Wrestlemaniac (2006)

FEBRUARY 22, 2008

GENRE: BREAKDOWN, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

One of my more scathing reviews is for Drive Thru, a wholly worthless piece of shit that came out last year. I thought about it a lot while watching Wrestlemaniac, because both films attempt to do similar things: making an “old school” slasher movie with intentional comedy. The difference is, Drive Thru failed miserably, and Wrestlemaniac pretty much succeeds.

During the film I had exactly three problems. One: the endless opening credit sequence (nearly four minutes, and not over part of the actual film. Two: one character gets sick and goes outside to puke, but she walks about a half mile before finally stopping even though they are in a ghost town. And Three: they spell “Voorhees” wrong in what I assume is a shout out to Friday the 13th. None of these things really bugged me enough to dislike the film as a result, but the funny thing is, the first two are totally explained in the commentary track.

On the track, the director reveals that literally two days before shooting was scheduled to begin, they lost their primary location (an insane asylum) and had to relocate to the only other location they could get in the short amount of time – a ghost town. This resulted in many scenes having to be cut, because they no longer made any sense in the context of the location. In turn, this left the finished film running short, so the credits were lengthened for padding. This also meant that some of the necessary plot devices, such as getting the first victim separated from the group, had to be shot as if they WERE in the same location, which is why the girl goes so far for a “bathroom” that no longer actually exists.

(The "Vorhees" thing is unexplained. They don’t even mention it. It’s two “O”s, jerks!)

Knowing how many problems plagued them on the eve of shooting makes the film even more impressive. While the movie won’t win any awards or even give other modern “throwback” slashers like Hatchet any real competition, it’s still a lot of fun, and the last 20 minutes are top notch “chase n’ slash” fare. With one exception, the actors seem to know exactly what kind of movie they are making, and thus their performances are perfect for this type of horror (campy, but not an actual spoof). The one exception is sadly one of the primary characters – she doesn’t do nearly as well as the others of selling the ridiculousness of it all, and instead just comes off as a bad actress.

Luckily, the fact that all of the characters are pretty stupid gives the film an unexpected edge – it’s actually kind of suspenseful, because you won’t know right from the start who our Final Girl is going to be. This was a highlight of See No Evil as well (coincidentally, that film was written by Dan Madigan, who literally wrote the book on the type of Mexican wrestlers the killer in this film emulates) – though in that film they were just all unlikeable jerks (the biggest asshole of the bunch was in fact the hero!), whereas here they are a bit obnoxious, but generally likeable. You won’t care much that they die (that’s what we’re here for, after all), but you won’t want them dead within seconds of their introduction either. I would have liked to see Irwin Keyes (top billed for one scene) show up again near the end, or at least have a second scene to warrant his paycheck, but oh well. Again, it kinds of provides the film with some suspense – you keep expecting him to show up again, but he never does, making the somewhat downer ending even more effective.

And fuck you if you don't think this is awesome.

The gore in the film is also pretty impressive. At first I was worried there wouldn’t be any at all, as the first two victims are killed offscreen entirely. But then in the 2nd half the gore is ramped up to 11, with generous faceripping and impalements to enjoy. I won’t deny that the film is a bit slow in parts (again, this makes more sense when you realize they were supposed to be walking around a “dark and scary” asylum instead of a Mexican village in broad daylight), but there is certainly enough gore (and yes, even some nudity) to make up for it, and at 75 minutes (barely more than 65 without opening and end credits), you don’t have to wait too long for it to get going. Also, while not without its share of eye-rollers, some of the attempts at humor work, which is nice.

It’s also pretty good looking. The Panavision HD system they used impressively simulates film, with only a few shots giving its digital origins away (most occur at night). The score is also above average, if a bit stolen from Halloween (near the end there’s an honest to God “scary mariachi” version of the synth-y Halloween II theme).

