Needful Things (1993)

JUNE 19, 2008

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

It’s ironic that nearly all of the Stephen King books I have read have actually NOT been turned into films, when it seems like just about everything he has written has been adapted. Of the 20 (give or take) full length novels I have read, only five have been films: Shining, Green Mile, Dead Zone, It, and Dreamcatcher. I don’t know why it works out that way, but worth noting, I guess.

Anyway, Needful Things is one of those unread novels (I own them all I think), so I don’t know how close the film is to the book, but all I know for sure is: the film suffers greatly from not being able to decide whether it wants to be a pitch dark comedic tale, or a gory supernatural thriller. I am sure that the book doesn’t have this problem.

Then again, maybe the movie originally didn’t either. As I discovered afterwards, over an hour was hacked out of the film (it occasionally airs on cable in its long version, apparently), something the DVD’s only extra also gives away (the trailer, half of which is not in the film). It’s pretty evident in the film as well; most notably, a blond woman who keeps appearing in scenes without saying anything. She’s too noticeable to just assume she is an extra (and she’s sort of famous – it’s Lisa Blount, the hot broad from Prince of Darkness), but it’s not until the very end of the film where its casually mentioned that she is in fact the mother of the resident teenager character. Obviously her role was once far more significant.

And speaking of the kid – this story takes place in Maine and the kid is a Yankees fan? What the fuck kind of bullshit is that? Since King wrote it, any Yankee fan should be a horrible villain, not an innocent kid. I assume this was a boneheaded move on the scriptwriter’s part.

Another critical flaw is that Ed Harris, the film’s star, disappears for about a half hour. There are two problems with this. One, Ed Harris is one of the greatest actors of all time and thus should be in the film as much as possible, and two, after initially proposing to his girlfriend (Bonnie Bedelia, of “Whatever happened to Bonnie Bedelia?” fame), we never see them together again until the film’s 2nd act climax, in which they fight about whether or not Max Von Sydow is evil. Kind of hard to really get attached to the main character’s storyline when it’s presented almost as an afterthought.

The film’s lone bright spot is, of course, the late great JT Walsh. Apart from being the only one in the film who seems to get that this is supposed to be funny (in a dark twisted way), he’s simply a delight in every one of his scenes, and just makes me miss him even more. At the time it was one of his biggest roles to date, and probably helped get him the even meatier roles in films like Breakdown and Pleasantville (which were among his last films, as he passed shortly after completing work on Pleasantville). It’s not easy to stick out when you’re playing all your scenes with Ed Harris and Max Von Sydow, but he managed effortlessly.

Harris, of course, is playing Sheriff Pangborn, who also appeared in the same year’s Dark Half (where he was played by Michael Rooker). That has to be the only time in cinematic history where two actors played the same unique character (not counting generic characters like “The Devil” or “Dracula”) in a single year. It’s certainly the only time two great actors were completely wasted playing the same unique character in a single year*.

If memory serves, this film was the very first Hollywood feature to be edited digitally. Surprisingly, it doesn’t really show. One might think that the easy access to wipes and fades would result in a Lucas-esque flurry of moronic scene transitions, but nope. A few standard fades and I think one wipe. Nice restraint!

What say you?

Read more »

Based On Novel, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)

JUNE 17, 2008

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

The trailer for Exorcist II: The Heretic is one of the most breathtakingly ridiculous trailers ever made. The techno music, the “what the FUCK?” selection of shots (chanting voodoo folk, cheesy “mind machines”, lots and lots of bees and locusts, etc)... it all leads you to think that the film is just a completely bonkers fever dream; a complete 180 from the clinical and cold original. But sadly, that is not the case – they attempt to COMBINE those things with the dry documentary feel of William Friedkin’s film, resulting in one of the most unfocused films I’ve ever seen.

Apparently, the original script was good enough for Linda Blair to sign on, after she initially refused to do a sequel. But that script was heavily rewritten and she was unable to back out (luckily, everyone else stuck to their guns all the way through). And Christ, does the rewriting show. Scenes and story ideas come and go without ever really being developed; Regan gets ESP and healing powers – goes nowhere. Regan sleepwalks and almost plunges to her death – goes nowhere. Ned Beatty shows up – goes nowhere. There’s no such thing as a completely bad Ned Beatty movie, but to waste him is unforgivable. They are all explained, but in a very clumsy (and quick) manner, as if a line of throwaway dialogue was enough to justify an entire unrelated sequence.

And there’s no goddamn exorcism! Hell, it’s not even clear if Regan is possessed again anyway – there are two of her during the climactic (and only) battle, not sure what that’s all about. But she doesn’t show any of the signs of being possessed (no urinating, no swearing, etc). She passes out during a tap dance recital and draws a guy on fire, and that is the extent of her “problems”. Yet everyone is seemingly more concerned for her health this time, trying to “help” her when we aren’t even really seeing her in any sort of danger. Whatever. There’s actually no real horror/action in the film at all until well over an hour into it; the first hour’s sole “spectacle” is a brief fire sequence, which is hilarious. The fire is small and contained in a small box, but in the process of trying to put it out, our hero manages to set about 6 other things on fire. Nice work dude.

