tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43826925936036887762023-11-16T05:28:11.947-08:00Lair of the Nine-Fingered MenaceHello and welcome to my blog. I am Nathan the Nine-Fingered Menace and I am into movies, particularly the kind most people who think they have any taste avoid like the plague and/or that are far off the beaten path. For the forseeable future this blog is dedicated to movie reviews; mainly movies like I just descrbed, although there will be a few that will probably surprise you. Feedback is always welcome; but if you spam me I am not responsible for the consequences. Enjoy.Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-79720867528146755352014-05-31T07:21:00.000-07:002014-05-31T07:21:14.448-07:00Suspiria (1977)<a href="http://themistressofhorror.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/suspiria.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://themistressofhorror.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/suspiria.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> American ballerina Suzy Bannion (Jessica Harper of <i>Phantom of the Paradise </i>and, much later, <i>Minority Report</i>) travels to Germany to attend the prestigious Tanz Akademie in Freiburg. If you’re the type who believes in omens, her arrival at the airport presages very bad things. Just walking out of the airport subjects the poor girl to an ominous thunderstorm and a rudely aloof and uncommunicative taxi driver. However, it’s at the school where Suzy’s problems really start; because just as her taxi pulls up to the school, a girl (Eva Axen) runs out the door in fear, shouts something to an unseen person on the intercom, and flees into the forest. When Suzy tries to enter the school, the person on the intercom says that she doesn’t recognize her and refuses to let her in. Meanwhile, the fleeing girl, who we later find out is named Pat Hingle, spends the night with a friend with the intention of leaving forever in the morning. However, Pat’s friend’s apartment isn’t any protection against what Pat is fleeing from; that night a mysterious someone or something enters and brutally murders both women.<br />
<br />
The next day Suzy returns to the school, where she is told by the dance instructor Miss Tanner (Alida Valli of <i>Eyes Without a Face</i>) that she was expected the night before. Also present is Madam Blanc (Joan Bennett of the original <i>Father of the Bride</i>, believe it or not), the vice-directress, who is discussing the murder of Pat Hingle with some police officers, explaining that the girl was kicked out just yesterday. Suzy quickly finds the staff to be weird and sinister, and the students range from eccentric to, quite possibly, downright insane. Events such as the sudden plague of maggots in the girls’ dorms, and Suzy’s strange sickness and collapse in the dance studio really don’t help matters much.<br />
<br />
Suzy finally starts to get some information when she is befriended by Sara (actor and director Stefania Casini of <i>Blood for Dracula</i>). Sara has been noticing some weird things about the school. What’s more, she was friends with Pat Hingle, who also learned some weird things just before she was murdered; and Sara was also the woman on the intercom box the night Suzy arrived. It gradually becomes clear that some powerful evil lurks at the school; and when Sara gets killed, Suzy realizes that she has to figure out what’s going on if she doesn’t want to be next…<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b><br />
<br />
Dear Readers, this blog has now been up and running for four years! Now, I confess that in recent months I have been slacking off on the entries, for reasons legitimate and not so much; I must apologize for that. However, as I’ve done every year, I feel the need to express my gratitude to those of you who have been reading this blog up to this point; and my sincere welcome and condolences for the inevitable fate of your immortal soul for those of you who are reading this for the first time. Thank you and welcome all!<br />
<br />
Confession time Dear Readers: I had to watch Dario Argento’s <i>Suspiria</i> three or four times before I was able to understand why so many people consider it his magnum opus; and indeed, a true classic of the genre. At this point I am of the opinion that <i>Suspiria</i> is a true work of art, as well as a very effective horror movie. However, I will add the caveat that if you’re used to conventional, Hollywood-style movie structure, you may be in for a rough slog.<br />
<br />
European movies made during this time, particularly Italian cinema, had a tendency to employ style over substance; imagery and emotion in place of logic or plot cohesion. At its worst, the results of this kind of moviemaking are frustrating and unintelligible. However, at its best the end product rises above a mere movie to be watched, instead becoming an experience to be lived.<br />
<br />
As you’ve no doubt guess from my opening paragraph, <i>Suspiria</i> falls into the latter category. The moment Suzy walks off the plane at the beginning; she steps into a waking nightmare and drags us in the audience along with her. Argento does everything he can to play up the sense of unreality, and as a result the lack of logic and plot cohesion enhances the movie rather than detracting from it.<br />
<br />
The architecture and décor we see throughout most of the movie is truly beautiful; but at the same time it is quietly foreboding and off. Argento uses a primary color palette, which throws the décor into stark relief; and for some scenes he employs color filters that further enhance the atmosphere. Then there’s the soundtrack, in particular three numbers that are the background music for nearly the entire movie. They are odd, discordant pieces that really don’t work outside <i>Suspiria</i> (as proved by a music video on my special edition DVD), but in the context of the movie are a large part of what establishes the atmosphere and makes it so effective.<br />
<br />
The final notable reason for why the film works so well is how Argento, for the most part, tends to eschew traditional horror movie plot elements. Admittedly, there are two or three brutal murders, and the two we see at the beginning are as nasty a horror movie death scene as you could ask for. However, afterwards he tends to employ plot elements that focus more on the unnatural evil of the villains than the deaths themselves. The death of the blind piano player is more atmospheric than brutal, as he’s stalked by something unseen through the empty nighttime streets only to die by a completely unexpected agent. Personally, the maggot scene always causes me to cringe, and the scene where Suzy falls sick and collapses while dancing is one that I find very identifiable. Admittedly, that last one probably owes much to my own medical experiences; but it’s still very well done.<br />
<br />
So in conclusion, <i>Suspiria</i> is less a conventional horror movie than a living nightmare on celluloid. There is little logic to much that goes on, but that actually enhances greatly the general feeling of unreality. If you’re interested in a truly great work of horror movie art, and can deal with the fact that it doesn’t follow what most of us consider a traditional plot, make sure you see this one. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-17580359587145628962014-05-31T07:15:00.000-07:002014-05-31T07:15:38.171-07:00One-Eyed Monster (2008)<a href="http://www.cultreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/oem_posterparody_exorcistcr.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://www.cultreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/oem_posterparody_exorcistcr.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> Ten people, including veteran porn stars Ron Jeremy and Veronica Hart (playing themselves), head up into the Northern California mountains to make an adult film. All the weather predictions indicate that a huge blizzard is going to hit them, so the cast and crew are pretty much resigned to being snowed in for the weekend. However, that’s only a small part of what they’re going to have to deal with.<br />
<br />
That night, when Ron goes outside for some fresh air between takes, a weird, glowing light falls out of the sky. It heads straight for Ron, and hits him head on. Ron heads back inside feeling a little ill, but the real problems begin when they start rolling again. Suddenly, Ron starts spasming uncontrollably, then collapses and dies. When the crew checks his body, they find that a rather important part is missing; his penis. A check of the film reveals that it seems to have detached it itself from his body and wondered off.<br />
<br />
The detached organ very quickly proves itself to be deadly. It seems that some alien force hijacked it, and is using the body part for some nefarious plan. What’s worse, it’s quick to kill whoever gets in its way. Trapped by the blizzard, the surviving cast and crew try to figure a way to trap and destroy the organ. However, this is no ordinary detached, alien-possessed penis, this detached, alien-possessed penis used to belong to Ron Jeremy; who was known for having the biggest and strongest one in the industry…<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b><br />
<br />
“<i>I have a theory. It’s a little way-out, but I saw a dick scurry out of a tailpipe today so I’m willing to consider just about everything</i><i>.</i>”<br />
<br />
I’m in the habit of watching the movie previews on my DVDs, and that’s how I discovered this particular little gem. Said preview showed what, at first, appeared to be yet another generic spam in a cabin movie; a small group of people are trapped in an isolated location with a murderous creature, individual or force. However, my interest grew when I realized that this particular group was the cast and crew for and ‘adult’ film, and that the monster was a detached penis possessed by an alien force. The title, <i>One-Eyed Monster</i>, just cemented things; for obvious reasons, I had to see this movie. If the reasons aren’t obvious to you, you must be new to this blog. That’s okay, just take some time to go through some of my older reviews and you’ll get it. Thanks for reading, by the way; it’s good to have you.<br />
<br />
I should probably start by disabusing my readers of the idea that <i>One-Eyed Monster</i> is in any way a pornographic movie. Simply put, it’s not. There’s barely any nudity or (implied) sex, the ‘porn’ elements are only plot devices, and the ‘monster’ is obviously special effects. At least, I hope it is. <i>One-Eyed Monster </i>is, at its core, a spam in a cabin flick. For the most part it hits all the usual notes of that subgenre, but there are some interesting exceptions.<br />
<br />
One of the two main exceptions is the who and how of the monster’s victims. There are a few exceptions (flaming asshole characters always get it in these movies, it’s just a question of when), but for the most part we don’t know beforehand who will live and who will die. The black guy doesn’t get it first, there’s no wacky practical joker to attempt a prank on the wrong person, and ironically (or maybe not, considering who the characters are), how sexual an individual is has no relevance on their life expectancy. On the one hand, we get a sense of suspense absent from the survival horror flicks where it’s obvious from the beginning who has the big target on their ass. On the other, the whole character’s sex life not having any relevance on their life expectancy means that this movie lacks the judgmental “they deserved it” attitude we find in so many horror movies; which I, personally, find refreshing.<br />
<br />
The other main exception is this movie’s sense of humor. <i>One-Eyed Monster</i> is a funny movie; and what’s more, it’s intentionally funny. No movie where everyone isn’t in on the joke would have a scene like the one where the first victim’s roommate comes running in screaming “Angel has a dick in her mouth!”, and then has to add “there’s no one attached it” when her first pronouncement is met with indifference. The whole premise of the movie is ridiculous; as is the how our heroes first try to destroy the monster and how they finally succeed. There are many hilarious lines of dialogue and one-liners, my particular favorite being the conversation between Jeremy and the bus driver at the beginning of the movie.<br />
<br />
But here’s the thing, it’s all played straight. <i>One-Eyed monster</i> is obviously meant as a spoof, but all the most ridiculous scenes and lines are played either completely deadpan, or with tongue slightly in cheek. Personally, this is why I find it so funny. These days, ‘spoof’ or ‘parody’ in a movie means playing every joke up in a way that practically screams “look how funny we are! See, this is the joke, this is where you laugh.” I know humor is a subjective thing, but I find it really doesn’t work for me. That way just drips with desperation. The main reason <i>One-Eyed Monster</i> works so well is because they don’t take that route. Everyone’s obviously in on the joke, but nobody is actively treating it like one.<br />
<br />
Personally, I’m not big on watching porn; largely due to the fact that watching other people screw bores me to tears. As a result, I’m not all that familiar with Ron Jeremy. I’ve heard the name here and there; and I’ve seen him in cameos in a few other movies I’ve watched, albeit without having a clue of who he was. However, the thing is that I am fascinated by porn as a subject. It’s one of those incredibly controversial subjects that is bound to make people react; even just saying the word porn. While I’m not big on actually watching porn, the fact that it is considered so taboo makes it fascinating for me; which is why I found Jeremy one of the most fascinating parts of this movie.<br />
<br />
Ron Jeremy and Veronica Hart are long-time veterans of the porn industry, and they have worked together a very large number of times. Both of these things are very clear in how they carry themselves in the movie. With our first look at them on the bus ride up, it’s clear that these two share a bond. Likewise, when they talk about how the industry has changed, or especially, in the scene where they’re commiserating about how they don’t get any respect anymore, it all seems real in a way that doesn’t require any suspension of disbelief. This authenticity helps ground the movie so that when the more ridiculous elements first show up, they’re much easier to accept. I’d also like to add that there is a feature on the DVD where Jeremy and Hart just sit down and discuss their experiences in the industry, which I, personally, found interesting. <br />
<br />
The other individual who caught my eye was Amber Benson as Laura the makeup girl. Benson is fairly prolific these days; not just as an actor, but also as a director, producer, author, scriptwriter, and probably a few other things. Sadly, I mostly know her from her role in the TV show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. <br />
<br />
I found Benson’s character to another one of the more interesting parts of the movie. Laura is a socially awkward young woman who nurses a major crush on Jeremy. The thing is Hollywood rarely gets socially awkward right, usually just making the character situationally clumsy and passing that off as awkward. Speaking as a socially awkward individual who has dealt with many others throughout my life, social awkwardness can best be defined thusly: you’re not playing by the expected script. As we grow up we tend to absorb certain expectations about others’ behavior, a script if you will. And it’s not just big things either; most of it consists of little things that should be pointless. Social awkwardness comes in when you or somebody else isn’t behaving by the expectations of those around you. The reasons why vary; it could be because you have a completely different script (such as mentioning to those who don’t get it how and why a somewhat well-adjusted individual might enjoy movies about detached, alien possessed penises), it could be you just have trouble knowing what is expected of you (this is often my problem), or it could be that you just don’t care.<br />
<br />
Anyway, Benson as Laura establishes that social awkwardness perfectly and believably. Admittedly, in the other role I know her from; she did socially awkward just as well. However, in Buffy Benson did a kind of cute, lovable, social awkwardness; here she does it with a touch of creepiness. And again, it’s convincing; socially awkward people so often come off as creepy because you don’t know what to expect of them, as they aren’t playing by the expected rules. In short, I found Benson’s Laura to be a convincing character, one I’ve had to deal with (and even been) all too often.<br />
<br />
So in conclusion, it’s pretty obvious that I thoroughly enjoyed <i>One-Eyed Monster</i>. The fact that a movie with this premise even got made deserves major kudos; that it turned out so well even more so. If you’re a certain type of person, and you know who you are, this movie is a must see. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-58681972818981931382014-03-23T11:11:00.000-07:002014-03-23T11:11:00.356-07:00Rock n' Roll Nightmare (1987)<a href="http://horrornews.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/rock-and-roll-nightmare.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://horrornews.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/rock-and-roll-nightmare.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> At an isolated Canadian farmhouse; mysterious, demonic forces suddenly appear and slaughter a family of three. After standing unused for ten years, some new occupants arrive. John Triton (body builder, b-movie actor and front man for various heavy metal groups John-Mikl Thor), and his hair metal group the Tritonz, have come for an extended stay to create material for a new album and hopefully get themselves out of the slump they’ve found themselves in. Triton’s reasoning is that they’re away from all the distractions of civilization; although apparently Toronto, a center of culture, is just down the road. The rest of the group isn’t so enthusiastic. They include: Stig (Jim Cirile), is the asshole drummer, who has brought his uber-bitch girlfriend Lou Anne (Jillian Peri). Lead guitarist Roger Eburt (Frank Dietz) has brought his new wife Mary (Liane Abel), and they are using this as their honeymoon. Nerdy bassist Max (David Lane) and Dee Dee (Denise Dicandia), the only female band member, have been making eyes at each other, but so far been too shy to do anything about it. Rounding out the group are Randy (Teresa Simpson), Triton’s seemingly perpetually unsatisfied girlfriend, and Phil (Adam Fried, uncredited), the geeky, nebbish manager for the band. You know, I’m no musician, but I already see two or three problems with this setup; and they have nothing to do with the demonic forces infesting the house. Nevertheless, we’ll go with it for now.<br />
<br />
The Tritonz settle in, but almost immediately get set upon by the demons. One by one, unnoticed by anyone else until it’s too late, the Tritonz and their paramours get killed and/or possessed. However, not all is what it appears to be, and John Triton has a few surprises of his own…<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b><br />
<br />
“<i>Yes… that’s where I’ve seen that nerdy bass player.</i>"<br />
<br />
I’m not going to sugar coat this, <i>Rock ‘n Roll Nightmare </i>is a terrible movie in almost every particular. Written and produced by, not to mention starring, John-Mikl Thor; this movie is obviously an amateur project with a microscopic budget, with everything that entails. However, it is also a movie that I get a lot of enjoyment from; and that I make a point of rewatching every so often.<br />
<br />
The script is full of horror movie clichés, inconsistencies, and plot holes you could drive a truck through. For example, the farmhouse and grounds look rather well maintained after ten years of abandonment; and if it was abandoned that long, how the hell was a recording studio set up in the barn, much less one where people like Alice Cooper have worked? The characters, like any group of slasher movie meat, are completely oblivious to what’s going on around them until it’s too late. In fact, also like in the majority of slasher movies since 1980, for the most part they seem to mainly be motivated by the goal of getting into each other’s pants.<br />
<br />
Added to this is the typical amateur lack of pacing. Just after the beginning credits we get an overly long scene of the band’s van driving to the farmhouse. Seriously, we just see the van driving while music plays. And speaking of music, this was actually Thor’s band at the time, and there are at least two or three full performances of some of their songs. It’s definitely not great music, to say the least. Having said that, I’m not ashamed to admit that I got a hold of the movie’s soundtrack when I found that it was available, and that I still can’t get enough of the song played over the final battle. Take that, good taste!<br />
<br />
The effects are obviously very low budget, consisting of rubbery monster masks, the kind of makeup you can buy around Halloween, and some crude puppetry. One of my personal favorite parts of this movie is the extremely phallic, demonic sock puppets (that’s honestly the best way I can describe them) that seem to make up the majority of the minions of darkness, and that I, personally, find way too cute to be in any way scary or threatening. The question of the gore effects can be answered with the question ‘what gore effects?’ Nearly all the deaths are off-screen, and even the one or two that we do see make it clear that this project didn’t have the money for a proper horror movie death scene.<br />
<br />
The acting talents on display range from slim to none. There are a (very) few exceptions, which I will get to shortly, but overall these really aren’t actors. <i> Rock ‘n Roll Nightmare </i>tries to compensate with everybody’s favorite exploitation movie fallback; gratuitous nudity. Unfortunately, these are, overall, people you really don’t want to see naked. I’m sure there are quite a few women, and even some men, who would greatly appreciate some of the scenes of Thor. However, as a straight male with very definite aesthetic preferences, it doesn’t do anything for me.<br />
<br />
So why do I get so much enjoyment out of this movie if it’s so terrible? Two reasons. The first is the ending. I am not going to spoil it for you, but the climax of the movie makes the rest of it worthwhile. The big surprise twist is just weird, inspired, and batshit enough to make up for all the crap leading up to it; and it actually provides a logical (within the plot) explanation for all the overused horror movie tropes and a number (though by no means all) of the plot holes and discrepancies. The climactic battle that follows pulls out all the stops on the crappy special effects. There are a lot of reviews online that will spoil the twist for you, that happened to me before I saw it, but they really won’t do a thing. This is one of those things that has to be seen to be believed, and being told beforehand won’t prepare you for it.<br />
<br />
The other major element that <i>Rock n’ Roll Nightmare </i>has going for it, despite all of its shortcomings, is John-Mikl Thor himself. He’s not a great actor by any stretch, but his unfeigned enthusiasm for the project shines through whenever he’s on screen. I learned young that when an artist of any kind is truly enjoying his work, that, more often than not, goes a long way toward covering for any deficiencies said work might otherwise have. I would argue that <i>Rock n’ Roll Nightmare </i>serves as concrete proof of that simple fact.<br />
<br />
Alongside Thor’s enthusiasm, a look at the time in which this movie was made puts it in a very different light. The U.S. in the late 1980s saw something which many people know as ‘the Satanic Panic’. Basically, Right-wing extremism combined with residual Cold War paranoia, irresponsible shock journalism, and no doubt some other elements as well, to give way too many people the idea that a conspiracy (or more) of literal devil worshippers was working to subvert and destroy our society. As is always the case in these matters, just about every form of youthful nonconformity became a target of zealous moral crusaders. <br />
<br />
I was in second grade come 1990, so I only had any personal experience with the tail end of the Panic. My own experiences were moving out to a small town in rural Idaho and discovering that my beloved hobby of Dungeons and Dragons was considered by many to be a form of Satanism. I spent much of my early adolescence looking for that one role-playing game I kept hearing about that would lead me to practicing black magic, devil worship, and deviant sex acts. Not for the first time in my life, or the last, my hopes were raised up only to be cruelly dashed. Now, in my early 30s, I remain an enthusiastic tabletop RPG geek (although contrary to popular stereotype, I do have a place of my own and a social life outside of gaming); but I have long had to accept the fact that, as with so many other important issues, the Right lied to me.<br />
<br />
However, the main target for these moral crusaders was probably the music genre of heavy metal. From the very beginning the rock genre, and more blatantly so, its heavy metal offshoot, has been all about rebellion and tweaking those in authority. However, when the moral panic hit way too many people decided that heavy metal was, quite literally, the Devil’s music. The late ‘80s saw community record burnings, rumors about subliminal messages hidden in the albums, and Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest actually getting sued for their music causing fans to commit suicide (I’ve been a Judas Priest fan for roughly a decade, nothing yet). It culminated in Tipper Gore, the wife of former vice-president and president elect, Al Gore, actually holding senate hearings to control this “dangerous” music. Among other things, she’s the reason albums always have those ridiculous parental advisory stickers these days.<br />
<br />
Looked at within the framework of its time period, it’s clear that <i>Rock ‘n Roll Nightmare </i>was made with the specific purpose of refuting all these accusations the genre faced. Just look at our heavy metal protagonists: We have a married couple who’s trying to balance their new married life with his job in the band. We have a pair of band-mates who obviously have a thing for each other, but thus far have been too shy to do anything about it. One gets the impression that the manager specifically became a manger because he’s always been a fan and wanted to be involved in the action despite his personal lack of musical talent. Yeah, Stig and Lou Anne are assholes; but they’re the exact kind of asshole you’re going to encounter no matter what social circle you’re a part of. Lack of acting talent gets in the way somewhat, but this is still the impression the movie gets across to us. I know it’s boring compared to the popular fantasies involving drug-fueled orgies with groupies, but it’s probably a lot more realistic. Finally, we are given a front man who’s enthusiasm, despite his limited acting talent, requires no suspension of disbelief whatsoever, for the very simple reason that it’s not acting. Add to this the fact that Satan himself is the villain behind the horrors (that’s not a spoiler), and that the climactic final battle pits him against a heavy metal front man, and you get a clear idea of the argument this movie was trying to make.<br />
<br />
So in conclusion, <i>Rock n’ Roll Nightmare </i>is a pretty terrible movie in nearly all particulars, and definitely not for everyone. However, there are some us who really like terrible movies; I wouldn’t have been inspired to write this blog if that wasn’t the case. Finally, Thor’s genuine and clearly visible enthusiasm for the project and that innovatively batshit twist and climax at the end raise this movie from being merely forgettably terrible into something memorably terrible; and even, for some of us, well worth watching. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-50829982013104975232013-12-30T08:29:00.000-08:002014-01-15T07:04:53.675-08:00Girly (1970)<a href="http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNTI0ODUyOTY4OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzIyNTkxMw@@._V1_SY317_CR5,0,214,317_.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNTI0ODUyOTY4OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzIyNTkxMw@@._V1_SY317_CR5,0,214,317_.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> Mumsy (Ursula Howells), Nanny (Pat Heywood), Sonny (Howard Trevor) and Girly (Vanessa Howard) are a happy family who live in a large manor house in the countryside. However, they get lonely for outside company, so oftentimes Sonny and Girly go out to more populated areas to pick up ‘New Friends’ and bring them home. Once they get them home, the men are given the “proper” outfit (a school uniform, Sonny and Girly also wear them), and compelled to play the Game.<br />
<br />
And what is ‘the Game?’ you ask. Well, it’s never satisfactorily defined; but overall it seems to involve playing along with the charade of being an actual new friend to the children of a Happy Family. Much of this involves actual children’s games, albeit often with a nasty twist to them. Also, there are Rules. If you break a Rule, you are punished. If you break too many; or worse, try to escape, you are “sent to the angels.” <br />
<br />
Our real story begins when Sonny and Girly find their newest New Friend (Michael Bryant) leaving a party with a female “friend” (Imogen Hassall). New Friend is drunk off his gourd, and after one look at Girly he is more than happy to follow her and her brother to the local playground for games. Sonny and Girly arrange for the lady’s death; and when New Friend wakes up, hung over, they convince him that he killed her. Having something extra to hold over his head, the family inducts him into the Game.<br />
<br />
However, once he’s gotten the lay of the land, New Friend starts to speculate on how he might escape. It starts when we discover that Mumsy has another use for some of the men brought in, and New Friend finds that Nanny is jealous of the arrangement. When he seduces Girly, that brings her jealousies into the mix; and New Friend sees a way that he can play the women against each other. Then Sonny, left out of the sexual politics, sees what’s going on and decides that this New Friend has to go…<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b><br />
<br />
“<i>Nasty Nanny is no good! Chop her up for firewood! When she’s dead, boil her head, make it into gingerbread</i><i>!</i>”<br />
-Girly<br />
<br />
If you, dear reader, are unfortunate enough to have grown up thinking a real horror movie means splatters of blood and graphic scenes of torture and dismemberment, than I am afraid you will find the movie <i>Girly</i> rather dull. The usual features craved by your contemporary gorehound are nowhere in evidence here. While horrible things do happen, most of the violence is off-screen; and what we do see is not very graphic at all. The sex is mostly just hinted at, and we really don’t get to see much of Girly beyond her pretty face and lovely legs. In short, this is not just a crude exploitation flick.<br />
<br />
However, <i>Mumsy, Nanny, Sonny and Girly</i>, as it was originally released in its native Britain, quickly became very controversial with the critics. In all honesty it’s fairly obvious to see why, especially if you consider the moral panic of the time; <i>Girly</i> is an extremely disturbing movie on multiple levels. Just the basic setup, which takes a societal ideal and turns it into something nightmarishly twisted, is enough to make you cringe and probably to send most moral crusaders into a lather.<br />
<br />
Sonny and Girly, who we are introduced to right off the bat, are just plain wrong. They’re obviously in their twenties; but they look, talk, and act exactly like children. And it doesn’t seem at all like mockery or façade; they very convincingly have the mentalities of children as well. When we are shown their home life, the impression is that of a young family that has been artificially, and imperfectly, frozen in a single place of development while the rest of the world moves on around them.<br />
<br />
In the pecking order of this group Mumsy is the top of the heap, and she is a particularly petty tyrant about it. Mumsy always gets her way; ‘I’m the Mumsy’ is how she ends all arguments and disagreements. Nobody is allowed to outdo Mumsy at anything; there are scenes where she is crocheting with Nanny or Girly, and she reminds them that they aren’t allowed to work faster or do more work than her. Mumsy is also very obviously one of those authority figures who feel that the rules apply to everyone but her; as shown in some of her arguments with Nanny.<br />
<br />
To my mind, the best scene of disturbing foreshadowing for what is to come is when we are shown the house’s second floor, where the New Friends are kept, for the first time. It’s very subtly and effectively done; there’s nothing the characters or the camera do that actively draws attention to it, but if you look you’ll notice in the background that all the doors are boarded up. It’s unsettling, and provides a great build-up for later when we see what happens to New Friends who fail to live up to their ‘hosts’’ expectations. There is one particular scene in all this that I’m sure was what inspired the most famous scene in Stanly Kubrick’s <i>the Shining</i>. I’m not going to say what it is, as it’s been copied and parodied so many times in pop culture that you most likely know it even if you’ve never seen that particular movie.<br />
<br />
Vanessa Howard steals the movie as the titular Girly. In fact, it is for that reason that when the movie was released in the United States, the ad campaign focused entirely on her. Girly is such a delightfully twisted character; a complex mixture of seductiveness, innocent childishness, and dangerous psychosis all rolled into one. Howard does an impressive juggling act with the character, making her at times sympathetic, at times desirable, and at times downright terrifying.<br />
