Underworld: Awakening (2012)

JANUARY 20, 2012

GENRE: VAMPIRE, WEREWOLF
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

It’s ironic, I went back and read my review of the 2nd film before heading out to see Underworld: Awakening, which was written as an open letter to director Len Wiseman*. In it, I pointed out that I think he’s a pretty good director (on a visual level), but shouldn’t be allowed to write the scripts. And yet, on this film he is given screenwriting credit (amongst others, including J. Michael Straczynski) while others direct, and yet it’s the best of the “Selene Trilogy” - which completely negates my theory. I’m not sure if I liked it more than Lycans; I’d have to sit down and watch them all to re-assess, but it delivered what I wanted from the first two films. And in 3D!

Actually, the 3D was the only real letdown. It was a native 3D film, not a post-convert (if it was I wouldn’t have bothered; there was a 2D option as well), but at times it almost seemed like it WAS something that was created later. Not only was it rarely impressive with regards to the depth in a shot (“Comin at ya!” shots – which I largely hate – were used sparingly), but it had a number of elements that seemed exaggerated, which is a frequent problem with the converted 3D films I’ve seen. Characters often seem too far apart, elements blend together as if they weren’t separated, etc. They even turn the images on some security monitors into 3D, which doesn’t even make sense.

Otherwise, I was surprised at how enjoyable it was. It largely ditches the convoluted “mythology” of the first two films (and the romantic trappings of all of them) and sticks to a straight up “mission” movie, with Selene and a few other vampires (and one human) connecting with and then having to rescue a young girl who turns out is Selene and Michael’s daughter. The Lycans (werewolves) have her because she shares Michael’s prized DNA as well as Selene’s, making her perfect fodder to experiment with as the Lycans work to eradicate their silver weakness, which will allow them to take over the world. And that’s pretty much it – the movie is only 88 minutes long with credits, and almost never slows down. There’s a bit around the halfway point (maybe further) where Selene actually has a quiet dialogue exchange with someone and I realized that it had been a while since the movie had been quiet enough to hear people talking behind me.

The action is pretty good too, albeit a bit repetitive. The werewolf based fights are a ton of fun (particularly the crazy car chase early on), and the FX continue to impress, but more often than not it’s just Kate (who seems kind of bored this time, admittedly) shooting and diving around anonymous corrupt cops/henchman types, which gets a bit monotonous after a while (and I swear, if you drink every time she drops into frame from above, you’ll be dead before the movie is over). And these guys never stand a chance (unlike the giant werewolves), so it’s like a Jackie Chan movie where the guys keep getting their asses handed to them but still stand around and fight him one at a time, except without his movies’ sense of humor. There are a couple of moments that made me laugh (mostly involving Eve, the vampy daughter), but as usual the creative team seems pretty serious about their vampire vs. werewolf movies. Or, people vs. werewolf movies - Kate also doesn’t get to show her vamp side nearly enough, though when it DOES appear it’s pretty dang awesome. Quality over quantity!

One thing in its favor was the way that the story branched out. With Viktor, Lucian, etc, all dead, it’s time for new villains, and they stick to series tradition by hiring actors who you don’t expect to find in FX heavy horror movies: Stephen Rea and Charles Dance, specifically. Dance only appears in two scenes (guessing he’ll be more prominent in the 5th film if one comes to pass), but Rea is in it quite a bit as the head scientist of the evil werewolf-run lab. His transformation is kept until the climax, but it’s worth the wait – his design is a bit different than the others; much scarier in fact. The Michael storyline is kept to a minimum; Scott Speedman wasn’t asked to return but they got some guy that looks almost sort of nothing like him at all (but with the same hair!) to appear in the few scenes that he was needed. In other words, if you haven’t seen the others, you won’t be lost – if anything you might even be in a better position to enjoy it as the recasting might be too annoying for the die-hard fans. Then again, a newcomer won’t appreciate the little nods to the others; there’s a terrific bit where Selene reprises her famous “shoot in a circle and fall through the floor” bit from the first film, albeit in an inverse way – I cheered and I don’t even like that one!

I also liked that they flashed forward 12 years, and presented the Lycan race as dying – the first few we see are kind of sickly and weak compared to the ones near the end. In fact I could have used more of this stuff; her 12 year coma doesn’t seem to bother her much, and the movie’s pace is too fast to bother much with what might be different about the world now (most of it is addressed in the first reel and then never mentioned again). Then again, at 88 minutes I have to assume the pace was tightened from something a bit more meaty (the first film is just under two hours, for comparison’s sake), so perhaps this stuff was excised since it didn’t have much to do with the main plot – i.e. Kate running around and killing folks/wolves in her attempt to free her daughter from Rea and his cohorts. Still, the little that’s there gives the overall storyline a bit more of a scope – it’s cool to see how their little war has affected the rest of the world.

So it’s hard to tell how fans will react to it. On one hand, Kate is back after sitting the last movie out, and you’d have to be insane not to be interested in watching her do her thing in 3D (one ad even flat out says “Kate Beckinsale In 3D!”). It continues the story of Evolution without demanding that you can remember the details (or even seen it at all – there’s a bit of a “Previously, on Underworld” thing at the top of the movie either way), and opts to stick more with action and FX than scenes of British thespians standing around arguing with each other using silly words. On the other, it unceremoniously drops the 2nd lead from the first two films, and limits Dance’s screentime to almost nothing, which won’t help anyone forget about the great Bill Nighy. And there’s not a lot of vampire action; more often than not it just resembles one of the Resident Evil flicks, in fact (think Alice vs. random Umberella goons), and thus the “dumbed down” approach of this one might be insulting to those who can actually follow the storyline of the first two. So it might appeal more toward those who WEREN’T huge fans of the others instead of those who were. Your call – but unless you’re a total junkie for the format I think I can definitively say that it’s not worth the extra 3 bucks to see it in 3D. That being said, it’s also in IMAX – and I would never dream to suggest it’s not worth a couple extra bucks to gaze upon a 60 foot screen covered with Ms. Beckinsale’s face during her many closeups.

What say you?

*In that same letter to Wiseman I mocked his overuse of blue filters and offered to show him what the color red looked like. So I had to laugh when the logo for the Red camera (which this was shot on) came up… in blue.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Fading Of The Cries (2011)

JANUARY 19, 2012

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

One of my favorite underrated flicks in the past few years is Night Watch, which combined vampires with a more action/fantasy type story (the sequel, Day Watch, wasn’t as good, and I’m still bummed that they didn’t continue the series since there are four source novels and the two movies only covered the first). So I was kind of interested in Fading Of The Cries, because it sounded like a similar scenario albeit with zombies instead of vampires. Add in Brad Dourif (and the fact that it actually got a small theatrical release) and it should be a fun time-killer at worst, right?

Wrong. By telling a convoluted and yet uninteresting story via a constant stream of terrible VFX shots, almost nothing about the movie qualifies as “fun”. Any sane person would grow tired of seeing digital blood (and skies, and people, and pretty much everything else) before the first act was through, and the action isn’t even all that exciting – most of it is simply our hero (Jordan Matthews) running around and swinging a sword in the general direction of zombie/demon things, most of which appear to have been shot separately. Writer/director Brian Metcalf is seemingly under the impression that everything will look cooler if there’s a lot of it, so Matthews is constantly fighting off dozen of zombies at once while literally hundreds of them run around in the background. Unfortunately for him, he’s completely wrong – any discerning audience member would rather an actual fight with a handful of the things, WITHOUT the distracting, poorly composited extras in the background.

