A Night To Dismember (1983)

JULY 3, 2008

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

It wasn’t long into A Night To Dismember that I realized I was in for something truly special... maybe 2 minutes tops in fact. As I watched a rapid fire collection of scenes with little cohesion speed by, endlessly narrated (by a guy that sounds like Charles B. Pierce) to hide the fact that there was no source audio, I decided that the film was simply divine. And it just got better as it went on, peaking at the halfway mark when the narrator describes a dream sequence thusly: “Vicky felt as though someone faceless was making love to her in bright flashing colors that were changing from one second to the next.” Of course, this is precisely what we are seeing, which leads me to believe that they stuck some guy in a booth and had him narrate whatever he felt like saying as this incoherent and mute film played before his hopefully astonished eyes.

And if you wonder how the narrator (a character in the film) could possibly know what she was dreaming, fear not – he even explains that. At the very end of the film, as a sort of cinematic P.S., he informs us that every single character in the film kept detailed diaries, which he presumably stole.

At first, I actually thought the film was some sort of joke by film students, where they just took assorted footage that they found and assembled a loose narrative from it, similar to what Joe Dante did with The Movie Orgy. But apparently, what really happened was, a fire at the film lab destroyed nearly half the footage, and director Doris Wishman couldn’t afford to reshoot all of it, so she made do with what was left. Apparently, incoherency and ineptitude was her style (I’ve never seen any of her other films – most of which seem to be pornos), so whether the fire story is true or not, I don’t know. It’s probably the only bit of actual trivia to be heard on the entire commentary track, most of which is simply Wishman yelling at her cameraman for ruining the movie and asking him if he likes whatever nonsense happens to be on screen. I can’t tell if she’s seriously under the impression that she’s made a good film, but she’s at least 80 at this point (she was born in 1918 and they reference South Park and Everybody Loves Raymond on the track – dating it late 90s, early 00s) so maybe she’s just senile.

I also love that a film without a single moment of source sound actually has a credited sound man (plus a boom operator!):

Was this before or after Civil War allegedly took his life?

As for the movie itself, you got me. It’s another one of those “evil family members plot to make another family member crazy” movies, in theory. Many scenes don’t quite fit into this plot, but whatever. After a while I stopped trying to understand what was going on and just focused on the movie’s real charms – hilariously dubbed dialogue (which is very rare anyway – most of it is narrated), cutaways to things unrelated to what is going on, frequent murder/nude scenes featuring the absolute worst fake violence ever (one scene involves a guy being lightly tapped with an axe – and then his head just falls off).

The music also deserves a mention. It seems to be all library music, and in several cases, I can only assume they didn’t even get the whole track. At one point, we hear the same 30 second loop 3-4 times over a single scene; it cuts off abruptly and starts over. And it’s not appropriate to the scene either. In fact, none of the music seems to fit with the onscreen action – we have goofy cartoon style music over dialogue scenes, “Sweeping shot of a vista” style stuff over the kill scenes, etc. Again, all part of the unparalleled charm of A Night to Dismember.

Like Cathy’s Curse and Scream Bloody Murder, this is one of those wretched movies that I love anyway, and rejuvenates my drive to do this whole Horror Movie A Day thing. There’s no way in hell I ever would have seen this were I not forcing myself to watch one every day. Bless my random whim!

I want to point that about half of the trailer isn't in the film, and seems to be advertising a movie with a different plot entirely to boot. Again, part of the charm.

What say you?

Read more »

Independent, Slasher, Weird,

{[['']]}

Slaughter Party (2005)

JULY 1, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, MAD SCIENTIST, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

When you have a movie in which a midget (Mighty Mike Murga) is raped by a mountain man in the first 15 minutes, the last thing you should say about the film is that it’s dull. But that’s exactly how I would describe Slaughter Party, a Troma film that seems oddly held back on several occasions and manages to make even nonsense like Terror Firmer look like solid storytelling in comparison.

At no point in the film was there any evidence that I was watching a completed film. Characters come and go without any real rhyme or reason, subplots arise out of nowhere, leaving other plots abandoned as a result, etc. After the life-affirming rape scene, we cut to a nubile blonde going to meet an internet date – who turns out to be the midget we just saw get attacked. How long the two scenes are supposed to be apart is never made clear, but we just have to assume that the raping resulted in Murga turning psychotic and killing girls at random. Hilariously, shortly after this scene we are given a “Three Weeks Later” title to bridge two scenes that clearly take place quite some time apart anyway. Later in the film, we see the killer stalking a group of girls by the lake in the middle of nowhere, and then cut to him inside a suburban apartment, where he attempts to kill a girl who escapes and leads him to... the same damn lake he was inexplicably seen at 5 minutes before. Whatever.

But I usually don’t care about such things when I see a Troma film, because there’s usually a plethora of gore, nudity, bodily fluids, piñatas, etc. But that’s not the case here. The usual Troma lesbian action is limited to a single brief smooch between two of the random girls introduced halfway through the film. The gore is clearly just some fruit punch, and pretty minimal at that. And the star of the film, Sleepaway Camp’s Felissa Rose, doesn’t seem to be aware she’s in a piece of crap, and actually tries to act and bring sympathy to her character. Not what we’re here for, ma’am, but thanks for trying!

She’s not the only one who keeps putting effort into the wrong areas of the movie. The director (who directed it I can’t tell, Lloyd says it’s a guy named Chris Watson, the IMDb says Fred Rosenberg, and the film itself says Buck Jones Jr. Take your pick, I guess) keeps tossing in insert shots of things like cigarettes hitting the ground or whatever – but can’t be bothered to actually show the goddamn killer in this scene:

That’s the most we ever see him during the attack.This film is shot on consumer digital video (hell, might even be analog), so there’s no excuse for shit like that. You’re able to instantly watch what you got and if something goes wrong, like, I dunno, you failed to get the goddamn subject of the scene in the goddamn frame, you should re-tape (not film, it’s tape!) the scene/shot and do it right. It’s one of the things that DV defenders will use to claim their format is superior to film – but this guy couldn’t be bothered.

Strangely, the most amusing thing about the movie is the commentary track. It’s done by actor Ford Austin, in character as the mad doctor (sort of like the track on Blood Simple, only with Troma flair). It’s filled with the sort of anti-PC irreverent humor the movie itself failed to deliver, and he also mocks the film’s meager production value (he points out a particularly overlong shot of 2 guys walking and wonders if it’s there to pad the film to feature length) and numerous plot holes. Hell, just watch the movie with the commentary on to begin with; it’s the only way to enjoy it IMO. There’s also a bizarre interview with one of the film’s other co-stars, some porn jackass who spends the entire time he’s on camera making cookies or muffins or something. There’s also an interview with Rose (pointless) and some other crap that just hawks Troma in general, which I skipped as I assume it’s the same stuff I’ve watched on other DVDs.