The DVD also has a making of, but it’s wholly worthless. However, the commentary is a must, and the film itself is far better than I expected. This could have been damn near unwatchable (indeed, the title is funnier than anything in the movie), but if nothing else it proves once again that no matter what the budgetary and resource limitations are, guys who genuinely want to make a film and not just a few bucks will always end up with a more enjoyable film than those who make a film without a single shred of respect for an audience or filmmaking in general (which is precisely what that piece of shit Drive Thru was). I know a lot of folks will probably hate it (some people even hate Hatchet for “trying to be funny”), but damned if I didn’t have a blast watching it, and I say thank you to writer/director Jesse Baget for getting it done right.

What say you?

Read more »

Breakdown, Slasher,

{[['']]}

Xtro (1983)

FEBRUARY 21, 2008

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

I really have to start watching more British monster movies. Raw Meat was a total delight (mainly thanks to Donald Pleasence) and now Xtro follows suit. No one is as good as Pleasence, but the over smugness of the two male leads, coupled with the general batshittedness of the whole thing, makes for one of the most fun times I’ve had watching a movie by myself in ages.

Again, it’s almost always better to go into a horror movie knowing pretty much nothing other than the fact that it’s a horror movie. Such was the case with this; I thought it was about a monster loose in Los Angeles for some reason. Without any expectations or the slightest idea of what I was in for, I was able to judge the film without any bias or prejudice. Plus it was really short, so I had time to play some Rock Band after it was done, which added to my Xtro appreciation.

Let’s get the minor quibbles out of the way first. The direction (or editing) is really odd at times during the non-horror scenes, resulting in more than a couple occasions of people talking before they were introduced or placed in the scene. “Who’s talking?” will be a common utterance for viewers who like to talk to their TV. Also, the transfer for the DVD was pretty bad; in addition to lots of dirt and “flecks” throughout the film, there were also some unforgivable compression artifacts during fades and the like. Any movie that features a man who is really an alien sucking on his son’s shoulder in order to “impregnate” the lad with his own alien deserves a lot better!

Otherwise the movie is perfect (as perfect as British low-budgeters about aliens that can create circus folk out of nothing and use them to kill nosy neighbors can be anyway). There’s a birthing scene that is probably one of the all time best in these type of movies, and some other pretty nasty effects as well. Plus, as mentioned, the aliens have some sort of advanced mental abilities that allow them to just think of something and make it appear. Naturally, this means that the alien kid makes a circus midget, a panther, and a giant toy soldier appear and take out some kindly supporting characters, including his super hot babysitter.

The female lead is that unconventionally hot broad from Macabre. She kind of looks like a hot (and female, obviously) Tim Curry. Her character is the closest thing to ‘normal’ that appears in the movie, as she’s not an alien, a wholly unnecessary babysitter, or a doctor who doesn’t seem very concerned that a child would be covered in blood when he appeared to have no wound. This bit is one of several in the film that don’t quite make sense (or ever get resolved), but it’s also part of its kitchen sink charm.

Nothing can explain why the kid and his alien dad are so bad at Connect Four though:

Now, as you can see, I have highlighted three examples of the game already having been won. And when the kid finishes putting in the piece seen in the picture, the alien dad instantly knows he has lost, so it’s obvious that his alien world taught him how to play the game, or at least left that part of his human brain intact. This was wholly unacceptable! If you’re going to distract me with a famous board game, goddammit make sure that the prop guy has set the thing up in a reasonable manner!!! And I don’t buy that “his dad was letting him win” bullshit – not only did the kid himself already have a four-line, but he’s a goddamn alien! They know no mercy!

