Cut And Run/American Gothic

MARCH 28, 2008

GENRE: HORROR?, INDEPENDENT, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTALS)

Here’s a first for Horror Movie A Day – A dual review! Why, you may ask?

As has happened a few times before, Blockbuster sent me the wrong movie. I had asked for American Gothic, which is a late 80s inbred horror thing with Rod Steiger. They sent me American Gothic, a short film by some guy named Carlos Batts. “Fine, whatever,” I said to no one in particular, and put in Cut And Run (aka Inferno in Diretta), a Ruggero Deodato film that had a plot similar to that of his Cannibal Holocaust, only it was a conventionally filmed movie, not a ‘mockumentary’. Except the problem is, despite what IMDb claims, it wasn’t really a horror movie at all. But after doing some research, I discovered that the short film WAS horror, so I will combine: Horror (short film), and (full length) Movie A Day!

The horror angle of Cut comes from Michael Berryman, playing a guy who seemingly lives in the river and seeks to murder drug dealers (and pretty much anyone else). His scenes, largely inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, are gory and violent, and could be mistaken for a Hills Have Eyes sequel. And being a Deodato film, the gore is over the top (beheadings, guttings, etc), something you certainly don’t find in many non-horror films. However, the rest of the film is basically an action movie a la Rambo II, in which a couple of folks (including that hot blond from Prince of Darkness) go into the jungle to rescue their friend, and kill a bunch of “bad guys” with automatic weapons and such. Not exactly horror, right?

The cast is also very HMAD friendly. In addition to Berryman and the Prince of Darkness woman (Lisa Blount, for the unnecessary record), we get Karen Black (Burnt Offerings), Leonard Mann (Flowers In The Attic), and Richard Lynch (Halloween remake). Plus the score is by Claudio Simonetti, aka Goblin.

As for the movie itself, well, whatever. 80s action movies of this type sort of just run along on rails, and if you take away the random gore (and Willie Aames’ ridiculous character) you’re left with any old Chuck Norris/Michael Dudikoff movie; the type that I can only appreciate if I grew up with it. Or I’m at the New Bev (this movie would be ideal for that place, actually). The idea of a group of natives going out of their way to kill drug dealers is pretty awesome, but the movie is kind of dull. There’s a lot of stuff that we really don’t need to watch, like Aames and some broad laying out and then lighting a bunch of flimsy runway lights. And for the life of me I can’t figure out what Eric LaSalle’s strip club owner character has to do with anything, or why he is tossed off a platform into a train by two guys we never see again.

Strangely, the end of the film seems to have influenced the execrable Welcome To The Jungle more than Holocaust did. Our heroes are kidnapped and then held hostage by the very man they were seeking (Lynch), who has now become a sort of Kurtz like madman, and the natives all serve under him. The only difference is, this movie had something fucking happen previously, so there wasn’t any need for him to kill off the heroes like in Jungle (which saved any sort of action or violence for this final minute of the film, and even that was mainly offscreen).

Anyway, not too great, but it was a fucking masterpiece compared to American Gothic. While it was certainly more of an actual horror movie than Cut (what with zombies, a guy covered in blood, etc), it was also an utterly awful and pretentious pile of crap.

The thing about experimental films like this that I don’t get is why anyone besides the filmmaker is watching them. They are experiments! Do scientists hold press conferences and then say “OK, we’re gonna try something”? Of course not. They do their experiments in private, and then show us the finish results. Why can’t these films work the same way? No matter, this experiment certainly failed. The idea is fine (the psychological horror behind the creation of Grant Wood’s eponymous painting) but the execution is as botched as anything can possibly be.

Here is the entire 25 minute movie: An old guy talks to himself, a montage of moving images animated with After Effects, a zombie lies on the ground, two zombies dance, three dead chicks play with children’s letter blocks, the old guy begins stabbing himself with his paintbrush while saying “I wandered aimlessly among the living” over and over, more After Effects, credits. Throughout this nonsense we hear some metal songs. In fact the imagery often resembles a Matt Mahurin music video (think "Unforgiven") but without a. the entire song (the metal songs fade in and out at random, or to allow the guy to say “I wandered aimlessly among the living” again) or b. a point being made in a timely manner. Why this needed to be 25 minutes, I have no idea. It’s pretty sad when a short film is padded and overlong.

Oh fuck you, movie.