It’s actually pretty rare I watch Troma films (I believe this is the first for HMAD), so when I DO watch one, it’s because I am in the mood for their peculiar brand of comedy/horror/crap. Nice job on my part to rent one that even their die-hard aficionados were disappointed with. Oh well.

What say you?

Read more »

Comedic, Independent, Mad Scientist, Slasher,

{[['']]}

Alive Or Dead (2008)

JUNE 23, 2008

GENRE: BREAKDOWN, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

By now, there’s not much that can be done in the way of originality in the “Girl’s car breaks down in the middle of nowhere and she runs afoul of a mutant or two” genre, but bless writer/director Stephen Goetsch for trying in his film Alive Or Dead (aka Inhospitable, a fact that is provided to us right at the beginning of the film in one of the oddest legal language screens I’ve ever seen:

On a basic level, absolutely nothing new happens here; the entire film plays out just like any of the millions of others over the past 30 years. But there’s just enough originality, or at least peculiarity, to warrant giving this one a pass, despite its many flaws.

For starters, the film begins with a girl having phone sex with her boyfriend – as she drives on Old Horror Movie Road. And when she reaches the point where a vibrator is necessary, she uses her cell phone charger instead (the cigarette lighter port end – not the phone end, you sick bastard!) when the vibrator falls under the seat. THEN, as her phone dies, we can assume that her... business makes the thing short out when she tries to use it for its intended purporse, thus providing the most unique reason for a dead cell phone I can recall. The vibrator is also used in another horror movie staple: the dead flashlight. When the flashlight dies, like it always does, she uses the vibrator’s battery to get it going again. What a resourceful sex addict.

After this we actually get a good solid 10-15 minutes of cat and mouse suspense, and the reason it works is because we still don’t know if this girl is our heroine or not. It’s a long standing tradition to kill off someone in the opening reel, and since the girl is a complete unknown, it’s not quite clear whether she is our heroine (and safe) or our first kill (and thus a goner). Once it becomes clear she’s the heroine, the movie loses some of its steam in terms of suspense, but it keeps the randomness coming at a steady clip.

Along the way to its conclusion, we get a castle in the middle of nowhere (instead of the usual shack or rotted house), a guy who loves ice, a monk delivering long exposition rambles in a Shakespearean manner, an incredibly overplotted backstory, a rare reference to the film First Knight, and a redneck who looks like Mark Boone Junior dressed up as the killer from Antropophagus.

So all that is good, but the movie is far from perfect. For starters, the consumer grade digital video does the movie no favors – there isn’t any goddamn detail in any of the imagery! A closeup of a girl’s face should reveal pores, individual strands of hair, etc, but not here. It’s all a blurry mush, looking hardly better than Youtube. They also forgot to color time it, and the sound is quite often noticeably dubbed in later. All of this makes the film feel cheap and lazy, and since obvious effort went into making the film stick out from the others, it would have been nice if the technical aspects followed suit.

Not all of the problems are technical related though. For example, our heroine is one of the dumber in recent memory, as evidenced in the scene where she hides as close as possible to another girl that is chained up inside a bus – hide as far AWAY from her as possible, so when the killer makes his way to the back to get at her, you can escape! Dumb broad. It also gets very padded at times, and even at 80 minutes with credits, feels like it could stand to lose about 10 minutes or so.

The extras are pretty worthless; the commentary track is loaded with gaps (and they pretty much mute the film’s audio, so you’re literally listening to dead air half the time) and the making of is as dull as any other. Strangely, Lionsgate’s usual 4.5 hrs of trailers at the top of the disc include several for films that have been out for ages, like The Descent and Devil’s Rejects. Maybe this is a good sign though; perhaps they are going to return to focusing on quality instead of quantity.

OR, are simply ignoring horror in favor of Tyler Perry. Either or.

What say you?

(Trailer here - they wouldn't let me embed!)

Read more »

Breakdown, Independent, Survival,

{[['']]}

Sight (2008)

JUNE 8, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, INDEPENDENT
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Man, I wish Sight was merely a short story or novella that I had read. Or even if I had just read the script, I’d probably come away liking it a lot more. Because it’s an interesting story (a guy who sees ghosts gets caught up in a mystery involving a woman he meets just prior to being beaten into a 2 year coma by her ex-boyfriend), but Adam Ahlbrandt’s direction is abysmal at best, and all but completely betrays his own script.

For starters, the editing is just terrible. Shots last too long or not long enough (more the latter than the former – someone taking a bag out of the back of a truck somehow takes more shots than seconds) throughout the film, and nonsensical cutaways to things like keys being dropped into a bowl happen so quickly you gotta wonder why they bothered with them at all. As for the camerawork, it’s no better - blocking is confusing (his lack of following the 180 rule doesn’t help), everything is shot in canted angle close-ups that even Michael Bay would find extreme, there are almost NO reaction shots or even cross-cutting during conversations – someone says a line, then pauses, we cut the other person right before they begin to speak, they say their line, pause, we cut back to the other..., etc. Sound is also atrocious – whenever there is a cut, the audio level/tone cuts as well, and with the quick cutting, this gives some scenes (particularly the noisier outdoor ones) an incredibly unprofessional feel. Your movie can cost 100 million or 10 cents, it’s entirely free to record 2 minutes of room tone and lay it out over the entire scene to help blend the cuts together. Last I checked, Sight is not a sequel to a giant blockbuster – the release date isn’t set in stone, so you can take an extra few days to make your film more presentable. The old excuse “it’s supposed to make you feel uncomfortable” only applies when you employ the technique in small doses and in particular scenes; why should we ‘uncomfortable’ during a scene of someone delivering groceries (the woefully underrated film Stay, with Naomi Watts, is a good example of how to ‘break the rules’ effectively)? And normally I share the blame with the editor or DP, but in this case it’s all the same guy (he also composed the score, which I didn’t have a problem with). It’s admirable that he did so much on the film, but when his talents (writing, composing) are marred by his weaknesses (directing, shooting, editing), it’s ultimately just a shame.

