Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers (1988)

The Movie: Jack Chandler (long time B-movie regular Jay Richardson) is a private dick (i.e. detective, and yes, there are plenty of jokes about that) in L.A. who is in search of missing runaway Samantha Kelso (the Scream Queen Linnea Quigley). A check in with the police department reveals that they are having problems of their own; somebody is going around hacking up people with a chainsaw. Unfortunately for Jack, the two cases are connected.

A mysterious figure known only as the Master (Gunnar Hansen, the original Leatherface of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre), and his right-hand woman, Mercedes (lovely and prolific scream queen Michelle Baur) lead a cult of psychotic, chainsaw-worshipping prostitutes. Samantha has gotten herself involved with these crazies; and those who get in their way tend not to come out of the situation in one piece….


The Review:

"I'd stumbled into the middle of an evil, insidious cult of chainsaw worshipping maniacs. I had to wonder if we'd let our religious freedom go too far in this country, or maybe our immigration laws were just too lax."
-Jack Chandler

Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers had me from the pre-credits introduction; a disclaimer about not using chainsaws when nude and about to engage in sex, and a police interrogation that starts to go terribly wrong (for the police) just before the credits roll. It’s impossible not to love a movie that begins that way. Sadly, it kind of drops the anchor at the climax, but I still have a lot of fun with this one.

Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers is a very low-budget comedy spoof on noir with naked women and some horror movie elements thrown in. It is clear from the very beginning that this movie is just meant to be fun, and that nobody involved is taking it seriously. The one true gore part mainly consists of Michelle Baur holding a chainsaw that, despite the sound effects, is obviously not on. She laughs evilly and waves it around while somebody just off camera throws red paint and blatantly plastic body parts at her. This alternates with shots of her victim, who tries to writhe convincingly and keep his limbs off camera at the same time while that same off-camera individual throws more red paint on him. It isn’t a high-quality affair, and it isn’t meant to be.

The cast, overall, does a good job with their parts. For the most part they deliver their lines well, and it’s clear they are enjoying themselves. The only exception is Gunnar Hansen. He really does not display any screen presence and he delivers his lines with very little, if any, emotion. On a personnel note, something about his appearance and speech makes me think of an acquaintance of mine. Not that said acquaintance has a cult of psychotic, chainsaw-wielding hookers; but considering his standing in the local gaming community he probably could if he really wanted to. There’s no significance to this, it’s just one of those weird similarities you occasionally find in disparate individuals.

My only real complaint about this movie is the ceremony at the climax. The ceremony, and Quigley’s preceding Virgin Dance of the Double chainsaws, is a major letdown. The ceremony itself just drags. As for the Dance; admittedly the idea of Linnea Quigley wearing just a thong and paint dancing with a pair of chainsaws is wonderful. Unfortunately, it fails in practice. The problem is that chainsaws, or at least the ones used in this movie are large, heavy things that most individuals would have a lot of difficulty whipping around one-handed; and Quigley is no bruiser, to put it mildly. While Quigley can dance, as proven earlier in the movie, and in other movies; it's pretty obvious that most of her focus is, by necessity, keeping the two chainsaws in the air.  The end result comes across less "sexy" than "awkward". Fortunately, the following chainsaw duel does make up for it a little. It’s still the weakest point in an otherwise fun movie.

What Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers has to recommend it are as follows: naked women, a garbanzo premise, some truly great lines (such as the quote at the beginning of this review, which is one of Jack’s voiceovers); and a lot of fun, if ridiculous and juvenile, humor. This is not a movie to watch if you are easily offended. However, if you are in the mood for some twisted, brainless fun, it’s great.

Cool World (1992)

The Movie: Frank Harris (Brad Pitt, you should know who he is) returns home from World War 2 to his loving mother (Janni Brenn). Unfortunately, when taking her for a ride on his new motorcycle, they run headfirst into some drunk drivers and Frank’s mom dies in front of him. His day gets even more complicated when an experiment in the dimension next door performed by Doctor Vincent Whiskers (voice of Maurice LaMarche) kidnaps Frank from our dimension. Frank finds himself in a world populated entirely by cartoon characters, and he Dr. Whiskers walk off discussing the matter.

Forty-something years later (contemporary to the when the movie was made); Frank is a police detective who tries to keep order in the Cool World, the official name for the cartoon dimension. The main point of this is to keep “noids” (flesh and blood humans, who apparently pass through while dreaming) from having sex with “doodles” (the cartoon inhabitants), because it somehow causes tears in the fabrics of reality. He is dedicated to his job, but this is at a personal sacrifice because the only thing that makes him happy is his doodle girlfriend, Lonette (voice of Candi Milo); and their inability to consummate their relationship is an endless source of frustration for both.

But Frank finds himself with bigger problems. Local femme fatale Holli Would (Kim Basinger) is determined to escape into the “Real World” at any cost. So far this hasn’t been a real problem, but ex-con cartoonist Jack Deebs (Gabriel Byrne) is just getting out of jail. While incarcerated, Deebs wrote a best-selling comic book on Cool World. Convinced that it is his creation, he is being drawn deeper and deeper in and giving Holli just the sucker she needs to fulfill her plans. Plans that could destroy both worlds….