There was a kid in my film school who made shit like this. Any time we’d have to present our stuff to the class, he’d show his and there would be utter silence (everyone else in the program made films that were more or less accessible). When the teacher asked about it, he wouldn’t even be able to explain it himself. I’m all for being weird or whatever, but the problem is that shit like this can literally be made by anyone. Film a bunch of random shit, edit it with a blender, throw in some “film damage” filters, and viola! Instant art film! And when someone questions it, you can just say “look, you don’t GET IT.” Oh blow it out your ass. If we’re too dumb to understand your masterpiece why’d you show it to us? And in this case, I got the point of it, I just didn’t get why it had to be so long and obtuse. Like the film Gothic, it’s a fascinating idea to me to show the “real” horror behind a well-known work of art, but I don’t see why it’s apparently so difficult to tell this type of story without being a pretentious windbag. I may not have the slightest clue what’s going on at times, but at least David Lynch’s films are nice to look at (save Inland Empire) and reasonably entertaining. This crap is ugly and boring to boot.

Whatever I watch tomorrow better be a full length horror movie or else there will be hell to pay! I’ll grab Michael Berryman and a few machetes and begin wiping out anyone who ever said “Well, my film is CEREBRAL...” in a dismissive manner.

What say you?

Read more »

Crap, Horror?, Independent, Short, Survival,

{[['']]}

The Lost (2006)

MARCH 9, 2008

GENRE: HORROR?, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

A while back I watched The Girl Next Door, which was a pretty good movie based on a book by Jack Ketchum, whom I was not familiar with. It wasn’t a masterpiece or anything, but it got me more interested in seeing The Lost, which was also based on one of his novels, but directed by Chris Sivertson, who impressed me with his work in the ludicrous and yet totally endearing I Know Who Killed Me (which was actually shot long after The Lost, which is just now hitting DVD). And he repeats continuously that the books have been faithfully adapted into films, so I think it’s safe to say that after watching both films: the guy needs to branch out a bit.

Both are based on true stories (though Lost seems to stray further from reality than Girl did with its respective true event), and both involve mostly unlikable people doing horrible things. Here it’s a guy named Ray Pye, who looks like any hipster douchebag you might encounter at Amoeba Records in Hollywood. There was scarcely a moment in the film where I didn’t want to just punch him in the fucking neck and wipe his stupid self-painted “beauty mark” off his face. And that’s kind of a problem, because there isn’t really anyone else to identify/sympathize with, other than few supporting characters who are only given 2 or 3 scenes each and thus stink of “They were more important in the book”. No, the entire two hour film is basically Ray being a douchebag, drinking, doing drugs, and fucking women.

On that note, I should point out that this film has more nudity than any non-pornographic film I can recall, including a montage of Ray bedding at least two girls (the footage is all sped up and Avid farted to death so it’s hard to tell, there might be a third in there). And since there was nothing really “horror” going on (that’s 3 of my last 4 films! I need to narrow my standards), I began wondering if maybe there was a guy doing Porno Movie A Day, and if he was maybe watching what he thought was a porno but was really a horror movie. I also wondered how chafed he was. “I’ve been doing PMAD for 6 months now, and I haven’t missed a day... it really stings down there.”

(Note – this is what happens when a movie is more or less treading water for over an hour – the viewer begins wondering about the movie watching/masturbating habits of non-existent people.)

Anyway, the last 15 minutes finally include some truly gripping psychological horror, as Ray kidnaps a few girls and tortures them. But until that point, the only scary thing about the movie was the sight of Ed Lauter in bed with a girl at LEAST 40 years younger than him. Gah! And it’s a shame, because if they had the good sense to shave at LEAST 20 minutes or so out of the middle of the film, they could have had a really great movie here.

Luckily, Sivertson assembled a great cast. In addition to the always welcome (just not in bed with a girl who could play his granddaughter) Lauter, we get the great Michael Bowen (from, ironically, Lost), Richard Riehle, Dee Wallace, and the blond from Black Xmas. Also, the film “introduces” Robin Sydney, which shows how long it’s been sitting on the shelf, since she’s been in at least a couple movies I reviewed months ago.

There’s also some nice black humor. Late in the film, someone we thought was dead suddenly begins trying to escape. “The fuck is she still alive for?” Pye yells. “I already fucking shot her!” The guy playing Pye is actually a good actor (at least I hope he’s acting, if he’s really like that then... Christ), and there’s a few instances like this in the film that help keep the film afloat. Then again, for every line like that, there’s one like “It can’t be a wrong number, not at this hour,” in regards to a late night phone call. I’m sorry – it’s late, lots of folks are either drunk or their contacts are starting to dry out, plus it’s dark. Wouldn’t it be MORE likely to have a wrong number than during the day?

