Crazy Eights (2006)

MAY 6, 2008

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

It’s no secret that I will often give a generic movie a slightly better review if it’s technically proficient (blame all of the movies I’ve watched that couldn’t get either the technical OR creative aspects correct), but what do I do when it comes to a movie like Crazy Eights? It’s one of the best shot low budget films I’ve seen in ages, and certainly made with more effort than any of the other After Dark films from this year (save for Mulberry Street, which remains the only one I really consider independent). But the movie itself? Couldn’t make heads or tails of it. At no point in the entire film was I quite sure why the horror-ish things were happening, and the ending was even less coherent.

But man, what a great looking film. Director James K. Jones and DP Stephen M. Lyons have somehow found a way to combine M. Night Shyamalan’s endless takes (entire scenes play out in one or two shots) with Michael Bay’s non-stop camera movement. If there’s a still shot in the entire film, I didn’t catch it. They are also fond of Dutch angles, which when combined with the almost floating camerawork give the film a very interesting and energetic feel, which is all the more impressive when you consider that the entire film consists of five folks standing around looking at walls and news clippings and old toys.

And yes, five. The plot description will say six, but the film has a Noonan, played by Dan Deluca. While he is given his own death scene (and his death is acknowledged by his friends, which puts him above his namesake), his character is so extraneous it’s almost laughable in certain scenes. For example, after the funeral that serves as the reason for these estranged friends to get back together, they all go out to eat. During the dinner, everyone but him not only talks, but gets a closeup. I wasn’t even aware he was actually with them until a wide shot revealed him sitting in between two of the others. Poor sod. Naturally, he is the first to die, and even before then he is more or less written out of the film by the most exaggerated injury in film history (he falls down maybe 5 steps and yet his leg looks like it was run over by a truck and then partially eaten).

Actually, there is almost another non-character, but since she’s played by Gabrielle Anwar, she gets elevated a bit. Like Deluca’s character, she disappears for long stretches and doesn’t really interact with the others. She spends most of the film rocking back and forth on a chair (what I wouldn’t give to be that chair...) before shoving her hands down her own throat and ripping it out from the inside. Not sure why they would hire a relatively well-known actress to do so little in a film, but hey, any Anwar is fine by me.

The real casting surprise is none other than George Newbern as the lead. He plays the least obnoxious priest in movie history (he wears jeans and smokes instead of telling everyone how to live their life before molesting little kids), and even though he’s third billed, he’s essentially the lead. Newbern is the star of one of my favorite movies as a kid: It Takes Two. It’s the tale of a man who is about to get married, but before he does so he wants to buy a sports car. He does, but the car falls apart, then he eats some bad Mexican, fucks some hot blonde woman, blows up the car dealership, and gets married on time. It’s never come out on DVD, but occasionally airs on cable. It’s also got one of my favorite movie scores ever, composed by none other than Carter Burwell (I believe it was his first film) who is known for his work with the Coens. Anyway, good to see him again.

Also on hand are Dina Meyer, Frank Whaley, and Traci Lords. It’s the most impressive cast assembled for an After Dark film yet, and I think it helps smooth over some of the film’s shortcomings (you know, like, not making any goddamn sense). I’m not sure if it was the INTENT to never really explain anything (some theories on the IMDb seem to make sense, but damned if anything in the film really support them), but if so they did a piss poor job. Then again, the film has one of the strangest writing credits I’ve ever seen – “Additional Screenplay Rewrites By...” followed by three names, one of which (Jones again) is also credited with the screenplay itself? Who the fuck credits himself for rewriting his own script?

And once again, the DVD is completely lacking in extras, which is incredibly strange, since all of the AD films from the first year had at LEAST a making of featurette. So far this year, the only ones with extras are Nightmare Man and Mulberry, which incidentally are also the most truly independent of the series.