<br />
There is one aspect of her character that I find particularly intriguing. That aspect is her sexuality; and no, it’s not what you’re thinking. From the very beginning Girly shows a deep understanding of how to make men salivate. When the movie first came out the British censors latched onto one scene early in the film in particular, where Sonny gives Girly a piece of candy that she sucks aggressively, which suggests an incestual relationship between the two of them. However, the scenes where New Friend seduces her, and her subsequent reaction to it, suggests something completely different.<br />
<br />
In short, when it finally comes down to it, Girly gives the impression of having no real first-hand (or maybe even second-hand) knowledge of sex at all. I, personally, find this an even more disturbing implication than the one earlier in the movie. The suggestion that a young woman of this age is almost completely ignorant of this pivotal element of life further drives home the point of just how broken this individual really is. It also suggests a vulnerability that’s a bit surprising after all we’ve seen so far. However, it contrasts in a rather frightening way with the rest of her established characteristics. Girly may be vulnerable to this New Friend’s seductions, but the fact that she really doesn’t understand any kind of healthy human interaction means that it’s going to produce some extremely unhealthy reactions. This is borne out by the extreme ways she starts reacting the threats members of her family pose to her new relationship.<br />
<br />
And that brings us to our protagonist, the latest New Friend. I hesitate to call him a hero, for reasons that make him, for me, among the most fascinating elements of this movie. In all honesty, once he gets over being a victim and starts making his own plans to deal with his situation, I find him to be every bit as repulsive and amoral, in his own way, as his captors. However, the thing that makes him so fascinating for me is that it is exactly these undesirable qualities that he needs to survive. He has to be manipulative and amoral to be able to survive playing his captors at their own game, and then dragging them into a game of his devising where he has the advantage. If he was in any way moral or ethical, there’s no way he’d survive for very long. <br />
<br />
I have to wonder if this is what really bothered the censors, if only on an unconscious level. While horror of any kind was never popular among them; up until only a few years before <i>Girly</i> came out it was always the innocent, the virtuous, and the morally upright who were able to survive and defeat the horror. If you’re used to that kind of atmosphere a movie like <i>Girly</i>, where the only way to survive is to become every bit as bad as the villains, if not worse, is bound to be shocking. I’m not saying <i>Girly</i> was in any way a first or a game-changer, I don’t know enough to make that claim; but it was definitely a sign of the changes in mindset of the younger generation. The ambiguous ending, where we’re left with no clear winner and only a few suggestive hints of who might come out on top, was probably particularly frustrating for those who wanted a neat, tidy conclusion to their movies.<br />
<br />
So to sum it up, <i>Girly</i> is a very well made and immersive character study of a truly screwed-up situation. It’s not in any way graphic; but I found the psychological games and torture far more disquieting than I probably would have found graphic depictions of mutilation. If nothing else, this is a movie that I found gave me something to think about, which is something I always treasure. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-47555262346079030512013-10-31T15:11:00.000-07:002014-01-08T06:24:21.268-08:00They Live (1988)<a href="http://trashfilmguru.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/they_live_poster.jpg?w=683" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://trashfilmguru.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/they_live_poster.jpg?w=683" /></a><br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> A drifter from Colorado (wrestler Roddy Piper of <i>Hell Comes to Frogtown</i>), who we never actually hear the name of but whom the movie credits call “Nada”, wanders into Los Angeles looking for work. As he explains to the lady at the unemployment office, construction in his neck of the woods dried up with the economic problems, and he has a family to support. Unfortunately, even here work is incredibly hard to find. However, he eventually finds a construction site willing to take on new employees.<br />
<br />
It says a lot about the economy that Nada is far from the only homeless worker on the site. Fortunately for him, however, he is quickly befriended by Frank (Keith David of <i>the Thing </i>and <i>Pitch Black</i>), another worker, who leads him to a shantytown run by a community activist named Gilbert (Peter Jason of <i>In the Mouth of Madness</i>). However, once he’s there he starts to notice some strange things. There’s a blind preacher (Raymond St. Jacques) in the park exhorting the locals to wake up to the evil in their midst; but the way he speaks makes it sound like far more than just your typical theological evils. Later at the campsite, when the residents are trying to watch television, the broadcast is hacked by a man (John Lawrence) speaking dire warnings about mind control and those in power. His warnings aren’t too different from those given by the blind preacher Nada saw; in fact, Nada notices said preacher standing in back and talking along with the broadcast word for word.<br />
<br />
Nada has also noticed that Gilbert and his associates spend a lot of time at an old church across from the shantytown; and among other things, choir practice seems to go on until the wee hours of the morning. Curious, he investigates and finds that something’s not quite right. The choir is actually just a recording being played over speakers, and the rest of the church’s interior is given over to equipment to send pirate broadcasts and make, something. Nada doesn’t have enough time to check the contents of all the boxes, but he manages to hide one away for later. It’s a good thing that he does; the church’s inhabitants seem to have attracted some kind of official attention and that night a horde of policeman raid the area. They strip the church bare, level the shantytown, and beat the living snot out of everyone they can get their hands on; terminally in the case of most of those associated with the church.<br />
<br />
The next day Nada retrieves the box he stashed and looks inside. He’s puzzled to find nothing but sunglasses. However, it’s when he puts the glasses on that he’s really stepped in it. The glasses drain all color out of the world and show that a lot is going on that Nada has never even suspected. Everywhere there are subliminal messages like “work, marry, reproduce,” “no free thought,” and “stay asleep.” Devices for further enforcing said messages, as well as general observation, are also everywhere. Worst of all, Nada notices that certain people, namely the ones with obvious wealth and power, aren’t actually people, but hideous, ghoulish looking beings. Unfortunately, Nada lets slip that he can see what’s really going on, and winds up on the run for mass murder. He manages to get Frank to see it as well, and the two men go looking for answers and a way to fight back.<br />
<br />
<b>The Review: </b><br />
<br />
“<i>They're free-enterprisers. The earth is just another developing planet. Their third world</i>.”<br />
<br />
For some reason, lately I’ve been wanting to see some really good 1980s satire that does feel dated. Unfortunately for that ambition, this movie ain’t it. Even now, over twenty years after it was made, <i>They Live</i> feels entirely current and relevant; the only exceptions to this being a few hair and fashion styles that we see.<br />
<br />
John Carpenter made <i>They Live </i>to show his disgust at the political and economic results of the Reagan Era, results that have only grown worse as time goes on. The aliens present a metaphor for the relatively small handful of the uber-rich who have been working since that time, all too successfully, to dismantle the middle class and claim everything for themselves. And, through near complete control of the media, they’re able to essentially keep everyone “asleep” while they do it.<br />
<br />
The economic hard times the characters are dealing with are the recession that came at the end of the 1980s due to the popping of the latest financial bubble. Sound familiar? These things are far from uncommon in our history, and always end up the same way. Another thing that rings true is how the desperation of the times serves those in power. Note how our heroes start out so desperate to get by that they do their best to ignore what’s going on even when it’s blatantly suspicious. Nada’s “I still believe in America” speech, Frank’s insistence that Nada “let it alone” whenever he points out something peculiar; these are people who’ve lost so much already, that they’re willing to do just about anything to hold on to what little they’ve got.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of the movie that should seem all too familiar if you pay attention is the subliminal messages our hero notices. With the exception of one message lifted from the original short story (“Work 8 Hours, Sleep 8 Hours, Play 8 Hours”), one of the few aspects of They Live that does feel dated, the subliminal message our hero notices are all message that are constantly being thrown at us, even if we don’t notice them consciously; and even in the contexts through which Carpenter depicts them. “Conform” and “Obey”; everyone, from politicians to corporations, is constantly urging us to go along with the crowd and preying on our insecurities about fitting in. Also, it’s come to my attention that ever since 2001 American flags have been a lamentable inevitability in just about any kind of advertisement; the point, of course, playing upon one’s sense of patriotism and suggesting that buying said project, whether it be a politician or an insurance plan, is aiding the country (and that if you don’t buy it you’re a Bolshevik weenie). “Buy Stuff”; that’s the message all advertisements send. I can’t even go on line anymore without a buttload of popups telling me I need to shell out my money for something because I cannot possibly live without it. “Stay Asleep”; so much of our “news” is actually propaganda or distraction. I guess “Watch Television” falls under that as well.<br />
<br />
Then there’s the part where Nada looks at some cash through the sunglasses and sees the message “This is Your God.” In a nutshell, I think this sums up the issues that Carpenter is putting on display here, and so much of what is wrong with America in general. If the U.S. does have a state religion, it would have to be the worship of Mammon. Think about it, money is pretty much the be-all and end-all of all the goals we are supposed to set for ourselves; and the basis by which we are taught to judge people. It’s also the basis of all our wars, whatever the official justification is. Seriously, read some history, nearly all of our wars in the past century or so have been fought because of some financial interest or other. And worst of all, having an obscene amount of money ensures that you can get away with just about anything. I’d get arrested for trying to bribe a politician, but these large corporations can get away with giving them large amounts of money to vote a certain way and calling them “campaign contributions.” Likewise, there’s something very wrong with major financial institutions being able to commit capital crimes, hurt a lot of people, nearly destroy the economy, and yet still successfully demand handouts and tax cuts from the government. A while back I came to the conclusion that Nine Inch Nails’ Head Like a Hole is a far more appropriate national anthem than the Star-Spangled Banner; and I don’t think I’ll be changing my opinion on that anytime soon.<br />
<br />
Finally, there are several scenes that just look prescient; although it’s probably more due to the fact that history goes in cycles and the human race keeps making the same damn mistakes over and over again. The scene where the police are leveling the camp bears a very strong resemblance to stories I’ve seen on the news about the police dealing with the Occupy movement. When Nada and Frank stumble upon a fancy dinner where one of the aliens is addressing all the wealthy human collaborators, it could be a fundraiser given by the Koch Brothers, Mitch Romney, or any one of the all too many demagogues for the Cult of the Free Market. And when Nada sees a politician on T.V. who’s actually one of the aliens, the speech he gives sounds way too familiar.<br />
<br />
There is one major flaw in <i>They Live</i>. Halfway through, the movie changes tone completely and suddenly becomes another big, dumb action movie. This puzzled me the first time I saw it, but in a recent review from El Santo of the site 1000 Misspent Hours and Counting he points out that it’s John Carpenter’s satirizing of the action films of the period. After reading that, it made more sense when I saw it again; and I will confess that some of it is very clever. Unfortunately, the action elements go against the tone set by the first half of the film. The aliens fall too easily, and the conclusion feels forced. This undercuts much of the sense of creepy paranoia the movie builds up on at the start.<br />
<br />
Overall, though, <i>They Live </i>is still worth seeing. Excepting the tone change it is very well made. More so, it has a very important message that has only become more relevant in twenty-something years since it came out. So do yourself a favor and watch this movie; then put on the sunglasses and take a good, hard look at the world. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-70534311340996663072013-09-29T10:57:00.000-07:002013-09-29T10:57:59.239-07:00Tombs of the Blind Dead (1972)<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/Tombs_of_the_Blind_Dead.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/Tombs_of_the_Blind_Dead.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> Virginia (Maria Elena Arpon, credited here as Helen Harp) is out swimming one day when she runs into Betty (Lone Fleming), who she was friends with at school. Virginia introduces Betty to Roger (Cesar Burner), the man she has recently started seeing, and the troubles begin. Betty and Roger are obviously attracted to each other from the beginning, and his relationship with Virginia is still in the early stages. In fact, Roger insists to Betty that he doesn’t have anything serious with Virginia and invites her to join them the next day on the weekend they’ll be taking in the countryside. This, of course, makes Virginia even more uncomfortable. On the train, while Virginia is thinking about her time in school with Betty, a flashback reveals to us in the audience that the two girls have a more than platonic history. So, is Virginia jealous of Betty for Roger? Roger for Betty? Both? Does she even know? If this were a different movie Roger would have a <i>ménage a trois</i> in his future; but instead, probably more realistically, Virginia decides she can’t handle the sexual tension anymore. She hops the train and starts walking toward the creepy ruined monastery in the distance that the conductor told her was the closest thing to civilization for miles around.<br />
<br />
The engineer’s argument with his son (who stokes the engine) over whether to stop and get her back, and his insistence that she’s as good as dead, does not bode well for Virginia. Neither does the place itself. The ruins have this real sinister vibe; and even though this is supposed to be a monastery, those aren’t Christian crosses on the graves, they’re Egyptian ankhs. Nevertheless, figuring she doesn’t have much of a choice, Virginia settles in. <br />
<br />
That night, as darkness falls and Virginia is bedding down, a mysterious bell rings. That is the signal for those strangely marked graves to open up and their inhabitants to emerge. Said inhabitants are hideous, skeletal figures dressed in the remains of medieval knight armor. They home in on the sound of Virginia’s radio and attack. It quickly becomes apparent that they move fairly aimlessly; until Virginia screams. Whenever she does that, they automatically become more focused. Somehow, Virginia manages to escape the room and steal one of their horses. Unfortunately, they prove to be much better equestrians. The skeletal knights knock Virginia off her horse and descend on her en mass. <br />
<br />
At the end of the weekend, Betty and Roger are a little worried about not having heard from Virginia. They ask the hotel staff about Berzano, the ruins they last saw Virginia headed towards; but all they are able to learn is that the locals are terrified of the place, believing it to be haunted by some evil, and that the hotel staff aren’t supposed to talk about it. However, they rent some horses and ride out to the ruins. It’s not a good sign when the horses run off in terror. Once there, Betty and Roger discover Virginia’s things, and two police officers. Virginia’s body was discovered a little way from the railroad tracks, drained of blood and covered in bite marks. Human bite marks. The cops take the couple back to town for questioning, and to identify the body.<br />
<br />
When Betty returns to work at the small mannequin factory that she owns, she learns a little bit more about Berzano from her assistant, Nina (Veronica Llimera), who grew up in a nearby village. Nina explains that the place was owned by the Knights Templar, and that they are supposed to haunt the place after nightfall. However, the full story is learned when Betty and Roger consult Professor Candal (Francisco Sanz) a noted medieval historian.<br />
<br />
Professor Candal explains that the Knights Templar came back from the Holy Lands with, among other things, knowledge of a blood ritual that granted immortality. They terrorized the area for a while, but the locals finally had enough of their virgins disappearing and rose up. The Templers were executed for heresy and strung up where the birds could peck out their eyes. Unfortunately, their immortality ritual worked, and so they continue to haunt the region in search of blood to keep on living.<br />
<br />
After this is explained, a cop appears to tell the professor that his son, Pedro (Jose Thelman, credited as Joseph Thelman) has become a suspect in Virginia’s death. He leads a group of smugglers in the area, and the cop’s suspect that stunts like Virginia’s murder are performed to scare people away. Our couple seeks Pedro out, and determine that odious human being though he might be, he isn’t a killer. They convince him and his girlfriend, Maria (Maria Silva), to join them on an expedition to see what really happens at Berzano at night. That night, Virginia’s body rises from the slab, kills the morgue attendant, and then heads over to Bette’s factory (which happens to be right next door to the morgue) to stalk Nina. Meanwhile, our little expedition is on hand to witness the Templers rise from their graves…<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b> <i>Tombs of the Blind Dead </i>was among my very first real introductions to the eurohorror of the 1970s. I had read about it online, and was eager to see it for myself. I will admit that at my first view, I really wasn’t sure what I thought of it. By that time I had seen plenty of American style horror movies, and this was something very different. While a bit more streamlined and coherent than its brethren, <i>Tombs</i> still tends to work more on style and atmosphere than it does on plot or characters. That can turn viewers of the more conventional, Hollywood-style movies off; and judging by his reaction I know it has at least one friend I loaned my copy to.<br />
<br />
First of all, if you’re used to the near constant adrenalin fueled jump-scares Hollywood uses in all its recent movies, then <i>Tombs</i> is going to feel really slow for you. It creeps along and builds up to its few big scares. Also, while there is blood, there is none of the elaborate gore most people associate with horror these days.<br />
<br />
Likewise, the plot, as in so many films of this subgenre, tends to be full of holes you could drive a semi through. Getting the characters over to Berzano often takes having them act in blatantly stupid ways. Okay, the first time around Virginia is definitely upset, and strong emotion prompts everyone to do really stupid things sometimes. When Betty and Roger arrive for the first time they have legitimate reason; they’re worried about Virginia, they feel guilty about their part in her turmoil, and as of yet they have no real reason to suspect there’s anything wrong out there. However, the final trip out to the Berzano for the movie’s climax, really? Your friend died in a truly horrible way, so that even if you don’t actually believe the stories about the undead Templers, you know for sure that something awful has happened there; and you’re still going out there at night without any real backup or telling anybody where you’ve gone? And to top it off, you’re doing it with a man you’ve just met, but who you know is a criminal.<br />
<br />
That last part leads to the movie’s most tasteless and objectionable scene. In short, Pedro talks Betty into taking a walk with him, and then comes on to her. When she tells him she’s a lesbian, he rapes her. Firstly there’s just the horrible crassness of the setup; I’m firmly of the opinion that if the only way you can think of to show some bare boobs in your movie is to shoehorn in a rape scene, you really have a problem. However, on top of that I’ve seen several of Amondo de Ossorio’s movies, and this is not the only one of them that features the theme of lesbians being raped by men. Obviously, the guy had some major issues. Fortunately, it’s a very small part of the movie.<br />
<br />
The final major plot issue in <i>Tombs</i> that I’d like to address is Virginia’s resurrection. Based on the back-story we’re given, it really doesn’t make much sense. Also, it only comes up in Virginia’s case, and is never addressed again. I’ve read some other web reviews that have summed up the issue by addressing it from the Templers’ point of view: “So, I spent all this time and effort learning the secrets of immortality, and lost my sight in the process, and now everybody I bite is equally immortal? What a rip-off!”<br />
<br />
Where <i>Tombs of the Blind Dead</i> does work, however, is in the horror scenes themselves. Despite all its flaws, <i>Tombs</i> ultimately works, like the majority of the best eurohorror, as the triumph of style over substance. The ruined castle used for Berzano, for example is a great place to start. Europe is full of abandoned castles, and as such European directors, particularly low budget ones, have often utilized them as set pieces. As I believe I’ve mentioned in previous reviews, the atmosphere of these places is such that even the most incompetent of moviemakers seem unable to completely take away from them. However, Ossorio displays a talent for aptly employing the inherent creepiness of the ruins. The camera shots of Berzano convey to the viewers that this is, indeed, a very bad place for mere mortals.<br />
<br />
Likewise, the soundtrack is amazingly effective. The background theme is a deceptively simple Gregorian chant, played at an unsettling tone, and interspaced with screams. Along with that are Ossorio’s use of sound effects throughout; the doleful tolling of the unseen bell that announces the Templers’ rise from their graves, the clack of the train on the tracks, to name but two examples.<br />
<br />
The scene where Virginia stalks Nina at the mannequin factory, while problematic plot-wise, is extremely effective in and of itself. First of all, early on Betty’s factory is established as an unsettling place. First of all, there’s just something unsettling about mannequins and their resemblance to living people (or dismembered body parts as the case may be); and Ossorio takes full advantage of that. On top of it, the lighting is established to be screwy; early on Betty explains to Roger that on the floor above is a place that makes and tests neon signs. The actual stalking sequence is very well done, and combined with the unsettling location it produces a scene straight out of a nightmare.<br />
<br />
But the most effective element of the movie is the blind Templers themselves. First of all they just look nightmarish; they’re basically rotting skeletons, with just enough skin to retain the remains of facial hair, dressed in rotting chainmail and moldering cloaks. The way they move is also disturbing; a slow, shuffling gait, but one with a definite intelligent menace. On top of that is their obvious blindness; and how any noise, even the smallest, causes them to descend upon the source with a determined and obvious purpose. Even the scenes where they’re riding horseback, though shot in slow motion, come across as disturbingly majestic.<br />
<br />
And the Templers don’t just look terrifying, either. Watching them in action, it’s clear just how outmatched the human characters are. Even their most glaring weakness, their blindness, is shown to not be a major hurdle for them. After all, what good is being still and quiet when they can still hear the beating of your terror-stricken heart? And the climax and denouement, where this horror that’s been festering in an out of the way location for so long is inadvertently brought back to civilization; it’s something that really sticks in your mind.<br />
<br />
So in conclusion, <i>Tombs of the Blind Dead</i> is nothing like the Hollywood horror films you’re probably used to. Also, it does have its flaws. However, overall, there is a reason many people consider it a classic of the genre. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-12124107597659999362013-08-26T11:29:00.000-07:002013-09-29T11:02:53.364-07:00Curse of the Undead (1959)<a href="http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q217/Taliesin_ttlg/curse%20of%20the%20undead/CURSEOFTHEUNDEAD.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q217/Taliesin_ttlg/curse%20of%20the%20undead/CURSEOFTHEUNDEAD.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> In a town in the Old West, there is some strange sickness going around that has already killed several girls. Dr. John Carter (John Hoyt) has been doing his best to save the victims, but thus far to no avail. However, Preacher Dan Young (Eric Fleming) has spent the night praying over her, and it looks like that’s done the trick. Then again, the family seems to have celebrated too soon. As soon as everyone leaves the room, the girl screams, and everyone runs back in to find her dead. Dan notices the window open and the window shade flapping. When he kneels down to pray over her body, he also notices two small, bleeding puncture wounds in her throat. <br />
<br />
Dan and Dr. Carter head back to Doc Carter’s home and two children; Tim (Jimmy Murphy) and Dolores (Kathleen Crowley), who we later find out is also Dan’s girlfriend. There they have to deal with the latest results of Doc Carter’s other major problem. The Doc’s ranch is next door to a wealthy man named Buffer (Bruce Gordon). Buffer, entrepreneuring capitalist that he is, wants Doc Carter’s land and has been harassing him and his family in various ways to drive them off it. It doesn’t help matters that Tim is a hot-headed teenager who feels he has something to prove. Doc heads back into town to discuss it with the local Sheriff (Edward Binns), but the Sheriff isn’t able to do much. Worse, as Doc is riding home a black-clad figure attacks him, bites his throat and drinks his blood.<br />
<br />
When the buckboard arrives home with their father’s corpse, Tim and Dolores are beside themselves with grief. Convinced Buffer did it; Tim gets drunk and goes to the local bar to confront him. The Sheriff tries to intervene, and Buffer even tries to walk away, but nothing will stand in the way of the hot-headed youth. When Tim pulls his pistol on Buffer, Buffer shoots him down. Dolores is now doubly upset; and despite Dan and the Sheriff’s attempts to talk her down, reacts to this latest outrage by putting up posters offering “$100 for the death of a murderer”. A mysterious, black-clad gunslinger takes an interest in the posters.<br />
<br />
Buffer finds out how much trouble he’s in when he runs into said gunslinger, one Drake Robey (Michael Pate), at the saloon. Robey tells Buffer, very confidently, that he will kill him if he takes the job. When one of Buffer’s goons pulls his gun on Robey, Robey casually shoots it out of his hand even though the goon shot first. The goon protests to Buffer that he shot Robey dead center, but Buffer doesn’t believe it. After all, no man could survive a gunshot that close, and Robey was obviously very much still alive.<br />
<br />
Dan and the Sheriff both try to convince Dolores that Robey is bad news and she should get rid of him. However, Dan discovers that Robey’s an even bigger problem while going through Doc Carter’s papers for her. He finds the journal of the man who sold the land to Carter; one Don Miguel Robles (Edward Colmans). Don Robles writes about how his son, Drago, came back from a long business trip to Madrid to find that his new bride, Isabella (Jeanna Cross) had taken up an affair with his brother, Roberto. In a fit of rage Drago killed Roberto; but was overcome with guilt and eventually wound up committing suicide on his brother’s grave. Soon after, many of the local girls, including Isabella, became afflicted by a strange ailment. Hearing Isabella’s scream one night, Don Robles rushed to her room and found her dead. Standing over her was an evil fiend who had once been Drago. Don Robles tried to put Drago to rest once and for all, but just wound up driving him into hiding.<br />
<br />
Now Dan knows that he’s got a vampire on his hands, but Dolores refuses to believe him. More and more she’s falling under Robey’s influence, and growing weaker as he feeds on her. Worse, Robey is well aware that Dan is on to him. But how can Dan defeat a monster who shrugs off bullets?<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b> I first watched <i>Curse of the Undead</i> in college, when I found it among the movies at the local town library. I looked to rewatch it ever since, but unfortunately it never seems to have been released on DVD. Now, about a year ago I discovered a website called Trash Palace that does DVD-R transfers of rare, hard to find and out of print movies. My first purchases were a pair of obscure French movies I’d been seeking for a long time. Admittedly, they weren’t quite what I was after; what Trash Palace had were the American releases, which meant English dubbing instead of French with subtitles. However, overall they did a good job, and I highly recommend them if you’re looking for something and haven’t been able to find it through the more mainstream sources. Anyway, a few weeks back I was looking through their catalogue; and imagine my surprise and delight when I found that this little gem was being offered.<br />
<br />
<i>Curse of the Undead</i> is a movie that employs two familiar sets of tropes; western and gothic horror. However, it is not afraid to play with those tropes and do something different with them. For example, on the horror side, the vampire himself is a far cry from the example set by Bela Lugosi. Now, for those of you who don’t know who Bela Lugosi was (and shame on you if that’s the case), he played Dracula in the 1930s Universal Pictures movie of that name, and pretty much established the public image of the vampire. The long capes, the goofy accents, mirrors, death by daylight, coffins, turning into a bat or a wolf, all of it goes back to Lugosi. Now, I’m aware that these days we’re seeing a new generation who hears “vampire” and thinks sparkly, centuries old cradle robbers and majorly unhealthy relationships that are somehow supposed to be romantic. However, for the sake of this review I’m going to pretend that we live in a better world that was never submitted to Stephanie Meyer’s vision of the genre.<br />
<br />
Anyway, Drake Robey is far more akin to the vampires of traditional European folklore than he is to Dracula. For example, his condition comes from his committing suicide, and there’s no indication that he can spread it to anyone else. There have been many cultures, particularly in Catholic Europe, who believed that suicide was such a horrible sin that those who committed it would return to plague the living. In fact, people were burying suicides at crossroads as late as the 19th century to keep them from coming back. Robey’s evil is linked entirely to that unforgivable sin he committed. There are even some indications that he doesn’t like his condition and isn’t truly evil by nature. However, that one act has driven him beyond the pale.<br />
<br />
As for lesser tropes, daylight doesn’t seem to be a huge issue for Robey. He’s obviously much stronger at night, and tends to stick to the shadows, but he can walk around at high noon just fine. He does seem to need some coffin time, every so often he holes up in Doc Carter’s coffin, but it only appears to be every once in a while. The cross does have an effect on Robey, but that is tied to the body of folklore he comes out of. Finally, he can be destroyed by a wooden stake through the heart, but that isn’t how it’s eventually done.<br />
<br />
I find the character of Dan equally interesting. He is decent, honest, brave and upright; but what else would you expect of a western hero from this era? He’s also devout, but somehow I don’t find any of that as cloying or unrealistic as I otherwise might. Somehow, the scene of him making out with his girlfriend established him as human for me. Likewise, he does have his doubts. In all, I found him a likable character and was cheering him on.<br />
<br />