The disc’s extras are largely worthless. There are some outtakes, many of which are just more of the same type of stuff that there is too much of in the movie to begin with, though there’s a pretty funny beer “buying” scene that’s worth a look. The scenes are presented entirely out of order in relation to the film, but it’s not too hard to figure out where most of them would go. There’s also some audition footage (an extra I never quite understood the appeal of – I’d rather see the actors who DIDN’T make the cut) and a storyboard thing.

The worst is the commentary track though. It’s Ketchum and another novelist named Monica O’Rourke. Over 119 minutes, they discuss things that pertain to this actual book/movie for maybe 10. The rest of the time, O’Rourke is simply asking Ketchum about his other books, what he’s working on, what he was like as a kid, where he was on 9/11, etc. I swear to Christ I thought she was eventually just going to ask him what he was having for dinner or if he saw the game last night. And while he drones on (the guy is certainly not against talking about himself), she says “Right” over and over and then he punctuates every anecdote with “Yeah.... yeah...” I’m sorry, but when I watch an audio commentary for a film, I want to learn more about the film (or if it’s a Kevin Smith film, lots of jokes at the expense of Ben Affleck). And certainly there was a wealth of material he could have drawn from – the real life case, changes from the book, how he felt about casting decisions vs how he pictured the characters in his mind, etc. but he sadly barely touches on any of that, resulting in a track that should have been presented as a highly edited interview with Ketchum. But hey, if you ever wondered what kind of car Monica O’Rourke drove when she was 19, this is the commentary for you!

All in all, a decent film that could have used another edit or two, coupled with extras that only die hard fans of the film (or would-be Ketchum biographers) would enjoy. Girl Next Door was much more enjoyable and much more gut wrenching – even though the violence here is actually more disturbing out of context, the film’s endless middle section coupled with the fact that none of these people are likable (at least the kids in Girl had some moments of innocence) sort of counteracts the ending’s intention – it’s supposed to shock, but by that time I was actually just “excited” something different was happening.

(I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that I am in the minority here – this film has cleaned up at festivals and won acclaim from several critics/sites, including Bloody Disgusting. And again, it’s not a BAD film, just a missed opportunity to be a great one).

What say you?

Read more »

Based On Novel, Horror?, Psychological,

{[['']]}

Lipstick

DECEMBER 29, 2007

GENRE: RAPE-REVENGE (?)
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Female Cop: "Did he urinate on you?"
Rape Victim: "What?"
Female Cop: "Did he urinate on you, or defecate?"
Rape Victim: "They DO that?"
Female Cop: "....some do."

Now, not that I find rape funny, but exchanges like this should only be delivered by good actors. When it's two BAD actors saying them, as is the case in Lipstick, then it just becomes sort of silly, which is a problem that plagues the entire film. It takes itself deadly serious, but there are so many elements that make me chuckle that it doesn't work in any genre.

Chris Sarandon plays a music teacher who makes truly atrocious music (think Brian Eno, only worse). We have to endure this nonsense several times throughout the film, and even though it's acknowledged as terrible (albeit more or less in passing), it's still a major distraction. But since he's one of the few good actors in the film, he actually pulls off making you believe HE thinks the music is good, which of course, again, just makes it funnier.

There's also a line of dialogue straight out of the most exploitative revenge film: "He tried to kill me with his cock!" Now, if this was a Ruggero Deodato movie, that line would probably be in the trailer. But when it comes from a bad actress in the middle of an otherwise pedestrian, SERIOUS scene, it's just jarring.

The revenge segment is limited to the film's final moments. In fact, if anyone bothers to check this one out, I highly urge you not to read Netflix or Blockbuster's description of the film, as it details things that occur in the film's final 15 minutes. Which is unfortunate, because not only did it spoil what was a bit of a surprise at the end, but also made me think the film was indeed more of a typical rape-revenge thriller, instead of an occasionally ludicrous courtroom drama.

What say you?

Read more »

Horror?, Rape-Revenge,

{[['']]}

Slashed Dreams

NOVEMBER 1, 2007

GENRE: CRAP, HORROR? RAPE-REVENGE (?)
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK!!!)

