Lovely Molly (2011)

MAY 19, 2012

GENRE: GHOST, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

I didn't actually realize until I was about to leave for the theater - Lovely Molly is the first theatrical release from either of the men behind Blair Witch Project since 1999, when that landmark film reinvigorated the horror genre (and made taking chances on indie horror a viable option again). Eduardo Sanchez and Dan Myrick have sadly not made a film together since, and their DTV efforts have been mostly well-intentioned but ultimately underwhelming, and I was starting to wonder if they were ever going to deliver again.

Well, Molly isn't exactly a slam dunk, but it's the best from either of them (Sanchez, in this case) since Blair, and that alone is cause for celebration. Without a high concept or an overstuffed cast, it's a "back to basics" affair that mostly takes place in an isolated home, focusing on one woman for a hefty chunk of its runtime; her husband and sister show up often, but this is really Gretchen Lodge's show, a remarkable feat considering this is her first movie and yet she's in just about every frame.

With shades of Repulsion, Lodge's Molly is clearly an unbalanced woman. Her husband is a truck driver who is often gone, and as we discover throughout the film, she's had trouble with drugs and abuse at the hands of her father. So she's lonely and disturbed already, and now it seems that she is being targeted by a malevolent spirit of some sort. Or is it another symptom of her mental instability? Like many a film of this type, there's enough evidence to support either theory - for example, the alarm goes off and bumps are heard by her AND her husband, but then again, the cops are unable to find anything. Video surveillance shows her acting very strangely in a hallway, but was she being attacked, The Entity style? Sanchez never really comes down hard on either answer, though the final scene (involving another character) seems to suggest that there's certainly more here than "she's nuts".

There's also a bit of a found footage element, either to give the Blair Witch fans a shoutout or just to fragment the POV even further with footage that has to be legit (to quote Blair Witch 2: "video doesn't lie"). It's not overused, and you gotta pay attention to the date on the bottom to keep it all straight, but it makes up the bulk of a chilling subplot involving what I assume are remote neighbors. This stuff definitely could have used some more clarification; in addition to it being unclear how far their houses were apart from one another (which would help explain a subplot about the husband), it also has no real setup - as if Sanchez edited out a scene or two that established these characters.

The movie ends with a URL for the movie's official site, and it's no surprise that, like Blair, there is some intriguing (and far-reaching) backstory barely hinted at in the film, if at all. We learn that the house was built on Indian land, that previous owners were obsessed with the occult, and that Molly's father was most likely responsible for the death of a social worker (we also see exactly how he died, which makes a particular event in the film resonate a bit more, shades of "Mike in the corner" in Blair). I love that Sanchez is still following this idea that the film is only part of the story; even if neither component measures up to Blair's (if you recall from my review, I was a Blair obsessive for quite some time - I've even read "The Secret Confession Of Rustin Parr"!), it's still proof that he's interested in making films that aren't as straightforward and soulless as most mainstream fare. And like before, this stuff isn't necessary (if anything it just adds more questions), but if you dug the movie and/or its story, it's awesome that there's more of it to explore beyond what we saw in theaters. I fully expect a packed DVD when it hits stores, and I look forward to going through it.

The film won't be for everyone - it's rather slow paced, and the ambiguity can be a bit much (particularly around the sister character, played by Alexandra Holden - what's up with her leaving the house when they were younger and merely asking their father to leave Molly alone?), but it works in that unnerving, "this is not what I was expecting" way, especially when more of the backstory becomes clear and certain characters meet gruesome fates. But if you felt Silent House's twist was poorly delivered, or that too much of the film was in service of its one-shot gimmick, then this, which covers similar ground, should be more to your liking if you're patient.

What say you?

P.S. My friend was the only other person in the theater - come on, LA horror fans! Go out and support those rare original horror films that get a theatrical release! It's the only screen in town playing it, so there's no excuse for a totally empty auditorium.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Familiar (2009)

MAY 18, 2012

GENRE: POSSESSION, RELIGIOUS
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Had I started The Familiar 20 minutes later, there would be no way in hell that I'd be able to give it a fair chance. But I was already annoyed with the movie's bad acting, cheesy score, and clueless preachiness BEFORE I looked at Twitter (because I needed a "breather" from the movie, in fact!) and saw that Dan Harmon had been unceremoniously fired from Community, which he created and wrote and also happens to be my favorite show on the air. But while I was understandably a bit peeved throughout the rest of the movie, I am pretty confident that my opinion of it wouldn't change much if I had just learned that the show was renewed for 50 more episodes and that they would be shooting the movie next summer.

Once again, I find myself puzzled as to who these Christian horror movies are supposed to be aimed at. While not as thematically confused as Camp Hell, I fail to see how anyone could walk away from this thing changed for the better. The plot concerns a pair of kids who "sin" by looking through some porno mags, which unleashes a demon, apparently. 25 years later, one of them is a grieving widower (he takes the form of a reckless drunk) and his life is turned upside down by the arrival of Laura, his dead wife's sister, who cleans the house and throws herself at him. Later we learn that the demon has taken control of her (well, at times he does) and wishes to finish what it started when Sam was a kid. Not even the worst plot ever (close though), but it's how they go about it that makes it such a baffling exercise.

For starters, it's boring as all hell. Nothing happens in the movie, the body count is 0, and even when Laura is in "full" demon mode there's no real makeup or FX to enjoy - her voice is distorted and that's about it. There are more scenes of Sam watching country music videos than there are of Laura snarling and making empty threats, which is a bit of a problem for a 100 minute movie that only has five characters.

Worse, the message is clear pretty much right from the start: DON'T SIN, EVER. This movie operates under the impression that God is a hateful asshole who will send demons after a kid for being curious as to what breasts look like, which I don't think is the best way to convert someone to a life of faith. It would make a lot more sense to depict the evil as something that is raised for reasons unknown, with God/faith protecting our heroes from the evils of the world that they cannot control. But by putting the blame squarely on them, what good does it do? If a parent is showing their kid this movie as a lesson, he's going to realize that it's all bullshit, because more than likely, whatever he did wrong to be punished did not result in being attacked by demons from hell.

And again, why scare potential converts off? Follow God's orders or you'll die? What the hell kind of approach is that? Any Catholic school a kid attends is bound to scare them plenty thanks to the nuns and horrible attire, so it's just overkill to do it from the start. And if you're already a practicing/good Catholic, nothing the movie tells you is going to be news to your ears, so why should they watch this either? You can get a far more enriching experience by just going to mass on Sunday, and be done in half the time to boot.