Another flaw in the film is structuring it in a way that keeps the incredibly beautiful Allison Persaud out of it for a solid 40 minutes, but I won’t hold that against it.

The guy playing the lead has to have the record for most jobs held by a single person in a film (well, except for Ahlbrandt). Granted, all indies have some doubling or tripling of duties, but usually its like the makeup guy is also in the movie as the monster or the producer also did the music or something. But Clayton Haske takes the cake. Not only is he the star (and in every scene of the film except for a few flashbacks to his character as a kid), but also the producer, the casting director, and the production manager! Goddamn, man. He also resembles Jimmy Eat World lead singer Jim Adkins, which makes me wish Haske had used his producer/casting skills to actually HIRE Adkins to play the lead, which might have let him pay more attention to his director’s terrible camerawork and editing. Plus, maybe Adkins would break into “Carry You” or “Your Sweetness” and liven things up a little.

Still, like I said, it’s an interesting little story, and at 80 minutes it moves along OK enough, though it’s padded out with numerous quick cut flashbacks to information, as if we were stupid and couldn’t remember people’s names or something (at one point they ‘remind’ us of something we saw not 5 minutes before). There are some brutal killing/injuries for gorehounds to enjoy, and the twist ending is deliriously batshit. There is also a brief incestuous overtone; always welcome (THAT’s how you make an audience uneasy – not by framing a guy so you can only see his right cheek and eyeball).

Here’s a movie I am all for remaking. Take the script, maybe flesh out certain aspects of it, and have it filmed by someone who knows what they are doing, and viola: Decent/good, fairly original (irony of being remake aside) horror movie. But no, Lionsgate (who distributed this movie, and again they gave it an anamorphic transfer! Two in a row!) is more interested in remaking My Bloody Valentine, which is sounding more and more like a shot for shot remake (if that’s the case they better retain the goddamn end title song!), i.e. worthless.

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost, Independent,

{[['']]}

The Wickeds (2005)

JUNE 6, 2008

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

On one hand, I really hate saying anything negative about independent films such as The Wickeds, which are clearly made with the best intentions (as opposed to soulless pieces of shit like A Brush With Death), are technically well done, and live up to their promise (in this case, zombie action). On the other hand, it costs me, the viewer, just as much to rent/buy it as any other movie, and thus its (non-budget related) faults cannot be instantly forgiven just because the filmmakers didn’t have a catering truck or a large crew.

For starters, writer David Zagorski really needed to focus on a single genre. He goes all over the place – we start with a vampire (who looks awful), then it’s zombies (which look really good), then some possession/ghost stuff comes into play, and the final ‘shock’ involves something else entirely, a demon or something (one of the ‘survivors’ suddenly has red eyes, which no other monster in the film has displayed). I assume they couldn’t afford a werewolf costume, or else that probably would have gotten tossed in as well. It’s not that combining subgenres is a bad thing, but since the zombie/vampire stuff is front and center, the other things just seem like they were making it up as they go along.

The monsters are also inconsistent – some of the zombies talk, others just moan. Standard rules are also ignored: the vampire can go in daylight (the entire movie is set during the day, which is actually kind of interesting), and for some reason they use crosses to defend themselves against the zombies? Again, these things are fine when they are used as part of the plot (such as in John Carpenter’s Vampires), but here it’s not explained in any reasonable manner.

It also has what has to be the longest non-sexual sex scene in film history. For the first half hour, we are constantly treated to makeouts and dry humping between two of our stock group of characters, at one point for a full two minutes. It’s even shot like the intro to a softcore sex scene, but even when they finally get around to removing some clothing, there is nothing shown but side boob. Thanks for wasting our time, jerks! There’s some irony in the fact that a film starring Ron Jeremy would have pointless ‘sex’ scenes, I suppose, but that’s not enough to make it worthwhile.

Yes, Jeremy stars in the film as one of the two grave robbers who inadvertently resurrect the zombies. He’s the best part of the film by far; in addition to the fact that he’s simply a better actor than the kids (who range from merely dull to shockingly bad/annoying), he also seems to be enjoying himself, and has a few choice lines that made me chuckle. None of the movie is supposed to be taken seriously, but at times he seems to be the only one who remembers that.

Another downer is the direction/cinematography ranges from pedestrian to just plain terrible. Blocking is awkward, shots don’t match (particularly in the outdoor scenes), etc. Worst of all is the fact that at least two major characters are killed without any buildup or even sense that they are in danger. Not in a shock-kill type way like in Serenity (the only time in film history I have heard an entire audience gasp/yell “NO!” when a major character was killed), but in the “oh we forgot to film a shot of the zombies approaching him” way. We will be focusing on two characters fighting by the window or something, and then suddenly cut to a shot of another lead already being devoured by 3 or 4 zombies. Not only is this annoying from a dramatic standpoint, but it’s just confusing as well. And it’s not just in the kill scenes; at one point a character is in the graveyard when it was never even made clear that he left the house. Since the film is being shot on video and stars only amateur actors (save Jeremy), I find it hard to believe that they couldn’t go back and insert missing shots once they got into editing and realized some important coverage was missing.

Otherwise, like I said, it’s admirable. The meta/Scream type humor is a bit tired, but it’s not usually applied to a zombie film, so it feels a bit fresher than it would in yet another slasher film. The gore effects are impressive as well - and no obvious CG to boot. And it’s pretty fast-paced (other than the sex scenes), there’s hardly more than a couple minutes in the film without zombie or vampire action. There are also a few nice touches I appreciated, like the zombie kid in the baseball uniform who brushes off his shoes before resuming his chase of one of our heroes.

Speaking of the baseball kid, the Foley artist for this movie needs to be shot. Almost none of the sound effects sound right. The sound of the kid being hit with the bat sounds like two floor mats being smacked together; when someone is punched we hear wood being hit (?), etc. It’s funny, back in film school I had to do a project where our teacher would give us clips with no sound and we had to create the soundtrack. I got a clip from Night of the Living Dead (Molotov/ride to gas pump sequence), and needless to say, it wouldn’t pass for the real soundtrack. But that’s what this movie sounded like at times, and the film’s obvious NOTLD references made the comparison even easier to make.

There are other nice horror references as well – the house that the film takes place in is said to be the shooting location for a “cheesy straight to video horror movie” (some of that meta humor for you), and one of the corpses looks made up to resemble Mrs. Voorhees. Most folks would go for a hockey mask, so going a bit more obscure is much appreciated.