At long last, October is over! I can go back to the standard, sane, simple, single movie a day. And I feel even better about that when my daily movie is as bad as Slashed Dreams (aka Sunburst), because I don’t want to run the risk of watching another film that might turn out as boring and pointless as this one for at least another 24 hrs or so.

This may be the most plodding movie I have ever seen in my life (certainly the worst offender for HMAD). LITERALLY nothing happens in the film. Except a rape. Nice, huh? We watch 2 folks sort of shuffle about the woods for nearly an hour (swimming, frolicking, eating...) before a couple of rednecks harass them (very tamely. One of them actually seems borderline nice). Later on, they come back and hit the guy a few times and rape the girl (at least, we are told as much. It’s sort of hard to tell if the guy is raping her or just hugging her. It’s certainly the least graphic rape scene ever committed to film, so it’s got that going for it at least). Then Robert Englund shows up, philosophizes about tea, the boyfriend tries to fight the rednecks, who both run away, and then the good guys go swimming. The end. I’m not exaggerating, that’s the movie. No one dies or gets jailed for their crimes. And the heroes barely seem perturbed afterwards. You could almost remove the scenes with the rednecks entirely and the film would just seem like the filmed version of a Bartledanian novel.

As you can probably tell from that image, the movie was very poorly retitled from Sunburst sometime after Nightmare on Elm St, in order to try to give the film some cash-in value. Usually, this is certainly fine by me, but there are two problems with it this time: 1. It’s the most obvious retitling I’ve ever seen (I wish I could convey how ridiculous the little zooming animation on the green box looks), and 2. Englund’s not even the fucking bad guy! He’s some hippie (heh, OK, so maybe he is). He doesn’t even show up until the final 10 minutes or so. Come on now. This is purely a scam.

His reaction to being told that his friend was raped is pretty astounding. The boyfriend tells him she was raped, and Englund doesn’t ask anything like “Who did it?” or “Where did they go?” He just asks if the girl has had some food yet. At first, I thought he was going to turn out to be an even worse villain, but no, he just makes her some tea and then more or less exits the film again.

This movie is also stuffed with folk music, most by a female singer. Terrifying, perhaps, but not in the intentional way. If not for my little safety that I can qualify (and judge, unfortunately for the filmmakers) a film as horror if it is presented as such (which being on the Chilling Classics set certainly does), I wouldn’t even consider it horror at all. It’s Rape-NonRevenge, a thankfully obscure genre that is hopefully comprised entirely of this one sorry film.

Oh there’s a bear scene too.

What say you?

Read more »

Chilling Classics, Crap, Horror?, Rape-Revenge,

{[['']]}

October Extras #18 - The Return

OCTOBER 18, 2007

GENRE: HORROR?, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: NOVEMBER 2006 (THEATRICAL)

Few things in this world piss me off more than people who don’t understand the “stay to the right if you’re going to just stand like a lazy fuck on the escalator” rule. But one of those things is the amount of hatred I see aimed toward The Return, one of last year’s best “horror” movies. Not so much that it tanked at the box office (it was a good movie, so that was to be expected), but that people actually call it the worst film of the year (or that they’ve ever seen), in a year that gave us Dark Ride, When A Stranger Calls, and Lady In The Water (and those are just the genre movies). Come on folks, let's get real here.

The Return is actually a character drama fused with a very basic murder mystery film, with some very light supernatural elements (sort of) thrown in for good measure. I always enjoy a film that features a character trying to put the pieces of a puzzle together (here: that would be child’s artwork, an image of a barn, etc.), and watching the film a second time, it’s interesting to see how well placed the necessary information is throughout the film. I do wish that the “killer” character was introduced a bit earlier, but since there are rumors of re-shoots and re-editing (otherwise non evident in the film itself), it’s a surprise how well made it is at all.

However, it was marketed as a Grudge style scarefest. I don’t know what is more depressing: that Universal couldn’t even market the film for what it actually was, or that people are so easily duped by false advertising that they would blame the film itself instead of the marketing department who sold them a different movie. And the film’s horrendous box office didn’t teach Universal any lessons – the DVD tries even HARDER to get you to believe it’s a spookfest, with all of the extras listed as “Too terrifying for theaters” and the like. The alternate ending is almost identical to the (non-horror) one in the theatrical, only with the addition of a baby being born. SHOCKING! TERRIFYING!!!!

