Non Canon Review: Christine (1983)

JUNE 15, 2008

GENRE: POSSESSION, TECHNOLOGY

SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

In an old Fangoria (not from when the film came out though – maybe 10 or so years after), John Carpenter said that he felt like “a ho” when he directed Christine, as he did it for the money and without any real feeling for the material. He simply wanted to make something different that might not be hated, like his previous film was (The Thing – because 1982 audiences were apparently all fucking stupid). But it’s a testament to how good a filmmaker he was in his prime that even knowing that his heart wasn’t in it, it’s actually still one of his better films.

It’s also one of his longest (if not THE longest) at 110 minutes. But it doesn’t feel long. Like Stephen King’s Stand By Me, it’s not so much about the horror but about the nostalgia and well acted character dynamics. In fact, horror/violence only takes up maybe 15 minutes of the entire film (most of that in the climax), the rest is just detailing Arnie’s withdrawal from his old life, becoming, for lack of a better word, possessed by his own car. He ignores his best friend, freaks out his girlfriend so much that she eventually dumps him, and slaps around his own dad. Watching Arnie transform from the pathetic nerd in the first part of the film to the tragic and terrifying guy at the end is far more interesting than watching a car run over a fat dude in an alley.

And that adds even more the irony of Carpenter’s somewhat dismissive feelings on the film – it’s his only King film, and he’s gotten it right more than almost any of his peers. Hell even Darabont, great as Shawshank and Mist may be, felt like he was phoning it in on Green Mile (granted, the source material was far from King’s best either, but still – it’s a mechanical and overlong film no matter what). In the lengthy history of King adaptations on screen, it may not be the most faithful (in the book, the ghost of the owner was actually in the car with Arnie), but it’s one of the very few that successfully showcases an oft-forgotten fact about King – his characters are very real and easy to identify with, which is what makes the horror elements so compelling in the novels. This “boring” character stuff is usually the first thing to get tossed out in the films, in favor of the monsters and supernatural visuals. But Carpenter (and screenwriter Bill Phillips) went the other way – you almost get the idea that they would have left out the murders entirely if they could (indeed, all but one are offscreen), as the focus is on the three main characters (four if you count the car).

It’s also interesting how the two main stars have gone on to be filmmakers in their own right. Keith Gordon has made mostly smaller, independent films (including A Midnight Clear, one of the best war films ever, period), while John Stockwell has helmed a trio of recent water based movies, such as the underrated Turistas. And I dunno if Alexandra Paul has ever directed a film, but she’s certainly not IN enough of them, because, as we discover in the film’s bonus material, she’s still super hot.

Speaking of the bonus material (which I watched when I got home – like The Fog, I had never gotten around to any of it before), this may be one of the most packed special editions for a pre-laserdisc/DVD movie ever. There’s the usual Carpenter commentary, which is also much better than usual for him, since he is joined by Gordon, who was sort of his protégé. It may not be as funny as the Carpenter/Russell tracks, but it’s still a worthy listen. There’s also 3 featurettes that total about 45 minutes, with just about everyone (except King) contributing new interviews. Why they are broken up is not very clear – one focuses on adapting the book, which is fine, but another one is about the music and the film’s reception from critics, as well as how they feel about it today – why not include this material with the other piece (which talks about everything else: casting, shooting, effects). Weird. There are also 20 (!!) deleted scenes, totaling about as many minutes. Most of them are worth seeing out of context, but in the film I can see how they would slow things down. Definitely watch the longer version of the bullying sequence in shop class though – in addition to a surprising character detail about Stockwell (he laughs a bit when Arnie is being humiliated), Buddy’s taunts are just hilarious, and features more of his peculiar Travolta-esque acting.

I’m glad Sony put together a special edition for the film, giving it some of the respect it deserves in the process. It’s definitely worth re-evaluating, and even though it’s a 1983 movie that takes place in 1978, it still doesn’t feel very dated. The basic themes are still easy to relate to, and like The Thing, the effects work holds up better than almost anything else of the period. It's almost insane that he thinks less of this film than his last couple - anyone who thinks Ghosts of Mars is a better example of his talent is just a goon.

What say you?

Read more »

Based On Novel, Carpenter, Non Canon, Possession, Technology,

{[['']]}

Non Canon Review: The Exorcist (1973/2000)

JUNE 10, 2008

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

Don’t mock me (at least not just yet), it’s non canon! Trust me - I’ve seen The Exorcist before (both versions). Granted, I saw it rather late in my horror fandom life (when the new cut came out I was 20, and had only seen the original about a year or so before - NOW mock me), but that’s better than my late-to-the-game ages for other landmark horror films such as Rosemary’s Baby (27) and Cathy’s Curse (also 27). BUT, I have never seen any of the sequels, and since I finally got the box set recently, I figured I’d go through the mammoth collection for the first film (2 versions of the film, a total of 3 commentaries between them, a full length documentary, and some other junk) before diving into them. My friend Joe urged me to watch Exorcist III ASAP, but I learned my lesson long ago about watching a series out of order (Halloween) and avoid doing so as much as possible. Sorry Joe, II comes first.

So what do I think about the film? Well, it’s great. It’s not in my top 10, but that is because I prefer slasher and zombie movies for my horror viewing. However, as far as supernatural/possession horror films, it is pretty hard to beat (2nd only to Shocker). And the reason why it works so well is because it’s not about how cool a full body makeup effect they can get for the monster, or how nastily they can kill people. There is so little blood in this film it’s almost shocking; there is more explicit gore in the PG rated Indiana Jones films (the first 2 anyway) than this film contains. And it’s also paced rather slowly – I think our first real sign of horror comes around the 45 minute mark or so, and it’s another 10 or so before the “possession” makeup effects are seen. But all of that is WHY it works (and works even better in repeated viewings). It draws you in slowly, and builds steadily. Sure, there are highlights – pea soup, crucifix, etc. - but they flow naturally with the film, and the film’s ensemble cast (something often ignored – you got Regan, the mother, 3 priests, the cop, the doctor) keeps you on edge, because without a traditional main character you truly fear for someone’s life whenever they are in danger.

