FTP: Perfect Strangers (1984)

DECEMBER 1, 2022

GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

My least favorite Larry Cohen movie (of the ones I've seen anyway) is Special Effects, his Body Double-esque thriller that I found impossibly dull. But some friends have raved about it (one even said it was in fact one of his best!) so I've been meaning to give it another look, and after watching the late director's interview on the bonus features for Perfect Strangers (aka Blind Alley, which is the title on the film itself but the disc packaging is given the Strangers title) my goal has been renewed. Because it turns out they were shot back to back, and now I can't help but wonder if he was spreading himself too thin, resulting in these two uncharacteristically light films from the usually dependable maverick.

At least this one starts off promising, with a guy getting stabbed in front of a kid and then worrying if the kid (who is like two and can barely talk) will be able to identify him. So he does the most obvious thing: he finds a different (older) kid in the street and asks him if he'd remember him if he saw him again later, to which the kid asks if he's a ______ (word that doesn't fly anymore, starts with R, slang for dumb person). The killer also spray paints a shadow of himself while talking to himself as a song about shadows plays on the soundtrack, and all of this is in the first five minutes! So, yeah! This rules!

Unfortunately the silliness tapers off as the film goes on. It's only 90 minutes (so, shorter than Special Effects at least) and there are some solid bits throughout, but the opening promises a little more excitement than the film ultimately offers. Our guy is tasked by his mob bosses to kill the kid to make sure there are no loose ends, and to do this he begins romancing the boy's mother (who missed the crime entirely; her not paying much attention to her toddler is kind of a running theme throughout the movie) to increase his chances of offing the kid and chalking it up to an accident. So it SEEMS like a movie where this guy might legit start falling for her and switch sides, maybe protect the kid (and the mom) from his mob partners, but nah. It's mostly just a series of scenes of him having the perfect chance to off the kid and then deciding not to, so it gets pretty repetitive. The mob guys never even really take a more active role in the proceedings, nor does he encounter the cop (Cronenberg regular Stephen Lack, the only person in the movie I recognized) which might give it a little tension. It's all just very loosey goosey, and I couldn't help but think if the guy was played by Michael Moriarty it might have been at least more fun.

Still, Cohen tosses in a few good bits, like a scene where the killer plans to kill the kid by pushing him so hard on the swing that he falls off and impales himself on a nearby fence (!), and an insane climactic chase where the kid is on a portable merry go round (is this a real thing?) that's hitched to a truck, which has been hijacked by the killer. So we see the kid spinning around and around as the truck drives around New York, no obvious dummy being used (it's CLEARLY him in a few shots, in fact); it's not only fairly well crafted, it's kind of terrifying in a "there's a million ways this could go wrong" way.

But apart from those scenes, there's just too much filler here, with unresolved plot points (the kid's real father is last seen being held at gunpoint by the mom's over protective friend - it's unclear if she ever let him go!) and nowhere near enough suspense to maintain the "thriller" we've been promised. Cohen bounced back the next year with The Stuff, so it's obvious he still had his chops - I'll forever wonder if he had combined his resources and budget to make just one of these two (Effects had better potential, in my opinion) it could have ended up being one of my faves. Instead we got two of his lesser works, though I guess it helps me appreciate The Stuff all the more, so that's fine.

What say you?

Couldn't find a trailer so here's someone else reviewing the Vinegar Syndrome disc!

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

FTP: Full Moon High (1981)

APRIL 17, 2019

GENRE: COMEDIC, WEREWOLF
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

Like any good horror fan, I was sad to hear the news that Larry Cohen had passed away a few weeks back. Not because we would be denied more films, as he seemed to have retired from filmmaking anyway (his sole directorial effort in the past 20+ years was his Masters of Horror episode, thirteen years ago), but because he was such a fun storyteller for Q&As and commentary tracks, and it's sad knowing he won't be able to contribute one again. Luckily he was still in good spirits and health when he sat down (with King Cohen director Steve Mitchell) to talk about Full Moon High, and it's one of his better tracks - his memory is vague on a few things (naturally; I mean, it's been 35+ years) but he's got plenty of fun anecdotes and "from the trenches" tales of indie filmmaking, making the track just as entertaining as the film.

