October Extras #28 - Scream 2 (1997)

OCTOBER 28, 2007

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: 2004 (?) (DVD)

The only time I ever dressed up for a movie was for Scream 2. And by dress up, I mean: “Wore my Ghostface mask in the lobby for a few minutes”. This was also the days when I didn’t care about spoilers... I had read the script beforehand and even asked someone on their way out if the killer in the script was the killer in the movie (note – it wasn’t). Needless to say, I was pretty excited for the film.

I wasn’t let down too much, and over time I have grown to really like the sequel, almost as much as the original. It’s not as clever as the first one was (though you gotta love a sequel in which characters try to think of sequels that surpassed the original), but it’s still an effective slasher (the 3rd film was neither). And it contains what I still consider to be the most horrifying death in slasher history – Randy. Everyone loved Randy (particularly me, who, like the character, was a movie nerd who worked at a video store and was in love with Neve Campbell), and even now, having seen the film probably half a dozen times, I still sort of hope he’ll survive this time around (imagine if “Navigational Cinema” was employed in a film that was actually good?). His death also results in a true slasher movie rarity – a character’s death actually resonating. There’s a scene shortly after where Sidney says that she could call Randy’s mother, only to discover Dewey already took care of it for her.

Dewey’s character isn’t as dumb in this movie, and his role as Sidney’s sort of big brother/protector is a nice touch. How he manages to survive AGAIN is pretty baffling, but I cheered (along with the rest of the theater) all the same. Also, his “theme” is none other than the amazing Broken Arrow theme by Hans Zimmer. Apparently, they used the score during editing as temp music, but everyone liked it so much that they actually licensed it. As great as the music is, it’s sort of distracting. It happens a lot in films, but usually in an ironic manner (such as having the Darth Vader music play over the introduction of a goofy villain); when it’s a more or less serious situation, the borrowed cues are rarely recognizable, at least to me.

One strange, never fully explained concept was that the killer(s) in this film were killing people with the same names as the victims in the first film. It’s dropped and never mentioned again as soon as it’s brought up, and damned if it ever made much sense to me. Plus, how the hell did they manage to find a couple who happened to share the same names as Sidney’s mother and Casey’s boyfriend? Why strain credibility if you’re not even going to really do anything with it?

Otherwise, solid stuff here. I liked most of the characters (except Debbie Salt, but I guess that’s sort of the point), and there are some terrific set-pieces (particularly the Dewey and Gale in the film building chase) that rival anything in the original. Like the Saw films, Scream 2 came out a year to the day after the first one, so it’s even sort of more impressive how well it came together. Especially when you consider that they took 2 and a half years to make the third and it was total shit.

Oh, and David Warner shows up.

The DVD has what has to be my favorite TV spot of all time. Eschewing almost every possible reference to the killer (or even horror at all), the spot just sort of makes the film look like it’s a romantic thriller about Jerry O’Connell and Neve Campbell’s characters, with O’Connell saying things like “I am here for you!” and Neve looking all damsel-y while Collective Soul yammers on about flowers. Yet it still has the same “SCREAM 2, RATED R!” voiceover that accompanied the more truthful spots. I highly urge you to check it out. This is back when TV spots were a standard feature on special edition DVDs, something that has been sort of phased out over the years (as has listing “3D Motion Menus” as a goddamn special feature, thankfully).

What say you?

Read more »

Craven, October Extras, Slasher,

{[['']]}

Nightmare (1964)

OCTOBER 28, 2007

GENRE: BRITISH, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Gee, another movie about folks pretending to be dead folks in order to freak someone out enough that they’ll do something so drastic that they’ll lose their inheritance/home/ job/collection of cookie jars. Exciting. Christ, even the title (Nightmare), is generic.

