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,

{[['']]}

Brain Dead (1990)

JUNE 9, 2008

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

After 550 movies or so, I’m having trouble remembering some of the older ones. When someone asks what I thought about a movie that I watched around the beginning of Horror Movie A Day, I sometimes have to go back and look at the review to remember. Kind of sad, but I guess there’s only so many critiques of obscure horror movies your brain is allowed to hold. However, some particularly sharp memories remain, which is why as soon as I saw a particular building in Brain Dead, I recognized it as the same location used in Dead Heat, which I saw (once) over a year ago.

It’s even more interesting when you consider the film’s subject matter, which deals with the brain and how it works, and a new technique that can be used to call up (and then destroy, if so desired) specific memories. Yes, all you folks who think Charlie Kaufman is an unparalleled genius who doesn’t have a single unoriginal idea in his head – Eternal Sunshine was preceded by a Roger Corman movie.

Actually Corman wasn’t personally involved with the film, as far as the credits are concerned anyway (he’s not listed anywhere, though his wife Julie is the film’s producer and the movie was released by his company New Concorde), and I think it shows. Because, despite the Corman ties and the cast of usually amusing folks like Bill Paxton/Pullman and Bud Cort, Brain Dead is a very serious, borderline depressing psychological thriller, with very little gore and almost no laughs. The “stretched face” image usually on the cover is only in the movie for like a minute, and there are no other real makeup effects to speak of other than the occasional exposed brain. I was under the impression that the film was more an update of The Brain That Wouldn’t Die, but it’s actually a sort of Jacob’s Ladder retread, with Pullman’s character spending the entire movie seeing impossible things, only to find out at the end that the whole movie is just the psychological episode he is having right before he dies.

Hey, two spoiled movies for the price of one!

The problem is, I’m just not a big fan of these type of scenarios (though I DO love Jacob’s Ladder), because to me it just seems like an easy way out of any scene. Write yourself into a hole? No problem, it’s all a dream/fantasy/whatever! The film makes less and less sense as it goes, since you’re never quite sure which is the dream and what is the reality, and even at 80 minutes it feels like some stuff is in there just to pad it out a bit. Ultimately, the real story isn’t as interesting or exciting as some of the subplots that are introduced and abandoned in the process of confusing the viewer, and that’s sort of a shame. I would have liked MORE of the memory wipe stuff, and thus fewer scenes of Pullman saying “I’m not crazy!” while doing crazy things.

That said it’s not a bad film in the technical sense (despite the awful full frame VHS transfer), and the acting is good (particularly Paxton, in one of his last sleazy roles before being the traditional ‘nice guy’ in pretty much everything he does). And Pullman is always more interesting in his ‘dark’ roles than he is in nonsense like Independence Day. In fact, halfway through the film his identity changes, foreshadowing his Lost Highway role that would come along 6 years later.

I should also point out that Paxton and Pullman are often confused, and I’m not sure why. Their names are a bit similar, sure, but they look nothing alike and never play the same type of roles. Paxton played jerks and then heroic everymen (Apollo 13, Twister); Pullman is most known for his romantic comedies, a genre I don’t think Paxton has ever really explored. However, this confusion has led to a great Simpsons joke, when Homer spoils a Julia Roberts movie:

Dr Hibbert: I thought she was going to end up with that rich snob!
Sea Captain: -Ably played by Bill Paxton!
Homer: It’s Bill PULLMAN, you fool!

Ah, the good ol’ days, when Simpsons had lines worth quoting.

What say you?

Read more »

Psychological,

{[['']]}

Sight (2008)

JUNE 8, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost, Independent,

{[['']]}

Sandra McDonald's "The Outback Stars"

Sandra McDonald has been a Hollywood production assistant, a software instructor, a bureaucrat, and an officer in the United States Navy. Her short fiction has appeared in Realms of Fantasy, Strange Horizons, and elsewhere. Her novels include The Outback Stars and The Stars Down Under.

Here she develops some ideas about the cast--and the soundtrack and special effects--should her novel be adapted for the big screen:

My science fiction novels are about a beautiful military lieutenant and her handsome sergeant. Though, truth be told, I'm not that keen on external appearances. The values I appreciate most -- honesty, humor, courage -- are not unique to those of us with perfect hair and perfect faces. (And by "us" I don't mean me!) I never really describe my characters beyond a cursory "brown hair" or "blue eyes" and prefer to let readers build their own ideas of how a character looks.

That said, as a former Hollywood wannabe (I worked for CBS, Dreamworks and Dustin Hoffman during my brief career), when The Outback Stars and its sequels get made into movies I'd love to sit in on the casting calls. For Lieutenant Jodenny Scott, we'd need an actress with the expressiveness and forthrightness of Rachel Weisz (Evie in The Mummy). But also with the freshness and normal build as Liz White, who plays Annie Cartwright in the brilliant BBC series Life on Mars. Liz is just the right age, too. Speaking of fresh and young there's also Billie Piper (Rose on Doctor Who), though she'd have to go back to being a brunette for awhile. And she'd have to tell me all about kissing the Doctor, maybe over drinks on Sunset Boulevard.

Sergeant Terry Myell's a little tougher to cast. When I first starting writing him I had in mind a military man with the calm, practical, and resilient nature of Sgt. Zeke Anderson on Tour of Duty, played by Terence Knox. Joe Flanigan of Stargate Atlantis would be a shoo-in these days but he's a little older than my character, who's only twenty-eight. Instead I'd ask Jensen Ackles of Supernatural to come try out for the role. He's got the haircut already, and would enormously popular on any spaceship in the universe. And while we're dreaming, Jensen, I'm also available for lunch or dinner any day of the week. And breakfast. Call me.