Or perhaps more so? It's not a BAD movie, but for a comedy it's oddly low on big laughs until the last twenty minutes, when Alan Arkin shows up as the world's worst psychiatrist. Until then, it's got a sort of breezy charm that keeps it watchable, but overall it lives up to the standards set by the other early 80s glut of spoofy horror movies (Class Reunion, Student Bodies, Saturday the 14th, etc), i.e. you're better off rewatching Young Frankenstein than tracking them down. Unless, of course, you're a particular fan of their individual filmmakers or stars and are seeing them out of curiosity - indeed, the only reason I bothered with this was because I hadn't seen it yet and wanted to listen to Cohen tell some stories to celebrate his life (and also because it's been in the pile for well over a year now so it made a good candidate for this column).

The weirdest thing about the movie is that it's a PG-rated sex comedy. Adam Arkin plays a high school football star who is bitten when traveling with his horndog father (Ed McMahon!) and becomes a wolf with a penchant for biting victims on their butt. He also becomes a conquest of sorts for a few of the local women, including Happy Days' Roz Kelly, so we are treated to more sex scenes than I've ever seen in a PG movie (hell, it technically has more sex than Basic Instinct). Add in the coach (who seems to have designs on his players as opposed to the cheerleaders) and some other supporting characters' own inhibitions, and you have a super horny movie that is also hamstrung by its rating, which makes it feel neutered, never getting as outrageous as it often feels like it should be.

One thing that does work is the time jump; as an immortal, Arkin's character leaves town and does his thing elsewhere for 20 year or so before coming back, posing as his own son and re-enrolling at school. Some of his friends (including Kelly and the coach, played by Kenneth mars) are still around and aged up, and his school has gone to total shit over the years, so Cohen does a pretty good job at establishing the two time periods despite his usual low budget and some iffy actors. One of my favorite gags was during this passage of time montage, which was partially explained by replacing the photo of the current President: Eisenhower to Kennedy, Kennedy to Johnson, etc. After just swapping the photos for a bit, Cohen tosses in some gags: Nixon's photo is angrily shattered first before being replaced, and Ford's is placed but not actually hung, letting it instantly drop to the floor - heh.

That and a few other inspired gags are spread out between what for me was just a lot of mild smiling. If this was a straight up horror comedy, that might not be such a big deal - as long as the horror element was working, the dud jokes wouldn't hurt all that much. But this is a full on comedy with a werewolf in it, much closer to Teen Wolf than American Werewolf in London, so the jokes need to land more often than they do, even when taking into account that some of the humor is no longer in vogue. I suspect it has a number of fans who saw it for the first time in the early 80s, but seeing it for the first time now, sans nostalgia? It doesn't quite hit the mark. Still, Cohen ropes in some of his regulars, and Alan Arkin's performance is right in line with the stuff Michael Moriarty was doing in his best collaborations with the filmmaker, so it still at least satisfies on that level. Cohen's made worse movies, certainly, so as a tribute viewing I guess it turned out OK. But I'll miss him more than I'll miss this disc when I trade it in, for sure.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

It's Alive 3: Island Of The Alive (1987)

APRIL 11, 2009

GENRE: KILLER KID (BABY!), MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I normally don’t watch two films from a franchise in the same week (unless it’s to prep for a new entry, i.e. re-watching the Saw films whenever a new one is churned out), but I was too excited for It’s Alive 3: Island Of The Alive to put it off much longer. Knowing that it starred Michael Moriarty, I was pretty sure it would be the best of the series, as the leads of the other two movies were kind of bland, something that Moriarty certainly wouldn’t be accused of (at least, in a Larry Cohen movie - I doubt he was this amusing on Law & Order).

Unfortunately, while Moriarty IS great, but the movie itself is kind of lackluster. The island setting is a great concept (the babies are “quarantined” there), but it hardly factors into the movie. After a brief scene with some hunters early on (complete with a hilariously inadequate model of a helicopter which inexplicably explodes in midair after the pilot is slashed), more time is spent getting Moriarty and assorted others TO the island than is spent actually ON the island. The final third of the film takes place in Florida, and while the setting is still slightly different than the California locales of the first two, it still feels a bit repetitive.

And while the baby effects are improved, once again we don’t really get a lot of action with them. There’s a great opening bit with a new one being born, but nearly all of their subsequent carnage occurs off-screen. Once they become larger (i.e. can be performed by folks in rubber suits) they do a little bit more, but I stress “a little”. I know Cohen makes these films independently, but I also know that he shot it back to back with Return to Salem’s Lot, a film I’m pretty sure no one was asking for. He should have combined the funds to make one kick ass, Moriarty-starring It’s Alive movie.