For its faults, everyone involved should be proud of what they achieved. I don’t know the budget or anything (and the disc is entirely lacking of extras), but it couldn’t be much, and a check of the IMDb reveals... a 404 timeout error (as of this writing, the IMDb is down for the first time I have ever seen in a decade!). So assuming that this was their first or second film, and not their 20th, that they pulled off a fairly large scale zombie film that is above average on the technical side for these things is not something to be dismissed, even if the script/editing leaves something to be desired.

What say you?

Read more »

Independent, Zombie,

{[['']]}

The Chair (2007)

JUNE 4, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, POSSESSION
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Two days ago I made a rather unmotivated crack about Lionsgate’s utter ignorance of the anamorphic transfer for many of their DVDs. And sure enough, the next day I rented The Chair, which was presented sans anamorphic transfer, despite the promise of a 16x9 presentation (which I suspect their DVD department doesn’t actually understand the meaning of) and even anamorphic menus. It’s like they are just TRYING to annoy me at this point. Granted, it’s not a great film, but it deserves better (and F you to all but one of the other reviews I found for the film, even those on DVD sites, that don’t even mention this – maybe if more people point it out they will knock it the fuck off).

Here’s some advice to any filmmaker who is willing to take suggestions from a random horror movie fan who writes a blog: if your movie is only about one person, and it’s a slow burn of a film (neither of which are usually a problem with me), make sure that person is A. interesting, 2. fun to be around, and D. portrayed by a good actress. Alanna Chisholm, who stars in the film as Danielle, is pretty much the only character on screen for about 75% of it, but she is none of these things (though, strangely, she’s better as a crazy psycho than as a regular person). Making matters worse, her friend (or actually, sister, something that I refuse to believe since the two share not a single physical attribute) Anna, played by Lauren Roy, is a much better actress (and cuter to boot, IMO) and seems like someone I wouldn’t mind hanging out with for a whole movie. Danielle is, like the broad in Catacombs, dour and possibly delusional (and like that film, we’re never really given any information as to how/why she was crazy – it’s just a convenient plot point without any backup), which is fine if it’s a dramatic movie about getting over your fears, but the plot requires Danielle to more or less succumb to them, becoming slightly more interesting but even less likable, and the film awkwardly promotes Anna to the heroine with only 20 minutes to go.

There are many curious moments in the film that kept me relatively amused. There are at least two scenes of Danielle masturbating (one in the film’s first 4 minutes – way to set up a much more exciting film!), all of the phones in the movie have cords (do they even MAKE those anymore?), the film’s most exciting sequence is when the cute friend, er, SISTER, tries to sync a video up to a sound recording, and one scene inexplicably begins like this:

We are also told that the anniversary of the ghost’s original death took place 3 weeks before Danielle moved into the home, which means ‘something went wrong’ (what, we are never told). It also means that the ghost hung out for 3 weeks doing jack shit. Oh, and the ghost is apparently Powder:

It’s also yet another movie that attempts to spook us with a children’s song, in this case “Mockingbird”. Music is a problem throughout – at one point they watch a video (before it gets synced) and one of the girls makes a comment that there is no sound. But the film’s music score plays over the entire scene, so the silence of the clip (which would be presumably creepy) is sort of irrelevant.

But then the final 20 minutes save it. The titular chair finally gets built/used, on a little kid no less (for a movie about the ghost of a child killer, there is a distinct lack of child killing; just saying). Meanwhile, Anna goes off to the woods in order to find a body, and is helped by Danielle’s professor, who turns out to be the still-living Doctor from the video. He says the ridiculous line “A crowbar for Crow!” (why not a scarecrow or a DVD of The Crow?) and they find the corpse buried under what appears to be a thin layer of leaves. The corpse wakes up, has an Avid fart, the prof is whacked by a shovel, the corpse disappears via the worst CGI I’ve seen in a while, and Anna gets back in her car and drives home, where the kid takes a shovel to her. Lot of shovel action. It’s ridiculous enough to be entertaining; and a stark contrast to the rather dour and overly serious first hour.

The commentary track (buried in setup, not listed as a special feature) has some interesting nuts and bolts stuff, but doesn’t quite help explain some of the story’s lapses and holes (though to be fair, one or two issues I had were resolved upon watching the film again – there’s some rather subtle foreshadowing in the first act). They point out that most of the film was ADR, which is a surprise, as it’s never noticeable. In fact, with the exception of occasional use of the horrendous body-mount camera, all of my problems with the film are limited to the creative side; from a technical standpoint the film is pretty solid (and despite being shot on DV and given the standard lousy LG presentation, looks pretty good as well, with lots of nice camera trick shots that are more interesting in the ‘how’d they do that?’ way than anything resembling a scare). There are no deleted scenes either, just some making of stuff that won’t change your mind one way or the other regarding how you feel about such things (I find these 15 minute pieces rather boring 99 times out of 103).

I didn’t realize that the film was directed by the game guy who directed Ginger Snaps 2 (Brett Sullivan), which was not only a superior sequel but a good werewolf movie as well - two praises I almost never give out. It’s possible that this film is closer to his heart and all that (in addition to being an original, it’s also shot in his own home) but for the most part, it didn’t work for me. Hopefully on his next film he will find a way to keep the originality of this movie with the fun/suspense of Snaps.

One final note – the chair on the cover in no way resembles the chair in the film. Customary Lionsgate false advertising, though at least it’s only promising a chair and not things that aren’t in the movie at all (like zombies on Rise of the Dead, or a graveyard in The Off Season, or a decent looking werewolf like in Devil’s Hound). Progress?

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost, Independent, Possession,

{[['']]}

The Off Season (2004)

MAY 8, 2008

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

Despite living in Los Angeles, it’s very rare I see LA set movies that I can definitely pinpoint their exact shooting location. Most LA movies are set in the downtown/south LA area, and I live north, in the loathed and lovable Valley. The only movie I can recall being shot ‘in my neighborhood’ was the utterly loathsome piece of shit Crash (the scene where they ‘hijack’ Terrence Howard – he drives right by my street), and that was actually a year before I moved here. The town I grew up in, to the best of my knowledge, has never had a single film shot there (School Ties was shot 2 towns over, that’s about as close as we got). But I do have a sort of third home – Old Orchard Beach, Maine, where I went every summer of my life until I was like 18 and didn’t ‘have to’ go anymore with the rest of my family. So at last weekend’s Fangoria convention, when Angus Scrimm mentioned that he had shot a film called The Off Season there, I immediately top of the queued it.

