1 A Day

Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows

2009-10-05T12:20:00.000-07:00

Dir: Joe Berlinger

Did I say The Prophecy? Oh I meant this sequel.

There are some films where you can admire the idea more than you can admire any of the content, and for me, this sequel is one of those things.

Rushed into release by an eager studio, Book of Shadows presupposes the idea that the original film was just that, but that hasn't stopped flocks of people turning up at Burkittsville hoping to either get a look at the Blair Witch, or just steal some stuff featured in the film. Interestingly that was indeed what happened after the release of the original film. No matter how many times people stated the film was fiction, someone would always steal a sign, more than likely to sell on Ebay.

So a group of people turn up to spend the night in the 'Haunted' woods, and they black out. They find their recordings are hidden in some foundations (Just like the tapes from the original film) and when they return to view them, they realise they weren't acting themselves, and that something else has influenced them...

I remember when this film was first released, excited not only by the prospect of further Witchin' adventures, but by the fact that the Writer/Director Joe Berlinger was at the helm. Berlinger is a noted documentary maker who not only made the stunning Paradise Lost, but the Metallica documentary Some Kind of Monster (Highly recommended even if you don't like Metallica, which I don't). Listening to his audio commentary I can see why Berlinger was excited too. He'd turned in a script that was largely psychological horror, and there's certainly something in the idea that a group of people can effectively 'black out' over the course of the night and not remember their actions, no matter how deranged. But the studio took the finished film, re edited it and threw in a ton of gore shots to appeal to the kids.

Now without the tinkering of Artisan do I think the film would've been THAT much better? It's hard to say, though I certainly think it would be remembered more fondly than what it is. The film, in its current state, does contain some effective chills and I did like the constant nods to the original film and the mythology. And if Berlinger is to be believed, then the original film would've contained an air of ambiguity all the way through (Drawing parallels with his Documentary roots). Still, there's a lot of clunky dialog here, and one or two supposedly big 'scares' that just don't work at all. But despite all that there's still glimpses of Berlinger's original script that make it through, particularly a scene later on where the group turn on each other, climaxing in a nasty neck break. The idea of suspicion turning people into a group of rabid witchunters (Natch) isn't new, but the scene gets extra depth when you recount Berlinger's earlier documentary.

Still, I don't know what it is about this film that has me returning to it. I certainly can't disagree with anyone who lists the film's flaws. I can see them but they don't bother me. There's just something ABOUT Book of Shadows that keeps me coming back every year or so, and you know what? I'm perfectly happy to.

Marble Hornets: A Mystery

2009-10-04T13:13:00.000-07:00

So I'm cheating a little bit today. In Lieu of a film (I'll make it up to you guys I promise), I'm going to give a little push to this Internet oddity.

Obstensibly an ARG (Or is it?), Marble Hornets to give it a name, is a series of short videos that detail an amateur film maker who's being stalked (though he sometimes doesn't realise it) by a long slender man in a black suit. It's also remarkably effective, and something that could only really take place on the Internet.

The story, such as it is to date, goes as follows...

A Youtube channel is started in which the creator (Let's call him MH) details how his friend 'Alex' was shooting a student film called Marble Hornets for his film class. During filming Alex's behavior gets increasingly erratic, until he ceases filming. MH eventually convinces Alex to hand him over the tapes, with the idea to continue the film. Shortly after Alex vanishes and the tapes are not really thought about again.

Fast forward to 2009 and we finally get a look at the tapes. In it we find just what got Alex so rattled...A gent who's been nicknamed 'The Slender Man'.

You can find the first video here. The rest of the videos, titled Entry #1, 2, 3 etc can be found at the same page.

What's most effective about the videos is that though they're only 2 minutes or shorter, they're really quite effective at what they set out to do. If any has seen the film Signs, you'll know that the most memorable scene is the one where we see the video from a children's birthday party. Now imagine 14 videos of the same thing, that's what we're dealing with

There's also a palpable sense of mystery about the whole thing. MH set up a twitter feed and things are starting to go askew there as well. Interestingly another youtube user named totheark has started creating video responses to the original videos, and curiously of all, shows events from one of the original videos from a different perspective.

I've detailed my love of mystery before, and this is no exception. I'm already awaiting the next incarnation of 'The Slender Man'. And I'll be sure to check outside my windows tonight...

Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1941)

2009-10-03T15:16:00.000-07:00

Directed By: Victor Fleming

Robert Louis Stevensons' classic novella 'The Strange case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde' has been adapted countless times (Some 120 times if we're just throwing out numbers). Today we look at probably one of the most well known incarnations.

The thoroughly American Spencer Tracy plays the thoroughly English Dr Jekyll in this adaptation. Taking place in a gorgeous looking, and largely matte painted London, the film continues the standard story that nearly all of the stage and film adaptations have done before and since. Dr Jekyll, looking to explore the 'soul' of a man, takes a potion that lets his uninhibited side live...and look a bit of a mess.

As a nitpick, there's never really been an explanation as to why Hyde appears so differently to Jekyll. Even in the original novella Hyde is described as looking younger than the Dr. Surely if both men were one and the same then their appearances shouldn't differ? Still in this version at least the transformation isn't all that drastic, and it's largely Tracy's layered performance that carries the idea of Hyde, more than the physical make up.

An idea discounted by Stevenson himself but again one that carries through all adaptations, is that the transformation is largely a sexually deviant one. It's not an uncommon thought though, and the Novella has been seen to be a comment on the Victorian Man's hidden Homosexuality at that time. Coincidentally, the Novella was written the same year that Parliament passed a law banning Homosexual sex, and many references are made to Hyde entering and exiting Jekyll's Lab through "The back entrance". Further to that, save for very minor characters there are also no Women in the story, instead the focus is largely on Mr Utterson, a friend of Jekyll's who is investigating the identity of the largely elusive Mr Hyde. Indeed, there are many allusions to eroticism in this adaptation, particularly the first time that Jekyll takes his 'potion' and has a fever dream. In that he's seen maniacally whipping Horses which transform into his fiancée and a somewhat 'loose' woman he met hours previously. Of course he continues whipping.

For 1941 the film really does explore the sexual aspects perceived to be in the Novella. Hyde develops a seemingly sado-masochistic relationship with Ingrid Bergman, the very heavy implication being that he beats her and regularly rapes her.

Though it came out largely in the midst of the Universal Horror series of films, this film really amps up the psychological aspect (Similar to the earlier The Invisible Man) as opposed to the easier 'Hyde runs around brutally killing' aspect that a lot of versions seem to follow. Tracy's Hyde is nothing more than a sadist and not a monster in the classic sense of the word.

There are one or two issues that remain, one is that Tracy is just slightly too old to be the spouse of the much much younger looking Lana Turner. Indeed as IMDB informs me, Ava Gardener and Lana Turner were initially cast in opposite roles, before Gardener thought they should swap. If they had retained their initial roles then the age difference wouldn't be such a problem, as it is now Jekyll comes across as something of a sexual deviant before taking his potion.

The other problem is Gardener's dubious accent. It switches multiple times, between her native accent and a hybrid of Irish/Scottish. Though I'm used to hearing bad accents, there's nothing more jarring than sitting through a dramatic scene and thinking the actress sounds Jamaican.

Still, the film proves to be enjoyable enough without losing it's way like last nights effort, and in reality anything that even partly takes place in a foggy London gets an automatic thumbs up from me. Furthermore it's a shame that Critics and even the stars of the film disowned it when it came out. Indeed, Tracy thought his acting career was over after it was released, he considered his performance that bad. I like to think he caught it on TV years later and looked back at it fondly because he really is that good.

The Old Dark House (1932)

2009-10-02T16:07:00.000-07:00

Directed By: James Whale

So I had this flick lying around and thought I'd pick it for day 2's viewing. On the whole I liked it...sort of.

So it's kind of a stretch to call The Old Dark House horror. It's more like a bizarre comedy of manners which amps up a thriller element in the end, and even that seems like an afterthought. So much so that's I'm not entirely sure what transpired. Still, it's hard to imagine audiences back then being convinced by the film's final third.

The film comes fresh with a horror tag mainly due to the presence of Frankenstein Director James Whale, who's reunited with his star Boris Karloff (In a largely silent role - save for some grunts).

So, the story. In brief, the Waverton's (Played by Raymond Massey and Gloria Stuart) are traveling through "Rural Wales" as the synopsis tells me. Along for the ride is Penderel (Melvyn Douglas). Caught out in a horrendous storm they seek shelter in 'The Old Dark House' of the title. Once there they engage in a darkly comic battle with the denizens of said House. Part way through, another couple arrive (The Male being Charles Laughton, future and one time Director of the masterpiece Night of the Hunter). Then we learn of creepy people living on the top floor, and then we enter pretty standard thriller territory. Film abruptly ends.

The film does start off well, I'll give it that much. Though I can't say if that's down to legitimately good filmaking or whether it's because I have such an affinity for classic Universal Horror films. It's simplistic, but there's something I like about seeing a film shot entirely on a back lot, probably in California, while it pretends to be set in somewhere that's probably only a few hours from my front door. Still, it's nicely written early on, and though the mystery elements start to creep in it's a lot more fun to watch the cast engage in some nice verbal sparring, also with it's stormy weather and it's long dark corridors, The Old Dark House seems one of the earliest precursors to Gothic Horror that I can remember.

It's hard to imagine how audiences would've responded to this film in 1932. Though Melvyn Douglas is nicely charming, it's simply too hard to buy that he and one lady in particular manage to fall in love and get engaged literally one hour after meeting each other (If that). There's a remarkable scene where Douglas tells Lilian Bond (Playing Gladys Perkins) that he wants her "Body and Soul", if only for the fact that it's completely shoehorned in without a care in the World. It's about then that the film comes off the rails and enters the afore mentioned 'thriller' territory.

Still, there's not a lot to add about this film. It's nicely made as always by Whale (One shot has a character tell a story while their face is distorted by Mirrors, creating a nice effect) and it's acted competently enough, though to be honest Raymond Massey and Gloria Stuart are largely non entities on the page. Stuart (Who plays the older version of Kate Winslet in Titanic) seems to do nothing but run into Boris Karloff and shriek, where as Karloff doesn't seem to do anything but bump into Stuart and stare at her.

Bizarrely enough the film opens with a note from the producer stating that the Boris Karloff in this film is indeed the same Boris Karloff that played 'Frankenstein', and as such is a testament to his acting. Though to be honest, in both roles he's hired to do nothing but wear make up and look menacing. So maybe it's not that much of a stretch.

Also of note, the film was later remade in 1962 by Schlock Master William Castle with a decidedly more comic slant and with a largely different plot, and is all the better for it.

Drag me to Hell...Again.

2009-10-01T10:36:00.000-07:00

DIR: Sam Raimi

Welcome back dear reader! 31 one nights of Horrors (And some other oddities thrown in) and we're over the first hurdle. October is an exciting time to be a Horror fan, and as the nights draw in and I have to start putting the heating on, there's nothing better than cosying up with a Horror flick...or 31.

So today is Drag me to Hell, and it should be noted that this is my second viewing. My first is detailed on my OTHER Blog (I'm starting a blog for everything I like, up next...Kitchen Utensils) here. So while my initial thoughts are over there, we can just go into thoughts on my second viewing here.

So...what's changed?

Well I don't think I jumped once this time around, and that's really a shame. I can't really think if that's because I didn't have a Cinema to watch it in, or just because I know when all the jump scares are coming. But on this occasion, the "Spook A Blast" didn't quite get me.

Like the Final Destination series of films, Drag me to Hell strikes me more as a community film. Something you watch with friends and a little bit of Alcohol. Half the fun is in watching someone else squirm, and watching someone else jump. Watching it alone and without the benefits that Alcohol can bring, I found it an ultimately enjoyable but lacking 90 minutes that has an occasional mis use of CGI, but still comes recommended.

So, what worked?

I liked both Justin Long and Alison Lohman more this time around. Long in particular not only plays the unforgiving role of 'Skeptical Boyfriend' but is almost non existent on the page. The fact that he sells the role as well as he does makes me wonder what would've happened if Raimi gave him something else to do.

Lohman works best here though, and watching it again I noticed how she plays the sweet innocent girl as more of a facade than something that's actually real. It seems more that her character WANTS to be the nice innocent girl next door, but is instead perhaps a little more calculating. As usual though I could well be overthinking things.

So that's almost all I have to say on Drag me to Hell. My initial thoughts have not changed much past my initial viewing. If you're going to see the film then see it with the lights down and a lot of friends, you'll thank me afterwards.

It's OCTOBER!

2009-10-01T00:35:00.000-07:00

I'm sure I'm telling you dear readers what you know already, but today will be the first day of our 31 nights of Horror...again. I'm not sure how we're going to work this, but I'm going to try and get my reviews/views up right after I've seen the film(s), but in the event of that not working (Or me falling asleep) I'll update the next day.

Stay tuned and I'll be back later with film numero uno.