Moriarty, it doesn’t even need to be said, is great. My wife came in halfway through and after 5 minutes was like “You love this guy, don’t you?” (she hadn’t been privy to The Stuff or Q). Not even a minute later, she got her answer when Moriarty found himself adrift at sea on a raft. A shark swam by, at which point he yelled “Of course! It’s not a shipwreck unless there’s a SHARK!” and I laughed my ass off for a good ten minutes. As always, his odd, clearly improvised moments help make the slower parts of the film seem to go by faster (such as the “going to the island” sequence, which, again, lasts longer than the “on island” segment it’s leading to). Unfortunately, he is saddled with the always annoying Karen Black for the final 10 minutes of the movie, which just further diminishes the impact of the already underwhelming finale.

Black does have a good scene with the film’s best creation (Moriarty is just playing the same guy he always does, can’t really call him a “creation” at this point), which is a sleazy mob-looking dude named Tony. He is attempting to bed Black (good God, WHY?) by blackmailing her by threatening to show her friends and employers a nationally published book (not the best blackmail plan I’ve ever heard), and repeatedly calls Black a “son of a bitch” after she pukes in his car (though he keeps wiping a spot that is clearly puke-free, so either he’s overreacting or Cohen couldn’t shell out 89 cents for some fake vomit). His increasing anger is simply hilarious to watch, and again, helps you overlook the fact that the now giant killer babies aren’t doing much.

Like in Q, the finale DOES feature dozens of cops being flung to their death, so there’s something. Nothing against the police, but there’s something kind of cathartic about seeing a bunch of them get wiped out, especially if you assume every one of them has written a parking ticket for a 30 seconds' overtime parking meter.

Oh, I almost forgot - there’s a brief joke at the expense of the first film’s plotting. It’s rare for any sequel to mock an earlier entry’s plot holes, so this was a nice little touch. Also, James Dixon returns as Perkins, the only character to appear in all three films (as far as I can recall). So in those and a few other respects, it’s a worthy entry to the franchise. None of them are particularly great, but they are admirably consistent and entertaining. I wish the upcoming remake of the original was done by a more interesting filmmaker with a more interesting cast; I’m not saying they can’t turn out a good movie, but this concept really deserves an A list treatment. Somehow I can’t see a movie starring Bijou Phillips and from the director of Art of War II as qualifying.

The DVD has a commentary, but after hearing a half dozen other Cohen tracks, I feel pretty confident that I don’t want to spend 90 minutes listening to it (once again - I’ve been assigned to jury duty, plus I am still going to work at nights - my day is kind of jam-packed). But I’m sure Cohen has a lot of great things to say about his other pictures and everyone who worked on the crew, and that he’s proud of his opening titles.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

It's Alive 2: It Lives Again (1978)

APRIL 6, 2009

GENRE: KILLER KID (BABY!), MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

If nothing else, Horror Movie A Day will have given me a new perspective of Larry Cohen. Before HMAD began, I only knew him as the screenwriter of a few suspense films like Phone Booth and Cellular, as well as the director/writer of The Ambulance. I had somehow never seen any of his horror pictures. But It’s Alive II: It Lives Again is like the 6th or 7th movie of his I’ve watched for HMAD - enough to warrant giving him his own tag, especially if I include films he just wrote.

Cohen takes the best approach to a sequel I can imagine. He brings back the hero of the first film (the Frank Davis character) while introducing a new couple on the verge of having their own monster baby. So if you liked Davis, you get to see him do something new (he now works for a company that aims to help - or so they claim - those who are about to have a mutant child), and if you just liked the idea of a couple having a monster baby, you get that too. It’s familiar and yet different in nearly perfectly equal helpings (Davis kind of disappears for most of the 2nd act). It may not be a perfect movie, but in terms of successfully “following” the first film, it’s definitely one of the better examples I can think of in the horror genre.

The only real flaw in the movie is that they keep the monster baby action mostly confined to the final half hour. Sure, there’s a lot of plot to explain what with the various groups with an interest in the new baby, but still. You can’t promise monster babies and give us a bunch of middle aged doughy guys in labcoats rambling about creation and the future of evolution and such. Once the babies escape though, oh man. Awesome.

The highlight of their all-too-brief rampage has to be a kid’s birthday party. Not only are the kids all terrible actors with awkward dialogue (“Open mine first!” one kid shouts, after another gift has been opened), but they just come and go out of nowhere. And the babies don’t really attack anyone, but they do destroy a cake. It’s just such a random little scene that could have so easily been cut, I couldn’t help but love it a little.