The DVD extras are pretty thin, but the interview with director Harry Bromley Davenport more than makes up for it. He’s British, and thus quite unrestrained. He goes off on the ending, the lack of resources, and particularly the Canadians and star of the 2nd film (there are 3 total, and he directed them all). He also seems merely annoyed that the star of the film is no longer with us, muttering “He’s DEAD now, amazingly...” and pretty much sighing in annoyance. Oddly, this makes the 2nd example of this type of non-sentiment this week, as the uncle in The Innocents touched upon the memory of the former governess by complaining that “the confounded woman DIED” at a really bad time for him. Ah, death, such an inconvenience to everyone else. The other extras are just alternate endings (one of which is the same as the theatrical ending, best I can tell?), and a deleted scene without audio – wholly useless since the scene is the mother and kid talking over breakfast.

Not sure why this one doesn’t have a bigger following, it’s the type of bad movie that almost anyone can love, and the effects are superb to boot. Highly recommended!

What say you?

Read more »

Alien, British, Monster,

{[['']]}

The Mad Monster (1942)

FEBRUARY 20, 2008

GENRE: MAD SCIENTIST, WEREWOLF
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 2!!!)

One thing I tend to forget about when I am watching older movies like The Mad Monster is the Production Code, only to have an implementation of one of its "rules" completely take you out of a scene. It’s pretty fascinating when you think about it, and if you’re unfamiliar with it I urge you to check out the Wikipedia for it (or even a real encyclopedia, if that’s your bag). Sometimes I wonder how the film industry would be had the code never been (rightfully) abolished. The Saw films would certainly be interesting... the damn Code wouldn’t have allowed the friggin SETTING (a bathroom) for half the time!

Anyway, I was reminded of it late in the film when a guy goes to give our requisite guinea pig (a guy who ironically looks a bit like future Wolf Man Benicio Del Toro) a shot. He walks over, and then there’s a fade to probably 20 seconds later once the shot has been given and the needle withdrawn. Because, even though it was technically being used for a medical purpose (as opposed to heroin), it apparently still fell under “illegal drug use”, something forbidden by the Code. So poorly thought out the thing was, that narrative flow was ruined in this and dog knows how many other films just to spare the audience the sight of something that they had all seen (and probably used) in their life. Nice work. Shit makes the nonsense of Joe Lieberman look reasonable.

The Code cannot be entirely blamed for the (still chilling) scene where the wolf kills a little girl. Naturally, we don’t see the act, but instead the poor kid’s ball rolling out of her bedroom, following by her mother’s panicked screaming. Great scene, rivaling any of the similar kid killings in the old Universal movies. I assume that even if such a thing were allowed to be seen in a film, it would still be filmed the way it was (and the scene would probably have been weakened had actual violence been shown).

Also, this movie may have the earliest appearance of the monster in mad scientist history. The movie’s not even 5 minutes old by the time we get our first transformation scene! Naturally, it slows down considerably afterwards, but at least they got things started on the right note. This is even more important when you consider the rather weak plot, which is just yet another variation on the “Scientist gets revenge on the other scientists who doubted him” plot. Look, if any scientists are reading this, listen up: if a colleague says he’s developing some ridiculous new formula, BACK HIM! Even if it’s just a “Well good luck, buddy!”, it’s a hell of a lot better than telling him he’s insane and then getting yourself mauled to death later when the formula turns out to work after all.

Like last week’s Dead Men Walk, this one stars George Zucco. I must admit I never heard of the gent prior to watching these films, but I’m quickly becoming a fan. In addition to his lovably demented demeanor in both films (did he ALWAYS play a guy seeking revenge?), both of his roles required him to be probably the first actor to talk to empty sets for future effects scenes. In Walk he had to do some split screen stuff to play both roles of twin brothers, and here he has a rather odd scene where he talks to four ghosts, all of whom are opaque. It’s a really well done scene.

At 76 minutes, this is one of the longest movies on the Horror Classics set (and according to the IMDb, the longest B-film from the 1940’s “poverty row” line), and I would just like to point out again that I really hate the Creek for not putting all of the running times next to the titles on this set, as they have for all of the others. Jerks.

What say you?