Now, is it a bad movie? No. It’s actually kind of fun, especially in the last 20 minutes, when the villain begins going crazy herself and over pronounciates words at random. “She was HEYEYEYEYRE!” and “I’ll FIYIYIYIYIYIYIND you!” are some highlights. I wish I knew how to pull audio off a DVD. Also, this doll is pretty goddamn creepy:

But I’m just tired of this plotline. I called out what was happening almost before the opening credits were finished. Just once, I’d like to see this plot devolve into an ACTUAL ghost haunting. You gotta assume that even the people in these movies are starting to suspect that maybe it’s just their bitchy in-laws pulling off a hoax to fuck with them, because they had to have seen some of the other movies in which the same goddamn thing was happening. If I ever see the “ghost” of my Dad or grandfather wandering around my house, first thing I will do is ask my sister what the hell she wants.

I should note that the brevity of this review is due to the release of Guitar Hero III distracting me away from my true love of rambling about horror movies. Plus, having written 3 reviews in the past 2 months for what is essentially the same movie, I have sort of run out of things to say about them.

What say you?

Read more »

British, Hammer, Psychological,

{[['']]}

October Extras #27 - Halloween III: Season Of The Witch (1982)

OCTOBER 27, 2007

GENRE: CULT, TECHNOLOGY, WEIRD
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (!!!!)
LAST SEEN: OCTOBER 2006 (DVD)

I must credit the source of today’s October Extra to Ryan Rotten of ShockTillYouDrop.com, who informed me of a theatrical screening of my beloved Halloween III: Season Of The Witch right here in LA. I skipped multiple parties and had to listen to Game 3 of the World Series (which the Sox won, wooo) on the goddamn radio in order to attend this rare event, but I have no regrets at all.

More than probably any other entry in the series, III deserves to be seen with a big crowd and on a big screen. It’s such a delightfully odd and mean-spirited film, there’s no way one could TRULY experience it without the film being presented larger than life, in a room full of appreciative fans. As many times as I have seen the film, I never noticed the totally fake fireman hat in the early hospital scene until it was magnified and pointed out by an audience member. Go back and watch the scene (widescreen version only) after the guy blows up at the hospital, and keep your eye on the fireman on the left. It’s breathtaking in its cheapness.

Also, come on people, let’s be honest: Tom Atkins is Oscar-worthy here. From his rampant hitting on of every woman who crosses his path, to his utterly horrified reaction to a generic cartoon playing at the bar (the one he frequents so much that his co-workers “said he could be found here” – keep in mind he’s a doctor), to his ass scene, the crowd cheered almost every time he appeared on screen. The scene where he calls his wife and tells her he has to go to some medical conference before grabbing a six pack and heading off to visit a mask factory with some chick he just met a few hours before (and of course, nails a few hours later) is possibly the greatest scene in any Halloween film.

Which brings us to the most controversial aspect of the film: the total lack of Michael Myers (something that escaped Roger Ebert, who, in his review, claimed that “the film begins where II left off, with the killer being immolated in the hospital parking lot” – dumbass!). Since we see clips of the original in the film, we are to believe that III exists in the “real world” (if so, I need to buy more 6 packs and make up more medical conferences than I already do), despite retaining the Halloween name. Everyone by now knows that this was Carpenter’s intent all along, to make a different film about Halloween every year, but he was vetoed by the money men and thus left the franchise after this one, and the “franchise entry” Halloween 4 was made, apparently by the people who survived the likely apocalypse at the end of this film. The long running argument is “If they didn’t call it Halloween I would probably like it”, which just speaks volumes as to how ignorant people are. If The Godfather was called “Horse Head In A Guy’s Bed”, I’m pretty sure it would still be a great movie.

Back to the film itself and how amazing it is. Let’s see, we got a kid’s head turning into snakes and insects because a computer chip with a piece of Stonehenge inside it reacted to an epileptic TV commercial, and... well really, what the fuck else do you need out of a movie? Atkins’ ass has already been mentioned.