It's also just a lousy movie on a technical level. It looks cheap, the music is atrocious, and the actors are all awkward and stiff. Laura Spencer (as Laura) is an engaging enough presence, but there's only so much she can do with such a laughable script, and she has no real chemistry with the guy playing Sam. The script also tries for humor on occasion, with one particularly awful bit having Sam's friend the sheriff arrest him for drunken driving despite passing the "walk the line/touch your nose" tests easily, ending with Sam threatening to "tell his mom about this". The only thing worse than unfunny writing is unfunny writing delivered by amateur actors, and I'm not exactly what this "comedy" is supposed to be "relieving", since nothing ever happens in this goddamn movie (oh shit, I just raised a demon!).

The disc has three extras: a teaser trailer that can't even manage to make the movie look interesting just with alleged highlights, a music video for some alt-rock, 3 Doors Down-ish tune that is honestly the best thing on the disc, and a look at the ADR session. You know you're in for a roller-coaster time when the disc's only real supplemental material involves a guy standing in a booth saying his lines again, and this also serves as the final insult about this thing - they clearly had the means to replace this movie's boneheaded dialogue with something interesting, and yet didn't take it! It would have been better to not have this "bonus" at all so I could go on just assuming they didn't know any better.

But the movie is still better than what Community will be without Dan Harmon.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Jaws Of Satan (1981)

MAY 17, 2012

GENRE: PREDATOR, RELIGIOUS
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

If nothing else, you gotta give Jaws Of Satan some credit for not trying to “top” anything that came before – it actually went the other way, offering one main villain snake and a few minor “henchmen” snakes, as opposed to a huge swarm of them, or a giant one that could engulf a car or whatever. I mean, the whole thing is clearly ripped from the Jaws mold, but I like that it’s kind of a laid back ripoff. “It’s Jaws with snakes! But only a couple,” the pitch undoubtedly went, likely delivered by a guy wearing sandals.

Even the “close the beaches” subplot is charmingly low-key and without any major stakes – the Mayor doesn’t want to do anything that might delay the opening of a new dog track. What a fun, wholesome activity! I sure hope the snakes don’t harm any of the fat guys chomping cigars while betting on dogs that are being psychologically tormented with a fake rabbit! That kids usually aren’t allowed in such places wasn’t a concern of the screenwriter, I guess, when they set this idea up early in the film.

Then again, it’s not like it makes much of a difference, as there’s only 10 minutes left of the movie by the time opening day arrives, and the Mayor’s daughter sneaks inside and is bitten instantly, so the place never opens anyway. You gotta love a movie that swipes from Jaws but forgets to ever really put the populace in any real danger. You also gotta love that the little girl is none other than Christina Applegate, making her debut here as the world’s youngest gambler. She also has a cat, and of course I was more concerned about the furry little bastard than any of the human characters.

Along with its laid-back approach, I also enjoyed the ridiculous back-story, as the snake is actually Satan in disguise and has come up from Hell to take down this one priest (Fritz Weaver) for some reason. There’s a great bit where the snake chases him around a graveyard only to be thwarted when Weaver falls into a grave and wards the thing off with a cross, same as one would a vampire. See, THIS is how you work a motive into a horror movie – you use a creature that already has occult related significance (the serpent!), and chalk it up to Satan. Not a silly revenge mission like in Jaws 4. Also, the priest has lost his faith, making this the rare Jaws/Exorcist ripoff hybrid.

And it’s a good looking film, courtesy of Mr. Dean Cundey himself (along with Halloween’s camera operator Ray Stella). The snake scenes are much better handled than I expected (especially when one gets its head blown off), and even though most of it takes place in the daytime, there’s a few decent scares to boot. I’m not as much afraid of snakes as I am sharks (or fish in general), but seeing one slither up your bed, or being trapped in a tiny room with one that’s pretty pissed off, is pretty damn terrifying. And they seem to always really be in the shots with the actors (sometimes with visible safety glass), which is better than trick photography or simply never showing them together like in Grizzly Rage.

It’s a shame that it’s so obscure. I can’t find any evidence of a theatrical release, and it’s never even been released on DVD, from what I understand. It’s on Netflix Instant in a pretty good anamorphic transfer, so something recent MUST exist, and hopefully someone like Shout Factory will pick it up and put it out there for folks who stand by physical media to enjoy. A commentary might be fun too, if only for someone to justify what HAS to be the actual killing of a snake at one point (if that’s a special effect, it’s the best I’ve ever seen).

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Episode 50 (2011)

MAY 16, 2012

GENRE: GHOST, MOCKUMENTARY (?)
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

AWKWARD. That’s the word that I kept wanting to write down in my notes as I suffered through Episode 50, which is yet another “Hosts of a paranormal investigation show uncover a REAL ghost” horror movie, following Grave Encounters, The Feed, Gacy House, House Of Bones… all of which are better movies, mind you. If your movie can’t even measure up to an Asylum production, you got problems.

So how’s it awkward? Well for starters, the movie begins with episode 49 of their paranormal show, which (in true Ghost Hunters fashion) our heroes prove that the ‘ghost’ is actually just a variety of things: rats, some loose wiring, etc. It’s a perfectly fine idea – we need to establish that these guys don’t encourage ghosts all that often (all of those other movies did the same thing, for the record). The problem is that their show lacks any polish – there’s no way in hell I’d believe that this show would have made it to 50 or even 5 episodes with such clunky filmmaking (when the “victim” shows a door that keeps opening, it’s off camera). I wasn’t a huge fan of Grave Encounters, but they did a great job of selling the realism of their show with the douchey host and such – this one never once feels genuine.

And that’s a full ten minutes. Then we learn about their next case a bit, only for the movie to inexplicably stop cold to tell us that the show was cancelled before the 50th episode aired and that “something went wrong”. Well no shit! We’re watching a damn horror movie, aren’t we? You don’t think we know something went wrong? Why are you stopping the movie at the 17 minute mark to tell us? Thus, by the time they actually get to the site where the real movie begins, we’ve already been treated to far too much bad acting and confusing editing, with no signs that the rest of the movie will make up for it.

Another major issue is that directors Tess & Joe Smalley have no understanding of the camera’s role in a movie like this. Half the time it’s a “found footage” type approach with everything we’re seeing being the POV of a camera being held by one of the other characters; the other half it’s a standard movie where the camera goes wherever they can put it. But here’s the thing – there’s no discernible difference between the two options, as they’re seemingly using the same camera throughout and not putting up any sort of “REC” overlay to establish which is which. So you spend most of the movie wondering if someone else is there filming (and thus in danger from the ghosts), which creates a huge problem for any horror film – knowing where everyone is in relation to one another. The editing also goes out of sequence to deliver interviews and background info, so it’s impossible to have any sense of time as well – it’s just a mess.