Read more »

Horror Classics, Mad Scientist, Werewolf,

{[['']]}

The Innocents (1961)

FEBRUARY 19, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

One movie I never quite understood why people liked it was The Others, the 2001 Nicole Kidman movie. It wasn’t bad, but it certainly wasn’t scary/suspenseful (to me anyway), and the twist wasn’t all that surprising either. I thought about that movie a lot while watching The Innocents, because it had a similar premise/setting, that of two annoying kids in a giant house and the beautiful woman who takes care of them. And some ghosts.

I liked Innocents a lot more though, because the ending wasn’t necessarily a twist, but a downer nonetheless, and there were a few good scare scenes. Like many an old film, I’ve seen so many of the movies that have ripped it off over the years that it felt like I had already seen it, but I was able to put that aside and enjoy the movie anyway.

Adding to that enjoyment immensely was the lush black and white photography by Freddie Francis. This is easily one of the best looking B&W movies I have seen in ages. Lots of times the lack of color (and often poor transfers) results in a somewhat flat image, but this one seemed practically 3D at times, due to the deep focus and sharp detail in the transfer. Thanks, FOX! I can almost forgive you for putting the widescreen version on side B instead of A. A = better, and thus should be the widescreen side! Savages!!

One really sweet thing I dug was how the first 50 seconds of the film are black. The FOX logo THEN comes into frame, and fades out for some more black. I like that, it makes you feel uneasy (actually it made me check my HDMI cabling) right from the start. Also I liked when the little kid kissed the woman on the lips and for a split second she kisses him back. Creepy, vaguely incestuous overtones? Awesome.

However, one thing I DIDN’T like so much was how the script (by Truman Capote, of all people, working from Henry James’ “Turn of the Screw”*) was written in “Interrupto-plotting”. What this means is, rather than get all of the exposition at once, they simply have a character start to tell a story, providing SOME of the information, and then they are interrupted by someone else at the worst possible time. So if the characters weren’t rude, and instead waited to speak, lots of the movie could have been avoided. Using this device once or twice is fine, but they use it for pretty much every scene involving the backstory.

Another blemish is the rather odd fact that the house supposedly has a gardener, a cook, another maid, etc. and yet we never see any of them, resulting in a rather laughable scene where the heroine thinks she sees a man on the roof. She then asks the maid if anyone else works there besides the people she’s met, and proceeds to rattle off about a dozen house employees that WE have never met, nor were they ever previously mentioned. It kind of ruins the scare – we only think there are 4 people in the house, which is why the sight of another is unsettling. But why is she scared when there is apparently a busload of folks walking around the house at any given time?

Regardless, it’s a nice bit of uneasy horror. Patience is required, but it’s worth the effort, and far better than The Others.

What say you?

*Incidentally, I had rented this DVD a month ago and couldn’t find it, only to finally uncover it under my Lost episode guide. Lost fans will know why this is freaky.

Read more »

Based On Novel, Ghost, Psychological,

{[['']]}

Them! (1954)

FEBRUARY 18, 2008

GENRE: MONSTER
SOURCE: CABLE (TURNER CLASSIC)

One sort of nice thing about owning a 16:9 TV is you see EXACTLY how much movie you are missing (at least, for non scope/2.35:1 films) when you watch a full frame transfer. Basically, where there's black on the left and right, there should be image. So it was kind of a bummer that TCM aired Them! in a full frame version, when they usually air letterboxed prints. While not as crippling as say, watching Halloween on a cropped transfer, the film still felt cramped. The moral of the story is, whenever you hear someone complaining about the black bars on the top and bottom, remind them that the ones on the side are far more intrusive. And that they're stupid.

In a way it's actually kind of fitting for this film, which was originally supposed to be a full color 3D film, but last minute budget cuts forced them to strip away these frivolous expenses. But I'm glad they chose to make the same movie rather than lose action scenes/effects to cover the budget cuts, because for a film of the era, this one has a lot more action than I expected. In the first half hour, there's already like 3 attack scenes, with a few explosions (mainly caused by a bazooka that apparently never needs to be reloaded, nor does it have a recoil) and more than a couple dead giant ants. Yeah! Usually with these old monster movies, it's just folks talking for a good hour and then finally some shit happens.