The film’s most memorable contribution to pop culture is of course, the Silver Shamrock theme. Set to the tune of London Bridge, it is simply impossible to watch the film and not sing along to the ad (which we hear about a dozen times) at least once. Carpenter and Howarth’s score is one of their best collaborations (love the main theme over the computerized pumpkin assembly/credits), and even a die hard Myers fan would be hard-pressed to claim otherwise.

One thing I don’t get about the movie is the timing of the “Big Giveaway”. So this tiny mask company somehow convinced all major networks to show Halloween at the same time across the country (starting at half past the hour no less), and everyone was watching it? At one point, Cochran is told “they” are getting a 41 share, so maybe he owns all the networks and just chose not to sink any of his money into a more impressive factory.

But who cares. I love this movie, and watching in theaters with a couple friends and 30 other like-minded folks was one of the best theater experiences I’ve had this year. Another friend didn’t understand why I would pay 10 bucks and miss out on a party to go see a film I have on DVD (twice in fact) – but people like that just don’t get how important the theatrical experience is in terms of enjoyment. I almost feel bad when I see a film (especially one that wasn’t direct to video) for the first time on DVD. And revival screenings such as this are even more fun, because you get to sort of see the film for the first time again.

I usually never censor my comments, but I will make an exception here – anyone who posts “This movie sucks because there’s no Michael Myers”, even to be sarcastic, that comment will be deleted. I want good feelings and love here! Myers or not, there’s nothing anyone can do to convince me that any of the last 4 films (though H20 I can go either way on) is somehow truer to the spirit of Halloween (the film or the holiday) than III. BUT, if you can explain in a way that has nothing to do with Myers, or the title, why this film is somehow bad, I am all ears. Or, eyes, I guess, in this context.

What say you?

Read more »

Cult, Halloween Series, Holiday, October Extras, Technology, Weird,

{[['']]}

Saw IV (2007)

OCTOBER 27, 2007

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

Christ, thank God I watched Saw III just a few hours before sitting down for Saw IV, or else I’d probably be pretty baffled as to what the hell I just watched. Despite a new set of writers, the film is probably the least accessible of the entire series, and I can’t imagine how someone who had never seen the last film would react to the finale (let alone someone who had never seen any of the others).

See, despite their intertwined nature with the previous films, II and III were fairly stand alone in terms of basic plot understanding. Sure, some of the references and revelations would be a little confusing, but you’d get the jist of it. But how anyone would be able to understand what the hell was happening at the end of IV is beyond me. A character from III (I wish these movies had subtitles!), who hasn’t even been mentioned in the new film yet, suddenly stumbles out of a room and begins interacting with the new characters, never introduced by name or given any sort of real introduction (there are some flashbacks, but they serve as reminders for the Saw faithful, not Cliff's Notes for newcomers). Granted, I am sure they don’t expect that someone would begin with part IV, but the filmmakers were actually quoted on claiming that IV would be totally accessible to newcomers, and that is far from the truth.

For the fans though, who let’s be honest, are the ones who make up 99.9% of the audience, the film is a lot of fun. Like III, I now have trouble deciding which is my favorite, as I like them all for different reasons. The original remains the best written, but II is the one that surprised me the most, and III has my favorite character (Jeff). So what does IV bring to my table?

Well the opening scene, for starters, is possibly one of the greatest meta-scenes in film history. For a year, everyone has assumed that Jigsaw would be magically resurrected. How can you do a Saw film without, well, JigSAW? So what do Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton come up with? A lengthy, hilarious autopsy scene in which we see John Kramer on the receiving end of surgical procedures that no one could survive. His brain is removed, his chest is torn apart, other organs removed, etc. It’s as if the writers and Darren Bousman were just saying “See! He’s fucking dead! DEAD!” before moving along with the new story.

We also see his balls.