And it’s a shame because their ghosts (and their accompanying FX) are actually decent, and there’s a cool hook at the top of the film that is unique to these things – rival ghost teams. Our heroes are the usual sort of arrogant, in it for the fame types, and then the others are a “spiritual” team that approaches things with a more religious frame of mind. So they don’t get along at first, and I was excited about getting an Emily Rose-style “well it could be this or it could be that” explanation for the ghostly events – but the Smalleys botch this almost immediately, as the two teams agree to a truce and barely disagree about anything besides the usual “We should get out of here!” “We’re not leaving without _____!!!” type arguments. The leader of “Team Jesus” is also quite possibly the worst actor I’ve ever seen in a legitimately released movie (i.e. not counting stuff like this), so that’s another major hurdle that the movie can’t possibly overcome, since he becomes a bigger focus during its 3rd act.

Oh, the 3rd act. Even if the movie was great up until that point I’d walk away disappointed, as they deliver silly CGI in a finale seemingly inspired by The Last Exorcism (another movie that they kept screwing up the POV logic). Worse, they leave the damn asylum! Nothing was keeping them there, to be fair, but it’s just (again) awkward to spend a portion of the film’s final 15 minutes watching the heroes casually drive over to some place we hadn’t seen before, encountering new characters, etc. That this portion also contains the most confusing examples yet of the “Is someone filming this?” problem doesn’t help.

Neither does the commentary, which you can tell right off the bat is going to be obnoxious as the film’s producer/co-writer Ian Holt explains his vanity tag before introducing the Smalleys. And then for the next 80 minutes you’ll listen as they apparently describe a different movie, laughing at lines that aren’t funny, praising the performances that are almost uniformly bad, and generally just slapping each other on the back for their film that currently boasts a 3/10 rating on IMDb. They also defend their inane approach to the camera, claiming that they just want shots that look good because that’s what’s most important. No, letting your audience get their bearings on what the hell is going on is most important. Maybe they’ll figure that out before their next movie.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Deadly Spawn (1983)

MAY 15, 2012

GENRE: ALIEN, INDEPENDENT, MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Nothing beats having the wrong idea about a movie and having it turn out to be way better than the one you imagined. For some reason I thought The Deadly Spawn was a comic-horror film along the lines of Killer Tomatoes or something, where its low budget was used to its advantage (intentionally cheesy monster, purposely bad acting, etc), but in reality it’s a straight up alien/monster movie with a ton of gore and FX that mostly hold up quite well (all things considered). At times it even rivals the original (best) Evil Dead for inventive low-budget techniques, and is a must-see for anyone who appreciates old-school, practical FX and/or independent horror.

The thing I liked most is that it starts fast - in the first 10 minutes we’re treated to three gory deaths, which has to be a record for this sort of thing. I figured after the opening kill we’d have to watch a bunch of character stuff for a while before the next one, which makes it a great surprise when a guy that could conceivably be the hero gets munched moments after his introduction. Then his wife goes downstairs and gets killed as well! And it’s actually a well done scene; I loved the little reveal of the blood splatter on the rafters over her head (which she doesn’t see) as she walks around looking for her husband. Again, I was expecting some dated spoof flick, so this helped get me on board, fast.

Plus the monster is awesome! It’s a giant worm with a ton of teeth, which it uses often and to great effect. Lots of bodies are mangled over the course of the flick, with faces being torn apart, heads ripped off, etc. Sure, you can spot the dummy heads or whatever, but I defy anyone to tell me that it’s preferable to have some waxy CGI effect in its place. Not to mention all the great fake blood being splattered around, instead of digitally implemented (poorly) like, oh, EVERY MOVIE MADE TODAY. This movie’s 30 years old and it looks better than 90% of its modern counterparts, all because the filmmakers actually gave a shit and/or didn’t have the option of being lazy.

Another highlight was that the characters were pretty smart, another rarity. We have two heroes, essentially – an older teen who is a budding scientist and thus can make reasonable assumptions about the enemy and figure out how it lives (along with his girlfriend, who explains the ridges on its skin), and then his little brother. The brother is the main draw for horror fans, as he’s basically us – he wakes up his aunt early in the morning because of the loud screams from the horror movie he’s watching, he reads monster mags at breakfast, makes masks and simple FX with blast powder and such, and is generally pretty awesome. And he’s not a weirdo; when his uncle asks if he realizes that Frankenstein and such aren’t real, he answers “yes, that’s why I like them.” Hell yeah! He’s also the one that figures out that the things can’t see and go only by sound, which makes for a few fun moments.

There’s also enough variety to forgive its occasional pacing issues. There are a couple of monsters, and they grow, so you have little worm versions, big heads with tentacles, one that seemingly can’t move but is huge (think the evolution of Audrey II in Little Shop Of Horrors), and even a house sized one that we see at the end. The isolated house setting and abundance of teenagers (a study group) gives it a bit of a slasher feel, but instead of a killer using different weapons to keep things fresh, we get a variety of monsters. I’ll take it!

The DVD comes with a decent selection of extras, though half are a bit of a waste of disc space. An alternate opening has no discernible difference other than the font of the titles, and the comic prequel is too short to be of much use (it’s basically “There was an alien planet that exploded and a few survivors crashed on earth”). The outtake reel is fun though; it lacks sound but it’s great to see behind the scenes footage of the filmmakers touching up or operating the monsters, or setting up blood tubes and such. I also dug the over-selling trailer which tries to sell it as a followup to Alien, and it’s quite beat up so you can appreciate the film’s transfer, always a plus. Then there’s some audition tapes and a home movie taken at the time of production that’s kind of in-jokey and thus not particularly useful.

Then there are a pair of commentaries, one with producer Ted Bohus and the other with pretty much everyone else of note from the production. Ordinarily I would only listen to one (the latter) but since I sensed some bad blood between Bohus and the rest I figured it’d be fun to hear both sides of the story. The story isn’t entirely clear, but director Douglas McKeown was basically shut out of the production when he ran out of money (to live) and it was finished without him, and didn’t even know it had been released until he saw it in the papers. Bohus, on the other hand, explains that the distributor screwed him out of money throughout its release, which I assume means McKeown got even more screwed being that the film was released without his involvement or knowledge. So yeah, I can kind of see why they may not want to be in a room together. At any rate, the group commentary is far more enjoyable – they point out little mistakes and talk about how nutty the shoot was and such, while Bohus just drones on about whether or not certain shots are in focus or how the print lab screwed him out of 500 bucks or something. If you have the time for both, fine, but if not, definitely pick McKeown and co’s over his.

Apparently the Blu-ray has different features but a shitty transfer, so that’s your call. I think it looks pretty damn good on this Synapse DVD from 2004, and the Blu-ray apparently drops the group commentary, so I’d say it’s not worth the upgrade if you already own this one, and probably isn’t worth the extra couple bucks if you don’t already own it. But no matter what you’ll get a pretty damn great, charmingly lo-fi monster movie made by people who really gave a shit about what they were doing, which is exactly the sort of thing I need as a morale booster when confronted with so much soulless DTV crapola.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Crucible Of Horror (1971)

MAY 14, 2012

GENRE: HORROR?, THRILLER
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 5)

It’s bad enough that Crucible Of Terror is a dull film that barely even meets the requirements of “Horror?”, but it’s also a confusing one. Only one thing happens in the entire movie and then the final 5 minutes tell you that it didn’t happen, so unless you’re a Michael Gough completist or just love watching people yammer in a big British manor, I suspect you can find something better to do with your time.