We're BACK! (A Dinosaur Story)

2009-09-24T03:23:00.000-07:00

Ok so first off an apology. I didn't do my roundup from last year (And give out the imaginary rewards. Here's a hint, worst film would've been 'Manos' - that film haunts me).

I might still crank that out but we are going for a second year in a row, another 31 films and I might even throw in some Halloween oddities.

Until then keep this thing bookmarked and follow me on Twitter (Just tap that little icon over on the right side of the screen).

It's going to be a crazy October.

The night he came home.

2008-11-01T07:42:00.001-07:00

#31 - Halloween - 1978

"I met him, fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left. No reason, no conscience, no understanding; even the most rudimentary sense of life or death, good or evil, right or wrong. I met this six-year-old child, with this blank, pale, emotionless face and, the blackest eyes... the *devil's* eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply...evil.
-- Dr Loomis

Well here we are, at the end of the road, as a Boy band once sang. It’s not always been too easy (You try mustering any kind of enthusiasm after watching 'Manos') but it has been fun. As tradition with the Friday film I thought I'd leave it to the Saturday to update. Also in the next couple of days I'll have a roundup coming, with some random thoughts (And imaginary rewards to give out)

'Halloween' has long been a favourite of mine, it’s a film that fires on all cylinders and still retains some of its effect today. Though by today’s standards it might not be considered ‘Scary’ anymore it’s still very effective, a testament to just how well made the film is. It was even selected for preservation in the American National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". How many films on this list can boast that?

For those who need an explanation we open with John Carpenter’s ominous theme tune (Played in 10/8 meter – yeah I know my stuff) overlaid with just the shot of a Pumpkin. We then ease into one of the most effective film openings ever made, with a POV shot (Now a staple of horror films) of a girl being stalked. We see a hand brandishing a Knife, creep up on the girl in her Bedroom and stab her to Death. It’s only at the end of the scene do we find out the Killer is a young boy, Six year old Michael Myers.

Skip ahead a few years and Michael escapes from the Hospital where he was kept under the watchful eye of Dr Loomis (The ever great Donald Pleasence). After years of treatment Loomis concludes that Myers is pure evil and should never be released. Now a grown Man and heading to trial, Myers escapes and heads back to the old Neighbourhood.

Watching the film some 30 years after the original release its remarkable how it seemed to set the template for all the Slasher films that followed. You have the aforementioned POV shots, the seemingly unstoppable killer and the ‘Final Girl’ theory, in which the promiscuous Teens being offed while the sensible one, makes it to the end. A notion which Carpenter rejects. He says he wasn’t thinking of that when writing the Film, it just worked out that way, a statement that says a lot about Film Theory. Actually, Carpenter also revealed that if these critics or theorists were to take anything away from the Film, it’s the fact that Laurie, the most sexually repressed character, is the one who endlessly stabs her attacker with a long phallic symbol. Take that film Theory!

Carpenter lovingly shoots in Widescreen of course, and he’s one of the few Directors who use the method so effectively. Most obviously during the scenes of everyday suburbia, wherein he fills every inch with detail. There’s something about these scenes that just sum up autumn, and the Halloween Season. Though in reality it was shot during summer, which is why it looks so warm rather than the near freezing levels we have at the moment.

It’s also surprising how bloodless the film is. There’s plenty of deaths in the film but they’re well handled, whether by design or by the lack of Budget. However Carpenter wrings every bit of tension he can from these scenes. He’s simply too good a Director to let the lack of a budget hold him back. It’s a low budget film, but it never feels like a low budget film.

Carpenter wrote the film with regular collaborator Debra Hill, who handled all the teen speak while Carpenter took care of Loomis and some of the other Male characters. Pleasence is great as Loomis. He never seems all quite there as he tells everyone who’ll listen about the nature of Myers. He was also the third choice for the role, behind Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, but it’s hard to imagine either of those bringing the same edgy intensity to the part.
Jamie Lee Curtis is great too, though again not the first choice. Before she’d grown into the very attractive star she became, Curtis was appropriately dowdy looking for the role of a Babysitter. She sort of floundered for a while after this (The aforementioned 'Prom Night') before appearing again in 'Trading Places' and finding a second Career as a Woman rather than geeky Teen.

There's one flaw, just the one for me. It's a minor quibble but it's always annoyed me. At one point the legend appears onscreen "October 31st" then a few seconds later "Halloween", almost for dramatic effect. As if people were in the audience would suddenly think "Oh shit son! It's Halloween!". It's the name of the fucking film for crying out loud.

Anyway.

All in all it’s a great film with some remarkably effective shots (Michael tilting his head like a Dog at the sight of someone he’s just pinned to a wall, Laurie thinking she’s safe in the foreground while an out of focus Myers rises in the background.). It has a chilling final few moments, more for what it indicates rather than what it shows, and it’s a shame that the sequels ruin something that felt effectively like a stand alone film rather than the beginnings of a Franchise.

So there we have it. All done. 31 films over 31 nights. Proof, if any needed that I have no life at all. Of course you'd think I'd use my new found freedom to do something worthwhile, but instead I've just bought 'Fallout 3' for my Xbox and it isn't going to play itself.

Like I said, there will be one more update in the next few days but until then...it's been emotional

Derek Acorah would be shitting himself.

2008-10-30T12:47:00.000-07:00

#30 Poltergeist - 1982

"I got beat up once by three kids. They took my lunch money. Maybe they got hit by a truck, and they're upstairs right now."
-- Robbie

Ah 1982, what a year it was! Most noteable for this film, 'Blade Runner', 'Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan' and of course, my birth.

But really, 'Poltergeist' holds up mightily well, particularly these days. Giving an insight into Regan's America. Where people prospered and everyone was moving into huge homes in the Suburbs, even if said Houses were built on Ancient Indian Burial grounds. Ah those pesky Indians.

The Freeling's are the quintessential all American family. A loving husband and wife with 3 children. They have it all. They're also being haunted, which kind of puts a bummer on things.

Mention here should go to the cast who were all more or less unknown at the time. By not using big stars it kind of helps the whole 'Average American Family' vibe they were aiming for. Of course, Craig T Nelson went on to voice Mr Incredible in 'The Incredibles', but to me he'll always be the bad guy in 'Action Jackson'. This film also has an honour I cannot bestow to any others on this list, in that no one actually dies. Quite an achievement for something commonly classed as a Horror film. So again there's no Death, but there's scares. Chairs stacked on top of each other (In a neat one-shot trick), vengeful Trees and creepy clowns and Kids and Parents scared senseless that Summer.

The film is also funny. Like genuinely funny, rather than unintentional. It was something that was lost on me when watching it as a kid but now I've got to see it again it all becomes clear. There's a sly running joke that the oldest Daughter (Dominique Dunne, sadly strangled into Brain Death not long after working on the film) is pregnant. Visual clues such as her eating constantly fill out the picture for us, though it's never actually mentioned. There's a sweet scene with the otherwise responsible Parents getting stoned that helps flesh out their characters. It's easy to have the folks be stoic upstanding Citizens but it's nice to see that get skewed a little. Also reinforcing that idea is how useless the Men are in the film. Steven in particular doesn't do that much, instead it's left up to Mom to get everything done. I mean, even the one task Steven is giving (Feeding rope through a portal) is fucked up by him.

I'll be honest and say that the film drags ever so slightly in the middle before the finale goes completely crazy. However the first third is pitch perfect and works incredibly well, so it's a little much to expect the rest of the film to match that. It's no coincidence that it coincides with Zelda Rubinstein's appearance as the all knowing Dwarf. It's not that she's bad, because she isn't. But she is ineffectual. I mean at one point she tells them "It's all clear" before a giant fucking...thing appears out of some interdimensional doorway in the Closet. Way to go Bitch.

This also has Stephen Spielberg's fingerprints all over it. He wrote the script and hired 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' Director Tobe Hooper to Direct (Hooper proving that it's possible to Direct a good film by Accident). Story is however that Hooper was barely there seeing as he was coked out of his mind the whole time. So Spielberg took over the whole production before starting on 'ET' just weeks after shooting on this ended. In fact both films were made in the same Neighborhood. The film was also notable for receiving an R rating at the time, before Spielberg got it reduced to a PG rating. Seems that even back in '82 The Beard had some clout.

Well that's almost it for now, tomorrow will be the last film and then over the weekend I'm going to do a little roundup of my thoughts on this last Month (And will be making many excuses for my writing).

Sucking blood, and probably something else.

2008-10-29T13:42:00.000-07:00

#29 - Fright Night - 1985

"Apparently your generation doesn't want to see vampire killers anymore, nor vampires either. All they want to see slashers running around in ski masks, hacking up young virgins."
-- Peter

Better than 'Lost Boys'. There, I said it.

I make no apologies for that fact. Truth is while people would fawn over Keifer and the two Corey's, I would always come back to Peter Vincent Vampire killer and the further adventures of Evil Ed.

Charley Brewster and his girlfriend are about to get down to business for the first time, but Charley is more interested in the Man moving Coffin's into the House next door. It doesn't take long for Charley to deduce his new Neighbour, Jerry Dandridge, is a Vampire. Mainly because he see's him putting the moves on a Woman. And biting her in the neck.

'Fright Night' is a joy. Writer/Director Tom Holland crafted a film that works as a straight Horror film, or if you want to look at it this way, a film that's all about the Gay. Now bear with me here, Charley isn't interested in fucking his girlfriend when he sees the new Man next door. The Man next door has a "Roommate" he seems all too comfortable with. And consider this speech he gives to one character...

"Hello, Edward. You don't have to be afraid of me. I know what it's like being different. Only they won't pick on you anymore... or beat you up. I'll see to that. All you have to do is take my hand."

Gay.

He gives that speech to a character that's played by Stephen Geoffrey's. Geoffrey's starred in a number of 80's movies before moving on to more um...erotic fair. Gay Erotic fair mainly - starring in films with such distinguished titles as 'Latin Crotch Rockets' and 'Guys who crave big Cocks'. Truly titans of the genre.

Actually Geoffrey's character Ed is a Horror fan, the prototype of Randy in 'Scream' if you will. It shows foresight on Holland's part, to create a part that was later to become a staple of the genre. He never uses it as a Wink-wink-nudge-nudge device, Ed just happens to watch too many Horror films. He's a geek, like you and...well you know.

Special mention should go to William Ragsdale as Charley and William Sarandon as Dandridge. The former completes my trifecta of Actors that look like each other, along with Rob Morrow and Zach Galligan. But he's great here, believable as no one takes his claims seriously. Sarandon is fantastic. He's suave, menacing and dare I say a little sexy package all rolled into one. And then there's Roddy McDowall, starring as B-Movie actor Peter Vincent, he's the guy that Charley turns too because he thinks that hey, if there's anyone who knows how to kill Vampires, it's a guy who does it in the Movies.

Richard Edlunds effects get a special mention, utilizing some of the Puppet work he used just a year earlier in 'Ghostbusters' (Indeed, one of the puppets used here is the abandoned Librarian puppet from the opening of that film). Why this film still hasn't had a decent DVD release is beyond me, instead we're still stuck with the bare bones (And badly transferred) copy from 1999.

This isn't a film I visit regularly, but when I do it never fails to surprise me with how well it holds up.

I've got a feeling, a feeling deep inside...

2008-10-28T12:32:00.000-07:00

#28 - The Thing - 1982

"I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time, I'd rather not spend the rest of this winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!"
-- Garry

This is the 3rd of John Carpenter's film on this list (With one more to come, I wonder which one?) and of course it's a classic. It was actually a toss up between this and 'The Fog' but I decided this should win out. Mainly because it remains one of my favourite films.

An American camp in Antarctic are visited by a Huskie Dog being shot at by some Norwegians in a Chopper. The Chopper explodes and one of the Norwegians gets himself capped. The Huskie settles into the camp, and bad things happen.

'The Thing' is a quintessential Man film. The Cast is all Male, save for a female voice on a Chess Computer (Which is referred to as a "Cheating Bitch"). Even the production itself was all male (With the lone female member leaving because she was pregnant). That's not to say it's a tough guy film, but it's rare to see something where a love interest isn't forced upon us. I can guarantee you that when the inevitable remake comes along there's a Woman in the cast. I realise how misogynistic that sounds but...I don't care. Imagine watching the 'Sex and the City' movie and suddenly finding the new Male member of the Gang. Just doesn't work.

More than that the film is about paranoia, and as such is a sign of the times in which it was made. The Cold War was about, the Space Race was still thriving. Both things that this film taps into. Other than that the central idea that we could be perfectly assimilated by something and no one would notice is hardly an old idea (And indeed the short story this film was based on, 'Who Goes There?' was written in 1938). However, Carpenter and screenwriter Bill Lancaster (Son of Burt) handle the conceit masterfully. It's a film that takes its time and does so largely in one location. The film does divulge from one Research Base, but only to go to another one. It's this that adds to the film's increasing sense of claustrophobia, ably backed by Carpenter and his common use of shooting in Widescreen.