Still, the atmosphere, the pace (it’s only 80 minutes long with credits), and occasional (brief) gore are admirable, and the cast much better than this type of stuff is usually afforded. I can’t go so far as to say it was GOOD, because I think story should come first above all else, but the craftsmanship alone puts it above many others. Maybe a few more (or less?) of those credited rewrites would have resulted in this being the best of this year’s offerings, but instead we are left with a mixed bag – A well made and well cast movie that unfortunately doesn’t have a script worthy of the efforts.

What say you?

Read more »

After Dark Fest, Psychological,

{[['']]}

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

MAY 5, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What say you?

Read more »

Independent, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005)

MAY 4, 2008

GENRE: ITALIAN, THRILLER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Enough of this thriller shit... tomorrow’s movie better be about monsters killing people in incredibly graphic ways. After the very “light on horror” Burbs and Godsend, I was looking for something more traditional. Thankfully, Anchor Bay answered the call, sending me the new Dario Argento Box set yesterday, which features two films already reviewed on HMAD (Trauma and Tenebrae), one I haven’t seen since I was a kid (Phenomena), and two I haven’t seen at all. One is The Card Player, and it better be more of a horror movie than Do You Like Hitchcock? (aka Ti Piace Hitchcock?), which features three kills in the entire film, and one is a goddamn chicken (and another is just a dude accidentally being hit by a car). If I have to stretch the criteria for what is and what isn’t a horror film for a goddamn Dario Argento movie, there’s something wrong!

It’s not a bad film at least (miles better than Phantom of the Opera, which was the most recent of his films that I had seen prior to this, and so bad I almost decided to never watch another of his recent films). In fact, considering it was a TV movie, it’s actually pretty solid, if not exactly top notch Argento. Also, on that note – what the hell kind of television does Italy have? This “TV movie” has a very graphic kill, rampant nudity and profanity, suggested incest, etc.... so really, saying “it’s good for a TV movie” is sort of giving it too much credit, since the medium obviously doesn’t have the same limitations that US television does. Also, it’s shot on video, which is a bummer no matter what medium/country you are working in, and even moreso when the film is directed by one of the most visually creative horror directors of all time.

None of the video looked really bad though, and in fact on a technical level, other than an odd glitch during the opening credits (why are they windowboxed?) it’s a perfectly good and professional looking film. But I expect nothing less from Dario.

What DID bug me was the setup of the video store that serves as the jumping point for several of the film’s plotlines. I spotted Green Mile filed along with several Hitchcock thrillers, and Mission Impossible 2 next to The Exorcist. Who the fuck alphabetized and categorized this place? There were other errors as well, not to mention a baffling amount of promotion for The Card Player (it’s almost as if the film was mocking me for not watching that instead).

And on that note, our protagonist is a pretty awful film student. He talks like your typical movie nerd guy, but then we see him watching Nosferatu on his widescreen TV, and he has the film stretched horizontally rather than at the correct square ratio. You fucking jerk! Look, no one likes to watch 4:3 movies on their nice 16:9 TV, but for Christ’s sake, don’t stretch out the image to make up for it! The movie looks like shit when you do that! Some fucking film student; he woulda gotten his ass kicked at my school.

As for the movie itself? It’s an interesting concept, but not enough is done with it. For some reason I was under the impression that the film concerned a serial killer who was killing people in Hitchcock homages (so like, he would kill someone in the shower, and throw a guy off Mt. Rushmore, or whatever). But instead it’s basically just a Strangers On A Train/Rear Window hybrid, with a bit of Dial M For Murder (and an affectionate mother that I guess is supposed to evoke Psycho, or at least Psycho IV), with our hero thinking that the femme fatale is copying the films on purpose. The film’s final scene is fascinating, as he realizes a pretty awful fact about himself; but that should have been the focus of the film, not a mini “twist” at the end.