On the flipside, the middle of the film is... well, folks talking. After the initial burst of ant action, there's a long spell where they try to find the remaining queen. While not as stupid as Godzilla 98's "we lost him!" portion, it's still a bit odd to see our heroes talk to a few drunks and some guy's mistress to get information on a giant ant's whereabouts. But then it picks up again, and even has a surprising death of a major character.

My only real disappointment with the film was, again, a description that is only about the film's finale. "Giant ants terrorize Los Angeles", explains the cable synopsis. This is, of course, a lie, as the ants don't even get to LA until the final half hour, and they don't terrorize a goddamn thing, just two kids in the sewer. I was hoping to see some assholes get mawed on La Brea or something, but other than a few establishing shots, the entire Los Angeles section of the film is kept to the river (the one seen in EVERY LOS ANGELES MOVIE EVER) and adjoining sewer tunnels. Oh well.

There's also a bit of inadvertent hilarity when someone says "It's every scientist's dream come true" over a shot of giant ants about to go terrorizing. She's referring to the discovery and all that good stuff, but when you're an asshole like me, you take as many things out of context as humanly possible in order to amuse yourself.

Good cast in this one. In addition to James Arness (who sounds a lot like Charles Grodin, which is a bummer for one of them, just not sure which one), James Whitmore also appears as the most versatile beat cop in film history. You may know Whitmore from his role in the TNT original film Shawshank Redemption, where he played the guy who depresses the hell out of every viewer: Brooks, who can't find his bird so he hangs himself (this is a subplot made even MORE depressing in the script/deleted scenes, which include a scene where Andy finds the poor bird impaled on some barbed wire at the prison. Christ.). Also in a small role is Fess Parker, who went on to kill himself a "bar" when he was only three.

Of all the 50s "Let's make a monster movie about radiation fears" movies that I've seen, this is definitely one of the better ones. Good pace, good cast, and even good effects. Nice job all around!

What say you?

Read more »

Classic, Monster,

{[['']]}

Mark Haskell Smith's "Salty"

Mark Haskell Smith is the author of three novels: Moist, Delicious, and, most recently, Salty, which was a Book Sense Notable Book. He is also is a screenwriter whose feature film credits include Playing God and the award-winning Brazilian film A Partilha.

Last year he applied the Page 69 Test to Salty. Here he develops some ideas for cast and director for a film adaptation of the novel:

Turk Henry, the protagonist of Salty, is a dissolute, sex addicted, Heavy Metal superstar. It’s difficult for me to put on my casting director cap and think of someone who could play him. There’s a specific physicality to him, a kind of cocksure waddle, that’s hard to find in today’s personally trained actor. The character is spoiled, pathetic and yet has the seeds of heroism gurgling around in his beer-bloated belly. I think Thomas Haden Church (Sideways) could bring the right mix of sex appeal and debauchery to the role or perhaps John Travolta in his puffy Pulp Fiction heyday.

For the character of Sheila, the fading former super model, I’d like to think there are a number of actresses who would have fun with the part like Marisa Tomei, Juliette Binoche or a post-rehab Sean Young. Presuming they enjoy spending the day naked in the shower.

Simon West (Con Air, The General’s Daughter) is already attached to direct the film version of the book and I honestly think he’s a great director for it. However, if couldn’t do it, I’d call Pedro Almodóvar. In fact, Almodovar probably should adapt and direct my Hawaiian novel, Delicious. ¿Pedro? ¿Has Leido?

Learn more about Salty at the author's website.

The Page 69 Test: Salty.