I also love how easily the parents accept that their kid is a monster. Davis crashes their baby shower (!!) and is like “You remember seeing the news about how I had a monster baby? You’re going to have one too.” And they accept this without even double-checking the news article to see if it was the same guy. Even better, the mother starts calling the fetus “It” before Davis has even cleared the driveway. So many of these killer kid movies have parents that are on the “I don’t care what it’s done, it’s MY child!” train, it’s refreshing to see some folks that are like “oh it’s a monster, fuck it”.

Rick Baker did the effects for the babies. They are obviously better than the original’s, but still used sparingly to hide their limits. I am excited to watch the 3rd film - not only does it have Michael Moriarty, but I assume that the late 80s effects will be pretty awesome to watch. I also assume the remake, which has seemingly been cast into the ether (it was shot in 2007), will have lame ass CGI babies.

As always, Cohen provides a dull commentary that is only occasionally referring to what’s on screen, even in general terms. If you take a shot of whiskey every time he mentions one of his other “pictures” (the words “film” and “movie” are apparently not in his vocabulary), you will likely die of cirrhosis before the first reel is up. However, if you don’t die and merely become violently ill from the alcohol intake, you can take a few trips to the bathroom and probably not miss much, as he is also prone to long silences. The “trailer” is also included, but it’s really a teaser, featuring no footage whatsoever. It DOES, however, include a tagline that out-sillies the one for Q - “The It’s Alive baby is back again, only now there’s three of them.” Confusing grammar + awkward syntax = voiceover nirvana.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Q: The Winged Serpent (1982)

MARCH 28, 2009

GENRE: CULT, MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Attention: Makers of C.H.U.D. - THIS is how you make a low budget monster movie in New York that features under-loved character actor Eddie Jones in a small role. Q The Winged Serpent (recommended by HMAD reader Brian - not me) is hardly perfect, but its entertaining, unique, and puts every dollar on the screen. I am really glad that the stars (read: DVD online rental services) aligned so that I could watch these movies back to back - Q has benefited greatly from a not even 24 hours old memory of how easily this type of movie can go wrong.

Now, nothing against any of the actors in Chud - they were all great, but sadly working with a lackluster script. But none of them can really hold a candle to Michael Moriarty’s performance here. As in The Stuff, he’s seemingly on his own little planet, and the movie is the better for it. There’s a great scene early on in which he makes like Ty Webb on a seedy bar piano, and it’s probably the most entertaining part of the movie even though it has nothing to do with monsters or cult priests skinning some dudes.

Oh yeah - this movie isn’t simply a monster movie. There’s also a guy in a goofy bird costume skinning willing people alive. They (well, he - either it’s a one man cult or Larry Cohen couldn’t afford any robed followers) are (is) responsible for Quetzalcoatl’s rebirth in Manhattan. Hokey, sure, but it beats cinema’s seven millionth toxic waste and/or radiation explanation. And it gives Quetzalcoatl a break from being a summon spell, so there’s something.

Another cool thing about the movie is how high the body count is. Every 5-10 minutes, Cohen stages another attack. The effects are terrible, but that doesn’t matter. I’d rather poor effects than simply HEARING about such attacks or doing everything off-screen. And they all have their little humorous charms, like the guy who is convinced his co-workers are stealing his lunch. Again, it’s all about making up for the film’s weaknesses (i.e. bad effects) by maintaining a high level of “alternate” entertainment.

There is a subplot about Moriarty’s character that I wish was more prominent. After a botched jewelry store heist (this scene is so clumsy and random that I almost think Cohen half-assed it because it was ultimately superfluous), some crooks come after him. Having found Quetzalcoatl’s nest earlier in the movie, he leads the crooks to it, telling them that the diamonds are in there. And since he apparently has a high compatibility rating with Quetzalcoatl, it shows up almost instantly and devours the two guys. I was hoping Moriarty would find ways to take care of all of his problems like this - his landlord, maybe an ex-wife, but that’s pretty much it.

Another disappointment is that he sits out the entire finale with the monster. While David Carradine (!) and Richard Roundtree (!!!) take on the thing from various rooftops, Moriarty’s character sits in a hotel and deals with the cult guy. Would have been nice to have him around, being random and abrasive to the cops.

P.S. - remake casting choice for Moriarty’s role? Robert Downey Jr. Holy awesome.