The Review: Far more frustrating and appalling than even the worst straight out bad movie is the one that obviously could have, should have, been great; but falls far short of its potential. Ralph Bakshi, who directed and wrote the original screenplay, intended something very different. He had in mind an animated horror movie, something much darker. Unfortunately, the studio secretly rewrote the screenplay at the last minute, and the result was a mess where there probably should have been a masterpiece. There are still some traces of the original vision here and there, but it came out as something very different.

The best part about the movie is the Cool World itself. What we get looks like nothing less than a hybrid of the archetypal Naked City we see in noir combined with Dante’s Inferno; if Hell had been designed with the Loony Toons in mind. Nightmarish characters lurk in dark alleys, objects such as anvils and pianos randomly fall from the sky, doors and buildings have minds of their own. Also, I could swear that I saw Woody Woodpecker in one of the crowd scenes; as well as busts of Mickey Mouse and Daffy Duck on some of the delightfully twisted buildings that make up the setting.

Brad Pitt did a good job as Detective Harris. No big surprise; Pitt tends to be good when he’s given something significant to work with, and Frank Harris is the most developed character in this movie. He’s actually convincing and sympathetic.

Even when Frank came off as gruff and unfriendly, which he did when he first dealt with Deebs, I found myself on his side. Here is a man who has worked very hard for the gods only know how long (time seems to run very differently in the Cool World) to keep things together. And he’s no hypocrite, he knows exactly what’s at stake; but that means serious personnel sacrifice. Now, along comes this bitch who wants to bring it all down; along with this idiot who’s willing to let her use him to do it. I’d be cranky too. Frank does get rewarded at the end, and is probably the only main character whose reward isn’t very mixed. He’s also probably the only one who deserves it.

Byrne, as Deebs, does what he can; but he isn’t given much to work with. There are some tantalizing hints of what Jack Deebs was intended to be, or could have been. For example, he was in jail for killing his wife and her lover after finding them together. That suggests a much different man than the one in front of us. Aside from that one intriguing hint, the Jack Deebs in this movie is nothing but a passive and willing puppet for Holli to manipulate. Though he, too, gets “rewarded” at the end of the movie; it left me with the feeling that this was a reward he would tire of really quickly.

Holli Would is a mixed bag. I think she is wonderful as long as she remains an animation. However, she is much less so once she becomes human. This isn’t Basinger’s fault; Holli is supposed to represent the ultimate feminine desire. Basinger’s not bad looking, but there’s no way that she, or any other flesh and blood actress for that matter, could possibly match up to the sexy toon. It was a major mistake on the part of the scriptwriter to bring Holli into the Real World.

And there lies my major gripe with this movie. The Cool World is the best part of it, and yet the script short changes it. Some of it is due to the constraints of a PG-13 rating. To keep that rating, the script cannot show the true extent of the horrors and depravities of the setting. It can hint, but it cannot show, and this really cuts into the atmosphere.

The worst part, though, is that the movie spends too much time away from its wonderful setting. We catch a few tantalizing glimpses, but we never really get to know it. As a result, the major plot points never make much sense. How, exactly, does sex between a noid and a doodle disrupt the barrier between the two worlds? Why are noids able to travel here in their dreams? Though I think Frank Harris ultimately deserved what he got at the end, there was no real explanation for how he got it; Cool World just pulled it out of its ass as a convenient deus ex machina.

As I said earlier, there were a few hints of what Cool World was originally intended to be. There is definitely a good movie hiding in the mess that is the end result. Bakshi, if you’re reading this, please, try to get a new movie made of your original vision. Adult animation is more accepted these days, so you might get a better chance. I really hate to see a good idea get wasted, particularly in an age when any original idea at all is a rarity. Unfortunately, thus far that’s exactly what Cool World is; a good idea that got wasted.

Salo (1975)

The Movie: 1944, in the fascist controlled northern Italian state of Salo, four fascist libertines; the Duke (Paolo Bonacelli), the Bishop (Giorgio Cataldi), the Magistrate (Umberto Paolo Quintavalle) and the President (Aldo Valletti); kidnap sixteen physically perfect teenage specimens (eight boys and eight girls). They take them to a secluded villa along with guards, servants, and four elderly prostitutes. There, with the prostitutes telling stories to get them in the mood; they slake their unholy desires on the young innocents.

The Review: As everyone who knows me, along with those who have read this blog, has undoubtedly figured out by now; my cinematic tastes tend to run to movies miles outside the mainstream. Time and again I hear the inevitable question from other people: why? Why am I into B-movies? Horror? Sexploitation? Bizarre films that defy any real attempt to describe them? Why do I feel compelled to leave the beaten path; to employ a metaphor, and seek out movies that the majority of people would avoid like the plague?