For the soundtrack, John Williams. I was backstage with him once at an awards show, and all I could think of was the brilliant music of The Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Special effects? Only Industrial Light & Magic. I have no special picks for director, because there are so many good ones out there, but this "auteur" theory I keep hearing about? We'll have to have a sit down about that. In fact, let's talk about how the ship looks, and how important Australian Aboriginal mythology is to the story, and I also have some ideas for the movie posters --

Oops, gotta go. My assistant tells me Jensen Ackles is on the phone! But I'll see you all on big screen.

Read the first chapter of The Outback Stars, and learn more about the book and its author at The Outback Stars website, Sandra McDonald's website, and her LiveJournal.

--Marshal Zeringue

Read more »

{[['']]}

Psycho II (1983)

JUNE 7, 2008

GENRE: HERO KILLER (?), PSYCHOLOGICAL, REVENGE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I recently picked up the collection of Psycho sequels, and when I opened it I discovered that while III and IV had to share one disc (one side in fact), Psycho II got one all to itself. Having never seen any of them in their entirety (only edited TV broadcasts when I was 15 – and I don’t think I watched III all the way through either), I can’t vouch for this being a sign of their quality, but I do know that II is a damn fine followup, and nowhere near the disaster that it could have been.

For starters, Tom Holland’s screenplay (which is entirely unrelated to the sequel novel written by original author Robert Bloch) is great in that it managed to find a way to present another mystery angle without betraying or rewriting the original film (unlike say, Scream 3, which apart from being fucking terrible, changed the reasoning for the actions of the first film’s killers). Sure, the final scene may be a bit on that side, but it’s not like they came out and said that the woman who Norman killed wasn’t the one who had raised him, or that he killed someone else entirely.

The only flaw in the mystery is that it is spoiled relatively early in the movie for those who know the first film well. Norman’s new friend introduces herself as Mary Samuels, which is the same name that Marion used when she checked into the motel. It’s OK to assume that Norman has forgotten the “coincidence”, since he has been locked up for 20 years and probably has other stuff on his mind (his penchant for sandwiches, for example), but to an audience it’s pretty much a dead giveaway.

However, I must point out what my buddy Rob (a true Psycho expert if there ever was one) pointed out to me – in 1983 the home video market hadn’t really taken off, so apart from TV broadcasts of the film (at least one of which was canceled at the last minute due to a real life tragedy), Psycho hadn’t been seen for years, and thus the majority of the audience probably had forgotten as well. I keep having the idea for Bloody Disgusting where we’d have a page with movie news that would have been posted if the internet was around in the early 80s, this would be something worth posting: “I just read the script for Psycho II and it turns out that the girl Meg Tilly plays in the movie is the niece of Marion Crane! Also, the guy who was a deputy in the first film is now the town sheriff. If you use this, call me BatesFan23.”

Minor nerdy issues aside, it’s simply a well done, respectable sequel. It would have been easy to simply have Norman escape and kill some folks, but Holland and director Richard Franklin went the classier route, with Lila Crane (now Loomis –she married her sister’s boyfriend! Nice.) trying to drive Norman crazy so she can get him locked up again, and Norman struggling to keep his sanity. Sure, the body count is a bit higher, and there is actual on screen violence (including a particularly nasty death in the famous basement), but compared to the other horror films of the period, it’s practically G rated in that regard.

It’s also got more Perkins, which is fine. Of course, he doesn’t show up until about a half hour into the first film, and Lila and Sam’s investigation eats up some screen time as well. But here he’s pretty much in every scene, and is terrific both as “sane” Norman (his incredibly awkward conversations with Tilly are a particular highlight) and “nutty” Norman, who becomes convinced his mother really is alive. And if you thought he was pretty nice in the first, he’s downright sympathetic here. Even when he starts to crack, you still root for the guy to pull through and be OK.

Tilly is also a delight. Mainly because she is ridiculously cute, but she also has a bit more personality than Marion got to display (again, she also has more screen time, for obvious reasons), and it’s nice to see her actually develop a bit of a kinship with Norman. The rest of the cast is good as well; it’s funny to see Dennis Franz in one of his earliest roles as a total scumbag (as opposed to the more lovable plain ol' jerks he plays in stuff like Die Hard 2).

I also love how isolated Fairview is. We know the motel is off the main road or whatever, but the diner Norman works at for about 8 minutes also appears to be in the middle of nowhere (who the hell would go there?). “Downtown” is mentioned though not really seen, but you got to imagine that there’s a perfectly good diner in the middle of the alleged civilized part of town.

Franklin also stages some terrific scenes. There’s a bit where “Mary” is arguing with Lila, and a maid with a vacuum drowns out what they are saying, to the dismay of a nosy hotel clerk who is trying to listen to what they are saying. And Franklin also makes good use of shadow and silhouette; there’s a spooky scene where Norman confronts Mary, who is seen only in silhouette, and thus keeping us on edge. The numerous scenes of people looking through the hole in the bathroom wall are also unnerving, especially since it’s never really made clear who is looking in when (there are like 4 killers in the film, ultimately).

Compared to the first sequels of other great horror films (Halloween II, Nightmare on Elm St 2, Cube 2: Hypercube), it’s in a class of its own. You can’t really top Hitchcock, but to keep the spirit of his film intact while making it your own is something I doubt many could accomplish. Kudos to those involved for pulling it off.

What say you?

Read more »

Hero Killer, Psychological, Revenge,

{[['']]}

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 Wickeds (2005)

JUNE 6, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What say you?

Read more »

Independent, Zombie,

{[['']]}