And poor Richard Burton, who has the majority of the film’s silliest moments all to himself (including the fire). His trip to Africa results in him wearing a “native” silk shirt under his priest coat for the film’s final act, and that is the least of his problems. Speaking of “Africa”, it is the absolute worst set I have ever seen. Supposedly this was the most expensive movie in Warner’s history at the time it was made, but it certainly doesn’t show. I half-expected to see a few grips or maybe a studio tour walking around in the background whenever they show us the little African village in flashbacks that take up far too much time in the film (then again, maybe since I know that the 4th film deals with this “prequel” story, it feels a bit pointless in the here and now).

It’s also just blatantly obvious that certain characters that SHOULD have been in the film are not due to the actor not wanting to come back (this is back when recasting a character was taboo). Ellen Burstyn is ridiculously absent – she’s supposedly shooting a movie, but she can’t come back and be with her child during this time of extreme stress/danger? Where is Father Dyer? Oh, the actor didn’t come back, so now we have Burton’s character in the same capacity. Kinderman? Lee Cobb died, so he’s not even mentioned at all (neither is Father Karras, for some reason, even though HE is the one who actually exorcised Regan, not Merrin). And since Blair returned but refused to do makeup again, we have an obvious standin for possessed Regan, giving the film even MORE of a knockoff feel. Even odder, Max Von Sydow, the one actor who you wouldn’t expect to return, actually does, for flashbacks.

Still, it’s not entirely without merit; after all, an uneven film has to have good points as well. The film gives Louise Fletcher one of her rare sympathetic roles, and the basic concept is fine (the priest is investigating Regan to see if her exorcism was warranted, as Merrin is being blamed for heresy). And the finale, baffling as it may be, is pretty exciting, and features the sad death of a character we have come to really like. With some more focused writing and maybe the complete removal of Merrin’s flashback sequences (10-15 min to tell us what we already know – that Merrin performed an exorcism), this would actually be pretty good. No one was expecting it to surpass the original, but there’s no excuse for the quality to drop this low.

The disc’s extras are disappointing, just the amazing trailer and an “alternate opening sequence”. I wasn’t expecting a tell-all doc or even a commentary by John Boorman, but there’s an entirely different ending, plus other scenes, that were released on video before, so why they are not included here is just strange, especially since it’s in the deluxe box set. Oh well. On to part three!

What say you?

Read more »

Religious, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

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,

{[['']]}

Mother Of Tears (2007)

JUNE 6, 2008

GENRE: ITALIAN, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

I have read some fairly bad reviews of Mother Of Tears (aka La Terza Madre), and while I can't say that the film is perfect, I really don't get why some folks seem to think that this movie is a complete departure from the other two in the series. Maybe it's because I just saw Inferno for the first time about 2 months ago, and thus haven't 'waited' 27 years for this movie, but I felt it was a worthy followup and more or less a return to form for Argento. Some reviews have said that the film is too goofy - I'm sorry, was I supposed to take a guy being attacked by about 10,000 cats serious? Anyone who thinks this is him slumming it should watch The Card Player and then re-watch Mother. At least this movie has the good sense to have a killer monkey and gratuitous gore.

Like Inferno to Suspiria, there isn't any traditional sort of sequel feeling to this film, though they are acknowledged; Inferno's events are mentioned in passing, and Suspiria is given a bit more of a shoutout, but one doesn't need to see the films to understand this one. And given the disappointment others seem to feel, maybe not seeing those films (which are admittedly better) will help you enjoy this one more, as your expectations won't be as high. It's the same way I felt about the newest Indy movie; to me, someone who didn't grow up watching them, it felt like a good continuation. Yet, if Chevy Chase were to make a new Fletch film today (I watched that movie so many times as a kid it has literally informed my speaking mannerisms), I would be scrutinizing every frame, so I can at least understand where these folks are coming from. Still, one shouldn't discount the film entirely simply because it's not a masterpiece.

I had a blast for the most part. It was like the Argento of old; we got skeleton-less victims, nonsensical character actions, utterly baffling scare scenes, a fantastic Claudio Simonetti score (aided by a Cradle of Filth title song that I have been singing all night), Udo Kier hamming it up (though his role is way too brief), uncomfortable moments with his daughter Asia... it's all here. Like a homecoming, it's as much a celebration of the past as it is about the current event itself. There are even little nods to other Argento films; Asia's final scene more than just slightly resembles the climax of Phenomena.

The story is a bit uneven, particularly in the first hour. Even though Asia is the heroine, she is absent for a good 15-20 minute chunk while we follow the investigation through the eyes of her lover, a character who turns out to be rather minor in the overall scheme of things. She doesn't need to be in every scene, but this sort of setup occurring this early in the film is a bit jarring; perhaps going back and forth between the two for a while (instead of all of his scenes together) would have been better. Inferno had a bit of this as well, but there there WAS no real main character, it was like an ensemble all the way through.

The gore stuff, on the other hand, is fantastic. This movie offers 100% more half-eaten baby than any other film in recent memory, and there's plenty of other highlights - numerous throat slashings, a woman choked with her own intestines, an impalement or two, a head squished in a door... good stuff. It's not as setpiece driven as the other films - it actually flows pretty well and the killings feel organic to the story, and other than the sequence with the lover guy, Asia remains front and center throughout, and thus makes it easier to follow along. On the other hand, this means that there aren't many opportunities for Argento to indulge in his stylish visual mastery - it's more a return to form from a story standpoint than a technical one.

The release is limited, which is a bummer but fairly expected - I can't really see anyone other than Argento junkies going out to see this in theaters, even if it is more accessible than the other 2 films in the series (for better or worse). If it's not playing near you, please seek it on DVD and relish in the fact that Argento has made his most Argento-y movie in over a decade. Maybe it doesn't quite fit in with its thematic predecessors, but it fits in with his filmography as a whole better than all of his recent work.