I am not too bothered by this question, because it is a good one. Indeed, it is one that I frequently ask myself. The answer I have come up with is simply this; the beaten path has very little to offer me. Oh, I do watch mainstream Hollywood flicks; they even provide something I find worthwhile every so often. But I find the majority of them to be stale, formulaic and predictable. With the very rare exception, if you plunk me down in front of any typical Hollywood film, I can tell you exactly what will happen. If it’s a horror movie, I can tell you who will die and probably even how. If it’s a romantic comedy, I can tell you who will end up with who at the end. If it’s a drama, I will probably be able to tell you, very early on and in detail, what dramatic devices they will use and how they will use them.

I approach the cinematic world with the mindset of an explorer seeking parts unknown. Sure, the well traveled routes have their wonders to offer; but they rarely vary, and one grows jaded to them quickly. However, by seeking the less traveled parts, the ones off the map, I am able to see marvels that few people see and that are all the more wonderful for that fact. There’s a sense of discovery with coming upon something that most people aren’t even aware of; and wouldn’t bother to seek out even if they were. If I didn’t have the urge to seek out something different, I never would have discovered such delights as the truly warped humor of Paul Bartel; or the dreamy, surrealistic visions of Jean Rollin; or the twisted joy of such works as Re-animator or Night of the Creeps. But I have had the opportunity to discover them, and my life is all the richer for it.

However, there is a very good reason why most people choose to stick to the beaten path. Namely, it is safe. There is the rare danger or unpleasant surprise; but for the most part, if you stay on the beaten path, you will know what you will encounter and how to deal with it if you do. When you head into parts unknown, you don’t have that safety net. You’re never sure what you will encounter.

Sometimes this is good; the pleasant surprises are all the more pleasant for being surprises. On the other hand, the hurdles are all the more daunting for being unfamiliar. When you find a bad movie, they are bad in ways you are unprepared to handle. Many people are amazed at how I can watch universally derided movies like Showgirls or Cool as Ice: the Vanilla Ice Movie and say, “eh, it wasn’t good, but it was nowhere near as bad as it could have been.” With the titles I regularly seek out and watch, I know very well of what I speak.

But the greatest danger you face when leaving the beaten path of the cinematic world, is that it is entirely possible to stumble across something that will truly scar you. With no safety net, there are no assurances of what you will or will not encounter. Salo is one of those, fortunately, exceedingly rare films that will wound you; maybe permanently, if you have any amount of human decency in you. It is about as close and accurate a look at real-life human evil as you can get while still staying in the realm of the fictional; and true evil is something that marks everybody who has even the most tangential contact with it.

Salo is based off of the 120 Days of Sodom, an unfinished novel by the infamous Marquis de Sade. I am much more familiar with the man’s history than his work, but Donatien de Sade represented the cumulative nadir of the French aristocracy just prior to the revolution. He was vain, narcissistic, arrogant, selfish and spoiled. He was also very intelligent, and a talented writer. During his long incarcerations in prison (and outside of them, too), de Sade wrote many plays and works of fiction. Through these writings he developed a personnel philosophy that is still known today and is the source of the word he lent his name to; sadism.

Sade was a strict materialist who believed that human beings are basically cruel and selfish. The trappings of society such as morality, law, religion and virtue; only serve to cripple people and repress what they truly are. Sade argued for the endless pursuit of pleasure, any desired pleasure, without fear of punishment or consequences. Through his works he examined morality and vice, their outcomes, and their hypocrisies.

Salo is a meditation on having that kind of absolute power over another person; being able to do whatever you want to them without fear of consequences. Most importantly, Salo looks at the inevitable outcome. As history has proved time and again, absolute power is probably the most corrupting and destructive force anyone can encounter.

For obvious reasons, Salo is a very controversial movie; and has been in the 45 years since it came out. There are many people who dismiss it as sleazy trash, and nothing more. Admittedly, that’s easy to do. You probably read my synopsis and came to that conclusion yourself. But true works of sleaze never invite controversy, particularly for as long as Salo has. There’s some outrage, sure; there might even be some defenders. However, sleaze is quickly forgotten. So what makes Salo different? Two things.

First of all, sleaze is always brainless. The idea isn’t to make you think; in fact, thinking is a detriment to your enjoyment of it. It is obvious that a lot of thought and effort went into the making of Salo. The costumes, the settings, the blocking; all is very carefully and competently done. The director knew exactly what he wanted to convey, and how he was going to convey it; and it shows.

The second reason is that sleaze is intended for enjoyment. Oftentimes rather sickening, unhealthy enjoyment it’s true; but the whole principle behind sleaze is that somebody finds it pleasurable. Director Pier Paolo Pasolini went out of his way to ensure that nobody could find Salo at all pleasant. (For those of you who want to write me and say that that’s not true, you find it enjoyable; let me save you time by giving you my response in advance: you scare me, get help.)

There is plentiful nudity on display, including some actresses I would take great pleasure in ogling were this any other movie; but the circumstances strip any and every amount of eroticism out of their nudity. Likewise, there’s some really graphic sex. However, with maybe one or two exceptions, sex in this movie is portrayed as painful, humiliating and/or the excuse for truly horrible punishments inflicted on the participants. You do not watch these sex scenes for fun; in fact, they’re enough to put you off sex.

