The Amazing Mr. X (1948)

MARCH 20, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, MAGICIAN
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 2!!!)

With a title like The Amazing Mr. X, I thought this was going to be some sort of sci-fi heavy monster movie. But no, it’s a movie about an inordinate amount of magicians (both professionals and hobbyists) doing their thing for little reason other than to nail one of two sisters. In theory, not a bad idea!

Like a lot of the budget pack movies, this one is a. so short and b. has just enough laughable moments to warrant giving it an OK mark. For example, within 3 minutes of the film’s beginning, we hear a woman say: “If a man ever chased me into the ocean in the middle of the night, I’d shoot him!” If you had a gun, why did you let this theoretical attacker chase you all the way into the ocean? And does the time matter? Is it more acceptable to be chased into the Pacific during broad daylight?

The conversation even gets more puzzling as the two women begin discussing whether or not one of them will accept a man’s proposal later that night. We are given the impression he has asked her before, and their entire attitude about the possible engagement is impressively laid back; they might as well be discussing whether or not they will go to church on Saturday afternoon or Sunday morning. Later, during the actual proposal, the guy seems just as shruggish about it; you get the idea that if the phone rang or something that he might forget to ask entirely. The movie’s message seems to be: Marriage - eh, why not?

Later in the film, it seems as if the writer was just trying to be a wiseass, which results in scenes like this:

(A sinister guy opens a door into a house, where the good guy is already inside)
Good guy: “What are you doing here?”
Sinister Guy: “Right now? Opening this door.”

This is even topped in dry hilarity about 10 minutes later. The bad guy has one of the good guys at gunpoint, and the good guy seems to think the bad guy is out of bullets. So he begins, “I started with 7 shells... I have one in the chamber-“ – and then he is cut off by the cops, who riddle him with bullets before he gets a chance to finish his line. It’s fucking hilarious.

As for, you know, the actual MOVIE? Eh. It reminded me of a few other budget pack ones, including Tormented. Like I said, it’s hardly long enough to get boring, and it’s kind of cool to see so many magicians act snooty with one another, scoffing at the others’ knots and such. There isn’t much in the way of horror, especially when the ‘ghost’ is revealed to be a hoax around the halfway mark or so, but it still moves along nicely, and director Bernard Vorhaus and/or DP John Alton are much more inventive with their camerawork and lighting than many of their peers (there’s a lot of great use of single light sources illuminating just the face on a portrait in a wide shot of a room, and things like that).

Unfortunately, the transfer doesn’t do the film justice. It may be one of the worst on the set thus far, in fact. The usual frame skips are larger than usual (at one point it seems a good 5 seconds is missing) and there picture is off center.

Can YOU read any of this shit?

There’s also the strangest transfer flaw I’ve ever encountered; strange to the point where I am convinced I am imagining it. During several scenes I swear I heard a “TV in the next room” type sound. It certainly wasn’t coming from any defined source in the film itself. If anyone else has the Horror Classics pack, please check on this. I can hear it particularly in the scene where the heroine goes to the house and sees a bird before talking to one of the magician guys. You might need headphones, for it is very faint. And possibly non-existent.

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost, Horror Classics, Magician,

{[['']]}

Burnt Offerings (1976)

MARCH 19, 2008

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

What was with audiences in the 70s? Were they just too stoned to pay attention to anything? Let’s Scare Jessica To Death hinged on us not noticing that someone in a picture from 100 years ago was clearly the same person who had latched onto our heroine, and now Burnt Offerings expects us to be surprised that a mysterious old woman who no one ever sees doesn’t actually exist. Wow, really? A REAL twist would have the woman turn out to be real, since anyone with half a brain would know right from the start that the lass simply wasn’t there.