To its credit, there’s a decent idea at its core – it’s basically a remake of Diabolique but with a mother and daughter looking to kill the man who is making their lives a living hell. Gough plays the tyrannical father, and he’s pretty damn scary – one of the film’s few “action” bits involves him whipping his daughter for stealing, and it’s pretty horrifying to a modern day audience who only knows him as the kindly Alfred from the pre-Nolan Batman films. Like Diabolique, the “murder” occurs around the halfway mark (once we hate him enough to side with them), and then the rest depicts what happens when their plan goes awry.

But instead of that film’s clever twists and double crosses, we just a bunch of confusion. The body disappears, a dummy wearing a Gough mask swings from the ceiling like Bob in Halloween, and then Gough is shown to be fully alive. So what happened? Did they accidentally kill a dummy or an impostor? Was he not really dead? Was he even in the crate when they buried it at sea? Etc, etc – there are many possibilities, and the movie offers nothing in the way of answers. You can be ambiguous about certain things, but it’s not the best idea when it’s the main plot. It’d be like leaving it up to the audience to decide whether or not John McClane stops the terrorists or saves his wife in Die Hard. No, follow through on that, let us nerds wonder about the minor stuff like whether or not Theo got away or arrested (think about it – Argyle knocks him out, then drives off with McClane without talking to anyone).

And come on, you’ve bored us for 80 minutes and now you’re going to leave us hanging? Again, there’s some mild amusement to be had at watching Alfred Pennyworth smacking people around, but that dies off quickly, and no one else in the movie is all that memorable (though the daughter is quite lovely). And it has a slight bit of Hammer feel, but it doesn’t have any of those films’ rich cinematography or atmosphere. Most of the movie takes place in the house, where the folks sit around the dinner table or sip brandy in the parlor, so it more closely resembles a BBC special than a feature. Nice cliff during the “burial” scene though.

This has nothing to do with the movie really, but I’m kind of bummed to discover that this will be one of the last entries on my Pure Terror set, despite only being the 13th. There are 50 films on the set, but many are duplicated from the others (mostly Tales of Terror), and others are heavily edited versions which I refuse to watch. Then there are a few that I can’t possibly believe to be horror films (one of the movies is a Japanese adventure about a spaceman), which I find kind of insulting when you consider a. Mill Creek has plenty of sci-fi sets and b. like there aren’t hundreds of public domain horror movies to put on the disc instead? Even tossing on Night of the Living Dead for the millionth time would make more sense – it’s not like there are a bunch of people like me who own several of these damn sets.

Another film on this set that I had seen before is Satan’s Slave, which also involves Gough and a British manor, but is far superior to this. Stick with that one.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dark Shadows (2012)

MAY 13, 2012

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

Rare are the wide theatrical genre releases that I don't see at midnight on the Thursday to Friday evening, but I suspected that Dark Shadows, despite a fun looking trailer, would be the sort of movie that put me to sleep early and often, so I opted to wait for an early weekend showing. Indeed, I actually dozed off for a minute during the climax at this 1:30 pm showing, so who knows what I would have missed if I tried at midnight. I might have been out before Johnny Depp even showed up.

I realized something quite peculiar about the film as the credits rolled - this may be the first film I've ever seen where the trailer was both misleading and yet guilty of giving away every major story point. The trailer emphasizes the humor to a great degree, but apart from a McDonald's sight gag, I think pretty much every major "fish out of water" joke in the movie was given away in its promotion, as that stuff amounts to a small fraction of the 110 minute movie. And that's really the only source of humor in the film, apart from mild sexual innuendo here and there and winking cameos by the late Jonathan Frid (the original Barnabas) and other TV show castmates. In fact it's much more melodramatic at times; most scenes play out like stock soap opera moments (i.e. two people talking in a room) but without the sort of heightened camp approach that made a movie like Soapdish such a delight. I was actually kind of impressed that Burton chose not to go big with these scenes - it's closer to a straight adaptation than say, the Brady Bunch Movie, which was basically mocking the source material. I've never seen a frame of the show, but I assume the people who took it seriously won't be too offended with the romantic and dramatic scenes of the film.

They might, however, be just as offended as a clueless viewer such as myself that the story is so paper-thin, to the extent where nearly every single plot point of note was shown in the film. The trailer shows that Barnabas was cursed by a woman who smiles too much, reawakens in 1972, rejoins his family, and restores their family business while trying to resist the advances of Smiley (Eva Green, named Angelique in the film but her omnipresent smile makes my name better). The movie doesn't add much more; the only things the trailer didn't go into are minor subplots that are in no way necessary, such as the Johnny Lee Miller character's greedy nature. When the cannery exploded (shown in trailer), I figured it would kick off a big third act, but in reality there was only like 15 minutes left in the movie from that point (some of which was ALSO in the trailer - Robert Zemeckis will love this movie).

And there aren't nearly enough scenes of the family together; there's a cute dinner scene where he keeps inadvertently revealing his age (the cover story is that he's a distant cousin from England) but for the most part everyone is separated - after the introductory scenes I don't think Chloe Moretz really converses with a single other character besides Depp for the rest of the film. Also, at first only Michelle Pfeiffer knows he's a vampire but he's revealed to the others so shortly (and unceremoniously) after that I have to wonder why they bothered, because no one really seems to care about his vampirism or confront Pfeiffer about the ruse. You could also remove Miller or Helena Bonham Carter's characters from the film without it making a lick of discernible difference (other than "Wow, Burton actually made a movie without his wife for once!" in the latter's case).

At least it's successful on a technical level. The ghost FX are quite good and the Collinwood mansion is a marvel of set and production design. Danny Elfman's score isn't as "Deet deet deedly" as I feared, and there's even a slightly scary attack scene early on after Barnabas is resurrected, showing Burton still has some idea of how to stage a scene (it actually reminded me of the first big attack in Batman, so he's actually just copying himself, but doing it well!). And they did a fine job of faking Maine (it was shot entirely in England), plus some of the big establishing shots actually made me wish I was watching in IMAX.