Watching this movie as an artist and a former psych student, I got the impression of an artist using his art to purge his inner demons. Salo is, simply, about evil and its consequences. Our four villains are very human, I could expect to encounter them walking down the street, though I’m praying I never will. They have quirks (one’s always telling really bad jokes for example). Their methods confirm to how all the worst atrocities progressed; they start out fairly small. Gradually though, as the villains truly begin to appreciate the leeway they have with what they can get away with, their actions become more and more vile. I can remember one scene where I was gagging and praying for it to be over. It passed, but when the next round of atrocities came about, I was praying for them to return to it.

But even then, the villains never become the cackling, mustache twirling stereotypes we think of when we think of villains. They remain disconcertingly human. In fact, we are made to participate in the final atrocity; where they take it in turns sitting at a window with binoculars and watch while the others torture their prisoners to death. Our view of the proceedings is entirely through said binoculars.

The prisoners themselves become complicit in their captivity. As time passes they become more and more passive, laughing at the villains’ awful jokes and obeying their orders without question. They even start informing on each other, in the hopes that they will be spared the worst.

Then there’s the final scene, which I think encapsulates the movie perfectly: two guards; young, handsome, pleasant seeming young men; dancing and asking about each others’ families in the same room where their boss is watching atrocities through binoculars. It is surreal, but it is also a very accurate portrayal of people in this kind of situation.

I am a little torn about what I want to say to end this review. On the one hand, Salo is a good movie. It is very well done, and it is about as accurate a portrayal of true human evil as I have ever seen in a movie. I can even say truthfully, much to my surprise, that I do not regret having seen it.

On the other hand, Salo is not at all a pleasant movie and I would not recommend it to anybody. It is a true ordeal to sit through, and it doesn’t do anything to improve one’s view of humanity. Of course, there will be a few of you who will read this and, despite my warnings, you will feel the need to experience it for yourself. I will not try to dissuade you, I understand what you are feeling all too well. However, I will leave this one last caution. Salo is not a movie you see on a whim. If you do decide to seek it out, tread carefully for here truly be monsters.

But I'm a Cheerleader (1999)

The Movie: Megan Bloomfield (the talented Natasha Lyonne; of American Pie infamy among a great many other things) seems the average, well adjusted, all-American Christian girl. She’s a high-school senior and she loves cheerleading. She’s dating Jared (Brandt Wille), a handsome football player. She loves her parents and tries to do what she’s told she’s supposed to.

But things aren’t perfect, as she soon finds out. Megan doesn’t like kissing her boyfriend, and she fantasizes about the other cheerleaders. These and other little signs convince those around her that she is a lesbian. Megan’s parents (Bud Cort, and former John Waters regular Mink Stole) and her so-called friends arrange for an intervention with Mike (drag-queen actor, performer, model and song writer RuPaul; not in drag anywhere in this movie); an ex-gay and representative for True Directions, a homosexual rehabilitation camp. The end result of the intervention is that Megan gets shipped off to True Directions.

True Directions is a nightmarish place run by Mike and his boss, Mary (Cathy Moriarty, of many movies); where young people are taught to follow the “true role” that their gender has set for them. Shortly after she arrives, Megan realizes that she actually is gay. She immediately sets out to complete the program and rectify the problem.

Unfortunately, it’s not going to be anywhere as easy as she thinks it will be. Like any culture of deception, there is an undercurrent of deceit running through all of the social interactions at True Directions. To further complicate matters, Megan finds herself falling for Graham (Clea DuVall of the Faculty and the Astronaut’s Wife), the “bad girl” of the camp. Will Megan become what those in authority want her to be, or will she follow her heart instead?

The Review:
“If I ever catch any of you looking at another guy like that again, I’m going to make you watch sports. All weekend.”
-Mike

But I’m a Cheerleader can probably be accurately described as a romantic comedy; but at the same time it’s one of those movies that can’t really be pigeonholed into any one particular genre. All of the tropes of the genre are there; the unlikely couple, the initial attraction, the realization of their romantic feelings, the external forces they have to struggle against if they want happiness. However, at the same time BIAC subverts many of those tropes. For one, the central couple is two women instead of the usual man and woman. More than this, But I’m a Cheerleader is a movie with a message; one that rises far above the romantic drama that is going on.

At its core, BIAC is about identity; being true to who you are as opposed to letting others define you. Our central character, Megan, does just that. Throughout most of the movie she is extremely passive, doing whatever others tell her to do, trying to be what she thinks they want her to be. At the beginning, her whole argument against the lesbian diagnoses is that she is not a lesbian because she doesn’t fit the role. She’s not butch; she’s Christian, and most of all she’s a cheerleader. Apparently there are no lesbian cheerleaders.

Even after she realizes that she is, in fact, a lesbian; Megan still doesn’t change her tune. Her initial reaction to it is to simply try harder to complete the program and be properly straight. Later on, when Lloyd and Larry (Wesley Mann and Richard Moll, respectively), two ex-ex-gays who are trying to subvert Mary’s program, help some of the kids sneak out to a gay nightclub; one gets the impression that Megan goes along not necessarily because she wants to, but because it’s what the other kids are doing.

