNE 10, 2009

GENRE: HERO KILLER, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

If enough time has passed (and, more importantly, almost no one involved returns), it’s kind of OK to basically do a remake and call it a sequel. And that is the case with The Rage: Carrie 2, which once again takes a girl with telekinetic powers (and a psycho religious mother) and unleashes her at a party where the popular kids have humiliated her, resulting in her killing everyone (including an adult who is sympathetic to her) before dying herself.

And it’s a bummer that the screenwriters lacked any originality for the most part, because at its core there’s a different story here. Things kick off differently, with Rachel (the Carrie substitute; no one is actually named Carrie in this movie) losing her best friend to suicide. And while her psycho mom is off in the institute, she is being raised by white trash foster parents. Also, the idea of high school cliques is far more prevalent. Finally, she has a boyfriend (Jason, or Jeremy London) that as far as we know, isn’t being nice to her because he’s in on the plot to humiliate her.

But the beats are just identical, which keeps the film from having its own identity. For example, Rachel is seemingly aware of her powers, yet doesn’t bother to use them until the ending, when all hell breaks loose (including another fire). The clique thing is introduced, but they never really expand on it in any meaningful way. There’s a bit where she runs to a football game, presumably to save the day, but doesn’t do anything. Why not have her use her power to help the school win the game, and have a confidant know what she’s up to? Nope, instead, the popular kids once again trick her into thinking they are her friend, an act that makes Rachel seem almost mentally disabled in the process (she’s pretty smart for the bulk of the movie, only to completely believe that a bunch of jocks and class president types think she’s great and pretty over the course of a day).

Luckily the climax makes up for it by delivering some pretty shocking gore. I actually thought this was a PG-13 movie, but that changed when Rachel began beheading and impaling people left and right. One guy gets a harpoon to (and through) his balls, and then she immolates countless others. Christ, even Amy Irving takes a spear through the head (and is impaled to a door in the process, so her corpse swings around as people use the door to escape). Speaking of Irving, some internet sites take time to point out that she’s the only returning character from the first Carrie. Well, uh, who else COULD return? Carrie killed everyone else!

Plus the end is kind of a downer. Since the boyfriend isn’t a dick this time around, he survives, but the movie ends with him in college, clearly depressed (and taking care of Rachel’s dog, who also looks depressed). Uh, yay?

Oh, I have to mention this. During the prank scene, we hear someone say in an Adam Sandler voice “They’re all going to laugh at you!”. This is what I call a paradoxical in-joke, a la the characters in H20 watching Scream. See, Sandler’s comedy bit is merely a spoof of the first film, so it doesn’t make any sense for that bit to exist in the world of the films themselves. And yes, I’m reading into this shit too much.

The film is directed by Katt Shea, who took over for Robert Mandel (F/X!!) for reasons unknown (well, besides “creative differences”). Maybe she explains it in her commentary, but the tone of her voice drove me insane, plus she was dreadfully dull, so I started tuning out. She also apparently is unaware of who directed Starman, as she points out that the DP shot “Starman, as well as some John Carpenter movies”. She also introduces a few deleted scenes in way too close close-up (zoom out, camera guy!) and a deleted version of the ending that makes no goddamn sense. Another thing that makes no sense is her black and white usage in the film, which is introduced as Rachel’s POV (is she color blind?) but is used when we actually see Rachel doing things, so I dunno.

A note on those deleted scenes - none of them are really worth looking at, though there is a scene where Rachel visits her mother in the institute that should have been kept in. Not that it’s particularly good, but it robs the film of having any scenes of the two of them together, until the very end (in which her mother plays an important role). Until that moment, I wasn’t even aware that Rachel kept in contact with her mother. Also, speaking of the film being robbed of certain thematic necessities, her jerk foster parents are never dealt with. In fact, when Rachel goes to the party, she is sneaking out (she was grounded), so they set up a conflict and never resolve it. Of course, going after the parents after the party massacre would have been even MORE of a copy of the original, but still - why bother setting something up if you’re not going to follow through? Also, why the fuck does she have tree branches all over her face when she Carries out?

So I dunno. It’s not terrible by any means, and the massacre is gory fun, but it’s ten minutes overlong, and also feels like the movie is missing a beat somewhere in the middle. Plus, the budget was reportedly 20 million, and only half of that seems to be on the screen (Repo only cost half that). Mixed bag, your call (whoever posted the Youtube trailer seems to agree - the description says "Sort of a rubbish film but meh").