What say you?

Read more »

Argento, Italian, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

The Entrance (2006)

JUNE 5, 2008

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Attention casting folks: If your lead actress resembles Angelina Jolie in any way (as the woman in The Entrance does – same lips, very similar eyes), then make sure your male lead in no way resembles Ethan Hawke, for it leads to the viewer making unnecessary comparisons to Taking Lives, one of the absolute worst thrillers of all time. Hell, there’s even a scene in Entrance where Jolie-lite (also a cop) is interrogating a frantic Hawke-lite, much like their simulacrums did in the former film. Gah.

Luckily this movie’s much better than Lives. It’s not great, but it’s a well done low budget film with a plot that is a bit similar to that of the first Saw, but with a religious/supernatural bent. It’s also the 2nd movie in a row to deal with a little boy being molested. Great. But hey, horror movies SHOULD be disturbing on different levels, not just “look how graphic this murder is!”, so I guess that’s, in a twisted way, a good thing. And both molesters were killed horribly, so hurrah!

Speaking of yesterday’s movie, this one was also Lionsgate. And I must give credit where credit is due: It’s an anamorphic transfer! Yay for the Lion! You did it! Wasn’t that easy? Now just do that for ALL of your goddamn movies and I can stop bitching at you for it, and focus on bitching at you for forcing me to watch your goddamn 20 second logo at the top of all your DVDs.

Unlike Saw though, the games the killer plays are not about torture. They are actual games. Bingo, Poker, Musical Chairs... all played by our victims. Loser dies, winner goes on to the next game. It’s kind of funny to see a group of grown men playing musical chairs, and impressive that it’s actually pretty suspenseful to boot. Nice work.

Another thing I’d like to point out that has nothing to do with the movie: lighters. At one point, the main dude lights a cigarette, and his lighter is a metal one with the lid (I don’t smoke so I don’t know what these are called). In real life, I almost never see these. Everyone always has the regular Bic type long thin type with no lid. But in movies, they always have the other kind. Why is that? No matter how much of a low-life the character is supposed to be, they ALWAYS have the more expensive lighters. It bugs me for some reason.

One thing I didn’t care for in the movie is that it is maddeningly vague on certain plot points. The end credits promise 2 more movies, but that’s no excuse for not providing key information for THIS movie, you know, the one you made and possibly might not get to sequelize. I’m all for leaving things for interpretation, but here there is more unanswered than not. Even minor things aren’t resolved, such as the film’s conclusion, which has one character holding another at gunpoint. Come on!

This is addressed in the making of; the director says he wants the audience to decide for themselves. Which, again, is fine, but it should be the exception, not the rule. I would also like to suggest avoiding the making of before you watch the film, as it gives a lot of stuff away. Like Saw, the surprising connections and twists are a big part of what makes the film enjoyable, so I won’t give them away here.

It’s not perfect by any stretch (the woozy acting of one Ron Sauvé in particular is pretty damaging, since he’s an important character with a lot of exposition), but it’s not the usual junk, and it’s nice to see a “Saw ripoff” that rips off the ideas, not the gore/torture.

What say you?

Read more »

Supernatural,

{[['']]}

Sex And The City: The Movie (2008)

MAY 28, 2008

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, SUPERNATURAL, VAMPIRE, WEREWOLF
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

While I love gore and insane prosthetic effects as much as the next guy, it’s nice to see a horror film that eschews all of that stuff in favor for more subtle horrors; a sort of ‘alternate’ horror film, much like Martin or something of that nature. Sex And The City: The Movie fits that mold; despite the R rating, there is actually only suggested violence in the film, along with a few morbid visuals.

Based on the TV show, the film is about three female best friends, each of them a different type of monster. Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) is a vampire, Samantha (Kim Cattrall) is a succubus, and Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is a werewolf. There is also a fourth friend, a human named Charlotte (Kristin Davis) whose only role in the film is show off her perfect human life to her friends, all of whom aspire to find her happiness while retaining their own monstrous needs.

Carrie the vampire is the film’s main character. She is engaged to a fellow vampire, a man only referred to as Big even though his name is John something or other. Unlike most cinematic vampires, they are not harmed by sunlight (the film even makes a little joke about this – they turn down an apartment because it doesn’t get any sun), but they are immortal. We know this because they have been dating for 100 years and have broken up and gotten back together some 15 times (this is explained to us a few times via dialogue – I assume it was detailed in full on the show). Big stands her up at the altar, and she begins a downward spiral – she’s been with him forever, and was prepared to give up her immortality in marriage. Now she is faced with being immortal forever, and alone.

Next up is Samantha, the succubus. She doesn’t live in New York with the others, instead she lives in LA where her kind is more common. The film’s opening sort of “previously, on Sex and the City” thing shows her pre-devouring of several men, and then finding a man she truly loves and thus does not want to eat. Now they’ve been together for five years, and she is discovering that she misses her succubus ways, thanks to a new neighbor who is actually a male succubus, taking a new woman every night.

And then there is Miranda, the werewolf. Her problem is more simple – she’s not allowing herself to indulge in the pleasures that come with being a lycanthrope. As the film begins her husband, a nerd who obviously gets off on nailing a she-wolf, is sexually frustrated, and cheats on her. So she throws him out, and now has to make a new life for herself and hopefully rediscover her carnal instincts.