I also love how spare the music is. As much as I love Halloween and its score, Carpenter almost never let the damn score go silent. But here there is very little score, and even the famous “Tubular Bells” piece (even though it wasn’t written for the film, it’s still pretty much the most famous horror movie music ever next to Halloween, which I am guessing half of you have as a ringtone) is only used two or three times in the film. Incidentally, the first time we hear it is during a scene where Ellen Burstyn walks home on... Halloween.

And it’s easily one of the classiest horror films ever made. The acting is top notch across the board; there isn’t a single weak performance in the film, even among the minor characters. The direction is also above average, and I wish Friedkin had done more horror films, because he doesn’t FILM it like a horror film. Friedkin had a documentary background, and it shows; even in the more traditional horror scenes, there is a sense of loose detachment in the direction that makes the film stick out from all of the wannabes that followed.

At times it may be a bit too loose. One thing that always bugged me about the film (either version) was how abrupt some of the scenes cut to the next. For example, when Karras says that he is losing his faith, they cut to the next scene so quickly that this important fact isn’t given a chance to really resonate before we are being presented with new information. This was something I expected to be corrected in the “Version You Have Never Seen” (a title that only makes sense once), but no, that particular scene wasn’t touched at all.

In fact almost nothing they added to the 2000 version was really for the better. Things are screwed up right from the start, as they randomly insert shots of Regan’s house before the Iraq sequence. What the hell is the point of that? Not only is it a jarring edit, it’s simply baffling in the grand scheme of things; the only real reason I can see for its inclusion is foreshadowing, but people who had seen the film know damn well what’s going to happen, and people who HADN’T would be utterly confused as to why we are seeing a suburban home for 30 seconds in the nighttime before cutting to the hot Iraq desert.

Another big change was the “Spider-Walk” scene. On the original release of the DVD, this scene is shown in the documentary, but it’s longer there than in the new cut of the film. Again, the editing in of the scene is completely jarring; not only does it end abruptly (followed by like 20 seconds of black – huh?) but since the incident is never mentioned again, you gotta wonder why they bothered putting it back in at all. Granted it’s a freak visual, but cutting it into a dream sequence or something would have made a lot more sense, in my opinion. It’s also a bit odd that the sequence ran on much longer in the doc (Regan gets down the stairs and attacks Chris and Sharon), whereas in the new cut she reaches the bottom of the stairs and that’s it.

In the end only two of the changes were for the better. One is an early scene of Regan going for tests, coupled with the removal of the shot of her partying with the guests (before she pees on the floor). Not only does this make Chris’ line about her not feeling well make a bit more sense, but it’s also a good extension. You lose a bit of the ‘sudden impact’ of Regan’s possession, but you gain some foreboding information about her possible dementia. I have never read the book, but apparently the supernatural elements were largely left to interpretation; William Peter Blatty said it could be construed as simply a psychological episode in Regan’s mind (something Emily Rose went for, and successfully for the most part). Scenes like this play along those “crazy or not” themes, and since that’s also what I find interesting about these types of movies, I was happy to see it in the film. The other change I liked was the ending with Dyer and Kinderman. Dyer is a character I wish was in the film more anyway, and the uplifting ending is a nice touch. Plus it has more of the film’s odd idea that famous stories would be filmed with comedians in the roles (Jackie Gleason and Lucille Ball in Wuthering Heights? Groucho Marx in Othello?).

Between the two versions of the film there is a wealth of extras, but watching/listening to them all is not necessary, as information is repeated. Friedkin offers a commentary for both versions, but it seems he’s mostly out things to say for the 2000 version; other than pointing out the new scenes with little explanation for their inclusion here (or why they were removed), he merely narrates the entire film for the most part (I am not exaggerating, he even says the dialogue sometimes). Don’t bother with it. His commentary for the original version is far superior, and actually, if you don’t have time to watch the documentary (1:20 long!), his commentary and the IMDb’s trivia page for the film will tell you pretty much everything they offer anyway. Also on the original cut is a ‘commentary’ by Blatty, which is actually just a 40 minute interview with him, playing over the film without any real connection to what’s on screen. After that, we are treated to a truly strange extra – a half hour of sound effects and original recordings. So we hear Mercedes McCambridge saying the lines, and then Linda Blair’s original readings. After that, we just hear McCambridge make sounds like “RAWR!” for about 10 minutes. Again, it has nothing to do with what is on screen. Then it just stops, and the film’s original soundtrack plays as normal for the rest of the running time. Whatever. Blatty’s thoughts are interesting, but again, it’s just repeating stuff we heard elsewhere. And one extra is cut into the film itself – an intro with Friedkin (on the original cut). You can chapter skip over it, but there’s no way to avoid it entirely (and it makes the movie 2 minutes longer), which I have never seen before in all my years of nitpicking about the placement of extra features on special edition DVDs.

There are also a few deleted scenes (a couple aren’t in the new cut), some text based info about certain elements, such as the real story it’s based on and why they put together a new cut, and the usual trailers/storyboards/cast information (for some reason on the new cut the cast is merely listed; the actual information/filmographies are not accessible). Some of the trailers are pretty interesting – in addition to the amazingly schlocky tagline (“The movie you’ve been waiting for, without the wait!”), it’s nice to see how little the spots give away, compared to other horror films of the 70s (Halloween’s trailer, for example, gives away just about every single scare in the film). Some don’t even feature Regan at all.

Overall, the extras are fairly generic, but keep in mind both editions came relatively early in the life of DVDs, before studios began to get really creative with their special features, and also the film itself came along long before behind the scenes footage became standard. One thing that DOES exist that I wish was included was Blatty’s original script, which Friedkin hated. Should be interesting.

The Exorcist is one of those movies that every A-lister namechecks whenever they make a horror film. You know, “I don’t watch a lot of horror. I DO like The Exorcist, Rosemary’s Baby, and Silence of the Lambs though.” But it’s also listed as a favorite among most hardcore horror fans. Which just proves the old theory – “No one can dislike a movie where a girl forces her mother’s face into her vagina after masturbating with a crucifix.”

One final note – Jason Miller/Karras does not look anything like Sal Mineo.

What say you?