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Plague Town (2008)

JUNE 9, 2009

GENRE: KILLER KID, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (IN A THEATER)

I almost watched Plague Town a few weeks ago at the Fangoria convention, but the screening room was changed. It wasn’t great to begin with in the room where I watched Mum & Dad, but it looked even worse at the new location, so I said “I’ll wait to see it properly”, especially since I’m not a fan of projected DVDs to begin with. So it’s kind of ironic that I ended up seeing it that way anyway, albeit in a much more preferable locale (the New Bev), with a professional setup to boot. The picture was a notch or two above what I expect for a DVD projection (having suffered through many at various film festivals), though the audio was a bit blown out, albeit still better than Fangoria’s joke of a speaker setup.

Luckily, the film itself was solid enough to put my issues with the audio aside. Like Eden Lake, we once again have tourists being menaced by a mob of the town’s children, but in this case they are mutated freaks, with some truly freaky designs on a few of them (I love the main girl , Rosemary, who has a bandage and doll eyes covering where her real eyes would be). And instead of a couple, we have a dysfunctional family (father, two daughters, new stepmom, and one of the daughters’ boyfriend), which allows for more kills and more suspense.

One thing that really impressed me was the shooting locale. I never doubted for a second that they were in Ireland, but it was actually all shot in Connecticut (making this, I think, the first horror movie to be shot in the US despite taking place in another country - usually it’s the other way around). Christ, I’ve probably been through the shooting areas and still had no idea. Excellent work on director David Gregory and DP Brian Rigney Hubbard’s part.

I also loved the pace. Some of these movies (including Eden Lake) take a bit too long setting everything up, but that’s not the case here. They get stranded around the 15 minute mark (and some weird stuff has already happened) and the kids start popping up shortly thereafter. Our first death is probably around the 30 minute mark, which is damned impressive (especially considering who gets it first). And even without the scare/suspense stuff, the film still entertains due to the foul-mouthed bickering between the two sisters (who couldn’t look less alike, but whatever). There’s something about a girl calling another one a “fucking cunt” that will always bring a smile to my face (especially at the Bev, where such sentiment is rightfully applauded). It teeters on the brink of just getting annoying, but like I said, the bad shit starts going on earlier than usual/expected, so I forgave the film this trespass.

The only real blight is the abrupt ending, which leaves one character’s fate up to the imagination to boot. It seems like a movie where we would get an explanation for the mutated children or a real epic struggle/escape for the heroine, but it just sort of peters out. Gregory explained during the Q&A that he wasn’t interested in explaining everything, and that’s fine (he used the Night of the Living Dead example), but the ending could have packed a bit more of a punch, especially considering how solid and creepy the first hour or so was. On the flipside, the movie does not fall into the usual trap of these “a good family runs afoul of a group of whatevers that have been killing tourists for ages” movies. Without spoiling anything, I must say that I appreciated the overall outcome in terms of who lives/who dies.

I also loved the score, as well as the techno-y/dance song over the credits. Since the audio was a bit blown out, I may rent the DVD just to hear the music again. Also, the sound design was terrific; I actually commented during the film that it may be the most aggressive sound mix I’ve heard at the Bev. Usually I’m there watching older movies that existed before 5.1 surround sound, so it was strange to hear creepy laughing children behind me (and I kept turning around to see them; it’s the modern equivalent of the audience ducking when they saw the train coming toward them back in ye olden times).

Speaking of the DVD, it’s also on Blu-ray, and I may check it out just to see what a Super 16 movie looks like on the format. If Gregory hadn’t told us, I would have sworn that the film was shot in 35mm; even with the DVD projection it still looked great.