And Depp is in good form, finding the fine line between being a menacing vampire and our romantic hero, and overall being more restrained than he was as the Mad Hatter or Willy Wonka. I have grown a bit weary of Burton's seeming inability to cast anyone but Depp as the lead role in his films, but I assume he'd be a good choice even if Burton wasn't involved. The rest of the cast is fine; it's always nice to see Pfeiffer, Moretz gets to have some fun in a horror flick for once, and Jackie Earle Haley is a hoot in a thankless role as, essentially, Groundskeeper Willie. Green's scenery chewing grew tiresome after awhile, however, and I was too baffled by Carter's role (as an alcoholic live-in doctor for a character she never speaks to) to get a handle on her performance. The final scene of this indicates she'll be given a bigger role in the sequel if one happens; I can't say I'm counting the days until it sees release.

Finally, it's just a weird option for a "summer" movie. There's not a lot of action, and the horror elements will likely turn off Depp's usual fanbase (Alice and Wonka made more in their first few days than Sweeney Todd did in its entire run), which would be its best defense against Avengers and (Universal hopes) Battleship. Seems like it might have made a better alternative option for the Thanksgiving season, but what do I know? Seems the more I like a Burton/Depp film the less money it makes (I really like Ed Wood and Sweeney Todd, which tanked/disappointed, respectively - on the other hand I loathe Alice and it made a billion dollars), so congrats to their assured success on another I find underwhelming!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dark Tower (1987)

MAY 12, 2012

GENRE: GHOST
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

According to the IMDb trivia, Dark Tower was originally directed by Hammer guru Freddie Francis, only to be replaced with Ken Wiederhorn, a man who does not like horror and is responsible for the lamest Return of the Living Dead movie, which is impressive in a terrible sort of way. So it's not much of a surprise that it's moderately entertaining at times, shockingly bad at others, and overall just doesn't work as a 90 minute film.

The main problem is that the plot is far too thin for a feature length; even as a Tales from the Crypt episode (note - Francis directed the TFTC anthology feature) it would probably have to be padded out with unnecessary bits. The entire thing is about a new building that is haunted by a ghost that has seemingly targeting its architect, played by Jenny Agutter (yay!) - but that's pretty much it. There's not a lot of people in the building, his haunting skills are seemingly confined to the elevator and lighting fixtures, and any time he goes after someone else (a security guard, a psychic) you have to wonder why since they pretty much tell us in the first half hour who the ghost is. And from then you can figure out what he wants, so the rest is just shoe leather.

And I mean that literally. I would estimate that 25% of this movie consists of people (usually Agutter) running down the same damn corridor as the Evil Dead Camera Ghost chases her. There's also a lengthy bit of the psychic wandering around telling the ghost his life story (his dad was a student of Freud!), and lots of scenes of folks riding elevators. It's as riveting as it sounds; the only time the movie comes to any life at all is during the few kill scenes, and even those are botched - I particularly liked when a guy went on a shooting spree, firing at least a dozen rounds from a 6-shot revolver. I'll also assume the incompetent Wiederhorn is responsible for the sequence where an elevator hurtles down 29 stories and crashes below, which is depicted in slow-motion for some reason (so it just looks like it's going at normal speed).

But most sinful of all - it makes Michael Moriarty boring. There's a cute bit early on where he fixes his pal's tie (much to the latter's annoyance), but otherwise he's pretty much sleepwalking through this one, and who can blame him? His character is worthless and he doesn't get to actually DO anything - at least, in the reality of the film. As part of its padding, we're treated to an early dream sequence where he fantasizes about Agutter's character, which has no payoff whatsoever. But at least he gets some "action" there, as opposed to his other scenes which mainly consist of him nodding while others talk, or muttering to himself as he reads the backgrounds of other characters on his computer.

They also waste the setting - it's Barcelona, but you'd barely be able to tell since so much of the movie takes place in this nondescript office building. Also almost no one speaks Spanish, and if they explain why the very American Moriarty is the cop in charge, I must have missed it. He keeps talking about missing his vacation - they should have worked it in that he was already ON vacation (i.e. an American cop visiting Barcelona) and asked to assist for whatever reason. But who am I to question the mastermind behind Meatballs Part II?

And finally, F the title for making me have to clarify that I'm not talking about Stephen King's incredible fantasy series. Also, I love that this might be the first HMAD entry outside of obscure Hong Kong flicks for which I couldn't find the DVD link OR the trailer.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

I Know How Many Runs You Scored Last Summer (2008)

MAY 11, 2012

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

Allegedly, I Know How Many Runs You Scored Last Summer is a spoof/satire of slasher films, but since the title is funnier than anything in the film, I have to wonder if the filmmakers simply realized they made a bad movie and decided to spin it as an intentional sendup. On the commentary they reveal that they shot it over two years before finally editing/posting it, which to me suggests they had a lot of time to reconsider how they sold the movie to distributors and fans.

Because really, it’s not much different than most 80s slashers that seem a bit goofy nowadays – Graduation Day in particular came to mind, with the systematic decimation of a sports team, odd looking killer, and strange bits that aren’t exactly FUNNY, but merely “off” in some way. I would think that if they were making a satire that there would be some real jokes in it – even if they weren’t particularly funny, they would be there for us to detect, right? But I didn’t really sense any; there’s a gratuitous shower scene with an obvious double, and the killer only uses cricket equipment to kill his enemies, but otherwise it’s just a slasher. And not a very good one.

Comedic or no, there has to be a pace to these things, not to mention some actual characters to care about – even Scary Movie accomplished that much. But the writing/ directing/ producing/ editing/ starring team of Doug Turner and Stacey Edmonds have given us nothing to invest ourselves in, as their characters literally just sit around until they go off and die somewhere. After a few of the teammates are killed, the police decide to put the others in a safe house until the killer is caught, which could have yielded some fun chemistry and even a decent little mystery if the killer turned out to be one of them. But alas, they just sit around the main room of the house, barely interacting at all, just making a comment or two when, say, one of them opts to go outside for a walk (he dies) or a pair goes off so one can give the other a haircut (they die, and also what? I guess that can be a joke, but it’s actually TOO weird to be funny). One guy spends half the movie doing Bishop’s “stab a knife around the fingers” trick from Aliens until the killer finally rams a spiked bat through it during the climax. The characters in Things were less lethargic than this.

Plus the mystery is ridiculous and underdeveloped – the usual “I was tormented as a kid and now I want revenge” thing is fine, but they add a twist concerning who has been helping him, something anyone could have spotted from the beginning (if not the actual nature of their connection). Again, for a comedy this is pretty standard stuff – why not make it outlandish? Or just make a joke that the killer DIDN’T need any assistance finding them because the police were so inept? It fails as a comedy, and it lacks any effort whatsoever as a straight slasher – what a baffling project.