The DVD comes with a surprisingly enjoyable commentary track. Cohen is usually a bore, but he’s joined by Bill Lustig, who asks him questions and keeps him from merely rambling about his other movies like he did on The Stuff track. He also tells a pretty awesome anecdote about Bruce Willis, so he got my vote right then and there. The awesome teaser ("Just call it Q, that's all you'll have time to say before it tears you apart!") is also included. I wish he could get Moriarty for one of these things, but c’est la vie.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

God Told Me To (1976)

NOVEMBER 16, 2008

GENRE: ALIEN, CULT
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

I’m about to kick the virtual asses of both Blockbuster and Netflix. I was all set to watch Argento's Cat O’Nine Tails today, but when I put the disc in (from Netflix) I discovered it was some full frame VHS transfer bootleg shit, despite the website’s promise that it was an anamorphic transfer of the 2.35:1 image. So I did what any man would do: took it out of the player and flung it at the nearest wall, and then put in Blockbuster’s copy of Larry Cohen’s God Told Me To (recommended by HMAD reader Brian - not me). And while it was at least letterboxed (but not anamorphic), it was NOT the special edition version that the site advertised. What the fuck?

But since the movies from the two days before had tracks I had yet to listen to, I guess I could use the break. On the other hand, I would have really liked to have heard Cohen’s thoughts on the film, since it gets so needlessly baffling as it goes on, and seemingly ends because the money ran out, not because the story (such as it is) had reached any sort of narrative endpoint. Oh well.

While certainly no disaster like Special Effects, the movie is still ultimately disappointing in the same way, because Cohen fails to capitalize on his terrific setup: a bunch of folks are killing people at random, and our hero - apparently the only cop in NY - discovers that they are all saying the same thing right before they die (in an amazing coincidence, they say the movie’s title!). Unlike Effects, it as at least interesting for the most part, but still, the final half hour of this film felt like it was missing every other scene, and by the time the movie got around to revealing that our hero is the result of a virgin birth and thus part alien, I actually thought I had fallen asleep and missed something.

Also, unlike the best Cohen films, there’s a complete lack of humor. An easy jab at the Irish is about the closest thing the movie offers to a joke, and even the social commentary seems to be presented without a sarcastic viewpoint.

Still, it’s worth a look, due to the utter batshittedness of it all. Plus, it’s fun to see future stars in bit roles. Sylvia Sidney, aka “the really old woman” in a ton of movies (Beetlejuice, for one) shows up, only somewhat old here. And Andy Kaufman plays a cop who falls under the alien/hippie thing’s spell. And the cult leader (an androgynous alien, obviously) looks exactly like the “White Gold” guy from the Milk ads, so that gave me a laugh.

Plus, while its never out and out horror, there are still a couple of unnerving sequences that stuck out, such as when the hero (I can’t remember his name for the life of me) is attacked on the stairs by a knife wielding woman. There’s also a really disturbing bit where he talks to a dad who just killed his whole family; the guy matter of factly describes how he tricked his daughter into coming out of hiding so he could blow her away. Creepy.

I also like how the movie has such a strong disdain for hippies. The cop begins describing a guy, and says “He had shoulder length hair...”, to which the witness immediately replies “Oh no, he wouldn’t hang around with anyone like that!” Since my hair is approaching said length (you know life is hectic when a trip to Supercuts has become a “rainy day” activity), I found this kind of amusing, and not just because it dated the movie.

Not sure what else the real DVD had for features, but this one has The Ghost on the other side. So I guess which version you seek depends on what you want: insight into the film itself, or a run of the mill Barbara Steele film?

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Maniac Cop (1988)

JULY 29, 2008

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

When DVDs first became available, there were an inordinate number of titles that went out of print within a few months of their release. I have no idea why for the most part, while some had legitimate reasons (like Little Shop Of Horrors, which was pulled due to Frank Oz being a big baby about the deleted ending being one of the extra features), others were just taken off the shelves for the hell of it. One such title was Maniac Cop, and thus when I found a copy on Ebay for pretty cheap (less than 20 bucks) I snapped it up. And now, 9 years later, I finally watched it!

As the movie began, I saw a possible reason why it was put on moratorium (it has since been re-released - the one in the Amazon link is the new edition, not the one I am reviewing): the transfer is fucking atrocious. I have seen better quality on VHS tapes. It looks like its streaming over Youtube or something. The credits are all blurry, nothing has any detail, the blacks are washed out... it’s just a really piss poor job. Granted, in the early days of DVD there was a lot of inconsistency, but I really cannot recall a transfer this bad (especially on a widescreen transfer, which means they were working off some sort of master, as opposed to an actual VHS tape like Chopping Mall).