From the horror end, I found one trope that the movie diverged from interesting. In these vampire stories you usually have two particular types among the heroes. One is a Van Helsing type; usually an older man who knows all about vampire lore and who spurs the rest of the heroes on to fight the monster. The other is the dashing young hero who stands at the front, usually the true love of the heroine the vampire has designs on. Dan fits into both categories. On the one hand, he’s the one who first notices the signs and puts all the pieces together to figure out he’s up against a vampire. On the other, he’s also the one who carries the fight to Robey. And, I might add, it’s also his girlfriend who Dan is fighting for.<br />
<br />
That’s it for the horror tropes. The western ones are just as interesting. For one, everybody seems determined to try and stay on the right side of the law. Dan never decides that his fight with Robey supersedes the law, and he’s one of the two major individuals trying to talk Dolores down from taking revenge on Buffer. Buffer himself visibly makes an effort to stay on the right side of the sheriff, and he only shoots Time when the boy pulls his gun. Even Robey provokes Buffer into drawing before he shoots, so that he can then legally claim self defense. In fact, only Tim, the hotheaded teenager, and ostensibly one of the good guys, lives by the philosophy of shoot first and shoot often that we tend to associate with western settings.<br />
<br />
<i>Curse of the Undead</i> may move kind of slow for the adrenalin junkies of this generation, but I think it does a good job of building up its plot and establishing its characters. There are a few effective scenes; my favorite being an incredibly creepy one where Robey stalks Dan through the town streets at night. And finally, when Dan defeats Robey at the end, it’s in a way that I, for one, think is rather ingenious; and yet it flows organically from both genres.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, I think that <i>Curse of the Undead</i> is a fun, well done little movie that shakes up the tropes of both genres that it covers. I, personally, think that it’s a mortal sin that it’s so hard to get a hold of. If you like westerns, horror, or just clever takes on familiar tropes, this one’s worth a watch if you can find it. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-61202313115167808352013-07-31T10:46:00.000-07:002013-07-31T10:46:23.045-07:00Shrek (2001)<a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51VJZEuyI8L.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51VJZEuyI8L.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> Shrek (voice of Mike Meyers, the star of <i>Austin Powers </i>and <i>Wayne’s World</i>), is an ogre who lives all alone in his swamp. This is how he prefers it; and his only real contact with the outside world is to scare off the occasional band of torch-wielding villagers who decide to come after him. Unfortunately for Shrek, his simple life is about to be upended. Lord Farquaad (the venerable and prolific John Lithgow), the local ruler, probably has the worst case of short man syndrome you could ever encounter. He is determined to be the Perfect King of the Perfect Kingdom; and the various fairy-tale entities who inhabit it have no place in the perfect world he envisions. As such, he’s been busy rounding them up for banishment; and Shrek’s swamp is where all the exiles wind up. To Shrek’s dismay, his neighborhood suddenly becomes awfully crowded.<br />
<br />
Angrily, Shrek sets out to confront Lord Farquaad and demand his swamp back; accompanied by an annoying talking donkey (Eddie Murphy, last seen here in <i>Bowfinger</i>) who offers to show him the way. Fortunately, when Shrek arrives at Duloc, Farquaad’s kingdom, the tiny tyrant is in a mood to bargain. Having been told by a magic mirror that he isn’t technically a king, and that to become one he needs to marry a princess, Farquaad has fixated on the lovely Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz, last seen here in <i>the Mask</i>). The one catch is that Fiona is currently locked in the tallest tower of a ruined castle, which is surrounded by a moat of lava and guarded by a fire-breathing dragon. If Shrek agrees to rescue Princess Fiona and bring her back to marry Farquaad, then Farquaad promises to return Shrek’s swamp to him, with all the squatters packed off elsewhere. Not really having a choice, Shrek and Donkey set out to rescue the princess.<br />
<br />
However, it turns out that getting Fiona away from the dragon, difficult and nerve-wracking as the incident is, is just the easiest part of the adventure. Fiona is nothing like Shrek has expected a princess to be, and against his will he finds himself taking to her. Fiona, meanwhile, while initially disappointed that her rescuer wasn’t Prince Charming, finds herself warming up to the ogre. You see, unknown to Shrek, Donkey, and Farquaad, Fiona has a major secret. It’s why she was locked in the tower in the first place, and it’s definitely going to have a major impact on how things turn out…<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b> <br />
<br />
<b>Shrek:</b> “<i>Oh, you were expecting Prince Charming</i><i>?</i>”<br />
<br />
<b>Fiona:</b> “<i>Well, yes, actually. Oh... this is wrong. This is all wrong! It's not supposed to be an ogre</i><i>!</i>”<br />
<br />
I was in the mood for something different. Ever since I first saw <i>Shrek</i> in the theatre, it’s been one of my all-time favorite movies. In fact, I saw it in the theatre probably at least three times; something of a record for me. Admittedly, this movie has suffered a lot over the years due to Disney’s attempts to wring as much cash out of it as possible; repetition, over exposure, and three unneeded and increasingly inferior sequels. But if you can put all that aside, the original <i>Shrek</i> is extremely clever, well made, funny; something that can be enjoyed by children and adults alike.<br />
<br />
Probably the aspect of this movie that caught and held me from the beginning was the message. <i>Shrek</i> is a message movie; but unlike most message movies it doesn’t attempt the bludgeon its audience with said message sledgehammer-style. Instead, the message is woven intrinsically into the script, the plot, and the characters’ motivations. Said message is one that we all need reminded of on a fairly regular basis: life never turns out the way it’s “supposed” to, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.<br />
<br />
The setting of the movie, a world where all the fairy-tale characters we’ve known from childhood live, is perfect for showcasing this message. After all, thanks to Walt Disney fairy tales as we know them are extremely codified and formulized. I’m sure that the moment you read “fairy tale”, a very specific set of tropes immediately came to your mind: beautiful princess in danger, handsome prince to the rescue, monster, true love, marriage, happily ever after. If you grew up watching Disney movies (and let’s be honest here, who of us hasn’t?), these tropes immediately come to us without any conscious thought, because they’re what we’re conditioned to expect.<br />
<br />
The genius of <i>Shrek</i> is that it presents us with these tropes, priming our expectations, and then turns them on their heads. Pay attention; all throughout the movie, whenever a character expresses how something is “supposed” to happen, we see it come about in a very different fashion. However, ultimately the outcome is all the better for it.<br />
<br />
Lord Farquaad is probably our best example of this. He is a control freak who is determined to create the Perfect World; and he has a very specific picture of how such a perfect world looks. Everything in his kingdom is very carefully scripted. Whatever doesn’t fit the script is quickly disposed of.<br />
<br />
However, as is always the case, perfection is beyond Farquaad because he, himself, is imperfect. Farquaad doesn’t fit his own script at all. The script calls for a king who is tall, handsome, dashing, brave and noble. The reality is a short, insecure, weaselly coward. When Shrek first lays eyes on Farquaad’s castle, his observation is “do you think he’s compensating for something?” And that, in a nutshell, sums up Lord Farquaad. A truly great man lets his actions speak for themselves and accepts the respect that is given; he doesn’t demand and script it. Farquaad wants to be seen as brave, wants to be seen as the man who makes the hard decisions, wants all the reward and glory that would come with rescuing and marrying Fiona; but he wants somebody else to make the sacrifices and take the risks it entails. When Shrek and Donkey arrive at Duloc, Farquaad is holding a tournament to pick a suitable champion to rescue Fiona. “Some of you may die,” he tells the aspiring champions, “but that is a risk I am willing to take.” Personally, that line always brings to mind a certain former president when he was trying to drum up support for a disastrous and unnecessary war; one waged for very similar reasons.<br />
<br />
Fiona’s motives are, ironically, very similar to Farquaad’s; she is trying to compensate for a perceived imperfection in her life. When we start to get to know Fiona, it quickly becomes obvious that she’s anything but helpless. She’s more than capable of taking matters into her own hands when it’s needed. When the princesses takes on a whole pack of forest bandits single handedly, and beats the living snot out of them without taking a scratch; it’s clear that she has no problems defending herself. In short, Fiona never needed “rescuing” at all; she would have left that tower a long time ago if she wanted to. She was there entirely because she felt she had to be.<br />
<br />
After a little over a decade (has it really been that long? Yep, feeling old.), and plenty of media overexposure; I don’t think it’s a spoiler at this point to reveal Fiona’s curse: she turns into an ogre at night, and will continue to do so until “True Love’s first kiss” will lock her into the form she’s supposed to take. Now, Fiona has been raised with some definite ideas of what a princess is supposed to be. As she tells Donkey when he finds out about her curse; “princesses and ugly don’t belong together.” She’s got everything about her rescue and the removal of her curse planned out to the smallest detail; so of course, none of it goes as expected. However, you have to admit she’s much better off with the outcome she gets than she would have been with the outcome she was expecting.<br />
<br />
Shrek’s motivations are the exact opposite. Beaten down by society at large, he’s long given up on any kind of perfection. All Shrek wants is a place of his own where he can be alone and avoid all the abuse that others direct his way. However, despite his social problems and the expectations of others, he’s not a monster. The scene with the lynch mob at the beginning shows that. Lynch mobs are obviously not an uncommon thing for Shrek, the resigned little eye roll he gives upon noticing this latest mob makes that very clear. However, while he very observably has the villagers outgunned, he settles for scaring them off instead of actually hurting them. Unfortunately, a lifetime of derision has made Shrek feel on some level that he isn’t worthy of any kind of positive feeling. This makes him insecure, and all too ready to believe the worst.<br />
<br />
That brings us to Donkey, who, while at times seeming like odious comedy relief, is actually a very important character who is absolutely necessary for Shrek and Fiona’s Happily Ever After. Donkey is actually an archetypal character. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, an archetype is a concept; a principal, ideal or fear presented in the form of an individual. Donkey embodies one of the fairly universal archetypes; that of the Fool.<br />
<br />
In brief, the Fool notices what everyone else misses, which is the source of his power; but is oblivious to what’s blatantly obvious to everybody else, which is why everybody considers him a fool. He succeeds by approaching the problem from a direction that never would have occurred to anyone else. Longtime readers and anybody who knows me in person can probably guess why I so identify with the Fool.<br />
<br />
Anyway, Donkey approaches everything ass-backwards (pun not intended); but since he lives in an ass-backwards world, this in absolutely necessary. His obliviousness to social expectations can make him extremely irritating; but it also means he’s not blinded by them, either. He’s willing to try things other people aren’t, and this brings about some unexpected, but needed, outcomes. For example, he is obviously the first individual to extend the hand (or hoof, in this case) of friendship to Shrek. Shrek initially finds Donkey obnoxious, but even more so Donkey confuses him. For some reason, Donkey doesn’t seem to notice or care about the fact that Shrek’s an ogre, and Shrek obviously doesn’t know how to handle it. Fear and hatred Shrek is used to, but genuine friendship and positive regard is an alien experience for him. Something similar happens, for the same reasons, when Donkey meets the dragon guarding Fiona. However, being that the dragon turns out to be female, she reacts by falling for him. While this does produce some extra unexpected consequences in the short term; in the long term it provides the heroes with a needed ally for the climactic showdown with Farquaad.<br />
<br />
Likewise, Donkey’s inability to be blinded by social expectations means he’s usually aware of what’s really going on, even when everyone else isn’t. And, it also means that he’s the one who always says what needs to be said, even (especially) when it’s not the “appropriate” thing to say. In short, Donkey is the one who lights a fire under Shrek’s ass when he lets his insecurities get the best of him, and who always ensures that Shrek goes in the direction he needs to go.<br />
<br />
The animation in <i>Shrek</i> is marvelous; and ultimately you get the sense throughout of a genuine, living, breathing world of which the characters are but a part. While there are, admittedly, some pretty awful lines, there are a lot more great ones and exchanges of dialogue. Finally, there is a truly witty sense of humor throughout; both for children and adults. Along with this, <i>Shrek</i> has this really dark, nasty edge just below the surface at times. It’s subtle, but it’s there. Most notable, though it took me a while to add it all up, are the presentation of the Three Bears among the exiled fairy-tale creatures. When we first see them, they are all three locked in cages. Later, we just see Father and Baby Bear in Shrek’s swamp. Finally, when the camera pans across Lord Farquaad’s bedchamber, if you look you’ll notice that his bearskin rug has Mama’s bow. Disturbing stuff, and I have to wonder how younger kids who’ve noticed this have reacted. <br />
<br />
In the end, <i>Shrek</i> is a true classic of a movie. Unfortunately, this has been overshadowed by the sequels. Shrek never needed a sequel; it’s perfect as a self-contained story on its own. Unfortunately, artistic in integrity (or any integrity, really) has rarely been able to truly get in the way of somebody making obscene amounts of money. Worst of all, to my mind, is that the first sequel comes very close in the first two-thirds of the movie to overcoming that. However, that’s a discussion for another review. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-22297997572192663372013-06-28T12:00:00.001-07:002013-08-23T10:38:10.028-07:00Night of Death (1980)<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbvScZe_f-KDWSiTqVgheloEwl2m7AjtX31m0fBwEFcBjWg70WtbYGDR5KGSnb1K9htVOwrYVsxiTfPhI5nAz0rsyUtk2ves4YUN8KlzqWnejPIQVPfb2BvpkE9M62-eqQeZNdy7QkHi50/s1600/LA+NUIT+DE+LA+MORT.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbvScZe_f-KDWSiTqVgheloEwl2m7AjtX31m0fBwEFcBjWg70WtbYGDR5KGSnb1K9htVOwrYVsxiTfPhI5nAz0rsyUtk2ves4YUN8KlzqWnejPIQVPfb2BvpkE9M62-eqQeZNdy7QkHi50/s320/LA+NUIT+DE+LA+MORT.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> Martine (Isabelle Goguey), after months of unemployment, goes to start the job her fiancé got her: a caretaker position at Deadlock House, a nursing home. She arrives a day early, and for some reason that seems to be a major problem. The stern director, Helene (Betty Beckers), initially claims that they don’t have the facilities for her yet; but she’s able to throw something together rather quickly. Even more surprised is Nicole (Charlotte de Turckheim), the woman who currently holds Martine’s position. Nicole’s not happy about Martine, because, despite Helen’s attempts to explain that she’s there to assist Nicole, Nicole’s convinced Martine’s her replacement. <br />
<br />
Still, in spite of the rough start, Martine and Nicole wind up getting along and Martine starts learning the ropes of her new job. She has her work cut out for her, because there are all sorts or weird rules and restrictions: the new employee is not allowed to leave the grounds for the first two months, for one; or the fact that all the inmates are vegetarian, and the staff is expected to follow suit. And speaking of the inmates, they generally seem more suited for an insane asylum than a nursing home.<br />
<br />
It turns out that Nicole was more right than she knew about Martine being her replacement. That night, while Martine is on a date with her fiancé (Helen declares that since Martine doesn’t officially start work until the next day, she’s not yet subject to the not leaving the institution rule), the inmates gather in a solemn processional and meet with the creepy, limping groundskeeper, Flavien (Michel Flavius). The procession troops into Nicole’s room, where they grab her from her bed and drag her to a secret basement under the kitchen. There, they lay her across a slab, slit her throat, and cut open her nubile chest and belly. Then Helene, Flavien, and the inmates reach in, pull out organs, and have a ghoulish feast.<br />
<br />
When Martine discovers that Nicole has disappeared the next morning, Helene tells her that Nicole threw a fit about her being hired to the point of being unbearable, and was subsequently dismissed. The story doesn’t ring true with Martine, however; as it doesn’t jibe with the extremely friendly and conciliatory note Nicole left her. Martine discovers more clues that Nicole’s disappearance wasn’t as Helene would have her believe. Her life becomes a major balancing act between trying to figure out what’s really happening at Deadlock House on one hand, and coping with its inhabitants’ increasingly disturbing behavior on the other. And meanwhile, time ticks by; two months pass rather quickly, and said inhabitants all eagerly look forward to the coming of the 28th…<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b> By this time, while it’s probably stereotyping, I’ve come to expect a certain pattern for end of the ‘70s European horror films: Style and mood over a coherent storyline. Copious nudity. Killings that tend to be more dramatically shocking or mean-spirited than graphically gory. Weirdness for weirdness’ sake. I was expecting all this with <i>Night of Death</i>, but it’s not what I got. Not that I’m complaining, I was just a little surprised.<br />
<br />
Exploitation-wise there was gore, and one or two scenes of it were more graphic than expected. However, it still wasn’t gratuitous; used only when it was needed. Likewise, there wasn’t all that much nudity (I will admit to being a little disappointed about that); and what there was served the plot. As for the plot itself, it was extremely straightforward and coherent. There were some definite moments of weirdness, mood and style; but the plot took precedent.<br />
<br />
The core of the plot is revealed very quickly; Helene, Flavien and the inmates of Deadlock House are all members of a cannibal cult, and the need for caretakers and ridiculous rules are a ruse to get a prospective meal in and then fatten her up before they eat her. However, there are a few genuine twists. What’s more, they’re very well woven into the main plot. None of them feel like the scriptwriter just pulled them out of his ass when he felt he needed a certain outcome; there is always a significant build-up and legitimate hint beforehand. Even the inevitable kicker ending doesn’t come out of nowhere; there are hints about it almost to the very beginning. They’re just presented as side-notes and throwaway details, however, so it’s possible to miss the significance of them until you think back on the movie once the end credits start to roll.<br />
<br />
But what really got me were the heroine and her situation. Her situation struck a chord with me because it was all too familiar; this is my job. Admittedly, I deal with individuals with disabilities instead of geriatrics, and I babysit them at their jobs instead of taking care of them at home. Still, there are more than a few similarities. Ultimately both are the same field, taking care of people who, for whatever reason, are unable to take care of themselves. Also, I’ve had some experience at nursing homes in my life; and the inmates of Deadlock House are far more my clients than they are those of nursing home staff.<br />
<br />
Here’s the main thing about working in healthcare, particularly this specific corner of it: it could drive a saint to commit murder. I’m not exaggerating. Healthcare has one of the highest turnover rates, largely due to stress and burnout. I’ve known no end to coworkers who’ve left because they couldn’t take it anymore. Martine’s experiences working at Deadlock House (not counting the cannibalism) resonate with my own work experiences far more than any other movie I’ve seen.<br />
<br />
The first major issue lies in dealing with the clients (that’s what we officially call our charges at my job). The first thing to remember is that these are individuals who are even more blatantly dysfunctional than your average human being; otherwise they wouldn’t need the care in the first place. This can make even seemingly everyday interactions infinitely more complex. Now, lest readers think I’m being too harsh, let me point out that I have a lot of experience in this from both ends. On the one hand I have been gifted with Asperger's, A.D.D., mild Tourette’s, cancer, and various other conditions that the gods, in their infinite sadism, decided I was worthy to have bestowed upon me. I’m very high functioning, but I understand intimately the need for accommodation and being unable to comprehend “proper” social interactions.<br />
<br />
On the other hand; no matter what your problems, there is a limit as to how much of your actions you can blame on your handicaps. No matter how much of the short end of the stick you got, at a certain point it all comes down to your choices and actions. One thing never fails to amaze me is my society’s tendency toward overcompensation. I concur that we have treated those with disabilities horribly in the past; and that they are human beings fully deserving of the dignity that comes with that. Hell, I firmly believe that just being human automatically entitles you to handicaps and disabilities; some are just more obvious or socially acceptable than others. However, people have a habit of forgetting that it is entirely possible to have a disability, and still be an asshole.<br />
<br />
One of my best and dearest friends, who has worked in this field far longer than I have, comments on one incident early in our relationship where I was appalled about how she was venting about a client, even saying “that’s a horrible thing to say about your clients.” She points out that ever since I started this job, she’s never heard me say anything like that again. I’ve had my own experiences with that; once my brother told me, shocked, “Nathan, that’s a horrible thing to say about retarded people!” However, whenever I’ve expressed those exact same sentiments to individuals who’ve actually worked in the field, the response I’ve always gotten was some variant of “yep, welcome to the club.”<br />
<br />
So to repeat, I know Martine’s charges all too well. And I find the way the movie depicts them extremely believable. At first they just seem amusing. For example, one of the patients (as per usual I can’t recall his name) is always knitting a red something or other. When Martine asks, he explains that he is “knitting Revolution.” Later in the movie, when he has been punished by the cult for misbehavior, Martine finds him knitting in black instead. When she asks, he responds that “the Revolution is in mourning.”<br />
<br />
However, as the movie goes on their behavior toward Martine gets more and more inappropriate. For example, blatantly looking in her window while she undresses. One patient in particular exemplifies this; Mr. Leon (Jean Ludow), an old man who’s usually in a wheelchair even though he can walk perfectly, and who’s always playing with a variety of toys and magic tricks. He revels in using them to be obnoxious. At first he’s amusing, but very quickly it’s obvious that Leon is a major asshole. And it should also be noted that while Martine shows a patience throughout the movie that would shame most saints, by the end she’s getting very fed up with all the crap.<br />
<br />
It’s extremely difficult already figuring out the line between where to accommodate for disabilities and where to hold someone accountable for their actions. It’s so much more so when the line is drawn for you. Watching Nichole deal with her charges, I couldn’t help but feel a little envious. She tells them exactly what needs to be said, and doesn’t sugar coat it. She even slaps Leon at one point when he crosses a line. I’d get in so much trouble for doing that, and I’ve had clients who need far more than a slap.<br />
<br />
The second major issue is dealing with the bureaucracy of the job. One of the most notable things I’ve obtained in the last 5+ years is a deep and utter loathing for the word “professional” and all its derivatives. From the context it always seems to be used in in contemporary society, my definition for professional is “appearance for appearance’s sake, whatever the cost.” I’m sure plenty will argue that, but I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. I understand the need for some focus on appearances, considering that we are taking care of vulnerable members of society, but at a certain point it just becomes ridiculous. Except for the fact that this was in the context of a horror movie, I really didn’t see anything suspicious of the rules Martine is expected to follow. Considering all the ludicrous expectations I’ve had to deal with in the name of “professionalism”, not to mention all the ones women have had to deal with throughout history due to their gender, it just seemed like business as usual. The only real difference is that professionalism is usually implemented in spite of potential harms; in this case it’s used to hide them.<br />
<br />
Something that surprised me halfway through the movie was when I realized that I was actively hoping for Martine to survive. Now, partly, as I lay it out above, I identified with her situation. I will also admit that I was in love from the moment that I saw she was a French-speaking redhead. However, there was a bit more to it. Through her actions, Martine reveals herself to be a genuinely nice and good-natured person, who’s only mistake is winding up in a nasty situation. Following that, watching how she handled the situation further endeared her to me. Martine behaves in a truly competent manner; and even when she’s caught (which she is several times), she coolly provides a rational excuse for what she is doing. She only truly freaks out once, and it’s a situation that I’m sure would cause any of us to freak out. Even then, she is able to do what needs to be done. <br />
<br />
Finally, I would just like to add that <i>Night of Death</i> has a few truly scary and beautiful set-pieces. The stand-out for me is the scenes where the inmates gather for their ghoulish feasts. They walk out into the hall in a column, all dressed up, moving quietly by implacably while an eerie song plays on the soundtrack.<br />
<br />
So in conclusion, <i>Night of Death</i> is a decent and enjoyable little horror movie. Well made, eerie and atmospheric, but with a definite plot, it’s worth watching. I just wish that certain elements of it didn’t feel so familiar; but I have personal issue to blame for that more than the movie. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-50868861096550137062013-05-31T14:12:00.001-07:002013-05-31T14:12:46.568-07:00Compare and Contrast: Evil Dead (1981) & Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn (1987)<a href="http://www.best-horror-movies.com/image-files/evil-dead-movie-poster-small.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://www.best-horror-movies.com/image-files/evil-dead-movie-poster-small.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/4/A70-2170" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/4/A70-2170" /></a><br />
<br />
<b>Evil Dead:</b> Ash (the famous Bruce Campbell, in the movie that made his name as a cult actor) and his girlfriend Linda (Betsy Baker); along with their friends Scotty (Hal Delrich) and Shelly (Sarah York), and Cheryl (Ellen Sandweiss), Ash’s sister, have rented an isolated cabin in the mountains for the weekend. However, there’s something kind of spooky about the place when they arrive. What’s more, there are all sorts of hints that dark force lurks about the area. Unfortunately, Cheryl is the only one who notices these first hints; partly, it’s suggested, because she’s a New Ager and therefore open to these kinds of things; but I suspect that it’s largely due to the fact that she’s officially the fifth wheel, and therefore doesn’t have anything to distract her. In any case, the others don’t put any stock in Cheryl’s concerns; they’re way too focused on their weekend and their significant others.<br />
<br />
Of course, Cheryl’s fears are anything but unjustified. That night the boys go into the basement and discover some things left behind by a previous tenant. The two fateful items for our campers are a really disturbing book, and a tape recorder. The kids play the tape, which it turns out was made by an academic translating the book. He identifies it as the <i>Naturon Demonto</i>, the Sumerian Book of the Dead, and says that it includes passages that allow the evil spirits lurking just outside our world to come in and possess the living. Then he proceeds to read the translated passages.<br />
<br />
Naturally, this spells the end for our heroes. The tape finishes awakening whatever evil force that academic called to the area, and the campers are possessed and killed one by one. Will any of them be able to survive?<br />
<br />
<b>Dead by Dawn:</b> Ash (still Bruce Campbell) and his girlfriend, Linda (this time played by Denise Bixler), go on a getaway together to an isolated cabin in the woods; where it would appear that the rightful owner is not using it. Unfortunately, said rightful owner, Professor Raymond Knowby (John Peakes), was working on the translations to a rediscovered copy of the <i>Necronomicon</i>, or Book of the Dead. When Ash stumbles across the good professor’s copy and plays the tape of his translations, it has the exact same effect as in the first movie. The dark force called up by the book snatches Linda, and then comes back possessing her body to torment Ash. And it’s not just Linda Ash has to deal with, either; the evil power has all sorts of weapons at its disposal from possessed trees to Ash’s right hand developing a mind of its own.<br />
<br />
Ash has one tiny sliver of hope, though he doesn’t know it. Professor Knowby’s daughter, Annie (Sarah Berry), is headed back to the cabin with some missing pages from the book. Said pages have what is needed to put the evil back down. Unfortunately, there are the inevitable complications. When Annie arrives to find a bloody stranger in her cabin and her parents missing, you know she’ll draw the wrong conclusions. The stupid redneck couple who she hires to guide her through the woods is going to make things even more difficult. And that’s nothing compared to what her father buried in the cellar…<br />
<br />
<b>Compare and Contrast:</b><br />
<br />
Ladies, gentlemen, hermaphrodites, asexuals, and everyone else; I am pleased to announce that this blog has now been up and running for a full three years! Unfortunately, with that landmark comes some very bad news; the tumor in my hand is back yet again. As of this writing I have no clue what’s going to happen; I’m just praying it doesn’t involve any further surgery or loss of body parts. Naturally, I’m doing everything I can to cope with the situation; among other things digging out all my old tumor-coping movies. Among the ones at the very top of that list is Sam Raimi’s <i>Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn</i>.<br />
<br />
The aspect of the movie that puts it in that spot is one particular scene. In that scene, the Evil possesses Ash’s right hand, which then proceeds to beat the living snot out of the rest of him. Finding himself completely unable to control the hand, Ash attempts stabbing it, cutting it off with a chainsaw (and then later replacing it with said chainsaw), trapping it under a garbage can and some books (the top book very prominently titled A Farewell to Arms); and then when all that fails and it busts free, trying to shoot it with a shotgun. All throughout the rest of the movie, whenever the characters are in the middle of dealing with something particularly nasty, Ash’s severed hand has a tendency to step in and make an already unpleasant situation even worse. Considering that my problem centers entirely around my own right hand, for all intents and purposes, developing a mind of its own and going out of its way to hurt me, not to mention my tendency to use tasteless humor as a coping mechanism for my problems, you can probably draw your own conclusions as to why I revisit that scene to face my medical issues.<br />
<br />
At roughly the same time, a remake to the original <i>Evil Dead</i> has come out as well. I have yet to see said remake, although I fully intend to. However, the timing (which, unless you count the presence of perverse gods, is purely coincidental) got me thinking that I should probably write something on the original while I was at it. After all, <i>Evil Dead </i>was remade once before. Despite its title <i>Evil Dead 2</i> isn’t a sequel, it’s a remake.<br />