The opening credits were a particular highlight, as Rick and Kathryn (our main characters) drove down the main “downtown” street (where all the rides and amusements are); a street I have walked up and down probably a thousand times. Of course, the title signifies when the film was shot, so it was a bit odd to see everything closed down and empty – even when it rains in the summer, the street is always mobbed with cars and pedestrians. Unfortunately, that’s about the extent of the visual joy, as the characters soon check into a motel and we barely see anything outside their room for the rest of the film.

It’s also not a very good movie, either. It starts off great, a sort of low-budget spin on The Shining (hey, it’s Maine, might as well mine King material while you’re at it). We get the writer, the oddball supporting cast, almost subliminally creepy sightings, etc. And there’s even a few chilling-ish moments. My favorite part of the film was when we see Rick in the foreground and Kathryn in the background. As she strips off her pants and wipes her brow from sweat, he shivers and wraps a blanket around himself. Sadly, this nice little subtle moment is ruined when they actually call attention to it.

But after a half hour or so, it’s clear that the film isn’t really going anywhere. Nothing we see is ever explained, other than (sort of) a bloodstain on a mattress that comes and goes throughout the film. The Jason Sudeikis-y Rick eventually becomes a drunk who doesn’t write, but this is never really explained, nor is his sudden departure from the film (he claims to go off to LA, but then we see him in New York at the end?). Kathryn suddenly becomes the main character, and all of a sudden we are introduced to the history and career of ANOTHER writer who once lived at the motel. The last 15 minutes of the movie almost seem like the first few scenes from another film, though one that is equally as plodding.

Just some of the questions that are never answered: Why is the bathroom covered in poop? Why does Kathryn’s dead mother keep calling? How did a ghost give her a black eye? Why don’t we ever actually SEE Rick go off to drink with his buddy (as this is an independent horror film, naturally his buddy is played by Larry Fessenden, who delivers cinema’s longest middle finger giving scene)? Why do they keep alluding to making dinner when the motel room clearly does not have a kitchen? Why do all of the horror elements suddenly disappear so we can hear about some author’s books that spill dirt on prestigious Maine residents? Why is poor Angus Scrimm rambling about plants for 90% of his (4 minutes’) screen time? I’m all for a few unanswered questions, but only when the film itself is entertaining and the basic story is resolved, neither of which apply here.

It’s almost difficult to review the film, because I feel I only watched a few deleted scenes from it. Seeking answers, I went into the special features menu, only to discover that “Version of the film that is worth a damn” was not among them. The only actual extra is a making of that has more Scrimm footage than is in the film itself, which really depressed me. Here’s Angus talking about all the preparation he did for his 5 minute role, more effort than anyone else (cast or crew) clearly put into it. There’s also a shot of director James McKenney en route to a casting session, driving down a street in Burbank right near my work (he’s following me, Denzel Washington in Déjà vu style!). There are also Spanish subtitles, so Spanish speaking folks can be just as bored and baffled as I was.

Whatever, movie. Way to make Old Orchard boring.

What say you?

Read more »

Independent, Psychological,

{[['']]}

It's My Party And I'll Die If I Want To (2007)

MAY 5, 2008

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

At the Fangoria convention last weekend, Spooky Dan approached me, handed me a card, and said “Hey go get this guy’s DVD, he wants you to review it.” He then went off in search of more Red Bull. I, on the other, less caffeinated hand, headed over to the table and introduced myself, and got a copy of It’s My Party And I’ll Die If I Want To, promising to watch it as soon as possible. Which, of course, turned out to be like 10 days later, but that’s actually rather quick for me; I still haven’t watched Omen II and it was almost a year ago that I re-watched the first one to prepare for it.

Anyway, back on subject, the movie is pretty good. I wasn’t expecting much out of it, but it quickly earned my interest and respect by having a guy who looks like the Quaker Oatmeal dude bash in his young son’s head in the film’s opening scene, along with the rest of his family (including another kid, though that kill is largely off-screen). It’s like the Charlie Bowles story come to life (except with a mallet instead of a hacksaw)! From that point it gets a bit slow as we meet our cast and set up the events that will take over the film’s finale, but that is to be expected. Also, since the film only runs about 75 minutes, it hardly takes “forever” to get to the good stuff. Still, maybe one more kill somewhere in the middle would have benefited the film’s overall pace.

I’m not sure why, but some shots seem to be compressed at a different frame-rate than others, which occasionally makes the film feel jerky (and in one case, ruins an otherwise impressive “Monster POV” style shot). It’s shot on consumer video, so I hardly expected the film to wow me on the technical level, but this kind of bummed me out. Especially when the DVD had been so well put together in terms of mastering – in addition to a surprising anamorphic transfer (whoever mastered the disc should work for Lionsgate), it also automatically displayed the audio setup menu before the film began, allowing you to choose between 5.1 and stereo. I can’t believe no one else has done this yet; it’s a great idea, especially nowadays when DTS tracks are more commonly placed on the disc. Since no DVD will default to DTS; I have watched entire films in lowly Dolby Digital due to not even realizing I had other options. On the flipside, I hate going into a setup menu only to find “English subtitles on/off” being the only thing on the damn page. Excellent idea.

As for the film itself? Not bad at all. For starters, it’s exceptionally well made considering the low budget – lots of camera movement, decent production value, etc. The cast is good (save for one thankfully minor character, a girl who looks like Michael Rosenbaum in drag), and the girls’ chit-chat comes off as very genuine, instead of the usual line-reading we get in these things. And bonus points for keeping the hottest friend of Final Girl alive the longest, something that is sadly rare (like the original Prom Night – Wendy was the hottest one and they kill her first!). Even better, the gore/makeup effects are very good – but that WAS expected, as Wash is a protégé of none other than Tom Savini (who makes a brief, somewhat superfluous cameo). Finally, the final gag is great – you get to the point where you think the movie’s over, and then they add in a joke that turns into an unexpected extra bloodbath.

I also liked the Creepshow style scene transitions, though I feel they are a bit overused (much like in Creepshow itself). At one point we just watch like 2 straight minutes of a girl playing with a balloon and assorted other padding in comic-style frames, a sequence that could have been removed entirely. The ending also has the sort of blue/red background hyper-reality style that Creepshow featured, a nice touch.