Finally, when she is kicked out of True Directions for her and Graham consummating their love, and seeks refuge with Lloyd and Larry, Megan straight out tells them “I want you to teach me how to be a lesbian.” Again, she hasn’t really changed; she just figures that she’s a lesbian now and therefore needs someone to define the role for her. It isn’t until the very end, when Megan is about to lose the last thing in her life that she loves, that she stops being passive and takes control of her own life.

The casting, the acting and the characters are wonderful. One of the great things about BIAC is that, while it does play with the usual gay stereotypes, it makes it clear that there is far more to these people than the stereotype. One of the girls in the program doesn’t even belong; she’s really straight. It’s just that she likes softball and baggie clothes, isn’t as pretty as the other girls, and was molested at some point; so everybody assumes she’s gay.

It’s clear pretty quickly what side of the “can homosexuality be cured” question the movie falls on. Mike, the devotedly ex-gay authority figure, very obviously is attracted to Rock (Eddie Cibrian); Mary’s very muscular and attractive son. Rock very definitely does not fit any of the parameters of manliness that Mary espouses; and there is some strong suggestion that Mike’s attentions are reciprocated. Although it doesn’t go into it, some of Mary’s lines of dialogue suggest that she, herself, might lean a little toward the homo side of the fence.

Finally, But I’m a Cheerleader is hilarious. There is a really offbeat sense of humor throughout; and though there is some unpleasant stuff (it could just be me, but I find the “therapy” extremely disturbing), there’s never any doubt that things will turn out alright in the end. There are wonderful sight gags, dialogue, characters; I could go on. In short, But I’m a Cheerleader is a very fun, hilarious and uplifting movie.

Demoniacs (1973)

The Movie: Just before the credits, in a fashion that recalls the old swash-buckling movies, we are introduced to our villains. They are wreckers, a kind of pirate that preyed on sailing ships by luring them into dangerous waters and looting the wreck. Here we have a particularly bloodthirsty bunch.

The nominal leader is the Captain (John Rico), a vicious brute who is slowly but surely being overcome by guilt over his evil deeds, past and present. This makes him increasingly unstable. Next is Bosco (Willy Braque), who we are told intends to replace the Captain as the group’s boss. Then there is Paul (Paul Bisciglia), the cowardly drunk of the group. As the voiceover cleverly puts it “he is the most powerful, because all of the other three think he is on their side.”

Finally we have Tina (the gorgeous Joëlle Coeur), the Captain’s girlfriend and true boss of the wreckers. I would like to describe Tina as a sadistic bitch; but that would be both a gross understatement and a mean-spirited insult to sadistic bitches everywhere. Tina is behind all of the band’s worst atrocities; whether she is ordering the other wreckers to commit them, or demanding to commit them herself. The worse the deeds she is witness to (or involved in), the more turned on she gets. In short, Tina is a very nasty piece of work.

The story itself is simple; the wreckers’ latest atrocity brings unintended consequences. There are two survivors of their latest wreck (Lieva Lone and Patricia Hermenier, in their only film, and I have no idea which is which); but upon reaching shore they are brutally raped, beaten and left for dead by the pirates. However, they manage to elude their tormenters and escape to a mysterious ruin near the local village.

The ruin’s two inhabitants, a priest (I think [Ben Zimet]) and a woman dressed as a clown (Mireille Dargent, who also starred in Rollin’s Requiem for a Vampire) guard a demon who has been trapped in the ruins for centuries. Through his two servants the demon (Miletic Zivomir) offers the girls a deal; in return for freeing him (and sex, naturally) he will grant them the power to get their revenge. The consequences bring about tragedy, and the downfall of the wreckers.

The Review: In the past two or so years I have become familiar with the works of Jean Rollin; and he has rapidly become one of my favorite directors. However, I am always hesitant to suggest his movies to others. Rollin is a director who, whenever he can, goes his own way in his movies and tries to create his own unique visions. Even for fans such as myself, he is very hit or miss. When he misses, he can come across as incomprehensible and pretentious in the worst ways. However, whenever he’s successful, even if it’s only a partial success; Rollin creates experiences that are all the more wonderful for being so unique.

I have found that it helps to think of Rollin’s movies much in the way that one would think of a dream. Judged externally, they make little or no sense. But when taken on their own terms, they have their own internal logic. Indeed, one of the things Rollin is most noted for is his ability to create a sleepy, dreamlike atmosphere over the most bizarre, and sometimes brutal, happenings. Who knows, maybe that’s the man’s intention in the first place.

Demoniacs is one of Rollin’s better known films, and it certainly is a good reflection of his quirks and idiosyncrasies. While there are male characters, it is the females who are the most developed and the most important part of the story. There is gratuitous nudity; odd, and often irrelevant philosophical tangents; some really bad dialogue and parts of the plot that really don’t make sense. There are gorgeous camera shots, a woman dressed like a clown (Rollin seems to have a thing for women dressed like clowns in his movies), and an overall dreamlike, otherworldly atmosphere hanging over everything. In short, except for the lack of vampirism, Demoniacs has pretty much everything one can expect from a Rollin movie.