Kurt Russell, an Actor forever undervalued, turns in some magnificent work here as MacReady, the appointed leader of the group. He's the Chopper Pilot and seems to the only non Scientist of the group. He also has the baddest beard you've ever seen on a Man, occasionally topping it off by wearing a Sombrero. In the Arctic. That's how badass MacReady is.

The rest of the cast turn in great work, from Wilford Brimley as the Fatherly figure of the Group to Keith David (Also a Carpenter semi-regular). But the part that people always remember are the effects. Arguably the finest practical effects work to date, and all created by F/X Guru Rob Bottin when he was only 22. When we do see the...Thing in all it's glory it never looks less than fantastic, and stands as a testament to why practical effects remain the most convincing. It's a real living, breathing thing Bottin created and it's all there in Camera, rather than added later.

The film has a wonderfully pessimistic ending which just adds to the allure for me. It's open ended but not in the way that invites a sequel (though there was a video game released that serves as a direct sequel to the film). In fact the end just strikes the perfect balance, capping off the first part of Carpenter's 'Apocalyptic Trilogy'.

More than anything, the film is a sheer joy. Watch it. But do it with the lights off.

They should've gone Camping.

2008-10-27T14:01:00.000-07:00

#27 - Cabin Fever - 2002

"That guy asked for our help. We lit him on fire. You'll understand if I'm not in a particularly social mood."
-- Karen

This film was always marketed as a kind of extreme Horror (Thanks in no small part to it's Director, Eli Roth). But I've always thought of it more as a dark comedy. So it also comes as no surprise that David Lynch is listed in the credits (In reality Roth did animation work for Lynch, but it's not difficult to think some of the Great Man rubbed off on Roth. So to speak).

A group of friends head out to a Cabin in the woods and as these things do, they discover a flesh eating virus. And in one case a Rabid Dog.

This film has come to be a little bit mis-understood over the last few years. As I mentioned it was touted as a sort of comeback of extreme horror, probably because Bizarre Splatter Comedy was too hard to market. In some ways it reminds me of 'Return of the Living Dead' in that Roth get's as much mileage out of the assortment of characters on show as he does the plot itself.

Again why is character important? Horror film characters often act the same as characters in say...Romantic comedies. Their decisions are guided by whatever the plot happens to dictate to them. You need a character outside alone so that they can be the next victim? Then just have them walk out there, even though we recognize it's a stupid decision, it's what the plot dictates. Your female lead can't see what a shit her boyfriend is and how she should be with the really nice guy? That's because she's not allowed until the 3rd Act, when the plot needs her to.

The different side to that rule is when characters you begin to like make incredibly stupid decisions to us, but seem justifiable to them. We watch these films with the benefit of having the clarity to see the bigger picture, and we often make the mistake of saying "Well I would never do that". But it's a statement you can't be completely sure about because you'll never be in that situation, and if you were I don't think we would all be as level headed as we like to make out. We know they're in a Horror film, they don't. And that is how 'Cabin Fever' played out to me. They're not a bad group of kids here, so when they find themselves further and further fucked it gets a little hard to watch. Roth employed the same trick in 'Hostel' and 'Hostel Part 2', though I concede how successful he was is up to debate.

Like I said, there's plenty of Lynch-esque weirdness in this film. Whether it be a Karate performing Kid who loves Pancakes or the darkly comic death by Harmonica. There's fun here for all the family. But Roth also adds genuinely disturbing moments to the film, such as one character shaving her legs until the skin has peeled away or one infected character being left in a shed to rot until she's put out of her misery with a shotgun.

I also can't finish this off without mentioning Death by Dog, a scene I found genuinely disturbing even though Roth shows almost none of it. It should be clear to anyone now that Death by Dog is one of the only things that really scares me. That and the thought of being gummed to Death by an old person.

I was never fussed on the Prom .

2008-10-27T13:22:00.000-07:00

#26 - Prom Night - 1980

"It's not who you go with, honey. It's who takes you home."
-- Wendy

Due to unforeseen circumstances there's going to be 2 fairly quick updates today. First up is a flick I caught yesterday afternoon with Jamie Lee Curtis (Who obviously after the success of 'Halloween' probably got offered a ton of films like this, why she picked this particular one I don't know. But hey, a girl needs to pay the rent).

The film came about in an early time when the Slasher film wasn't quite as established as it went on too become. But you know that pitch meetings went something like "It's Halloween...but in a School!" Obviously a fact further cemented by the presence of Miss Curtis.

On the whole it's a largely average film. There's a prologue where some kids are messing around and one of them is killed, with the others deciding not to tell anyone. Them some years later all those involved are being stalked and killed off one by one. All on Prom Night.

You could probably argue that this film, and the look of the Killer owe more to Italian Giallo films rather anything than anything specifically American. But sprinkling that black masked killer aesthetic with something so resolutely American is about the only thing the of note the film really does. It also actually hides the identity of the Killer fairly well, and further viewings neatly reveal little clues that have been left behind.

Also of note is Leslie Nielsen, before he was to find fame as Lt Frank Drebin playing Jamie Lee's father and school principal. He also shakes some fairly embarrassing dance moves.

It's worth seeing just for that.

Why Brains? Why not?

2008-10-25T13:52:00.000-07:00

#25 - Return Of The Living Dead - 1985

"See? You made me hurt myself again! I broke my hand off completely at the wrist this time, Tina! But that's okay, Darlin', because I love you, and that's why you have to let me EAT YOUR BRAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIINS!"
--Freddy

Tonight's curious oddity comes from Director Dan O'Bannon (Who's actually only directed 2 films, but wrote 'Alien' and 'Total Recall') and is almost never mentioned whenever people discuss Zombie films. But don't let that put you off, it's not an indication of quality.

Teenager Freddy starts his new job at a medical supplies Warehouse. He's shown a cadaver, half a Dog used for Veterinary schools and a couple of Skeletons. His coworker Frank, informs him that 'Night Of The Living Dead' was based on a real case that happened some years previously. A nerve toxin was developed that was accidentally released into a Morgue, causing all the bodies to move around as if alive. The army didn't really know what to do with the Bodies so they just sealed them up into barrels, one of which was delivered in error to their supplies Warehouse, where it's sat ever since. Freddy obviously doesn't believe the story so Frank shows him the Canister with the body inside. Frank taps it on the side (To show how sturdy it is) and it breaks open, knocking them out and unleashing the Toxin.

Handily partying in a nearby Cemetery are a gang of punks including Freddy's girlfriend Tina, a guy who calls himself Suicide and looks just as silly as his name, and what I'm guessing is the slutty one as she takes of her clothes and does a sexy dance for everyone, played by B-Movie Queen Linnea Quigley. It's safe to say a few of these are going to be Zombie fodder soon enough. Their presence in the film probably explains the Poster image, even though none of those Zombies are actually in the film. But the film features a Punk-heavy soundtrack, and the Poster was obviously trying to capitalize on that scene.

It's not quite fair to call this a cash-in to the earlier Romero film. It does mention it, a number of times actually, but it's not really something that relies on the earlier film. If anything it grounds it in reality somewhat by saying "Hey that was just a movie, this thing is for real!". This is also far funnier than most Zombie films and breaks the so called "Rules" that each Zombie film must adhere to. In fact, it does everything the opposite of Romero's supposedly sacred series of films. These Zombies posses intelligence, they can run, they even talk. They don't care about eating Flesh, just the Brains because as one Zombie (Yes really) puts it, "It eases the pain of being Dead".

O'Bannon presents the whole thing as a farce. One incident leads on to another, then to another and so on, until it builds with no where else to go. Take the scene where Frank and Freddy try to kill the Medical Cadaver that's come alive. They call their boss Burt who advises them that something through the Brain will do the trick. So they pin the thing down and put an Axe through it's head. Of course it doesn't work so Burt saws it off at the neck. That doesn't work. So they cut the body up and take it to the Crematorium, the body parts in still moving bags and explain it away as Rabid Weasels that they need to burn.

The film is also surprisingly brutal in parts, with Freddy and Frank slowly turning to the undead. It's a painful process as they suffer rigor mortis while still alive, which I imagine is akin to having a cramp all over. It makes a change from the standard "I've secretly been bitten by something and I will slowly change during the course of the film, suddenly springing to life as one of the undead and surprising everyone" trick. It's a very vocal and public transformation they go through, and it works incredibly well.

I could talk about how the film features some commentary on the constant fuck ups made by the authorities, whether they be Police, Medical or Army. But that would mean giving too much of the film away. But I think it's safe to say O'Bannon probably has problems with Authority.

There are a series of sequels to this, but most of them are in name only. Excluding the first sequel which actually uses some of the same Actors, including those of Frank and Freddy, who have similar roles here - Even down to some of their dialogue. Watch that sequel but avoid the rest, including the preposterously titled 'Return of the Living Dead: Rave to the Grave'

Like Dawsons Creek on Halloween.

2008-10-25T09:48:00.000-07:00

#24 - Scream - 1996

"If you were the only suspect in a senseless bloodbath - would you be standing in the horror section?"
-- Randy

So I'm way overdue on this one. I did watch it last night but have had Internet issues all day so rather than do something productive I just pounded my fists in the eventual hope that it would work.

Anyway, who hasn't seen 'Scream' by now? If not then you should have. And you really shouldn't be reading this blog. I'll keep my thoughts brief.

First off, it's worth remembering that this film really took off in a big way. It was talked about constantly, but I'm not quite sure why. Yes it does what it's supposed to do very well, but is that enough to warrant the fervor this film caused? It does the self aware thing very very well, though for all it's plaudits it's often ignored that Wes Craven himself did the same thing 2 years earlier in 'A New Nightmare'. Still, 'Scream' seems to be the one that people remember the most.

It's weird watching it now as I'm still not sure whether Kevin Williamson's script treats the Genre with love or contempt. A very valid case can be made for both. I've read some reviews that point out that Williamson must love the Genre for him to be so aware of all the pratfalls. Other reviews have stated that it often seems Williamson is above the Genre, almost sneering at it. Ah but what do I know, some people see the face of Jesus in a Dorito.

I'm more inclined to believe it's a bit of both. Williamson is clearly knowledgeable on the Horror genre, but his script seems to come from the place of a frustrated fan rather than someone with an Axe to grind.

What's quite remarkable about the film is bloodless it is. There have been plenty of lower rated films since that have a lot more bloodletting than this film does. However, every wound in this film seems real, which I suppose is the intended difference. The victims in this film are often those of quick, savage attacks, and Craven handles them like the Pro he is.

The series went of the rails a bit in 'Scream 2', a film which is arguably darker than it's predecessor but which is let down by an over convoluted ending (And one that tries to catch you off guard with the reveal of the killer, instead it's just met with a shrug). The less said about Part 3 the better.

Sadly every good thing has a flip side to it and that flip side is the glut of teen horror films that came since. Something that Williamson is partly guilty for being as he also wrote 'I know what you did last Summer', which is like this film but stripped of the wit and imagination. In fact it's the very film that 'Scream' was the antitheses of.

Still, it is a genuinely fun ride and still holds up well, even if Jamie Kennedy's Randy is a little more annoying than I remember him being. He's supposed to serve as the voice of the Audience, the geek who watches the film and shakes his head as they fall into the same traps as a thousand films before it. Instead he comes across as that know it all guy that no one likes to watch a film with because he knows every aspect of everything about it, and will offer his opinion frequently, whether you wanted it or not.

Still, hold your hand up if you're the exact same way...Yeah I thought so.

Sweet sweet, Memories you gave me...

2008-10-23T11:11:00.000-07:00

#23 - Memories Of Murder - 2003

"But...Is wanking a crime?
-- Rape Suspect

OK, if you want to get technical about it, this isn't a horror film in the traditional sense. But it's genuinely a lot more unsettling than most of the films that have made it onto this list, and that counts for something...

The film, based on a true story (And also a stage play) begins in South Korea, 1986. The Country is under military dictatorship. In the province of Gyunggi there's body found of a Woman raped and murdered. Gagged with her own underwear. It becomes apparant that there's a serial killer on the loose, and Detective Seo Tae-Yoon from Seoul is sent to help investigate. For the local cops, led by Park Doo-man are helpless (And altogether useless). As the bodies pile up, both Men take more drastic measures to catch their culprit.

I first saw 'Memories Of Murder' a while back and it's stayed with me more or less since. Like I mentioned, it's genuinely unsettling, but it also harks to a time when Police were ill equipped to deal with such crimes. We take the like of Forensics etc with little value now. We just know it's there and we rely on it to catch our killers. But even at a time fairly recently as 1986, the whole concept was fairly non-existent. When at one point they get a break in the case and are able to get some scraps of DNA evidence it has to be sent all the way to the US for processing. Add to that Police corruption and non effective investigation methods (A lot of the evidence is improperly collected) and you have a pretty grim time on your hands.