Read more »

Based On Novel, Non Canon, Possession, Religious, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

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,

{[['']]}

Sick Nurses (2007)

MAY 23, 2008

GENRE: ASIAN, GHOST, POSSESSION
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

If there’s one thing you don’t often see in Asian horror films, it’s the characters goofing off with one another. Everyone’s ususally so dour and serious, so it was almost strange to see a few of the titular Sick Nurses (aka Suay Laak Sai) do things like, well, smile. They tease one another, make faces, etc... just like regular girls! Of course, it’s not long before they are all crying and being terrorized by long black hair (it IS an Asian horror film, after all), but while it lasted, it was definitely appreciated.

One “back to back” movie coincidence I never thought I’d encounter is “Lazy subtitles”, but that is exactly what I got on Nurses, much like yesterday’s Frontière(s). It wasn’t nearly as bad; basically, they just didn’t bother with the titles that (I assume) denoted the time in which the scene took place (like “yesterday” or whatever). But since the movie was told with a lot of flashbacks, it got a bit more confusing than it would have been had the subtitler just paid the fuck attention.

On the subject of language, I should note that there is actually an English dub on the disc, something that is increasingly rare, especially with Asian films. Not that I have any use for it, but if you are the type who doesn’t like to read your horror movies, you can still feel free to check this one out! However, you run the risk of missing out on one of the film’s best small pleasures. Two of the girls are named Ae and Am. When pronounced by the real actresses, they sound like “Eh?” and “Um.” So you have scenes of a girl going “Eh? Eh? Eh?”. Definitely a chuckler.

The plot is fairly straightforward – a girl who was wrongly killed comes back to seek revenge. Nothing new. But director/writers Thospol Sirivivat and Piraphan Laoyont bring out the originality when it comes to the execution. Rather than the usual stuff, the ghost actually possesses the girls one by one and has them kill themselves or one another. They also toss in some Italian style non-logic; one girl is killed when another one removes the simple stitching that is keeping her head attached. She’s perfectly fine, but then the stitching comes out, and the head just falls off. Uh, bones and veins? And in the movie’s best kill, a girl devours a fistful of razor blades, which results in her jaw being completely severed. Awesome, but then one of those jar-based fetuses flies out of its bottle and lodges itself in what’s left of her mouth. Huh?

There’s also a transvestite.

It seems at time that the film is showing us someone’s imagination, or perhaps even just an exaggeration of something that occurred. The amount of blood would certainly suggest as much. Granted, it’s hardly a very serious film, but the kill scenes don’t seem to be played for laughs either. How else would one explain a scene where a group of hospital personnel sing a song about compassion while they are being drenched with blood? A little more clarification would have been appreciated, especially since the film is abnormally short (82 minutes) for an Asian film. These things always clock in at 100 or so.

The DVD has a very brief making of that is mainly just a few of the girls talking about their roles. Entirely skippable, except for when the girl involved in the aforementioned jaw scene says “When I eat the baby...”. It’s the only extra, but since distributor Magnolia gave us a wealth of stuff on The Host, it’s easily forgivable.

Anyway, I liked it. It was short, fun, and far gorier than most Eastern fare about vengeful ghosts. The fragmented storytelling isn’t without a few problems (without spoiling anything, there is a seemingly huge plot hole regarding the transvestite character), but for the most part it works. And bonus – the ghost never once uses entertainment technology to kill someone.

What say you?

Read more »

Asian, Ghost, Possession,

{[['']]}

The Invisible Ghost (1941)

APRIL 2, 2008

GENRE: POSSESSION
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 2!!!)

Did they have trailers before the movies back in the 40s? I like to imagine they did, and that there was a particularly sarcastic audience member who pointed out how many of the movies coming out were identical to the one they were about to see: bunch of folks in a house run by a horror icon, a couple of murders, a street smart detective, the idea that the causes for the murders is supernatural when its not, and really kind of lame to boot... Imagine going to see Shutter and seeing the trailers for One Missed Call, Pulse, The Eye, The Grudge, The Ring, and Dark Water... Christ.

Anyway, The Invisible Ghost (which doesn’t feature a ghost, or Chevy Chase*) is just like a bunch of other movies I’ve already watched/written about from the Horror Classics set, so I really don’t have much to say about it. It’s good to see Bela Lugosi in a rare ‘normal’ role (he’s the killer, but he’s possessed when he kills, and the rest of the time he’s quite pleasant, if terrible at chess). Also, the African American character (Clarence Muse) isn’t played as a stereotype, unlike Jeff in King of the Zombies, so that’s a plus.

He also has my favorite line in the movie. At one point the cops suspect him of being the killer. One cop says “Where were you the other night?” to which Muse responds “Have you had your coffee yet?” The cop says no, and instantly forgets all about that whole ‘possible killer’ thing. I plan to use this very same ruse the next time I am suspected in a murder. I just hope I have some coffee around. It’s always embarrassing when you try to distract someone away from the idea that you are a bloodthirsty murderer by offering them some coffee, only to discover you’re completely out.

The one good thing about all of these old movies is that they are ridiculously short. At 64 minutes, this one is over before you realize how boring it is. Lugosi’s possession sequences aside, the rest of the movie is just folks talking about not very interesting things, or accusing one another of killing everyone else; which is kind of moot when we are shown almost right from the start that Lugosi is the killer. Oh well.

What say you?

*Speaking of which, Memoirs Of An Invisible Man is airing on the HDNet movie channel this week! See the only film Carpenter didn’t put his name above the title on in glorious high def! Watch Chase’s career (this was his last non family movie) disappear literally and figuratively in 1080p!

Read more »

Horror Classics, Possession,

{[['']]}

Mangler Reborn (2005)

FEBRUARY 28, 2008

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

3rd time’s the charm, I guess. Well, sort of.

While hardly a good movie, Mangler Reborn managed to do something that neither of the previous films in the series ever could: be professionally made, and even watchable. Thankfully ignoring the nonsensical storyline of the 2nd film, this one quickly acknowledges the existence of the first (and never mentions it again) and tells its own story. Luckily, the influences for this film seem to be Little Shop Of Horrors and maybe People Under The Stairs, and not the other Mangler movies.