Luckily the movie itself is pretty fun. It’s an odd blend of standard cop/revenge movie and slasher, but it more or less works. If the film has one real flaw, it’s the casting of genre greats Tom Atkins and Bruce Campbell, and not giving them any real scenes together. I think they share the screen for a total of three minutes, all of which is just dialogue and exposition. Campbell, in fact, spends most of his time in a jail cell or an interrogation room, and it isn’t until Atkins is removed from the movie (via being killed) that he gets to actually DO anything. Bummer.

Another thing that annoyed me was the use of freeze credits. This is when you watch 3-4 seconds of film footage, and then it freezes to provide a credit. Whoever invented this should be shot to death. Unless it’s a Bond film, there is never anything worth paying attention to in the opening credits of a movie; and thus we aren’t being distracted by anything. You don’t need to literally slow the movie down to guarantee the viewer knows who the production designer or casting person is.

Some highlights include: the score, particularly when the title character has a flashback to how he became a Maniac; the rather high body count (there are like 4 kills in the first 15 minutes!); Atkins’ usual gruff awesomeness, and of course, Robert Z’Dar (“Oh Z’no!”) as the cop. You only see his legendary face toward the end of the film, but it’s a great “reveal” nonetheless. Action fans know Z’Dar from his amazing work in Tango & Cash, where he played “Conan”, a guy who just kept popping up to piss off Stallone (it’s really pretty amazing how much the guy is in the movie when he’s essentially an anonymous bad guy – I think he has more screen time than Jack Palance).

I also love the ending, because if you think about it, its kind of a downer. Everyone thinks Campbell is the killer, but of course we know it’s Z’Dar. So there’s this big car chase, which results in the Maniac drowning in the river. His body is not recovered (sequel set up – we see him rising out of the water unnoticed), and everyone else that encountered him is dead, so I guess Campbell’s name isn’t cleared. I would imagine this is explored in the sequel, but I kind of like the idea of a big fuck you ending, even if not intentional.

There’s also a bit I really liked where Atkins goes to a bar (shock). Not that it’s a really great scene or anything, but the bar (exterior anyway) reminded me of a location from Jim Jarmusch’s Down By Law, a fantastic movie that I haven’t seen since college. Thanks, random 80s B movie!

Bill Lustig rarely directs anymore, and that is a shame (his last film was Uncle Sam, in 1996). His movies are always fun (having a Larry Cohen script doesn’t hurt), and he’s just a great guy to listen to on the commentary track. What he is doing instead is just as important (if a great exploitation movie hits DVD in a giant special edition, chances are Bill is the guy who got the ball rolling on its creation), but I wish he could take time off to make a movie now and then. He’s always been under-appreciated outside of die hard horror nerds, and his sensibilities would definitely play well with today’s horror market.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Special Effects (1984)

JUNE 28, 2008

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

Last week, fellow horror movie nut and loyal HMAD reader B-Sol wrote up a list of 10 major missteps from promising horror filmmakers. As with any list, I didn’t agree with some of the choices, but I can only assume that he just never saw Special Effects from Larry Cohen, because in my opinion it deserved the number 1 spot: it’s actually hard to believe that the guy who made It’s Alive and The Stuff could make a movie this dull, badly acted, and just plain lousy.

The plot is almost like something out of Hitchcock – a director kills a woman on film and decides to make a movie around the footage. Pretty awesome in theory, but the way this film is carried out, it almost seems like Cohen (who also wrote) was almost going out of his way to execute the story as badly as possible. The director’s scheme is needlessly complicated (involving framing a guy and then paying for his bail moments later, some nonsense about a rose, bringing in a cop to watch the dailies... all sounds exciting, huh?), which doesn’t help. Maybe at 75 minutes this would merely be disappointing, but 105 for a thriller in which only 2 people are killed (without any sort of suspense leading up to either) and nothing else of note happens until the final 10 minutes (rounding UP) is way too much to ask for, especially when the actors are as bad as they are in this.

Eric Bogosian (the director) is pretty amusing at times, but that is to be expected. But even he fails to keep viewer interest (in fact he himself looks bored at times). But the other two leads have to be the absolute worst I’ve ever seen in a major motion picture. The actress in particular, Zoë Lund (playing two roles), manages to ruin just about every moment that, despite being poorly written to begin with, would have carried at least SOME weight. You know when you’re flipping around the channels and you come across a soap opera and someone is saying “I found out who the father of your baby is!” and you decide to watch and find out, even thought you don’t know who anyone is? THAT is more compelling than any one moment in this entire movie.