Still, mediocre Argento is better than the best work of many others, and it’s certainly an entertaining piece. The Rear Window-esque finale is pretty suspenseful, and the hero’s never-fully explained flashbacks/dreams about two witches in the woods are vintage Dario. The box set is reasonably priced – just consider the film a bonus disc and you’re pretty much guaranteed an entertaining watch.

However, unless you speak Italian, don’t bother with the making of piece – it’s in Italian without subtitles. It’s not too hard to figure out what’s going on, but since these things are sort of worthless to begin with (there are no interviews included within) it’s even less appealing when you can’t really understand exactly WHAT boring things they are saying.

What say you?

Read more »

Argento, Italian, Thriller,

{[['']]}

The 'Burbs (1989)

MAY 3, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (BACKYARD SCREENING!)

Some may wonder why The ‘Burbs is included as a Horror Movie A Day entry, and it’s perfectly reasonable to do so. However, it meets my criteria (IMDb lists it as comedy/horror), and quite frankly – there is more legit suspense and (light) scares than in many “straight” horror films. So F you! It’s horror!

(I also like the fact that now I have two Tom Hanks - the least horror-ish guy ever born - movies reviewed here.)

It’s also hilarious. The reason I think the film works where so many others have failed is that it puts funny people into a standard horror movie situation, rather than try to make a funny situation scary (such as recent films like Killer Pad – which is about a crazy, out of control teen party that gets crashed by demons or something. I haven’t seen it, but the trailer made me want to slit my wrists). The plot is really no different than Fright Night or certain Twilight Zones – a guy becomes convinced that his neighbors are murderers. And the fact that (spoiler) they ARE certainly solidifies the film as horror, although it ends rather abruptly after this reveal.

I’m convinced that Tom Hanks is the only guy in the world who could have pulled off the role of Ray. A lot of big actors have certain “Everyman” abilities that the best (non big) character actors have, but still just don’t look right in certain situations. For example: Bruce Willis. Sure, I buy him as a regular detective, or a boxer, or whatever, but there is absolutely nothing sillier than the sight of him driving an SUV around suburbia in The Story Of Us. But Hanks doesn’t have that problem, and he’s friggin flawless here (asking his neighbor to look at his new tools is the film’s funniest moment). I wish the guy would do more non-romantic comedic work; after this he pretty much only did one more (Joe Vs The Volcano) and then it was all dramas and romcoms, with the occasional Road To Perdition to “stretch”.

I also really dig the ensemble nature of the film. The best scenes are the ones with three or more of them doing something ridiculous in order to discover more about their neighbors. Hanks may be the star, but if it was just him vs. the neighbors, the movie would probably suck (especially since Bruce Dern is the one who delivers the film’s most quotable line – “You’re about a 9 on the tension scale, Rube!”). Again, this is part of why the ending feels a bit weak, as it comes down to just Hanks vs the head of the killer family (Henry Gibson), with the supporting cast all off somewhere else (Corey Feldman disappears entirely in the last 10 minutes, only resurfacing in the final shot). Maybe a scene of the family "in action" would have helped, though I can understand the reasons for not wanting to do so.

As you may have noticed, the film was watched in a backyard. My buddy Mike has a great projector setup, and since it was his birthday, there was plenty of delicious snacks for me to devour. As a bonus, the film’s editor (Marshall Harvey, a friend of Mike's), brought sardines on pretzels, the "awful" hors d'oeuvres that the family serves Hanks when they finally enter the strange house and meet the neighbors. I believe I was the only one who had any, and I’m certainly the only one who ate three. Look, sardines – good! Pretzels – good! I don’t really see the issue.

Also, the location added another thrill to the proceedings – when Dern sits on his roof you can see the same mountain in the background that you can see from Mike’s street (the movie was filmed on the same backlot at Universal that now serves as Wisteria Lane). That’s fucking cool. Imagine watching, I dunno, Star Wars and then looking out your window and seeing Mos Eisley or something? Actually that would mean I was in a fictional spaceworld and listening to the same annoying song for eternity, so I’d probably freak out.