<br />
It’s a fascinating experience watching the two movies back to back. They have the same director, most of the same crew, and even the same lead actor playing Ash both times. In both movies Ash has a girlfriend named Linda, although she is played by different actresses. There’s the same basic setup, the same core plot, the exact same major props, and I’m pretty sure that’s the exact same cabin in both movies. And yet, despite all that is recycled into the second Evil Dead movie from the first, we have two very different movies here.<br />
<br />
The first <i>Evil Dead </i>is very much a straight horror movie, and an amateur work. There’s really not anything deep or complex about it at all; I’d even say that it’s elegant in its simplicity. <i>Evil Dead </i>is your typical spam in a cabin setup; a small group of young people goes somewhere isolated and gets slaughtered by the evil lurking there. Our heroes are presented in the broadest of strokes: Ash is the hero, Scotty is the asshole, Linda and Shelly are the girlfriends, and Cheryl is the spooky, New Age chick and Ash’s sister. They make a lot of the mistakes we’ve all come to expect from characters in horror movies. It’s also obvious that this is a very low budget film.<br />
<br />
And yet, in many ways these elements work to the movie’s advantage. Old tropes become old tropes in the first place because they work when you know how to use them. Raimi shows that even this early in his career, he was very adept at employing the ages old horror clichés to their most effective. He plays with your expectations; giving you an expected build up, but holding off just long enough on the payoff that you start to wonder if it actually will play out like you anticipate.<br />
<br />
Something that continually fascinates me about <i>Evil Dead</i>, and <i>Evil Dead 2</i> for that matter, is the nature of the Evil itself. Possession horror itself isn’t unusual, I’ve reviewed at least three or four movies centering around the theme on this blog thus far. What gets me is how the Evil seems to infuse everything; the woods, the cabin and its possessions, eventually it gets to the point where the possession of the human characters is just an afterthought. Once called up this dark force subsumes the landscape itself, and it is only then that it starts to possess its human victims. Probably the part that gets me the most is when Linda is possessed. For the most part she doesn’t actually attack; she just laughs this repulsive giggle and mocks Ash while he struggles, complacent that he will eventually fall. <br />
<br />
While it does happen that a low budget hamstrings a perspective movie from the beginning, this isn’t always the case. One of the things I love the most about low budget cinema is the occasional director I come across who doesn’t let his financial limitations stymie him, but instead lets it influence him to be far more creative and innovative than he would have been if everything he needed had just been handed to him. Raimi does this all throughout <i>Evil Dead</i>, using what’s at hand however he is able. The most notable use of this is the p.o.v. shots representing the Evil. We never see the Evil itself, but it is constantly represented by these p.o.v. camera shots moving through the forest at heights and angles that couldn’t be reached by a human. For the last one he reportedly tied the camera to the handlebars of his motorcycle and drove it straight at Bruce Campbell, which apparently cost the actor some hospital time. So that shriek of sheer and utter terror Campbell gives just before the credits; it ain’t acting.<br />
<br />
Probably the biggest difference <i>Dead by Dawn </i>has from the original Evil Dead is its tone; the first is a straight horror film; the second, however, has a sense of humor. Now, people tend to look at me funny when I say this, among a great many other things; but humor and horror are two sides of the same coin. They are both emotional reactions, and how one reacts to them varies from person to person. Also, despite what we may think, the line between the two often tends to be very thin and blurry. All you have to do is tweak the circumstances just a little bit, and something we’re cringing at one moment we’re laughing at the next. As Mel Brooks put it: “tragedy is when I cut my finger, comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.”<br />
<br />
What Raimi does in <i>Dead by Dawn</i> is to essentially take all the main elements of the first movie and flip them; play upon how outré they can be, tweak them a little, and play them up for how ridiculous they are. You’ll notice that there are a few major changes as a result of this. Our unhappy campers are just Ash and Linda this time, and Linda gets possessed within the first five minutes. A large section of the movie is just Ash, facing off alone against the Evil and slowly but surely losing it. For this movie Campbell reveals his amazing talent as a physical actor, as the helpless Ash gets battered and bashed all over the place.<br />
<br />
However, the sense of humor at play here is a very grim, whistling past the graveyard kind of laugh. Dr. Freex on the website the Bad Movie Report makes the observation of <i>Dead by Dawn</i> that Ash actually dies in the first five minutes, and the rest of the movie he’s in Hell. This is probably due to the larger budget Raimi had second time around, but even more than in the first movie, he plays upon the theme of the Evil infusing and taking over Ash’s whole world. It’s obvious that this movie is tongue in cheek, and sometimes it even gets a little cartoony, such as with the gallons of multi-colored blood, but this is still a horror movie.<br />
<br />
My description of the scene with Ash’s possessed hand at the beginning of this review probably gives as good an example as any of the kind of humor on display here. The whole movie gets downright surreal at some points, with a few parts that leave it vague as to how much of what we see is really going on, and how much is just Ash’s decent into madness. And, while the end was used as a way to segue into <i>Army of Darkness</i> five years later; on its own I find it to be one of the most original ‘the hero is screwed’ style endings I have ever come across. The fact that you may need to reflect a moment before you realize just how much he is screwed and why only makes me like it more.<br />
<br />
So in conclusion, watching <i>Evil Dead</i> and <i>Dead by Dawn </i>back to back is an interesting experience. There are so many similarities, and yet they are two very different movies. The first is a straight, low budget, yet effective horror movie; the second a bizarre mix of horror, humor, slapstick and surrealism. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-28356006072287473082013-04-05T10:27:00.000-07:002016-01-19T16:34:23.153-08:00Spring Breakers (2012)<a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513jjoqhHSL._SL500_AA300_.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513jjoqhHSL._SL500_AA300_.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> Four college girls have been best friends since kindergarten, and are still attending school together. They also really like to party. Well, Faith (former Disney sweet young thing Selena Gomez) does try to be a good girl. She’s part of a conservative church group, but despite her group’s warnings she still likes to hang out with her friends. Cotty (Rachel Korine, wife of the director), on the other hand, is really into the whole ‘party girl’ thing. And as for Candy (former Disney sweet young thing Vanessa Hudgens, last seen on this blog in <i>Sucker Punch</i>) and Brit (Ashley Benson of the TV show Pretty Little Liars); don’t turn your back on them.<br />
<br />
The four girls are determined to go to Florida and have the ultimate Spring Break. Unfortunately, Spring Break is almost here and they haven’t saved anywhere near enough money. Fortunately for the girls, but not any of the other people involved, Candy and Brit have a brainstorm on how to get the needed cash. Armed with ski masks, squirt guns and hammers, and with Cotty driving the getaway vehicle, they rob a local restaurant. The girls are suddenly rolling in cash, and it’s off to Florida as planned.<br />
<br />
As always, however, the good times inevitably hit a snag. A wild party the girls are attending gets raided by the police. Worse, all of the girls’ ill-gotten loot has been blown on booze, drugs and scooters; so they can’t afford to pay bail. This is compounded by the fact that none of them, particularly Faith, want their families to know what they’ve really been up to. However, Fate decides to grant them a guardian angel of sorts.<br />
<br />
Actually, fallen angel is probably more accurate. The girls catch the attention and interest of a drug dealer who goes by the handle “Alien” (James Franco, of the Sam Raimi <i>Spiderman</i> trilogy). Alien swoops in and pays the girls’ bail, then offers to show them the good time they’re after. Faith does the smart thing and bails out, taking the bus back home. However, the other three girls are very interested in what Alien has to offer them. This is going to land them in some trouble. Another drug dealer feels that Alien has gone too far poaching on his turf, and is determined to remove the problem. The fact that Candy, Brit and Cotty are so eager to work for Alien is going to bring them right into the middle of the conflict. Then again, Candy and Brit have up to this point shown definite signs of being junior crime lords in the making. Maybe this won’t be so disastrous for them after all…<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b><br />
<br />
“<i>Spring Break, bitches!</i>"<br />
<br />
Is it weird to be disappointed that a movie isn’t anywhere near as bad as you were expecting it to be? That’s the $64-million question I am putting before my readers. When I saw the previews for <i>Spring Breakers</i>, they put to mind a certain kind of movie. They promised four popular young things, two of them who were only recently Disney teen poster girls, showing as much bare skin as their nudity clauses would allow; drug fueled mayhem, sleaze, depravity, explosions, weirdness, and a really bad plot and script. Of course, I had to check it out. However, the movie I actually did see, while it did have its moments, never quite lived up, or maybe I should say down, to my expectations.<br />
<br />
Admittedly, the bar was probably set way too high, or low, as the case may be, from the start. After all, among a great many other things I have long submitted myself to the likes of grindhouse exploitation movies, B-flicks, low-budget sexploitation, no-budget sexploitation, independent films, young John Waters, David Cronenberg, Jesus Franco, Ken Russell, a handful of truly fucked-up Japanese flicks, and more Italian porn than is probably healthy for a single individual. No major Hollywood studio these days could possibly meet the standards that that sets, nor would they want to. Also, actresses these days, particularly young actresses with the kind of status that Gomez and Hudgens currently possess, have some pretty strict clauses in their contracts as a matter of course that limit how far they are able to go on screen. There is some hope for Hudgens, who I will elaborate on shortly; but while the advertising campaigns play on Disney “good girls” breaking into “big girl” roles, the sad truth is that at this juncture Gomez and Hudgens still have far too much riding on their good girl image to risk throwing it away just yet.<br />
<br />
As I said earlier, <i>Spring Breakers</i> does have its moments. It is undoubtedly a consciously weird movie, although the constraints of the Hollywood studio system insures that it’s not exactly envelope pushing; maybe envelope tapping. Parts of the movie definitely look like a drug trip. There’s also a tendency to loop scenes and lines of dialogue, switch them around, and play the dialogue from one scene while we watch another scene entirely. Sometimes it works for effect, sometimes it’s just irritating. Also, the one image that really sticks with me is two girls in neon yellow bikinis and hot pink ski masks wielding sub-machineguns. <br />
<br />
As for the sleaze, that’s a little bit harder to pin down. It is definitely a sleazy movie, at least for the first half. However, at about the halfway point it feels like the movie has grown bored with the sleaze and cut down on it for the most part. Also, there are definite limits. In its favor, I will say that <i>Spring Breakers</i> is honestly and sincerely sleazy; none of that attempt at making “safe sleaze” or promising something and then chickening out. However, it feels like at the beginning the director drew a line and said “up to this line the sky’s the limit, but this is as far as we go.” I can’t decide how much of this is admirable restraint and how much of it is just studio restriction.<br />
<br />
Of the cast, I would have to rank Franco as the best. Admittedly, Alien is a caricature; but he’s a very convincing and believable one. The highest point of favor I can give to Franco in his role here is that I didn’t recognize him. I have a very good memory for faces, if not necessarily names or contexts. Even if I can’t attach a name or a context to an individual, sadly an all too common occurrence for me, I can usually recognize that I know a face from somewhere. The fact that it wasn’t until I was looking up stuff for this review that I finally recognized him speaks volumes for this man’s talent. As I’ve mentioned in other reviews, my favorite actors tend to be the ones who can sink so far into their character that we actually forget we are watching them.<br />
<br />
Franco also has the funniest scene in the movie, a monologue where he’s trying to impress Candy and Brit with the alpha male routine. “Look at my shit,” he says multiple times, fortunately meaning it in the very figurative sense. The following is paraphrased, but it’s the basic gist of his monologue, interspaced by proclamations of ‘look at my shit’: “Look at all this cool stuff I have! I have all this money! Look and swoon at what a strong, virile, male I am! Look at my phallic overcompensation devices (i.e. guns, and if that’s how you’re going to use them, I’ll call it like I see it) and visualize what I’m trying to convey with them!” However, after doing the desired oohing and ahing, the two girls each grab a gun and use it to play their own dominance game; and Alien discovers that these aren’t just two young bimbos he can seduce, but younger, female versions of him. Of course, he’s automatically in love.<br />
<br />
The other lead that caught my eye was Hudgens. Now, up to this point I’ve been on the fence about her as an actress; having never seen any of the <i>High School Musical</i> movies, and finding that in the only other movie I’ve seen her in, <i>Sucker Punch</i>, she’s really not given anything to work with. In <i>Spring Breakers</i>, she scared the hell out of me. Hudgens very believably portrays Candy as nihilistic, amoral, and extremely vicious about getting what she wants. Now I know some of my longtime readers will point out how I tend to be most attracted to women who scare me; but seriously, Candy I would stay as far away from as possible. I can now believe that Hudgens is genuinely interested in more mature roles. She won’t be claiming the crown of Lina Romay or Linnea Quigley anytime soon; but I’m sure that we will see gradually more mature and risqué roles from Hudgens in the future. She has some genuine talent and potential as an actress if she keeps working at it.<br />
<br />
As for the female leads as a whole, I had no trouble believing they were college party girls; a back-handed compliment if I’ve ever given one. It’s funny, considering the media blitz, but Gomez really doesn’t go out of her “good girl” roll at all. Unfortunately, the screenwriter didn’t know how to portray why she is that way, so Faith is more a cipher than anything else character wise. Not only that, but she leaves as soon as things start getting interesting. On the one hand, how often do you see characters making smart decisions in these movies? On the other, though, this was the perfect set-up for an “innocents in over their heads” style exploitation movie; and the vile part of me that likes to watch those things was screaming in fury that they didn’t follow through on it.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, <i>Spring Breakers</i> as a movie occupies that awkward neither realm that lies between an exploitation and an art film, but doesn’t qualify as either. On the exploitation side, the movie refuses to truly dive down into the sleaze; although the first ten minutes made me think it would. However, on the art side, I got the impression that the director truly was trying to make a point. Unfortunately, I never figured out what that point was, it was too garbled. The ending is one of those maddeningly vague, ambiguous movie endings that I have long learned to associate with either the director not knowing how to end it, or the studio deciding they didn’t like what he had and making him change it. There was a major missed opportunity to raise it up and take it an innovative direction, which disappointed me.<br />
<br />
If you mostly watch just mainstream Hollywood movies, you will probably find <i>Spring Breakers</i> weird and sleazy. However, for somebody like me who actively seeks out the truly weird and socially unacceptable, it’s actually rather tame. <i>Spring Breakers</i> does have its moments and I did have some fun with it, but ultimately I found this movie to be not particularly memorable, either in the positive or negative sense. <br />
<br />
<b>Side Note:</b> I put up a few more links to other blogs. In particular, please check out Horror Movie Medication. The gentleman in question just started that blog, but thus far he has some good reviews and fascinating insights. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-24437777528737938362013-03-12T08:07:00.000-07:002013-03-12T08:07:43.415-07:00From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)<a href="http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/5/A70-2812" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/5/A70-2812" /></a><br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> The Gecko brothers, Seth (George Clooney) and Ricky (Quentin Tarantino) are the current escaped dangerous criminals in the news. After making a jailbreak and robbing a bank, the two are headed across the border to Mexico where Seth has made arrangements to find refuge. Unfortunately, he’s got a lot on his plate. Not only are the entire Texas law enforcement apparatus and the FBI after the brothers, Seth’s also got to deal with Ricky. Delusional, psychotic, and probably a little paranoid; Ricky is very much a loose cannon and makes Seth’s already difficult task of getting the two across the border twice as hard. To further exacerbate matters, Ricky winds up brutally killing the hostage the brothers have with them.<br />
<br />
Luckily for the Geckos, and unluckily for everyone else involved, there is another set of guests at the hotel where the brothers are currently holing up. Reverend Jacob Fuller (long time movie vet Harvey Keitel of <i>Saturn 3</i>) is on a trip with his two children, Kate (the ubiquitous Juliette Lewis) and Scott (Ernest Liu) in their Winnebago. The family has suffered a tragedy recently with the death of Jacob’s wife, and Jacob himself is suffering a crisis of faith as a result. Of course, things get much worse when the Geckos, a little desperate at this point, take the family hostage and hijack their vehicle.<br />
<br />
Somehow, despite Ricky’s quirks and a few unseen complications, the motley crew makes it across the border into Mexico. However, the real trouble comes when they arrive at the place where Seth arranged to meet his contact; a skuzzy biker bar/strip club/brothel that goes by the charming name ‘the Titty Twister.’ You see, the Titty Twister is a very literal tourist trap. It’s run by a group of vampires, who use the place to prey on the bikers and truckers who come through. Suddenly, the desperados, their hostages, and the few remaining customers of the bar find themselves trapped and forced to band together if they’re going to survive the night.<br />
<br />
<b>The Review: </b><br />
<br />
“<i>And I don't want to hear anything about "I don't believe in vampires" because </i>I <i>don't believe in vampires, but I believe in my own two eyes, and what I saw is fucking vampires!</i>"<br />
-Seth Gecko<br />
<br />
I must admit to feeling very ambivalent about Quentin Tarantino. On the one hand, he’s very definitely inspired by the same kinds of grindhouse movies I have come to love. He’s even put a lot of work into rereleasing many of the more obscure examples so they can be seen by a modern audience. And he’s not just a fanboy imitator either; Tarantino knows what makes them work, and he has enough talent and experience as a director that he’s able to use them as inspiration for movies that are very much his own.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Tarantino has the unfortunate habit of running off with his id and reveling in the more unpleasant aspects of these kinds of movies. He is all too prone to exulting in onscreen carnage and brutality, to the point where it can override everything else and become difficult to watch. To get an idea about how conflicted my feelings are toward Tarantino’s movies, know that I really enjoyed <i>Kill Bill</i>, and then look at my review of his <i>Inglorious Basterds </i>remake. If you just want the short of it, that movie repulsed me, pissed me off, and even offended me; which is extremely difficult to do. In short, Tarantino can make some good movies; but only so long as he keeps a leash on his id.<br />
<br />
Tarantino wrote the screenplay for <i>From Dusk Till Dawn</i>, and as a result his fingerprints are all over the movie. It is an odd little film in some ways, namely where the characters seem to start out in one movie genre and then take a detour into another halfway through. However, it is very competently put together and the end result is great; a love letter to the old grindhouse exploitation thrillers, specifically the crime-thriller and survival horror subgenres. And, unlike so many movie “homages” made today; while there are plenty of little in-jokes and references to other movies of this type (note Scott’s Precinct 13 t-shirt for one example), they are kept subtle and non-intrusive, and <i>From Dusk Till Dawn </i>very much works as a movie in and of itself.<br />
<br />
Just the film’s genre jumping goes miles in showing how good the script is. For about half the film it’s a crime-thriller about two bank robbers who take a family hostage and try to escape to Mexico, then about halfway through it’s suddenly a survival horror about being trapped in a bar run by vampires. And yet, the momentum is so good that the cognitive dissonance doesn’t set in until the credits start rolling.<br />
<br />
The vampires themselves are very well done. For one thing, they’re definitely monsters. Most of the vampires are hot (half of them being strippers and one being played by Salma Hayek), but it is a very far cry indeed from the tragically sexy vampires that have infested pop culture. These are very definitely monsters, and never shown as anything different. What’s more, there’s never really any exposition about what they are or what they’re all about. None of the protagonists have any interest in investigating it, as their primary motivation is just trying to survive the night. In fact, one scene has them trying to remember all they know about vampires, and then debating over whether it will actually be of any use against their current opponents or whether they just remember it from some old movie. There are a few intriguing hints throughout; but they are just that, hints. The last shot just before the credits blew my mind the first time I saw it; and I was still very ignorant about the wonderful cinematic worlds I was taking my first steps into.<br />
<br />
Ricky Gecko, as played by Tarantino, provides us with one of the more pervasive archetypes of the crime-thriller genre: the Loose Cannon. In short, this is the criminal with no self control whatsoever, who’s constantly buggering up things for everybody else. Tarantino is convincing; but considering that nearly every role I’ve seen him play has been Ricky in one form or another; I’m at a loss as to how much of it is due to talent and how much is typecasting.<br />
<br />
Seth Gecko was apparently Clooney’s first major film role, something I was unaware of until I started writing this review. You wouldn’t guess it; Clooney is one of <i>Dawn</i>’s two major heavies who carry the movie. Seth is an intriguing anti-hero; on the one hand he is a career criminal and a brutal son of a bitch, but on the other he also has a very strong sense of honor and duty. In fact, he really tries to keep things as quiet and safe as possible; his more brutal deeds are largely due to Ricky.<br />
<br />
Seth’s relationship with Ricky also does what none of the other crime-thrillers seem to have been able to and provides an answer to the one urgent question surrounding the loose cannon character; namely, why the hell don’t they cut him loose at the first signs he’s going to be trouble, much less after the first dozen or so times he’s loused things up for everyone else? In this case it’s simple; Ricky is Seth’s brother. Seth loves him and feels responsible for him, despite the fact that Ricky makes things twice as hard as they should be for him. That whole honor and duty thing can really bite you in the ass sometimes.<br />
<br />
Harvey Keitel is the other heavy who carries the film. The man has a very, very long string of roles behind him, even at the time he played this one, and it really shows. Jacob Fuller is completely believable as a movie character despite his fantastic circumstances. Keitel plays him as a man who, upon first glance, is completely unremarkable in any way. He quiet, soft-spoken, not a coward but obviously not looking for excitement, either. Fuller is a man you could see every day and, unless you have some kind of in-depth dealing with him, not think anything of it.<br />
<br />
However, there’s a whole hell of a lot more beneath the surface. Once trouble starts, Fuller turns out to be a very tough and competent old guy. Just observe his attitude and demeanor from the moment he and his family are first kidnapped by the Gecko brothers; everything he says and does conveys the message that he’s not going be pushed around. He does bend a little, not much you can do when someone’s pointing a gun in you and your children’s’ faces after all; but he makes it clear that he will not bend more than he absolutely has to.<br />
<br />
Aside from being a stubborn old cuss, Jacob also shows a much needed level-headedness. He’s along on this trip unwillingly, but that doesn’t mean he won’t step forward and do what needs to be done when the Geckos’ methods aren’t working. Several times through the first half of the film, it’s Jacob who takes charge of the situation; and he’s ultimately responsible for getting everyone into Mexico. It’s never said in words; but watching Seth and Jacob interact, you can tell that Seth is developing a grudging respect for Jacob despite himself.<br />
<br />
There’s one more aspect of the character of Jacob Fuller that I’d like to comment on, and that’s about his status as a clergyman. This is important to me because I, myself, happen to be a preacher’s kid. Now, the thing about my father is that unless you happen to be in church on Sunday, or it comes up in conversation, you’d never know he was a minister. If his job doesn’t call for it, he doesn’t advertise. Not only that, my father has actively encouraged my interest in other religions. I was never a Christian myself, my faith journey took me in an entirely different direction; but I have the utmost respect for my father and his faith, and both have had a strong influence on my own spiritual views.<br />
<br />
I’ve noticed in Hollywood movies that when they’re not Catholic priests (who have their own set of stereotypes), Christian clergy tend to be presented in one of three ways: they’re rabid Bible-thumpers, they’re myopic hypocrites, or, to paraphrase my father, they have little haloes. Suffice to say, they’ve rarely if ever matched my experiences with the main clergy presence in my own life. Jacob Fuller changes that. In demeanor and personality, he very much reminds me of my father. This is particularly true where his faith is concerned. He does talk about his religion when the subject comes up, and it’s clear that his crisis of faith is having an effect on him. However, there’s far more to him as a person; his faith is part of him, it doesn’t define him entirely. It was only on my most recent viewing that I consciously realized how much Jacob reminds me of my own father, but it makes the movie more real for me, and is no doubt the main reason I’ve always found him so endearing. <br />
<br />
Lewis and Liu do well enough in their roles. I’ve noticed that Lewis in this film isn’t too different from other characters I’ve seen her play, but it works. Also, and the fact that this bears any mention at all depresses me to no end, I so love a truly strong, competent movie heroine who’s able to handle herself. <br />
<br />
As well as our main characters, From Dusk Till Dawn has a rather large supporting cast that’s full of B-movie veterans. Fred “the Hammer” Williamson appears as one of the Titty Twister’s customers; as does the famed gore-effects artist Tom Savini, who plays Sex Machine, a biker with the most interestingly shaped and mounted gun. Tom Saxon makes a brief appearance at the beginning. Cheech Marin plays three minor, but very distinct, roles. The supporting role most people take away from this movie is probably Salma Hayek as the vampire queen “Santanico Pandemonium”, the name a reference to the Mexican nunsploitation Satanico Pandemonium. Even if he wasn’t credited, you’d know Tarantino wrote the script to this movie from the lap dance she gives Ricky during her number. I would say nasty things about the man, if it weren’t for the fact that I’d do the exact same thing myself in his situation.<br />
<br />
One final positive element about <i>From Dusk Till Dawn</i>, particularly as a horror movie, is that there’s no safety net for any of the characters. Big name actor or second stringer, protagonist or supporting cast; from the moment the vampires first make their appearance it’s made very clear that none of these people is safe from them. In fact, by the end of the movie nearly the entire cast has been killed off. This makes it extremely suspenseful, as we have no idea who will live or die.<br />
<br />
So in conclusion, <i>From Dusk Till Dawn</i> is a love letter and homage to the old grindhouse exploitation movies of yore that at the same time is very much its own movie. It’s full of gunfights, explosions, gore and female nudity. It also has a good script, great dialogue, and a cast full of talent and B-movie veterans. This is definitely not a date movie; and my male readers, if you are lucky enough to find a woman who is willing to see this with you on a date, hold on to her. However, if you’re into exploitative trash done very well (guilty!), you do not want to miss this one. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-16179472652295037332013-02-14T07:47:00.000-08:002013-04-24T21:03:26.855-07:00Cemetery Man (1994)<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghGaqipDzjjrPQ26ps3MhY45U4_zp3pdMPPdxX8HPqs3HFA4zRLWZsZOvqa6Tlj4FK5kxo6jxOYEadPas9hiwtWGP3KdicVrZKpbFdwuy4bD0KYboKLw3-ZRaDgdwUi1WXQwLm3gYngQI/s1600/271173_1020_a%5B2%5D.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghGaqipDzjjrPQ26ps3MhY45U4_zp3pdMPPdxX8HPqs3HFA4zRLWZsZOvqa6Tlj4FK5kxo6jxOYEadPas9hiwtWGP3KdicVrZKpbFdwuy4bD0KYboKLw3-ZRaDgdwUi1WXQwLm3gYngQI/s320/271173_1020_a%5B2%5D.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> Francesco Dellamorte (Rupert Everett) is the caretaker for the cemetery in the small Italian town of Buffalora. This is a lot harder than it sounds; because the dead have a habit of coming back within seven days of being buried there, and only destroying the brain will put them down permanently. Dellamorte and Gnaghi (Francois Hadji-Lazaro), his developmentally stunted assistant, have their hands full; and it gets worse as, due to town bureaucracy and political expediency, there’s no outside help for them.<br />
<br />
Francesco’s already unstable and stifling world is turned completely upside down when his eyes first land upon a grieving widow (Anna Falchi); “the most beautiful living woman [he’s] ever seen.” Despite his rather limited social skills Dellamorte does manage to strike up a romance with her, but it can’t last. When they make the stupid decision to have sex on her late husband’s grave, he digs himself out and attacks her. Francesco stands over her body, praying she won’t come back as a ‘returner’ (the movie never uses the word ‘zombie’); but of course that prayer is not granted, and sadly, he uses his pistol to put her down. A while later Francesco realizes his mistake when he runs into her as a returner and has to be saved by Gnaghi. The fact that she came back means that she wasn’t really dead that first time, and Dellamorte killed her.<br />
<br />
Things get worse as Dellamorte struggles to forget her and continue doing a job that he hates, but can’t ever seem to escape from. Two major series of events knock his already wobbly world completely out of orbit. The first is the consistent reappearance of the object of Dellamorte’s affections in various different roles; always giving him hope that he can re-obtain her, but ultimately leaving him all the worse for it. The second is an appearance by Death himself, who tells Dellamorte to stop killing his dead; if he really doesn’t want them coming back as returners, then he should just start shooting the living in the head so they can’t come back in the first place…<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b><br />
<br />
“<i>Nyah!</i>"<br />
-Gnaghi<br />
<br />