At least Jessica had the good sense to be nice and short (82 minutes vs Offerings’ 115), so the fact that not a lot was happening wasn’t too big of a problem. That’s not the case here, as until the batshit (and admittedly awesome) finale, the grand total of “things happening” in the first 100 minutes is 3: Oliver Reed smacks his kid around for no reason, an old woman dies, and some clocks speed ahead 25 minutes. The rest of the time, the movie just sort of hangs out in itself; we watch Reed and Karen Black do chores, look at photos, do other chores, and talk about doing chores. Black even spurns Reed’s advances at one point, despite telling him that he is “incredibly sexy” (drunk is the new hot, I guess), because making love would probably be considered too much action for this movie.

And it’s a bummer, because the first ten minutes had me believing I was in for some Manitou style hilarity (the trailer for the film certainly suggests a much more exciting ride, as it consists entirely of the 2-3 minutes’ worth of horror/action the film has). Burgess Meredith’s cameo (and it IS a cameo, despite his 3rd billing, since he never appears in the film again) is delightful, as he rolls around in his wheelchair, laughing at just about everything and watching the movie’s resident kid get seriously injured without telling his parents. But after he leaves, other than the occasional odd delivery that you come to expect from Reed, the movie becomes almost painfully dull. And the fact that it’s shot like a porno doesn’t help; when I see a soft focus bedroom, I certainly expect a scene that contains more than some minor disagreement over when one should wake up in the morning.

It’s also pretty repetitious. After the scene where Reed throttles the kid around, he talks to Black about how he’s afraid of “it happening again.” They proceed to have this EXACT SAME CONVERSATION in the next two scenes. Three times in a row we hear this, but then they make it even more annoying by never even explaining what the fuck they are referring to (unless they did so in the 30 seconds or so that it took me to go into the kitchen to grab a box of Peeps). But even if that is the case – the whole incident is never brought up again. From that point on, Reed seems to be relatively safe from the evil house’s influence, which I must admit was a relief; far too many haunted house movies have the father go nuts. No one really goes insane in this movie, but Black is certainly more “taken” by the house’s evil ways than anyone else. Women be crazy too!

Like I said a while before (hey, long movie = long review), the finale is what saves this movie. We get the traditional attempt to escape/”the house won’t let us leave” sequence, only with a nice twist (though this movie precedes many of the other haunted house movies I’ve seen, so I guess it’s not really a twist, just a forgotten “thing filmmakers should do”). Reed is driving away, and then the usual roadblock (a tree, in this case) appears. But rather than turn around or whatever, Reed just starts ramming the tree with his car. Finally! A proactive action against easily circumvented barriers! As a lifelong player of video games, where you are often kept from exploring by a box on the ground or a knee high fence, it’s nice to see a scene in any medium where the characters aren’t so easily foiled by these types of things.

The very end is also amazing. After 114 minutes, we deserve something, and Dan Curtis delivers – a near decapitation (and complete death) of one major character, and then another is crushed to death by a falling chimney. Yeah! Hilariously, on the commentary track, Curtis comments “Without that ending, the film wouldn’t have worked.” What a pointless thing to say. No movie works without its ending! And especially THIS movie, since the final 60 seconds contains the film’s only saving grace. Just as hilarious, he reveals that he chopped out the film’s original 15 minute opening because it was “too slow and boring.” Yeah, unlike the rollercoaster ride that is the rest of the movie. Nothing says excitement like Oliver Reed fixing a water pump!

The rest of the track is like the movie itself – just when you’re about to shut it off out of boredom, something interesting occurs, providing just enough good will to get you to the next instance (never courtesy of Karen Black, who comes off as someone pretty full of herself and constantly interrupts Curtis to point out something like her gray hair or visible pregnancy bump). Even shaving a half hour out of the film would barely help – they really needed to rethink the whole “woman in the room” angle and maybe add a gardener or someone who could be dispatched early on so that you wouldn’t forget you were watching a horror movie (instead, they just play creepy music over non-creepy imagery).

What say you?