What say you?

Read more »

Comedic, Thriller,

{[['']]}

Godsend (2004)

MAY 2, 2008

GENRE: KILLER KID, MAD SCIENTIST, THRILLER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Some movies, you watch and just wonder how they got made. There’s nothing particularly awful about Godsend, but at the same time, nothing very good either. They take an interesting concept (clones become crazy once they get older than their original counterparts) and do absolutely nothing with it, resulting in a movie that feels like the first act stretched out for 100 minutes. Certainly you can make an interesting religion vs. science debate type movie on the cloning issue, but these ideas are barely even mentioned, let alone explored; it's like the local public access version of presenting two sides of an important issue. Fucking Clonus Horror had more to say. And the ending is as half-assed as it gets; the movie doesn’t conclude so much as it just sort of stops. This is the type of shit I expect from a straight to DVD movie, but not one starring one of the greatest actors of all time, not to mention Robert De Niro.

It also features Cameron Bright as... a creepy kid! Seriously, what the hell is with his agent? Can’t he ever just play a regular kid? No, he’s gotta be the key to all human mystery or whatever the fuck (twice – X3 and Ultraviolet), or a weird son of a Russian who almost gets molested by Juliet from Lost (Running Scared) or simply being lusted after by Nicole Kidman (Birth). Get this poor little bastard into a talking dog movie or something normal like that.

At least he DOES something in the movie (kills another kid and dumps him in the river). Everyone else is content with simply sitting around talking about how strange he is. Hell, the bad guy (De Niro) is never even really confronted or fought – when Greg Kinnear finally threatens to tell the cops about his illegal clone factory, De Niro hits him over the head and knocks him out. Kinnear escapes somehow (the building in which he’s laying unconscious is also on fire), De Niro simply... moves to another town. Then Kinnear moves the family to a new town, where we see an additional 5 minutes of nothing continuing to happen. The DVD has 4 other endings (almost an hour’s investment), all of which are slightly better but still incredibly underwhelming. Was Godsend supposed to be a franchise or something? Why don’t they bother fucking CONCLUDING any of the film’s storylines? Our bad guy is neither stopped or victorious, our killer kid is neither cured or killed (or locked up), etc. The entire movie is just sort of there.

Considering that the director and writer both contribute to the disc's extras, one must imagine that the film wasn’t re-edited without their consent or anything of that nature (the only problems they allude to is not having enough money to film the ending they originally wanted, but with 5 different endings ordered by the studio, they ended up filming it anyway). So why is the film so incomplete? At the beginning, we see the kid having a party with all of his friends. He seems a bit more interested in talking to De Niro than playing with them, but still, he is obviously a sort of normal kid (until he passes the aforementioned threshold) . But when he begins getting weird, all of his friends disappear from the movie. We know his parents don’t care for his new behavior, but how is he acting with the other kids? The only interaction he has after that is with a new bully in school (played by the absolute worst child actor this side of Return of Swamp Thing), and of course, the one kid he kills. He's obviously the most interesting character in the film, and yet they ignore him as much as possible. Another example – it’s hinted that De Niro has interest in Kinnear’s wife (Rebecca Romijn), but again, this is never explored beyond him buying up a bunch of her crappy photos.

And for the love of Christ, how can you take a movie seriously when they try to make those metallic stress ball things scary? They literally try to evoke scares by playing the sound of the two balls scraping together REALLY LOUDLY. Ooooh, spooky.

No deleted scenes help explain any of this crap. Other than the alternate endings, the only other extra is a commentary by the pretentious Brit director, a track that is merely dull until the point where he suddenly invites his DP to join him, at which point they begin discussing lenses and film stock, rather than why their movie is so fucking pointless.

What say you?

- LOL @ BEST PRICE!!!