Make no mistake, this film is dark. Like 'Kairo' last night, it carries with it an air of unease. You just know that there's little hope or redemption here. You can only watch helpless as people continue to spiral out of control, consumed by this case. Outside of that the most depressing thing about the film is the way that People just don't care. Like the multiple murders in Ciudad Juarez, where over 250 Women to date have been killed, the killings are allowed to continue thanks to ineffectual law enforcement and general public malaise. Better them than us.

As the quote up there suggests the film is blessed with some flourishes of humour. Albeit very dark. There's one Cop for instance who seemingly exists just to fly kick people, but even something as amusing as that takes a turn where it just gets a little too much. It's become somewhat of a trademark of Director Bong Joon-ho to inject his films with this moments of flimsy, and he handles these tonal shifts well, as he does a wonderful set piece where we see a Woman stalked and captured by someone in a field (But we see nothing of the actual crime). He also directed 'The Host', another film on this list, which can best be described as 'Cloverfield' meets 'The Royal Tenenbaums'

Finally, for me this beats out the recent 'Zodiac' as a story about all consuming obsession. Though the killer doesn't send letters to the Police, nor leave cryptic notes, just the act of him killing is enough of a taunt for those investigating it. It's handled all the more believably here than in David Fincher's (Otherwise excellent) film, particularly as we watch Detective Seo Tae-Yoon go from ideological and level headed Cop to just as thuggish as the rest of the Police force.

Something strange, in your Neighbourhood...

2008-10-22T10:25:00.000-07:00

#22 - Kairo (Pulse) - 2001

"Would you like to meet a Ghost?"

It's hard to write any kind of plot description for this given that there are two of them running at the same time, which I'm not ashamed to say caused all sorts of confusion the first time I saw it, and then just mild confusion the second time. To put it as simply as possible, people are offing themselves at an alarming rate as they keep seeing Ghosts all over the Internet.

I'm aware that the plot sounds hokey, and in any other hands I'm sure it would be. But Writer/Director Kiyoshi Kurosawa has more interesting things on his mind than that. 'Kairo' is a film about loneliness and detachment more than a film about hauntings. One character puts forward that wherever it is that people go when they die has become full, and now they've found a way over to our side. One Ghost explains to another character just how sad it is being alone for all eternity. So they appear on computer screens and on webcams asking others to join them, until those people fade away and become Ghosts too, leaving nothing but a black mark where they once were.

This is also a horror film too, and at times I found it incredibly creepy. There are some individual scenes that get you, like a suicide from a tall building that's just absolutely perfect. But there's also an oppressive atmosphere to the film, right from frame one. It reminds me of David Lynch in that there's something you can't quite put your finger on, but you know it's just not right.

It's not surprising that the main focus is the Internet. Though a wonderful tool in many ways (Of course this blog wouldn't have been possible - though I could've created a much cooler Fanzine instead) it also serves as a perfect tool for lack of communication. Sure it's now got easier with instant messaging and email, but it's become so impersonal. We would rather talk to someone through a keyboard than face to face. We would rather see 'LOL' on the screen than see someone smile for real. More than anything 'Kairo' seems born of despair, that as we make giant leaps in technology we become a lot more lonely. Everything around us is artificial, even conversation.

Outside of writing this blog I made a vow to not spend so much time on my laptop anymore. What were people my age doing not 10 years ago? Certainly not this. And I bet they had a better time of it too. More than anything I don't want to end up like one of those Ghosts, with nothing but a faint mark to prove that I once was.

Well after 'Big Foot and the Hendersons' he kind of went off the rails...

2008-10-21T11:44:00.000-07:00

#21 - Abominable - 2006

"Another Darwin Award comin' up."
-- Clerk

Here's a question for you. Do you like you Movie posters hand drawn? And now do you like films about oversized monsters tearing shit (Mainly people) up? Well then his is the film for you!

'Abominable' is the story of a man called Preston who returns to the Mountains with his Carer after an Accident took his Wife some years before. He heads back to his Cabin and is joined by a party of girls next door. When his Carer heads out Preston goes all 'Rear Window' style and watches the Girls, and is pretty sure he sees one get abducted.

Oh and there's a big Yeti on the loose. Or as a Scientist in the film describes it, "Bigger than Bigfoot".

'Abominable' was not the film I was expecting at all. For starters Preston is crippled, and confined to a Wheelchair for the whole film. It's basically 'Rear Window' meets...a really big murderous Yeti. Yeah that's about right. Secondly the characters are reasonably intelligent. Being as Preston is confined to a Wheelchair (And locked in while his Dickish Carer goes out), the first thing he does when he spots trouble is contact the Police. Yeah it might seem sensible to you are me but it's a refreshing change over having someone just investigate or brush it off as something else. The Devil is in the details as they say.

The film is unashamedly a B-Movie (How could it not be?) and is nicely handled by Ryan Schifrin, and if his name sounds familiar it's because he's the son of legendary Composer Lalo Schifrin (Who did the score for 'Enter The Dragon' and the 'Mission: Impossible' theme, and also provides the score here). The monster itself is of course just a guy in a suit (A very large guy too) but at the end of the day would you expect anything else? It also features appearences from Jeffrey Coombs ('Re-Animator'), Lance Henrickson ('Aliens', 'Millennium') and Paul Gleason, better known as the Principal in 'The Breakfast Club'. Also, not many films can boast the death of a Man having his face bitten off...vertically.

It also has an incredibly hokey (Yet very funny) final shot that makes me long for the sequel.

My shortest review ever.

2008-10-20T12:22:00.000-07:00

#20 - Murder Set Pieces - 2004

Unwatchable.

No literally, I turned it off 30 or so minutes in. What a wretched excuse for a film. Now I've never been one to think that films cause people to become violent. But after watching this I think I want all the people involved to suffer. Horribly.

'Manos' only made me want to kill myself, this film made me think Al-Qaeda have the right idea.

2008-10-19T11:59:00.000-07:00

#19 - Prince Of Darkness - 1987

"Hello... Hello... I've got a message for you... and you're not going to like it."
-- Frank

'Prince of Darkness' marks John Carpenter's second entry on the list, and it's one of his most under seen films, not to mention just under appreciated in general. It forms what is part of what Carpenter called his 'Apocalypse' trilogy, which started with 'The Thing' (1982) and concluded with 'In the mouth of Madness' (1995).

We start with a the death of a Priest, he leaves behind a box that is passed on to Father Loomis (Donald Pleasence). Elsewhere there are other strange goings on. Fire ants are rising from the ground, the Moon and the Sun are in close configuration and the Homeless are gathering together; captivated by it. Inside the box is a key to an Ancient chamber that houses a large container of Green swirling fluid. Father Loomis hires a Physics professor and his group of Students to investigate and run tests. And slowly the truth is revealed.

Supposedly this film came about when Carpenter was researching Physics and came across Matter and Anti-Matter, then applied the idea to religion. It's a neat conceit, to bring together the two things that are diametrically opposed to each other and on the whole it works rather well. I don't want to say just what's in the container for those of you who have yet to see the film, but Carpenter manages to make it genuinely unsettling - despite the slightly hokey sounding reveal.

The film is littered with some great scenes. There's a crucified Bird, Alice Cooper as the leader of the Homeless gang stabbing someone with a Bike (A trick that was actually part of his stage show at the time, but incorporated into the Script), the green fluid in the container that drips upward, and freaky dreams of a shrouded figure in a doorway.

'Prince of Darkness' is unusual for the genre in that it's a thinking man's horror film. Not that it takes a great brain to understand it of course, but because it deals with the events in the film in a totally new way. You would be hard pressed to pick out another film that's similar to this one and I think that's what makes it endure. Slasher films are ten a penny, but films like this, in which real ideas are presented and dealt with in a convincing way are sadly hardly ever seen.

Carpenter remains one of my favourite Directors ('Vampires' and 'Ghosts of Mars' are obviously best forgotten by all) and films like this are way. He is unashamedly a Horror director, but he's able to tell the stories in a way that is thoroughly convincing and gets under the skin. Something which this film (And later 'In the Mouth of Madness') typifies. He's also ably helped here by his cast, most of which he's worked with before (From 'Halloween' or 'Big Trouble in Little China' mainly). The only weak spot is the lead, Brian, played by Jameson Parker. But that's only because he's oddly written, in fact for the first third of the film he comes across as a Stalker, regularly watching his co-student for seemingly days before he asks her out for Coffee (And sleeps with her - this is why I should have gone to University). But some weak spots aside it's certainly not enough to harm this great film.

So please, watch it. It also has the best (And creepiest) final shot of all time.

Stonehenge! Where the Demons dwell....

2008-10-18T14:06:00.000-07:00

#18 - Halloween III: Season of the Witch - 1982

"You don't really know much about Halloween. You thought no further than the strange custom of having your children wear masks and go out begging for candy."
-- Conal Cochran

First, a bit of background on this.

After John Carpenter made (Well wrote) 'Halloween II' and killed off both Michael Myers and Dr Loomis he had the idea of producing a Halloween film each year. They would make the setting on or around Halloween and just keep producing these stories and churn them out to the awaiting masses. It's not a bad idea really, Horror was big business then so it's not hard to see why the studio went with the plan. But alas, it was an experiment that began and ended with this film.

Now, What the fuck just happened?

Well here's a brief snippet. A man books it down the street where he's being chased by an Agent Smith looking gentleman in a car. He manages to fight him off in a confrontation and escapes. An hour later he makes it to a Gas station and collapses. He's taken to a Hospital and is delirious, clutching a Halloween mask and screaming about how "They" are out to get us. Now unless he's a 'Daily Mail' reader I think he means business. He's tended to by none other than Tom 'Thrill me' Atkins but not before he has his face caved in by the Agent Smith looking fella. Said Mr Smith then gets into his car, douses himself in petrol and decides to have a smoke. Suffice to say it's the last we see of him.

There we go, doesn't sound too bad right? A nice little mystery to go with your film, and who doesn't love a little mystery? Atkins decides to investigate (I suspect that's all he knows how to do given that he's only ever played Doctors or Cops, he would be lost if he was cast as a Banker or Fishmonger I'm sure) and sets about banging the crazy man's daughter just for the fun of it.

I could try explaining the rest of this film to you. But in order to explain something you have to understand it. Now I can see all the plot points. I recognize where one scene ends and the next begins, but I just don't see the logic linking it all together. But here goes.

There's a company called Silver Shamrock that are creating Halloween masks. The company is run by Conal Cochran, a white haired Irish gent and all round bad egg. The factory where they make the masks is manned by...Robots. Killer Robots. The robots also excavated a part of Stonehenge and are harnessing it's power. Oh but that isn't all. Inside the Halloween masks are special chips, murderous evil microchips. When the kids wear the masks, a special message plays on the TV and the masks dissolve the wearers head into nothing. Nothing but snakes and insects.

I've made up none of the above.

'Halloween III' is pretty crazy all round. There's not really a reason given for Cochran's intentions. He's just an evil Celt. And you know what? Sometimes that's just enough. I like villans with no clear motivation, none of this "Sit here while I explain everything to you" scenes. Hell even if this film had one of those scenes you could guarantee it wouldn't make a bit of sense.

What shouldn't go unmentioned is a jingle that plays throughout the film. It's set to the tune of 'London Bridge is falling down' and goes a little something like this;

"Happy Happy Halloween, Halloween, Halloween. Happy Happy Halloween, Silver Shamrock!"

The film of course plays this at every single opportunity it gets, which is often enough. The film should come with a health warning because that song sticks with you. It becomes fused with your conscience until you and the song are but one being. Out shopping? You'll suddenly start thinking of it. On the toilet? You'll find yourself humming it. Having sex? You'll ask your partner to shout it at you. Trust me.

Still, I find myself with a pang of sadness watching this film for an era that's long passed us by. There's no way a film like this could be released these days. It's just too crazy, too off centre to work. It would be watered down to something starring a bunch of pretty teens fighting off some CGI Demon unleashed from Stonehenge or some such nonsense. I don't know what you could blame it on, be it a shocking lack of quality control or copious amounts of cocaine. But it's amazing that someone took a look at this script and said "Yep, THIS is the film we want to make!"

Bring back the 80's, for I don't want to live in a world where Tom Atkins is no longer considered a leading man.

Why rich people are Dicks.

2008-10-18T02:52:00.000-07:00

#17 - April Fools Day - 1986

"Oh Ha Ha. HA HA HA HA! That's really funny, you guys. Really funny! Fuck you!
-- Kit

So as is becoming the standard operating procedure for Friday nights, I was getting a little worse for wear, hence the late update. Still, we're past the halfway point now! So it should only be great films from here on out.

Anyway, this little ditty from 1986 is a slasher film without a slasher, kind of. It cribs very loosely from Agatha Christies 'Ten Little Indians' (See also, 'Identity'). As it is, the story concerns group of teens who go to their friends private island for the weekend. On the way there a ferry worker suffers an accident, nearly killing him. An accident that the teens (in)directly cause. They're racked with guilt for the rest of the journey but seeing as this is a film, and they are teens, they soon forget about that.