Read more »

Haunted House,

{[['']]}

Shrooms (2006)

MARCH 18, 2008

GENRE: SLASHER, WEIRD
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Sometime this week, Bloody-Disgusting will be posting a list of the 10 dumbest slasher motives in history (history being the ones I’ve seen, and then in turn, remember). Shrooms made the cut, but unlike most of the other movies on the list, I actually kind of liked the movie, so the motive didn’t really anger me.

It IS really stupid though.

I was surprised that I liked the movie at all, because all SIX of our main characters are druggies. Lame as I may be, I’m pretty much against all drug use, so giving a shit about 6 people who are SPECIFICALLY going into the woods for no other reason than to get high is asking a lot of me. But I kind of liked them to a degree, and luckily (surprisingly, in fact), little of the film is given to them sitting around eating mushrooms and “tripping” (not even as much as in The Tripper, in fact). In fact, the film had more in common with Severance, in both look (both movies look like they were shot entirely at 7 o clock in the morning) and structure (both films end in a large compound in the middle of the woods – sure, why not?). And you all know I love Severance.

However, it’s not all killing either (though there’s a lot more bloodshed than I was expecting as well). It seems everyone in this group dislikes everyone else, so there’s a lot of bickering and catfighting to put up with. In fact, I could have used a bit MORE “tripping” as a result; it was vastly more amusing to see a guy talk to a cow than listen to two girls fight over a guy who’s already dead (unbeknownst to them). There’s also a part where a guy grabs a slimy mass and says “You see this frog cum?” that had me laughing for like 10, maybe 12 seconds straight.

Also, the movie is smart enough to avoid having any of the characters fall into a giant mushroom and hallucinate for the entire episode. If you know what I’m referring to – is that also the moment you realized that show really started to suck?

In the end, my only real problem with the film was its confusing subplot of a certain mushroom giving the girl the ability to see the future. First of all, what? How the hell would that work? Second (BIG SPOILER HERE), this character turns out to be the killer! Why bother giving the one person who doesn’t have any need to prevent anyone’s demise a big idiotic superpower that renders certain sections of the film annoying/wholly implausible (plausibility being a relative term when it comes to movies like this)? Sure, it helps make the ending of the film a bit more of a surprise, but it’s still entirely unnecessary in the long run.

End spoilers.

Also, an important plot point relies on our believing that the main dude wouldn’t want to nail this girl:

Uh, no. He’s got her alone in the woods, they’re both a bit fucked up, and he’s gonna ignore her? I don’t buy it. Horror nerds may be interested to learn that she is Lindsay Haun, aka the main evil girl from Carpenter’s Village of the Damned remake. It’s good to know she grew up cute, and now there’s even more reason not to watch that movie (who wants to look at a little girl now that they know she’s going to be hot in 12 years?)

The DVD has a nice collection of extras: deleted scenes, alternate endings (which are the same in terms of who the killer is, they just have alternate epilogues), and an audio commentary that is much dryer than I was hoping for. They take the film very serious, and even though Shrooms is nowhere near as goofy as I was expecting, the track could have used the same amount of levity that the film had. And according to the track, the film was shot on HDD, and looks fantastic. More stuff like this, and maybe digital films that look good will be the rule, rather than the exception.

What say you?

Read more »

Slasher, Weird,

{[['']]}

Hack! (2007)

MARCH 17, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Once again I totally forget to watch a Leprechaun movie for St. Patrick’s Day. I’ve only seen 2 of the 6 films (and the two I’ve seen I pretty much forget entirely), so they are perfectly eligible for a daily movie. So why am I watching stuff like Hack! on the holiday? Whatever.

Hack! is something I’ve never even heard of, despite a fairly genre-friendly cast (William Forsythe, Juliet Landau, Lochlyn Munro, and Kane Hodder in a rare turn as a victim). I saw it at the store and immediately shrugged and said “eh, why not,” armed only with the knowledge that it was yet another “killer kills the people making a horror movie” slasher film. However, either I read it wrong or they lied on the box (I’m too lazy to look), because as it turns out, the killer was the one making the horror movie; the victims were college kids doing some sort of eco-environment project on the remote island.