Yes, like Stairs, this film takes place almost entirely in a single house in Los Angeles. Some folks (a father and son burglar team!) break in but can’t get out, find a girl trapped in there with them, and bad shit goes down. The bad shit is where the Little Shop allusion comes from – the villain of the film isn’t so much the machine, but a guy who is possessed by it (sure, why not) and feeds random folks to it. It also apparently gives him the power of invincibility, which is never quite explained (it results in a truly stupid and strangely inert epilogue), but again, why not? I’d rather watch any one plot element in this film than see the damn thing run down the street, or string poor Lance Henriksen up by cables and make him recite rap lyrics.

Unfortunately, the film’s low budget ultimately cripples the pace, as the lack of locations (and the fact that it’s not exactly a sprawling mansion) results in a movie that has a lot of padding; they could have easily cut about ten minutes out of the running time. Writer/directors Matt Cunningham and Eric Gardner will tell you they are building suspense, and to their credit, some of the film DOES have a bit of tension (particularly a scene when our would be heroine re-enacts the laundry chute scene from Halloween 5), but for every good suspense sequence, there’s yet another scene of someone walking as slowly as they possibly can around the hallways and bedrooms that the previous character(s) already walked through. It’s like watching one of those real estate walkthrough videos, only in 2.35:1 scope and occasional gore.

Speaking of the ratio – how sad is this? Since literally EVERY movie I have watched this week has been either full frame or non-anamorphic (a trend that will continue with tomorrow’s movie), when I first began watching this film I thought for sure that the 2.35 image I was seeing was incorrect, and used the “zoom” function on my TV to “fix” it, displaying a 1.78:1 image to fit my HDTV. But during the credits I noticed that the sides were being cut off, so I checked, and sure enough – it was a legitimate scope image! Granted, this sort of thing goes unnoticed by many, but trust me – there are so few horror movies (particularly DTV ones) that are shot with a wide lens, it’s like an instant stamp of “The filmmakers actually gave a shit”, so kudos.

Listening to the commentary track certainly confirmed this. While they seem to think the film works as a whole better than it actually does, it’s easy to see (hear?) that they were hardly just phoning in their work here, and despite the fact that they were making a 3rd film in a series absolutely no one liked, they put far more effort into making the film than anyone expected (certainly surprised me, I was expecting “worst of the week” levels here, and sadly it’s probably the week’s best*.), so I laud them for that. I also like that they put Jeff Burr, the patron saint of horror sequels, in a small role as, and this HAS to be a vague wink at the source material, “Lawnmower Man”.

I wish I could sweat Nesquik.

With some tighter editing (or maybe just a plot complication or two), and maybe some more convincing violence (whenever the possessed guy hits someone with his hammer or whatever, it looks and sounds like he’s merely tapping them on the shoulder), this could have been a really solid little movie. The gore is fantastic, the acting is decent (Reggie Bannister plays the Marion Crane role), and the technical aspects are quite impressive. The opening credits sequence is also pretty well done, though it features a pet peeve of mine (obviously fake “headlines” mixed in with real newspapers), and the score (by the same guys who did the incredible Session 9) is again, much better than one would expect. And since it was released a few years ago, before Lionsgate up and forgot about putting any sort of effort into their DVD releases, it has a fantastic transfer (the menu is a bit nonsensical though, as scene selection and Spanish subtitles are hidden in the “Special Features” submenu). I am curious what these guys (this is also the 3rd movie this week to have two directors!) can do with more money and an original, non-completely stupid concept.

What say you?

*I need to find better movies.

Read more »

Possession, Technology,

{[['']]}

Rise Of The Dead

NOVEMBER 18, 2007

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

OK, let’s get something out of the way. Rise Of The Dead, despite its very zombie sounding title, not to mention rotten zombie guy on the cover, OR the fact that it’s called a “Frightening Zombie Thriller!” on the back, is NOT A FUCKING ZOMBIE MOVIE. A ghost possesses some folks, and when they are possessed they drool and get that dazed look on their face you might expect from a zombie, but once the possession is over they go back to normal. The people who are killed never come back either.

That said, this movie is an unparalleled, amazing piece of “what the FUCK?”ity. I’m gonna have to spoil the ending in a bit, but I hope you all go check this out. It’s only 72 minutes long, and the ending redeems every bad thing about the movie and then some. Spoilers begin now.

So OK, the people in the film are possessed by the ghost of a little baby who accidentally put a gun in its mouth and pulled the trigger (pretty impressive for a kid, I can see one or the other, but doing both? If he wasn’t dead, that kid would be ready for advanced Lego sets by the time he was 3). We learn that he was adopted, because the birth mother was only like 17 and didn’t have the means to take care of him. So throughout the movie, people involved (the adopted parents, the father, the doctor who delivered him, etc) with his birth keep dying or killing other folks. She figures out that it’s her son’s ghost like 40 min into the movie (but due to the length, that’s also with only 30 to go) and tries to warn everyone, but they don’t believe her. Fine.

Here’s where it gets weird. She realizes that the ghost is simply trying to be with his mother again. So to solve this problem, when her boyfriend (not the father) is possessed, she almost knocks him out, then pulls his pants off, says “come to mommy”, and proceeds to more or less rape him.

Now, for those of you following: yes, via possession, she essentially fucks her own son in order to get pregnant again so he can be reborn with the “right” family. Holy fucking shit. You think Shock or Ghost Son got a little weird??? Found it odd when the girl in Big Bad Wolf blew her boyfriend’s dad to get his DNA? This eclipses all of them, easily.

It’s almost like writers Joshua and Jeffrey Crook and Kris Scotto wanted to make a film that served as a metaphor for living up to your responsibilities as a parent, but somehow got forced to make it into a horror movie. The horror elements seem fairly shoehorned in (and the music is just a straight up ripoff of the Halloween score, for good measure), and hell, the movie doesn’t even end on a “scary” note, which makes the DVD’s excessive attempts to sell it as a zombie movie all the more puzzling. Granted, I have no idea how you can sell such a concept otherwise, but still. I wish they provided the commentary instead of the director and star doing typical “this is my friend, we shot this in blah blah” boring crap (however, they do point out a co-star who is now dead. A quick Google revealed she had like 3 DUIs and died of “suffocation”, which probably means “choked on her own vomit”.).