I mean, obviously this was not a big budgeted film – why stretch your production value even thinner by constantly adding in VFX that aren’t necessary? Nearly every shot of the sky in this movie seems to be added in via a demo copy of After Effects, which is just a distracting eyesore that adds nothing. Other elements are needlessly “enhanced” – at one point our heroes are at Disney’s Ranch a bit north of LA, an area I am familiar with because they shot part of Hatchet II there. I instantly recognized the bridge that housed a lot of the equipment during filming (the bridge itself doesn’t appear in the film – it’s next to the swamp where Ed Ackerman’s character got his face sliced off), and then laughed as I saw that they were trying to make it look 10x as long using cheap visual effects, and having the actors run over the same patch of it over and over again to make it seem longer than it actually is (which is about 100 feet). But why? If they’re trapped, what difference does it make how long it is? If anything the shorter length would actually be SCARIER – because there would be less room for them to maneuver.

However even if I was just sitting here reading the script I’d have problems, because the movie is all over the place. I knew we were in trouble early on, when we see Thomas Ian Nicholas drive up to a house, get out of his car, and walk inside. Some voiceover tells us that his wife and child had died and that he’s living there to try to get over it and also write his next book. Then we watch the opening credits, which are followed by a “14 years later” card. 14 years after a widower walked into a house? Who the hell cares? And like every other scene in the movie, it’s filled with ugly CGI skies and such, so lopping it off entirely could have not only strengthened the movie’s pace a bit, instead of starting it off so awkwardly, but also would have given these overworked FX guys either a break or more time to improve the other shots in scenes that DID serve a purpose.

Anyway, Nicholas dies in his “14 years ago” timeline, and thus for obvious reasons he never really interacts with our other heroes. The back and forth between the two storylines never has any motivation behind it, and since we know he’s dead from our first “present day” scene, they carry little interest once you know where they are going. He also narrates them for some reason, as if his story was supposed to be being learned via his journal or something, instead of just being edited into the narrative at random intervals. Most of his scenes involve him slowly walking around his house (“I heard a noise and decided to check it out”, voiceover Nicholas tells us, as his character hears a noise and decides to check it out) or breaking glasses of every sort – water glasses! Mirrors! Tumblers! Why his character’s magic powers seem to revolve entirely around glass is never explained, but I assume it’s just easier on the FX guys than having him break, I dunno, wood or something.

The villains don’t make a lot of sense, either. I never quite understood what evil wizard Dourif was trying to accomplish, but let’s just assume “Destroy the world!” for the sake of our sanity. But why does this require turning seemingly everyone in the town (except for our protagonists and their immediate friends) into zombies? What purpose did they serve in the grand scheme of things? And what’s with the girl with a white sock on her head? Also, he only appears in spurts, talking cryptically to our heroes and then disappearing again. A movie like this needs a villain that matches up to our heroes. Think The Matrix – Mr. Smith was just as interesting as Neo after a while. Dourif never gets that much to do – even Wormtongue had more of an arc and he wasn’t even the main villain!

Like many a fantasy film, at the center of the battle is an amulet, which is fine. The problem is, the amulet’s owner (Hailee Hirsh, cute but playing an obnoxious character) is phased out of the movie in favor of her younger sister, who is basically a glorified extra until the third act. Suddenly, Dourif kidnaps her and our hero goes off to save her while Hirsh – who we’ve been with for most of the movie – just stays home and (spoiler) dies along with her mom, a story point that might be grim or shocking if the story gave us any real reason to care about them beyond the fact that they were on-screen the longest. This results in what I would call the year’s weirdest closing shot if not for the fact that I’m one of the 14 people who have seen Beneath The Darkness.

I was also continually confused who the movie was made for. The R rating is for “bloody horror violence”, and while it’s certainly more graphic than Twilight, the fantasy feel and the fact that everyone is an anonymous zombie probably could have gotten them a PG-13 if they asked nicely. However there are also a couple of F-bombs, so they clearly weren’t TRYING for a PG-13, despite the teen-friendly story (it reminded me a bit of the Dungeons & Dragons movie on more than one occasion, in fact).

It did have a few moments of merit, however. Dourif is always a delight, even when I had no idea what the hell he was talking about (and despite the fact that his near-top billing suggested a lot more than his 10 minutes or so of screen time). There’s a cool “trapped in a barn” scene that uses an aggressive surround mix instead of the usual bad FX to sell the idea, something that the movie should have relied on more often. And there’s a weird little demon that looked kind of creepy (you can see it in the trailer, the one in the cornfield). Also, the movie sort of resembled a live-action anime at times, something that COULD be done well; I wouldn’t want to dissuade anyone from trying. Just make sure it’s better than this.

The disc contains the trailer for it as well as other Lionsgate properties, including Highlander 2. Word of advice – no one wants to be reminded of the existence of Highlander 2, ever, so putting it at the top of a disc is somewhat foreboding, as if you’re telling us to be prepared for massive disappointment. The only other extra is a making of, where everyone just talks about how great everyone/everything is, with Dourif praising his character’s dialogue (?) and Matthews hilariously revealing that he read “The Art Of War” to prepare for his one-note, shockingly uninteresting character. Well, beats reading the script I guess.

I hate knocking on ambitious movies – there’s a severe lack of them in the genre nowadays, and again, I think the blend of horror and fantasy is something that could be really cool when done right. But giving a pass to something merely for ATTEMPTING something unique doesn’t do anyone any good – if nothing else, you have to give your ambitious idea some real characters to bring it to life, or something that’s truly exciting on a visual level. This might work as a 6-8 issue comic miniseries, but a 90 minute film isn’t nearly enough to handle this many subplots and ideas, especially when half of it is devoted to mindless zombie “attack” scenes that pale in comparison to even a Syfy level movie.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Stage Fright (2005)

JANUARY 18, 2012

GENRE: SLASHER, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

In honor to succeed, a slasher film must deliver on one of two levels: the story has to be interesting (Scream) or it has to be stylish and scary (Halloween). I can also accept “a whole bunch of cool kills” (Hatchet), but that sort of falls under style. Unfortunately for anyone who makes the mistake of watching Stage Fright, it delivers absolutely none of those things – it’s actually MORE plot-less than Halloween but has zero style, without a single good kill or interesting killer to make up for its other faults.

Director/producer Rick Jordan (who also co-stars) also can’t even bother to pick a tone. It starts off like a farcical comedy of sorts, with a bunch of actors sitting around doing little shtick-y things as a cartoonish producer yells at someone over the phone – no suggestion that it’s even a horror/comedy mix, just a flat out (unfunny) comedy. Finally after seven minutes the rest of the credits show up (out of nowhere; I had actually already forgotten that they weren’t complete. The Fugitive would be proud) and the characters go from the original theater to a different one, where a weird janitor and some creepy music informs us that we are indeed watching a genre film.

To its credit, it doesn’t waste much time getting to the kills, and it seemingly unfolds almost in real time from the moment where all of the characters are aware that they are trapped with a killer. But that’s also one of its problems – we haven’t had any time to differentiate between the complete strangers who make up our cast (I had trouble telling two of the males apart in particular), or know their names when they are mentioned. “Where’s Rob?” someone will ask, and I’m just thinking “WHO is Rob?”. In other words, caring about any of them is impossible, but unlike even an MPAA-mangled Friday the 13th entry, the kills aren’t anything to look forward to. Even New Blood (the most eviscerated entry) had the sleeping bag kill.

So that just leaves story, which is a mess. There’s a couple of killers, with different motives – something that would be fine if used in any meaningful way, but it just seems like a way to pad out the runtime; our main killer is taken out (via a sword fight! Points for novelty, I guess), and then another character we had forgotten about comes back and helps add another 15 minutes to the thing. Thanks, asshole. Supernatural elements also come into play, and like everything else, are too vague to be particularly interesting. There’s an inkling of a decent idea here about people disrespecting theatrical works (Shakespeare in particular), but there’s absolutely nothing compelling about the way it is presented here.