As Grindhouse guru Brian Quinn explained after the movie, eventually they will run out of 60s-80s movies to show and will have to start embracing more modern fare (in twenty years, movies like Plague Town will be “old”, after all). I do not disagree, but unlike many of the movies they show, this one doesn’t need a big audience to aid your enjoyment of it (such as The Sinful Dwarf, which they screened after Plague and even with a crowd was still kind of dull whenever the title character wasn’t onscreen). Check it out.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Razortooth (2007)

JUNE 8, 2009

GENRE: MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

There have been so many horror movies featuring a water-dwelling monster that Boxofficemojo actually has a chart for it so someone can find/compare them all. Looking over at it, few of them are particularly successful (the ones that are tend to be shark-based: Jaws, Deep Blue Sea, Open Water), so you gotta wonder why folks keep churning em out, especially as they are all so goddamn similar to boot. Even though I had never seen Razortooth before, it sure felt as I did, because screenwriters Jack Monroe and Matt Holly wholeheartedly refused to work outside of the inherently narrow formula.

So, do we have an easy-going, handsome law-enforcement type as the hero? Check. An old flame helping him out? Check. A “hunter” with an accent? Oh my, check. Will a random, innocuous object play a role in the monster’s demise? You better believe it. The closest thing that the movie comes to originality is that in addition to stealing from Jaws, Lake Placid, etc, it also steals from, of all movies, Evolution, right down to the two young slacker characters who provide the item that can weaken the monster (though, in the film’s best moment, the scientific explanation doesn’t actually work, so they merely blow the goddamn thing up. Fuck you, science!).

But it’s a minor notch above say, Lake Placid 2 or Loch Ness Terror as these things go. The effects are as terrible as ever, but the monster’s design is kind of goofy anyway, so it sort of fits. And it certainly doesn’t skimp on the body count; this has one of the highest death tolls I can recall in a water monster movie (maybe Deep Rising has more because the monster ate everyone on a cruise ship, but that doesn’t really count as it was mainly off-screen). Most of the attacks are the same (and inexplicably inside; there are two bathroom set kills for Christ’s sake), but there are a few great gore gags, and at least one sweet moment where the monster pulls a Michael Myers, fading in (and back out) in the darkness behind a character. Then he eats her.

It would be even better if the acting wasn’t so godawful, with a truly annoying lead to boot. Doug Swander clearly wants to be Nathan Fillion, but has none of Fillion’s inherent charm or acting skills. And he plays a fucking harmonica almost non-stop in the film’s first act (I actually suspected it would help weaken the monster, like it couldn’t stand the harmonica’s sound frequency or something). The writing is equally abysmal; particularly in the scenes surrounding the “love triangle” between three of the younger characters (fuck learning their names, there like 20 full blown characters in this movie in addition to all of the bit players). The girl likes books, the guys like football, she teases them and they go “aw shucks”, and no one questions why two jocks would be interested in a mousy girl in the first place. Also, back to the hero, they set up a sort of Abyss (or, more likely, Piranha II) thing where he has to work with his “tough” ex-wife, but instead of growing closer as the film progresses, they hop into bed together around the 20 minute mark, which makes me wonder why the divorce angle was even introduced in the first place.

However, one of the characters actually calls another a “Gaylord”, which I haven’t heard outside of a schoolyard in at least 20 years (editor’s note - does this mean you’ve been INSIDE of a schoolyard in the recent past?), so props to that. Also, the ending is kind of a downer, as several kids of about 14 are eaten (off-screen, sadly), as is the father who has been trying to rescue his son (one of the kids) for the whole movie. Monroe and/or Holly clearly have some issues.

Here’s what I don’t get about all of these movies though: they are all clearly influenced by Jaws, yet despite the uniformly terrible effects, no one ever uses Spielberg’s method of hiding the damn thing from the audience for the first half or so. Hell, Razortooth is seen in full before we even meet any of our main characters! You’d think at least one guy on the crew would be like “Hey... the monster kind of looks like shit. Maybe we shouldn’t show it so much?”

The DVD offers us a making of that has special effects on par with that of the monster (and terrible audio as well - did they record this goddamn thing in a bathroom?), plus a “music video” which mixes clips of the movie with the singers (actually the two lead actors - the harmonica strikes again!) recording their vocals in a booth. Riveting.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Terror At London Bridge (1985)

JUNE 7, 2009

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

Filmmakers/actors often take shots at their own films when they play at the New Beverly (be it a joke at the expense of their own performance, the box office, or in some cases, the work of others on the film), but Clu Gulager is a notable exception. Whenever he speaks about one of his films before it screens, he will praise the other actors, the director, and refer to the film as “wonderful” or something similar. But even he didn’t have much to say about Terror At London Bridge (aka Bridge Across Time); he praised his co-stars, but merely referred to the film itself as “interesting...” or something like that.