Finally the human one, Charlotte... well, she doesn’t really have a storyline, because she is not one of the undead. Like I said, she’s just there to sort of remind her friends that happiness is possible, though they never quite make clear if being human is essential. Later in the film she finally has something to do (she gets pregnant), but until then she’s merely just sort of hanging out with them. Ironically, she is the focus of the film’s sole gross out gag, a scene in which she contracts dysentery and shits her pants. It’s an odd moment, but mainly because it’s actually pretty funny, where the rest of the film is incredibly overdramatic and sour.

The little moments in which their monstrous sides are actually on display are among my favorites in the film. At one point, Miranda begins growing her werewolf hair all over her legs, and the succubus chastises her for it. She usually shaves it all in order to hide her lycanthropy from her coworkers (she’s a lawyer – another sly injoke to her true nature), but since her separation from her husband she is letting herself go. The three monster girls, particularly the vampire, also have an unnatural addiction to red wine (for contrast, the human only drinks water). I would have liked more of these type of scenes, but since the film is about the human side of monsters (and not the monstrous side of humans) it makes sense that they are kept to a minimum.

Still, it does have some scare moments. The succubus, who is the oldest of the group, strips nude and covers key parts of her anatomy with sushi (a nice reverse on the succubus way – she is inviting her lover to essentially eat HER), a ghastly sight. She also threatens on more than one occasion to devour two separate men’s manhood, which will give the male viewers a chill (the females in the crowd cheered at these lines).

In the end, it’s a decent attempt at doing something different. In the end, all of the monsters have accepted their true nature and found happiness, which is nice. I would have liked maybe one transformation or two, but the effects are pretty much limited to Dick Smith style old age makeup. It won’t be for everyone, but it’s certainly the most unique horror film of the year.

What say you?

Read more »

Psychological, Supernatural, Vampire, Werewolf,

{[['']]}

Poltergeist III (1988)

MAY 26, 2008

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Do you like hearing the name "Carol Anne"? I hope so if you plan to watch Poltergeist III, because it is said some 118 times in the 95 minute film. Some scenes, such as the one where she is trapped in a puddle, play out with a character saying absolutely nothing but "Carol Anne!" over and over. It's almost incredible to think that no one said "Hey, maybe Lara Flynn Boyle can shut the fuck up for 5 seconds instead of saying the same name over and over."

It's a shame that the movie is overall not very good, because the first half hour is pretty great. The subtle little mirror tricks are pretty creepy; my favorite is when the mirrored reflection of Carol Anne ("Carol Anne! Carol Anne!!!") enters a bathroom and talks to Boyle before it actually occurs. And once they write the rest of the Freeling family out of the movie, our new characters are pretty easy to accept as our new protagonists (Nancy Allen looking hotter than ever doesn't hurt). Some of the cutesy attempts to humanize them are overbearing (the nonsense about Tom Skerritt's fashion sense) but hey, at least they were trying to recapture the "lived in" feel of the first film, instead of focusing squarely on effects.

The other thing the movie does right is introduce a skeptic character in the form of Dr. Seaton, who runs the school Carol Anne ("Carol Anne! Carol Anne!!!") attends and often sounds like Stephen Tobolowsky doing a Paul Bartel impression. This guy is a delightful piece of work; in addition to being an insufferable prick (which we know he is, because he scolds his wife for forgetting the cilantro), he's also the most ridiculously skeptical man on the planet. He chalks everything he sees up to mass hypnosis/suggestion, even when it doesn't make any goddamn sense (he blames a colleague for breaking a mirror after watching a ghostly hand do it when Carol Anne ("Carol Anne! Carol Anne!!!") wasn't even in the room). He also has one of my favorite lines in the series; after Tangina (the only other person, cast or crew, to have a part in all three films) rambles some of her traditional nonsense, he snorts "There's a lot of crap that doesn't mean anything!". Oh man, I want to go drink with this guy. Sadly that is impossible, because he is killed a few moments later, in the series' first non-natural death.

After that, the movie just falls apart. Heather O'Rourke's death threw a pretty big wrench in the reshooting plans, which must be why the film's climax occurs out of nowhere and has almost zero tension. The fact that you don't even see Carol Anne's ("Carol Anne! Carol Anne!!!") face in the final scene is pretty telling, not to mention a sad reminder of her passing (you'd think they'd have the decency to use the ending she had shot, even if it wasn't a masterpiece). There are also some major unanswered questions, such as what happened to the Scott character, why his evil mirror double guy rips Boyle's face off, and why Allen or Skerritt's characters never bothered to call their sister and ask "Hey what do you do when Carol Anne ("Carol Anne! Carol Anne!!!") disappears into a shaft of light?"

There are some other plot contrivances that defy any sort of sense. Scott and Boyle sneak into a security office to shut off the cameras so they can fuck around in the pool, and Scott sees a security angle of a supermarket next door to the pool, which gives him the idea to buy beer. Fine, but why would a supermarket be on the 44th floor? That seems inconvenient for both shoppers and deliverymen. Also, Carol Anne ("Carol Anne! Carol Anne!!!") is shown being teased at her school; the other kids pretend they are ghosts and such and mock her. First of all, it's a school for special kids, which means they should be on common ground when it comes to their personality quirks. Second, why would a kid make fun of a girl who claimed to see ghosts? I would think that was awesome, and talk to her all the time! They also continue the complete ignorance of the other sister in the Freeling family; when Carol Anne ("Carol Anne! Carol Anne!!!") talks about how much she misses her family, she fails to mention poor Dana.