Luckily the kills are never too far apart, being that the movie is only 80 minutes with lengthy credits. There’s some inventiveness here; the spiked bats are sort of the “Jason’s machete” of the film, but they’re used in a variety of ways – down the throat, through the chest, etc. There’s also a Freddy like glove, and an athletic cup outfitted with a variety of blades and such. He also doesn’t stray from his MO – he has the opportunity to use a chainsaw but opts for more cricket-related killing. So if the only thing you care about in a slasher movie are the kills, you should be entertained. There's also a random sequence that seems inspired by Soderbergh's Ocean's films or something, with split screens and a bunch of folks putting a plan in motion - again, I don't see how this is supposed to be comical, but it's the only time in the movie where I felt that they had planned their shots before turning the camera on, since most of it is directed so indifferently.

The disc is packed with bonus material, nearly all of it worthless. The making of is OK enough, especially since a few of the actors seemingly get more to do here than they did in the film itself, but everything else is seemingly just there to make the package look more enticing. There’s a look at the color grading (where learn that they added a pointless “Bourne” type camera shake to the film), and some before and after shots of the film’s largely unsuccessful FX shots (the splattered blood in the bathroom always disappears, making it look faker than it already did), plus some general fucking about with kangaroos or whatever. There’s also a music video, which is not a surprise since I often wondered during the film if they had a soundtrack album in place before they had a movie – out of place rock songs are seemingly omnipresent, and mixed poorly with the film itself. One even drowns out dialogue AND score, for some reason. Must be a joke that went over my head.

Then there’s the aforementioned commentary, which is more of the same. They point out a few jokes (apparently the killer opening his eye at the end is supposed to be funny – again, this is just standard slasher stuff) and talk about the long post process, as well as how sometimes both of them were on camera and how difficult that made things (that’s why you focus on one job instead of doing all of them yourself). But I couldn’t keep my focus on the entire thing, and started tuning in and out - I saved it for last after watching all the other extras, so maybe I just had my fill of these two by then.

This is my 300th slasher movie for HMAD, by the way, and I had seen plenty BEFORE I started this site. So you can believe me when I say that there are better intentionally AND unintentionally funny slasher films for you to watch instead. Unless you’re the world’s biggest cricket fan as well, this one’s just too inert to seek out. Just watch Severance or something.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Wreckage (2010)

MAY 10, 2012

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

If you’re ever in the mood for a wildly erratic horror movie that was seemingly made up as they went along and possibly stitched together from two different productions, look no further than Wreckage, a sort-of slasher with a confusing back-story, at least one extra murderer, out of nowhere comic relief, and a cast that keeps coming and going and thus keeping you from ever getting a real handle on any of them.

And I mean the characters literally come and go – the film’s main plot kicks off when a drag race (one that comes out of nowhere, of course) results in a broken down car for our hero. But the three people he is with completely disappear from his car during the bulk of the race, which makes the entire thing confusing. It also makes our hero an asshole, suddenly invisible or not, one of his passengers was pregnant and thus probably didn’t need to be put in such a pointlessly dangerous situation.

The rest of the movie takes place in a junkyard, as they go looking for the parts they need to fix the car and start getting picked off one by one. Who could it be? One of the very casual police officers who show up and easily hand out guns to the civilians? The grown up version of one of the kids who shot his mom and her boyfriend in the opening scene? The other drag race guy? The junkyard employee? And are any of them the same person who murdered a would-be rapist/murderer in the film’s 2nd prologue? Why the hell are there so many people in this movie???

The end of the movie mostly explains everything, and it probably wouldn’t be so confusing if director John Mallory Asher had assembled a movie that wasn’t so needlessly all over the place. There is absolutely NO reason whatsoever for the bit with the girl being menaced by the rapist guy, and I don’t see why they couldn’t just have the car break down in typical horror movie fashion instead of the silly drag race stuff (especially when you consider that they weren’t up to shooting it properly). Keep it simple! Because you kind of suck at making it complex!

And it’s a shame, because there’s actually a fun movie somewhere in there, it’s just that finding it is akin to scooping your hand around in an ice cold cooler looking for the last Coke in a sea of Diet – you start to wonder if it’s worth it, or if you need to press on so your efforts won’t be in vain. When it’s actually working, it’s surprisingly enjoyable in a Final Destination-y way, like when a girl is rescued from a compactor only to be crushed by a falling car a few seconds later. And Scoot McNairy is simply brilliant as the redneck junkyard employee who is petrified of both heroes and villains alike, but not above making a few oddball remarks at their expense (I particularly liked his answer to how hard it can be to screw in a lightbulb). I should note that if you like his performance, make sure you stick around for all of the credits, as we get more of his craziness (and a firework show!) in what must be the longest post-credits bit I’ve ever seen in a slasher.

It also has Aaron Paul, no doubt finally finding its way onto DVD (it was at least two years ago) thanks to his increased name value after winning an Emmy for Breaking Bad back in 2010. He is tasked with the bulk of the movie’s more ridiculous moments, including accidentally shooting the hero’s girlfriend, and figures prominently in the flashback-heavy finale that does its best to tie all of these random plot threads together while hoping no one notices/remembers the ones that never paid off. He’s basically playing the same outburst-prone selfish prick he plays on BB, so that should delight fans of the show (of which I’m only on S2, so don’t spoil anything if you have anything to add about him).

Unsurprising that the trailer focuses heavily on him, making him look like the lead for its first 30 seconds or so, before it gets to the action and is forced to ignore him since he disappears for a large chunk of the film once things start going bad. It’s also a poorly compressed trailer; the movie itself looks pretty good but this appears as if it was stolen off of an iPhone. The movie’s pretty short and there are no other extras*, so I don’t know why they compressed it so poorly when there was plenty of room on the disc. I also don’t know why I care.

What say you?

*Fellow reviewers that might be reading this – please list the supplements in your “DVD reviews”. Even if you don’t watch them yourself, merely mentioning that they exist can actually make your review helpful to would-be buyers, which is kind of the point. I currently have two discs from Blockbuster that are jam-packed with bonus material that not a single review I’ve found for either film mentions (I’m currently balancing too many projects to have time for extra features so I’ve been renting based on how quickly I can get through the disc). Be thorough!

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Gangs Of The Dead (2006)

MAY 9, 2012

GENRE: ZOMBIE
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

I usually have zero expectations for DTV zombie movies, having suffered through so many over the course of these past five years. Gangs Of The Dead (formerly Last Rites) was chosen because of its relatively brief runtime and the fact that I hadn’t watched a zombie movie for a while, with most of them being “not really” zombie movies like Zombie Nation. It’s actually been nearly four months since I’ve seen a group of strangers fight each other and the undead while holed up somewhere!

But there was a brief period, starting somewhere around the end of the first act, where I actually started thinking that this one might not be too bad. It started off pretty terribly, with a gang-banger driving around as his fellow gang-banger explained how he was “getting out of this gang-banging shit” because he found God, thus setting him up as our hero, I guess. Fourteen seconds later, his pal calls attention to a girl walking down the street and our God-loving reformed citizen says “Man fuck that bitch!”, so I’m not sure which God he found.