To sum it up (there’s no sense going on and on, this movie is remarkably obscure for a fairly recent American horror movie – I couldn’t even find another review! Clearly no one cares, nor should they), the movie is just THERE. It’s aimless and tone-deaf, features not one memorable moment or performance, and simply doesn’t work on any level. It’s the type of bad that doesn’t even get me angry at the time/money wasted on putting it together; I might as well get angry at wind or upset at the sky. It’s just another movie that makes the Netflix streaming library look more impressive than it actually is, and nothing more.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Evil Eyes (2004)

JANUARY 17, 2012

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

The other day I lauded The Asylum for actually managing to make a real movie for once (Zombie Apocalypse), praising its scope, decent acting, etc. You know, things you people who only see theatrical movies take for granted. However, their gambles to actually produce something of relative merit don’t always pan out; Evil Eyes (which I wasn’t aware was an Asylum flick until it was over) has a cool idea and some good actors at its center, but it mostly fails to deliver any real suspense or thrills, and ultimately becomes too confusing for its own good.

Part of the problem is that there’s almost no buildup – we meet our hero (Adam Baldwin) as he is supposedly having trouble with his screenwriting career, but practically as soon as we learn that he is meeting with Udo Kier, who offers him a job writing a film about a true life massacre that occurred 35 years ago. “Crisis” solved! And other things get raced through just as quickly – he figures out the film’s hook in the first 20 minutes! It’s one of those “writer discovers that what he is writing on the page is happening in the real world” things, which usually takes a couple of instances for the protagonist to catch on, but no! In the first time he sits down to write this script, he writes a car accident, and then his ex-girlfriend dies in the same way moments later. Roughly 12 seconds after that in the narrative, he’s all “It’s my fault! I WROTE it!” So much for the element of discovery.

And hell that could almost work if the movie opened up the story a bit, using this element as a kickoff for some larger plot, but for the next 45 minutes or so it just plays out in a fixed cycle – someone does something to offend him in some way (for example, Crowley from Supernatural gets a gig he had been pining for), and then he writes them dying, which then happens. Then he feels guilty or something, sometimes Udo Kier will show up to remind him to keep writing, and the whole thing happens again.

Worse, as this is a high concept horror movie, it eventually goes off the rails, like pretty much all high concept horror movies. I don’t even know what was happening at the end; it seems his wife might have been the one behind some of the killings, he starts running around with an ax, and Udo continues to just pop up at random without his character’s motivations ever becoming clear. There’s even a scene where Baldwin demands to know the colors of a Rubik’s Cube that are facing her; I don’t know if it’s just a weird continuity error or her fucking with him or what, but she answers the first one correctly and then says red when it’s green – either way, why is he even asking her in the first place? Without a coherent motivation behind his question, it’s unclear what exactly her reason is for answering him wrong. Unless it’s just like some sort of weird, villainous test for color blindness or something.

Not sure if Baldwin is the best guy to play this role, either. He’s an engaging presence, no doubt about it, but if you look at his filmography, one word should come to mind: HARDASS. Here he’s supposed to be a lovable family man, almost a pushover, so that it really blows our minds when he starts going crazy near the end. But come on, it’s fucking Jayne Cobb! His buddy from Firefly, Alan Tudyk, might have been a better choice – HIM I can totally buy as a nice guy/kind of loser, and be weirded out with the sight of him screaming and waving weapons around. You start the actor in his comfort zone and THEN have him go off the beaten path; not the other way around. It’d be like casting Bruce Willis as a pacifist who has to build up the confidence to shoot a bunch of guys.

The direction was awkward as well – all hand-held, shaki-cam closeup shots that rarely cut together, making the film look more like a bunch of kids screwing around with their dad’s camera than a real film (“Film me!” “OK now you film me!”). I’m sure the intent was to make things uncomfortable and erratic, but again, you need to ground us first before spiraling into this sort of “madness”. Without anything to grasp on from the start, it’s just a total mess. And Udo’s not in it nearly enough to make up for it; if he was in every scene at least it would be a delightful train wreck, but his ten minutes of screen time aren’t nearly enough to make up for the nearly impenetrable narrative, ugly visuals, and lack of action (most of the kills are more or less off-screen).

So now I can’t help but wonder, as this was such an early production in The Asylum’s output – did they used to try to make real movies and keep failing, only to strike gold with the “Mockbuster” model they mostly use today? They’re also behind Stuart Gordon’s King Of The Ants, a pretty good (but uneven to a fault) dramatic thriller – hardly the type of thing you’d expect from the guys who gave us Transmorphers. I’d be interested if they would occasionally use the profits from their mockbusters to fund things along these lines; even if it didn’t work out, I’d rather see an interesting failure than another Paranormal Activity wannabe that they shot in 6 days.

What say you?

P.S. Couldn't find the trailer - enjoy some outtakes instead.

PLEASE, GO ON...

More Brains: A Return To The Living Dead (2011)

JANUARY 16, 2012

GENRE: DOCUMENTARY
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

A couple months ago I wrote this article for Badass Digest, about all of the franchise documentaries that had sprung up over the past couple years. And having not yet seen it, I included More Brains, because I was under the impression that it was about the entire Return of the Living Dead series. In fact part of why I held off watching it was because I was waiting to see all of the movies first, so now with Rave to the Grave under my belt I figured it was time to hear about the films from their own creators. However, I was mistaken/misinformed; the film is actually only about the first movie in the series, with parts 2 and 3 covered only in the bonus features – 4 and 5 aren’t even mentioned in passing.

I’ll get back to that. As a full length (seconds under two hours) documentary on a single film, More Brains delivers. For starters, it assembles just about everyone of note – apart from Jonathan Terry (Colonel Glover), the only absentees are, sadly, deceased. But everyone else is on board – Clu Gulager, James Karen, Thom Matthews, all of the punks (save the late Mark Venturini), Don Calfa, FX man Tony Gardner, the producers, the DP, the casting director… EVERYONE! There’s even an exception to the “death” rule - Dan O’Bannon appears briefly, in a clip from his final known interview. Christ, even John Russo shows up, discussing his original (terrible-sounding) script and offering some thoughts about the film as well as the initial legal battle to get the film made (Romero’s lawyers got involved due to the title similarity).

It also covers the movie’s production in pretty great detail. The script development, getting the money together, casting, the problems with the makeup designs, production, the music… everything gets explored with the mix of candid “water under the bridge” stories and the always fun contradictory recollections. Only the post-production process is glossed over – there’s very little about the MPAA or deleted scenes. A while back there was a workprint version of the film floating around that ran 20 or so minutes longer, so obviously there was some tinkering, but these things aren’t really covered. They also skip over the army characters almost entirely; even if Terry couldn’t be brought in, it’s a bit odd to never discuss his character or any of the scenes involving him (especially since he has my favorite line in the entire film – “The usual. Crap.”).

But who cares, what kind of dirt is spilled?!? Let’s not pretend we’re all good people who just want to hear happy tales of a smooth production, we want to know who hated who! Well, you won’t be let down. Gulager v. O’Bannon, original makeup guy (name escapes me) vs. producers, and Jewel Shepard v. pretty much everyone at one point or another are covered. Again, their memories don’t always match up, but it doesn’t make these segments any less enjoyable (especially the stuff with Clu, who is one of my favorite people in the world). No one seems bitter or resentful toward anyone else, so it’s all in good fun.