So yeah, I urge you to check this out, if only for the fact that 65 minutes of not very interesting stuff results in a scene that would make Freud himself go “What the FUCK?”

The film also features a supercute naked chick walking out into the cold and axing a guy.

What say you?

Read more »

Possession, Weird,

{[['']]}

October Extras #12 - Shocker (1989)

OCTOBER 12, 2007

GENRE: COMEDIC, POSSESSION, SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: 2004 (?) (DVD)

Ah, Shocker. One of the finest films to have ever graced the screen. So flawless the film is, I remain confused as to why the print hasn't been stored at the National Film Registry alongside Halloween and Citizen Kane.

I am of course, joking. Shocker is a ridiculous movie with often terrible effects and totally batshit plotting (the "You got it baby!" scene alone has got to make you wonder just exactly how high/drunk Wes Craven was when he wrote it). But the movie is a riot, and I never tire of watching it. Also, for a movie so ridiculous, there are some rather subtle plot developments that I have discovered lots of folks don't really pick up on. For example, Jonathan IS indeed Horace Pinker's son. Also, a less important subplot but still worth mentioning - the stronger one's love is for Jonathan, the harder it is for him to possess them, if he is able to at all. This is revealed rather late in the film, when Pinker explains to Jonathan that he couldn't possess Pac-Man (Ted Raimi!) because he liked Jon "A little too much".

It's also quite rare, especially in the 80s, to have what is essentially a slasher movie with a male lead. The "Final Girl" is killed like 20 minutes in (and quite bloodily, also odd for the otherwise bloodless late 80s), and there's no other female in the film other than the occasional Pinker victim (and they aren't even characters, often dead the first/last time we see them). However, the girl DOES continue to be in the film, as a bloody ghost who helps Jonathan defeat Pinker with her magic necklace and of course, her undying love. Again, what the hell was Wes ON?

Of course, the soundtrack is key to the movie's entertainment value. I don't think it's possible to watch the film and not have a blast with the cheesy metal/ballads that pop in and out throughout the film (almost all of the songs on the soundtrack are actually in the movie!). The theme song is brilliant; making me wish that The Dudes Of Wrath had put together a whole album. Iggy Pop's "Love Transfusion" is another highlight. And of course, who can forget Dead On's "Different Breed"?? "He sees himself, apart from you and I! Is he from down below, or is he from the sky?" Amazing. "Shockdance", one of the few songs that don't appear in the film proper, contains lyrics that blasphemize the Our Father, leading my dad to take the tape (TAPE!) away from me as a young lad. Though all he did was put it in a drawer, so I got it back. I guess even he couldn't resist occasionally listening to Megadeth (trivia - Megadeath is a real word, but not Megadeth. So says spellcheck.) cover Alice Cooper.

The strange thing about Shocker is that whenever someone mentions it (OK, replying to my asking if they have seen it), they always say "Yeah, the one where the killer goes through the TV, right?" It's sort of fascinating how this subplot, only introduced in the film's final 20 minutes, is what resonates the most. It's like Shocker is horror's answer to It's A Wonderful Life, a film everyone claims is about a guy who sees what life would be like without him, but again, in reality this is only the film's third act. There's a lot of great stuff (and again, songs!) that occur long before Pinker yells "I'm nationwide now!" and turns into a rainbow. Not that I will deny that the TV chase is the highlight of the film, but let's not dismiss the 90 minutes of story that come before it!

When I put the film on, my friend Abbie said she hadn't seen it for a while. Which is when I realized that it had been far too long since I last watched it - I've known her for 2 years or so, and I used to make it a rule that anyone I meet has to watch it with me unless they could remember it well (of course, many folks haven't seen it at all, hence the damnable lack of a sequel). I use it as a barometer of sorts; if you're the type of person that can't enjoy a cheesy, ridiculous horror movie, then you're too un-awesome to be my pal. Shocker is the best example of such type of entertainment. The upcoming remake is one I am for once opposed to - I highly doubt the soundtrack will have the level of jaw-dropping "Oh JESUS" quality to it, and they will probably make the lead a girl (and, yes, probably make the whole thing about Pinker in the TV). The film's nonsensical plotting and crude effects (why does Jonathan make a transition from projected to reality near the end?) are what make the film enjoyable. Making the movie serious would kill the whole point of it, if you ask me (and they should, for I am the world renowned expert on Shocker. I even have the book).

What say you?

Read more »

Comedic, Craven, October Extras, Possession, Serial Killer,

{[['']]}

October Extras #1 - The Evil Dead

OCTOBER 1, 2007

GENRE: INDEPENDENT, POSSESSION, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: HALLOWEEN 2004 (DVD)

It’s amazing how revered Sam Raimi is in the horror community when you consider that he’s really only made one true horror movie: The Evil Dead. The first sequel was half comedy, the 3rd film wasn’t horror at all, and all of his other films fall more into the action/fantasy realm. The closest he’s ever gotten to a straight up horror movie (in a directing role anyway – let’s ignore his Ghost House productions) in the past 25 years is The Gift, and even that was more of a mystery anyway. Still, it contained the most terrifying image in horror history: I knew the film had a nude Katie Holmes (back when it meant something), so when they pulled her nude, rotted corpse out of the lake, I was terrified. “That was it?!?!” I yelled. Luckily, a true frontal shot came along near the end of the film. Anyway, back on subject, while he may never make another legit horror movie again, the goodwill he earned from this one has yet to expire.

The DVD of The Evil Dead (any of the 7,000 or so that Anchor Bay has released will do) should be given to budding filmmakers in their first year at film school, if they didn’t have it already. From the very first frame, Raimi and his crew’s inspired (and infectious) delivery of their otherwise simple little tale is 100% evident; you never feel like they were going through the motions or anything like that. When I saw the film for the first time as a 14 year old (I watched the entire franchise backwards, which is cool because I got to see it get “better” instead of worse, since I think Army of Darkness is not only the weakest in the series but possibly Raimi’s weakest ever), I was borderline aroused by how cool it was, despite not having any of the perks I was accustomed to from a horror film (this was in the early/mid 90s, when most “Horror” movies I was seeing were things like Bram Stoker’s Dracula and the Village of the Damned remake – big budget, glossy studio pictures).