However, once everyone arrives at the warehouse where the bulk of the movie takes place, it picks up a bit. It’s basically a zombie version of Assault on Precinct 13, as we have rival gangs, a few cops, and even a “fish out of water” character who lost his female companion, all having to stay together if they want to make it out alive. There’s even some decent humor, such as one cop betting the other on the survival chances of a couple of the gang guys who are attempting an escape. The FX are mostly practical, and I liked the meteor origin – they all drool this mouth wash-esque blue liquid (same that comes out of the meteor) after being turned into zombies. Nothing spectacular, but a reasonably entertaining B-movie.

Sadly, the script takes a pretty dim-witted turn, as the cop saves the gang guys who have gotten surrounded, only for their main heavy (Noel G, who is something of a professional gang actor) to let the cop get swarmed and killed. Since they were clearly going for a Precinct 13 vibe, I guess it KIND OF works as a surprise to kill off the Austin Stoker type character before the halfway point, but the movie never recovers from this moment. What makes these things work is the uneasy truce between enemies, and maybe even some minor redemption for the “villain” of the two. That’s why Precinct is a revered classic and this thing ends up on worst of the year lists.

Worse, for the next 25-30 minutes they basically forget about the zombies. The movie gets bogged down in a pointless undercover cop subplot, the two gangs fighting as if they weren’t surrounded by flesh eaters, and other assorted idiocy that is in no way entertaining. Maybe if you’re actually in a gang you can pick a side and see how things turn out, but to most normal folks, all of these people are scumbags, so I’m rooting for the zombies. And they’re MIA, so why the hell am I watching this?

They finally come back for the final 15 minutes or so, however it’s way too little too late. Noel G’s hateful character gets a fun death, and there’s a hilariously grim ending (more meteors!), but that doesn’t nearly make up for the pointless, zombie-free section that led up to it. The zombie makeup is also pretty lazy after a while; one turned character was clearly just given some green makeup to rub on about 30 seconds before the camera got turned on. That’s nothing compared to the hilarious goof early on though: the meteor demolishes part of a bridge, and then when Noel G arrives at the warehouse and gets out of his car, we see the perfectly intact bridge in the background with cars driving over it. You know you’re in trouble when you’re watching a movie shot in downtown LA where they don’t even know to film exteriors on Sunday morning when the entire section of the city is basically a ghost town. Christ, I knew that much before I even lived here!

Reggie Bannister also appears as one of the gang members. Sadly, he gets killed (by a van!) about 20 minutes in, so there’s no real benefit to his appearance (i.e. he doesn’t kill any zombies). He’s just there to make you say “What the hell is Reggie doing in a gang?” and fill in the obligatory “horror icon” role that all DTV horror movies with some semblance of a budget must include, because it means that the movie has a better chance of getting a panel at a convention. Bannister joins Sid Haig and Ken Foree in this group, lending bad movies their only bit of class but never appearing long enough to actually satisfy anyone who may have rented the movie on the strength of their name alone. Wish these guys had better agents, they all deserve better.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Premature Burial (1962)

MAY 8, 2012

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

As a Vincent Price enthusiast, I wasn’t sure how I’d feel about The Premature Burial, a rare Roger Corman/Edgar Allan Poe film that did not star the legend. Since most of them are quite obviously padded from their original short stories and kind of blend together in my memory after a while, it’s basically just Price’s always interesting performances that keep me coming back. But I don't have that attachment to Ray Milland (yet!), so I’d have to judge it on its own merits.

Well, hey, it’s pretty good! Again, its origin as a short story is pretty obvious, as not a lot happens for a while as we wait for the obvious (our hero being buried alive), and are treated to many long rambles about how afraid he is of vivisepulture, something that the first-person short story could internalize. A deaf infant could probably figure out his fear after about 20 minutes; it’s not until around the hour mark that we get to the “fear came true” business.

But it’s not really a bore until then, thankfully. There are a few fun isolated suspense scenes, including a fake scare involving a rocking horse that I found quite delightful – someday I gotta make up like, Jump Scare Bingo cards and pass them out to friends who watch as much horror as I do. Each card can be filled with random objects, and when you see one get used for a scare, you cross it off. First one to “Bingo” gets, I dunno, a copy of Paranormal Activity 2 (which would feature prominently in the DVD. “Pool Filter!”).

I also liked part of what set him off – the most casual response to a dead dog in recorded history. He’s walking around with his lady and he comes across his dog, seemingly dead. “Aw, the lightning must have gotten him. I’ll bury him,” he says, in a tone of voice one might use to express disappointment that their favorite show is a repeat this week. Then the dog snaps out of it, and he’s equally non-emotive about the poor mutt’s return. Man, my cat pukes and I’m running to the pet doctor – either I’m a baby or this guy is the worst pet owner ever.

Then there’s the burial bit, which recalled Vampyr with its see-through coffin, and any number of accidental burial movies (or episodes of Lost) where the folks are just paralyzed and assumed dead. The movie actually takes on a twist here, which allows for some surprising murders, including that of a young “Richard” (Dick) Miller – I always enjoy an out of nowhere killing spree. It’s enjoyable enough to forgive that the movie (spoiler for 50 year old movie ahead!) becomes one of those “let’s fuck with a guy’s mental state in order to screw him out of his inheritance/house/marriage/whatever” movies. I dunno, maybe only a HMAD-er can see too many of these in their lifetime, so I shouldn’t rag on the ones that do. Least their plan wasn’t TOO elaborate – scaring a guy with a rocking horse isn’t exactly rigging up full blown ghost machines like some others have done.

Oh and Milland was fine, not much of a surprise since he IS an Oscar winner. I mean, he's no Price, but who is? He’s got the perfect look, where you can buy him as a villain or a hero quite easily – a benefit during the back and forth finale. The rest of the cast is also pretty good; it’s always nice to see Hazel Court, and Alan “Batman TV show Alfred” Napier is great as a doctor who at one point stands by looking bored when Milland is found “dead”. It seems like they were putting some effort into making up for Price’s absence by having a lot of the characters give dryly sarcastic reactions to things, as he would; if so - it worked!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Screen At Kamchanod (2007)

MAY 7, 2012

GENRE: ASIAN, GHOST
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

It’s a shame that the “let’s remake all those Asian horror movies” phase of Hollywood ended before anyone had the bright idea to remake one that wasn’t very good in the first place. Nearly all of the remakes pale compared to their originals; the only one I think improved on its predecessor was The Ring, but it’s not like Ringu was that bad of a film to begin with (I do think it's overrated, however) – they made a decent film better is all. Because if this was still happening, maybe we could get a good version of The Screen At Kamchanod, instead of the total mess we’re probably stuck with forever.