However, even if the sequels weren’t considered worthy of inclusion, I do think they deserve a MENTION in the main film, particularly when it comes time to discuss its lasting impact. We see clips from Simpsons and Family Guy that reference the film, and everyone talks about how they still get asked about it and such, but it’s really odd that there isn’t even a “and it spawned four sequels” line in the finished film. Hell, the doc’s trailer even shows Brian Yuzna and the actors from 2 and 3, but they’re nowhere to be seen unless you access the bonus features, which won’t always be possible for viewers watching on Netflix Instant or whatever.

Then again, that just makes the disc more enticing to would-be viewers, because you get another two hours’ worth of stuff to enjoy. Both ROTLD2 and 3 are covered in 20-25 minute segments each, albeit with limited participants compared to the first film’s roster. Hilariously, the only one who has anything positive to say about part 2 is Michael Kenworthy, the little kid from the movie and thus would be the right age to enjoy that film's juvenile humor. Everyone else rightfully points out that it didn’t work; Thom Matthews and James Karen seemed to enjoy working together again but that was about it (and apparently even called Don Calfa – originally meant to return as well – and told him he was lucky for being left out). ROTLD3’s segment is much more positive; the film is the only good sequel in the bunch, after all, and thus most of the memories recollected here are positive. Shame that they couldn’t get Mindy Clarke to contribute a new interview, however.

The rest of the extras are again centric to the first film. Brian “Scuz” Peck (who also narrates the film) and Beverly “Tina” Randolph take us on a tour of the shooting locations and how they look today (the cemetery is now a housing development; don’t bother making a Poltergeist joke, they have it covered); I was surprised to see that the studio was right near where I work (I thought it was all downtown LA). Then there are about 20 deleted “scenes” from the documentary, mostly little anecdotes that wouldn’t really fit anywhere, as well as a trailer, a music video for “Tonight”, and a fun little piece where all of the actors say their classic lines in sequence.

But the real jewel here is the full interview with O’Bannon, used only once in the film for maximum impact (I suspect this is also because it was shot in his home unlike everyone else who was shot on stage). Surprisingly, he admits that he was a pain in the ass during the production, and doesn’t harbor any grudges toward anyone – with one exception (it’s hilarious). It’s just under a half hour, and every bit as entertaining as the film itself – O’Bannon was a character, and his portions were always highlights on documentaries about Alien or whatever, so giving him 30 minutes to himself is pretty much pure bliss. It’s a damn shame that he died so relatively young (in his 60s) – as Clu points out, the world was robbed too soon of whatever scripts he may have written or films he may have directed.

So if you’re a fan of the whole series for some reason you might be pretty disappointed – the recent book “The Complete History of ‘The Return of The Living Dead’” (from the same writers of the documentary) covers ALL five films, though I haven’t read it so I can’t vouch for the participants or if 4 and 5 are just given a page or two each to cover the bases. But if you only really care about the original, there’s little to complain about here – the doc itself is thorough and well-stocked with contributors, hits all the marks on the technical level (I LOVE the EC comic style transitions, by the way), and provides lots of info and reveals things I’ve never heard despite attending a couple of retrospective screenings and going through the original DVD. It may not have “belonged” in my article about the franchise documentaries, but it certainly measures up to them.

What say you?

P.S. If you still nurse a crush on Ms. Quigley, you might not want to watch the movie. I don’t know what the hell she has done, but YIKES. She looks like Robert Blake in a wig. Hopefully it was just a really bad makeup day or something.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Zombie Apocalypse (2011)

JANUARY 15, 2012

GENRE: POST-APOCALYPTIC, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Guys, sit down. Take a deep breath. Calm yourself. What I am about to say can cause shock and panic.

…The Asylum’s Zombie Apocalypse is good.

And I don’t even mean “Good for Asylum”, I mean it’s a genuinely decent and fun zombie flick, with likable characters, a ton of action, and a lovably batshit finale. As long as you accept that the excess (and not very good, though I’ve seen worse) digital blood is allowing for more action, you should agree – especially since the dialogue is otherwise the worst thing about it. When folks are killing zombies, they're not stopping to talk.

To be fair, the dialogue isn't ALL bad – there are some decent exchanges here and there, and again, the characters are likable for a change. Even when some hardass humans show up in the 3rd act, they’re not “evil”, and they actually end up becoming good allies. Any zombie movie that skips over the usual “but MAN HIMSELF is the real villain!” stuff is already on my good side – not that the plot point is bad on its own, but it’s become such a cliché, and rarely seems thought out; the goals of the human villains usually make less logical sense than the idea of zombies in the first place.

But unfortunately, a lot of the dialogue falls on the exposition-y side of things, which can get tiresome. Our heroine is Taryn Manning (well, by default anyway - she doesn’t DO anything in the movie but she’s the most well-known of the female stars), and she’s not as experienced at killing zombies as the other characters. So we get a lot of exchanges where someone will say “Let’s pop and drop!” and she’ll have to have it explained to her. And then five seconds later someone will refer to a “runner” and she’ll need THAT explained to her. It borders on ridiculous as well; our hero is telling a story about how someone recently died, and says “we encountered a pack.” As always, she has to ask what that is – isn’t it kind of obvious what it is when discussing how someone was killed by zombies? It’s a bunch of fucking zombies! I’d almost rather they use weird terms and not explain them than over-explain things that are pretty damn self-explanatory.

Luckily, things never get too talky, a problem that plagues most Asylum films, where we see scene after scene of people looking at monitors from control rooms while Giant Octopus and Mega Shark do awesome things off-screen. In the first 20 minutes we get three big zombie fights, with lots of dismemberment and decapitations. Again, it’s all done digitally, and it rarely looks good, but I’d almost rather they were consistent instead of doing it right (i.e. practically) every now and then, which would just make the digital stuff look even worse when cut together with the practical effects. Their goal here was quantity over quality, and usually they botch BOTH.

I was also surprised how much Ving Rhames was actually in the film. I saw his name on the cover (which adds a “2012” to the title) but figured he’d be in the movie for like 10 minutes or so, tops. But nope, he’s there until the final reel, and there’s only one instance where I caught them using a double. Every now and then they find ways to keep him out of the camera range when his character is present (his character usually brings up the rear, so the camera will go in close on the guys up front, cutting him from view), but it’s a real lead performance, not just the usual bait and switch you get from these things. And for a guy far more respectable than many; no offense to Dean Cain, but when the distributor tries to sell a movie on his name when he’s only in it for five minutes, it just looks doubly desperate to me.

It also has some scope to it, again something that often escapes Asylum films. It’s obviously all LA when it’s supposed to be somewhere in the Midwest TO LA, but there are like 5-6 locations in the first half hour alone, and the characters never hole up anywhere for too long. A school, a sporting goods store, a shipyard, houses, lots of different exteriors… again, it’s like a real movie! Hell at one point they could have even stayed longer in a spot; there’s a fun bit where the survivors are trapped in a work van, surrounded by zombies on the outside while one of their number starts to turn. They could have milked the claustrophobia a bit more, but the matter is settled and they’re on their way again after a few minutes.

On that note, it kind of reminded me of Left 4 Dead. The plot is similar to any level of that game, where your four characters make their way to some sort of rescue vehicle (in this case, a boat). There are different kinds of zombies (including a “tank” type), the weapons are similar, and like the game, it’s remarkably straightforward. Again, no evil humans, but there aren’t too many other obstacles either – it’s just all run n’ gun, with zombies as the only real threat. That said, they took a bit from "The Walking Dead" as well – in addition to an off-screen character named Kirkman (someone mentions Pittsburgh as well – they did their homework!), our badass black female character almost exclusively uses a sword as her weapon. But hey that means they’re reading stuff instead of copying popular shows/movies like usual – Michonne hasn’t appeared on the AMC show yet!