Even if you just REALLY wanted to jump at the image of a ghostly Asian child every 5 minutes for no reason, you’d have to admit that, if nothing else, The Return offers some downright fantastic cinematography, resulting in one of the best LOOKING horror films of the year. Perfectly capturing the cold, dry look of Texas in the fall/winter, the look of the film alone elevates it above any of the films Universal tried to compare it to. Much like Friday Night Lights, the film cannot be mistaken for any other area in the US, and puts films/shows that try to fake Texas directly into shame. Oddly, just as I was thinking “I wonder if any of the crew from FNL worked on this”, a familiar face appeared on screen:

Buddy Garrity! Love that guy. I think I also spied one of the assistant coach guys in the film’s one “action” scene before the finale, in which a fake Josh Holloway beats up a fake Ashton Kutcher that tried to nail the actual Sarah Michelle Gellar (and can’t say I blame him – with her brunette hair, she looks better than ever in this movie, another reason why I am dumbfounded it went entirely ignored in theaters). Good ol Friday Night Lights.

Speaking of Gellar, the film’s most nonsensical moment comes not during the “either you buy into it or you don’t” ending, but when her age is said to be 25. Come on now. She looked 25 when she was supposed to be 20 on Buffy.

Another beauty in this film is Kate Beahan, who has the unfortunate distinction of being in two of the most idiotic films of all time – Flightplan and The Wicker Man remake. While Wicker was at least hilariously bad, with Cage’s all time most delirious performance (“How’d it get burned HOWDITGETBURNED?!?!?!?”), Flightplan is a shockingly bad bore of a film. Naturally, she finally gets a part (though a very brief one, her and Sam Shepard basically disappear from the film after about 20 minutes or so) in a good film, and no one sees it.

Well whatever, folks are always going to hate it because it doesn’t fake scare them. Their loss. I really dig the movie and it held up well on a 2nd viewing. If you haven’t seen it yet, I urge you to ignore the marketing and just watch it for what it is.

What say you?

Read more »

Horror?, October Extras, Psychological,

{[['']]}

Gothic

OCTOBER 3, 2007

GENRE: HORROR?, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK!!!)

There is nothing that pisses me off more than when someone waits until the cashier gives a customer their total to take out their wallet (this is even more offensive when it’s a place like target, where you slide the credit card yourself and can do so while the cashier is still scanning your stuff). But running a close 2nd is when I read a plot description that is fascinating, and then the movie turns out to be borderline incoherent, like Ken Russell’s Gothic.

According to Mill Creek’s write up, the film is allegedly about the insane night that Mary Shelley got the idea for Frankenstein. She was partying with Lord Byron and some other folks, everyone got high, things got out of hand, etc. That could make for a great movie, wouldn’t you say? Doesn’t say much about Mary Shelley (“She was a drug fiend who hung out with deviants, and viola: one of the greatest stories in all literature”), but still.

Well the actual movie is simply Gabriel Byrne, inexplicably made to look like the brunette guy from Air Supply, and his friends literally laughing and running around like assholes in a mansion, set to a wildly inappropriate score (a game of hide and seek – and mind you, these are grown men and women – is set to music that might accompany the “We won!” music in a Disney movie about a ragtag sports team who comes back and beats their rivals in the championship). Meanwhile, Julian Sands (between this and Phantom of the Opera, I think I’m gonna ban this guy from my Netflix queue) and another guy spend most of the film spinning around and spouting off “insane” dialogue that seems made up on the spot. And the Mary Shelley character seems more or less an afterthought.

The film doesn’t really have a narrative that I can discern, but is more just a series of “shocking” events and “scenettes”, such as this pointless encounter. Gabriel Byrne looks at the floor and sees this:

Then the camera cuts to this:

Then he pokes it and it turns back into the pig head. Fine, movie.

I won’t call the movie crap, because there’s something undeniably appealing about it. In fact, if I was in the mood, I’d probably spend the entire movie laughing, especially during the last half hour, which features a guy saying “Pot pig... pot penis.... pot belly...” and a woman with eyes where her nipples should be:

I bet that creepy thing from Pan’s Labyrinth would love to hit that.

Also, the production value and Russell’s direction are inspired; you can watch any one scene out of context and be left intrigued. But it adds up to nothing, and you’ll find yourself saying “Where the hell did THAT come from?” with every other scene. I’ve seen better narrative flow while flipping channels at two in the morning. Way to mostly waste a potentially interesting concept (as a horror film or not)!