The very best part of the film would have to be Joëlle Coeur as Tina the wrecker. Coeur was a French actress who did sexploitation and B-movies for eight years during the 1970s. According to Rollin in an interview, she left the movie scene entirely when hardcore came along; apparently not wanting anything to do with it. It’s a shame that she had so few movies, and so few of those are unavailable today, because Coeur was truly a good actress.

For one thing, Coeur had a marvelous command of the physical side of acting. No, not in the way you’re thinking; I mean that she had an amazing knack for conveying emotion using just her body and facial expressions. She’s probably the best actor in this movie (maybe the only real actor) and she dominates and steals every scene she’s in. All the male wreckers, as presented, are two-dimensional cartoon characters. The role of Tina could have been as well, but Coeur’s presence and charisma and physical acting lift it far above that level. She’s believable, she’s sexy, she’s entertaining in a way none of the other parts or actors in the movie can hope to match. She’s also scary as all hell.

The others do their parts. The two girls playing the victims/avenging ghosts do alright; if nothing else they look eerie sometimes. Since they’re mute throughout nearly the entire movie, just looking eerie works. Apparently Rollin wanted the Castel Twins for the part, but he couldn’t get them. It’s a real shame, the Castel Twins would have been wonderful; but the available actresses do an adequate job.

So the big question; why do I like the movie? I’ve been trying to come up with an answer the whole time I’ve been writing this, and still nothing. Admittedly, just looking at Demoniacs’ individual parts is a mixed bag. On the one hand you have some truly beautiful, haunting shots; Joëlle Coeur’s phenomenal talent (and she’s also nude a lot, if you’re into that sort of thing); an engrossing atmosphere and a somewhat intriguing storyline. On the other hand you have an obvious low budget, bad dialogue, some meandering plotwise, and a good deal of confusion if you’re looking for anything like a conventional movie. That said, I’m still not sure what the spark is that raises the whole above the sum of its parts. Maybe it’s just Joëlle Coeur. But then, as per usual, I am a bit taken with her.

In conclusion, if you’re looking for something different and you don’t mind copious nudity, mildly graphic sex and a few fairly brutal scenes; you should definitely check out Demoniacs. If those things put you off, or if you want anything like a conventional movie, story or plot; then avoid this one.

Terminator Salvation (2009)

The Movie: It's 2018, after the machines have pretty much destroyed civilization as we know it and the human Resistance is struggling to survive against them. John Conner clashes with the official leaders of the Resistance, and struggles to save Kyle Reese, a teenage who will one day go back in time and become his father. Also, a criminal from 2003 who volunteered his body for some major experiment wakes up in this nightmare age, stumbles into the Resistance, and finds out that he's not quite human anymore.

The Review: First the good. The special effects are wonderful. The settings are beautiful and the machines are well designed. My personnel favorites were these nasty snake-like things that turn up everywhere at the least convenient times. A lot of things blew up and/or got smashed. Also, there were a few lines and moments I found amusing; ditto some homages from the earlier films.

The bad: My major gripe was with the human element. First of all, this was your typical Hollywood big-budget, PG-13, feel-good family action flick. Basically, for a violent movie, it's really toned down. These kinds of movies work on suspense, and I didn't feel any suspense or worry for the characters we're supposed to like, because I knew nothing bad would happen to any of them. Of course, the hero couldn't die, nor any of the love interests, or the obnoxious teenager who will become John Conner's father. Very few of even the R-rated horror films these days will cack a kid, so the little girl will be alright. In short, whatever happens to our "heroes," they will suffer no lasting ill effects from it in the end. It makes it very hard to care about them.

Also, like most Hollywood films, there was no real depth. There were plenty of opportunities throughout the plot to do something complex, ambiguous or thought provoking; but they were never used. The plot always took the simplest, cookie-cutter route throughout the movie. For example; our machine man. There were plenty of chances after he learned his true nature for him to suffer a crisis of identity, possibly consider switching sides. After all, most of the humans didn't give him any reason to care about them after they figured out what he was. I know, were I in his place, I probably would have seriously considered hand-feeding them to the machines personally. But you know from the beginning he won't sell out, so a potential source of suspense falls flat and comes to nothing. Even when it's revealed that he has some sort of brain-control device in his head, he just removes it without any effort at all.

My final complaint applies to all the Terminator sequels. When James Cameron made the first Terminator, he made a very good, competent, suspenseful film. However, it was also a closed circle; it really had no place for a sequel. It's revealed in the end that Skynet's little stunt with time travel is really an exercise in futility; because it's that stunt that brings about the very enemy Skynet is trying to destroy in the first place. Because Reese, the man who turns out to be John Conner's father, is sent back in time, Conner is born. In fact, the movie suggest very strongly that Conner knew full well who Reese was, and manipulated him into volunteering for what both knew was a suicide mission, so that he would be born. Rather disturbing when you think about it.

The other element is Sarah, John's mother. At the start of the movie she is your average, mildly flaky, not particularly ambitious young woman who is beaten down by the world in general. However, she does have hidden depths which are brought out by the situation she finds herself in. If the Terminator hadn't been sent back to kill her, then she wouldn't have become the intelligent, clever, resourceful young woman that could teach her son what he needed to know to defeat the machines. In short, when the movie ends, even though the story itself isn't over, it's pretty clear that there's nothing left to tell. Despite Skynet's best effort, the future is fixed and it is impossible to change it; Skynet will destroy civilization, and John Conner will destroy Skynet. As a result, the other movies feel forced, because they pretty much destroy that continuity.