The DVD has a pair of fairly worthless features; a gag reel in which I can’t even see what went wrong (if anything; some of it just appears to be random shots of people hanging out), and a brief making of that focuses mostly on the cast. I’d actually love a look at the Asylum “creative process”, and if they were ever to do such a thing I’d prefer it was on something like this, where the movie’s actually pretty fun, than some piece of junk like Amityville Haunting or whatever. But hey, if cutting corners on those other productions is what allowed this one to be pretty enjoyable (the co-production with Syfy probably helped, too), so be it. Good work guys; too bad you opted for your usual fake quote on the back – I would have given you “Best Asylum movie ever!” for real.

What say you?

P.S. Don’t comment “Why didn’t you mention the ____?”, because I won’t post it. Yes, it was awesome, but mainly because I didn’t know anything about it. Let people be surprised for once.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Anna's Eve (2004)

JANUARY 14, 2012

GENRE: GHOST
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Weird connection - some of the folks who worked on Anna's Eve were also involved with the 2002 movie Love And A Bullet, and select crew from that went on to make April Fools, the abysmal slasher movie. Perhaps I should seek out Love And A Bullet to see if I can understand the mystery of how the people who made it went on to make separate but equally amateurish horror films that seem like no one involved understood how horror WORKS.

But whereas April Fools had some lovingly stupid moments (and who can forget "People call me POOP"?) and had the good sense to come in at 72 minutes, this overlong (95 minutes) bore is free of anything that can be considered amusing. At no point do the actors seem to realize that the movie they are acting out is pretty pointless and dull and thus maybe they should try to spice it up a bit by over-acting. It's almost kind of remarkable in a way; the back-story involves a social work case gone horribly wrong, and Grayce Wey's script (in which she stars as the main character) manages to make the ghost/murder scenes just as uninteresting as the ones involving writing up follow up reports about certain child welfare cases.

And director Kantz (that's the whole name) is no help, botching the few scare scenes that are actually on-screen. Most just occur entirely in our imagination; at one point a character seemingly runs to safety only for some dialogue in the next scene to inform us that she was actually killed. A good director would at least show the ghost running after her or popping up in their path, which would be a "good enough" choice if they weren't able/willing to actually SHOW the kill, but Kantz doesn't roll that way, I guess. This also leads to plain ol' confusion at times, particularly in the opening sequence. The movie starts awkwardly anyway; I thought the DVD had somehow skipped the first chapter as it seemingly starts mid-scene, but then the main character goes into a house and sees... SOMETHING, which causes her to scream as we cut to the main titles. Then it's "eight months later" and she's now addicted to pills and driving a different car, so whatever she saw was pretty important - why the hell didn't they SHOW it then? Again, we just hear it through dialogue, as if Kantz had come from the radio drama world and hadn't gotten used to the idea of working in a visual medium yet.

Now, off-screen kills can be fine if they serve a more interesting or twisty story, but this one is just the usual "ghost seeks revenge for her death/improper burial" thing that you've seen in a million Asian horror flicks, and we even get a scare ripped off directly from Ju-On for good measure. Plus their attempts at twists just render the story incoherent - the "bad guy" is not actually the killer, and his actions/character motivations are constantly at odds with one another (without spoiling too much - though I don't know why I'd bother - he sure has a weird way of showing how devoted he is to the woman he loves). Worse, the ghost doesn't even seem to distinguish between who killed her and who is just kind of a jerk; it's almost like she SIDES with her killer because somehow deep down she knows the other guy is really to blame. It'd be like if the Poltergeist ghost confronted the Freelings and was like "Look, I know you didn't know that you built the home over my grave, so just give me the address of your boss and I'll go haunt him instead." In short, a rational ghost is not a scary one (and my example isn't even as stupid as what happens here).

It's also a shockingly ugly film. Kantz likes to shoot everything in master shots or soap opera-esque closeups, sucking all of the energy out of what could be exciting scenes. And I'll ignore the fact that it's shot with non-top of the line high def, but not their attempts to filter obvious day for night shots by seemingly drenching the image in Smurf blood. But I guess at least they were TRYING to color correct that stuff; other scenes go by with one side of a conversation drenched in orange sunlight and the other just regular daytime, slightly bluish tones. The productions attempts at matching locations are also abysmal - at one point they cause confusion by using the heroine's hallway for someone else's home as if we wouldn't notice that the layout is exactly the same as long as they threw up a beaded curtain to "distinguish" it. Nope. Maybe it'll fool a child, but a kid would have turned the thing off long before this particular shot, having been bored to tears with the repetitive plotting and lackluster ghost scenes.

You'd never know the movie was a mess from the commentary by Kantz, Wey, and Lemar Knight who plays the film's "comic relief" character of a local crackhead (indeed, he IS the only amusing thing about the movie, but his character is awkwardly introduced and is there only to provide crucial info - I wondered if he was a ghost himself since he just showed up at important moments to help move the plot forward). Apparently the script was written in a week (what took THAT long?), they were frequently shooting without permits, etc. Kantz only second guesses ONE of his many botched scare scenes (one that wasn't even that bad, really), and Wey explains some of the movie's confusing plot points )mostly revolving around the ever-present teddy bear), but does so in a way that makes it sound like we're dumb for not understanding it, not that her week's worth of writing may not have been enough to produce a good script. To be fair they claim that 30-40 minutes were cut (and IMDb lists a runtime of 110 minutes) so maybe these things would have worked before, but they're sitting there watching their independently produced movie - if there was anything important missing they probably would have mentioned it. I do like the bit where they laugh at a health-conscious actor's work with a bag of Cheetos though - he spends the scene trying as hard as he can not to actually eat any. So for about 70 seconds I was finally entertained by Anna's Eve. Thanks guys!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Murder Obsession (1981)

JANUARY 13, 2012

GENRE: GIALLO
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

The main user comment for Murder Obsession (Italian: Follia Omicida; aka Murder Syndrome) on IMDb claimed that the story was "a mess even by giallo standards", which got me all excited - I was in the mood for a good "What the FUCK?" laugh-fest. But that viewer must not have been too bright or have seen many gialli; it's pretty standard fare with regards to the killer's identity, and his/her motive is clearly established throughout the film instead of just springing a bunch of back-story out of nowhere during the climax.

However, there were some elements that never quite gelled, so I guess if you're putting a lot of stock into them (or again, simply aren't used to the rather scattershot plotting of these things) then it might seem confusing. There's a subplot involving psychic/supernatural nonsense that mostly just seems to exist in order to smooth over a few would-be plot holes, and the "black mass" elements are never fully clarified, but again, these don't have much to do with guessing who the killer is, or even their main goal. It's like saying Die Hard 3 was a mess because you couldn't figure out the five gallon jug riddle.

Anyway, it's a cool flick; one that is partially influenced by the splatter films of the time as well as traditional gialli from the early 70s. It takes a little while to get to the kills, but they deliver - a chainsawed head being the big gore highlight. And if you enjoy the nudity in these things, this more than delivers - I think just about every female cast member disrobes at one point or another.

There's also a slight hint of incest between the mother and son, which is interesting to note because a similar element played into Tragic Ceremony, which was the previous horror film from director Riccardo Freda. Now THAT one was all over the place, certainly, but they both blend more fantastical elements with straight up thriller, giving them a unique identity in the sub-genre. This one isn't as funny (there's nothing as glorious as Ceremony's "monster or steamroller" news report), but it's never dull either; even with pretty much all the kills confined to the final 35 minutes, it's still peppered with "action".