Read more »

Killer Kid, Mad Scientist, Thriller,

{[['']]}

Leslie Schnur's "Late Night Talking"

Leslie Schnur is the author of The Dog Walker and, new in paperback this month, Late Night Talking.

Here she develops some ideas about the cast and director should Late Night Talking be adapted for the big screen:

My most recent book, Late Night Talking, is about a late night radio talk show host who vents with her listeners about the everyday aggravations of modern life, from rude cell phone users and poor gym etiquette, to bad drivers and people who don’t clean up after their dogs. Jeannie Sterling is passionate about making the world a better place, one annoying person at a time.

Jeannie is me.

Or I am she.

Except I spend my days writing books and am usually too intimidated to ask someone to get off her cell phone in a restaurant or wipe his sweat off the bike at the gym.

Jeannie gets into some trouble with her best friend, Luce, who is also me, and has poignant memories of her mother, long dead, who is also me. Except for the dead part.

When I write, I imagine the actors who could play the roles. But since all the female characters are me, this is very difficult and depends on how much chocolate I ate the night before and how I feel about the writing I’ve done that day, or whether it is a big budget production or an indie. Should Jeannie be played by Reese Witherspoon or Catherine Keener? Should Luce be played by Emily Blunt or Joan Cusack? And the mom: is she Meryl Streep, Frances McDormand, or that woman in the Paxil commercials?

The point is that I have a very difficult time casting myself. So the female characters are open to interpretation and, actually, to anybody interested. Reese Witherspoon optioned my first novel, The Dog Walker, and would’ve been perfect for the snooping, ethically-challenged protagonist, if only … well, you know Hollywood, if only everything.

But the men. Now that’s a different story. I like to imagine the actors who would play the men in my books. Don’t ask me why. Maybe it’s because if the protagonist is me and the male lead is, say, Clive Owen, why, that is me making out with him!

Late Night Talking was written for one person and one person only: George Clooney. And I don’t understand why he hasn’t called. I pictured him from page one until the end, as the older, tree-climbing media mogul with a social conscience. I saw him in every scene Jeannie (or I) was in, and was certain he’d snatch the book up for his production company. Anyway, George, if you’re reading this: I’m waiting for you. Although if Clive Owen called, I’d be open.

Jeannie’s father is definitely Paul Newman. He’s not as Jewish as the character in the book, but I just can’t see Jerry Stiller in the role. And Tommy, the sexy, Vespa-riding journalist boyfriend is Matt Damon. (I was you-know-whating Matt Damon long before Sarah Silverman, trust me.) And if Matt’s too busy to play the jilted man, I wouldn’t turn down Bradley Cooper.

Also, for the record, it would be a lot of fun to cast Bruce Willis as Moss, Ashton Kutcher as Tommy and Demi Moore as me, I mean Jeannie. There’s publicity value in that, don’t you think?

The director and screenwriter could be Richard Curtis (Love, Actually, Notting Hill and Four Weddings and a Funeral.) But if Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (Little Miss Sunshine) are looking for work, they might be good too.

As for the book I’m working on now, Everything in Sight, there is a romantic leading role for Javier Bardem or Johnny Depp. But I guess if George Clooney begged me, he could maybe have the job as well. Oh, and Clive Owen too.

Visit Leslie Schnur's website and read an excerpt from Late Night Talking.

Read the "backstory" to Late Night Talking.

The Page 69 Test: Late Night Talking.

--Marshal Zeringue

Read more »

{[['']]}

Midnight Meat Train (2008)

MAY 1, 2008

GENRE: MONSTER, SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SPECIAL SCREENING)

It’s not every day you have to tell Samuel L. Jackson to step aside so your buddy can get out of the row to go take a much-needed piss, but then again for a lot of folks, it’s not every day that you have to watch/review a horror movie you’ve never seen before. That’s what happened at Midnight Meat Train though, which capped off an evening spent with a much needed entry in modern horror – a new Clive Barker film (and a good one at that).