(Yeah, because it really makes a huge difference.)

Luckily the movie wasn’t all that bad. The movie references are pretty evenly split in terms of being funny or not; early on I almost broke the disc in half when someone comments “We’re going to need a bigger boat,” referring to one of the future victims’ excessive luggage. But later in the film, during the slasher staple “find all the dead friends” sequence, the hero points out the movies from which each of the victims’ deaths were paying homage to: “Hellraiser... Texas Chain Saw Massacre... Thirteen fucking Ghosts? Are you kidding me?” Holy shit, I almost pissed myself. Also, all of the characters are annoyingly named after horror icons, which is kind of stupid when they are all talking about horror movies – no one bothers to mention the “coincidence” that their teacher is named Mr. Argento? They also break the fourth wall when one character says “they always split us up in these movies!” or something to that effect. Look, it’s one thing to wink at the audience, but directly addressing them is another matter entirely, and since it’s the ONLY joke of its type in the entire film, it’s a bit stupid.

However, the same guy more than makes up for it when he suddenly breaks into dance and sings the theme from Fame for no reason whatsoever. They even pull a bit of a fast one on the audience here, because the guy is singing “I’m going to live forever!” over and over, yet he doesn’t get killed right away. Nice work. I also like that they referenced both modern and classic horror movies – some of these other types of “reference” movies seem to forget everything past 1980 or so, but we get references to Saw and even Jack Frost mixed in with Psycho and The Birds.

Another thing I was surprised by was the fact that, for the first time ever in slasher movie history, the resident jock douchebag character actually displayed a bit of humanity. There’s a bit where he goes into the freezing water and suffers from shrinkage. The others, obviously, mock him for this, but rather than punch out the nerd or act like a ‘roid freak, he laughs along with them, and later admits he thinks the nerd is an OK guy. The smallest touch like that (which is so rare it’s almost considered a plot twist) is enough to make you care about the guy a little. In fact, there’s a lot of genuine camaraderie on display (particularly between the black guy, the nerd, and the punk rock girl – the character stereotypes are actually part of the plot), which keeps the characters from being as annoying as they otherwise would be (and they ARE annoying at times).

The killers’ identity is revealed fairly early on, but there are still one or two other light surprises in store to make up for it. I’ll refrain from spoiling any, other than to say William Forsythe’s character is NOT the bad guy, for once. He plays a Scottish outdoorsman, and Forsythe positively revels in playing him so over the top and nutty. In fact, his character is one of the very few in his career that could be considered broadly humorous, so it was nice to see him take some time away from playing hardass authority figures or psychotic villains for once.

I was also very impressed with the film’s technical level. In addition to a surprising amount of bloodspray in the kill scenes (plus a few prosthetic effects, such as an eyeball popping), the film looked fantastic. The credits don’t provide any information as to what it was shot with, but some messageboard postings claim it was digital. If so, it’s among the best I’ve seen (then again I was watching it upscaled to 1080p, so it probably aided the picture quality). There’s a scene about midway through the film where some stock footage of piranhas is used, and it becomes even more apparent how good the lighting and quality stock for the actual movie is.

Then again, the quality is so good that it becomes even easier to tell that poor Drusilla is a LOT older than I thought. It also makes the digital effects easier to spot: there’s a horrible exit wound that doesn’t even stay locked onto the guy’s shirt properly, and apparently director Matt Flynn was unable to film this guy against a real sky:

That guy is Jay Kenneth Johnson. I knew the name, but for the entire film I didn’t recognize him from a damn thing. Finally I looked him up and realized why: he’s on Days Of Our Lives, a show I have created the end credits for every day for the past 2 years. Obviously I’ve never watched the actual show, but making sure his name and his character of Philip Kiriakis is spelled correctly from day to day is how I make my living. Nice to “meet” you, Jay!