The concept is fascinating – in 1987, a projectionist was ordered to screen a film in the middle of a field, where no one was seemingly in attendance. He ran the film anyway, and halfway through a bunch of what appeared to be ghosts showed up. 20 years later, some folks (a journalist, a doctor, etc) decide to recreate the event and also see if they can figure out what really happened that night. Being a horror film, the more they discover, the more prone they are to being killed. All good, right?

Nope. The above synopsis was pieced together from IMDb and a review I read to see if Netflix’s terrible subtitles were their fault or on the DVD (they were at the very bottom of the frame – the lower part of letters like “p” and “g” were cut off entirely), because I could barely figure out that much as I watched the film, let alone anything specific like “Who is that guy?” “When is this scene taking place?” “Was that a dream sequence?” or “What the fuck is going on?” Even factoring in my usual trouble getting certain nuances out of these films because of cultural differences (the appearance of a ghost in Thailand doesn’t have as much novelty as it does here, I guess) as well as the fact that I’m spending the majority of the movie staring at the bottom of the screen, this one was damn near impenetrable – even the Ju-On sequels were easier to follow.

Now, if this was the usual crap about a vengeful ghost haunting their cell phone or pencils or something, I wouldn’t mind as much. But the creepy back-story is fascinating, and really resonated with me as I know what it’s like to play a movie to an empty house (seriously, why did no one come to my screening of The Descent?), so I hated seeing it wasted on such a needlessly incoherent tale. In fact, it’s even the rare “based on true events” horror movie that’s not a lie – the strange screening actually did happen, and after 45 minutes I began to wish that I was just watching a documentary about it (or reading a book) instead of feeling my brain turn to mush as the film got less and less intelligible. I’ve had fever dreams that were easier to decipher.

Plus, it’s just not scary. I’ve long held the theory that the more confusing a horror is, the harder it is to be scared, but I can see how those kinds of movies can at least get you freaked out, and that’s fine. But here, the confusing back and forth structure and woozy explanation of who’s a ghost and who isn’t just erodes any chance at being spooked by the infrequent chill scenes. There’s a nice bit in a hospital where someone sees a ghost by the curtains sort of fading into view, and maybe 1-2 other isolated bits on the same level, but the overall film lacks any real tension. And it even botches some of the easier scares – there’s a scene where one of the protagonists is alarmed to see that the monk they were just talking to doesn’t appear in his rearview mirror, only for his partner to say “No, he’s standing right there” – and that’s it. We don’t see the now “complete” image in his mirror to inform us that maybe he was just seeing things. It’d be like if we didn’t get the shot outside the window when Laurie tells Tommy that there’s no boogeyman out there in Halloween.

In short, just go see a horror movie by yourself. It’s bound to be a better movie and you’ll probably get scared more often.

What say you?

P.S. The subtitles refer to the area as Kamchanot, so I’m not sure if the title is spelled wrong or the subs are even worse than suspected. Probably the latter.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

666: The Beast (2007)

MAY 6, 2012

GENRE: RELIGIOUS, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

After watching 666 The Child a while back, I was surprised to discover that there was a sequel, which is pretty rare for Asylum mockbusters (especially since its namesake didn't launch a new franchise). But I was even more surprised to discover that I actually OWNED 666 The Beast, on one of those Echo Bridge four packs that I bought for when I go to Comic Con or something (i.e. junk movies that are obviously short so they can fit on one disc, lacking extras, and perfectly suited for viewing on a portable DVD player).

The other surprise about The Child was that it was actually one of the better Asylum movies thanks to some fun deaths and an endearing approach, which was basically The Omen but sped up and lacking any sort of depth. However, the sequel just cribs from a bunch of Devil movies, most notably End Of Days, with a handful of Devil's Advocate and a dash of Omen III for good measure. I've certainly seen worse from the company, but it was quite disappointing to see that they didn't follow on the Final Destination-esque death scenes this time around - in fact the few deaths are pretty dull even by average standards.

They also don't continue the story of the original, where Donald was being groomed to take over the entertainment industry. It seems this would be pretty easy to do for the Asylum - they could film it in their actual studio and let their own equipment and staff fill in for props and extras, but for whatever reason it's not even mentioned. Now he's just some sort of exec who gets a big promotion at the beginning of the film, thanks to his boss who has been possessed (or something) by the Devil (or something) and knows of his past as the Antichrist, which Donald has apparently forgotten about. It's pretty odd, especially with the Devil's Advocate swipes, because isn't he supposed to be noble and then get corrupted? He's already there, he's the damn Antichrist! They even remind us of the first film - seems to me the movie would make more sense if it wasn't a sequel and just stand-alone (they could also then make it shorter by not bringing us up to speed), but questioning the logic in an Asylum production is a fool's errand, so it's best to just ignore it.

Harder to ignore is the low production value, as they're going way above their means this time around. For starters the movie should be taking place in 2027 or so since Donald is now 30 years old (he was turning 9 in the 2006 original, I believe), but that's not mentioned. There's also a bit where he's supposed to be addressing a legion of followers that are clearly not there, so we just see closeups of Donald and his two partners from the company (what they actually DO is a bit vague) as we hear canned crowd noises. I also loved the "Congratulations Donald" sheet taped to his office door, as it was clearly typed out on Microsoft Word and printed out (in landscape mode!). But I like that the Devil looks to make his staff feel welcome.

I was also charmed by the performance of Collin Brock as Deacon Cain (yep, they even take (half of) the names of End of Days characters - crazy homeless people and a group of protecting priests are also involved), because he either thought he was making a Shakespearean horror film or simply operates on a level of irony that might be far too advanced for me to process. He sort of comes off like Donald Pleasence's understudy, but he looks like Donal Logue, rendering it pretty magical. If he was in the movie more, it would have made up for the lack of death scenes, but alas he's only in like 4 or 5 scenes.

We DO get a lot of Makinna Ridgway, however, playing dual roles. She's a lovely looking woman and a notch or two above the rest of her castmates in the acting department, and was seemingly being groomed to be a sort of Sarah Connor type character in a 3rd film if it ever came to pass, as she is giving birth to the child who can destroy the Antichrist (so there's a little bit of The Prophecy sequels in here too!). But 666 vs 777 or whatever the hell they'd call it has seemingly not come to pass, likely because making a SECOND sequel to a mockbuster would be too much for them to process. Hell they didn't even make a 3rd Transmorphers movie and those are licenses to print cynically generated money!

Well, whatever. I'm sure it won't even be the worst movie I see this week, and now I've seen all four films on this set, so I can get rid of it at my next HMAD screening (May 26th! The cult indie flick There's Nothing Out There!), so it's fine. And the movie is technically competent, which is more than I can say for even some of the Asylum entries I've had more fun with and thus should be noted. Five years ago I'd probably be calling this "Crap", but I've matured. Or gotten more burned out, I dunno.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...