It is once again the time for what seems to be becoming a tradition for this blog; my yearly one-fingered salute to that unholiest of holidays, Valentine’s Day. Suffice to say, I hate and detest it. I elaborated at length on my reasons why last year in my review of <i>How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days</i>, so I shant repeat them here. If you’re interested, please read that review.<br />
<br />
It would seem that, in this country at least, the French have a reputation for making confusingly weird movies. In recent years I have watched a lot of European movies, particularly French ones; largely, I’m sure, due to my fetish for women with French accents. In that time I have made this discovery: when it comes to truly batshit movies that leave you confused, uncertain, and nursing migraines, the French ain’t got nothing on the Italians.<br />
<br />
From the 1960s to the early 1990s, the Italians had a major B-movie industry that, among other things, excelled at ripping off popular big-budget movies and movie genres. Spaghetti westerns (now you know why they’re called that), post-apocalyptic movies, porn, space opera, zombie gut-munchers; the Italians would take them all and add their own bizarre interpretations. For quite some time, your movie hadn’t arrived until it was the subject of countless Italian interpretations. I don’t know what the status of the Italian film industry is today; but the B-movie machine of around three decades is certainly long gone, and the world is so much poorer for it.<br />
<br />
<i>Cemetery Man</i>, or <i>Dellamorte Dellamore</i> as it was originally titled in Europe, came in around the tail end of this period. It is one of those movies that are impossible to shoehorn into a conventional Hollywood genre. While the basic plot may seem like a horror movie, <i>Cemetery Man </i>is anything but. Likewise, while not, technically, a comedy; this is one seriously funny movie. Also, it’s not exactly a romance; although it definitely borrows more than a few conventions from that genre. If I had to sum up <i>Cemetery Man</i>, I would define it as a philosophical meditation on love, and on life in general, that just happens to feature zombies and a really twisted sense of humor.<br />
<br />
<i>Cemetery Man</i> is about Francesco Dellamorte, a man who is so wrapped up in death that he has almost completely forgotten how to live. And by ‘death’ I don’t just mean the obvious trappings such as the graveyard and the returners. Buffalora itself is so wrapped up in bureaucracy and appearances that it’s utterly stifling. One look at the records office run by Francesco’s friend Franco (Anton Alexander), and you’d think they had a form for everything. The chief of police (Mickey Knox) is the kind of man to form an opinion, and then ignore anything that contradicts said opinion. As an example, when Dellamorte is walking out of a hospital where he’s just shot three people, visibly holding the gun, the policeman tells him “oh good, you have a gun, you’ll be able to defend yourself.” And then there’s the mayor (Stefano Masciarelli), who’s so fixated on getting reelected for a sixteenth term that he’s willing to exhume his own daughter (Fabiana Formica) to use on his campaign posters. <br />
<br />
Things don’t help matters when Dellamorte’s love interest (never actually named, and billed as “She” in the credits) comes into the picture. Actually, that’s a gross understatement. In so many ways, their romance is so much like the tragic, overdramatic relationships pop culture tells us romance is supposed to be. And yet, the movie does not hesitate to show us just how unhealthy it actually is. Dellamorte is obsessed, and when the object of his obsession slips his grasp yet again, he’s all the worse off for having thought he had a chance in the first place. The sacrifice he makes for her in her incarnation as the new mayor’s assistant will really make you wince and squirm, especially if you’re male.<br />
<br />
So in short, Dellamorte finds himself trapped and in a no-win situation. There is his romantic cycle of see, want, thinks he has a chance, ‘whoops, just kidding.’ Then there’s his job, which he hates, but can’t seem to get away from. The scenes where he sacrifices to hold onto a job that he hates but is led to believe that he must hold onto at any cost resonated with me as well. When you’re constantly caught between these two particular cycles, life inevitably starts to seem hopeless and unbearable. Yes, I am bitter; why do you ask? I thought it was pretty obvious.<br />
<br />
However, in certain ways Dellamorte is at fault for where he winds up. The main one is his dealings with people. It’s clear from the beginning that he’s been cutting himself off from other people for a while now. The scene where he first tries to approach the widow, and the conversation he attempts, show just how stunted Dellamorte’s interpersonal skills are. Also, the rumor going around town that gives him so much trouble, that he’s impotent; at one part he tells Gnaghi he started it himself. On one hand, I can understand why Dellamorte would want to cut himself off from the rest of humanity. After all, people as a whole tend to be stupid, ridiculous and irritating to insufferable extremes. However, there are always exceptions; and it is these exceptions who make life worth living despite all the other crap. When you cut yourself off from human companionship, you start turning inward to the point where it’s near impossible to deal with the outside world at all.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Dellamorte only has two people who could be considered friends. The first is Franco, who he talks to all the time on the phone, mainly mutually feeding each others’ frustrations and resentments at life. However, they never seem to have much to say on the rare occasion that they meet in person. Second is Gnaghi. Dellamorte obviously keeps Gnaghi around so that he can feel superior; which is a shame, since Gnaghi could teach him a lot.<br />
<br />
Gnaghi is the movie’s most fascinating character; and it is a true testament to Hadji-Lazaro’s acting talents how well he comes across. Gnaghi is rather disgusting, particularly when he eats. He only ever says one word, “nyah,” which isn’t even a word at all; yet it’s truly amazing just how expressively he is able to use that one word. Not only that, Hadji-Lazaro seamlessly pulls off the seemingly impossible balancing act of simultaneously making Gnaghi repulsive, cute and loveable.<br />
<br />
Thing is, there are all sorts of hints throughout the movie that Gnaghi is far more intelligent, competent and aware than Dellamorte wants to believe he is. What’s more, Gnaghi actually gets a healthy romance. It’s with Valentina, the mayor’s unfortunate daughter. Gnaghi’s first encounter with her does not go well, but when she gets killed in a motorcycle accident he gets another shot. This time, even though he just winds up with her head, it goes swimmingly.<br />
<br />
I know that this sounds like the lead-up to an extremely tasteless punch line, but it actually turns out quite the opposite. Gnaghi and Valentina’s romance is probably the sweetest, healthiest, most convincing and enviable relationship I have ever seen in a movie; I kid you not. It really must be seen to be believed.<br />
<br />
The sets for <i>Cemetery Man</i> are gorgeous. All the shots of the cemetery at night are simultaneously eerie, and darkly beautiful. Probably the one that sticks in my mind are the witchlights floating around Dellamorte and his paramour as they make love on her husband’s grave. There are so many camera shots that just blow the mind, not to mention some amazing tricks with light and shadow. And then there’s that wonderful Terry Gilliam-esque Grim Reaper that blows up out of Dellamorte’s trash fire.<br />
<br />
Finally, as I alluded to earlier; despite the tragedy and serious philosophical musings, <i>Cemetery Man</i> is a truly hilarious movie, albeit in a rather twisted and morbid way. The funeral for Valentina, her friends, and the boy scouts on the bus they crashed into has this really warped song being sung in the background. There’s the rather ludicrous scene of Dellamorte being jumped in the shower by a bunch of zombie boy scouts. And then, there are all sorts of wonderful one-liners and lines of dialogue.<br />
<br />
So in conclusion: <i>Cemetery Man</i>, a philosophical meditation on life and death, love and hate, which features zombies and has a really warped sense of humor. Not for every taste, but I guarantee you’ve never seen anything else like it. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-10307533806071376212013-01-28T12:52:00.000-08:002013-08-26T11:30:55.995-07:00Drop Dead Gorgeous (1999)<a href="http://www.filmlinks4u.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Drop-Dead-Gorgeous-1999-%E2%80%93-Hollywood-Movie-Watch-Online.gif" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://www.filmlinks4u.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Drop-Dead-Gorgeous-1999-%E2%80%93-Hollywood-Movie-Watch-Online.gif" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> 1995 was the 50th year of the American Teen Princess beauty pageant; and a television film crew was sent to the small town of Mount Rose, Minnesota, to cover it. However, as they discover, there’s a lot more going on. Just below the surface is a nasty web of intrigue centered around the two contestant favorites.<br />
<br />
On the one hand we have Rebecca Leeman (Denise Richards of <i>Starship Troopers</i>); the spoiled daughter of Mount Rose’s richest family and, more importantly, of Gladys Leeman (Kirstie Alley), the pageant chairperson and former winner. On the other is Amber Atkins (Kirstin Dunst, last seen on this blog in <i>Small Soldiers</i>) a sweet, talented girl who works two jobs and lives in a trailer park with her single mother (Ellen Barkin). Most of the town backs Amber; but “somebody” (no prizes for guessing who) is determined that Rebecca will win. As the number of “mysterious” deaths and potentially fatal “accidents” grows; the question isn’t whether Amber will win, but whether she will live long enough to compete.<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b><br />
<br />
“<i>Oh yeah. Guys get out of Mount Rose all the time on hockey scholarships... or prison.</i>"<br />
-Amber Atkins <br />
<br />
Happy 2013 dear readers! How are you getting on with your resolutions? My New Year’s resolution is to attempt to be more positive. It’s nowhere near as easy as everyone would have me believe it to be; but I have been blessed with some truly wonderful individuals in my life, so I have some hope that it is possible. However, my longtime readers need not worry; considering how little humanity has changed in the however many thousands of years since our ancestors first came down out of the trees and started forming society, it’s doubtful that the cynicism you have grown to know and love will be going anywhere. And that brings us to today’s review.<br />
<br />
I got my VHS copy of <i>Drop Dead Gorgeous</i> off a friend in college who was selling some of his movies. Said friend is from Minnesota, and he told me that not only was the movie shot there (and that he was in a play with one of the extras), but that it portrays small-town Minnesota very accurately. Sadly, my own personal experience with Minnesota is mainly a large number of stopovers at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul airport. However, I noticed that the town of Mount Rose looked very familiar. Having lived in small, rural towns a large portion of my life, it’s my opinion that this film portrays rural, small-town America as a whole very accurately.<br />
<br />
That is probably the make it or break it aspect of this movie’s humor for most audiences. While there are plenty of obvious jokes on display, much of the humor is only noticeable for those with a certain lifetime experience. If you have any real first-hand experience with rural small-town America (and probably small-town Minnesota especially, as I said, I wouldn’t know personally), you will likely spend much of the running time nodding in recognition; and if you have a sense of humor you’ll also be laughing. However, if you really aren’t familiar with that kind of community, there is much that will pass right under your radar.<br />
<br />
In fact, if it weren’t for all the familiar faces and big-name actresses in the cast; it wouldn’t be too hard for me to believe that <i>Drop Dead Gorgeous</i> was a real documentary about a real town. Mount Rose, like all small communities, is the kind of place where everybody knows everybody else’s business to an uncomfortable degree; and isn’t afraid to make judgments on it. Just observing the characters interacting hints and insinuates at whole undercurrents of Mount Rose’s community that are never addressed directly by the movie itself. We are given a very definite picture of the town’s factions, of its most prominent views, and of how its citizens view one another.<br />
<br />
As my longtime readers are well aware, my favorite part of almost any movie is the characters; and <i>Drop Dead Gorgeous</i> introduces us to all sorts of interesting, wonderfully quirky individuals. Just the pageant contestants are enough to scratch this itch; my two personal favorites are the dog enthusiast with her “lucky” bolt (it fell off an airplane and hit her in the head, but fortunately at an angle so that it didn’t pierce her skull), and the drama geek who does a monologue of Soylant Green for her talent. However, if you’re looking for familiar faces; Amy Adams makes her first film appearance as a slightly dim-witted cheerleader who is a bit blatantly… I think licentious is the word I’m looking for, while the late Brittney Murphy is wonderful as Lisa, a girl following in her older brother, Peter’s, footsteps. Peter left for New York to do Broadway; and considering that she shows us pictures of him dressed as Liza Minnelli, Madonna and Barbara Streisand, we can guess the main reason why he would have wanted to leave Mount Rose even before it’s spelled out for us in one of the movie’s better lines. Out of all the people we are introduced to, my personal favorite would have to be Allison Janney as Loretta; Mrs. Atkins’ best friend, and for all intents and purposes Amber’s second mother.<br />
<br />
The thing that intrigues me most about <i>Drop Dead Gorgeous</i> these days is the true nature of the conflict between Amber and Rebecca. In it, we can see a microcosm of the top-down class warfare that has been plaguing this country since the Reagan years, if not further back. From the beginning it’s clear how uneven the footing between the two girls is. The Leemans are the richest people in Mount Rose; which in contemporary society makes them the “job providers” and the economic center of the town. As a result, they are able to dominate things almost completely. Loretta puts it very succinctly early on: “You're talking about the richest family in a small town. It's front page news when one of them takes a shit.” Because of their power and influence they are able to, quite literally, get away with murder.<br />
<br />
The Leemans whole motive behind Rebecca competing is a sense of entitlement; they feel she deserves to win simply because of who she is. This is very obvious in all their behavior. Hell, Rebecca’s performance for the talent competition shows very clearly where the Leemens think they stand in the scheme of things. I’m not going to spoil it for you, it really has to be seen to be believed; all I’ll say is that I’m not a Christian and yet I still find it blasphemous.<br />
<br />
As such, the Leemans have no qualms about using their influence to rig the pageant. And the sad part is everyone’s aware of it. From the beginning, nearly everyone interviewed states that Amber is the one who probably most deserves to win, but that Rebecca will win anyway because of who her family is. When we are introduced to the judges it’s clear that they were all handpicked by Mr. Leeman; hell, one of them is an employee in his store. On top of that, Mrs. Leeman is the pageant chairwoman.<br />
<br />
Amber, on the other hand, is on the bottom rung of the social ladder. She’s the child of a single mother, and they live in a trailer park. Amber has to work two jobs on top of high school to help support the two of them. While she’s talented and has definite dreams, Amber is likely to end up like her mother if she doesn’t find a way out of Mount Rose. That’s where the pageant comes in, Amber needs to win it if she wants to make something of her life.<br />
<br />
Dunst is wonderful as Amber; she’s always done sweet, cute and energetic very well. However, I couldn’t help but notice that Amber tends to get her breaks through other peoples’ misfortune. Admittedly, her first big break comes not through any actions of her own, but karma for the Leemans; and her third through simply being in the right place at the right time and being able to capitalize on it. Her second break, though; there’s a hint that she might not have played it as fair as we’ve been led to expect. Kind of makes you wonder if she’s really that sweet.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, <i>Drop Dead Gorgeous </i>is hilarious, clever, and well put together; a witty and, at times, all too accurate look at small-town America. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-60534153126784515332012-12-24T12:50:00.000-08:002012-12-24T12:50:17.642-08:00Gremlins (1984)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://trashcinemacollective.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/gremlins-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="548" width="350" src="http://trashcinemacollective.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/gremlins-poster.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> It’s almost Christmas, and amateur inventor Randall Peltzer (Hoyt Axton) is in Chinatown looking for something special to give his son, Billy (Zach Galligan). In a small, out of the way shop filled with exotic and mysterious items, Randall finds an adorable, furry, little creature the shop’s ancient owner (Keye Luke) calls a “mogwai.” The old man refuses to sell the mogwai, saying that it takes a lot of responsibility and that he doesn’t feel Randall is up to it. However, the shop owner’s grandson (John Louie) is determined to make the sale and sells Randall the creature “under the counter.” He also tells him that there are three rules for the mogwai that it’s utterly imperative that he follow.<br />
<br />
It’s very immediately apparent what the reason for the first rule, keep the creature away from all light, is; bright light is extremely painful, even deadly, for the mogwai. The second rule, don’t let him anywhere near water, is broken by accident not long after; and once again the reason is immediately apparent. Water causes the mogwai to reproduce parthenogenecally; the smallest bit of moisture and they’re worse than rabbits on fertility drugs.<br />
<br />
However, it is the breaking of the third rule; don’t feed the creatures after midnight, which produces the most serious repercussions. If a mogwai is fed after midnight, it undergoes a transformation into a vicious, scaly, demonic and mean-spirited little monster. After a few accidents, Billy inadvertently overruns his hometown with the things. Now it’s up to him to put an end to them before they destroy the town entirely.<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b> Io Saturnalia! Merry Christmas! Happy Hanukkah! Or whatever Solstice holiday you, my readers, happen to be celebrating right now, I sincerely hope it’s a good one. Admittedly, I really don’t like the holiday season, due to all the hype and clamor for it that starts months before hand. However, I do enjoy and celebrate the holiday itself in my own fashion; and part of that involves putting my own form of recognition for it on this blog.<br />
<br />
<i>Gremlins</i> is a movie that doesn’t fit comfortably into any single popularly recognized genre. First of all, as Roger Ebert so succinctly pointed out in his review of the film, <i>Gremlins</i> has a very fairy tale core to its central plot. If you read classic fairy and folktales (and I mean in their original form, long before the Victorians and Walt Disney got their sticky paws on them), one of the core plots of so many of these stories is that the hero is given rules for some kind of magic that he must follow; and then we are show exactly what happens when those rules get broken.<br />
<br />
Secondly, and flowing organically from the fairy tale premise, <i>Gremlins</i> has many elements from the horror genre. I know it might seem a bit tame to regular fans of horror movies; but for the very young and/or those individuals who don’t consume a steady diet of them, there is plenty to this movie that can come across as scary, and possibly even traumatizing. In fact, <i>Gremlins</i> is one of the specific movies that inspired the MPAA to create the PG-13 rating; as it’s deemed not quite bad enough for an R rating, but too disturbing for younger viewers who might watch a PG rated movie. I cannot help but notice that despite its role in that decision, <i>Gremlins</i> kept its original PG rating. However, I’m sure that this decision was made with the best of judgment; and that to even hint that it might be due to the fact that Gremlins was a big-budget movie from one of the major studios would just be petty and mean-spirited.<br />
<br />
Thirdly, the plot and setting for <i>Gremlins</i> borrow much of their composition from the countless Norman Rockwell-esqe Christmas specials that breed like flies at this time of year. Nearly the entire movie takes place in archetypal small-town America. This is the type of town where everyone knows everyone else, and you even call the sheriff by his first name. There’s Dorie’s Tavern where, as Kate (Phoebe Cates of P<i>aradise</i> and <i>Fast Times at Ridgemont High</i>), the movie’s love interest, points out; “that’s where everyone’s dad proposed to their mom.” Pete (prolific ‘80s child star Corey Feldman, of <i>the Lost Boys</i> and a few <i>Friday the 13th</i> entries), the kid who works at the local Christmas tree lot, can come over to Billy’s house and read his comic books, even though Billy is in his 20s, without anyone thinking anything of it. Billy’s father perfectly fits the archetype of the absent-minded inventor, with his various dysfunctional inventions scattered all over the house. There’s even an Ebenezer Scrooge/Mr. Potter character in the form of Mrs. Deagle (Polly Holliday), who threatens to spoil everyone’s Christmas.<br />
<br />
Finally, there are the comedic elements. Gremlins is, among a great many other things, an extremely funny movie. A good deal of the humor is absurdist and referential. For example, one of my favorite scenes has Mr. Peltzer calling his wife from the inventers’ convention he’s attending and telling her that it turns out the other inventers are “a bit more advanced than [he] expected.” In the background we can see the time machine from the movie of the same name, as well as Robby the Robot from the <i>Forbidden Planet</i>. However, quite a bit of it is rather dark, and even mean spirited; such as when grinchy Mrs. Deagle storms out with a pitcher of water to soak the carolers she hears in her yard, and is shocked to discover that said carolers are a pack of gremlins, all dressed up and singing.<br />
<br />
The thing is, you would think that all these disparate genre elements would not fit easily together; and they don’t. However, that’s really what makes the movie work. <i>Gremlins </i>is an extremely impressive and complex juggling act, one that gets all of its considerable energy from the friction and frission that result from the interactions of the various ill-fitting genre conventions. If you think about it, there is very little difference between humor and horror; it’s possible for the same situation to inspire both. The script and direction are constantly juggling these two things masterfully, switching constantly between making us laugh, making us scream, and occasionally making us want to do both. It is an extremely tough stunt to pull off, and even the sequel doesn’t come anywhere close to managing it.<br />
<br />
For me, one of the absolute best aspects of movie is the whole situation of Norman Rockwell Christmas meets Hollywood horror. As I mentioned at the beginning of this review, I find that I tire of the holiday kitsch and schmaltz very quickly; so I actually find it quite relieving and therapeutic to see it all dragged down under a tide of green, scaly catastrophe. It’s just so much fun, in a warped, <i>schadenfreuden </i>way, to see this stereotypically wholesome all-American town get ripped to shreds. And there are even a few extremely dark elements that go far beyond being fun; top of the list for most people who’ve seen this movie probably being the part where Kate explains to Billy why she hates Christmas so much. I don't know about you, but I find that a little bile is just the thing for washing down all that over-saturated sweetness.<br />
<br />
The one final element that I feel I should comment on is Gizmo, the original mogwai Mr. Peltzer brings home. For the most part he, personally, isn’t a very big part of Gremlins. Even though he does strike the final victory blow at the end, up until that point he doesn’t really do anything of significance; and more than anything else just serves as the movie’s McGuffin. I also find that while he’s extremely sweet and cuddly, he’s the only mogwai that is. Even before their post-midnight feeding, all of Gizmo’s spawn are, without exception, mean-spirited little brats. This might come from one of the darker, earlier drafts of <i>Gremlins</i>. Apparently in the earlier drafts of the movie there was no Stripe (the main villain and leader of the other gremlins); but Gizmo, himself, was supposed to transform and fill that role. However, Steven Spielberg (who executive-produced <i>Gremlins</i>), no doubt seeing cute, cuddly, toy cash-ins, insisted that Gizmo be kept cute and cuddly all throughout the movie. <br />
<br />
One final thing I noticed about Gizmo, he seems to be the most abused character in the whole movie. He’s constantly thrown, knocked around and exposed to bright light; and that’s just by accident by the ignorant humans who’ve taken possession of him. Of course, once his spawn change it gets much worse. There’s even a scene where they tie him to a dart board and throw darts at him; which apparently was put together for the film crew, who found the Gizmo puppets extremely difficult and frustrating to work with.<br />
<br />
Overall, though, I really like this movie. It’s dark, twisted, and a lot of fun in a sick sort of way. Particularly with how I’ve come to feel about the Christmas season, this is a movie that can appeal to the Grinch in all of us. Forget <i>It’s a Wonderful Life</i>, as far as I’m concerned <i>Gremlins</i> is the ultimate feel-good holiday movie. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-66172333513781594452012-12-10T12:11:00.000-08:002013-06-01T12:08:05.629-07:00The Stuff (1985)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.impdb.org/images/thumb/c/c8/Stuff_poster.jpg/325px-Stuff_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="483" width="325" src="http://www.impdb.org/images/thumb/c/c8/Stuff_poster.jpg/325px-Stuff_poster.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> A new dessert called “the Stuff” has hit the markets and become extremely popular. It’s a white, creamy substance served in pint containers like ice cream. The Stuff is delicious, and is very low in fat or calories. As the ad campaign says, after the first bite you literally can’t get enough.<br />
<br />
The Stuff is so popular that the industries that make other desserts are worried. The heads of the ice cream industry gather together to take matters into their own hands. Their plan is to hire the notorious industrial spy and saboteur, David “Mo” Rutherford (the extremely prolific Michael Moriarty), to discover the secret behind the Stuff for them.<br />
<br />
And boy does good old Mo have his work cut out for him. The corporation behind the Stuff is notoriously secretive about their product, much like Coca Cola. Attempts at lab analysis fail utterly to reveal the ingredients. But the worst part is probably when Mo gradually starts to discover what the Stuff really is.<br />
<br />
You see, the Stuff isn’t so much a food product as it is a parasitic organism, possibly with some sentience. It’s not just great tasting, it’s addictive; and if you eat it for a certain period of time it will start controlling your brain. Finally, those pounds you’ve been losing since you started eating the Stuff aren’t due to it being low in calories; it’s due to the fact that it’s eating you from the inside, gradually hollowing your body out into a shell that can be controlled like a puppet.<br />
<br />
Mo has exactly three allies in his fight to put an end to the Stuff: Chocolate Chip Charlie (the equally prolific Garrett Morris), another dessert mogul who’s been put out of business by the popularity of the Stuff; Nicole (singer-actress Andrea Marcovicci), the woman behind the ad campaign for the Stuff; and Jason (Scott Bloom), a young boy who stumbled onto the Stuff’s true nature when he was witness to what it did to his family. Unfortunately, Mo’s rather checkered past has ensured that it’s near impossible for him to bring in any outside help. How to four people put an end to an extremely popular product, and one that has the backing of a major corporation at that?<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b><br />
<br />
“<i>I kinda like the sight of blood, but this is disgusting!</i>"<br />
-Col Malcolm Grommett Spears<br />
<br />
Tis the season yet again; and while <i>the Stuff</i> is definitely not a Christmas movie, it sure does tap into the spirit of the holiday. <i>The Stuff</i> is technically labeled a horror movie, but it is also a satire; and like all good satires the truly horrifying parts of it are where it’s hard to tell the difference between movie plot and real life. It is scary how little corporation driven consumerism has changed in the past three decades.<br />
<br />
This is especially so in how many truly dangerous products are legally sold to us every day. You can probably think of the obvious ones, such as tobacco and alcohol. However, if you look closer you’ll notice that it also applies to things we take for granted as being safe, such as our food. I know a lot of people who regularly consume sugary snack foods like soda; or fattening items such as potato chips. Worse, corporations like Monsanto have so defanged any food regulation that they’re able to load down supposedly healthy foods like bread with more sugar and calories than any of us need; all just to shove more money into the already bulging pockets of a small handful of individuals. <br />
<br />
I’m not being self-righteous here; I will freely admit that I love to eat, have a major sweet tooth, and am a caffeine addict. It’s just so scary that these days few of us know or care where our food really comes from, and unscrupulous individuals are able to take advantage of that to make money. There are always people who will do anything they think they can get away with for money. I honestly don’t find the idea of a parasitic organism being mass marketed as a dessert to be far beyond the realm of possibility at all.<br />
<br />
Note how the villains of the movie work. They don’t eat the Stuff themselves, being well aware of what it is. However, they are more than willing to sell it to the public anyway. As far as they’re concerned, it’s just business, so it’s perfectly legit. And even in the end, when the true nature of their product becomes publicly known; they plan a way that they can continue to sell it.<br />
<br />
One of the elements I find fascinating about <i>the Stuff</i> is the nature of its protagonists; they’re not only a major part of this corrupt system, they’re examples of the people who arguably make it so screwed up. Nicole is behind the ad campaign and corporate branding for the Stuff; she even gave it its name. ‘Mo’ Rutherford can be seen as even worse; his entire living is made off the infighting, sleazy tricks and dirty deals that the corporate world runs on. <br />
<br />
I find Mo to be a particularly intriguing character, both due to the script and to Moriarty’s playing of the role. He can probably be summed up best in a line that he delivers at the very beginning of the movie. When one of his new employers makes the observation that he doesn’t think Mo is as dumb as he appears to be, Mo just smiles sweetly and answers “no one is as dumb as I appear to be.” Nearly the entire movie, with only a rare few moments when he lets the mask slip, Mo acts like an amiable dufus. He’s the kind of guy who is constantly making stupid mistakes and majorly insulting social faux pas. However, it’s impossible to be offended because he’s obviously too stupid to know any better; in fact it’s kind of charming much of the time. Yet, even while his words and physical cues mark him as a charming idiot, all of his actions and decisions show the truly competent and ruthless individual he really is.<br />
<br />
These two are obviously nobody’s idea of heroes. And yet, when the time comes where they realize just what is at stake, when they need to do the right thing; both of them rise to the occasion. And it’s not just putting an end to the Stuff either. Mo picks up Jason for purely mercenary reasons; he read a newspaper article about the boy’s rampage at a grocery store, puts two and two together, and figures that he’ll be useful to his task. However, it’s notable that throughout the movie, even when Jason is no longer of any practical use to Mo, Mo still goes out of his way to take care of the kid. The amazing thing is, this seeming contradiction is played out smoothly and convincingly. There’s no Hallmark moment marking a change of heart, Mo and Natalie just show that despite all the warts on their character, they are still capable of doing the right thing. For a rather cynical satire on corporate consumerism (try saying that five times fast), <i>the Stuff</i> displays a surprisingly positive view of human nature through its heroes.<br />