Speaking of that film, writer/director/pretty-much-everything-er Tony Wash clearly knows his 70s-80’s horror. In addition to the obvious (Creepshow, and the plot is similar to Night of the Demons), there are some more obscure homages sprinkled throughout, such as a guy named Ben Tramer. One that WASN’T an homage was a scene in which our heroine practices karate; a sequence that reminded me of the one from Nightmare on Elm St 4 (a scene that introduced me to Dramarama’s Anything, Anything; thank you music supervisor!). I asked the director if this was intentional and he said that it was not. Which is a great thing about these indies – you can easily contact the film’s director and see if you’re wrong about something. How great would it be if, when arguing with someone over the ending of The Mist, I could just ring up Darabont and be like “Yo Frank... is it about faith or not?”

I also discovered a funny thing about nudity in a film. When someone you want to see naked (say, Jessica Alba or whoever) uses an obvious body double, it’s incredibly annoying and disappointing. Which, if you think about it, is kind of silly – you’re still seeing a nice rack and ass, just not the one you “wanted” to see. This was no more evident than in a scene where our heroine showers, and her body double is ridiculously unmatched. Since I didn’t really care to see the real actress naked (partially due to the fact that I had no idea who she was), it didn’t bother me that the double looked nothing like her. Kind of interesting.

The disc comes with some nice extras, including two of the director’s short films, as well as a 20+ making of (which is largely blooper material). Another cool feature, one I haven’t fully played with yet, is a Choose Your Own Adventure version, which allows you to make choices that alter if/when certain characters die. After choosing the “wrong” thing, you will be taken back to the previous menu so you can pick the right one and move on, which is good because it allows you to watch all of the choices without sitting thru a bunch of the movie over and over (unlike say, Return to House on Haunted Hill, which made it more of a chore to see the different versions).

Like some of the other indies I have watched, it’s kind of contradictory to the point of HMAD, since I can’t imagine many (any?) of the regular readers have seen the film. But it is available through the film’s official site, and I’m sure Wash will be showcasing the film at other horror conventions. It’s definitely worth checking out, and the type of indie I highly recommend supporting – it may not be perfect, but it’s made with genuine care and love for the genre, which is more than you can say for (at least) half of the films I’ve watched; movies that spent more in a single day than Wash and his crew probably had for the entire production. Kudos to them.

What say you?

Read more »

Independent, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

Mulberry St (2006)

APRIL 1, 2008

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

No it’s not an April Fool’s joke (I did enough of those on my other sites): the After Dark film Mulberry St. is by far the best they have offered this year (so far) and ranks up there with Gravedancers as the best film with any sort of ties to the company (don’t forget non-festival offerings like Skinwalkers and Captivity!), period.

It’s also one of the few films in the festival (good or bad) that I can genuinely dub “independent”. Unearthed, or even Gravedancers, don’t really strike me as independent films. They have big actors (well, big for horror films), budgets of a million or more, myriad producers, etc. To me, an independent film is one that quite frankly wouldn’t be made if the director decided not to do it, populated with people you haven't seen in Saw sequels. If Matt Leutwyler decided to walk off Unearthed, once Emmanuelle Vaugier and Luke Goss had already signed on to do it, you can bet that someone else would take his place. But if director Jim Mickle (who wrote the film along with Nick Damici, who plays the lead) gave up on it, it’s pretty likely that Mulberry would never be completed. And that would be a shame.

Ostensibly a zombie movie, Mickle does a good job of selling the idea that New York is under quarantine. Since he’s not exactly Francis Lawrence, he can’t really shut down whole areas of the city, so he sells these ideas via a near constant stream of news and TV broadcasts that mix footage from what I assume is from 9/11, the blackout, etc., along with standard “quick no one’s around let’s film this street” type stuff. It works well. Most of the action is confined to a single apartment building, and thus doesn’t require such extravagant shots like a deserted Times Square in order to get the point across.

The cast is a huge part of that success. With one exception, I don’t doubt for a second that any of these characters (mostly blue collar types) are genuine, hard-working New Yorkers who get caught up in a horror movie plot. Damici in particular is a fantastic lead, and carries the film effortlessly. Big actors wouldn’t work for this particular movie. I always hate when I’d see a Schwarzenegger movie that tried to pass him off as a regular family/working man (like 6th Day), because there’s no way in hell I can believe him as anything but a larger than life character. Even a character actor like Ed Harris wouldn’t be as effective in this particular film, because it would be harder to sell the whole “New York is quarantined” idea. I know Ed Harris is not a New Yorker (well, maybe he is, but you know what I mean), so I’d be less inclined to believe he was trapped in Harlem without being able to actually SEE the city being closed off. But this guy, who I don’t know from Adam? I buy it. Even Larry Fessenden, the patron saint of indie horror, pops up in a quick cameo, and it doesn’t distract from the illusion.

The only exception is the girl playing his daughter. While not a bad actress per se, she didn’t really feel as genuine as the others, seeming more like an actress playing a role than an actual person (ironic since her resume is one of the less prolific – hell, I’ve actually SEEN Damici in other films and didn’t recognize him). Her scenes also take place around the city, and in these scenes the small budget and obvious lack of an actual quarantine begin to become a bit more apparent. Luckily, the apartment stuff takes up the bulk of the film, so it’s not really a big deal.

It’s also smartly paced. The first 40 minutes are like old Cronenberg in a way, with just the feeling of impending dread instead of in your face gore sequences. We just see these guys going about their day, with minor mentions of rat problems and such sort of presented in the background. Then the 2nd half of the film (it’s only 82 minutes long, hurrah!) is an almost nonstop series of ‘zombie’ attacks (they’re more like the ratty vampire things from Dusk Till Dawn), and despite the low budget, we are treated to some good action and gore. Not to mention some unique cinematography; there’s a great camera angle from the top of a door that the monsters are trying to open, so the shot slides back and forth along with the budging door. Nice stuff.

It’s also one of the few modern horror movies to deal with any sort of social commentary. Greedy land developers and such are given their due, the heroes of the film are hard-working blue collar types who are just trying to survive. Sure, it’s hardly original, but since so few modern horror films (especially the ones Mulberry is lumped with) have anything to say, it SEEMS original.

The DVD comes with what seems like a substantial amount of extras, but sadly they are not really much to write blogs about. The video quality is poor on several, resulting in a “What the hell am I looking at?” feeling on the outtakes and makeup test portions. A pair of deleted scenes are wisely cut, and the sketches/storyboards are only of minor interest. Still, the film itself is the real bonus. This is exactly the type of film After Dark SHOULD be releasing (in the festival or not) – true independent films that would be otherwise lost on the video shelves without the promotion AD gave them. You think something like Tooth And Nail, with Michael Madsen, Vinnie Jones, etc. would completely disappear if not for After Dark? No way in hell. But movies like this, with no stars, no big effects to promote, etc.? If I wasn’t watching a horror movie every day I’d probably never give it a second glance. Hopefully, if they do a 3rd festival, AD seeks out more truly independent films like Mulberry and gives them the recognition they would not only otherwise not receive, but undeniably deserve.