And that includes some wonderfully goofy attempts at keeping everyone as a suspect - it's remarkable how many characters own black gloves, and how they act sneaky with regards to wearing them. I like to think that because this was 1981, the characters had all seen a bunch of gialli by now and realized that owning black gloves might make you look suspicious to anyone else. I was also charmed by a ten minute "dream sequence" that includes a giant spider and a bunch of bats on strings - and since it was a dream sequence, the strings don't even matter! We're told it's a dream right off the, er, bat (sorry), and parts of it really do resemble dreams (instantly changing locations and such), so it's nice that Freda gets to go for broke, without the usual crutch of having to try to fool the audience into believing that what they are seeing is actually happening.

I also liked that it seemed to have a small homage to Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" (aka "Ten Little Indians"), as important information is relayed on a recording, utilizing a device that is set up similar to the way the killer in that story had himself killed. Maybe it was unintentional, but as with the story, it's sort of a "Here's the part of the story you weren't aware of" thing delivered by a character who is already dead, so it's certainly similar enough to warrant the thought.

Unfortunately, I couldn't get backup from the accompanying DVD booklet. Unlike Body Puzzle, Raro didn't commission a detailed analysis of this one, so all we get is a synopsis (which thankfully doesn't reveal the killer), a brief mini-review of sorts, someone's picks for the best scenes (who cares? Also, these DO spoil the ending), a couple of notes about the cast, and a mini-bio of Freda. In other words, it's a nice little booklet, but it's all stuff you could get on the IMDb page or something. I would think that the fact that it came out at the time when Italy was primarily focused on zombie films would warrant more insight from someone far more respectable than myself (so, pretty much anyone), but no dice. The disc's only extra is an interview with makeup man Sergio Stivaletti - this was his first job and he recounts a funny story about pissing off Freda on the first day, but he doesn't say much about the film itself (I would wager that it was taken from a longer interview about another topic, actually).

Another "unlisted" extra is that the film is presented with a few scenes that were originally cut from the US release, which also may have contributed to the IMDb guy's confusion if he saw the other version - one in particular explains (or at least, further hints at) the "psychic powers" subplot; without it those elements must REALLY be out of nowhere. The new scenes are easy to tell - they're still in Italian while the rest of the movie is dubbed, as once again Raro has misled the audience with the film's language. While it claims "Italian with English subtitles" (which are listed as "New and Improved" in the special features column!), the only option is a dubbed English track, excepting the 3 minutes' worth of restored footage (which was presumably never dubbed). Considering the work they put into the booklets and restoring the films, it baffles me that Raro has opted not to include the original soundtrack. For Body Puzzle I didn't mind much - half of the cast was speaking English anyway - but here it's a fully Italian-speaking cast, and while the dub is fine, those few moments in the original Italian are enough to make you bemoan the switch back to dubbing. That the original soundtrack is promised on the back of the DVD is just twisting the knife.

But again, it's great that they are releasing these films uncut for the first time on DVD (in the US anyway) and given nice transfers and respectable (if slim) extras as well. I'm sure I'll die before I ever get a decent release of Cathy's Curse.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Return Of The Living Dead 5: Rave To The Grave (2005)

JANUARY 12, 2012

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

I certainly didn’t LIKE Return of the Living Dead 4: Necropolis, but I will stand by my claim that it was a mild improvement on the 2nd film, which inexplicably brought back two actors to play different characters, focused too heavily on the comedy, and neglected to use the already established story from the original to create a faster pace – if anything it was SLOWER. Necropolis, on the other hand, suffered from some of the same problems… just in a slightly better way. However, Return Of The Living Dead 5: Rave To The Grave, is just as abysmal as ROTLD2, possibly even worse; the only interesting thing about it is that it actually mirrors that one in ways that I assume are not intentional.

The biggest is that it once again brings back actors from the previous film but doesn’t continue their actual character arcs. But it’s WORSE than 2, because there they were supposed to be different people in similar situations (how audiences were supposed to understand that, I have no idea), whereas here they are the same characters but have seemingly forgotten everything that happened to them in the previous movie! It’s Peter Coyote’s nephew and his girlfriend again, yet they have not only forgotten about Coyote’s attempts to kill them (he dies in the first 5 minutes of this one and the kid is actually broken up about it), but they seemingly don’t even recall anything about the zombies! Granted, I haven’t exactly stored the 90 minutes of Necropolis on my brain’s hard drive, but I’m pretty sure I’d remember if the characters were all brain wiped at the end of the film.

And again, despite the fact that the zombie problem has already started, we AGAIN have to start all over, which allows the filmmakers to keep the film from having any real action until the final reel. It’s a problem in pretty much every movie, which is unique to this particular zombie series – Romero only rebooted it once (in Diary), otherwise he always used the previously established problem as a means of getting into the meat of his story, which is what any intelligent screenwriter will do. But these two movies were written by Bill Butler, who also gave us gems like Demonic Toys 2 and Gingerdead Man, so telling a good story doesn’t seem to be something that concerns him.

But yeah, it’s Rave to the Grave – I shouldn’t expect wacky things like decent storytelling or interesting characters. Nor would I care that the movie lacked them, IF it was actually entertaining on some level, which it is not. Again, the zombie outbreak starts from scratch, so the promised “Rave” doesn’t even START until past the movie’s one hour mark, and then there’s a bit before the zombies start showing up there. The movie’s only good idea is that the Trioxin has found its way into some designer drugs, so all the idiots that are at the rave are popping the pills and turning, and no one else thinks much of it because they’re also high or just “feeling the music” or whatever it is that people at raves do instead of playing Skyrim like normal folks (level 26! Almost maxed on Smithing!). But even though they set up that pretty much everyone in attendance will turn into a zombie, it’s remarkably low-key, and even when “all hell breaks loose” they keep stopping the action to focus on two characters talking in a room or isolated, meaningless gags involving less than a handful of zombies attacking one dude.

They also bring back the Tarman, who earns one of the movie’s few laughs (and is given a nice modern makeup look by John Vulich) but it reeks of desperation, serving only to remind us exactly how far the series has fallen. It also just makes their refusal to follow the original’s “rules” more puzzling – it’s the same Trioxin, Tarman’s still around, etc – so why does a shot to the head actually work now, when the fact that it WOULDN’T was such a big factor in the original? And how many cans of this shit can possibly fall into the wrong hands, anyway? Coyote mentions that it’s one of the “original” cans – in 20 years they still haven’t found them all? It’s the rare sequel that would have been better if they had just ignored the other entries – at least then I could assume they slapped the title on an unrelated movie, a la all of those Demons “sequels”. But by constantly trying to tie it in, they just make it worse for themselves.

The only saving grace is Jenny Mollen, who plays the female lead and seems to be the only actor in the film capable of delivering a line (that she’s one of the few non-Bulgarians helps), and like Lance Henriksen, doesn’t let the fact that this is a worthless role in an equally worthless film deter her from actually putting some effort into it. I guess Coyote is as good as always too, but since he’s dead before the end of the first chapter it’s kind of hard to judge.

This was shot back to back with Necropolis*, which probably accounts for why that one was “not TOO terrible” and this one is “somehow more awful than you’d expect”, because they probably put more money/effort into that one and were all just burned out by the time this thing rolled. Someday there will actually be a good 2nd entry in a back to back production (every single one of them has failed – excepting LOTR which is a wholly unique situation), but until then we can continue to use movies like this as an example of why they shouldn’t even try in the first place.

What say you?