The Island is owned by their friend Muffy (Probably not the same one from 'Night Of The Creeps') and she's extremely jolly and cordial in a way that shows she simply has something to hide. They share a nice meal and head to Bed, where they find all sorts of trinkets (Bondage gear etc) that shows whoever left them has a good idea of their secrets. Then one by one the teens go missing and body parts turn up...

Like I said, this is a slasher film without the slasher. We don't see the stalkings or the dispatches. We're just treated to the aftermath as a couple of limbs are left behind and the kids run around in a panic. It also helps that one of the kids is played by Biff Tannen himself, the erstwhile Thomas F. Wilson.

In that respect the film is a mystery rather than a slasher, but honestly, it's not THAT hard to work out what's going on. But the film never really takes itself seriously enough anyway, so it's a neat way to pass a (Drunken) hour and a half. It probably doesn't quite belong on this list, it's more of a mystery/comedy than anything else. But it's always in the Horror section in the shops, so perhaps they have a looser definition of the term than I do.

Running out of amusing headlines...

2008-10-16T12:44:00.000-07:00

#16 - The Lost Boys - 1987

"Maggots, Michael. You're eating maggots. How do they taste?"
-- David

As with yesterday this is going to be a short review, because what really can you say about 'The Lost Boys' that hasn't been said a thousand times before? Hell there's even a case to be made for it being a film about the lead characters sexual awakening (And I've read it), with the 'Boys' standing in for the Gay way of life. I didn't say it makes sense, but some people see the face of Christ in a crisp so it's not outside the realms of possibility.

Kiefer Sutherland is great here, as he always is when playing bad guys (See; 'Phone Booth', although he's also pretty unlikeable in his brief role in 'Stand By Me'). Jason Patric is decent enough here, though he's still the most boring character. Then of course there's the two Corey's, they of Feldman and Haim. Once poster children for youngsters everywhere and a few bouts of rehab later they're faking their own reality TV show.

One thing to notice about the film is how 80's it is. Not just minorly 80's either. The film is oppressively 80's, forcing how 80's it is down your throat. I mean, only in the 80's would you see a sweaty topless man be the Singer of a band AND have him play Saxophone. Also, just how practical is that? I can't think of a more Singer-unfriendly instrument than the Sax. Still, the crowd seem to adore him.

The film was made by Joel Schumacher (So maybe the Gay-subtext was intentional), a Director who frustratingly makes as many bad films as he does good ones. The man also has an unhealthy obsession with Graffitti and neon lighting. Seriously, pick any two of his films and you're guaranteed at least one of those things. If you're lucky you'll get both. Still for every 'Falling Down' there's a 'Batman and Robin', but rest assured those 3 of you who've never seen this film that this is one of his good ones.

There's also a sequel to this but promise me you'll do one thing. Never watch it.

No Snakes on this Plane.

2008-10-15T14:53:00.001-07:00

#15 - Flight of the Living Dead: Outbreak on a Plane - 2007

"You thought it was me gnawing on the passengers? Nah, I'm a vegetarian."
-- Frank

I'm going to make this the shortest review I've done, mainly because I'm absolutely exhausted.

There's a Plane heading to France, on it is a mad Scientist with what is a virus he's been developing. A Virus that first of all kills you and then reanimates the organs. Now this just might be me but that's just an incredibly shitty thing to do, even for a crazed Scientist. Whatever happened to just killing people? Now you have to bring them back to life just to rub it in? What a dick.

Anyway, as you've more than likely guessed the virus gets loose and mayhem ensues. Messy, funny mayhem.

Maybe I have a complete lack of quality control but I liked this film. Some dubious acting aside it's actually pretty enjoyable. And it gets a hell of a lot more mileage out of its "...On a Plane" premise than 'Snakes on a Plane' did. Having a largely unknown cast helps the film along to, as you never know who's going to be offed next. On more than one occasion someone who I thought was going to survive is quickly dispatched with, so it all came as a pleasant surprise.

The only real issue I can take with it is that it takes a little while to get going. The shit really hits the fan about 40 minutes in, but once it does its a blast.

Special mention should go to Kevin J O'Connor. The guy was in this and 'There Will be Blood' in the same year. And he's excellent in both of them. Of course it'll come to no surprise to fans of the genre, but to everyone else he's an Actor known as "Oh, that guy!" He also gets that great quote at the top of the page.

The film is nicely directed by Scott Thomas, who also directed something called 'Latin Dragon', which just sounds all kind of awesome. He pulls out some nice shots that betray the films low budget, even though it seems like a glorified TV movie at times.

Oh it also has a Nun getting her legs bitten off. Come on, why wouldn't you WANT to see this?

Listen to your friend Billy Zane, he's a cool dude.

2008-10-14T12:19:00.000-07:00

#14 - Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight - 1995

"You know this "Hell on Earth" business? Big fucking deal - I've got hemorrhoids."
-- Roach

I was 13 in 1995. It was a year where 'Toy Story' was released to the public, James Bond made his return in 'Goldeneye' and Brad Pitt wanted to know what was in the Box in 'Se7en'. But this film has what all of those others lack, Billy Zane punching a man through his face and then pulling his head off. Why this didn't land the film a spot in the Top Ten highest grossing films of 1995 I don't know. Still, Zane went on to be in 'The Phantom', but as far as I recall he doesn't put his fist through someone's face. According to the poster he gets to 'Slam Evil' though, so maybe he does.

Anyway, this film was the first in an intended trilogy of 'Tales from the Crypt' movies that never saw fruition. In fact it ended with the terrible 'Bordello of Blood' (1996), a rush job of a film that hastily reworked a script from Robert Zemeckis & Bob Gale (They wrote 'Back to the Future' for you uncultured heathens). It's sad that it never came to be, like the attempt at yearly 'Halloween' films that focused on a different story. But we'll get to that when I take a look at the first (And last) of those attempts with 'Halloween 3: Season of the Witch'

This film starts with a man (William Sadler) heading down the road in his Car, while being chased by 'The Collector' (Billy Zane). There's a crash, and the man escapes, eventually getting holed up in a hotel where we're met with an array of characters (And mainly all recognisable faces). There's the whore (Brenda Bakke - Ok so I don't know her either, but right after this she appeared in 'Under Seige 2', so the 90's was a good time for her), there's the owner (CCH Pounder), there's the worker (Jada Pinkett Smith), the prick (Thomas Haden Church), the lovelorn geek (Played by Charles Fleischer - You know him as the voice of Roger Rabbit) and the kindly but boozy old guy (Played by genre mainstay Dick Miller). The Man has a key and The Collector wants it, being as they key is pretty important the Man isn't just going to give it up, so The Collector sends in his horde of Demons.

And right there is your plot.

The film is a blast, it doesn't really slow down all that much, and even when it does it's still pretty entertaining. Zane is having a great time, even though he sort of takes a backseat for a lot of the film. He uses his smarmy charm to great effect and weirdly enough he reminded me of someone like Russel Brand. Not in the way he looks of course, but in his "I'm better than all of you" style of delivery. It also helps that he's backed up by a cast that take things just lightly enough, without descending into parody.

The effects are impressive. Apart from the aforementioned (And glorious) face punching, there's multiple shots to the face, an arm being ripped off, Deer Antlers through the eyes and a head being blown apart, shotgun-style. All of it is ably handled by Ernest Dickerson, largely a TV director who went on to Direct some episodes of 'Heroes' and 'The Wire' (Greatest show of all time). He handles the transition to the big screen with aplomb and it's a shame that he went back to TV, maybe there's just not that much work for Black Directors in Hollywood.

Oh and continuing a somewhat disturbing theme throughout all these films, there's a kid who's turned into a Demon and is then blown up.

Now that my friends, is what I call entertainment.

The importance of having two parent families.

2008-10-13T11:52:00.000-07:00

Well rounding off our little mini-marathon we have...

#13 - Friday the 13th: Jason Lives - 1986

"I've seen enough horror movies to know any weirdo wearing a mask is never friendly."
-- Lizabeth

It's weird to describe a film in which our killer comes back to life after being struck by lightning as "Good". But you know what? This film is just that. On any given day it's a toss up between this film and 'Part 2' as the best of the bunch. Both have something to recommend them.

This installment was written and directed by a gentleman named Tom McLoughlin who has hardly set the world alight but did deliver a knowing script which falls just short of 'Scream' level winking. He's aware of the genre's (And the series) flaws and happily sidesteps them to deliver what's a legitimately good film. Top of his list (Aside from the excellent kills) is of course, character. I've mentioned this a few times in my other reviews, and it's something that's dear to me, particulary in films like this. Not only does it show effort on the part of the film maker, but it helps draw you in, and actually makes you...*Gasp*...FEEL something when these characters are killed.

I mentioned in my last review that this is the end of the Tommy Jarvis arc, and he is of course our main character. He opens the film by digging up Jason and is about to burn him when lightning strikes and hits our friend, reanimating his (likely poorly smelling) corpse. Showing a shocking amount of common sense he heads straight to the Police to tell them. Of course, they don't believe him, but it's nice to see him make an effort right? Anyway, you know the drill by now, there's some more kids (And some corporate outdoors types. You don't actually mind seeing them get offed) and a hell of a lot of death (18 according to IMDB, which was the series highest bodycount until the under-rated 'Jason X' topped it with 28). The film probably has the series best deaths (Apart from the guy who's walking on his hands in 'Part 3D') and of course, it suffered some cutting by the MPAA. The footage is out there for all to see though, as are most of the uncut deaths from all the films, but Paramount won't reincorperate them into the DVD's due to some idiotic policy they have. There's supposedly ANOTHER boxset of all the films due out next year, so hopefully they'll change their mind, but it seems unlikely.

I can't really say much more about this than I did with my last two reviews. Other than give it a go. It has good acting, likeable characters, particulary the local Sherrif who constantly butts heads with Tommy, and who happens to be the Father of his love interest. He also gets the film's best death (Backbreaking doesn't begin to describe it...well actually it does, how about that).

Sadly this was it for the 'Friday' films, they were never the greatest films to begin with, and couldn't keep continuity in line whatsoever, but they suffered greatly after this one. The biggest lowpoint being 'Jason Takes Manhatten' which had a fantastic teaser poster but was a massive waste of everyone's time. 'Jason X' manages to salvage it all somewhat though, and like this film is respectful of the previous chapters while having its tongue planted in cheek, maybe a little too firmly though.

Tomorrow I'm going to pay a little visit to the Crypt Keeper. But until then...

It's best if we skip part 3.

2008-10-12T13:29:00.000-07:00

So I figured what the hell, I might as well visit the best in the 'Friday the 13th' films, 2 down and one to go!

#12 - Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter - 1984

"Hey, Ted, where's that corkscrew?"
-- Jimmy

This was billed as 'The Final Chapter' but of course we know it was anything but. These days everyone just refers to it as 'Part 4'. We open up in the immediate aftermath of the turgid 'Part 3' (Or 'Part 3D' if you want to get technical. A film that has some nice kills but feels too gimicky, and has the worst final girl in history). Jason's lifeless body is carried off to the morgue and apparantly no one thought to check his vital signs being as he wakes up not too soon after, quickly dispatching of a horny Coroner and what I guess is a nurse. We then meet young Tommy Jarvis and his family (Played by a young Corey Feldman) and learn that the house next door is being rented for the Weekend by a group of teens. Of course, our masked friend turns up and enages in a little bit of the old ultraviolence.

'The Final Chapter' is one of the better entries in the series, which to be fair isn't all that hard. Like 'Part 2' and the later 'Jason lives' (Part 6) there's a lot given over to character here. The teens aren't merely killing fodder, sure they're annoying and constantly horny but hey, show me a Teenager that isn't. It's only a 90 minute film but it proves there's plenty of room to at least build up your characters a little before you off them. It was rare then and hell, it's even rarer now.

And off them we do. FX maestro Tom Savini returns for this installement. Supposedly doing so because he thought it actually was the end of the series, and wanted to give Jason a good send off. There's plenty of stabbings, face crushings and Corkscrews in the hand here to go around, and the Director (Joseph Vito - Not directing much before, or since) stages it all quite well. Apart from a weird shot where we're treated to a Dog jumping, slow motion, through a Window. This film, by the way, actually features 3 different characters going through windows in slow motion. Whether by choice or by the hand of our retarded friend.

The film starts its own little mini-arc too, with Tommy Jarvis providing the only recurring character in the series (Unless you count Crazy Ralph, which you probably shouldn't) aside from Jason himself. He shows up again in the shitty 'A New Beginning' (Part 5) before growing up and killing Jason again in 'Jason Lives'. Of course, this series is hardly strong on continuity so all that is thrown out of the Window in favour of some 'Psychic connection' bullshit in 'The New Blood' (Part 7). It was cool that they decided to create a foil for Jason, like Doctor Loomis in 'Halloween', someone to essentially serve Crazy Ralph's function without being too much like Crazy Ralph.