The DVD is sans extras, and the humor is hit or miss (plus you gotta factor in how many people hate the idea of mixing horror and comedy to begin with), so while I enjoyed it, I can’t wholeheartedly recommend buying the film to everyone. But if you’re OK with this type of humor and like a sort of different type of slasher movie every now and then, you could do a lot worse.

What say you?

Read more »

Comedic, Slasher,

{[['']]}

Hide And Seek (2005)

MARCH 16, 2008

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, THRILLER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Ah, the first movie where the ending is spoiled by the LACK of a particular genre tag. If you notice, there is no “Killer Kid” listing for Hide And Seek, so despite all of the trailer’s (and movie’s) attempts to make you think Dakota Fanning is the killer, that’s simply (and sort of sadly) not the case. I won’t reveal who the killer ACTUALLY is, but it’s really not that hard to figure out. FOX clearly thought differently (they shipped the film without its final reel; those reels were hand-delivered and signed for at each theater in order to prevent the ‘shocking’ twist from getting out), so I’ll play along with their delusion.

DeNiro’s the killer.

Fuck! Sorry.

To its credit, the movie does a decent job of using clever editing to make it look like DeNiro couldn’t possibly be the killer. For example, there’s a scene of him in his office, writing notes. Then someone is killed. As the body hits the ground, he suddenly awakens from the nap he presumably fell into while working. But if you pay attention, he’s in a different spot entirely, and it’s darker outside. But you will be so shocked by the death that just occurred (which WAS a surprise, to be fair) that you won’t notice the discrepancy, or at least, so the filmmakers (and studio) hope.

Actually, I knew the ending before I watched the film (I forget who spoiled it, but it was when the film was still in theaters – at least I waited 3 years to be a dick), so it was kind of fun to watch how they tried to trick you (beats watching the film a second time). A lot of red herrings are set up, but again, the dialogue is very cleverly written. Early on, DeNiro sees Dakota talking to their neighbor, Robert John Burke. Since Burke was in Robocop 3, DeNiro is instantly suspicious of the guy. Later we find out that he lost his own daughter and Dakota reminds him of her. So near the end, the guy confronts DeNiro, and says “What’s wrong, I just saw you walking out of the woods with a shovel...” And the audience will not think of anything of that, because we too saw DeNiro with shovel, after burying his cat. However, that scene occurred the day before, so why would Burke be concerned now? But before we can process that (again, they hope), DeNiro stabs him in “defense” and there’s a chase scene. Nice work.

Sadly, they screw up the whole multiple personality thing. I’m no expert, but I do know that MPD sufferers don’t have any “memory” of their other personalities, yet the climax seems to suggest that the good DeNiro is remembering all of the things that the bad DeNiro did. This scene also suggests that a lot of what we saw the good DeNiro doing never actually happened (his notebook is completely empty, for example).

In fact, the entire ending leaves a few questions. In addition to the notebook thing, they also suggest that Dakota herself has a split personality, which is a bit odd. So were they both killers? Or is she just a jerk? Well, either way she gets a kiss from Famke Jannsen every morning and night now, so she wins.

This wasn’t even four years ago!!! *sigh*

I had to laugh at one part of the commentary – the director points out how he believes that you should be able to follow a film even if its on mute. I myself watched the bulk of the film more or less without sound, as my wife was vacuuming/rug cleaning for about 75% of the time I was watching it (hey, my daily movie can’t always be under the best circumstances), so I was watching with subtitles on most of the time. The subs were pretty amusing, because they point out every sound in the film ([“Sighing”], [“Wind blowing”], [“Owl hooting”]). However, the rest of the track is pretty dull, and it’s also noticeably edited, as the 3 (the DP and the writer are there too) are pretty chatty, but there will suddenly be abrupt gaps and then when they resume the topic will be different.