I honestly cannot think of a single reason to watch this movie. It’s too dull to be “so bad it’s good” entertainment, and it’s too long to use as a time-killer (if you have THAT much time, you should be watching something good). The only thing I got out of it was an understanding why I had never heard of it before adding it to my queue.

Also, I know I have been offering the trailers lately, but I couldn't find one for this. I assume they couldn't figure out how to take a minute of the film and make it look interesting and thus never bothered to cut one.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

It's Alive (1974)

JUNE 15, 2008

GENRE: KILLER KID (BABY!), MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I can’t recall when I bought It’s Alive. It’s one of those movies that I ‘discover’ when looking at my collection, coming across it and saying to myself (or out loud) “What the hell? When did I get this? Oh well, let’s watch it!”. Evidence points to it being purchased at Best Buy (the Best Buy price tag being the biggest clue), and it was recommended in February by an HMAD reader named Brian, but as for when I actually – HOLY FUCK I TALKED TO JOHN CARPENTER LAST NIGHT!!!

OK, I was going to include my bloggy thoughts about it in this review, but since they are so long I just made an actual blog entry on my Bloody Disgusting page. Check it out HERE and then come back for the usual movie ramble.

Anyone who knows me, and no one does, knows that I love killer kid movies. Bloody Birthday, Cathy’s Curse... hell even Good Son is pretty awesome, even though he doesn’t kill anyone. So a killer BABY is even more enticing, because, well, it’s a baby.

However, despite being made by Larry Cohen, it’s actually a pretty serious movie. I mean, yeah, it’s a silly concept, but it’s played very straight. As my good friend Matt pointed out, it’s a horror movie for adults, not teens (indeed, other than the baby and the main character’s son, no one in the film is younger than 35 or so), and it’s true. It would have been easy to simply have the baby go on a rampage and kill necking teens and the occasional drunk/homeless guy in the woods, a la most monster movies, but instead we actually get a lot of stuff with the parents, who are clearly (and understandably) disturbed about birthing an actual monster. Mom goes a bit nuts and wants to raise the child, Dad wants to get rid of it (some shades of abortion here, but nothing too obtrusive), feeling responsible for the deaths it has caused.

But that’s not to say it’s all frowns and melodrama. I got quite a few laughs out of it, mainly because everyone in the movie is so blunt. At one point, the dad’s boss tells him “Hey you know Ted in accounting? He’s got a retarded kid!” in an attempt to cheer him up. There’s also some nice black humor – a (non monstrous) baby is at one point surrounded by gun-toting cops who are hunting the monster baby. Cohen is brilliant here, as you fully believe that these cops will actually shoot the tyke (aided by a sudden cut to black that lasts 10 seconds – as if we might just hear the shot). Great stuff.

My only real issue was a strangely coincidental one. The baby is making its way back to its family’s home, and thus I assumed the climax would be entirely housebound. It certainly seems that way, but then the thing escapes and a chase ensues. The monster is chased to the sewers, and that is where the final battle really occurs. I had this same problem with the movie Them (Ils) – they leave the house (scary) to the sewers (not). But here’s the weird thing – the sewers in question here are in fact the ones connected to the giant LA river dam thing that you’ve seen in many movies, like Grease, Escape From New York, and... Them!, the giant ant movie from the 50s. Cohen, being a guy who knows his sci-fi/horror, probably did this intentionally as an homage to that film, but the idea that It’s Alive has elements from two entirely different movies with the same title, in a single sequence, is pretty odd. At least to me.

The DVD has a commentary by Cohen. Like The Stuff, it’s not the best track, but there’s some nice info here and there (and a few too many silent gaps), including some funny stories about the film’s composer, Bernard Herrmann. Cohen also manages to take credit for the POV shots in Jaws, which I’d be more inclined to believe if I didn’t know that this film was released in the fall of 1974, after Jaws had finished principal photography. But hey, who’s to know for sure?

Well, probably lots of people. But so what, it’s a good movie. Watch it, you might have it in your collection as well!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Stuff (1985)

MARCH 10, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

“Everybody has to eat shaving cream once in a while...”