Anyway, the film features the best death of Jason, his face sliding down the blade of his own Machete. And it ends with the slightly unsettling sight of a young Corey Feldman shaving his head so he resembles Jason and hacking the crap out of him with his blade. Of course, they had never really ended the series, it makes it clear that maybe young Tommy Jarvis was so disturbed by his encounter with the masked one that he'll go on killing. It never quite comes to fruition, but it's a little sneaky of them.

All in all an enjoyable entry to the series.

Hatchets, matches and dispatches.

2008-10-11T15:27:00.000-07:00

And as promised here's part 2!

#11 - Friday the 13th Part 2 - 1981

"I told the others, they didn't believe me. You're all doomed. You're all doomed."
-- Crazy Ralph

Hmm, well this is a curious one. It's a film that almost gets it right, not that it was every destined to be a classic mind you. But as far as slasher films go, it has a lot going for it.

The film opens with the survivor of the last film, Alice, having a nightmare (And handily recapping the first film for us). When she wakes she has a shower, hears a noise and encounters the now standard 'fake scare'. Which in reality was someone blatantly throwing a poor cat through the window (According to the credits the Humane society were on set, but they couldn't have been looking when they shot this). Alice opens the fridge, sees the head of Mrs Vorhees inside and then gets an Icepick through the head.

Cue credits. Credits that literally explode on the screen. This film means business.

Anyway there's no use running down the rest of the plot, you know what happens. I do believe this film is the last time we have camp counselors getting bumped off though, the others just feature horny teens. Not that this film is short of horny teens, but they're taking charge of minors here too. So they're responsible horny teens.

This film does like to take its time though. Not that I minded too much. It's nice to see the film makers at least make some kind of effort to create such inconsequential things like plot and character. You can argue whether they're actually successful in doing so, but at least they tried it. So you have your usual stock characters here, and a guy in a wheelchair (Which lets face it, was just an effort on the makers part to make you feel something when he gets offed. Which he does, in quite spectacular fashion).

Aside from the opening, the first kill actually comes over 30 minutes in. Sadly though it's the aforementioned Crazy Ralph who bizarrely warns the teens of their impending doom and then takes to stalking them. It's sad they off him so soon in the series as surely there was plenty more fuel to get out of the Ralphster. But alas it was not to be. So long Crazy Ralph, we hardly knew thee.

The biggest failing of the film is in the Deaths. It's not the fault of the film makers though. The story goes as this. The MPAA were caught somewhat off guard when the original film was released, and were accused of far too lenient on the film. So a year later when this came around they were ready, scissors in hand. As a result the deaths are cut drastically short, with the bare minimal of bloodletting shown on screen. Oddly enough they also cut the recap of the Mrs Vorhees decapitation that was shown in full in the original film.

That aside, there's some neat things about the film. Jason is treated differently here than he is in the later films. He's just a guy with a sack on his head, looking exactly like the killer in the (Sadly still not widely released 'The Town that Dreaded Sundown'). He has yet to become the supernatural superman he goes on to become. The film alludes to the idea that he's been living in the woods all his life, trapping and killing what comes his way. Just like his Mother killed the Teens in his name, he seems to be killing these Teens in the name of his Mother. If you really want to think about it you can wonder if Mrs Vorhees was aware of her sons existence as he was clearly aware of hers.

Aside from that he makes mistakes, he's a little messy in his kills and he's occasionally clumsy. It's not something you see all that often in these films and it's an altogether welcome addition. There's some other nice touches too, such as half the teens surviving because they go out partying and just miss all the killing, including one guy who's A) A Ginger, and B) The practical joker of the group. Watching it, even after seeing it once or twice, you're still damn sure he's going to get killed. Yet the last we see of him he's downing some bottles of Beer and partying.

There is one overall confusing element to the film, mainly the climax. It feels as if there's a huge chunk missing, and rather than ending on an ambiguous note it just comes across as rushed. Personally I think our two heroes (Paul Holt, the only character given a last name. And Ginny, though I don't remember anyone saying her name) kill Jason in a scene that was removed so that they could keep churning the films out. Basically the climax runs as this:

Ginny and Paul have just come from an encounter with Jason, with Ginny running a machete through our sack headed killer. They go back to their Cabin where there's a noise at the door. Paul opens it and it's a dog that had gone missing earlier on in the film. The dog runs to Ginny who's sat in front of a window when suddenly Jason comes crashing through, unmasked, and grabs her. Then we cut to Ginny being carted away in an Ambulance, asking where Paul is. The End. See what I mean? Some have gone on to say that the scene with Jason coming through the Window is a dream, alluding to the end of the first film. But then the final scene still makes no sense. Ginny and Paul escape somewhat unscathed. So what the hell happens to Paul? Ah I hate it when films make me think, particularly when there's no answer.

Anyway, tomorrow I might finish up with another Ft13th number. Though I'll skip part 3 with all its 3D goodness and go right to part 4.

Until then...

A face only a Mother could love...

2008-10-11T03:43:00.000-07:00

Well last night brought much mirth and revelry, so I watched this while a little drunk before falling asleep. So there will be two reviews today.

#10 - Friday the 13th - 1980

"I'm not sure I'll last all week."
-- Alice

I'll keep this short being as I don't remember all to much about this film (And my notes are somewhat ineligible).

'Friday the 13th' is one of those films that you remember as being better than what it is. More than likely the memory of all the films roll into one, and it gets so you can't really tell them all apart. Only when you sit down and watch them do you realise that actually, the original film is one of the worst films of the whole series. The opening entry's only notable credit is that it really created the template for the slasher films that followed (Although 'Halloween' pre-dated it. This film created a specific template that seemed to be adhered to since).

The film also has that great twist (Well for those who had seen it for the first time) of Pamela Vorhees being the killer. It doesn't make that much sense, being as she offs Teenagers who are at the very least half of her age with considerable ease. But Betsy Palmer infuses the role with enough mad eyed craziness that she's able to pull it off (Even though she considered the script "A piece of shit" and only did it because she wanted a new Car). Well technically speaking the film has 2 twist moments. The film was created mainly as a money making scheme, shoot it low budget, pack in some shocks and people will come flocking. Of course it worked. The film's second twist is the final appearence of Jason Vorhees dragging Alice into the Water. It's only a dream sequence (Kind of?) but it was an effective final scare (And also a rip off from the end of 'Carrie', which has a near identical scare, right down to the whole dream-like effect of the whole scene). The moment was supposedly thought up late in production as a neat way to end the film, but it's hard not to imagine they were seeing their way into a sequel with that one.

The killings in this one are somewhat more sparse than prehaps what we're used to. There's long stretches of teenage revelry to contend with before the next big kill. I will say though that the kills, masterminded by F/X genuis Tom Savini are all nicely done, with one highlight being the 'Arrow through the throat from under the Bed kill' of a young Kevin Bacon. I believe the R2 release of the DVD also features the deaths uncut, which only amounts to a few extra seconds of footage in total. But it's nice for those of you who like the sight of blood (Kathryn).

The series didn't really kick off until the Second film, but even that is different enough from its predeccesors, in ways I'll get to another time. Hmm, maybe tonight?

Words fail me...

2008-10-09T12:11:00.000-07:00

...No really, I can't even think to be witty.

#9 - Manos: The Hands Of Fate - 1966

"But master, you have six wives. Why can't I have one for myself?"
--Torgo

This is the worst film of all time. I'm sure you've heard it said about many films, some of those films you may actually enjoy and feel hurt by such brutish comments (I, for one, have a soft spot for 'Street Fighter: The Movie'). But rest assured. This is it.

I'm not going to give a rundown of the plot, in case some of you might think it doesn't sound all that bad and become tempted to hunt it down. Fuck it, you've heard my warning so if you do watch this and you're eyes bleed then don't come crying to me (Seek medical help). A family take a wrong turning and end up staying in a house in the middle of nowhere, it's looked after by Torgo who serves 'The Master' (Not the same Norwegian Metal singer we saw in 'Vampires' - A different Master, it seems you don't need much of a qualification to go around calling yourself a Master these days. You just have to look really pale). The Master has many wives, and at the end the family becomes his servants. The father takes the place of Torgo (Who's fate is 'mysteriously' left open, should there be a sequel - There wasn't) and his wife, and somewhat unpleasantly his six year old Daughter, become wives of The Master. The end. They even have the audacity to end it with a question mark.

If you think I'm missing out on some plot elements there I'm not. Really I wish I were. Sure there's some nonsense with the local Police (All 2 of them) and a couple of teenagers who spend literally the whole film making out in the guy's car. Now listen, this film takes place over some hours. It's light when it starts and dark when it ends. If I was with a girl kissing for all that time I'd expect a little something (Other than lockjaw). But instead they sit there literally for fucking hours slurping and going "Hmmm" like they're tasting something they're unsure of.

A man much smarter than I commented that "Every frame of this movie looks like someones last known picture" and they're not wrong. It sums up just how dreary and uneventful this thing is. Ah fuck it, rather than write something semi coherent I'll just run down some 'highlights'. But first I will say, if you ever ever feel the need to watch this film then track down the 'Mystery Science Theatre 3000' version. Only a man and his two talking Robots could make this film even a tiny bit bearable.

- Manos is Spanish for hands. Think about it.

- The camera they used could only record 23 seconds at a time, and without sound. So the film was dubbed in later, by the Director and his Wife. The Actress who played the little girl cried when she heard her voice on film. So there. This film makes Children cry.

- Lighting was nonexistent in this film. So there's a scene where the Police head out to search for the family, only to take about 4 steps before turning back again. Because it was dark.

- The Actor who plays Torgo (Really the only highlight in this film - and I use that term very very loosely) was meant to be a Satyr. He created prosthetic legs which he ended up wearing the wrong way around, leading to his painkiller addiction and the actor killing himself. This film is actually responsible for the Death of another Human being.

- On that note, you never really know he's a Satyr. There's a shot of the Wife gasping when she sees Torgo's legs. But we never fucking see what she's gasping at. So she just comes off as cruel for mocking poor Torgo's farmer like appearance.

- This film contains a 5 minute opening of the family driving, whereupon the credits were supposed to be overlaid. Except they forgot. So the film opens with 5 minutes of people just driving.

Just. Driving.

On a lighter note, at the premiere of this film an old lady smacked the Director (And Writer, and Star), supposedly for making the Girl one of the Masters Wives. I just like to think she was doing it for all of us. God bless you old Lady. God bless you.

*BONUS*

Here's the MST3k version of the film, skip to 16 minutes to skip all the intros etc

Don't do it.

Anyway the wind blows...

2008-10-08T13:24:00.000-07:00

#8 - The Happening - 2008

"You're not interested in what happened to the bees?"
-- Elliot

This film contains a scene where characters run away from the wind. I want you to ponder on that for a moment. Go on, I'll still be here...

...OK pondered? Right. It's true, and happens to be the most entertaining thing about 'The Happening'. Not that scene itself (Though it did take a moment for the unbelievably of it all to catch up with me - put it down to the shock) but just how completely wrong headed it is, and this from a man who was widely touted as 'The new Spielberg' at one point.

'The Happening' opens in central park. A Woman and her friend sit reading a book together when one of them notices a scream in the distance. She quickly notices that some people look like they're gouging at their own flesh (We then cut to her point of view to see it, but oddly enough there's no gouging to be seen). Her friend acts weirdly before stabbing herself in the neck with what looks like a giant knitting needle she happened to be hiding in her hair. We then meet Marky Mark Wahlberg (Giving a career-worst performance) as he tells his Science class about the missing Bees, and demands to know why people aren't more interested in the fact that all the Bees have gone missing. It's also something that neither he or any other character will mention ever again, so presumably it's nothing to do with the plot. Anyway, he and all the other teachers at the school (Including former Super Mario Brother John Leguizamo) are informed there are terrorist attacks happening all over so they evacuate. The Train they're on stops in the middle of some small Town. Once there they find out that all the attacks are taking place just on the North East, so they all scatter (handily only leaving us with a cast of a handful). From there its a quest to get to the least populated place they can find and hope to stay alive.

It's no secret but I'm going to spoil it anyway. It's the plants and trees that are killing us. They block some pathways in our Brain that stop us from self harming, leading us all to kill ourselves in often very gruesome ways (Like having Lions tear us apart at the Zoo). To be honest the whole thing is more of a muddled mess than it sounds. The idea is that plant life feels threatened by Man, so seeing as it has no place to go it has to evolve its own defense mechanism which it secretes whenever there are large groups of people around (Hence why the attack starts in a Park - though there's no reason why it couldn't have started in a Garden Centre. Go on, name me a film, much less a horror film that opens with people dying in a Garden Centre? Never going to happen). What that whole thing doesn't explain is why is the wind involved? Before an attack it's usually all calm, then suddenly the wind picks up blowing secretion into our faces (Steady on now). Is nature conspiring against us? Why am I putting more thought into this than M. Night Shyamalan did?