Well, it’s certainly an interesting concept for a movie. Jack the Ripper is somehow brought 100 years forward in time and begins stalking women on the harsh, cold streets of... Lake Havasu, Arizona. Well, OK, I’ll give them points for originality. Jack is often brought back in NY or LA or whatever, and that gets old. I’ll take a small lakeside town over the umpteenth metropolis.

Unfortunately, the details about it are all wrong, and worse, fairly stupid. If it’s the real Jack, why does he copy his own murders, right down to the date? Wouldn’t he be like “oh, now I can do something different!”. Nope, he even waits around for weeks doing nothing (besides hit on Adrienne Barbeau) until the next “original murder” date comes along. So Jack the Ripper has OCD, then. Also, he comes back to life via a magic rock. It seems London Bridge has been dismantled and rebuilt in Lake Havasu (I actually thought this was the most ridiculous part of the movie until I found out that its true), but they were missing one rock. When the rock is returned and put in place, Jack is reborn. Luckily for him, it happened at the same time of the year as his original murder spree (August/September). If the rock had been found/replaced in like, March, he’d have to get a parttime job or something just to keep busy until he could start killing.

This also means that the movie is painfully low on a body count. There are only three murders, with lead cop David Hasselhoff trying to prevent the fourth. But since the movie is 96 minutes long (TV movie standard length), instead of stalking/killing, we just get endless scenes of the Hoff romancing a boat shop owner, Hoff arguing with his chief (Clu) and some town official in the Murray “You can’t close the beaches” Hamilton role, or a lab tech rambling about how weird the evidence is (“This blood seems to be a hundred years old!”). And Jack himself is equally dull; he only has a few lines and is almost never seen outside of the kill scenes. Plus his face is hidden at first, as if the movie was going to be a whodunit. There is some novelty to seeing him in his 19th century garb (hat, cape, etc) as he walks around a sunny beach area, but not nearly enough to make the movie entertaining as a whole.

Oh, and Hoff has a “tragic past” - he shot an “armed” suspect that turned out to be a kid with a can opener (note - in lieu of a trailer, which I couldn't find, I put this scene at the bottom of the review). Strangely, this movie predates Die Hard, so perhaps Steven E. de Souza caught this dullfest on TV, heard the shooting story, and thought “I bet I can use this in a GOOD movie, one people might actually like!” And viola, Al Powell has something besides a Twinkie addiction to make him so memorable. That, OR, it’s just a generic story that doesn’t hurt an otherwise solid movie but can make a lousy one look all the more uninteresting.

The inherent problem with any Jack the Ripper movie is that they never caught (or even identified) him in real life, which means that the film either will have no real climax, will make shit up like in From Hell, or, as in this case, will use time travel and other nonsense to distract you away from that problematic issue. And with a good script, it can work. But seriously though, a magic fucking rock?

What say you?

And now, Horror Movie A Day and Happy Hour Comics would like to present the newest in an ongoing series of HMAD-inspired comic strips. I hope you enjoy!! (Click to enlarge)

PLEASE, GO ON...

Non Canon Review: A Nightmare On Elm St Part 2: Freddy's Revenge

JUNE 6, 2009

GENRE: SLASHER, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)
LAST SEEN: 2000 (DVD)

Even when I first saw it as a kid (I was about 9), I thought Nightmare On Elm St 2: Freddy’s Revenge was a bit weird. It wasn’t so much the whole “Freddy in the real world” thing that struck me as odd, but more the “Why is this high school kid going to a gay bar? And what IS a gay bar?” feeling. As I got older, and things like homoerotic subtext became a bit easier to spot, I realized that the movie was just one of what would ultimately be, uh, one horror franchise sequels that seemed more interested in presenting a metaphor for suppressing one’s homosexuality than killing, scares or even bothering to function in any meaningful way as a sequel (Freddy is only in like 10 minutes of the movie, and his role is essentially a metaphor for a man who is no longer able to suppress said urges).

Some folks (including the director) claim that they had no idea about the subtext when they were making the movie, but I find that hard to believe. I mean, for Christ’s sake, the only real kill setpiece in the whole movie finds a man stripped naked, tied to a wall, and then whipped for a while before being clawed. There is also the scene where Jesse rebels against his father (Clu Gulager) - who doesn’t understand him! - by singing and dancing around his room to a song sung by a woman. And who can forget this exchange, between Jesse and his best friend/enemy, Grady:

Jesse: Someone is trying to get inside of me!
Grady: Yeah, and she’s waiting for you in the cabana, but you want to sleep with me!