<br />
There is a third character who plays to the movie’s recurring theme of unlikely individuals thrust into heroic roles; except that this one is more an antihero. Once Mo and Nicole have seen the facility where the Stuff is produced, their only option for outside help is one Col Malcolm Grommett Spears (Paul Sorvino of <i>Repo! The Genetic Opera</i>), a former military man and Right-wing militia leader. Now, Spears fits pretty much all of the stereotypes for the extreme Right; he’s a bigot, a racist, a Commie baiter, paradoxically uber-patriotic yet rabidly anti-government (I never got that), and he displays that remarkable mixture of extreme arrogance and paranoid insecurity we see so often with the Right. It just occurred to me, this character type is something else that hasn’t changed much, if at all, in the past three decades.<br />
<br />
<i>The Stuff</i> is obviously not sympathetic to Spears or his views; the character is played for a combination of laughs and derision. Still, Spears is almost entirely responsible for the heroes prevailing in the end. Also, it should be noted that he goes out of his way to help Nicole and Jason when they are in trouble.<br />
<br />
In all, for a fun little movie with a premise that could be seen as ridiculous; <i>the Stuff</i>, like any good satire, gets so much that’s right on the nose, even decades after it was made. The commercials for the Stuff that we see throughout the movie, while obviously very 1980s, are not at all different from the commercials we are shown today. The basic message is the same: ‘be one of the crowd by buying this product.’ The villains are not at all dissimilar from the corporate heads you can hear about in the news. Even the inevitable kicker ending is something I find all too convincing, based on what I know about human nature. Think Prohibition, or the War on Drugs; which is essentially Prohibition mk2.<br />
<br />
Finally, the element I probably love the most about <i>the Stuff</i> is its characters. The heroes are very flawed individuals, and the movie makes no bones about that fact. However, they come through in the end, and in a very believable way. I find believably complex, flawed and quirky characters to be remarkable in any more or less mainstream movie, never mind a low-budget horror flick. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-85237415344619905192012-11-04T11:21:00.000-08:002012-11-04T11:21:33.664-08:00Compare and Contrast: Halloween (1978 & 2007)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090211062138/horrormovies/images/1/18/Halloween-movie-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="449" width="300" src="http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090211062138/horrormovies/images/1/18/Halloween-movie-poster.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images_4/HalloweenMoviePoster3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="495" width="325" src="http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images_4/HalloweenMoviePoster3.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Movie (1978):</b> Haddonfield Illinois, Halloween night, 1963; six year-old Michael Myers (Will Sandin) inexplicably grabs a kitchen knife and stabs his teenage sister, Judith (Sandy Johnson), to death with it. Fifteen years later, the night before Halloween, Doctor Sam Loomis (the late Donald Pleasence) is driving to the hospital for the criminally insane to prepare Michael (now played alternately by Tony Moran and Nick Castle) for a court hearing. It’s clear that the good doctor doesn’t even consider Michael human; and as he explains to the nurse with him, he’s only doing this because it’s the law. If he had his way, Michael would remain behind bars with no chance of release. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, things are worse than he fears. When they arrive, they notice that some of the patients are out and wandering the grounds. Michael happens to be one of them, and in the confusion he steals the car and drives off. Knowing where Michael is headed, Dr. Loomis gets to Haddonfield as fast as he can; where he simultaneously works to find his runaway patient and convince the sheriff (Charles Cyphers) what kind of danger his town is in.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, teenager Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis in her first movie role) is preparing for her Halloween night babysitting gig. Unknown to her, Laurie has caught the attention of Michael Myers, who for unknown reasons fixates on her. All day Laurie notices that someone seems to be following her. However, it’s when the sun goes down that Michael will truly begin his rampage. Can Laurie survive the night?<br />
<br />
<b>The Movie (2007):</b> Ten year-old Michael Myers (Daeg Faerch) has a hellish home life. He loves his mother (Sherri Moon Zombie), but she works as a stripper to hold the rest of the family together. Her live-in boyfriend, Ronnie (William Forsyth) is a bullying asshole, and Michael is picked on mercilessly at school. Already unstable at our introduction to him, Michael goes on a rampage; killing Ronnie, as well as his older sister, Judith (Hannah R. Hall) and her boyfriend (Adam Weisman). Michael is sent to a facility; but despite the efforts of psychiatrist Doctor Samuel Loomis (Malcolm McDowell, who appeared on this blog earlier in <i>Royal Flash</i> and <i>Class of 1999</i>), he only grows worse, retreating inside himself, killing a nurse and becoming obsessed with masks.<br />
<br />
Fifteen years later, Michael escapes and heads back to his home town. Dr. Loomis heads after him and tries to enlist Sheriff Brackett’s (Brad Dourif) help. Meanwhile, Michael begins his rampage. You see, Michael has a very specific goal in mind; aside from killing everyone he comes across, I mean. Unknown to her, teenaged Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) is actually Michael’s long lost baby sister. He is determined to find her; and gods help whoever gets in his way.<br />
<br />
<b>Compare and Contrast: </b><br />
<br />
Happy Halloween, Samhain, All Souls Eve, or whatever holiday it is that you celebrate! Halloween is my favorite holiday; and this review is my own small way of recognizing it. Also, I feel I should probably point out that this is my 69th posting on this blog. Feel free to cut loose with the immature jokes; I know I will.<br />
<br />
I never thought I’d be reviewing <i>Halloween</i> on this blog. This isn’t a knock against the movie; I’m fully with the large number of people who consider it a genre classic. My one criterion for the movies I review for this blog is that I have to feel that I have something legitimate to say about the movie in question, and that I’m not just parroting an observation or opinion that many others have made. <i>Halloween</i> came out a few years before I was born, and I didn’t get around to seeing it until late adolescence. During that time it was embraced as a classic by just about everyone, including some critics who normally wouldn’t piss on a horror or slasher flick if it was on fire. Considering that, and just how simple and basic a movie <i>Halloween</i> is, there is no way I am able to add anything original to the discussion.<br />
<br />
Then a few years back, the musician Rob Zombie decided to film his own version of <i>Halloween</i>, and this provided the opportunity for me to approach the first film by comparing and contrasting it with its remake. I still don’t expect to produce anything truly original; but I hope to at least come up with something that doesn’t feel like it’s been premasticated by hundreds of individuals before me.<br />
<br />
If I had to sum up Zombie’s remake in one word, that word would be ‘unfortunate.’ Said remake already had several strikes against it coming out of the gate. First of all, <i>Halloween</i> may have its flaws in parts, but ultimately the whole stands so well on its own merits that there’s no need for a remake. Secondly, even if you dispute my first reason, there’s really nothing to base a remake on. <i>Halloween</i> is such a simple, basic and bare-bones movie that there’s very little, if any, of it to remake. On top of that is the fact that when <i>Friday the 13th</i> (whose main inspiration, I might add, was <i>Halloween</i>) came out in 1980 and opened the door to that decade’s slasher boom, the subgenre it spawned pretty much strip-mined <i>Halloween</i> of whatever elements there might have been for a remake.<br />
<br />
The end result is something I’ve seen in so many other unnecessary remakes; the director has one movie in mind that he wants to make, but considering that he’s remaking another film, he feels that he has to take a certain amount of plot detail out of the original material. The outcome is a bloated, schizophrenic merging of two different movies that can’t ever decide what it ultimately wants to be, and is constantly pulling itself in two very different directions at once. Now, lest anyone thinks this review is going to degenerate into Rob Zombie bashing; let me state for the record that I think Zombie has some real talent and promise as a director, he just hasn’t come into his own yet. Also, and I am not the first person to make this observation, he really needs to start shooting his own movies instead of just remaking his old favorites.<br />
<br />
The place to start comparing <i>Halloween</i> with its remake is in the general tone and spirit of the two movies. The original film made by John Carpenter is, at its core, a classic campfire story played out on screen. It is a very simple, basic, bare-bones story with a single purpose. As such, it doesn’t have much in the way of character development or complex plot twists; but that’s not a problem. After all; you don’t tell a campfire ghost story for great character development, you tell it to scare the living hell out of your friends.<br />
<br />
As for the movie’s world and the nature of its horror, <i>Halloween</i> is very much in the ‘outside evil invades the normal’ brand of horror. There is a place in this world for the horrors, which we will discuss shortly when I talk about Michael Myers; but ultimately Haddonfield is a nice, normal community filled with ordinary people. Also, it should be noted that the horror, when it does strike, is of the very impersonal sort. The movie presents it very dispassionately, and there’s no rhyme or reason given for why it’s happening; which is a large part of why it’s so effectively scary.<br />
<br />
Whereas the original film is in the spirit of a classic campfire scary story, the remake is very much in the spirit of the glut of slashers <i>Halloween</i> helped spawn in the following decade, as well as the nihilistically brutal exploitation films of its own decade. Something I’ve noticed about Zombie’s movies is his tendency to wallow in gore, nudity and violence. Notice how in the original there is only the tiniest bit of nudity and nary a drop of blood, even in the scenes that should call for rivers of the stuff. <br />
<br />
What’s more, Zombie revels in the carnage and brutality on screen. As opposed to Carpenter’s straightforward and dispassionate depictions of violence, Zombie piles it on and drags it out. To a certain extent, the violence and brutality is an intrinsic part of the world that Zombie creates. Related to this is his propensity to populate it with unlikeable characters. Now, I can understand the reasoning behind this; considering his celebratory attitude toward the carnage, it’s not fun to watch characters we like get slaughtered. However, I’ve noticed that the few truly likeable characters Zombie provides us with get eliminated so brutally and efficiently that the most hardnosed social-Darwinist would thoroughly approve. The end result is a world where you have to wonder why there aren’t more Michael Myers types rampaging about.<br />
<br />
Carpenter’s Michael Myers is a total enigma; we are given no reason why he acts the way he does. The opening scene of the death of Judith Myers is shown to us entirely through a tracking shot from his point of view; and it is presented to us as a shock, a successful one, that the brutal crime we just witnessed was committed by a six year-old. When he goes on the spree that the movie centers around, his actions are no less cryptic. The only thing Laurie does for him to become so fixated on her is to walk onto the steps of his old house (which, unknown to her, he is hiding in) to put a key under the doorstep. There’s no indication of any emotion when he commits his crimes. Anger, revenge, even a love of cruelty; these are motives we all can identify with on some level. However, the completely emotionless way in which we see Michael kill; that’s alien. Even Doctor Loomis, the psychiatrist who worked Michael all his life can only describe him as “evil.”<br />
<br />
And yet there are a few hints to Michael’s nature in some of the dialogue. “It was the boogeyman,” sobs Laurie to Doctor Loomis, who solemnly answers “as a matter of fact, it was.” “Every town has something like this,” the cemetery caretaker tells Doctor Loomis as he takes him to see Judith’s grave. Considering the nature of the story being told the characters work more as archetypes than people. And in that light Michael comes across, not as just one more pissed-off movie psycho, but as a kind of avatar for all the horrible things that are always going on just below the surface, but that society as a whole prefers not to acknowledge. The randomness and nonsensical nature of his actions, his lack of emotion, his seeming inability to be killed; all of it speaks to our subconscious fear of events we can’t understand or control. The blank mask he wears is actually his true nature on display; and it’s significant that Michael never kills unless he’s wearing it.<br />
<br />
The Michael Myers of the remake is very different. When we are introduced to the ten year-old who becomes the movie’s villain, he’s already a broken human being and a ticking time-bomb ready to go off any moment. He loves his mother, but she constantly has to work; and the nature of her job ensures he gets a lot of scorn and harassment. Her live-in boyfriend is a useless bum and a cruel asshole who’s always tormenting and insulting Michael. Judith Myers fits every stereotype of the catty teenage slut. Even school isn’t an escape, because there the bullies wait for him. This Michael Myers is a natural offshoot of the kind of toxic world Rob Zombie creates that I discussed earlier. After the briefest of looks at his home life the question isn’t why Michael goes off the way he does, the question is why it took him this long.<br />
<br />
Admittedly, some character development could have made for an interesting killer. Unfortunately, Zombie hasn’t quite gotten character development down. Ultimately, this Michael Myers is very much in the Jason Voorhies mold; a seemingly unstoppable killer who, for no good reason, randomly slaughters every single person within ten feet of him. Even the original Michael Myers didn’t try to kill everyone who caught his eye.<br />
<br />
Laurie Strode, more than Dr. Loomis, or even Michael Myers himself, is the focus of the original’s story. There are some other characters, and some events that don’t directly involve her; but <i>Halloween</i> is primarily the story about her encounter with Michael Myers and how she deals with it. The result of this is that Laurie is the character who we get to know the most, and who is the most developed. <br />
<br />
The Laurie Strode of the original is probably one of the most positive and convincing depictions of a teenager I have ever seen in popular media. She is intelligent, good natured, dependent, competent and responsible. In fact, the movie puts as much effort toward establishing these traits as it does the threat Michael Myers poses. Laurie is exactly the kind of babysitter you would want for your kids; and, judging from the scenes of her interacting with her charges, exactly the kind of babysitter most kids would want to have. <br />
<br />
However, Laurie is a far cry from the unbearable, squeaky-clean ‘good girl’ caricature Hollywood has led us to expect. There is one scene where she shares a joint with a friend. Also, it’s made clear through her dialogue that she does think about boys and sex; she’s just too shy to do anything about it. Ultimately, Laurie comes across as a character nearly all of us could believe in, identify with, sympathize with, and enjoy associating with.<br />
<br />
In fact, one of the movie’s better touches is that these same traits that make us want Laurie to survive are the exact things that allow her to do just that. The intelligence, competence and responsibility she displays earlier are what allow her to keep her head and do what’s necessary; even when she’s going through hell and freaking out. However, the emphasis on these traits does produce one of the movie’s major missteps; specifically in regard to her friends. While it’s clear that Laurie’s friends are supposed to present a contrast to her responsible nature, the end result is one-dimensional, sex-crazed caricatures of teenagers of the kind we normally see in slasher movies. Since Laurie is the focus of the movie it’s not as big a mistake as it could be, but it’s still noticeable.<br />
<br />
The Laurie of Zombie’s remake is a much inferior character. Compton is cute, and she does every bit as well as could be asked of her with the available material, but I can’t think of her as Laurie Strode. Now, I have no problems with the actress, I could see Compton as a decent Laurie; my problem is with the script she was given. Part of the problem comes from the fact that we aren’t able to get to know her as well; the emphasis on misguided character development for Michael and Dr. Loomis insures that she gets sidelined.<br />
<br />
The other problem is that this isn’t a very believable or sympathetic portrayal of a teenager, maybe a step or two above Laurie’s friends in the original <i>Halloween</i>. Zombie’s version of Laurie Strode isn’t too different from the catty, smart-assed, shallow teenage bimbos that are so prevalent in popular culture today. Perhaps the biggest misstep is in her interactions with the children she babysits. Instead of the easy rapport Curtis’ Laurie has with her charges, Compton’s interactions with them have a note of mild antagonism. I do understand babysitter burnout, all too well, but it detracts from making her a likeable character. You do feel sympathy for Compton’s Laurie Strode; considering what she goes through that’s inevitable if you have a heart at all. However, you feel no more for her than you would for any teenager in her situation.<br />
<br />
The character of Pleasence’s Doctor Loomis, like the rest of the original move, is extremely simple; more archetype than flesh and blood human. All we are told about his past is that he is the psychiatrist who worked with Michael Myers for the last fifteen years. However, for the purpose of the story that’s all we really need to know. <br />
<br />
In essence, Dr. Loomis is obsessive, fanatical devotion to a cause. His one and only motivation is to stop Michael from doing harm. Pleasence was a very talented actor with an extremely long list of film roles under his belt by this time, which shows in just how well he is able to believably sell this one-note character.<br />
<br />
McDowell’s Dr. Loomis is very different. This is a man who has pretty much based his whole life on working with Michael Myers, and has lost everything else as a result. Watching him, I got the impression that this Loomis didn’t wasn’t trying to stop Michael out of any sense of duty, but because there was really nothing else left for him. Again, this could have made for some intriguing twists; and McDowell is a very talented and experienced actor. Unfortunately, this is another potentially good idea that falls to Zombie’s lack of talent in creating characters.<br />
<br />
So in the end, the original <i>Halloween</i> is a true genre classic. It is a simple, bare-bones campfire scary story very effectively played on screen. The remake is yet one more in an unneeded line of remakes; a bloated and schizophrenic attempt to mix two very different movie concepts. Rob Zombie shows some talent as a director; but please Rob, try to make something original.<br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-91593356118513861482012-10-29T11:45:00.000-07:002012-10-29T11:45:28.614-07:00Sugar Cookies (1973)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://sharetv.org/images/posters/sugar_cookies_1973.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="354" width="240" src="http://sharetv.org/images/posters/sugar_cookies_1973.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> While playing a sick power game, sleazy adult movie producer Max Pavell (George Shannon) winds up shooting and killing his star actress, Alta (Lynn Lowry of David Cronenberg’s <i>Shivers: They Came from Within</i>). However, he is able to get her death passed off as a suicide with the help of his business partner, Camilla (the amazing and prolific Mary Woronov of <i>Eating Raoul</i> and <i>Nomads</i>, among a great many other movies), who serves as his alibi. But Camilla isn’t helping Max out of love or kindness. She and Alta were lovers, and Camilla is determined to be the one to make Max pay.<br />
<br />
Camilla sees her chance in Julie Kent (Lynn Lowry again); a sweet, innocent young thing looking to get ahead, who just happens to be the spitting image of the late Alta. Camilla takes Julie under her wing, seducing her and molding her into Alta’s double. Her plan is to lure Max in so that she can use Julie for her revenge…<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b><br />
<br />
Of all the varied phrases in the English language, the one I have probably come to loath the most is “you have to play the game.” In short, that to get by you have to jump through all the hoops presented to you no matter how pointless, arbitrary or destructive they might be. I really hate these kinds of games; in large part because, at best, they are pointless, just there to stroke somebody’s ego in a superficial way, and at worst they are incredibly destructive. More to the point, when human interactions are already an unfathomable morass for you, they make it even more difficult to get by. The majority of the worst gamesters I’ve had to deal with will become indignant and deny that’s what they’re doing when directly confronted with their bullshit, and I’m sure quite a few of them even believe their own protestations; so it inevitably gets to the point where it’s near impossible to distinguish between somebody seriously trying to convey something important to you, and yet another set of arbitrary hoops you’re expected to jump through. And trust me, once you realize you’ve made that mistake it’s always way too late to do anything about it.<br />
<br />
Events of this past summer have ensured that I’ve lost all tolerance for games, bullshit, and people trying to manipulate me. Among a great many other things, it’s why I’ve been mostly going out of my way to avoid coverage of the presidential election; even though normally I’d be morbidly fascinated with it. Unfortunately, if you deal with people at all it’s impossible to avoid those things; particularly when you hold a job that’s eyeballs-deep in them. However, my protestations about having to play these pointless and destructive games usually get me the same result; “that’s the way things are, you’ve got to play the game.” Well, one of my main, life-long coping mechanisms when dealing with life issues is to turn to a story; in this case <i>Sugar Cookies</i>, a movie all about manipulation and playing games with peoples’ lives. And, as it seems to have become my practice to inflict my current psychological and emotional traumas on my readers, I decided to write a review on it.<br />
<br />
When I first saw Su<i>gar Cookies</i>, I went in only knowing two things for sure; that it was an exploitation movie, and more importantly that it stars Mary Woronov. For quite a while now Mary Woronov has been my all-time favorite actress. She started making movies sometime in the 1960s, and to my knowledge she still is. To my knowledge she’s only done B and cult movies, but in those circles she’s been a mainstay for decades. Now, Woronov is not conventionally pretty, but she is very strikingly attractive; and I’m sure that and her willingness to do nude scenes has had a very strong impact on her fanbase. However, that is not why she’s my favorite actress; I’ve run across way too many good looking ‘actresses’ whose sole talent is displaying their physical assets. No, the reason why I hold Woronov in such high regard, and why she’s been able to stay around for so long, is because she’s got far more than her looks to fall back on.<br />
<br />
Simply put, Woronov has a talent and a presence that I have seen on few other performers. She’s easily recognizable, but at the same time she can give her all to a character to the point where you believe in said character anyway. It’s my personal opinion that Woronov is at her absolute best in villainous roles; but out of all the movies I have seen her in I can only think of one where she wasn’t an absolute delight to watch.<br />
<br />
Going into <i>Sugar Cookies</i>, I was sure that Woronov would be the absolute best part of the movie. It turns out I was right, but that’s not a knock against the movie itself; the majority of <i>Sugar Cookies</i>'plot revolves around Camilla and her scheme for revenge. I recently discovered that Woronov’s then-husband directed the movie, and rewrote the screenplay with her in mind for the role. She wasn’t amused, to put it mildly. Nevertheless, she gives a wonderful performance as Camilla.<br />
<br />
Camilla is a truly fascinating character, as all good villains are. It’s pretty clear what she is, but every so often we are shown another aspect of her character that makes us wonder if we may have misjudged her. Woronov plays her as manipulative, imperious, charming and ruthless; although there is also something touching about her love for Alta, even though it seems more like obsession at times. My favorite part of this movie, in what should probably come as a surprise to none of my regular readers, is a particular line of dialogue. The scene where she is being questioned by a policeman about the night of Alta’s murder; where he’s trying to be delicate about it but she in turn is just blunt and obviously trying to keep him on his toes, is a wonderful exchange. “Were you on intimate terms with this guy?” “You mean, did we fuck.” “(weary, exasperated voice) Oh, my god.” I’m not going to repeat the whole dialogue to you, but I just love it, particularly the concluding line of it. Partly it’s very cleverly written, but a large amount of what I enjoy so much about it is Woronov’s delivery.<br />
<br />
Another strong aspect of the film and its cast is that Woronov and Lowry have such great chemistry together. Lynn Lowery is obviously in her 20s; but she has the kind of face that, judging by it alone, you could easily believe she was someone a lot younger. Lowery is as utterly convincing as the innocent as Woronov is as the predator. Watching the two of them together is, in many ways, like watching a complicated dance. Observing the steps Camilla takes to seduce and manipulate the girl is utterly fascinating; albeit the warped fascination one gets at an oncoming accident.<br />
<br />
A word should probably be said at this point about the exploitation elements, and particularly the lesbianism element. In the commentary Lloyd Kaufman (who produced the movie and wrote the original screenplay) makes a big deal about the lesbianism, but I actually found it to be a very minor part of the film, and actually rather classily done. Right up front, lesbianism in and of itself has never done anything for me; ever since a certain double date in high school my attitude toward other people’s sex lives can be summed up “if it doesn’t involve me, really not interested.” However, I found the romance and sex scenes both convincing and personally effective. They are framed much the way a typical romantic scene would be framed and, while they are rather graphic, there’s none of the leering and zooming in on certain parts of the anatomy one would come to expect. In fact, at times I was almost convinced that Camilla was serious about her feelings; I definitely was about Julie.<br />
<br />
And honestly, I never thought about Camilla as “a lesbian, who happens to be named Camilla,” but as “Camilla, who happens to be a lesbian.” The way the character comes across, both in the script and in Woronov’s delivery, I’m sure that Camilla wouldn’t be any different if she was straight. Obviously <i>Sugar Cookies</i> was conceived and presented as an exploitation movie, but there’s quite a bit of character development as well.<br />
<br />
The parts of the movie that don’t directly involve Camilla generally vary from good to not so good. There’s a sub-plot involving Max, his ex-wife (Monique van Vooren) and her younger brother, Gus (Daniel Sador), who calls Max “Uncle Max” and has an unhealthy attraction to him; that probably could have been written out. The only two reasons I can think of for the sub-plot is to provide odious comedy relief, and to further establish Max as a manipulative slimebag. In the latter the movie succeeds; I actually felt rather sympathetic toward Gus. In the former, as is expected, it fails majorly.<br />
<br />
Ultimately though, <i>Sugar Cookies</i> is about Max and Camilla; two predatory individuals who play sick games using other people as pieces. As I said at the beginning of this review, I really hate these kinds of games. However, unlike so many other movies that romanticize, cutsify and outright excuse them (for one prime example, see my review for <i>How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days</i>), <i>Sugar Cookies</i> is direct and honest about how destructive this kind of behavior is. Our introduction to this story is Alta’s death, and that sets the tone for what’s going on. Since the only way to get ahead in this environment is to “Play the Game,” individuals like Max and Camilla, who hold the advantages positions, have a ready source of victims.<br />
<br />
But though we, the viewers, are drawn into these sick power games; we are never asked to emulate or glorify them. In fact, I think that the greatest mark in <i>Sugar Cookies</i>'favor is that nobody wins in the end. Alta is sacrificed on the altar of Max’s ego and sadism, and Julie on the altar of Camilla’s revenge. Max is destroyed by Camilla. Camilla gets her revenge, but even she doesn’t ‘win.’ The film ends on an ambiguous note that strongly suggests that “Playing the Game” is going to catch up with Camilla very soon, if it hasn’t already. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-53669773909819014172012-10-07T10:19:00.000-07:002012-10-07T10:19:18.213-07:00Motel Hell (1980)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGdYWz7H8n-Iu8c5Qy0C_19gYK7G7kpddIh8cTWvhI9dtq19sGXnNpIOb9p3kp1WxhJfq_nASdTSLbwop50_36hjxJ5bK-B_PsbhYgmhsofLDqvvlVkYuqK11ujSv_9_t5ozYfnhhWT78/s400/motel+hell+poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="400" width="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGdYWz7H8n-Iu8c5Qy0C_19gYK7G7kpddIh8cTWvhI9dtq19sGXnNpIOb9p3kp1WxhJfq_nASdTSLbwop50_36hjxJ5bK-B_PsbhYgmhsofLDqvvlVkYuqK11ujSv_9_t5ozYfnhhWT78/s400/motel+hell+poster.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> Farmer Vincent Smith (Rory Calhoun) and his sister, Ida (Nancy Parsons), are the local financial success story. First, they own and run the Motel Hell (actually the Motel Hello, but the o on the sign is constantly on the fritz). Secondly, Farmer Vincent is something of a local celebrity for his smoked meat products. Vincent prepares his meats in a special way that makes it taste different from other meats. Actually, the secret to that is in the meat itself. As his slogan goes, “it takes all kinds of critters to make Farmer Vincent’s fritters.” <br />
<br />
You see, Vincent and Ida maintain a secret garden; one very different from the garden in the beloved children’s classic of that name. At night, they waylay travelers and bring them back. Then they bury them up to their neck in the garden, use their home surgery skills to slit their vocal chords (really kids, don’t try this at home), and fatten them up with a high protein and starch confection. Once they’ve fattened up enough, the “stock” are humanely killed, butchered, smoked, and mixed with the pork to create Vincent’s meats.<br />
<br />
On his latest “hunt” Vincent crashes a motorcycle carrying Terry (Nina Axelrod) and her boyfriend, Bo (Everett Creach). Bo is packed off to the garden, but Vincent brings Terry home and has Ida patch her up. When she awakens, Vincent explains to her that Bo died in the crash and he buried him. Vincent and Ida’s younger brother, Bruce (Paul Linke), who also happens to be the local sheriff, confirms that this is legal in extenuating circumstances.<br />
<br />
As Terry stays at the hotel, she and Vincent start falling for each other; not too surprising considering Vincent’s charm, her looks, and the obvious age difference between her and her last boyfriend. They even start planning to get married. However, Ida and Bruce feel that this is a very bad idea.<br />
<br />
Ida’s motives are partly out of jealousy. However, she also knows that they will have to reveal to Terry their business; and she doesn’t think that will go too well. Her solution is to try and quietly off Terry.<br />
<br />
Bruce’s motives, on the other hand, are all jealousy. He’s fallen for Terry himself, but she’s not interested. Bruce isn’t in on the long-pig procurement aspect of his siblings’ business, and he’s determined to show Terry that Vincent is bad for her. While Bruce may be a bit of a jackass, he’s also a fairly competent detective; and Vincent has recently made a few mistakes that could potentially lead back to him and Ida. And as if the family squabbles weren’t enough; there’s also the fritters-to-be out in the garden, determined to escape and take revenge for their captivity…<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b><br />