Time travel is always a risky plot device because it plays hell with cause and effect, but Cameron handled it very well by creating that loop. This leaves the sequels at a disadvantage; they either screw up what Cameron did in the original movie, or, if they go by Cameron's original premise, then there's no room for suspense because you know the villains will just fail anyway. The sequels do have their moments, and I do watch them. However, I also own and have watched a copy of the Vanilla Ice movie, so that's not much of a recommendation. In short, as a way to waste a few hours this movie's okay. As anything even remotely resembling art, not even close.

Last American Virgin (1982)

The Movie: Gary, Rick and David are best friends who do everything together; particularly when it comes to trying to get laid. Rick is especially good at this. He's a manipulative creep and the kind of guy who will schtup anything female; which wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the fact that he always seems to succeed at it. The three are very close, but it all changes with the arrival of the new girl, Karen.

Gary encounters Karen and it's love at first sight. Unfortunately, she winds up with Rick. The friendship is strained as Gary burns with unrequited love while Rick is determined to turn Karen into one of his conquests. Then she gets pregnant...

The Review:
Ah, high school. I'm not far from my ten year reunion as of writing this, and I still remember much from my high school years. I try to suppress, but still I remember. I went into The Last American Virgin because I was looking for movies starring the lovely and talented Diane Franklin; one of my reasons for wanting to break the laws of time and space. What I got was something that reopened many of the scars still seared onto my brain and soul.

I think the best way to describe The Last American Virgin is as a bait and switch movie. By that I mean that you go in thinking that it's one thing, and it turns out to be something very different. From the box, the theatrical preview, and even the beginning of the movie itself; you would think you are watching a teenage sex comedy. That's pretty much how it plays for the first thirty minutes or so. Past that, it shows its teeth as something much darker.

Everything that you would expect from a teen sex comedy is there. Our three protagonists are introduced as your typical heroes in these movies: three red-blooded American boys who just want to get laid. They go through all sorts of wacky shenanigans to reach that hallowed goal; most of which do not turn out as expected. There is a soundtrack of the big contemporary pop songs of the time; although somehow they actually fit in nicely. And, of course, there are all sorts of tasteless jokes; my personnel favorite involving the boys' gym class holding a bet on who has the largest penis.

LAV's greatest strength is the accuracy with which it shows adolescent life. Not necessarily in the really big plot points, some of which are improbable, but in the little details. Our hero, Gary (Lawrence Monoson, who went on to be in Friday the 13th part IV, poor bastard) first meets the girl of his dreams (Diane Franklin) at a diner that seems to be the main hangout spot. Actually he sees her, but even when she notices and smiles, he can't do anything but stare and drool. She leaves, and he goes to meet his friends, who we now get to see in action.

Action, of course, is exactly what they're after. Rick has his eye on three girls who he has heard are easy. He invites them over to the boy's table, and automatically there is awkwardness all around. Despite Gary's protests, the boys lure the girls back to his house with the promise of a party and drugs. Of course, the boys don't have drugs, so they give the girls some artificial sweetener and tell them it's cocaine. The girls are fooled, which makes me suspect that like the boys, they're putting on a front and have no idea what they're talking about.

Rick puts the moves on the most attractive girl and gets her into the bedroom. David follows suit, and Gary is left with the least attractive of the three girls. Another scene follows that is both funny and uncomfortable. Gary, who never wanted any of this in the first place, feels compelled to put the moves on the remaining girl. She, who was just as eager as Gary (i.e. not at all), tries to deflect him with feigned apathy. I don't know who the actress was, but I really hope she did other movies after this one because her facial expressions and body language are wonderful. She doesn’t say a word, but just by looking at her face you know exactly what she is thinking.

The movie really gets down to business with the establishment of the love triangle. After finding out that his dream girl is a new student at his school and learning her name, he “arranges” a meeting with her. It ends with him thinking he might have a chance; but at the party he attends that night he finds that Rick has already gotten to her. It's obvious that if they aren't an item, they soon will be. In another scene that could have been played for laughs but instead is just uncomfortable; Gary reacts by getting drunk, embarrassing himself both at the party, and in front of his parents and their friends at home.

Now, I've met guys like Rick (Steve Antin, who played Troy in Goonies and is apparently an executive producer for the Pussycat Dolls) before. Personally, they tend to simultaneously inspire three emotions in me; disgust, for what they do, envy, for the fact that they are able to do it and I'm not, and guilt for feeling the envy. Gary is probably feeling something similar, along with the usual tangled emotions that come with your good friend being involved with someone you’re interested in. Finally; Gary cares for Karen and he knows what Rick is; as well as what Rick will do with Karen once he loses interest.

The movie makes no bones about the fact that Rick's a slimy manipulative bastard. He manipulates everyone, including his “best friends,” to get what he wants. Gary is in the horrible position of knowing the train wreck is coming, but being unable to do a thing about it.