(I have no idea why Sam was there, as it was otherwise just press and people involved with the film. Maybe he just likes a good horror movie as much as the rest of us).

Despite being the most famous horror novelist next to Stephen King, very few films have been made from Barker’s work. Three of them he directed himself, and there have been about as many made by others (such as Candyman and Rawhead Rex). And to some extent I can understand why – apart from Candyman, as well as Hellraiser and its first sequel, none of these films made much at the box office. Barker’s themes (not to mention the borderline hardcore sex usually found within his tales) aren’t quite as easy to digest as your average horror movie, but his unique visions can’t usually be done for cheap. That’s a shame, but hopefully Midnight Meat Train will turn things around once released to theaters.

Ryuhei Kitamura makes his American debut (and his first legit horror film – his others are more fantasy/action based, including a Godzilla film), and fares far better than many of his peers. The film has a very unique look – it’s very grainy, but also has a lot of soft focus (it’s rare that anything but the main characters or object in the scene are in sharp focus, backgrounds are sometimes a total blur). Some of it may remind you of the Saw films (particularly when the blueish hues and lighting take over during the subway scenes), but it’s still visually striking from start to finish.

It’s also a well cast film. Bradley Cooper is a perfect choice to carry this type of film – he’s not a big star, but neither is his character (an aspiring photographer). Leslie Bibb plays his girlfriend, the most supermodel-y waitress in film history, and thus between this and Iron Man she’s become my de facto favorite actress of the year. Vinnie Jones plays the same mute bad guy he seems to always play, but he’s rarely as menacing. And Hostel II’s Roger Bart pops up in a few scenes, and he’s always a welcome presence.

Back to the menace though – what surprised me most about the film was how it managed to be equally as suspenseful as it was splatter-y. There are a couple stalk/chase sequences between Jones and Cooper that rival any modern horror films’ attempts at suspense (the fact that these sequences have zero dialogue is another bonus), giving the film a “classy” edge that many others lack (come on, are you really biting your nails when watching a Saw film?). At the same time, the kill sequences are impressively gory, to the point where it’s almost a surprise this got an R rating. They also carry a bit of an Argento feel; there’s a fantastic gag where a guy, hanging upside down on a meat hook, sees his reflection in a growing pool of his own blood. A+.

Ironically, this is also part of the only issue I had with the film. During the 2nd act, it begins to get a tad bit monotonous, as Cooper follows Jones around twice, with many near-misses, and we also see about 4 scenes of Jones killing random people on the train. It’s a short film (less than 90 minutes I think) but I wish something else could have been done to make the film feel a bit less like it was going nowhere for a small amount of time. Also, Cooper’s character becomes traditionally “obsessed” with his target, ignoring his girlfriend, plastering the entire apartment with photos, and even eating a steak (he’s a vegetarian who brings his own tofu to the diner where his girlfriend works). But this obsession comes rather suddenly, and is not fully explored (I wanted to see more with his newfound love of meat, for starters). Still, once the 3rd act (which is almost entirely train-set) begins, it’s no longer an issue, and the film barely lets up from there.

There is also a random, hilarious reference to an (unjustifiably) Oscar winning movie that had me laughing so hard I apparently annoyed others in the theater. Sorry!

Another great thing about the film is that screenwriter Jeff Buhlerwill didn’t slow the film down with needless exposition and explanation for everything. Not only does it leave available story for the (hopeful) sequel, but it keeps the film focused on its real point(s). In fact, without spoiling much, you can almost look at the film as an “origin” film once the final scenes play out, and like any origin story, it sets the stage for bigger and possibly better things to come.

Between this and The Ruins (and, God willing, the release of Repo), it looks like 2008 will be a great year for original, top notch (and R RATED!) horror films. Hopefully the box office will be good enough to inspire more Barker stories making their way to the screen.

What say you?

Read more »

Based On Novel, Monster, Serial Killer,

{[['']]}