The rest of the film follows a plot similar to III. Like Jeff, Detective Rigg is not a bad person, but he is still guilty of living a life that is devoted to the wrong thing. In Jeff’s case, this was revenge. Rigg’s is obsession (with his work, particularly Jigsaw), at the cost of his family. He neglects his wife, has no friends, etc. So Jigsaw puts him through the tests to see if he is capable of letting go. Now, unlike the previous films, this plan has a bit of a flaw in terms of storytelling – had Rigg just opted to be a better man right from the start, and accompany his wife to her mother’s, the rest of the film wouldn’t work. It’s not so much that Jigsaw was trying to help him, but instead just playing a very elaborate game of “I told you so”.

Another thing is, while it actually makes for somewhat more compelling characters, it’s strange how Jigsaw is going after better and better people all the time. He still dishes out his unique form of justice on criminals (strangely, the hardest scene for me to watch in this one was seeing video of a rapist about to attack a woman tied to a bed, as well as some photos of her after the fact), but his primary targets (in this case, Rigg) are pretty decent people in the later sequels. At this rate, by the time Saw VIII rolls around, he’ll be going after guys who simply forgot their wife’s birthday by tying some sort of death trap to a piece of string around their finger. “Choose to never forget anything again!”

Some folks have been complaining about this one’s wide open ending. To them I ask 3 things: 1. Have you ever seen any of the other films? They all end on an ambiguous note. Christ, they still haven’t even told us Dr. Gordon’s fate, and III’s ending was far more “set-up”-y than this. 2. One would assume big fans would read things like Bloody Disgusting or Dread Central, who have been reporting for over a year now that Saw 5 and 6 are already greenlit, and the director for 5 has already been hired (putting them way ahead of the schedule for IV – Darren Bousman only signed on to return about 8 months before release). Why wrap everything up when the next film is already begun pre-production? Gotta leave SOMETHING for the sequels. And 3. You don’t know jack shit about wide open endings until you’ve seen Halloween 5 or Curse of Michael Myers (aka 6). And at least Saw 5 doesn’t threaten to pretend the sequels never happened and pick up in some prep school where Jigsaw is the headmaster.

All in all, it’s another worthy entry in one of modern horror’s most unique franchises. Sure, they are not perfect, but the effort they put into assembling their stories and complimenting the previous films in the series is quite admirable. As enjoyable as they may be, I really don’t think the Friday the 13th or Hellraiser (a closer cousin to Saw) films really benefit from being watched in sequence, nor do they reward the audience for paying attention to the previous entries. There’s plenty of carnage to enjoy if you’re a gorehound, but you can’t turn your brain off for any of them either (at least not fully). Kudos.

What say you?

Read more »

Saw, Serial Killer, Survival,

{[['']]}

October Extras #26 - Saw III (2006)

OCTOBER 26, 2007

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: OCTOBER 2006 (THEATRICAL)

At this point in the Saw franchise, I am beginning to have trouble choosing a favorite (or least favorite) among them. Like Saw II before it, Saw III is so entwined into the storyline of the previous film, it’s hard to single it out for any one characteristic (good or bad). Like the others, it has its pros and cons, but nothing so major that sticks out.

As for the good: Bousman’s direction has improved (though the film is very dark at times, everything seems more fluid, and the blue tint to the Jigsaw scenes is about the only thing in the film that can be considered distinguished), and the acting in this film is across the board good (having a classy kind of guy like Angus MacFayden certainly helps). And, while it doesn’t specifically say how long it’s been since II, Amanda (Shawnee Smith) has grown her hair out, and she looks as good onscreen as ever. Also, she must have some amazing healing powers – in II all evidence of her jaw injuries from the original were gone, and now, after having her head repeatedly bashed into a wall by Matthews, her face is flawless. (UPDATE - Saw IV reveals that the time in between is about 6 months)

Also, the Jeff character is probably the series’ best, and his ‘test’ in turn is probably the most compelling. Unlike Detective Matthews or the guys in the original, Jeff is a tragic figure, one we can firmly sympathize with. And while the film is the most violent/graphic in the series (at times approaching the sort of pointlessness the franchise is often unfairly accused of, especially in the overlong brain surgery sequence), most of Jeff’s tests have genuine psychological aspects built into them (such as when he has to burn his son’s toys in order to save the other guy), making them vastly more interesting.