The deleted scenes don’t amount to much (though thankfully they are actually deleted scenes, not “deleted shots in the middle of scenes you just watched”), nor do the “previz” sequences (scenes that were never shot, presented in storyboard form). One exception is a scene of Dakota with a really cute babysitter, which would have been good to leave in the film, as it features a really cute babysitter. There’s also a brief bit of typical EPK cocksuckery (sadly, DeNiro is nowhere to be found – I would have loved to hear him say “I always wanted to work with Robert John Burke” or something). Like the movie itself, there’s nothing particularly BAD about the extras, but at the same time, their existence is largely moot – no one but die hard fans of the film would find any of this stuff interesting, and there’s no such thing as a “die hard fan” of Hide And Seek. It’s a movie you watch, nod at more or less approvingly, and forget all about 10 minutes later.

What say you?

Read more »

Psychological, Thriller,

{[['']]}

Corey Redekop's "Shelf Monkey"

Corey Redekop applied the Page 99 Test to his novel, Shelf Monkey, in October 2007.

Here he develops some ideas about the cast and director should Hollywood come calling about an adaptation:

Shelf Monkey is about obsession and the perils inherent in becoming too emotionally attached to any one point of view. Any cast member would have to have that certain mania which accompanies that extreme viewpoint of everything I believe in is right, and everything you believe in is wrong.

The lead character Thomas at one point opines on who should portray him in the eventual movie, laying out Jake Gyllenhaal and Ewan McGregor as his favored candidates. Nice try, but Thomas as a personality does not have that kind of Hollywood heft, and should not get played by a personality that would overwhelm the character (although Ewan would be a good choice in any event). He’s kind of a sarcastic milquetoast, and Paul Rudd would be a fine choice, if possibly a little too old (sorry Paul). In a few years, Michael Cera would be absolutely perfect. And seriously, how good is Cera anyway? I can’t get enough of the guy. Also, he’s Canadian, and as Shelf Monkey is a shaggy little Canadian novel, it would be nice to get an actor with that je ne c’est quoi sensibility. Or Topher Grace.

Aubrey (portrayed by Freddie Prinze Jr. in the television movie - *shudder*) is the true driving force behind the Shelf Monkeys – think Sean Penn but younger. Also must not look ridiculous in red dreadlocks, if such a thing is at all possible. Heath Ledger would have been great, but dammit he left too soon. I think Joaquin Phoenix would have both the physical and emotional strength for the weird bi-polar craziness Aubrey eventually manifests. If he’s unavailable, let’s go completely out there and get Seth Rogan. Again Canadian, and I think he’s got a dramatic edge that rarely gets used. Or get Robert Downey Jr.; I firmly believe the man can do anything. Oh, Iron Man, you'd better not suck.

Munroe, the true bad guy, is a very large man who emits generosity and lovability (a la Leo Buscaglia by way of Oprah), but underneath the televised image lurks a confused and embittered individual with a great deal of hatred toward the world at large. John Goodman may be too obvious a choice, but look at Barton Fink, and you’ll see a comedic talent with a huge reservoir of untapped dramatic potential. The lesser-known character actor John Carroll Lynch would also be a great choice, as his turn in Zodiac was truly chilling, and his lovability in Fargo is a perfect counterpoint.

Danae would be ideal for Reese Witherspoon, the crazy Reese from Election and Freeway before she went mainstream. The part demand an actress with indie cred, and Reese has simply gone too far the other way. I want to say Parker Posey, but as much as I love her, she’s simply the wrong age. Maggie Gyllenhaal is my choice; she has the edge, the talent, and the offbeat looks. Perfect.

All that being said, I’d love to know how others might cast my novel. If Shelf Monkey ever becomes a movie (holding breath begins now), I’d put in my two cents, but it would be fascinating just to watch how another person approaches the same material.

As for directors, I’d accept any of the following: Tarantino, the Coen brothers, Jake Kasdan, Judd Apatow, Greg Mottola, or Jason Reitman. With my luck, however, it’ll be Walt Becker or Andy Tennant. Augh.