I did see this one as a kid, but recalled almost nothing other than it was about mirrors (that, and for some reason, Scott's hysterical delivery - "In the garage. In the garage! IN THE GARA-AH-AGE!") and wasn't as good as the others. My opinion hasn't changed, though again, it's a shame the DVD is completely feature-less. Like Poltergeist II, the trailer is better quality than the film itself. For that film it was simply better effects than what was seen in the final film, here it's a different aspect ratio. The movie is 1.85:1, but the trailer is scope (2.35:1, the same ratio that the other two films was shot in). It doesn't look cut off or anything, so why they'd go to the trouble is beyond me (especially since most trailers are presented full frame or in the smaller 1.85 format - I've never seen it go the other way). Maybe someday we will get special editions of the sequels, especially since the behind the scenes drama is far more interesting than the films themselves (moreso in this one's case).

In closing... "Carol Anne! Carol Anne!!!"

What say you?

Read more »

Haunted House, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

Phenomena (1985)

MAY 17, 2008

GENRE: GIALLO, ITALIAN, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Ah, Phenomena. My introduction to Italian cinema! Of course, by that I mean I saw Creepers, the severely edited US version of Argento’s film. I believe my mom rented it when I was about 6, because it had the girl from Labyrinth in it (occasionally known as Jennifer Connelly), and assumed I would enjoy it (not as much as I would when I hit the age of 11 or so and realized that Connelly was in fact one of the hottest women in the world). As a kid I remember being completely confused by the film, and thus “hated” it. I watched it again when I was about 17, this time the correct 108 minute version, and liked it a lot, and decided to start watching more Italian horror, which is how I came to see Demons and Zombie (and thus got introduced to Lamberto Bava and Lucio Fulci). So now, once again 11 years later, I watch it again as a sort of seasoned veteran of the output of one Dario Argento.

And it still holds up. The kill scenes are grand (if a bit jarringly edited at times, such as the beheading at the beginning), the plot is a nice blend of the usual black gloved killer stuff with the rather odd “Insect ESP” angle, and Donald Pleasence is, as always, a delight. I also quite much liked the monkey (why couldn’t she have gotten into the house in time!?!?!? :(), and the killer is one of Argento’s most memorable nuts.

The opening scene is a particular delight. In addition to being set in a location that looks a lot like the one in the climax of Opera (still my favorite Argento film), the credits reveal that none other than Giorgio Armani was the costume designer. You always hear about big actors who have horror movies in the early parts of their filmographies, it’s amusing to know that the same goes for fashion designers. His costumes for Connelly are much appreciated (she spends most of the film in a nightie. Fine by me.).

Ironically, I think it would be even better if it was edited down a bit. New Line (who distributed the film in the States) had the right idea, they just went overboard. For example, there’s a scene in an asylum that is among the most useless scenes in film history. All it does is foreshadow (rather clumsily to boot) the backstory that the killer is about to reveal herself anyway. An extra line in her exposition could have removed the ‘need’ for the scene entirely (I say ‘need’ because, as far as I’m concerned, we don’t need to know how the killer came to have a son anyway). This sequence comes after the film’s most annoying scene, where a body is wheeled out of a house, set to an Iron Maiden song. It is completely inappropriate to the scene, which is followed by a scene of Connelly running around (also useless). Without this entire chunk of the film, not only would it be shorter, but simply less “huh?” worthy.

There’s also a completely odd moment early on where the film suddenly has a narrator. He never says another thing in the film, and in fact his one line is pretty useless anyway, since he’s narrating action that wasn’t hard to follow anyway (he essentially says “And so Jennifer arrives at school”, over a shot of Jennifer arriving at school.). The movie has a knife wielding monkey, an insect trying to arouse Jennifer Connelly, etc... but nothing really made less sense than the use of a narrator here.

Another puzzling moment occurs about an hour in or so. Connelly is on a bus, using a fly to determine where the killer lives. When she gets off the bus, we see a guy sitting in the front row suddenly stand up, walk to the back of the bus, and shut the window next to the seat Connelly just vacated. Huh? Even for Argento, these things are a bit baffling.

(I just checked the IMDb, I guess there’s a scene where a woman asks her to shut the window that was cut, but why cut the setup and leave the punchline? And it looks like a dude shutting the window anyway. And even if not, she’s on the other end of the goddamn bus!)

Still, a damn good film, and one of the better introductions to Argento one could offer. It’s not as strange as Suspiria or even Opera, nor is it as completely accessible as Trauma or some of his newer films, which might give someone the idea that an Argento film is of complete and sound logic. A nice sort of hybrid, with the bonus of an incredibly cute and yet then-underage Connelly, which makes you as the viewer feel as creepy as you are creeped out.

The DVD is pretty packed compared to some of the other Argento films in the set. In addition to a commentary that’s worth listening to (since Argento is on it, plus Claudio Simonetti!), there are two music videos, which are interesting as both are instrumental songs. There is also the traditional interview with Argento where he discusses the film (he says it’s his favorite), and another making of piece that is, for some reason, half dubbed, half subtitled. I would have liked a bit about the alternate, 82 minute version, but oh well.

On a side note – did anyone besides me think that the girl who first taunts Connelly in the film’s big Carrie ‘homage’ was Coralina Cataldi-Tassoni?

What say you?