*According to an IMDb post, the scripts for the two films were actually swapped before production, so perhaps the giant plot holes were caused from that. However it doesn’t help much – that means Coyote would have died before his far bigger role in the other movie! What a friggin mess.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Midnight Son (2011)

JANUARY 11, 2012

GENRE: VAMPIRE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PREMIERE SCREENING)

Ordinarily I wouldn’t want to drive down to Santa Monica on a week night (or ever, come to think of it, but even less so on a week night), but it’s been a while since I’ve seen a good new vampire movie – all of the ones I’ve enjoyed recently (save some ironic enjoyment of Breaking Dawn, I guess) are older films. Thus, if I liked Midnight Son, I’d have something new to champion, having seen it before its release. And if I didn't, well, at least it was free and I got to see a couple of pals. But I liked it AND saw pals! Everything worked out nicely.

What works most about the film is its steady build toward a fairly surprising ending. Following in the footsteps of movies like Habit, there’s a not too thinly veiled metaphor for vampire-as-drug-addiction here, and usually those movies go down a certain path that this one avoids. At its heart is an awkward romance between our guy (Jacob) and Mary, a girl he randomly meets one night and connects with. She’s a cokehead, but who is he to judge – dude is starting to enjoy the taste of blood (including her own, from a bad coke bump – one of the ickiest “first taste” scenes I can recall).

Hilariously, they even take the drug metaphor a step further than usual, with a guy who apparently goes around draining folks of blood and selling it like drugs (he even gives a free bag, hooking Jacob in, and then drives up the price the next time around). Replace the blood with any drug, and this is a fairly typical “drugs sure do ruin lives” movie – there’s even a scene where Jacob shows up all “strung out” and causing a scene, which makes his dealer rough him up a bit. This plotline also goes to some interesting places though – as with a lot of the movie, it sets up things that you will probably assume will go a certain way, only for it to take a turn somewhere and make it a little more interesting and fun.

I did have two quibbles though. One is that the pacing can be a touch slow and repetitive – Jacob and Mary have THREE would-be sex scenes that go wrong for one reason or another, like they’re stuck in a loop from the final reel of some bad romcom where they have a blowout, come back together for some reason, make up, have a blowout… sure, it’s nice that we’re spared the usual lovey dovey shit, and I liked that the movie addresses the reality of two people who don’t really know each other trying to kick-start a relationship when they have things to hide, but it doesn’t change the fact that the plotting can feel a little cramped. There are only about 6 or 7 people of note in the entire movie, and it’s only near the very end that any of them besides Jacob interact with one another – mixing it up a bit might have helped.

I was also a bit confused as to why Jacob suddenly started getting sick. We learn that he’s had this disorder since childhood, but there seems to be no inciting incident for his “thirst”. There’s a bit about how the body grows until the age of 25 and he’s 24 – is this supposed to be the “final stage” of him becoming, essentially, a vampire? If so, what were the other stages? Maybe a couple of the scenes with Mary could have been shortened, with flashbacks showing other “events” that could fill that time? I would assume puberty had its complications or something, but based on what the movie (quite hilariously) shows us, the bulk of the usual vampire weaknesses are nonsense, and he doesn’t even have fangs, so is that it? You’re (we assume) born as a vampire, somewhere in there you find out you can’t go in the sun, and then when you’re almost 25 you wake up one day feeling super hungry and figure out that blood is the only thing that’ll do the trick? And that’s it? For a character driven take on a well-established legend, I think they could have fleshed out their “rules” a bit more – granted they obviously weren’t working with blank checks here, but talk is cheap, no?

Of course, thoughts like that only result from movies that you’re genuinely interested in, with characters you want to know more about. I don’t care in the slightest about how the kids in Spiderhole ended up homeless, or why our hero in Beneath The Darkness stopped running track, because there wasn’t any reason to WANT more than what they were offering. Here, I could have easily enjoyed another half hour of the tale – I realize this is a bit of a compli-sult, but if I didn’t point it out, the review would be too short. I went in knowing almost nothing, you should too.

One thing I WILL point out just so you’re prepared is that the movie was shot a few years ago, so the “ancient” phones and (for LA folks) plans to go to Spaceland (it closed in 2010) aren't odd stylistic choices. There’s also a plot point revolving around a video store membership card, something that might date it a bit as such places continue to close (indeed, I just discovered one of the last two Blockbusters in my area is now closing as well, which may be why this particular bit stuck out). Apparently they had shot the film and then lost their money for post, so it took a while to raise the cash to finish it (Blair Witch guru Eduardo Sanchez was one of its saviors – respect). Sometimes movies like that are total messes by the time they come out, victims of too much second-guessing, re-editing, etc, so I was quite happy to discover that it bared almost no signs of a troubled road to get to the screen. AND it’s worth seeing, making it even better.

The film will debut on Fearnet; if you’re like me you probably don’t have the channel in your lineup yet. Call 1-877-FEAR-247 and tell them your cable provider/zip code (calling your own cable provider and asking for Fearnet can’t hurt, either), because if they’re picking up indies like this for distribution, they’re clearly on the right track to doing this right (they’re also behind Adam Green and Joe Lynch’s horror-themed sitcom Holliston), so kudos to them. And if you’re reading HORROR Movie A Day you must be excited about the prospect of having a station dedicated to the genre, so do your part to help it succeed.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Spiderhole (2010)

JANUARY 10, 2012

GENRE: SLASHER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

The most interesting thing about Spiderhole is its title, which could suggest a giant spider movie from the Maneater series (but come on, they’d just call it "Spider Attack" or something), but as it’s a low budget British/Irish import starring a bunch of teens, the moniker is just sort of meaningless. It’s a very thin metaphor about the fact that a spiderhole is a term for a hole that soldiers use to conceal themselves (usually covered with branches or something), and our killer uses holes in the walls and such to get around the “abandoned” building while offing our group of squatting teens.

However, apart from the squatting backdrop, the movie is largely indistinguishable from a dozen other flicks, and director Daniel Simpson’s script squander its few interesting elements, so ultimately the title is the only thing that gives it any identity. If it was called, I dunno, “Death House” it would be impossible to remember anything about this movie in a week or so. I should note that there are also a few random shots of Daddy Long Legs crawling around to add to the “theme”.

As I was joking about on Twitter, this is one of those movies where a news report foreshadows an event that will pay off later, and our heroine is inexplicably interested in the story even though it has absolutely nothing to do with her. Early on, as she sits in a sort of daze because she can’t pay rent (me too!), she suddenly perks up when the newscaster points out that today makes the 10th anniversary of the disappearance of a little girl. As far as I can tell, she never knew her or anything, so why this would catch her ear over the other news stories is beyond me… unless you’re well versed in horror movies. Then you’ll know perfectly well that the bad things that are about to happen to them JUST MIGHT have something to do with the girl’s disappearance.

So it’s sort of funny that Simpson more or less forgets about this plot point until the final 30 seconds, when our final survivor is tossed into yet another room and we realize (spoiler) that the little girl is still alive and is now feral, living in the walls and eating the victims of our killer. Points for the grim ending, but why wasn’t this stuff brought up earlier? It doesn’t work as a twist if it’s shoehorned in like that – a less astute viewer might not even remember the first scene’s newscast part by the time this comes up at the end. If anything it just makes matters confusing: why did the killer hold on to this particular girl, when he kills everyone else pretty quickly? Was this his house, or was he a squatter himself? Why are these kids so hellbent on living in this shithole? I’d also ask what the odds were that four good friends would find themselves homeless simultaneously, but why bother?

The kills aren’t even that impressive (most of them are off-screen, in fact). The best is a telegraphed bit where two of the heroes beat one of the others to death with spiked 2x4s, thinking that he is the killer (Valentine provides the best one of these), because it’s visceral and over the top – which just makes the climax all the more obnoxious when our heroine DEFINITELY has the killer in her grasp but settles for merely conking him on the head once with a non-spiked piece of wood. What, did killing her friend take all of her energy? Does she no longer have the heart to at least make a guy bleed?