Read more about the novel and author at the Shelf Monkey blog and listen to podcasts of two excerpts.

The Page 99 Test: Shelf Monkey.

--Marshal Zeringue

Read more »

{[['']]}

Doomsday (2008)

MARCH 15, 2008

GENRE: CANNIBAL, POST-APOCALYPTIC
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

The first time I ever got a letter printed in Fangoria was a big deal to me, and the fact that it was about my idol, John Carpenter, made it all the more special. In particular, the letter concerned Escape From LA, which was just released at the time. In the letter, I bemoaned how the film was identical to the first film in just about every way possible, yet it was STILL a fun movie (and remains Carpenter's last worthwhile film). Well, now it's 12 years later, and I could be writing the exact same letter for Neil Marshall's Doomsday.

Like LA, Doomsday is, for all intents and purposes, a remake of Escape From New York. A tough as nails anti-hero (who has a missing eye) is sent into a walled off city in order to locate someone, and is met with heavy resistance from the assorted survivors living inside. The character also has to fight in a gladiator deathmatch, repeatedly ask for cigarettes, and use a recording in order to bring down a high ranking official who is using less than admirable tactics to promote his career. Hell, Marshall even restages the "this is how the wall works" computer image sequence from Carpenter's film, followed by a shot of a guy walking up to and then looking over said wall. And even the fucking FONT is the same!!!

Luckily, Marshall isn't limited to "homaging" just Carpenter. Along the way, we are treated to chunks of Road Warrior, Aliens, Apocalypto (...wow), 28 Days Later, and I swear to Christ, a bit of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. If there is a single scene in this movie that wasn't done in another film, I didn't catch it.

And yet, I wholeheartedly recommend it. It's fun as hell. If Carpenter can remake NY as a sequel, why can't Marshall remake it as an homage, along with a few of his other favorite movies? If NY is a bag of Doritos, Road Warrior is a bag of Cheet-Os, and Aliens is a bag of pretzels, then Doomsday is a bag of Munchies, offering equally delicious samples of all the items while not really being its own thing. And, I might add, that is the worst metaphor available on the internet.

Some might not consider it horror, but I think it qualifies (certainly moreso than the other Post-Apoc movies I've watched recently). The first few good guys that are killed are done so in a very horror-ish manner (axe to the head, throat slit, arrow to the throat...). This is a very gory movie, with guys getting run over, beheaded, etc. in every action scene (and there are a lot of those).

Another plus - as great as Kurt Russell is, there's just something more visually appealing in Rhona Mitra. She's ripping off Beckinsale from Underworld as much as she can, but it fits the rest of the film. The rest of the acting is fine, with Sean Pertwee in a small role and Bob Hoskins as Mitra's father figure as two highlights. Malcolm McDowell, in his second Carpenter remake in a row, narrates the backstory/exposition in the first 10 minutes of the film (if it was in text form it would be longer than the one in Alone In The Dark - I am not joking), but his actual character doesn't show up until the 3rd act, and he's sort of useless. Perhaps it was edited, but his character isn't even given a closure, which is kind of odd when the first hour of the film is all about finding him.

I would also like to point out Tyler Bates' top notch score. It's like a Carpenter score crossed with Bruckheimer-ish bombast, and I loved every minute of it. I hope it's released on CD. I also highly recommend seeing the film in a well designed theater with quality digital sound - the sound mix as a whole is the best I've heard all year. Let's hope Universal figures out how to make Blu-Ray DVDs by the time this hits home video (which sadly won't be too long, judging from the film's dismal performance this weekend).

However, fun is just that: fun. It's still a bit of a disappointment from Marshall, since his previous two films are among the best in their respective sub-genres. Hopefully this was just him having a bit of fun as well, and his next film lives up to his potential. Anyone can copy/paste great scenes/plot elements and make a fun movie out of it, but Marshall has shown he can do a LOT more.

What say you?

Read more »

Cannibal, Post-Apocalyptic,

{[['']]}