Read more »

Argento, Giallo, Italian, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

Tales From The Darkside: The Movie (1990)

MAY 14, 2008

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

As a kid, I remember watching Tales From The Darkside: The Movie, at least a couple times, but the only story I recalled was the middle one, about the unkillable cat. Which makes no sense, because it seems that would be the least likely one to catch on HBO – if I started from the beginning, I would have fallen asleep by then (I was always narcinemaleptic), and if I caught it while flipping channels, it would likely be the final story. Well, whatever, I didn’t remember anything about the other two, or the wraparound, so it counts for HMAD.

It’s funny to see how many actors are now famous. When I saw it, even if I had recalled the piece, there’s no way I would know who Steve Buscemi or Julianne Moore were (even Christian Slater I likely only knew from one or two other movies). Likewise in the final segment, my 10 year old self would have no appreciation for a rare good guy turn from James Remar. I think the only ones I would have recognized were William Hickey (due to his role in Christmas Vacation) and Rae Dawn Chong (The Principal! Fuck yeah!). Hardly a single character in the film is as unfamous now as they were then, pretty much just the other preppy dude in Slater’s story is the only one that hasn’t gone on to have a nice career.

As an anthology film, it works better than most, since more stories are good than not. The first two are pretty great, and the wraparound is delightfully mean-spirited. The only one that didn’t quite gel was the 3rd one, with Remar and Chong. I don’t know if it’s too long or simply not long enough, but it just doesn’t fit as well with the others. Maybe it’s the lack of black humor (more apparent after the 2nd story, which is by far the most fun), or the abrupt “ten years later” finale, I dunno. The KNB transformation during the finale makes it worthwhile in the end, however.

Slater’s story (about the mummy) has my favorite line of the film – when opening the mummy’s sarcophagus, the other preppy dude randomly comments “Ugh, he looks just like your father!” This is not a very nice thing to say, whether the character’s father is dead or alive. And he says it in such a way that it seems like the audience should know what he means by it. I also love Buscemi’s explanation of how he tricked Slater, mocking him for not knowing the difference between Egyptian and Sumerian hieroglyphics or whatever. Ah, Buscemi, you were always awesome.

The DVD surprisingly has a commentary by director John Harrison and George Romero (who wrote the cat story, based on Stephen King’s short story). Romero is one of those guys that you wish was on every commentary track, even if he had nothing to do with the film, because he’s consistently interesting (the fact that he’s the most intelligent of his peers doesn’t hurt). They reveal that the stories were originally written in a different order, though I can’t remember what that order was (they also say there’s a lot of continuity errors as a result, but I didn’t notice any more than usual).

And I didn’t hear them really say anything about it on the track (I was kind of ‘background’ing it for the most part, since I had just finished watching the film), but apparently the movie was, as far as many of the crew are concerned, Creepshow 3. It certainly feels like a Creepshow film, and it’s obvious that the kid in the wraparound was meant to be reading comics instead of a large leatherbound book of short stories. I’ll take it over the actual Creepshow 3, at any rate (which to be fair I haven’t seen, nor will I until I hear a single good thing about it; a challenge that has yet to be met).

What say you?

Read more »

Anthology, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

Candyman (1992)

MAY 11, 2008

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I saw Candyman once, at a sleepover, when I was like 13. The only thing I remembered was that a female cast member had a great rack (the girl at the end). Strangely, I got inspired to revisit it while playing GTAIV, in which you have to take out a drug dealer who lives in the projects. Something about the building reminded me of the one in Candyman, so I opened the DVD I bought ages ago (this is nothing new, one of the very first DVDs I ever bought is still in shrinkwrap) and made it my movie for the day. And sure enough, the building in the game IS very similar to the Cabrini Green housing development that Virginia Madsen and her friend walk around in the film’s first act. I love how my memory works.

See?

The movie itself is about as good as I remember. One thing that most certainly DIDN’T bother me as a kid was Candyman’s dialogue, which I now liken to the bad gothic poetry I would read a few years later in my high school newspaper. Stuff like “What is blood if not for shedding?” sounds cool to a kid, but now I find it incredibly corny. The film works best when Candyman is just a silent figure, graphically killing folks for no real reason and blaming it on Madsen (the part with the shrink kills me – he wants Madsen to escape, but does he need to commit another murder that will be pinned on her in the process?).

Also, any dialogue (not just Candyman’s) drowns out the incredible score by Phillip Glass, which is a shame. The score is up there with Halloween and Exorcist as instantly identifiable in the horror genre, and I even let the credits run to hear it one last time. I know Glass gets a lot of shit for his atonal nonsense, but his work here is quite melodic and wonderful, and the film wouldn’t be nearly as effective without it.

I also love how the movie used medicine cabinets as a way of explaining how Candyman got in and out of people’s homes. Horror movies have used the opening/closing of a bathroom mirror as a scare device for decades; it’s about time someone actually took the time to make the damn things part of the plot. Kudos to Bernard Rose (what the hell ever happened to him, anyway?*) and Clive Barker for this invention.