<br />
“<i>Meat’s meat and a man’s got to eat!</i>"<br />
<br />
There are some major differences between urban and rural settings. I know that’s stating the obvious; but oftentimes, as with so much else, it doesn’t really hit you until you’re confronted with it directly. I have had lots of experience with both kinds of areas in my life. My dad’s side of the family is from New York, around the city, so I’ve taken many trips there. However, my adolescence was spent in an Idaho farming town. And finally, I have lived the last seven years in Boise, which is composed of a rather odd mixture of the urban and the rural.<br />
<br />
One of the things I find interesting is how the residents of urban and rural areas tend to mythologise each other. In popular culture the two settings get idealized and demonized constantly. Even a passing interest in the horror genre will give you plenty of examples of the latter; there are actually official subgenres for urban and rural horror. The 1970s saw a major glut of movies from the rural horror subgenre; the most well known being the <i>Texas Chainsaw Massacre</i> and the <i>Hills Have Eyes</i>. However, they were followed by <i>Motel Hell</i> which, while it passes itself off as a horror movie; is actually a spoof not only poking fun at the rural horror subgenre, but at the popular view of rural culture in general.<br />
<br />
The movie’s major turnaround of the tropes would have to be the nature of its villains. Now, while rural cannibalism was hardly a new subject by the time <i>Motel Hell </i>was made; these are no backwoods degenerates a la <i>the Texas Chainsaw Massacre</i>. Instead Vincent and Ida, Vincent in particular, represent the idealized view of the American farmer. Vincent is hardworking, and obviously very proud of what he does. Family ties are clearly very important, and it’s suggested that Vincent’s family has owned that property for some generations. Vincent is also a very religious man and, if you disregard the whole murderous cannibal thing, a very moral one as well. In fact, he regards his long-pig manufacturing as a moral task. As he explains, two of the world’s biggest problems are too many people and not enough food. By killing some people and feeding them to others, Vincent is helping solve both problems at once. Hey, it makes as much sense as most of the moral rationalizations I’ve heard over the years; and a great deal more than some.<br />
<br />
<i>Motel Hell</i> has a good cast, including Wolfman Jack doing a walk-on as an excitable preacher. However, it’s Calhoun and Parsons who really steal the movie. Calhoun is wonderful as a twisted Norman Rockwell creation gone wrong. Parsons is almost as good; her role as Ida switches from sweet and fun to kind of creepy and back. Also, the two actors play off each other magnificently; it’s all too easy to believe that these two are siblings who have known each other for a long time.<br />
<br />
The movie does another interesting thing with the characters in a reversal at the end. Throughout the movie, while Vincent is obviously the villain; he’s entirely too likeable and fun for us to dislike him very much. Bruce, on the other hand, is built up as something of jackass who it’s difficult to feel much sympathy for. And yet at the climactic fight, Bruce is suddenly thrust into the role of hero, and we are asked to cheer for him against Vincent. And yet, somehow it works. Every time I watch this movie I love and enjoy the character of Vincent and think nasty things about Bruce, but I’m always cheering on the latter man at the end nonetheless. Not only that, but the dialogue of the two men at the denouement shows that despite all that has happens, things still aren’t entirely black and white in their relationship.<br />
<br />
A really funny thing about <i>Motel Hell </i>is the fact that it displays old-fashioned sensibilities despite the more modern horror movie subject matter. It doesn’t have much in regards to the exploitation elements we would expect. There is a small bit of gratuitous female nudity, but the gore is almost completely absent. The majority of the horrible things going on are hinted at, but not directly shown to us. Also, it’s full of all sorts of old fashioned movie elements; the prime example being the climactic (chainsaw) duel between the hero and villain while the heroine is strapped to a conveyer belt that slowly but surely carries her toward the meat cutter. That one’s been a staple since at least the movie serials of the early 20th century, if not further back.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, if I were asked to sum up <i>Motel Hell</i> in one word, the word I would use is “fun.” While it passes itself off as a horror movie, and even has some effectively suspenseful parts, I would define Motel Hell as more a comedy than a horror film. It’s obvious that nobody is taking the material seriously, but the majority of the time it’s played with a straight face with only the occasional wink and a nod, such as the ridiculous swinger couple who show up at the motel at one point, to indicate to the less observant viewer what the real intention is. Everyone seems to be having a great time, particularly our two leads; and the script and dialogue display a truly demented wit. In short, this is one you watch when you’re just in the mood for a good time, albeit one that’s a bit twisted. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-224795100221128772012-09-24T12:52:00.000-07:002012-09-24T12:52:04.099-07:00Demolition Man (1993)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://images.moviepostershop.com/demolition-man-movie-poster-1993-1010265582.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="296" width="200" src="http://images.moviepostershop.com/demolition-man-movie-poster-1993-1010265582.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> It’s 1996 Los Angeles, and crime has gotten so bad that violent criminals are able to isolate sections of the city for themselves. Case in point, psychopath Simon Phoenix (Wesley Snipes of the <i>Blade</i> franchise), who has recently kidnapped a busload of hostages who were unfortunate enough to blunder into his neck of the woods. Going against orders, John Spartan (Sylvester Stallone of <i>Deathrace 2000</i> and the <i>Rambo</i> franchise), a cop with the nickname “the Demolition Man” due to the massive property damage he’s in the habit of causing during the pursuit of his job, leads a crew to rescue them. Unfortunately, during the confrontation Phoenix blows up the building where he’s been hiding. The bodies of the hostages are found in the rubble, and both men are sentenced to cryogenic imprisonment.<br />
<br />
Flash forward to the year 2032. Los Angeles, San Diego and Santa Barbara have merged into the uber –city San Angeles. The new society is pacifistic and peaceful; violence has been unheard of for decades, and nearly all the “vices” we take for granted today are outlawed. Police Lieutenant Lenina Huxley (Sandra Bullock) is dissatisfied. She has long been fascinated by the excitement of late 20th-century history, something she feels is lacking in her job and her life. While there is a rebellion group, known as the Scraps, their activities are limited to stealing food and graffitiing buildings. As we are shown early on, the technology of the society makes the latter crime something of an exercise in futility. In short, Huxley longs for some excitement. Well, you know what they say about careful what you wish for…<br />
<br />
Simon Phoenix is brought out of the freezer for parole, and somehow manages to escape. He immediately goes on a violent rampage. The police being helpless to deal with somebody like Phoenix, they unthaw the man who originally brought him in. Unfortunately, when Spartan has his first reunion with Phoenix, he finds him to be even more deadly than he remembers. It also gradually becomes clear that Phoenix’s release is connected to the highest levels of the city government. However, worse than Phoenix, John Spartan has to figure out how to navigate this crazy society he’s woken up into; and Phoenix seems a step or two ahead of him on that…<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:<br />
</b>“<i>Look, you can’t take away peoples’ right to be assholes</i>.”<br />
-Simon Phoenix<br />
<br />
It’s very easy to go into De<i>molition Man</i> thinking it’s just another big, dumb, Reagan-era spawned action flick. That’s certainly how it plays out for the first ten minutes. The audience is dropped right into the clichéd setup, complete with gunfire, explosions, innocents in danger, reckless stunts and a scene-chewing madman. However, once our two heavies are put in the freezer and the credits have rolled, that’s when you start to realize how much the joke was on you. The change is so sudden it’s possible to believe you just switched movies for a moment. <br />
<br />
Dem<i>olition Man</i> is simultaneously a satire on society and a spoof on the action movies of the era. What starts out looking like yet another big, dumb exercise in gratuitous violence actually turns out to be rather smart, witty, and at times even a bit subtle. At least, as subtle as one can expect of a spawn of the Reagan-era action flick to be. What’s more, unlike the majority of so-called spoofs and satires put out by Hollywood the humor doesn’t feel forced. It’s clear that the whole cast is in on the joke, but they still play straight; or at least with tongue firmly held in cheek.<br />
<br />
The society presented by the satire portion of the movie is wonderful, and a source of many laughs. It’s pretty much Aldus Huxley’s Brave New World, but without any of the sex and drugs. In fact, both of those things are banned; sex is done through a sort of virtual reality device. You can get ticketed and fined for swearing. Most of the foods and other diversions we take for granted are also banned. In fact, one of my favorite lines is where Huxley is listing off for Spartan what all is now banned by law. And no, the fact that Sandra Bullock’s character shares a last name with the author of Brave New World is not coincidence.<br />
<br />
Now, considering the current political climate of the United States and people’s natural tendency to read things into fiction, it’s all too easy to read contemporary politics into this movie; so I’ll just get that part out of the way. Many people are probably going to take the very simplistic view of San Angeles being the end result of the Right’s “Big Government” boogeyman. I make no secret about being somewhat Left-leaning in my views, but after a certain point I find both sides equally ridiculous. Also, it’s been my experience that despite the claims of the Right, both ends of the spectrum seek government regulation; the difference is in what they want to regulate. The Left tends to think the government should regulate the public sphere, while the Right tends to want government to regulate the private sphere.<br />
<br />
With that in mind, I can see political nightmares from both ends of the spectrum in <i>Demolition Man</i>’s San Angeles. From the Right’s end we can see the regulation of food and products. From the Left, there is the legislation of morals. Also, there is one part where we learn that Taco Bell has won the Free Market Darwinism that the Right is so fond of and now controls all restaurants in this society. What’s that? Sounds too ridiculous? Well, I can tell you that Boise State University holds many of their events at the Taco Bell Arena; and that is far from the only corporate sponsorship of a private concern that I have run across.<br />
<br />
The core lesson of the dystopian society subgenre as a whole is that all human society is inherently flawed; and therefore we as citizens must ever be aware of our society’s flaws lest they turn it into something nightmarish. If you look at history you’ll notice that all the countries today that are bywords for dysfunctional societies; Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China and the Taliban, to name but a few; came into being because enough people saw them as a better alternative to what they currently had. It’s a lesson that I hope my species will eventually learn; preferably before my country finishes its transformation into a corporate oligarchy. <br />
<br />
On the action movie spoof side, <i>Demolition Man</i> is able to use this ridiculous society to poke fun at the tropes of the genre and turn them on their heads. For example, there is the near-universal trope that the police are completely useless to deal with the villain. Well, in this movie that’s multiplied by a hundred. “We’re police officers,” protests one officer after the department realizes what they’re up against with Simon Phoenix, “we’re not trained to handle this kind of violence!” Or, there’s one of my favorite parts where Spartan reprimands Huxley “hurting people’s not a good thing!” Then suddenly he pauses, as if remembering what genre he’s in, and amends “well, sometimes it is.”<br />
<br />
Sylvester Stallone does a great job as John Spartan. On the one hand, he plays the whole fish out of water role very well. More so, however, Stallone has some good comedic timing. Admittedly, with the roles he’s been shoehorned into over the years he hasn’t had much opportunity to demonstrate it; but he does in <i>Demolition Man</i>. I can’t see Stallone doing standup; but the man has a real knack for straight-faced delivery and playing off the disparity between what he’s saying and how he’s saying it.<br />
<br />
Most action movie psychos are the same, but Simon Phoenix is your action movie psycho’s action movie psycho. Snipes doesn’t chew scenery in <i>Demolition Man</i>, he gnaws through it like a buzz saw. He also gives the impression that he’s having the time of his life doing it.<br />
<br />
I tend to be ambivalent about Sandra Bullock. I have seen her in both good and crappy roles, and her acting has matched. However, she is enjoyable as Huxley. For one thing; as the character who knows the most about the 20th Century, she serves both Spartan and the audience as a guide to the movie’s setting. Among other things, this gives her plenty of opportunities to deliver some great lines.<br />
<br />
The other major thing about Huxley is that she’s not the helpless, screaming, useless individual that the love interests of these kinds of movies tend to be. What makes that really interesting is that <i>Demolition Man</i> actually could have gotten away with it. After all, all of Huxley’s colleagues, male and female, are that way; why should she be any different? And yet, when the violence fires up, Huxley proves more than capable of handling herself. Spartan squares off against Phoenix alone of course, that’s just how these movies go. However, for the most part Huxley actually works beside Spartan as more or less an equal partner in fighting the villain. It’s sad that a movie should deserve kudos for making its heroine competent, but there you go.<br />
<br />
So in conclusion, <i>Demolition Man</i> is a fun satire and spoof on action movies, with good acting and great dialogue. It also has more than enough gunfights, explosions and general testosterone poisoning for any action fans. There are at least one or two fairly brutal parts, warning to the squeamish; but overall this is just a fun, and even halfway intelligent, little movie. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-15166381228844437162012-08-31T18:39:00.000-07:002012-09-01T08:56:55.111-07:00Better Off Dead (1985)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.rpk4.com/rant/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/1985-better-off-dead.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="537" width="350" src="http://www.rpk4.com/rant/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/1985-better-off-dead.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> Lane Meyer (John Cusack) is a normal, everyday teenager who wants to make the school ski team. Unfortunately, despite the support of Charles De Mar (Curtis Armstrong of <i>Revenge of the Nerds</i>), his wanna-be druggie best friend, he fails. What really makes it a terrible day, however, is that his girlfriend, Beth (Amanda Wyss of A<i> Nightmare on Elm Street</i>) dumps him for Roy Stalin (Aaron Dozier); the asshole head of the team. <br />
<br />
Lane is devastated. Not knowing what else to do, he alternates between massively humiliating attempts to win her back and equally humiliating attempts to kill himself. However, he has a whole lot more to deal with than just heartbreak and his ex’s asshole new boyfriend. Psychotic paper boys, math class, a pair of drag-racer brothers who are always gunning for Lane when he’s on the road, his family and a fast food job; all these things and more conspire to make Lane’s life even more difficult and complicated.<br />
<br />
Lane does, however, have a potential savior. Monique Junot (Diane Franklin of <i>the Last American Virgin</i>), the French foreign exchange student staying across the street, may know how to help Lane out of his slump. Unfortunately, in return Lane will have to rescue her from his socially inept neighbor, Ricky (Daniel Schneider), and Ricky’s domineering mother (Laura Waterbury). And then, of course, there’s still Stalin to deal with…<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b><br />
“…<i>and dying when you’re not really sick is really sick, you know? Really</i>.”<br />
-Charles De Mar<br />
<br />
As American culture has this major obsession with youth, it’s probably not much of a surprise that Hollywood pumps out so many movies about adolescence. Admittedly, it is a truly interesting (in the Chinese sense of the word) time of life; on one hand it’s such a small period of time compared to the rest of one’s lifespan that it’s barely a blip, and yet what happens during this period greatly influences the rest of your life. I don’t care for nostalgia, and yet even I spend a lot of time focusing on this gaping ulcer on the consciousness. However, I have seen very few movies that accurately depict this most traumatic of periods. In fact, off the top of my head I can only name two; and the fact that they both star Diane Franklin is probably a coincidence. The first is <i>the Last American Virgin</i>; look up the review I wrote on that one if you’re curious. The second is our current offering: <i>Better Off Dead</i>; a movie that shows high school almost exactly as I remember it. Except that I never hooked up with a hot foreign exchange student. <i>Le sigh</i>.<br />
<br />
<i>Better Off Dead</i> is, on first appearance, a very bizarre little film. The thing you have to understand to truly appreciate what is going on is that, ultimately, this movie is almost entirely shown from Lane Meyer’s point of view. In fact, even though he may seem to be depicted as a third-person character, he is very much shown in the first-person.<br />
<br />
The back of my VHS box starts out describing Better Off Dead thusly: “Writer/director Savage Steve Holland says <i>Better Off Dead</i> is semi-autobiographical. After his high school love ditched him, he picked up an 8-milimeter camera and made some depressing movies that had the exact opposite effect on his friends-they laughed.” And that pretty much sums up the spirit of the film; it’s basically a movie about how a teenager would view his own life and place in the world. It’s weird, melodramatic, ridiculous, and over the top; but that’s really how teenagers perceive the world.<br />
<br />
The world Lane inhabits is a bizarre, surreal place full of characters and events that seldom, if ever, make any kind of sense. There’s the psychotic paperboy, the part of this movie everyone seems to remember, who’s always screaming about his two dollars. There’s Lane’s mother, who’s incredibly bad cooking has a life of its own. There are the two Korean brothers who are always after Lane to drag race; one of them doesn’t speak English and the other learned his English from Howard Cosell. I would be negligent if I didn’t mention Charles De Mar; he can’t actually get real drugs, so instead he snorts things like jello and “pure snow” (it’s exactly what it sounds like).<br />
<br />
My favorite part of the movie is Lane’s little brother, Badger. We never actually hear Badger speak, but he’s always ordering stuff through the mail. And here’s the thing; unlike in this world, everything he orders, whether it’s the “toy” laser gun, the book on how to pick up trashy women or the kit to build a rocket ship from household items, everything works exactly as it’s supposed to.<br />
<br />
Of course, the crux of the movie is Lane’s breakup and how he gets over it; which I find all too authentic. Adolescence is when your hormones truly kick start, so emotions feel far more intense during the teenage years. Having your heart broken at this time of life is truly traumatic. Not that it ever gets any easier. Now, I have always maintained, as it’s the experience I’ve usually gone through, that the worst thing possible is to be passed up by a love interest for somebody who you cannot help but like and respect. However, it’s really no improvement to be discarded for an obvious creep. I’ve recently made a lot of inquiries as to why women go for creeps and assholes. I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.<br />
<br />
Roy Stalin is obviously a caricature (his last name’s Stalin for Pan’s sake); but as I mentioned earlier this movie is almost entirely from Lane’s perspective, and of course the guy who takes your girlfriend from you is automatically an asshole. It’s also notable that Lane and Beth’s relationship isn’t exactly healthy already. She’s rearing to jump ship for the first guy she thinks makes a better candidate; while the looks we get at Lane’s bedroom at the very beginning of the movie, particularly his closet, shows us that Lane has some problems with obsession.<br />
<br />
After Lane gets dumped, he goes through the period where he simultaneously tries to turn back the clock, heal, forget, and/or escape. I think we’ve all been here, and the movie depicts it all too accurately. There’s the urge to fill that void in our life by automatically scooping up someone else; note Lane’s ill-advised and disastrous pass at the girl who dates the entire basketball team. There’s the attempts to just escape entirely; i.e. Lane’s humiliating suicide attempts. Lane attempts to win Beth back several times; which all, of course, end humiliatingly for him. And then there is the attempt to forget all about it while the rest of the world seems determined to rub it in your face. A scene I find particularly hilarious, because it so resonates with me, is when Lane is driving to school and every station he turns the radio to is playing a breakup song.<br />
<br />
The conclusion to this nasty little triangle is actually kind of clever. Depending on how vindictive you are, it’s possible to see it as either the perfect revenge, or just as simple wish fulfillment. As the movie goes on, our views of Beth hint that she’s really starting to have second thoughts about taking up with Roy. At the end, when Lane shows what he’s really worth, she decides she wants him back after all. Unfortunately for Beth, however, by this time Lane’s gotten over her and moved on.<br />
<br />
It is two individuals who are ultimately responsible for getting Lane through his heartbreak. The first is Charles De Mar; who, for all of his quirks, pretty much stands by and aids Lane the entire time. The other, of course, is Monique.<br />
<br />
<i>Better Off Dead</i> was my introduction to Diane Franklin. After having seen her in this and several other movies, I am firmly of the view that she is an extremely talented and versatile actress. For one thing; while I’m, sadly, not familiar enough with French and its dialects to know how accurate her accent is, I found it rather jarring when I started seeing her in other movies where she speaks American English without any accent whatsoever.<br />
<br />
And Franklin does a great job of establishing the character of Monique. For one thing, Monique doesn’t speak English for most of the movie. If you’re the stereotypical, monolinguistic ugly American (guilty), this means she might as well not be speaking at all. And yet, even so, Franklin does such a good job with facial expressions and body language that you know exactly who Monique is just the same. Also, I think the way she says “kick his ass” is so hot. Yeah, I’m obsessive. <br />
<br />
As for where Monique fits into the story, she’s the one who provides Lane with what he really needs to get out of his funk. While it’s clear she has her eye on him from the beginning, it isn’t until late in the movie when they become more than platonic friends. All the while, it is Monique who pushes Lane to get out of his little cocoon of misery, who makes him face the world, and who, ultimately, shows Lane that he can succeed. While Monique is probably going to have to go back to France eventually, it’s clear that this is probably going to be a healthy relationship while it lasts. It does not, however, mean that all of Lane and Monique’s troubles are behind them; as our last view of them shows.<br />
<br />
Finally, I must point out the character of Monique’s obnoxious host family; Ricky Smith and his mother. I find Ricky kind of interesting; partly because I’ve known many people a lot like him, but largely because the movie shows him in a halfway sympathetic light. Ricky is socially inept; and he would be a royal pain in the ass to deal with on a regular basis. However, the movie depicts him more as pitiful than repulsive. In fact, Ricky even finds somebody for himself at the end.<br />
<br />
So, <i>Better Off Dead</i>; it’s bizarre, surreal, absurd, ridiculous and very strange. In short, it’s an almost perfect movie depiction of adolescence, and it’s a lot of fun. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-29642548180420519002012-07-25T13:39:00.001-07:002013-03-12T08:09:29.993-07:00Dagon (2001)<a href="http://gofreakgo.com/wp-content/uploads//2011/06/dagon.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://gofreakgo.com/wp-content/uploads//2011/06/dagon.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> Paul Marsh (Ezra Godden) has been suffering strange, reoccurring nightmares recently. They involve the bottom of the ocean; bizarre, inhuman ruins; and a beautiful mermaid (Macarena Gomez) with a mouthful of fangs. Said dreams are disrupting his current vacation; a boat trip taken with his girlfriend, Barbara (Raquel Merono), and their friends Vicki (Birgit Bofarull), and Howard (Brendan Price), off the coast of Spain to celebrate their newly gained wealth from the stock market.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, things are about to get a whole lot worse than nightmares. A freak storm crashes the boat on a rock, leaving Vicki badly wounded and the vessel stuck. Paul and Barbara make their way to the little village on the nearby shore for help; but Paul gets separated from his friends, and they inexplicably disappear. <br />
<br />
Paul finds the little fishing village of Imbocca a strange and terrifying place. The people are unfriendly, and seem to bear a variety of deformities; and worse yet, quickly seem determined to kill him. Trapped in Imbocca with the hostile natives, Paul desperately seeks word of his friends and a way out.<br />
<br />
However, that’s far from the worst of it. The drunken derelict, Ezequiel (Francisco Rabal), tells Paul the history of Imbocca; a few generations back the village suffered from a fish shortage. In desperation, the people turned to the worship of Dagon; a demon-god from the depths of the ocean. Their descendents, Imbocca’s current inhabitants, are both fanatical worshippers, and half human offspring, of Dagon.<br />
<br />
But what really complicates things for Paul is when he meets Uxia; high priestess of Dagon, and the mermaid who’s been turning up in his nightmares. As Paul is drawn deeper and deeper into the darkness that is Imbocca, it turns out that he has a far more personal connection to the horrible place than he could ever have suspected…<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:<br />
</b><br />
“<i>Two possibilities…</i>"<br />
-Paul <br />
<br />
It’s long been accepted as true, to the point of cliché, that to be a good artist one must suffer. As many of those who have followed my writings, particularly my most recent entries on my Living Nightmares blog (there’s a link on my profile if you’re interested), for the past two and a half months have probably guessed, I have recently had reason to reflect on the subject. Ultimately, I disagree with that conclusion; although I can see how it might be reached.<br />
<br />
I am of the view that it’s not the suffering that produces artistic talent; I doubt there’s a single one of my readers who hasn’t encountered some really bad “art” that somebody made about their suffering, particularly if you have any familiarity with the Goth or Emo scenes. I think the suffering comes into it because it is such a human universal. All of us, with no exception, suffer to some degree during the course of our lives. Art provides a particularly effective channel for the negative feelings that come with suffering while still keeping it somewhat socially acceptable. In fact, I have to wonder if that isn’t the whole reason art came into being in the first place; symbolically raging against that obnoxious fellow tribesman on the wall of the cave instead of clubbing him over the head and pissing off the rest of the clan for it. <br />
<br />
Howard Phillips Lovecraft was a pulp writer around the beginning of the 20th century. He had a profound effect on the areas of horror and science fiction, and a slightly lesser but still significant effect on fantasy. Also, it’s pretty obvious just from reading his works (backed up by accounts of people who knew him) that the man had major issues and neuroses. Most of the horrors in his body of work touch upon a particular list of issues and subjects that strongly affected him on an emotional level.<br />
<br />
Lovecraft is probably best known for his “cosmic horror,” a term he coined to describe a subgenre of horror based around living in an actively hostile or lethally indifferent universe. The majority of his most famous horrors are dangerous to us humans in the exact same way that we are to ants. While it is extremely bad when they notice us and decide to meddle in our puny little lives; the far more likely outcome is that they will simply step on us without ever realizing that they have done so, or even that we were ever there to be stepped on in the first place. Unfortunately, while this subgenre can create extremely effective written stories when done right; it presents some major difficulties when it comes to trying to translate the horrors to a visual medium such as movies.<br />
<br />
Fortunately for makers and fans of movies, however, Lovecraft wrote some more “down to Earth” horror stories as well. The movie <i>Dagon</i> is based, not, as we might expect, on the short story of the same name; but on the novella the Shadow Over Innsmouth, one of his best and most well known works. Shadow Over Innsmouth , aside from being a very effective horror story, also contains a large amount of the personal fears and issues that Lovecraft regularly included in his stories; sins of the past coming back to plague future generations, fear of age, xenophobia, bad blood, tainted family heritage, the ocean and all that dwells in it, the list goes on.<br />
<br />
Another interesting thing that appeared in much of Lovecraft’s work was an amazing collection of hang-ups about sex. Now, Lovecraft was, at least as far as his writing was concerned, the quintessential Victorian gentleman, albeit a generation or two late; and therefore kept sexual matters extremely discrete. He only had one story, the Thing on the Doorstep, that even had anything like a main female character; although considering the story centers around the fact that it’s really her father possessing her body, there is plenty of room for argument whether that really counts. Still, if you look just below the surface of much of Lovecraft’s work you’ll notice a lot of focus on unnatural breeding and unhealthy family heritage’s. Shadow Over Innsmouth, again, is probably his best known example of this theme, the inhabitants of this decaying city all being half-human hybrids who mate with repulsive sea creatures. I must note an interesting discrepancy here between <i>Dagon</i> and its source material; the movie goes the traditional exploitation route where the women are used as breeding vessels for the horror, whereas in the novella (and at least one or two other stories where Innsmouth is mentioned) Lovecraft’s setup is men who are forced to take inhuman wives.<br />
<br />
<i>Dagon</i> was put together by the same team who made the twistedly delightful Re-animator, but they are two very different movies. <i>Dagon</i>, in many ways, is a much more reserved and, ultimately, mature, work. There is humor, but it’s far more subtle and straight-faced. Likewise, unlike the older movie, Dagon slowly but surely builds up to its exploitation friendly elements instead of letting them right out of the gate. During the course of the movie, we in the audience learn about Imbocca with Paul; starting out with subtle yet disturbing hints about what’s going on, and gradually building up to the terrifying truth. When we first meet the people of Imbocca, for the most part they just seem creepy humans, mostly covered up, with maybe a few small deformities to show that something’s not right; one guy has webbed hands, one guy has gills, none of them seem to blink. Seriously, watch the actors carefully, they really don’t blink. It’s incredibly creepy.<br />
<br />
However, as the plot goes on we are witness to an ever growing catalogue of deformities; tentacles, inability to walk upright, etc. It is only by the end that we get to see the full glory of these freakish monstrosities. Similarly, the gore, when it does come, is pretty gruesome; but we don’t actually get it until late in the film, when we’ve been witness to various clues about what’s going to happen, making the actual scene even more effective.<br />
<br />