Ah, M. Night, what happened to thee? He started off scaring people all over the world with 'The Sixth Sense' and follows it up with the fantastic yet vastly underrated 'Unbreakable' before seemingly freefalling with 'Signs' (Which I genuinely like), 'The Village' (Which I genuinely hated) and then this (Which genuinely insulted my intelligence). M. Night the Director though is technically excellent, which makes it harder to dislike his films. Even 'The Village' has one or two very good sequences amongst the rest of the dross. This film is no exception. There are some well staged moments (Mainly the glut of suicides, one or two of which are quite disturbing) and love him but he tries his hardest to make wind seem like a genuine threat. This of course consists of shots of Trees/Plants blowing in the wind, or shots of characters staring ominously at Trees/Plants blowing in the wind.

M. Night the writer however really needs to give it up. This feels like the first draft of a script, if that. M. Night seemed to think of the idea first, then the Deaths and just gave up on the dialogue, almost like it were just placeholders until he gets around to writing that ever elusive second draft. I mentioned Wahlberg was bad, and that's mainly because he's given a shitty script to work with. It's obvious watching him that he has no idea how to play the part, there's literally nothing on the page. Faring about the same is the gorgeous Zooey Deschanel as his Wife (Who rounds off my perfect woman double bill with Elizabeth Banks - oh and if you get the chance check out her album 'She & Him - Volume one') as she's given nothing to do but look wide eyed, but at least she manages to do that well.

There are some laughable moments here, whether it be running from the Wind or the unnecessary shotgun death of two kids. I'm sure M. Night was trying to make a point about how, at the end of it all, we're just Nature's bitch, but if I wanted to see that I'd watch 'An Inconvieniant Truth'.

At least Al Gore would never put his name on a shitty film like this.

I've come to suck your blood.

2008-10-07T12:44:00.000-07:00

Great Actor, Great Director, Great Film?

#7 - Vampires - 1998

"Its not like they're a bunch of fuckin' fags hoppin' around in rented formal wear and seducing everybody in sight with cheesy Euro-trash accents, all right?"
-- Jack 'Fuckin' Crow

When 'American Pie' came out, my friend David and I saw the trailer for this film and thought it looked like the greatest film ever (Well I certainly did). One of my favourite Directors and one of my favourite Actors in a film about Vampires? AND James Woods plays a character called Jack Crow! How do you screw that up?

Well you make it largely uneventful and give James Woods nothing to do but look mean for most of the running time.

Woods plays Jack Crow, which in the pantheon of character names is right up there with Deke DaSilva from 'Nighthawks'. He leads a motley crew of 'slayers' as they hunt Vampires in their nests. After one succesful hunt, as the guys are celebrating with some hookers and, somewhat bizarely, the local cop. The Master played by Thomas Ian Griffith, strides in looking like a Marilyn Manson tribute act and makes short work of those involved. Mainly by ripping body parts off and scowling. The only ones left of the whole mess are Woods, a hooker (Played by 'Twin Peaks' Sheryl Lee) and a fat Baldwin brother (Daniel apparantly).

After visiting some priests and thanks to a handy psychic link the Hooker has (As she's one of The Master's victims) they learn that he's in search of a cross that will allow him to finally walk around in the daylight. I imagine this is bad for everyone else on the Planet. The last thing we need is a really angry 'Cure' fan who can also bite the shit out of people.

'Vampires' is a bit of a mess. Apart from a setpeice at the beginning and at the end there's not a lot going on inbetween, other than Woods getting mildy angry at people and more moments of The Master scowling. On that note, why is it that Vampires always look like Vampires? I mean, I get the whole thing with the fangs and looking like Death. You can't really hide that. But more often than not Vampires in the movies dress up like if you were to see them on the street, you'd turn to your friend and say "That guy looks like a Vampire". Then maybe you'll do your best impression of The Count from 'Sesame Street'.

According to IMDB the fims' budget was split by two-thirds right before filming began, and it had to be hastily re-written. There's still some neat ideas here though. It turns out the first Vampire (Yes, The Master) was a former priest that was accidently turned into a bloodsucker thanks to a botched exorcism in the middle ages. In a nice bit of Catholic guilt, they're also the employers of Woods and many other slayers around the World. Actually that's about it for neat ideas, aside from KNB's fantastic practical effects. If there's one thing this film isn't short of its limbs being removed from their bodies. Sometimes a head, sometimes an arm. The Master doesn't discriminate.

So that's it for this film, there is a sequal starring Jon Bon Jovi but he plays the much less cooler sounding Derek Bliss. So I won't be watching.

He's come to fix your plumbing...

2008-10-06T14:02:00.000-07:00

#6 - Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer - 2007

Can a cult film be a cult film if it was purposely designed to be a cult film? While you ponder that tongue twister I'll go ahead and answer. No.

'Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer' tries to be 'Evil Dead 2' but without the feeling that there's a genuine madman at the helm. It has all the right ingredients, and all the best intentions, but it struggles to overcome what probably seemed like a great idea on paper.

The story is that a young Jack Brooks witnessed his Family get slaughtered by a monster when he was a child. Since then he's had anger issues and makes his living as a Plumber, with a forever annoying girlfriend. They take night classes taken by Robert Englund, who is forever destined to play bad guys. Even when he starts off as a good guy, you just know he's going real bad real soon. Anyway, Jack does some plumbing for Englund, unleashes something that posseses the former Mr Kruguer who then walks around doing possessed things like eating whole lettuces and throwing up on himself (Likely the product of said lettuce eating). Anyway, Englund soon turns into a Monster, eats some students and becomes some giant monster thing. Leading our hero through a gory 20 minute finale.

And that's it for Jack Brooks. It's a massive amount of build up for little payoff. Jack unleashes his inner anger and does indeed slay the fuck out of some Monsters. Admirable in intention, but lacking in execution. Still, Trevor Matthews is enjoyable enough as the titular character. Looking as he does like an angry Jason Lee. I half expected him to cross things of his karma list, that said, if Earl had 'Slay Monsters' as part of his list then 'My Name is Earl' would be better than it is today. Alas, sadly that's not to be. Englund is...well he's Robert Englund, you pretty much know what you're getting with him.

The film should be commended for it's use of no CGI at all. The Monsters are on the whole excellent, and give this film that B-Movie feel it was going for that you simply couldn't get with computer generated effects. Make no mistake, the film is certainly well made but it just feels like a feature length show-reel. Which is a shame because if they had hung a good script on this thing then they would have the cult classic they so aspire to create.

There's something in my Teeth.

2008-10-05T14:46:00.000-07:00

Rounding off the weekend's creature features we have...

#5 - Shark Attack 3: Megalodon - 2002

"Torpedoes away motherfucker!"
-- Ben

People wonder how Larry David makes 'Curb Your Enthusiasm'. It's simple really. He comes up with the story, outlines general scenes that he and his cast then improvise. The results are then edited into what we see today. I can't help shake the feeling that this film was made the same way, only by actors who aren't so talented. Oh and there's a giant shark too.

I've not seen the other 2 parts in the 'Shark Attack' saga, but I don't think I'm really missing out on anything. In all I find it doubtful that there's any real overriding theme throughout the films. Other than Sharks REALLY like eating people. But we knew that anyway (For more on this, see the upcoming 'Shark In Venice', sadly not a part of the 'Shark Attack' pantheon of works).

We open on the film in the middle of nowhere, actually with some stock footage of a shark (What appears to be some very old stock footage). There's a company called 'Apex Communications' doing some underwater work on fibre optic cables 5 miles down in the Ocean. On a Radar in the communications room we see something approach. That something turns into more stock footage of a shark and then some poor divers detached head. We skip along 6 months later to Mexico, and a luxurious Beach resort where Ladies man and all round straight guy John Barrowman strolls around like he owns the place. He has the walk of a man that knows he's in a shit film but hey, at least he get's a vacation out of it. Albeit to South Africa (Yes, South Africa doubles for Mexico here). He also has a Mexican sidekick he gets to call "Bitch". Oh that Barrowman, such a hatemonger.

Anyway, Barrowman has his bitch stay in the Boat while he goes Lobster diving and discovers a cable under the water. Said cable has a Shark tooth lodged in it, which he manages to work free. Back at his place (And with a Lobster Supper), he hits up the Internet and takes a picture of the Tooth, asking for help on a message board. There he attracts the attention of a Paleontologist (Played with no skill at all by Jennifer McShane - No, I don't know either) who makes the trip to South A...sorry, Mexico to get some of that Shark action.

It turns out the thing is a Megalodon, and it's been extinct for millions of years. Only what they have on their hands is the Baby. But the Mother is out there...

I don't want to waste too much time on this film other than to say it's a glorious piece of crap. It's really quite as dire as one would expect. Say what you want about the Shark in 'Jaws' but at least they went through the trouble of building the fucking thing. In 'SA3' (I can't even be bothered typing the full name out anymore, but did type this line. Weird) we get a flimsy looking Fin, some stock footage and a chomping head. Still, one thing 'Jaws' didn't have was a Shark that made noise while it ate. And when I say noise I mean if you or I were being particularly obnoxious at the Dinner table one day and decided to eat with a "Nyom Nyom Nyom" sound. Still, if there was one thing 'Jaws' was missing it's comical eating sounds from an obnoxious Shark. No wonder Barrowman couldn't wait to kill it (At one point he goes out just armed with a Pistol) That Barrowman, fucking Shark hater.

For all you 'Torchwood' fans you'll be glad to know his acting hasn't improved over the years. Though I suspect this is the first time he's been asked to kiss a Woman on screen. Of course the master thespian jumps at the task just like those celebrities do at one of those particulary gag worthy eating tasks on 'I'm A Celebrity, Get me out of here!". Ah I can't hate on the man too much though, he's obviously having a blast, and he does have an infectious charm about him. It's as if he's always one moment from cracking up here, he has that weird "I'm trying REALLY hard not to laugh" look on his face for most of the film, even during the so called 'serious' moments. He also improvised the greatest line in film history, which I'll come to in a bit. However, the aforementioned Miss McShane fares a lot worse. Looking like Joey Lauren Adams as built by Playboy, she has a crying scene where the tears are literally pouring OFF her face. Like moments before the Camera was rolling someone threw a bucket of Water over her for a jape and then yelled "Action!". Probably that Barrowman, such a Woman hater.

The film really kicks into gear during the last 20 minutes. Where the Shark has given up on actually eating people and has just started swallowing them whole. An effect done by taking your standard footage of a shark with its mouth open, your footage of an actor flailing around, and just superimpose them together. Cheap and not at all effective. Still, it's hard to hate on a film that seems like it was made as one big tax write off that accidentally got released to the public.

So as promised, via the glory of youtube, I present the greatest line in all of film history...

Guaranteed to make a lady swoon...

Enjoy!

A serious look at the dangers of pharmaceutical research.

2008-10-04T14:55:00.000-07:00

In direct contrast to yesterday's effort we have a creature feature done right.

#4 - Alligator - 1980

"I'm trying to fight male pattern baldness here OK? It's a sensitive subject so let's not hear any more about it"
-- David Madison

Ah this is more like it. Seeing as it's the weekend and I wanted to wash away the taste of yesterdays movie I thought I'd give this fun little movie a spin. It just goes to show that if you're a talented writer then you can make any idea (Like ooh lets say a giant Alligator in the Sewer) work. And work well.

We begin in the early 70's at what is proudly proclaimed to be a 'Alligator wrasslin' contest. You'll be glad to know that the 'wrassler' in question gets his leg chomped on, quickly establishing what is to become the theme of the film. Watching is a young girl and her family, who promptly buy a baby Alligator. Turns out that her Father, for reasons I still don't know, flies into a rage when the girl is at School and flushes the Alligator down the toilet, sending it into the sewer system where the local pharmaceutical company are dumping their waste. Fast forward 12 years and we meet David Madison, played by Robert Forster, as he's buying a Dog in a local petstore. The owner, in what is soon to become a running gag, notices Madison is going bald. It also transpires that the owner is also catching local dogs and selling them for medical experiments to, yes you guessed it, the aforementioned pharmaceutical company. Any immediate hatred you have for the character is satisfied minutes later when he becomes our first victim. Unless of course you count the 'wrassler'. Which I don't because frankly, if you're going to particpate in any kind of dangerous act with an Animal then you deserve to lose your leg. Like those people who agitate their dog and then get suprised when it turns around and bites them. You got what you deserved, now let's hope you learned your lesson.

Anyway, body parts start to turn up and David investigates, getting his partner killed in the process. He was annoying though, but i'm not sure that's reason enough to wish death by giant Alligator. There's a seedy reporter, played uncannily by who appears to be M. Night Shyamalan who becomes the third victim but manages to take some pictures while he's being eaten. Thus handily proving the existance of our sewer dwelling friend.

Madison visits a leading snake expert, played by Robin Riker and some fantastic hair. In a nice move, it turns out that she's the girl from the opening who's Alligator is flushed down the toilet. It's revealed in a throwaway moment that's funny to us, though she or any other character is in on the joke. Anyway, this all leads to some rampaging Alligator action in places where you'll otherwise not expect to see a giant Alligator. Such as the middle of the street and at a Wedding. You might scoff but consider this; We're treated to a scene in which a man is thrown through a wedding cake by a maurading Alligator, a poignant image that was replicated by Guns'N'Roses in their 'November Rain' video which came a whole 11 years later.