For no real reason I should point out that this movie is one of the very few on the Chilling Classics set that retains the film’s end credits sequence, giving it an air of legitimacy among the others. Had I taken notice of the dialogue editing, it’s nice to know that I could give credit to Peter Pennell for it without having to do any research.

What say you?

Read more »

Chilling Classics, Horror?, Psychological,

{[['']]}

Bloodrayne: Deliverance

SEPTEMBER 30, 2007

GENRE: HORROR?, VAMPIRE, VIDEO GAME
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

I’ve said before, I got no problem with Dr. Uwe Boll. In fact I admire the guy. And it all began at the premiere of the first Bloodrayne, which was the first “Hollywood” thing I did after moving to LA. While HotD and AitD were pretty bad (though in an insanely ridiculous way), I found Bloodrayne to be a much more competent film. The acting was all over the place, but the script and production value were certainly a vast improvement over his last two, resulting in one of the better video game movies. And Boll did a Q&A that revealed to me how much the guy simply loved what he was doing, and had an amazing sense of humor about himself. And then Postal was just hilarious (intentionally) and felt nothing like his other films. Essentially, he kept improving as a filmmaker with each film, so I was pretty excited for Bloodrayne: Deliverance, but for the first time, I don't see the continued improvement from Boll.

To be fair, the film only had like 1/3 the budget the original did, not to mention none of the same actors (except for Michael Paré, who plays a different character). And as revealed on the commentary, the film had a miserable shoot in Canada (due to snow and rain). Unfortunately, that joyless experience translated to the screen for the most part. Much of the film is just, well, DAMP. It’s the vampire movie equivalent of those Sunday morning fishing shows.

Plus, it’s not even really a vampire movie. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn if the film was written originally as a standard western and then quickly reworked into a Bloodrayne sequel. Evidence of this abounds in the fighting scenes, in which vampire noises are randomly dubbed in over standard fights with anonymous goons in western attire. Rayne only uses her powers once or twice throughout the film, and most of the deaths are caused via shooting.

However, it’s not a total loss. The 2nd half of the film improves over the first, as Rayne puts together a random team of vampire hunters (including a Hart Bochner-y priest, whose insane sermon that provides his introduction is the film’s highlight) to take down Billy the Kid (Postal’s Zack Ward). Also, Ward’s evil vampire bites (and thus kills) a couple kids onscreen, so at least Boll has got balls. There’s even a pretty nifty trap he sets that threatens to hang like 6 of them at once (and one of them DOES die! Yes!). And from a technical standpoint, the film is fine. Not sure if I agree with the directing style Boll adapted here (handheld, sort of like Battlestar Galactica at times), but it’s never incoherent, as some of his earlier video game films were. And the western-y score is pretty rousing. Also, there’s an AMAZING bit of meta humor during the opening credits, as the “An Uwe Boll Film” credit appears over not only a shot of the Statue of Liberty, but a crowd cheering can be heard as well.

Unfortunately, Chris Coppola is in this film. And, like Postal, he’s the worst thing in it. I don’t know what it is about the guy, but he just irks me, and whereas in Postal he was simply annoying, here he seems completely out of place as a nerdy and whiny reporter doing a story on “The Wild West!”. I know Boll likes to reuse the same folks (speaking of, where the hell is Will Sanderson?!?!?) but he needs to ditch this guy from his troupe.

In the end, it won’t exactly win over anyone who dislikes Boll, but the good news is that it won’t add any fuel to their fire. The commentary is more enjoyable than the film, especially once the DP leaves Boll to himself, and the good doctor begins talking about whatever comes to his mind, including cleaning his dogs, the cable ratings for Alone in the Dark, and of course, German finance/distribution information. He also takes a phone call and then informs us that it was his mother telling him about a sale on mountain bikes. Sadly, he checks out with like 10 minutes of the film left, and the audio just goes mute. There’s also a set of interviews that not only uses the Alien music that you hear in like every movie trailer, but also crops the top and bottom of the film out for some goddamn reason.

Say what you want about his other ones, but this is the first time one might actually call a Boll film boring (even Boll himself seems a bit uninterested; in addition to leaving the commentary early, he is heard yawning several times and has quite a few gaps in his discussion, which is unheard of for him). Taking the budgetary and shooting limitations into account, it’s not as bad as it could be, but it just seems like everyone was just going through the motions.

But hey, at least there’s no footage from the game.

What say you?

Read more »

Horror?, Vampire, Video Game,

{[['']]}