In Paul Marsh we have a very sympathetic and identifiable protagonist. However, looking at other reviews on the internet I have found a general dislike for him. I suspect that this is because Paul is a bit too identifiable for most viewers. Since we tend to watch these kinds of movies for escape; we oftentimes come to expect a hero who’s more like a fantasy ideal of ourselves. In Paul, we get a hero who’s a lot more like what we’d actually be like in the same situation than most of us are comfortable with.<br />
<br />
Paul is not the uber-confident action hero so many Hollywood movies would make him; he’s a spastic geek who’s well aware that he’s in over his head. When Paul tries action-movie type stunts, they tend to do him at least as much harm as good. For example, in one scene early on Paul escapes an attack on his motel room by the classic action-movie stunt of jumping from his window and through a glass ceiling. The end result; he twists his ankle and limps for the rest of the movie. Or, there’s another scene where he’s struggling with one of the creatures and head butts it. It works, but Paul’s opponent is not the only one clutching its head in pain. In short, Paul gets a lot more beaten up throughout the course of the movie, and suffers a lot more of the consequences, than a lifetime of exposure to Hollywood has lead us to expect.<br />
<br />
Likewise, Paul pretty much blunders through most of the film. He makes mistakes, he dithers, and he does some pretty stupid things. Personally, I’m sure that what happens when he tries to hotwire a car would be the very best-case scenario were I to attempt it. He is able to finally rise to the events, but only competently, never in a cinematically easy or simple matter. <br />
<br />
I felt that the character of Barbara was also well done. Admittedly, she only appears for a small portion of the movie, but she’s a far cry from the helpless, simpering heroines we usually see. In a few parts she’s actually stronger and more competent than Paul.<br />
<br />
The final character that really caught my attention was Uxia. Macarena Gomez is simultaneously dead sexy and downright creepy in the role; the original siren who you know is bad for you, but you are drawn to nevertheless. Gods help me; I’d happily go for Gomez tentacles or no tentacles.<br />
<br />
The final thing I’d like to draw attention to is the general atmosphere and setting of the film. <i>Dagon</i> perfectly inspires the feeling of being caught in a hostile location where you are completely out of your depth. The little village used, for starters, is subtlely modified so that on first site it’s very easy to believe that inhuman creatures live here. The makeup effect on the Imboccans, and the noises they make, are also wonderfully creepy. The soundtrack is effectively eerie, especially one number used in several spots that turns one of Lovecraft’s nonsensical cries to the Old Ones into a kind of Gregorian chant. Finally, in what I thought was a clever touch, the Imboccans don’t speak Spanish, but Galician. Galician is similar to Spanish, but it’s actually a language in and of itself, albeit one not used so much anymore. This insures that if you have any familiarity with Spanish, hearing the villagers speak will sound kind of alien.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, <i>Dagon</i> is, to my mind, the best Lovecraft movie adaptation made thus far. It covers the main points of its source story perfectly, with only a few cosmetic differences; Lovecraft might have a little trouble with some of the modern horror movie techniques, but I think he would approve. D<i>agon</i> also works very well as a stand-alone horror movie. It is extremely well made, effective, and scary on multiple levels. Another must-see if you’re at all serious about horror. <br />
Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-33741458467178508192012-06-18T12:51:00.000-07:002012-06-26T19:58:56.163-07:00the Blood Spattered Bride (1972)<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiIh67gzbdSxxPVDZYHQrLMUy7X6rXtZEIRPH-H-Oa_8z4ASptzRW48LeHxftmOyDST21Yo5r8szU5aOwuctHeqFTEzfOMojeUjncRi5zCjRflzjj-SXrJd9I3Gur56yc4EwTptK_1_SgL/s400/bride1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="322" width="219" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiIh67gzbdSxxPVDZYHQrLMUy7X6rXtZEIRPH-H-Oa_8z4ASptzRW48LeHxftmOyDST21Yo5r8szU5aOwuctHeqFTEzfOMojeUjncRi5zCjRflzjj-SXrJd9I3Gur56yc4EwTptK_1_SgL/s400/bride1.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> Young bride Susan (Maribel Martin) and her new, unnamed, husband (Simon Andreu of <i>Beyond Re-Animator</i>) are headed to a hotel for their honeymoon; after which they will move into his castle estate where he grew up, but hasn’t been to for years. Unfortunately, the hotel is spoiled for Susan with two unpleasant encounters right off the bat. The first is when she spots a disturbing, predatory looking blonde (Alexandra Bastedo of <i>Casino Royale</i>) watching her from a car as she enters the motel. The second is when she gets to her room and has a very violent fantasy about her husband jumping out of the closet, a stocking over his head, tearing off her wedding dress and brutally raping her. When hubby gets back from parking the car, she convinces him to cut their stay at the hotel and just head right to his estate.<br />
<br />
At the estate, things look to be improving for Susan at first. She automatically gets on well with the estate’s two servants (Angel Lombarte and Montserrat Julio) and their twelve year-old daughter, Carol (Maria Rosa-Rodriguez). However, when the couple retires for the night, she looks out the window and sees a strange woman dressed like a bride roaming the estate grounds. Then, when the couple consummates their marriage, hubby shocks his new bride by ripping off her dress just like he did in her vision. As the next few days pass we kind of have to wonder if Susan is precognitive, because hubby turns out to be a domineering prick with a very definite sadistic streak. Naturally, Susan starts having second and third thoughts about the whole marriage thing.<br />
<br />
One day Susan asks Carol why there are no portraits of female family members. Carol answers that there are, but they’re all in the cellar; hubby’s grandfather put them there in a fit of rage when his wife tried to poison him and then ran off to Paris. Carol shows them to Susan, and one particularly catches her attention. The face of the portrait has been cut out, but it shows a woman in a wedding dress. One hand holds a distinctive looking knife, and the other has rings on all the fingers, the stones all turned inwards. The little plaque on the portrait has the name Mircalla Karstein; and strangely, while it has a birth date, the death date is missing.<br />
<br />
Hubby arrives at that time and offers to tell Susan all about “Crazy Aunt Mircalla.” Mircalla married an ancestor of his two centuries ago, but stabbed him to death on their wedding night when he tried to make her do something “unspeakable.” They found her slumped over the body in her wedding dress, clutching the knife, comatose but not dead. After two years they just decided to bury her at the now-ruined chapel in the woods behind the estate. Now, all that’s there are some water damaged bones.<br />
<br />
However, that very night the dreams start. Susan dreams that the bride she saw on her first night (who she and the movie audience now recognize as both the blonde at the hotel and Mircalla Karstein) comes to her bedroom. The woman gives her a knife, the same one from the portrait, and exhorts her to use it on her husband before biting Susan on the neck. Susan’s husband tries to convince her it was all a dream, but that doesn’t explain the appearance of the knife in Susan’s bed. She begs her husband to hide it where she can’t find it.<br />
<br />
However, the next night Mircalla again visits Susan’s dreams. This time she leads Mircalla to the grandfather clock in the hall, and removes the knife from under the clock face. The two women then go back to Susan’s sleeping husband and go to town on him with the knife. When Susan wakes up, she leads hubby to the clock and shows him the knife. However, that only raises further questions; because hubby didn’t hide it in the clock.<br />
<br />
Hubby tries to bury the knife on an isolated beach. However, in the process he discovers a woman buried in the sand, wearing nothing but a scuba mask and rings with the stones turned inward. At a loss, hubby takes her home and puts her up; but Susan and the woman immediately recognize each other. Now, hubby is growing disturbed and jealous over the closeness between his wife and their guest. Meanwhile, Susan has bottled up a ton of festering, negative feelings regarding her husband; and Mircalla actively works to pull the cork on them. Things are about to get really ugly really fast…<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:<br />
</b>“<i>The good ones are those who are content to dream what the wicked actually practice.</i>"<br />
-Plato<br />
<br />
For the curiosity of some of my more astute readers, I will confirm that yes, all of the movies I have reviewed this month share a general theme. And no, I’d rather not elaborate on the whys of it. I’d prefer to just jump into the review.<br />
<br />
The above quote is shown to us just before the opening credits roll on <i>Blood Spattered Bride</i>, and then quoted again by one of the characters later on. I feel that the quote from Plato perfectly sums up this rather nasty little movie. Something I’ve long noted in Spanish horror cinema, particularly from this time period, is a sense of negative emotions, long suppressed and left to fester, suddenly bubbling to the surface in all their toxic glory. Historically this makes sense. This period saw the end of Francisco Franco’s decades long repressive, fascist regime; and a period like this in any culture would see a lot of nasty, festering emotions suddenly free to break forth, not to mention a need to channel them. <br />
<br />
However, the seething mess of unhealthy emotions on display here is far more personal than just the emotional atmosphere of the culture in which the movie was made. What we are shown is no less than the total collapse of a relationship that has been decaying from within for a long time. The bond between Susan and her husband is obviously a shaky one from the very beginning, and gets more so as the movie progresses. While some of the issues on display are probably derived from Spanish culture of the time, most of them are pretty universal; at least in the West. So much of what happens in <i>Blood Spattered Bride</i> resonates with my own life experiences. Admittedly, I’ve never had a relationship that got anywhere near as bad as this one does; but considering how all my attempts at a love life seem to end up, it’s probably only a matter of time.<br />
<br />
One of the ways in which the movie gets it right is that both sides are at fault. Starting very early on, it’s made very clear that hubby is a grade-A prick weasel. He’s domineering, possessive, jealous, cruel, and self-centered. The movie leaves it vague how much of this Susan has been consciously aware of beforehand (although she had to be a least somewhat subconsciously aware of it, considering her hallucination at the beginning), but we are quickly led to understand and sympathize with her doubts and her growing desire to escape her situation.<br />
<br />
Some doubt is even left as how much choice Susan (and, to a lesser extent, hubby) had or felt she had in the marriage. A scene where the husband is talking to the doctor he had brought in to help is wife reveals that he and Susan knew each other from childhood, and that their parents had always been close. This suggests that the marriage may not have been his and Susan’s choice, that it was something preordained by their families for most, if not all, of their lives.<br />
<br />
Another set of clues comes up in the fact that hubby’s family tree has had a pretty hostile and conflicted relationship with its female members. What with Mircalla Karstein and that nasty incident with hubby’s grandparents, you have to wonder what other skeletons are in the closet involving his female ancestors. There is a suggestion that the atmosphere hubby grew up in was very hostile toward the female sex; and that that’s a large part of why he turned out the way he did.<br />
<br />
However, as I stated, Susan is not without fault either; although in the early part of the film she is a lot more sympathetic. It’s clear from the start that she’s uncertain about this; that fantasy/hallucination/whatever the hell it was at the beginning is definitely a big, red, neon warning sign in my book. As the movie goes on it becomes clear that Susan is feeling more and more helpless about her situation; and as with anyone else in a situation where they feel helpless, this generates all sorts of negative feelings that, without a healthy channel for them, collect and fester into something far worse.<br />
<br />
Susan is obviously torn between how she feels and how she thinks she’s supposed to feel. In the scenes where she tells her husband that she really doesn’t hate him, she loves him; it’s clear that she’s really trying to convince herself. Then comes the next part of any unhealthy relationship, the games. Hubby starts out, but Susan tries to regain some power for herself by playing destructive games of her own. Just watch their interactions at about the middle of the movie; this isn’t the behavior of people who truly love each other, this is two people who are trying to make each other jump through their destructive hoops for their own sick pleasures.<br />
<br />
Mircalla Karstein is an interesting villain due to the fact that she’s not actually the cause of the couple’s woes; she’s just the catalyst that fully unleashes them. If this were anything like a healthy marriage Mircalla would have a lot less power over Susan; but by the time Mircalla becomes an active player in the situation, Susan is already eager for a way to strike out at her husband, however much she might try to deny it at first. <br />
<br />
Hubby doesn’t help the situation any, either. Probably the perfect signal for the oncoming storm is the scene right after the couple has had dinner with their new guest, and the three are now gathered in the parlor. Hubby is talking, trying to impress the two women; and the women are very clearly ignoring him for each other. Hubby eventually notices this, and just as clearly resents being ignored. Following that scene, as Susan and Mircalla visibly grow closer; it’s obvious that hubby is clearly upset not over the threat to his life (which, to be honest, he probably either doesn’t believe or is unaware of), but that his wife has somebody whose company she so plainly prefers to his.<br />
<br />
When the inevitable blowup finally comes it hits badly in a major shitstorm of hostile emotions that pretty much destroys everyone even tangentially involved. In the flurry of violence that follows, even the most innocent bystanders get sucked in and destroyed. The movie and its ugly situation climax in a pretty brutal ending; but apparently it was fairly tame compared to how the director really wanted to end it.<br />
<br />
On all technical points, the <i>Blood Spattered Bride</i> is well made. The filmwork makes excellent use of the beautiful, gothic looking scenery in evidence. Admittedly, the movie does start out slow; but it uses that time to build up the plot, making it all the more effective when the ball starts rolling. Also, the movie is nowhere near as exploitative as one would expect. There is female nudity, but the most graphic is at the very beginning. Considering that, for the story’s purposes, it very obviously supposed to be exploitatively sexual; I don’t find it all that sleazy or off-putting at all. For most of the movie, the nudity is actually rather reserved. Ditto the blood; the movie doesn’t use the blood and violence if it doesn’t have to, but when it does it doesn’t skimp.<br />
<br />
So in conclusion; <i>the Blood Spattered Bride</i> is a very well made and effective little European vampire film that is really about pent up emotions and destructive relationships. I really have to wonder what issues the director was going through when he wrote it. Very much worth watching if you’re in the mood for a slightly less exploitative, slightly more cerebral eurohorror flick. <br />Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-20617776115195681442012-06-10T10:26:00.000-07:002012-06-12T16:21:01.765-07:00The Brood (1979)<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9Mz8m07TV90BlP8anPwE3gBhK8mxlw6Olb74brze1sPcfrAxwtcmMZ7yXz4WuSTblNB7rANKFbT1V4TmJmRIbswS8STvb9RpWA9WHwL8hZZj1AGt4yCZ7LwFJVpM3S-9svqi1jc3sKwIo/s400/The-Brood_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="353" width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9Mz8m07TV90BlP8anPwE3gBhK8mxlw6Olb74brze1sPcfrAxwtcmMZ7yXz4WuSTblNB7rANKFbT1V4TmJmRIbswS8STvb9RpWA9WHwL8hZZj1AGt4yCZ7LwFJVpM3S-9svqi1jc3sKwIo/s400/The-Brood_poster.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> Frank Carveth (Art Hindle) does not have a happy family life. His estranged and very emotionally disturbed wife, Nola (Samantha Eggar) has been viciously fighting him for custody of their five year-old daughter, Candice (Cindy Hinds). However, Frank hasn’t actually seen Nola for a while because she is currently a patient at the Soma Free Clinic, under the care of Dr. Raglan (Oliver Reed of <i>Royal Flash</i>).<br />
<br />
Raglan, bestselling author of the Shape of Rage, has pioneered a new psychiatric technique he calls ‘Psychoplasmics.’ In the opening scene, Raglan and his prize patient, Mike (Gary McKeehan), demonstrate it in action. Psychoplasmics is basically a combination of role-playing and mind over matter. Raglan acts the part of an individual the patient has reasons to have hostile feelings toward, and encourages the patient to channel those hostile feelings into psychosomatic effects. In Mike’s case, when Raglan plays the role of his abusive and domineering father, Mike manifests his emotions as burns and blisters all over his body.<br />
<br />
Frank’s real problems begin when he finds scratches and bruises on Candice after she comes home from one of her weekend visits with her mother; something Raglan has instated as part of Nola’s treatment. He confronts Raglan about it, threatening to end Candice’s visits unless Raglan can ensure her safety. Raglan counters by maintaining that Candice is a necessary part of Nola’s treatment; and that he can use his position as a respected psychiatrist to take custody away from Frank. Frank’s lawyer confirms that Raglan can do this; and his only real option is to find a way to prove that Raglan is a dangerous charlatan. <br />
<br />
Seeking to do just that, Frank comes into contact with Jan Hartog (Robert Silverman), a former patient of Raglan who is also preparing a lawsuit against the doctor. In Jan’s case, he blames Raglan and Psychoplasmics for the lymphatic sarcoma that is slowly killing him. Meanwhile, trouble is brewing on the home front. Frank leaves Candice with his mother in law (Nuala Fitzgerald), who, ironically, he’s much closer to than Nola is; and Candice gets a front row seat when a small figure breaks into the house and brutally beats her grandmother to death.<br />
<br />
When Frank’s father in law (Henry Beckman) comes for the funeral, and stops by the house; he, too, gets killed by the small figure, who was still hiding inside. Frank gets attacked when he goes looking for the man, but the creature inexplicably dies halfway through. And ‘creature’ is the best way to describe the attacker. It looks something like a mutated dwarf, but the police surgeon who performs the autopsy find traits that indicate it’s not even human. In fact, in many ways the thing seems only halfway formed. Most disturbing, though; even with all its deformities the creature bears a strong resemblance to Candice. <br />
<br />
Soon after the second murder, Jan informs Frank that Raglan has inexplicably closed his clinic and dismissed all the patients; all except Nola. Raglan, meanwhile, knows far more than he’s telling and is having second thoughts about Psychoplasmics. Mind over matter is probably not the best thing to teach clinically unstable individuals. It’s bad enough with someone like Mike; who internalizes all his anger and hatred and manifests it as personal injuries. Nola, however, externalizes her negative emotions. Considering how spiteful, vindictive and unstable Nola is, who knows what she is capable of?<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b> It’s another double feature today. This time around I’m reviewing an offering from each of the two “Demented Davids” of Hollywood; M<i>essers</i> Cronenberg and Lynch, respectively. First off, Cronenberg’s film.<br />
<br />
A while back I met with a friend to eat dinner and watch some movies; I was in charge of bringing the movies. My choice wound up being a double feature of <i>the Brood</i> with <i>the Last American Virgin</i>. For the full details of why that was a very bad idea, read my May, 2010, review of the latter film after you’re finished with this one. However, the short of it is that despite the two movies coming from very different genres, they share a basic theme.<br />
<br />
While David Cronenberg has branched out some as a director, he’s probably most well known for his horror movies. Cronenberg approaches horror in a way that I haven’t seen fully duplicated from any other director. Especially in his early movies, Cronenberg presents horrors that are biological, psychological, medical and physiological all rolled into one; a screwed up mind mixed with an equally screwed up body, usually due at least in part to some kind of medical experiment or treatment. On top of all that, there’s always a very icky sexual vibe as well. The end result is visceral horror on multiple levels that is nearly always cringe-inducing. My father maintains that it was Croenenberg’s version of <i>the Fly</i> that permanently turned him off the horror genre; and I have no trouble seeing why.<br />
<br />
I would describe <i>the Brood</i> as a very male horror movie. Now, I know what you probably think I mean by that; and you would be very wrong. This is no crude, exploitative jiggle-fest. I describe <i>the Brood</i> as ‘male’ because it is entirely from a male point of view. The horror of this film is based entirely around those traits that men find terrifying about women.<br />
<br />
Nola Carveth is every man’s ultimate female nightmare written large. Psychologically she is fickle, petty, insecure, vindictive, irrational and prone to mood swings. Physically; the climactic scene where we are finally given a clear look at the changes Psychoplasmics has made to her evokes pretty much all the elements of reproduction and female anatomy that make men uncomfortable, and then amplifies them to nearly unbearable levels.<br />
<br />
Now, I think the charges of misogyny that this movie has received over the years are unfair. To stave off any potential criticisms from readers, I will first point out a few things about myself. Pretty much my entire life, I have had far more close female friends and associates than I have had male ones. I tend to be attracted to intelligent, strong-willed women. Hell, considering the female relations I grew up with; if I hadn’t rejected at an early age all the sexist crap society teaches, I’d be missing far more than just my pointer finger and four wisdom teeth. In short, my defense of this movie and its points is not due to any kind of hatred or disrespect for the fairer sex.<br />
<br />
Cronenberg wrote and made the Brood as a way to deal with an issue in his personal life; a particularly nasty divorce and custody battle. I don’t think he was trying to make any real conscious point; except possibly for one small thing which I will get to shortly. Watching <i>the Brood</i>, it’s very clear that this is the work of a man who is using his art to try and purge his personal demons. As an artist who uses the exact same tactic to contend with my own demons, let me tell you; said demons are never pretty when you drag them into the light.<br />
<br />
What gives <i>the Brood</i> its visceral charge and makes it so effective is the authenticity of its subject matter. I’m sure all heterosexual males have had to deal with most, of not all, of the issues Cronenberg addresses in this movie on some level. Gods know I have. There are some major differences between the sexes; and when these relationship issues go south it can get really nasty. I’m aware that men aren’t entirely innocent on the matter; but the thing is that I was born male, it’s all I’ve ever known, so I only have a full understanding of the male side of the equation. I think it would be particularly interesting to see a horror movie directed by a woman that addresses all the things women find terrifying about men. If any of my readers knows of such a movie, please let me know.<br />
<br />
Apart from his deft employment of the sex and gender issues involved and his great talent for creating multi-layered visceral horror; Cronenberg effectively uses one other element to make the Brood so effective, his characters. On the whole, his cast of characters is just human seeming and complex enough that there is no problem believing in and sympathizing with them. Frank is the movie’s stand-in for Cronenberg himself, so of course he’s going to be sympathetic. However, he’s not perfect. Frank is essentially an ordinary man caught in a very nasty situation. He’s desperately trying to do the right thing; but unfortunately for him, he’s in a situation where it’s extremely hard, if not downright impossible at times, to know what the right thing is. Therefore, fair or not; whether or not it’s even possible for Frank to truly get it right, he’s inevitably going to screw up.<br />
<br />
Probably the best example of this would be Frank’s quickly curtailed interest in Candace’s school teacher, Ruth Mayer (Susan Hogan). Now, technically Frank’s still married to Nola; but it’s clear that this became a sham of a marriage long before she checked into Soma Free. It makes sense that Frank would be interested in someone else, particularly if there’s some potential for reciprocation. Unfortunately for Frank, this is swiftly ended as soon as Ruth realizes just how complicated Frank’s life truly is. Unfortunately for everyone involved, particularly Ruth; nobody is aware of just what Nola’s capable of until it’s too late.<br />
<br />
Just as Frank isn’t exactly a hero in the traditional sense, Dr. Raglan isn’t exactly a villain. It’s true that he’s somewhat blind and arrogant; and it’s also true that he screws up and screws up catastrophically. However, Raglan isn’t irredeemable, and he eventually comes to realize just how much he’s screwed up. What’s more, he makes a major sacrifice to help Frank save Candace.<br />
<br />
With our final two major characters, Nola and Candace, we come to that one potentially intentional issue I alluded to earlier. That issue is abuse; specifically the cyclical nature of abuse. I don’t know how much of its presence in <i>the Brood</i> is due to a conscious intention of making a point by Cronenberg and how much of it is just that it was on his mind due to recent events, but like everything else in this movie he handles it very well.<br />
<br />
While Nola is obviously the villain of the movie, we are given definite reasons for why she is so angry, insecure and full of hate. In the scenes of her treatments with Doctor Raglan, we come to understand that that Nola was an abuse victim. She talks about being physically and emotionally abused by her mother, and about how her father just turned his back on it. In that tragic yet inevitable cycle, Nola the abuse victim has become an abuser. In fact, she brings it up at one point, telling Raglan that Frank’s “afraid that I’m turning into my mother. And he’s afraid that I’m trying to turn Candace into Baby Nola.”<br />
<br />
And that brings us to the character of Candace. Now, Candace really doesn’t have much to do in this movie; which makes sense considering that she’s only five. However, she is a very obvious and blatant element in it. Candace is the innocent victim in this whole, horrible mess; a passive pawn to be fought viciously over and kidnapped. Much of the suspense of <i>the Brood</i> comes not just from whether Frank will be able to protect Candace from the danger or not; but also from what kind of effect the movie’s horrors will have on the little girl. The last shot, just before the credits, leaves us in no doubt that poor Candace has not come out of this unscathed.<br />
<br />
So, in conclusion; <i>the Brood</i> is a very personal, very raw, and very effective little horror movie that audiences with a Y chromosome, in particular, will find extremely disturbing. If you have a serious interest in the horror genre, <i>the Brood </i>is a movie you have to see. However, unless you’re a serious masochist, I would not suggest watching this one for enjoyment. <br />Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4382692593603688776.post-67980493833496570922012-06-10T10:15:00.000-07:002012-06-23T19:43:14.748-07:00Lost Highway (1997)<a href="http://www.stopsmilingonline.com/uploads/photos/story/20080331120124_unknown-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="445" width="310" src="http://www.stopsmilingonline.com/uploads/photos/story/20080331120124_unknown-2.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Movie:</b> Fred Madison (Bill Pullman, of <i>Spaceballs</i> and <i>Independence Day</i>), a saxophone player at a jazz club, is having insecurity issues with his wife, Renee (Patricia Arquette in a brunette wig). Making issues more complicate are the unmarked envelopes starting to regularly appear on their doorstep. In the envelopes are videotapes, which seem to have been taken from inside their house while they sleep.<br />
<br />
Then one night, at a party held by one of Renee’s friends, Fred has a bizarre encounter with a rather creepy man (Robert Blake). Among other things, the man claims to be in Fred’s house; and loans him his portable phone to have him call to confirm it. The next morning, Fred receives another videotape; this one showing him brutally murdering his wife. He is charged for the crime and sentenced to death row.<br />
<br />
But a weird thing happens to Fred one night in his cell. He starts having peculiar visions, and then suddenly he isn’t Fred Madison anymore. Instead, the cell now holds Pete Dayton (Balthazar Getty); a young auto mechanic with a head wound and no idea how he wound up in the cell. Pete is released to his family, and starts trying to go back to his old life.<br />
<br />
But Pete’s problems are only beginning. Local gangster Mr. Eddy (Robert Loggia of <i>Innocent Blood</i>) has a lovely young mistress named Alice (Patricia Arquette without a wig), who immediately initiates an affair with Pete. That’s when it all starts to go to Hell…<br />
<br />
<b>The Review:</b><br />
<br />
“<i>I like to remember things my own way. How I remembered them. Not necessarily the way they happened.</i>"<br />
-Fred Madison<br />
<br />
My second offering for my “Demented Davids” double feature comes from David Lynch. Lynch is a director who has pretty much made his name on movies that you walk out of thinking “what the hell did I just watch? And why am I so disturbed?” Lynch is every bit as disturbing and transgressive as Cronenberg, but in his own unique way. Whereas Cronenberg combines several different approaches to horror into one gooey, visceral nightmare; Lynch operates by playing with your head. In the worlds David Lynch presents us with the dividing lines between the realms of the subconscious and the waking world are very blurry indeed, if they even exist at all. Lynch has a real knack for wringing fear out of inanimate objects, meaning out of the most inconsequential events, and of combining a sense of cosmic helplessness with one of very personal horror. <br />
<br />
Play along with me for a few minutes, because I’m going to offer my own personal analysis of this movie. I think that all of <i>Lost Highway</i> takes place in Fred Madison’s mind. I think that the quote I begin this review with, a throwaway line where Madison is explaining to the police why he doesn’t like video cameras, is our biggest clue for what’s going on. Due to jealousy, obsession, and sexual frustration; Madison did something so horrible that he is unable to face up to it. That’s why he turns into Pete halfway through; if he’s Pete Dayton, then he can’t have committed Fred Madison’s crimes, now can he? However, Madison’s unwillingness and inability to face up to his past just leaves him repeating the same mistakes over and over again; no matter who he thinks he is at the time.<br />
<br />
Now, believe it or not that wasn’t the spoiler it might seem like at first. As I said; that was just my personal interpretation of the movie, and <i>Lost Highway </i>is a movie that you can interpret any number of ways. It’s my understanding that the cast members each had a very different idea of what movie they were making. Lynch drops all sorts of clues throughout; but he’s always been very big on his audiences figuring it all out for themselves. <br />
<br />
Secondly, <i>Lost Highway</i>, like most of Lynch’s films, is not so much a movie to be watched as it is an experience to get through. It’s less about structured story than it is about the raw emotional experience. It’s easy to get confused and lost. However, if you pay attention you will feel something. I, personally, think that the scene where Fred meets the Mystery Man at the party is one of the downright creepiest scenes I have ever seen in a movie. Likewise; you will definitely be empathizing with the feelings of lust, desire, obsession, jealousy, and frustration that these characters project, even if you don’t quite get the context.<br />
<br />
So in conclusion, <i>Lost Highway</i> is a trangressive little movie that takes you far beyond your comfortable life and makes even the most innocuous things seem terrifying. A true, living nightmare up on the screen; and a mind-fuck <i>par excellence</i>. <br />Nine-Fingered Menacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05805957315306533577noreply@blogger.com0