Confusing sexual positions aside (how does a girl get inside- oh never mind), this sums up everything you need to know about the movie. Their friendship is particularly odd; they meet during a baseball game, and almost instantly begin fighting, which results in Grady pulling off Jesse’s pants. Then they bond when the S&M loving coach makes them do pushups for hours. Later that week, Grady invites Jesse over for pizza, which I guess is still OK with his parents, who have grounded him for throwing his grandmother down a flight of stairs. I’ve been friends with some dudes for years and they still haven’t invited me over for dinner. And since Grady can’t be bothered to put a shirt or pants on when his male friend comes over, “Freddy” is once again unable to remain inside of Jesse’s body and kills him as well. So far this movie has had two deaths, both males without any clothing on.

But enough of all that. The real issue here is that screenwriter David Chaskin clearly didn’t have the slightest clue as to what made Freddy so interesting. Since Jesse is the only character that has nightmares (the opening one, on the bus, is easily the best scene in the film), Freddy’s not really much of a threat, because Jesse won’t die anytime soon. It’s the friends that need to be put in danger, but Chaskin’s script never gives any of them a scene to themselves. Patton is in all but two scenes in the film, making it seem like the other characters don’t even exist unless he’s around. And even when Freddy breaks into the real world, he’s not really concerned with racking up a body count; as countless victims run around him, he swipes at some flowers and overturns a table. Scary!

To be fair he does kill two or three people during this sequence, but with at least 20 of them all trapped inches away from him, it still feels like a giant missed opportunity (not to mention how he just leaves by walking past them all; he could have taken a few more out on the way). And the finale is incredibly weak; Jesse’s beard goes to the factory where Freddy took all of his victims (where the hell did this plot element come from?), and the gay metaphor comes full circle, as she is able to kill (suppress) “Freddy” once and for all by repeatedly assuring the man inside (which would be "Jesse", the straight part of him) that she loves him, and thus the tables are turned and now Jesse forces himself out of Freddy’s body. Yikes.

For all its faults though, I’ll still take it over the later entries (5 and 6 particularly), as at least Freddy isn’t just making wisecracks the whole time, and the film is at least trying to tell a story instead of showcasing the FX work of whatever artists/groups were working on it. In fact, the body count is rather low (5?) and the deaths aren’t particularly gory. Ironically, had Wes Craven been involved, it might actually be quite good, as he is well versed in psychology and philosophy, two areas any film about a guy struggling with his identity would have to explore by default. Hell, even the exact same script, stripped of any reference to an established franchise, could have made an interesting and unique film. I wouldn’t be surprised if was actually written as something else and turned into a Nightmare script, as there’s no way I can believe that a quickie sequel (this movie came out less than a year after the original) would keep its main draw offscreen for so much of it had it been designed as a sequel from the get-go, especially when he was the only returning character (unless you count the house itself, which Jesse resides in, a fact that is unceremoniously revealed to the audience).

When I got home I put on, for the first time ever, the “Bonus Disc” from the Nightmare DVD boxed set. I had heard that the thing is impossible to navigate, but I found the stuff on Nightmare 2 pretty easily. All that’s there is the trailer and four short interview pieces with Robert Englund, Bob Shaye, director Jack Sholder, and Rachel Talalay (who was a PA on this film and moved up to direct Freddy’s Dead). She’s pretty up front about the gay stuff, but Sholder is not, and it’s a shame that Haskin or any of the actors couldn’t be enticed to speak their mind on the matter. Still, there’s some interesting stuff in there, and I’m sure New Line will eventually re-release each disc with the relevant material included.

Of course, all of the anomalies and “uh...” moments made for a terrific viewing experience at the New Bev. Every weird line and double entendre was greeted with appreciative laughter, and Freddy’s signature line from the film (“You are all my children now!”) got a big applause as well. Plus, Clu and Robert Rusler (Grady) were there for a Q&A, always a nice addition to the viewing (especially considering the lack of insight on the disc itself). It just proves, once again, you don’t need a great movie to have a great time at the theatre.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...