--Marshal Zeringue

Read more »

{[['']]}

Torso (1973)

FEBRUARY 17, 2008

GENRE: GIALLO, ITALIAN

SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

One of the more common complaints about Grindhouse was that the double feature may have worked better had Planet Terror come AFTER Death Proof instead of before. Since Planet was such an adrenaline rush, it made DP seem "slow" in comparison. So it was a good thing Eli Roth was wise enough to show Torso before Pieces, since Torso IS indeed a slow film and building up to the incredibility that is Pieces was the right thing to do.

Torso is similar to Pieces, in that it's kind of a terrible movie made incredibly good by the sheer batshittedness of it all. But whereas Pieces almost never slows down (when there's a lull in the killings they simply have an attack by the college's "Kung Fu professor"), Torso takes its time, offering very little action in the first hour before a rousing and even somewhat shocking final 20 minutes.

I'm not sure if this was a cut print or not (it was certainly in bad shape), but if not, Torso must be the least violent/gory Giallo film ever. Many of the kills are off-screen entirely, and even the on-screen ones are fairly tame compared to the other films of the era (even ones older than this, such as Bava's Kill Baby Kill). I meant to ask Eli Roth, but I opted to make Mother's Day references instead (I am SO EXCITED for Wednesday's screening of that film).

In fact, most of the movie is simply people leering at each other. Literally every 30 seconds there is a shot of someone looking at someone who is looking at them with a sinister face. Some are reasonable, but at one point a woman somehow senses a guy watching her from down a hill, seemingly a mile away. If you cut all of the looking out, the movie would be about 12 minutes long.

So what's good? Well, the batshit dialogue, as always. One scene begins with a bunch of guys sitting around talking about our heroines; one says "They don't seem to be very politically aware." His friend responds "So what, I'd like to get with all three of them!" Charming. The plot also relies on continual confusion between a scarf that is either red over black or black over red, and this difference is explained at least three times. There's also a guy who looks like David Copperfield, and a brief lesbian scene that comes and goes out of nowhere.

As mentioned, the finale pretty much makes up for a lot of the film's shortcomings. After killing three of the female leads in one swoop (offscreen again, though at least this is used for shock reveal to the surviving girl), the Final Girl does the old "slide a newspaper under the door to catch the key" trick. But she misses, the key falls to the floor. Then, the killer reaches into frame and puts the key on the newspaper for her! It's so delightfully painful to watch it go from hope to despair to false hope... genius scene.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the "can scene". For reasons never explained, one scene is shot from the point of view of a tin can on the ground. We see the can, and hold on it, as a group of locals walk around talking about the girls. One guy kicks the can, and it rolls over near the killer. The killer walks off with his new information about the girls, and we stay with the can. It's hilarious.

Like I said, this was part of the Eli Roth festival, and I am pretty sure that if I watched this one by myself I would be bored even by the stuff I mentioned as good. It's amazing how much the crowd's spirit can add to the enjoyment of a film, and I would strongly urge anyone who thinks that they can replicate the theater experience in their home by spending thousands of dollars on a system to first fuck themselves and then head on over to their local revival house on a night that is showing a cheesy film like this (or even a genuine crowd-pleaser like SLither) and see how much they are missing. Plus, in addition to a sort of "Movie Internet Site Powerhouse" (my row included delegates from CHUD, Aintitcool, JoBlo, ShockTillYouDrop, and, obviously, Bloody-Disgusting), the crowd included John Gulager, Edgar Wright, Sage Stallone, and even the guy who plays Superman on Hollywood Boulevard. No special seating, no VIP treatment, everyone there just has a good time together. Pieces is too good to never watch again, but Torso? Watching it anywhere but a theater full of appreciative fans would just be pointless.

In short, the sound system and maybe even the size of the screen may be "better" at your home, but those things are nowhere near as important as the crowd factor of a real movie theater. Please support your independent theaters, because when it comes to these types of screenings, there is nothing in the world that is as stupid as saying "Why go see a movie I have at home?"

What say you?

Read more »

Exploitation, Giallo, Italian,

{[['']]}