And how’s this for depressing – I actually fell asleep during the following scene, even though the movie was 5 minutes from ending (believe me, I was keeping track). Part of the movie’s dumb gimmick is that they are trapped in the house (that they had to break into in the first place! Clever!!), because he’s boarded everything up and has multiple locks on everything. So of course, when she gets to the door with his keys, she has to open a few locks and doesn’t know which key is which. The scene goes on so long that I actually “rested my eyes”, only to wake up when the movie stopped a few minutes later. Granted, I fall asleep at movies a lot, but it’s usually during the middle act when things are in between being set up and being resolved. Falling asleep during what should be the highlight of the movie is pretty much unheard of for me; even at midnight movies that I’ve seen 10 times I can manage to wake up for the finale. So I had to go back and rewatch this nonsense, which also included the big “twist” that wasn’t worth the effort.

At least it looks OK enough. Mr. Simpson is a much better director than writer, it seems – the digital image is nice despite the low light setting and he occasionally makes good use of the scope image. Even the layout of the house is clear – except when intentional, I always had a pretty good grasp of where everyone was in relation to each other, which is a common problem in these single location/multiple room movies. And the kids get along for the most part – they’re idiots and criminals, but if they also spent most of the movie hating each other I don’t know if I could get through the whole thing.

But it just doesn’t register on any level; not bad enough to qualify as a train wreck, and what little it does (relatively) right has been done better. If you want to see kids get killed, the body count is too low and kills too bland to compete even with 1980s sequels, let alone newer stuff. If you want torture, the Hostels deliver AND give decent stories to go along with them (well, the first two anyway; still haven't seen the 3rd). And hell, if you just want a killer doctor, just watch Dr. Giggles. At least the title is more fitting.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Hallowed (2005)

JANUARY 9, 2012

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

With a name like Hallowed, this film is bound to end up next to/in front of a very important genre classic on a DVD rack – but that didn’t really cross my mind until the movie began, as the score seemed more than a tad influenced by Carpenter’s iconic cues. How naïve I was; this movie is actually pretty much a full length version of an in-jokey reference to the film, something that might annoy me on another day, but since real life has been such a giant asshole of late (financial/car issues), the earnestness of the whole thing was kind of charming.

See, after an opening kill and a lengthy, unnecessarily padded opening titles sequence that alerted me to the fact that this film was going to be the type that stretches itself to the bare minimum requirement to be called a feature film, we see a low angle shot of a street along with a title card giving the name and town (Fullerton, CA). “Heh, like in Halloween,” I thought. “Cute.” Then the main character/killer appeared, riding his bike around – and he drives right by the Doyle house. Before I could even finish my thought as to whether or not this was intentional, he drives by the Myers house! Now, to anyone who’s been there, you’d know those houses aren’t even in the same town (the Doyle’s is in West Hollywood, unlike the other Pasadena locales), so obviously they were LITERALLY going out of their way to give Carpenter’s film some love. As the scene progressed he even drives by the Strode house (which looks exactly the same) and the bush that Michael hid behind while Laurie and Annie were walking home.

And there are other things; certain shots are aped from the film, the killer likes to pop up like Myers… there’s even a montage of shots showing empty locations after he disappears near the end of the movie. Along with the music, you’re never more than a few minutes from another Halloween reference, and unlike most bad movies where I say “I’d rather just be watching that”, I’ve seen Halloween probably 100 times in my life – I could use the break. Besides, their own story wasn’t that similar, and they pull off a pretty great third act shock that I didn’t see coming, so it’s all good.

Plus it’s short. As I’ve mentioned a couple times, I’m all about Skyrim right now, so watching my HMADs cuts into how much time I spent crafting leather bracers and smiting the hell out of bandits with my awesome battle axe (45 dmg, 14 pts fire damage!). So I was happy to see that Hallowed had a Netflix envelope listed runtime of a mere 85 minutes, and even happier to see that the disc itself promised only 80. Thus, the fact that the movie was actually only 71 minutes (!) was nothing short of orgasmic. Hallowed filmmakers – your refusal to add a character or two or even slow down your end titles to hit the promised 80 minutes meant I was able to dick around looking for ore veins in the cave I was clearing. Bless you.

Of course, if you have no love for Halloween I don’t have much faith that you’ll be as entertained as I was. The story is RIDICULOUS and under-developed even by slasher standards – basically this guy wants to spread the word of God and decides to “save” this one girl at random (maybe in the sequel we will learn they were brother and sister), and this very occasionally means he will kill someone else along the way. Why he chose her, how often he does this, why he needs to kill her friends… none of this seems to matter. He also doesn’t do a lot of stalking – considering their nearly psychotic love of Halloween, I was a bit shocked to see so few scenes of him kind of playing around with his victims or even POV shots. He does the Myers-style “standing there and then he’s gone” thing once or twice, but that’s pretty much it.

The low body count can probably be attributed to Halloween as well, but it could also be due to the movie’s obviously spotty production. Our two main characters change hairstyles more than once (the film was shot over 6-7 months), and the guy playing the killer is noticeably “Bela’d” in a few scenes. At one point he gives the girl a bible, but the entire scene plays without seeing his head because it’s a different actor (I noticed this BEFORE it was confirmed on the commentary track) – kind of weird for one of the few scenes that actually moves the “plot” along. And there are other disjointed scenes that the commentary will reveal were added later to make the movie longer, which is kind of depressingly hilarious when you consider that it’s still technically too short.

Oh, and the killer talks. Not a lot, thankfully, but actor Rich Lava (come on, that cannot be a real name) is pretty terrible, delivering a performance that falls somewhere between Eric Freeman and the robot from Rocky IV. This could be taken as campy, but with the occasionally vicious kills and that aforementioned shock, this isn’t really a “fun” slasher, and even if it was, he doesn’t talk ENOUGH to ever get used to it. Thus when he appears and says something, it’s just jarring and bad. I’m not sure if they fully explained what happened to him on the commentary (all I heard was “we lost him 3/4s of the way through the shoot” – which could mean anything given the lengthy production), but I couldn’t help but wonder if the actor that played him the rest of the time would have been better.

The commentary is hit or miss; director Rocky Costanzo and producer Roy Thomasson are slightly more candid than I’m used to (one of them points out that he thought another girl was better for the main role but was outvoted, but both of them compliment her good looks more than once), and they’re up front with the obvious replacements and reshoots, but they’re also a bit TOO proud of the movie at times. It’s entertaining enough and they got it finished, so they deserve some praise, but it occasionally turns into a bit of a back-slapping fest, and they also keep referring to their other movies a bit too much for my tastes. And then the confusing ending is given an obnoxious “People have asked us what it means, we leave that up to you” bullshit explanation, adding that they merely thought “it was cool”. No, it merely stopped reminding me of Halloween long enough to say “Why are they referencing Jason Takes Manhattan all of a sudden?”

The only other extra is a somewhat depressing “World Premiere Montage”, which is a slide show of images from the movie’s gala premiere at some multiplex in Huntington Beach, where the film showed alongside such cinematic treasures as The Ringer, Fun With Dick And Jane, and (yes!) Bloodrayne – a film that I can count as *my* first premiere (I won tix from Bloody Disgusting, back before I worked there). There’s also a shot of the attendance sheet, for some reason, as well as the empty theater before people file in. It’s just some standard multiplex stadium screening room, who needs to see a picture of it?

So, yeah. Not much to it, and there’s certainly nothing special about it, but it hit the spot and tickled my Halloween fan-bone. And for 71 minutes I forgot that I might not be able to pay rent next month, so that’s always good. Thanks, Hallowed!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...