I should note that I chose this film to kick off my "October Extras” at Horror Movie A Day because it was recommended in one of the comments by someone who couldn’t think of the title. All they remembered was “kids in the woods with a tape recorder”, which was all I needed to identify the film. Because, like Halloween (which, it shouldn’t surprise anyone, will be the “closing night” film for October), it’s a film that exceeds in taking an almost non-existent story and getting as much as possible out of it. Raimi and Carpenter got what so many other horror directors didn’t (and still don’t) – it’s almost impossible to be scared if your brain is too busy trying to work the plot out. Keep it simple, and you keep it scary.

Is it a perfect film? Heavens no. Bruce Campbell is barely competent at times; there are continuity errors and the like, etc. But it doesn’t matter in the slightest. This is a film for people who genuinely love film and more importantly, filmmaking. It’s obvious right from the start that they had no money and little crew (and even the actors sometimes disappear out of scenes), which makes the effects and camerawork all the more impressive once all hell breaks loose. If you’ve ever had even the slightest interest in “how to make movie magic”, then you can’t tell me that you watched the film and didn’t wonder how they did the tree rape scene (and if you’re a would-be Raimi, wonder if you could pull it off yourself).

Also, the film is just fucking FUN. Although Bruce is the recognized hero of the film, Scotty is a hoot as well (I still laugh out loud when he yells at the hitchhikers early on: “Aw go to hell I’m not honking at you!”). And the girls are pretty cute. Basically, none of them are annoying fodder that you want to die. While it barely ever slows down, it does inject some decent characterization. I might tear apart something like The Roost for some of the same things Evil Dead is guilty of (continuity errors, mismatched editing), but the difference is, Raimi and his buddies didn’t stop the film cold over and over to pad the film into feature length territory (even more impressive when Dead started off as a short film). I assume both films had roughly the same amount of money (with inflation), so a miserly budget can’t be used effectively as an excuse for a boring film.

There’s a book that covers the franchise, though the first one gets the most attention. Along with the commentaries, and perhaps Bruce Campbell’s autobiography, there’s a wealth of information and anecdotes about the shoot that are every bit as entertaining as the film itself. The limitations the crew faced, and Raimi’s borderline insane dedication to seeing the project through, are the stuff of legend. It’s an ironic shame that Raimi’s most recent film, Spider-Man 3, had literally a blank check for a budget (reported to be the most expensive film ever made) and yet wasn’t half as fun or exciting as this, possibly one the most literally “independent” movies ever made.

What say you?

Read more »

Independent, October Extras, Possession, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

Boo

SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

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

Last week I had the opportunity to see a new film from Anthony C. Ferrante, a former Fangoria writer who moved on to filmmaking (oddly enough, it was on the same day I watched Halloween Night, also by a Fangoria writer!). As the film wasn’t finished, I didn’t consider it for review, though it was certainly enjoyable enough that it made me want to check out his first film, Boo. Also, it was screened in glorious 48.6 surround sound! “48.6?” You might say? Indeed. 48 discrete channels, 6 discrete subwoofers. It was invented by Alan Howarth, whom some of you may know from his collaborations with John Carpenter. Needless to say, it sounded awesome.

I wish I was there to watch Boo, which had a well done sound mix for a DTV effort. Sure, this means that some nonsensical and badly delivered dialogue would be that much harder to bear, but take the good with the bad. There were a lot of good surround effects and ambient sounds that would have been well suited for this king of surround systems.

As said, some of the dialogue was ridiculous. One line, which only makes sense in half-assed theory, was a particular howler: “You know how some hotels don’t have a 13th floor? This hospital shouldn’t have a third.” What? The lack of a 13th floor is based on superstition. If there was no 3rd, the bad shit would have just happened elsewhere! Like I said, in theory it’s a cool line, but when you think about it, it doesn’t make any goddamn sense. There’s also a line that makes fun of the film’s own abundance of exposition, which to me is sort of like the filmmakers saying “Touché” for themselves, but oh well.

The film is actually pretty fun though. The pacing is quite good, as the ghostly happenings begin about 20 minutes in, which is fine by me. Again, it’s a direct to video movie. I don’t expect anything out of such a film other than mild entertainment and not wanting to punch my TV in the face. On that level, Boo delivers. Plus, unlike the last, what, 20 DTV movies I’ve watched, it was anamorphic. In fact, for whatever problems the film has, there is ample evidence that Ferrante and his crew actually give a shit; using practical effects as often as possible, throwing in some subtle references to other movies (Santa Mira!!!), and thankfully not having the characters do too many stupid things once they realize their lives are in danger. Like I’ve said before, so long as the film is made with genuine enthusiasm and shows basic respect for the audience, I can easily forgive its other faults. I probably won’t ever watch the movie again, but I certainly wouldn’t try to dissuade someone from checking it out on their own.

There’s also a decent amount of extras, including a look at the makeup effects that’s pretty well done. There’s a bunch of deleteds, though they don’t add up to much, plus 2 other featurettes and a commentary. Though I must point out – the video menus are annoyingly long. When I click “Special Features” I want to see the damn menu, not 15 seconds of video in between.

Plus the main girl is incredibly cute AND her boyfriend cheats on her with a girl who isn’t as hot as she is, which is always a hilarious subplot in movies. Dammit, movie characters; if you’re gonna cheat, cheat UP!

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost, Haunted House, Possession,

{[['']]}

Shock (1977)

AUGUST 3, 2007

GENRE: GHOST, ITALIAN, POSSESSION,
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (FESTIVAL SCREENING)

Right after Ghost Son, the theater screened what was quite obviously the inspiration for that film, Mario Bava's Shock (or Schock. It depends on who you talk to really). It was nice to see the films together; while obviously similar in many ways, it served as a reminder that you can basically tell the same story and yet not copy entire scenes and dialog and characters verbatim with no rhyme or reason, to the point where the film is utterly and totally pointless.

But like I said, I can't review the Halloween remake yet.