However, as said, the film has a bit too much plain ol’ torture. Before we really begin the plot, we are subjected to THREE torture scenes, including the death of one of the series regulars (and the last “good guy” to appear in all of the films to that point). The tests are overly graphic compared to the previous films, and while this sort of makes sense in the grand scheme of things (Amanda’s “cheating”), it doesn’t make it any less excessive. It’s worth noting that this is also the first Saw film to include nudity, which doesn’t really add anything to the scene if you ask me (is liquid nitrogen LESS terrifying if you have a blouse on?).

Also, the end of the film, while a nice surprise, contains far too much flashback during the big reveal, to the point where I feel I am being treated like an idiot. They literally flashback to things we saw just moments before, and more than once. Plus, I think by now the people watching Saw movies kind of know they have to pay attention, which even further eliminates the need for such lengthy “reminders” (incidentally, this is the longest film of the series as well). And it gets even longer! I do not have the new "director's cut" DVD, only the original unrated one (what if someone wanted the theatrical version?). Bousman told me to my face that this one wouldn't be double-dipped, so I refuse to buy it, even if I am intrigued by what is different, since it runs about 6-7 minutes longer (which would suggest the added stuff is more than just gore). But I am a man of principle, dammit! Also, I don't have time to watch it again.

The most impressive thing about these films is how relatively well written and plot hole free they are, considering how quickly they are made, not to mention how much they have to remain consistent with in order to sell the “Jigsaw Puzzle” aspect of the film in relation to the previous ones. Tomorrow I will be seeing part IV (the first in the series that neither Leigh Whannell or James Wan had any part in), I am curious as to how well the new writers do with all the multiple storylines, not to mention the death of Jigsaw himself.

What say you?

Read more »

October Extras, Saw, Serial Killer, Survival,

{[['']]}

Phantom From 10,000 Leagues

OCTOBER 26, 2007

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

Few titles are as grossly inaccurate as Phantom From 10,000 Leagues. There’s no phantom, only a very silly looking Black Lagoon wannabe, and he’s about 100 feet under the surface or so. Plus, the movie is barely about him anyway, as the monster has maybe 3 minutes of screentime in the entire film.

No, instead, the filmmakers thought it would be much more interesting to watch a bunch of folks standing around talking about the ocean and science, and occasionally doing some scuba diving as they investigate a few murders. It’s sort of like that horrendous Jessica Alba movie Into the Blue – nothing happens, ever, just people diving and talking about diving. The monster scenes are mostly limited to the monster appearing behind some folks as they swim (never in the same shot) and then not actually killing them. At one point I began to wonder if he was even going to bother showing up in the climax.

Like just about every 50s movie, there’s a cop who bickers with another male character for no real reason, only to team up with him as the film progresses. Their animosity is made clear at the beginning, when the non-cop says, as icily as possible: “I’m an oceanographer... the ocean’s my business, day or night.” Which brought memories of a never filmed Jerry Bruckheimer movie called Tsunami, which was said to be about a “Maverick Oceanographer” (!!!) who tries to stop a giant tidal wave from destroying whatever town it took place in. Why the Bruck never made this film is beyond me, but the idea of a “maverick oceanographer” has been stuck in my mind since; a ridiculous character description that was only topped by Nathan Fillion’s character in FOX’s short lived show Drive, in which he played a “Rogue Landscaper”. GOD I love this town!

Still, that line is nothing compared to this gem. The obvious bad guy doctor talks to his secretary, and then suddenly says “I consider you an intelligent woman... a bit bitter perhaps, and no great lover of mankind, but still intelligent!” What the fuck kind of thing is that to say to someone? The fact that we have seen no evidence of her alleged disdain for the human race notwithstanding, it’s just an unnecessarily mean-spirited backhanded compliment.