'Alligator' was a lot of fun all told. Robert Forster is great as Madison, whether worrying about his baldness or just walking around with chewing gum permanently in his mouth. It's easy to overact in a film like this, but Forster grounds it in reality. Well as real as you can get in a film like this. He's helped by John Sayles script, who keeps things just the right side of tongue in cheek. Sayles is also the writer of 'The Howling' and 'Pirhana' for one of my favourite film makers, Joe Dante. Sayles himself went on to become a director in his own right and he's never returned to his genre roots, a loss to us all really. Hokey effects aside, the film is well made by Lewis Teague who went on to direct 'Cujo'. He does the best with what he's given, but given this was 1980 he has to rely on some perspective tricks for what is basically an Alligator walking around an undersized set while someone shakes the camera. It's suprisingly low on gore two, though you do get the pleasure of seeing no less than two people being eaten feet first.

I might as well follow the weekend theme with another creature feature, so prepare yourselves for the glorious 'Shark Attack 3' starring John Barrowman and the best line in film history...

Third time's the charm.

2008-10-03T14:52:00.000-07:00

Well it was bound to happen really. I was on a roll with two very enjoyable films, and thought things were looking up, until I saw tonight's film.

#3 - Aliens Vs Predator 2 - 2007

"What the fuck are you? "
-- Col Stevens.

Though it's better than the film proceeded it (Which isn't saying a lot really. Herpes is better than Cancer, but I still wouldn't want either), 'Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem', to give it its full title, still shows that you can't just throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks. It manages to get some things right over the original film (The violence mainly) while showing all the same faults (Everything else).

The story, such as it is, takes place immediately after the closing moments of the original film. The 'PredAlien' (Sigh) has just hatched and dispatched the remaining Predators on board the spaceship heading home. One Predator, showing that he was probably one of the special Predators at School, proceeds in trying the blast the shit out of the marauding PredAlien and thus blasting holes throughout the Spaceship and sends it hurtling to Earth. It crash lands in the wilderness where a Father and Son are hunting together. Doing fatherly-son things like teaching the kid to shoot a Deer in the face. But these are hunters of course, so they have to do it from a fair distance away. Lord forbid they'd give the thing a fighting chance. Anyway, the facehuggers on board the ship escape, killing the Father and Son.

On that note I should care that they've killed of a kid so soon, but I feel nothing. Mainly because the kid gets about all of one line, and because it was undoubtedly thought 'edgy' that they kill a cute little Kid in the opening. Here's the thing, it worked so well in 'Assault from Precinct 13' because aside from John Carpenter being by far and away a better film maker, it serves the purpose of moving the plot forward and has the bonus of being completely unexpected (At least the first time you see it, subsequent viewings just show it as a wonderfully paced sequence). It's just one thing that shows how wrong headed this film is.

There's more of a story of course, but not too much more. It's not hard to work out what happens. The 'plot' such as it is serves as an excuse to get some Alien on Predator action, as it should be. But sadly they insist on throwing things like characters and dialogue in the way. No one is watching this film because they really want to see some angsty Humans work through their problems. They want to see a Predator throwing a spear through an Alien. It's a simple formula really. Some Aliens, some Predators and they fight. It's like watching a boxing match that should be a great fight, but the Referee keeps getting in the way. It's infuriating for everyone involved, and no one walks away happy. Certainly not me.

If there's one thing the film gets right it's the effects. There's something heart warming to see practical effects still being used in the age of CGI. But even this gets ruined by the fight scenes seemingly being filmed with the lenscap left on. It's tempting to play around with the contrast on your TV, should you feel it's acting a little kooky. But rest assured, the film makers wanted the film to look that way.

All in all I don't know what I was expecting really. In summary, there's Aliens and Predators, they fight, people die and there's some set up for a sequel. If you ask me you're better off watching Danny "Too old for this shit" Glover taking on a Predator in the underrated 'Predator 2'. I mean what's not to love? There's Glover, LA riots, Jamacian Gangsters, Voodoo and Gary Busey. Plus it has the eternally great Bill Paxton, the only Actor to be killed by a Terminator, Alien and a Predator.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is a truefact.

Well I'll be back tomorrow hopefully with something far more enjoyable. Hopefully.

Animals in cages and the art of sexual repression.

2008-10-02T13:52:00.000-07:00

Before we get to tonight's film I thought I'd drop this little link to the trailer for yesterday's film 'Night of the Creeps'.

Thrill me

It doesn't quite get across what the film is actually like, but hey, you get to sample the glory of Tom Atkins so it's all good.

And for tonight's special feature...

#2 - CAT PEOPLE - 1942

"Oh, it's alright. It's just that cats don't seem to like me. "
-- Irena

Tonight served a special surprise with this film from 1942 from legendary RKO producer Val Lewton. 'Cat People' manages to mix horror, melodrama, eroticism and elements of tragedy into what is essentially the story of a Wife who cannot consummate her marriage.

The film begins in a Zoo, as the Serbian immigrant Irena sketches a Panther in a cage. While there she meets Oliver and the two quickly hit it off with some typical 'Boy meets girl' movie banter. Tom offers to walk her home, not noticing the Irena has been sketching a picture of the Panther with a giant dagger through it. That's what those in the film-making business call foreshadowing for those of you paying attention.

Oliver and Irena are soon declaring their love for each other and are quickly married (I'm not joking either, this all happens within the space of four scenes). But soon after their marriage hits the rocks. Mainly because Irena won't consummate. Being as this is 1942 they can't quite say it that way, so the whole issue is danced around with some dialogue, but it's made clear that it's this issue that leads Oliver to grow increasingly frustrated and do what every loving Husband would do and send his Wife to a Psychiatrist. It's here we learn just what Irena's problem is, mainly that if she kisses a man then she'll turn into a Panther and destroy him. It's what those in the Anthropomorphic business call a Catch 22. It also doesn't help that the Psychiatrist is played by the definition of a Cad. The actor (Tom Conway) constantly looks like he's thinking about Sex which, knowing Psychiatrists, he probably was.

The film is remarkable in just how un horror-like it is. It's easy to say that in retrospect, given that there's nothing here that could scare modern audiences. However, Lewton and his Director Jaques Tourneur seem more interested in what is mainly the story of a failing marriage. Albeit failing because the Wife can turn into a murderous Cat at any moment, but still. It's easy to substitute Irena's fears for any number of Sexual or emotional hang ups. It even comes to a point where Oliver and the Psychiatrist get ready to have her committed. It's easier to lock your problems away than deal with them head on.

Irena, wonderfully played by French actress Simone Simon, remains the most sympathetic character in the film, despite being the 'Monster'. It's not hard to feel for her as her Husband gives up on her and goes into the arms of his best friend Alice (Who is more than happy to have him, they talk of Marriage before attempting to have Irena committed). In fact it's not hard to long for the death of Oliver and Alice as they increasingly rub Irena's face in their blossoming romance (Whether they know they're doing it or not, there's certainly the implication that Alice knows just what she's doing). Also worth noting is the caged Panther we see throughout the film, a constant reminder of Irena's sexual frustrations. It's a clever device employed by Lewton to show that Irena's desires, no matter how strong they are must always remain locked up, unless she wants to bring death to those around her. The Panther, who Irena visits a number of times during the film proves a constant reminder of caged desire. The animal constantly paces, eternally frustrated by it's enforced conditions. Irena finally sets it free during the climax of the film, but it's struck by a passing Car and dies. Its death well timed with that of Irena, who has been run through with a long blade by the caddish Psychiatrist who engages in some Panther Vs Man action when he deliberately kisses Irena. Which as we all know means trouble. It's OK though as Irena gets the better of him, providing her with her own (well deserved) kill.

Special mention should go to the film makers for filling the film with cat like iconography. Whether it's the paintings in Irena's apartment or the Cat at Oliver's office. We're constantly reminded of them, and of Irena's condition. The film is also a great example of economic storytelling, packing a lot into it's compact running time of 72 minutes (Take for example the aforementioned Romance. Irena and Oliver meet and are wed in about the first 10 minutes).

We should be thankful for films like 'Cat People'. It serves as a reminder that it's easy to tell the story of someone who turns into an Animal and kills people, but it serves as a much more rewarding experience when there's something to scratch at just below the surface.

One down, thirty to go.

2008-10-01T13:25:00.000-07:00

NIGHT OF THE CREEPS - 1986

The original choice for tonight was to be 'Fright Night' but due to unforeseen faulty video formats that'll have to wait for now. Instead I caught up with this little 80's gem (And still sadly not out to buy, unless you wish to purchase a dreary looking bootleg). I remember seeing this film when I was a lot younger but never really ‘watching’ it. It’s a shame it’s not on more people’s list too because all told, it’s not a bad little B-Movie.

The film opens as it means to go on, with two ugly looking Aliens chasing another ugly looking Alien through their spaceship. The escaping Alien loads up something into an escape pod and fires it out into space, whereon it predictably lands in…1956. We go from glorious Technicolour to Black and White, and if you’re in any doubt as to what era we’re in, a girl talking on the telephone manages to utter “He’s so DREAMY!” to her (sadly) unseen friend who’s somewhat unbelievably called ‘Muffy’. We learn there’s an escaped lunatic on the loose, as there always is, and we follow an unfortunate couple of lovers as one of them meets the business end of the lunatics Axe, and the other gets…well to be exact he gets a face full of Slug. So now we know what that Alien was ejecting during the opening. My father used to just drown them in cups of Alcohol hidden in the Garden, but everyone has a method that works for them.

We forward to 1986, 30 years later for those of you numerically challenged and we meet two best friends, with the all too familiar surnames of Romero and Carpenter (In a neat touch, the main characters share the surnames of famous horror/Sci Fi directors. Including Landis, Cameron, Raimi, Cronenberg and Hooper). There’s the dream girl, her asshole boyfriend, who by the way, happens to have the blondest hair I’ve ever seen on a man. It’s like it’s been kissed by the sun. Christopher Walken got the same look in ‘A View to a Kill’, but I can only imagine that came about after viewing this film one night and deciding that hair so glorious deserves to be seen by many. So Walken took it upon himself to spread the word. He’s like Jesus as sponsored by Vidal Sassoon.

I won’t spoil what happens next, but rest assured there’s slugs, animal death, an old lady getting an Axe to the face, more animal death, impossibly blonde hair, Tom Atkins, Flamethrowers, gore, multiple headshots and breasts.

On the above note, special mention should be made of Tom Atkins, who I believe appears in 3 of the films this month, and gets to sleep with Jamie Lee Curtis in one of them, a moment I still feel conflicted about. Like seeing a kindly old Uncle make out with the date you’ve just brought to meet your family for the first time. Anyway, his misanthropic detective lights up the screen whenever he’s on (And provides much needed excitement when contrasted with the boring leads). How can you not love a man who answers the phone “Thrill me” or actually uses it as a genuine greeting like you or I would say “Hello”? If there’s one thing I want to do in my life, it’s incorporate “Thrill me” into everyday conversation in the hope that it will bring me a little closer to Atkins.

A boy can but dream.

It's in the Trees...It's coming!

2008-09-30T10:54:00.000-07:00

One day to enjoy the...sunshine, one day to enjoy being free, one day to enjoy the joys of sitting around with nothing to do before I dedicate myself to 31 nights of thrills, chills and bellyaches. I have a list (Not finalised) and ended up with a total of 36 or so films. A little more than required (Some might say five more). Any suggestions will be welcome, though more for films to watch, not general ones like "Go fuck yourself".

This is about the time where I would unveil my grand list of films. But I'm sadly not that organised and would like to keep it a surprise for you readers (All 2 of you, you know who you are and you should probably get back to work right now).

I'll try to keep the posts at one a day if I can, though sometimes there might be 2 reviews/musings posted in a day. Depends on willpower and circadian rhythm (rhythm, a word that never looks right when you spell it) more than anything.

Good job I don't eat popcorn otherwise I might reach mass of Rik Waller proportions at the end of this.

Til tomorrow!

(And bonus points to whoever gets the quote in the title)

Before it begins...

2008-09-24T14:11:00.000-07:00

Welcome!

Just a few thoughts before I start the 31 Days of thrills Challenge (Which is a much better name than movie-thon or whatever I called it).

The challenge is simple. 31 films, 31 days. All leading up to Halloween. And thanks to my new fangled laptop I can write my notes as I go along. Just in case someone should wish to view the punishment I WILL be inflicting on myself. There's no running order just yet, but alongside some classics ('The Thing', 'Halloween') we'll have some tripe ('Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem', 'Halloween III'). I'll also make the brave attempt to watch 'Manos: The Hands of Fate' all the way through without inflicting pain on myself or on others. No mean feat. And if you doubt me, 'Manos' means 'Hands', such is the level of incompetance from this film.

Anyway, I'll be posting regular updates as I go along, and will have another little blog right before I start.

Hope you enjoy!!!!