Shock is much more "Italian" than Ghost Son, in that it contains nonsensical dialogue, scenes that exist entirely within the world of "dream logic", and has a good dosage of ridiculous gore. The kid is older and thus the scenes of him being possessed are slightly less ridiculous, and even a bit chilling (the scene where he tries to kill his mother's boyfriend is particularly nasty, since the guy happens to flying a plane filled with innocent people).

This one is a lot different than Mario's other films, and it's a shame he died right after completing it, since it seemed he was going in a different direction, one I happen to quite enjoy. His other films, while not BAD by any means, aren't ones I consider my favorites in the genre, but this one I really dug a lot (even more impressive when you consider I had literally just watched what could almost be considered a remake, and had the best scare in the film ruined by the Girl Who Knew Too Much DVD). But to be fair, some folks say Lamberto actually directed a lot of it, so maybe that's why.

Look, it doesn't matter. The movie features a psychiatrist who "comforts" a troubled woman by reminding her about her shock therapy, depression, and "drug addict ex husband". I wish I could find the exact quote, but alas. Hopefully this one will be on the second volume of Anchor Bay's Mario Bava sets (the first one is labeled "Volume 1" so they better fucking release a 2nd one or else Encyclopedia Brown will come down hard on their ass).

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost, Italian, Possession,

{[['']]}

Ghost Son

AUGUST 3, 2007

GENRE: GHOST, ITALIAN, POSSESSION
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (FESTIVAL SCREENING)

To paraphrase my favorite robot: "Now no one can say I haven't seen the guy from The Mummy's pubes!"

Despite the dumbest title this side of, well, I Know Who Killed Me, Lamberto Bava's Ghost Son is a nice, deliberately paced, atmospheric ghost movie, refreshingly light on "typical" Italian horror clichés, such as a stubborn refusal to make any goddamn sense, and characters who are all sans skeletons. In fact, other than Bava's name and the presence of Corlina Cataldi-Tassoni, one might mistake it for an American film. Or an African one.

The film shares a lot with Mario Bava's final film Shock, in that it deals with a young child seemingly possessed by the spirit of his dead father. But where Shock had a 10 year old kid, here it's a newborn baby. It sounds sillier than it is. Granted, you got to employ some suspension of disbelief, especially in the final act, where the baby begins talking and getting aroused, but since this IS a Bava film, you should have checked logic at the door anyway. At least the mother isn't saved by a random helicopter crashing through the ceiling.

Pete Postlethwaite is in this film. Much like Phillip Baker Hall, he's one of those elderly actors that appeared out of nowhere and suddenly began appearing in every other film you saw in the mid 1990s. It's good to see him again.

The only things that bugged me, besides the aforementioned sight of John Hannah's pubic region (thanks, movie!), were the occasional jump cuts. Since they were used so infrequently and often in a non-'horror' context, they were quite jarring. At one point, Pete and Laura Harring are talking in the living room, and then suddenly they are in the bedroom, but it doesn't seem like any part of their conversation is missing. Also there's a needless little "10 years later" epilogue that, other than the nonsensical sight of an elephant running inside an abandoned home, serves no actual narrative or thematic function, as it's simply repeating what we already knew.

But the film more than makes up for it when the baby suddenly projectile vomits all over Harring. I was just about ready to doze at that point (not a slight on the film - it IS slow but I like that. I'm just a borderline narcoleptic), but this moment kept me awake for the rest of the film AND the one after it. Puking babies - nature's caffeine.

I have not heard of an actual domestic release for this one (IMDb just lists "2007", and it's already been released elsewhere), but I hope some of you folks give it a shot if it comes your way (or, more likely, when it comes on DVD). Despite the odd occurrences (and again, Hannah's pubes) it's definitely more accessible than Shock or some of Bava's other non giallo/zombie type films (i.e. Macabre). Recommended!

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost, Italian, Possession,

{[['']]}

SL8 N8

JULY 25, 2007

GENRE: GHOST, POSSESSION,SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

SL8 N8, aka Slaughter Night, was recommended to me on the Rue Morgue (a magazine all horror fans should read btw; it blows Fangoria and Horrorhound right the hell away) boards, after I claimed Hatchet was the greatest slasher in the past 10 years. A replier chastised me for only counting American slashers. Well I am not one to be ignorant (Australia and New Zealand confusion excepted) so I decided to check out this Dutch one out. And… Hatchet is the best slasher movie I have seen in the past 10 years.

However, this one is pretty good. Sometimes it even approaches great. For a slasher, it’s very brutal, and has a nice claustrophobic feel that I always enjoy. However, it is more than a little reminiscent of My Bloody Valentine at times, and the silly Ouija board scenes are overlong, especially when they are providing names that the characters should be able to know before the final letter is given. “B…R….I….A......N? BRIAN???!?!?!” Come on! After “I” it’s pretty obvious, let’s move on (Note – the name in the film isn’t Brian; I just used my own name as a totally self-involved example).

And what’s with the specific angle used to film a ‘surprise’ car crash scene? You know the one – they used it in the Bourne movies and Slither, and again here. As soon as we see it, you know the dude’s gonna die. Time for a change, boys!

The extras were pretty slim, considering it was a Tartan release. There are some unfunny outtakes, a trailer, and a bizarrely edited 20 minute clip compilation that every now and then is interrupted by one of the cast members giving what appears to be a very uninteresting interview or a useless look at some makeup guys working on something.

But look, all I ask of any modern slasher movie, Dutch or not, is that one character I thought would live gets killed, that the gore is sufficient, and that the lead girl is someone who I would totally love to run around in the dark with. SL8 N8 delivers on all fronts, and then some (i.e. her friend is hot too).

Also I learned that “Christ!” in Dutch is “Jesus!” So there, another bonus.

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost, Possession, Slasher,

{[['']]}

The First Power

MAY 31, 2007

GENRE: POSSESSION, SUPERNATURAL

Like whatever I watched yesterday (I don’t have time to scroll down), The First Power is another killer back from the dead movie. It doesn’t count as a coincidence, because I knew that. BUT, both movies had vague hints at father-daughter incest! Heyo!!

I actually saw this movie when I was 11. But all I remembered was that I considered it a Shocker ripoff. Well, it’s not. Stupid 11 year old me! I’ll kick your ass!