So, the majority of the movie focuses on this twisted triangle. Gary desperately searches for a way to win Karen away from Rick before he gets too far, to no avail. There is the further complication that Karen's best friend, Rose (Kimmy Robertson, who would later play Lucy in the television show Twin Peaks, and be the voice of Milhouse's girlfriend on an episode of the Simpsons) is very hot for Gary. Gary has no interest in her, but for some reason Karen and Rick are determined to get them together.

About halfway through, the movie changes tone completely and jettisons any appearance of being a comedy. As an example, a comparison of two of the boys' sexual (mis)adventures should suffice. Near the beginning of the movie; the three boys pay a visit to a beautiful, amorous, foreign, older lady whose boyfriend has been away for far too long. Now, while an older woman seducing underage boys is a creepy idea, that creepiness is nowhere in sight here. Indeed, the scene pretty much is in the spirit of a European sex farce, complete with the long absent boyfriend choosing that moment to return to the woman in his life. There is cheerful music (Carmela, the woman, plays some tango music to get in the mood), t&a, vulgar humor and a general spirit of good-natured fun. The only off note in this, which I think is a very nice touch, is Gary and David's nervousness about the situation.

The second encounter, taking place about half-way through the movie, couldn't be more different. The three boys patronize a prostitute. She's okay looking, in a really trashy way, but she has an attitude that ensures I wouldn't touch her with a ten-foot pole if she was a knockout. The deed is done in an extremely dirty, gloomy basement. There is no t&a; in fact, you don't see anything about the act at all. Instead, you just hear the prostitute yelling at and insulting the boys while she concludes her business with them. It is about as unarousing a sex scene as I have ever come across in a movie; a point driven home by Gary throwing up after his turn with her.

Of course, it's even worse than it first appears; the next day, the boys find out that they have crabs. The scenes of the boys trying to get rid of them are played for laughs, but it's a queasy, uncomfortable kind of laughter. This also marks the last of the jokes in the film; it's deadly serious from here on.

Karen gets pregnant and the inevitable happens; Rick abandons her. Gary sees his turn to shine, and takes it. Gary goes above and beyond anything anybody could ever ask or expect of him. Carefully keeping it discrete, he arranges for an appointment for Karen at a clinic and raises the money himself to pay for it. It goes well and it looks like Gary might have what he's looking for, but.... Well; without giving away any details I will just say that the end of the movie left me feeling like somebody sucker-punched me in the gut. I've seen the Last American Virgin at least three times now, and knowing what happens doesn't make it easier.

The actors provide good performances all around. Monoson makes Gary very believable and sympathetic, even when he's being an asshole; something all teenagers are at times. Antin also makes Rick believable, doing a good portrayal of a guy who, beneath all the good looks and charm, is simply a manipulative slime bag. Robertson doesn't have a large part as Rose, but her portrayal of the character reminds me of many girls I knew in high school and college.

The IMDB says that LAV is Diane Franklin's first film. Karen's is a very simple role, just an ordinary teenage girl who can't, or won't, see the misery that's coming. Franklin doesn't really have any opportunity to show the versatility she has in her later roles, but she still is a hell of an actress. If nothing else, she emotes well. Whether it's happy, miserable, love struck or what have you; whenever the part calls for her to portray an emotion she is very believable. Another things she has going for her is her appearance. She is gorgeous (it's obvious why Gary and Rick are interested in her), but she doesn't look like a starlet or super-model. Instead, she has the look of someone us mere mortals could expect to someday meet (knock on wood), which adds greatly to her believability.

Admittedly, the character of David (Joe Rubbo, who didn't do too many other movies) is kind of shuffled off to the side, but he is still a good character and an important part of the film. David is fat, but is not “The Fat Kid” you see in so many other teenage movies. There is some humor at his expense (he has a tendency to be in a compromising position when the worst person possible enters the room) but the fact that he is fat is presented as just a very minor part of who he is. For one thing, David is generally lucky with the ladies. Not as much as Rick, but much more so than Gary. Also, from his constantly taking down transactions in a notebook, he gives the impression of a budding businessman. A successful one too, judging from the fact that the guys are constantly bumming money off of him.

Finally, while he's not part of the love triangle forming, the movie implies pretty strongly that David knows full well what is going on between his friends. In fact, one gets the impression that he's doing everything he can to keep the situation from boiling over. It's not a major part of the movie, but it definitely adds to it.

I would say that the Last American Virgin is a good movie. Aside from the good acting, plot and setups; I respect the movie for portraying adolescence more honestly than most teenage movies are willing to do. After all, those of us not blinded by nostalgia will remember that this time of life is hell. LAV is willing to deal with those lessons that are pounded into our heads during adolescence that we really don't want to think about. Life is unfair. You don't always succeed. It is possible to give your all and still fail. You don't always get what you deserve.

I would definitely recommend this movie. However, I will repeat my warning from the beginning of this review; this is not a brainless teen sex romp or a feel-good romantic comedy. Do not watch the Last American Virgin if you are depressed, upset or otherwise in need of something uplifting. You have been warned.