And if anyone knows why, at the end of the film, the camera suddenly jerk pans away from the main characters as they walk off into the sunset in order to show the ocean (in which nothing is going on), feel free to explain here.

Mill Creek dubs this as a “classic”. I can only assume they were being sarcastic (they didn’t use quotes, like I did).

What say you?

Read more »

Horror Classics, Mad Scientist, Monster,

{[['']]}

October Extras #25 - Saw II (2005)

OCTOBER 25, 2007

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: FEBRUARY 2006 (DVD)

One of my favorite stories to tell (at least, to fellow horror fans) is the time I went to some convention and met Leigh Whannell, Darren Bousman, and Shawnee Smith at a signing for Saw II. A guy in front of me had a copy of Armageddon for Shawnee to sign (she’s in it for like 17 seconds), and as she did, Whannell commented “That is the worst movie of all time.” Naturally, I immediately told him he was wrong. We debated Armageddon vs Commando for some reason, while they signed my poster. After walking away, I looked and saw that both Whannell and Bousman had signed it commenting about Armageddon (Bousman confessed to kind of liking it). I framed the poster and hung it on my wall, across from my Armageddon poster (which contains no autographs concerning Saw II, sadly).

Anyway, the funny part of the story (well, comparative to the rest of it) is that I hadn’t even SEEN Saw II yet. It had come out right when I moved to LA (literally, the day of, meaning as of tomorrow I will have been here for two years, since they come out the same weekend every year), and as I was unemployed for a month (and barely employed for another 2 after that), I didn’t feel the need to spend what little money I had on a sequel to a film that I didn’t really care for (it has since grown on me, as evidenced by yesterday’s review). But Bousman and Whannell were so funny to listen to I figured I should check the film out, so I rented it that night.

I was surprised to find that I enjoyed it a lot, and I still do (originally far more than the original, though now I put them about even). As most fans know, the script was originally written as another film entirely, and then reshaped into a Saw sequel. So it’s pretty impressive how well they fit together (even revealing a nice bit of backstory concerning Dr. Gordon). Bousman’s direction is different enough from Wan’s to give the film its own look, but not so much that it’s not recognizable as the same franchise (he even copies the idiotic ramped up driving shots from the first film). Clouser’s score is even better this time, and the acting is good (or at least, better) across the board.

This film also gave us a real introduction to Jigsaw. He’s only in the first film for like 30 seconds, but here he gets a lot to do, and his confrontations with Donnie Wahlberg’s character are the best in the film. Also, the well-aging Dina Meyer’s role is bumped up (she’s also in the first for only a minute or so), and Shawnee looks a lot better without half her jaw bleeding. It’s more violent than the original, at times excessively so (seems like this time, some people HAD to die in order for the plot to work, which is not the case in the original). The Franky G character is a horrible invention, and while having a house full of people who are at odds with each other as much as their common enemy is a well-worn plot device, it doesn’t make him any less wretched (he’s also the weakest link acting-wise). Naturally, he lives the longest of all the people who eventually die.

As with the first film, the 2-Disc DVD is pretty jampacked, and I don’t have time to go through it all. I did play the little DVD-ROM game for a little bit, long enough to see a "Saw 2 in 62 seconds" claymation thing that was pretty funny. Some day, I will devote myself to the entire Saw franchise’s extras (hey, if I made it through all four discs of Fellowship of the Ring AND Pearl Harbor, I can make it through Saw 1-3 at least), but rest assured it’s no ripoff like Windtalkers was (where the 2nd and 3rd discs contained less than 2 hrs of extras combined), as it contains a wealth of info, plus a nice little piece in memory of Gregg Hoffman, producer of the films who died shortly after the film was complete.

What say you?

Read more »

October Extras, Saw, Serial Killer, Survival,

{[['']]}