The extras are nice – and actually more plentiful than the disc would have you believe. Despite being listed as “Commentary with Bernard Rose”, it actually has just about everyone else on the track, including Barker and Todd. Xander Berkeley is the only principal who is absent. Sadly, they are recorded separately, and they keep reminding us who is who (ironic, since is the only track in history with 6 completely distinctive voices), but it’s still a good listen. Rose in particular is good to listen to, in addition to saying the exact same thing I’ve always said when people say they don’t like horror movies because they are too scary (“Would you dislike a comedy for being too funny?”), he also trashes PG-13 horror near the end, and this was recorded when PG-13 horror films were the exception, not the rule. A prophet! Another thing he reveals is that Sandra Bullock was up for Madsen’s role, and it’s a damn shame that didn’t happen, since the role required nudity. There’s also a nice retrospective piece (Todd’s simple description of Candyman 3 makes the whole thing worth watching) and an interview with Clive where he discusses his career. Good stuff.

And no, I haven’t read the short story. Other than Nightbreed and Lord of Illusions, I have never read any of the original Barker stories that the films have come from (or any other Barker material, for that matter). I keep meaning to check them out, but I read very rarely these days (I used to get all my reading done on my subway/bus commute in Boston; in LA I drive to work). Someday....

Finally, the best thing about the movie? Ted Raimi cast as a “town bad boy” in one of the flashback scenes. Ted is possibly the least threatening guy ever born, so this is just hilarious to me.

What say you?

*He went on to make some softcore nonsense, as well as the Beethoven biopic Immortal Beloved. Which is odd, because the director of Candyman 2 went on to make the film version of Chicago. Candyman films – the gateway to Oscar bait music related cinema**!

**Except for part 3. The director of that movie went on to write Wrong Turn 2. Which is, as far as I’m concerned, a better deal.

Read more »

Based On Novel, Serial Killer, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

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,

{[['']]}

Satan's Skin (1971)

APRIL 20, 2008

GENRE: BRITISH, CULT, KILLER KID, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

Oh, bless you, Joe Dante. I had never even HEARD of Satan’s Skin (aka Blood on Satan’s Claw) until you added it into your festival, and honestly, if it wasn’t paired with Horror Express (yay!) I probably would have skipped it. Not a big fan of devil type horror movies, and I had never heard of anyone in the cast or crew, so I figured it would just be some dull oddity. Well it’s certainly an oddity, but it’s VERY far from dull.

The storytelling is very loose, something that was a bit strange but eventually won me over. For example, the film begins with a dude visiting his uncle to introduce him to his fiancée. The film follows the young couple for the first 15 minutes or so, and then once we have met a few other folks, they have seemingly served their purpose. The girl is never heard from again, and the guy just sort of gets phased out, to the point where the last time we see him he’s basically an extra in a scene. Later, five of the townsfolk are chasing one of the suspected cult members, a scene that comes out of nowhere. You might occasionally get a bit confused, but in the end it all more or less makes sense (at least in an interior logic sort of way – we ARE talking about a movie in which people begin growing parts of the devil on their person).

I should also point out that the film has a rather unpleasant “teen on teen” rape scene. By that point I was having a grand old time with the loony movie, but that sort of sucked the fun out of it for a while. It gets back on track, however, when the film’s actual hero suddenly realizes he has a goat leg.

The finale has some of the strangest editing I’ve ever seen. The town judge is swinging a sickle, and it suddenly freeze frames. Is it over? Nope, it cuts to the intended victims, who begin to run... and then it freeze frames. What the hell? It’s not like they are using a clever edit to hide the violence (none of them are killed), it’s just there for the hell of it. Very strange. It also contains Yvonne Paul, one of the hottest women I've ever seen, dancing nude and brandishing a knife.

Anchor Bay released this one (under the Blood on Satan’s Claw title) but only in Region 2, so it should be relatively easy to find if you're not in America. It's also been released on VHS, whatever that is. If you can watch it though, I highly recommend it – it’s like Children of the Corn meets Wicker Man, something I mean in the most positive way possible. Hopefully a stateside release will be coming along promptly. Like tomorrow.

Like I said earlier, it screened with Horror Express, a film that I really enjoyed when I watched it, despite being a god-awful transfer. Unfortunately, the print they showed wasn’t much better – it was scratched to hell, and each reel had a different color timing to it (one was too red, the next one looked right, then the next one was too yellow...). Still, a damn fine film that is also largely overlooked. Support strange 70s horror!

What say you?

Read more »

British, Cult, Killer Kid, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

Mortuary (2005)

APRIL 15, 2008

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

In retrospect, it’s kind of a good thing that Tobe Hooper made a real lot of crap in the 80s and especially the 90s. Because it forever lowered my expectations for his newer films, and then I happily enjoy them. It worked for Toolbox Murders, and now it worked again for Mortuary (which has the same writers – maybe it’s just them. His Dance of the Dead MoH is the worst thing he, or anyone else, has ever made). It’s no Chain Saw or Poltergeist, but it’s enjoyable, which is more than I can say for anything Carpenter has done since 1996.

Old reports on Bloody-Disgusting say that this film is supposed to be set in Arkham, Massachusetts, but I don’t see that mentioned anywhere. In fact, on the DVD, the making-of shows a scene where they have to redo a line because the script is no longer set in Pomona, CA (where it was filmed). So I dunno where the hell its supposed to be, but it’s certainly not Massachusetts (there is still some Lovecraftian influence in the film – mainly a quote on one of the tombs). And I was also a bit puzzled by the setting, as the kid complains that they are in the middle of nowhere, but it’s clearly just a Los Angeles suburb.

Speaking of the kid (Dan Byrd - who incidentally starred in a remake of Hooper's Salem's Lot), he, the hot female co-star, and the town real estate guy have the absolute most annoying voices ever heard in a film. Byrd sounds like he’s talking in his sleep, and practically sings half of his lines; the girl sounds like a damn frog, and real estate guy just laughs like Dr. Hibbert almost nonstop. Luckily he’s not around much (this is NOT another real estate horror movie, hurrah!).