What say you?

Read more »

After Dark Fest, Independent, Zombie,

{[['']]}

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,

{[['']]}

Carver (2008)

MARCH 22, 2008

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

Attn: Whoever sent me Carver for review – thanks! I wish I could remember who you were or what site I was supposed to review the movie for, but I don’t even recall receiving the damn thing! I was looking for another movie on my shelf and spied the film nested properly in between Candyman and The Cave. No recollection of it at all. It’s as if the Direct to DVD Fairy entered my home, took careful note of my how I sort my DVDs (an impressive feat, to be sure), and filed it away for me to find at my own leisure.

And I was even more surprised to discover that it wasn’t bad! On a surface level, it’s the umpteenth Saw/Hostel wannabe to come along in the past few years, albeit fused to a standard woods-set slasher, but there are just enough fairly unique touches to warrant giving it a pass.

For starters, our hero is the angriest man in horror movie history. He gets so frustrated at the simplest things, and it delighted me every single time. When his brother mocks him for asking him “how far?” one too many times during their road trip, he launches into a sarcastic, seemingly endless rant about how his brother’s non-answer was “exactly what he was looking for”. Later in the film, he shouts about how much he hates “stupid” wine glasses. There are a couple of other moments like this as well. Man, chill out!

He also has the film’s best line by far. He enters a stall, and the toilet is kind of dirty. He makes a disgusted sigh and opens the adjacent stall, which is ten times WORSE. He retches, and then notices a large pile of poop on the wall. “How do you shit on the wall?!” he asks no one in particular. It’s hilarious.

I should note at this time that the film has a particular fascination with bodily functions, particularly poop. After this sequence, another guy walks into another outhouse that is even MORE disgusting than the one with the wall-shit. The guy shrugs and sits down on the toilet anyway, and then the disgusting bowl is used as a weapon against him a bit later. We are also treated to the sight of a girl puking, and in the film’s most memorable kill, a testicle being plied, which results in blood and whatever the fuck else is inside a testicle to explode over the camera lens. Christ.

See, there are only two types of scenes I can’t handle: seeing someone get their teeth damaged (American History X – holy FUCK) and seeing dudes lose their genitalia. Everything else I am fine with, but if your movie has either one of those two types of scenes, you can guarantee that I’ll be squirming (or even looking away entirely). And since I guess that’s one of the reactions one SHOULD have when watching a horror movie, I guess in that respect the movie is a success.

The movie also has a fantastic soundtrack. And by that I mean there is a really weird and annoying (but ultimately catchy) song that plays throughout the movie. The chorus goes “Turkey in the straw, hee hee haw; Turkey in the hay, hey hee hey!” I defy anyone to watch this movie and not sing along with it by the 6th or 7th time it plays over a kill scene. Apparently, it’s an old ‘traditional’ song, much like your "Goin’ Round The Mountain When She Comes" and such, but for some reason it took a low budget slasher movie that mysteriously appeared on my DVD shelf for me to become aware of it.

It’s also a downer. Our Final Girl blows her goddamn head off, and our would-be hero gets HIS head caved in with a sledgehammer. And yet for some reason, the over the top gore/poop humor actually works well with the rather dark final act. Usually I abhor such things (Cabin Fever lost me on several occasions because of this imbalance) but it didn’t bother me here.

One thing that DID bother me was how poor the direction was. It seems like Captain John Tripod, ASC was the primary cameraman here, and several scenes have confusing and awkward blocking (particularly the scenes inside the bar). I wish writer/director Franklin Guerrero, Jr. had left the direction to someone else, as the lazy camerawork makes the film feel overly inert (DP Ryan Bedell can also be blamed). Ironically, the most frenetic camerawork we see in the film is in the snuff films that the killers are making. And this is a problem, because they seem to have been shot by at LEAST two people, when there should only be one (the hero doesn’t even figure this part of it out until the very end of the film). Things like that I am able to forgive, but other people are more stubborn, which is a shame, because Carver is much better (even at 100 minutes and only a few kills it feels fast paced) than I expected.

The DVD also has more extras than I was expecting. Two commentary tracks? I began listening to one with Guerrero and one of the producers, but he claimed that the track would be dry, technical, and “pretentious”, and that the other one would be more fun. So I switched it. On this track (which is Guerrero again, with a different producer), they get drunk, however they are annoying drunks. If you want to know how to do a REAL drunken commentary, listen to Cannibal: The Musical’s track. That thing is fucking amazing. There are a few tidbits to learn along the way, but someone needs to inform them that mispronouncing words and trying to ‘bring back’ forgotten insults is NOT the stuff of comic gold. There are also deleted scenes and a behind the scenes, nothing you’ll miss.

What say you?

Read more »

Independent, Slasher, Survival,

{[['']]}

Underbelly (2008)

MARCH 12, 2008

GENRE: INDEPENDENT, THRILLER, WEIRD
SOURCE: DVD (SCREENER)

Sometimes a movie I watch for the day is sort of contrarian to the original idea of Horror Movie A Day, which is to basically “talk” about a horror movie, albeit in internet form (as opposed to a typical review). But a movie like Underbelly doesn’t quite fit the bill, because it’s not out yet. It’s just now gearing up for a festival run, and as far as I know, has no distribution as of yet. Hopefully that’ll change soon so some of you folks can check it out with relative ease.

On the flipside, the movie is actually ideal for this site’s intentions, because the film doesn’t explain or spell out a lot of its horror elements. It is open to interpretation, so everyone will probably come away with a different idea of what happened at the end and want to post their thoughts.

As this is an independent film, the actors are hardly well-known. However, they are all surprisingly good. More surprising, none of them share the same last name as the director. Likewise, the production value is good across the board – then again I’ve said before that it would actually take effort to make Texas look bad on film; it’s the most photogenic state there is! While it’s a small film, there are a lot of different locations, allowing the film to seem bigger than it is in actuality.