While there are surface similarities (a satanic serial killer comes back from the dead and takes control over other bodies) it’s not really anything like Shocker at all. First of all, Shocker is a comedic horror movie, while this is more of a supernatural action movie. Lou Diamond Phillips spends 90% of the film either waving his gun around (a fact someone actually comments on), driving recklessly, or jumping/diving through the air. So it’s more of a Cobra ripoff, except it takes far too long for the leads to hook up (1:20 into the 1:35 movie!!!).

Strangely, in another similarity to Shocker, they are both filmed in the Silverlake/Echo Park area of LA (Shocker was supposed to take place in Ohio though), which is the same area where previous Horror Movie A Day entries Gacy and Gamebox 1.0 were filmed. I’ve got some friends who live there, and the idea that a satanic serial killer running around stealing the bodies of transients, a child molesting clown, and a bad video game are in the area really isn’t that farfetched.

It’s an OK movie. It could have been a lot better. Part of the problem with the film, much like other films I’ve reviewed recently, is that the supernatural element is totally inconsistent. Sometimes they see the person the killer has possessed, sometimes they see the killer. He can appear wherever he wants, but sometimes he chases the people anyway. And then, halfway through the movie he suddenly develops wire-fu powers and begins flip-kicking and what not.

Luckily, the last half hour of the movie strangely includes some humor. If the whole movie was like that, it would be a lot better. There’s a hilarious bit where Phillips and the love interest (who displays “Wes Craven Presents” levels of blandness) stop to have the “What the hell is going on?” scene, only they are right next to a hot dog vendor, who just looks totally baffled. Then another guy comes out of nowhere and quite rudely orders him to give him a hot dog. It’s so out of place I couldn’t help but laugh. There’s also a nun with a crucifix knife! Oh and Bill Moseley shows up as a bartender who waters down his scotch. Hey Bill!

It’s strange to see a hero smoke. One of those ‘you don’t miss it until it’s gone’ traits of cinema. No one smokes anymore. Even Bruce Willis refused to have McClane smoke in the new alleged* Die Hard movie. But Lou begins nearly every scene with taking a long drag and then tossing his butt to the ground (he needs his hand free to draw his gun). He also wears a trenchcoat at all times, loses his partner, fights with his chief… even though it was released in 1990, it’s the 80s-est movie ever made.

But for whatever faults it has, there are two moments in this film (other than the hot dog vendor) that make it a must-see. In one, the killer rips a ceiling fan down and then turns it on (just go with it), wielding it like the guy with the lawnmower in Dead Alive (it even makes lawnmower sounds) as he chases our heroes (who then run into a room and move a bed, with someone in it, against the door!). The other is a nice bit of clever sound editing. Sticking to car chase tradition, at the moment where the car is somehow launched 50 feet into the air, the soundtrack goes mute. Like always. But hilariously, when one of the hubcaps comes off (another staple), it hits the ground first, and we hear it! So it’s all quiet, and then we hear this little tiny “clink” before the GRRRRRRRRSHHHHHHHHH! sound of the car hitting the ground. I love that!!!

What say you?

*Part of why I don’t have time to scroll down – my part-time job as some sort of movie website writer has scored me a seat at a press conference with Mr. Willis himself tomorrow. But since they apparently haven’t finished neutering the film to ensure an 11 year old who knows Willis only as the voice of a raccoon can go see it, Live Free or Die Hard isn’t finished yet. So instead of the usual media screening of the whole film prior to the press day, we are seeing 20 whole minutes of it later today. Oooh! That’s like, 4x as long as the trailer!! Wheeee!

Oh I see it now: Tamara

Read more »

Possession, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

Tamara (2005)

MAY 30, 2007

GENRE: POSSESSION, SLASHER

Another day, another ‘Oh shit we accidentally killed someone let’s cover it up uh oh they came back and now we’re all dead, fuck!” movie. Though Tamara has 2 things going for it that IKWYSLAKHUDJHI whatever the hell part 3 did not:

1. It is NOT the 2^nd sequel to a mediocre movie
2. It is far easier to acronymize. “T”.

However it’s not much better. There are some interesting ideas (hints at incest are always a creepy plus) and setpieces here and there, but I get the impression the script required a bigger budget and less bland actors to be more successful. And it certainly would help if it wasn’t shot in Canada. Look, no one is being fooled anymore! If you’re shooting in Canada, just say so! Don’t pretend it’s in Boston or NY or LA or Ohio or Illinois or anywhere else! It’s fucking Canada!!!

Things don’t start off promisingly, with TWELVE executive producers and a few other regular producers listed in the opening credits. The director and writer point this out on their commentary, but it’s still annoying. That many people dictating how the film should be will always result in, if nothing else, an uneven film. Actually, the commentary is better than the film itself, as they both seem to realize the film didn’t live up to its potential and take a few shots at it, and also explain some muddled story points that a better director would have been able to film properly the first time.

Actually, a better director could have improved things across the board. The script has some good ideas, but the direction is so bland it betrays them. One thing I did like was rather than Tamara running around with the ax she has on the cover and killing everyone herself, she makes them kill themselves (or each other). Some of the deaths, cheesily shot as they may be, are quite awesome, such as when she makes a guy think he was buried alive or makes another literally puke her guts out. Sweet!

Also, I’d like to share a baffling dialogue choice (I should really make this a regular portion of my writeups, seems every movie has one line that just really makes me wonder if anyone bothered saying it aloud before filming): A jock meets a guy for the 1^st time and invites him to a party. At the end of the conversation the jock says “I’ll call you later with the address.” They just met and the other guy is new in town, so how’d he get the number? And why can’t he just tell him? It reminded me of a friend of mine. You call the dude up and say “Hey wanna go see a movie later?” or whatever, and his response will always be “Yeah that sounds good, let’s talk later and make plans.” WE’RE ALREADY TALKING NOW, ASSHOLE!

Whoever the hell plays Tamara is pretty hot. Sort of a cross between pre-Cruise Katie Holmes and whatshername from That 70s Show.

What say you?

Read more »

Possession, Slasher,

{[['']]}