On that note, it actually took me a while to figure out WHAT kind of horror movie this was. Slasher? Zombie? Witch? It’s a slow burn, and that’s kind of why I liked it. There’s nothing wrong with taking your time and developing character, setting atmosphere, all that good stuff that is often skipped over (especially in DTV movies). On the commentary, it’s revealed that a PG-13 was considered, and honestly, the trimming it would take to make this a reality would hardly be damaging; the film would still work without the occasional gore or F bomb. Besides, any movie with the line “Together we can stop graveyard babies!” is automatically at least OK. The eventual menace is pretty unique – this sort of wiry sludge stuff (it looks like a spider’s leg) that sort of zombifies you. And there’s a really cool side effect – everyone just repeats one of the last things they said when they were alive.

It’s also kind of a downer. Just about everyone dies, and other than a few requisite punk kids, they’re all nice, good people. As I pointed out in the Lake Dead review, when they only kill off the people who do something bad, the movie automatically loses the possibility of suspense.

The only real bummer is that the ending is pretty effects heavy, and the effects aren’t very good. It’s one thing when bad effects are just the order of the day, but when they more or less “save them” for the finale, they should be a lot better than what is shown here. Hilariously, on the commentary track, Hooper points out “those are CGI rocks”, as if there was any doubt.

The commentary is otherwise pretty good; Hooper’s interesting to listen to, and he talks about a lot of the production troubles (CA was hit with the worst rain in 50 years during production – sinking sets and the like) and other nuts and bolts stuff. They shower a bit too much praise on the average acting, but that’s OK. Speaking of the actors – the bully I mentioned before is played by Bug Hall! Fucking Alfalfa from the terrible 1994 Little Rascals movie! Sweet!

There is also a decent enough, and lengthy, making-of documentary. It covers a lot of the same ground, but instead of Hooper praising the actors, we see a lot of the actors and crew gushing about Hooper. Everyone loves everyone, yay! There’s also a hilarious bit of Adam Gierasch, one of the writers, getting lunch while in his corpse makeup.

Give it a watch. It’s nothing particularly amazing or anything, but it’s solid, old school (except for the CG) slow-burn horror.

What say you?

Read more »

Supernatural,

{[['']]}

Dead End (2003)

APRIL 8, 2008

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Two goddamn full frame movies in a row! This is unacceptable! (It’s also the 2nd movie in the past few days to be adorned with a quote from B-D). Though, take the good with the bad – Dead End was distributed by Lions Gate long before they became the bane of the home video world, which means that while we have to suffer through a full frame transfer, we do NOT have to suffer through 18 trailers for truly awful movies like The Eye or whatever.

And the movie is pretty good. The cast is a big part of its success; few can pull off darkly humorous hysteria like Lin Shaye and Ray Wise, and the kid playing their son is pretty good as well (if overly, and randomly, homophobic – of all the people in the car who’s definitely NOT gay, it’s his sister's boyfriend, yet he consistently alludes to him being a homosexual). With a less capable cast, this one would probably be a giant bore, but Wise and Shaye keep you entertained with their off kilter reactions and dry delivery. At one point, Shaye, who is going a bit crazy after the death of her son, draws a picture of her daughter’s boyfriend, who was found dismembered all over the road, and shows it to her:

Bahahahaaha.

It also doesn’t feel too padded, which it easily could since the movie is essentially four people in a car driving on a road without an exit. Unlike the similar Wind Chill, writer/directors Jean-Baptiste Andrea and Fabrice Canepa had the good sense to keep the movie moving along, make the characters somewhat likable, and consistently seek ways to keep the movie from becoming too much of a Moebius strip, even when at its core that is precisely what it is. Nice job.

Alexandra Holden is also in the movie, as the daughter (once again, she plays the daughter of two genre faves that don’t resemble her at all, a fact written into the plot). She’s pretty much the only character who never made me laugh, which is a bummer. Oh well, still hot.

The theme of the movie appears to be dirty secrets – everyone eventually reveals something about their past that comes as a shock to everyone else – Holden is pregnant, Shaye had an affair, etc. It’s a nice idea but I would have liked to have seen it worked into the finale, which (spoiler) is merely a decent twist on the ‘it was all a dream’ ending. It was all a dream, yes, but everyone else is STILL dead, which is a plus. Makes it easier to swallow (the underrated Reeker had a similar denouement). However, this presents a few holes, or at least provides some genuinely disturbing information about the surviving character. There’s a scene in the movie in which the brother goes off into the woods to jerk off. But if this was all one of his family member’s hallucination, why the fuck would they be imagining that?

All in all, a decent little movie that deserves a better DVD (in addition to the shitty video, the sound is merely stereo) . Region 2’s release is widescreen, with a few extras to boot. If you can watch R2, I urge you avoid the region 1 disc. Had I watched it at night instead of 11 am, it’d probably be even more effective, as it’s the type of low-budget creepfest that would scare me as a kid when I’d watch them when it was dark and everyone was in bed. Watch it in the dark, folks!

I'd also like to point out that this is the 3rd "Dead End" film in HMAD history, following Wrong Turn 2: Dead End, and Dood Eind (aka Dead End). How many more will there be? Call now and vote!

What say you?

Read more »

Psychological, Supernatural,

{[['']]}