I say that because this is a rather slow film, with very little action. Like The Lost, it’s bookended by some top notch thriller stuff, but the middle can get a bit slow (not nearly as crippling as The Lost though). Writer/director Matt Cade made the interesting choice to follow not the “hero” of the film, but the villains instead (the film centers on 2 disappearances, the hero’s wife and the villain’s sister). They are a largely unpleasant lot, but they also have a dark sense of humor that permeates their actions. This presents some tonal problems (it’s kind of hard to laugh at a guy’s ironic joke after he’s just raped someone) but the unique point of view is enough to keep these matters from permanently damaging the film.

Aside from that, I really dug the movie’s strange tone. There are occasional musical numbers, and a full minute of the film is given to a guy beating the shit out of a cell phone (which he’s not very good at, after like 12 stomps the damn thing still looks intact). There’s also a gonzo scene where the villains visit the site of David Koresh’s cult compound and the leader waxes philosophic about his admiration for the group, while an acoustic ballad with reversed lyrics plays over the soundtrack (I plan to utilize the PS3’s handy “play sound while in reverse” function and see what the guy is saying). Fans of David Lynch will appreciate these moments.

Speaking of the music, it’s great. There are songs and score, all seemingly done by the same group of folks, and I enjoyed them all. There are a few songs that remind me of The Refreshments/Peacemakers, which is always a good thing as far as I’m concerned. If you’ve never heard the Freshies’ "The Bottle And Fresh Horses", you’re missing out on some grade A southern flavored pop rock.

Also the composer/star of the movie is a guy named Fritz Beer. That’s the best name ever.

Like I said before, the horror elements are left largely to interpretation. Discussing them would be spoiler-ish (I don’t do spoilers when it’s likely not a single reader has seen the film yet), but suffice to say that those who like everything spelled out (or even generally explained) will be frustrated by the film’s lack of answers. I didn’t mind not understanding them all, but I DO wish there was a little more tension to the plot, which would make these scenes more effective. The disappearance of the two women seems largely forgotten for a while, to the point where I was wondering if that plotline was merely a macguffin – but the fact that the climax revolves around the conclusion to this story thread nullified that as an option. Hell, one character disappeared for so long I forgot what he looked like. But, it’s rare I see a movie (especially now, when I’m watching so goddamn many) that I am still thinking about a few hours later, replaying scenes in my head to try to see if information I got later in the film gave them new meaning. Hell, I may even watch it again!

Like Return In Red, this is the type of movie where you gotta be patient and accept that it’s not going to have a big Bruckheimer-ian climax. And like that film, Underbelly more or less overcomes the limitations of a REAL independent production (I love when I look at Boxofficemojo and they point out the record breaking figures for “independent” films like Rob Zombie’s Halloween) and turns out pretty good. It’s not for everyone (what movie is?), but I enjoyed it overall, and for once it’s nice to see an indie where none of the problems are technical and/or acting related. If it’s playing at a festival near you, check it out (movie's website is HERE).

And thank CHRIST, it’s actually an anamorphic DVD! So for those keeping score – DVD that was possibly burnt on the director’s home computer – anamorphic; Multi-million dollar movie from a major studio starring Shannyn Sossamon – non anamorphic. Fuck you, Lionsgate!

What say you?

Read more »

Independent, Thriller, Weird,

{[['']]}

Equinox (1970)

FEBRUARY 27, 2008

GENRE: INDEPENDENT, MONSTER, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: CABLE (FLIX)

The program info for Equinox seemed to be written specifically for me. As you know, I don’t have any sort of criteria for horror movie watching – no specific sub-genre, no era, no discerning of “backyard” indies from Hollywood blockbusters... you get the gist. Anyway, the description for the film simply read “Devil worshipers and monsters” or something to that effect. This is certainly enough for me, but can you at least TRY to entice casual movie fans who aren’t sworn to an insane duty of watching every friggin one of these damn things regardless of actual interest in their plot or relevance (on that note - watch for a review of Mangler 3 in the next week!)?

Luckily, I knew a bit more about the film than that, and actually had been curious to check it out. Rue Morgue once wrote an article about its (then) impending DVD release from Criterion, which was the first I ever heard of it. Essentially, the same spirit that Sam Raimi and crew had from Evil Dead was evident in Equinox, as it was also a VERY low budget, wholly independent film with ambitious effects work and a persistent charm that more than made up for its shortcomings.

Like Dead, the film’s plotting isn’t very complex – and in fact on a surface level they are identical (a group of kids accidentally unleash supernatural forces after reading passages from a mysterious book found in the woods). The main difference is, while Dead was a splatter flick, with more than a couple of legit scares, Equinox is more like a typical 50’s fun monster movie, with lots of forced perspective shots of the monster rampaging around the forest and desert and such. The stop motion monster effects are pretty impressive, as are the split screen effects. Obviously they don’t hold up to say, 300 or whatever, but keeping it in perspective, it’s truly an award worthy effort for such a small crew of amateurs.

One of those “amateurs” is in fact Dennis Muren (who wrote and directed most of the film, though is only credited as producer), who anyone well versed in modern effects knowledge will be quite familiar with. Sadly, the other guys on the crew haven’t been as successful as he (excepting an assistant cameraman, one Ed Begley Jr (!!) ), but they’ve all still managed to make a name for themselves in one way or another. The actors, on the other hand, are now forgotten, and for the most part, for good reason. The main guy isn’t too bad (though he sounds exactly like Robert Reed, which never stopped distracting me, not to mention giving me Bloodlust flashbacks), but his girlfriend is atrocious, as are many of the supporting characters. It’s kind of ironic that I had an easier time believing a giant caveman walking around than I did buying (director) Jack Woods as a park ranger.

I have to point out an early scene involving a reporter and a cop and a doctor (I can’t tell which one is which, most of their dialogue is voiceover). One of them is driving around, and it APPEARS that he’s listening to something on the radio. It might just have been editing (playing audio from another scene), but if it IS the radio, it’s the best damn news reporter ever, as he describes people like “Some kind of weird old professor from the University...” Hahaha it killed me.

Apparently the DVD has a different version from three years prior, which focuses more on the adventure than the horror. As the DVD is from Criterion, I will have to wait until I win the lottery before I can afford to purchase it, but I am interested in checking it out. I love this spirit of “do it yourself” filmmaking, particularly for big effects movies, and wish we saw more of it (instead of the more common “We know what we’re doing, but we don’t care how it looks so long as we make some money” practice that is woefully apparent in about 50% of the movies I end up watching).

Oh and the ending is awesome. Not really a downer, but it still kind of surprised me. Well played!

What say you?

Read more »

Independent, Monster, Supernatural,

{[['']]}