Every now and then I come across a movie that features a performance that really makes me wonder why it hasn’t been ripped off in scores of other films. Such is the case with Michael Moriarty in Larry Cohen’s The Stuff. He’s sort of like a cross between Fletch and a southern businessman, and almost everything he says is hilarious. He’s completely laid back and dry, and it’s definitely a highlight of his career (sadly, the next year he was in Troll, and didn’t get anywhere near as many moments to shine as he does here). It’s seriously worth your time to watch the film just for his scenes.

Luckily, the rest of the movie ain’t too shabby either, however I should note that it’s a bit oddly paced – the stuff is discovered in the film’s very first shot, and our requisite young hero discovers that the stuff is “bad” less than 3 minutes later, but then it’s sort of drawn out for a while. Granted, there isn’t a hell of a lot of story here, and Cohen luckily doesn’t try to explain where it came from or any possibly crippling thing like that, but it still could have used maybe a tiny bit of restructuring.

Otherwise it’s a blast. Moriarty is hilarious, Garrett Morris shows up as a chocolate chip cookie magnate, and Danny Aiello and Paul Sorvino (between this and Repo, this guy needs to make more genre films!) turn in rare non-mobster roles. The whole movie (particularly the radio station scenes) has an improvisational feel which isn’t exactly what you expect in what is essentially a monster movie. There is a wealth of great moments throughout the film; my favorite has to be the stock boy at the grocery store who dives over a pile of The Stuff in order to save it from the hero, who is destroying it all. I also like the rather odd notion that the kid hero just teams up with this total stranger (Moriarty) without any question.

And young Johnny Depp shows up!*

Also the music during the scene where they see The Stuff “swamp” sounds exactly like the Super Mario Bros “dungeon” music (Dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnn, dundundundun dun DUN DUN). And the effects are pretty good for the time – it’s mostly stop motion stuff (by the late, great Dave Allen) matted with live action footage. For a low budget, it’s impressive, though naysayers will probably balk at the poor compositing (which Cohen acknowledges on the commentary).

Speaking of the commentary, Cohen’s an interesting guy, but the track has a lot of gaps; it’s almost like he’s afraid to talk over the dialogue at times. I wish Moriarty or someone had joined him, as the film is ripe for some good natured ribbing that would likely occur with a couple participants. It also seems to have been recorded over a few sessions, that or Cohen is senile; he constantly refers to “a picture I did called Q: The Winged Serpent” as if he hadn’t mentioned it a dozen times already. Sadly, it’s the only extra of note.

Your enjoyment of the film will likely depend on how much you like Moriarty, since he carries the film, and if you don’t enjoy his style of humor he will probably just annoy the shit out of you. Your loss.

What say you?

*No, that’s not him – but the film does have a Depp connection: the room where the Stuff attacks our heroes is the same room where Tina was killed in Nightmare on Elm St.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Captivity

JULY 15, 2007

GENRE: CRAP, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

It’s almost sad that Captivity has finally been released, as it means we will never get another missed release date. Driving around LA, one will see about 900 posters for the film, most of them with the correct release date, but there are a few with the older dates (May 18^th, and June 22^nd), with the final “Friday the 13^th: July 13^th”. But as it turns out, there isn’t a date on the calendar that would have been the ‘best’ time to release this god awful piece of shit.

Whereas Saw and Hostel are technically sound films that do indeed have actual stories, Captivity actually IS what a lot of folks mistakenly dismiss those other films as: shallow and pointless. Sure, the other films have extended torture scenes, but there is a genuine story behind the films and some sort of justification for what we are seeing. But at no point in Captivity does it ever make any fucking sense that the killer makes Elisha Cuthbert drink a blended mix of body parts. Or pretend to melt her face. Or, in the film’s worst moment, shoot her poor little dog close range with a shotgun (which caused a couple walkouts in my screening).

Killing a dog is of course, the easy way to make an audience hate the bad guy without remorse, and usually I can deal with it, but here, there are many problems with this scenario. First of all, the dog is killed to spare the life of someone we do not like. Cuthbert, playing a Paris Hilton-type model/actress, isn’t given any character development other than letting us know she doesn’t want to go to a charity event. Charming. Why exactly do we want this woman to live? You’re practically rooting for the villain, let alone the dog. Second, the villain is so one dimensional, we don’t feel anything toward him whether he kills the dog or not. Christ, the dog’s practically the only lifeform in the entire movie that has any sort of character arc.

Halfway through the film or so, we are given a ‘twist’ that you’d have to be dead not to see coming: the guy she’s trapped with is actually the brains behind the whole operation. In addition to rendering more than a couple of his scenes totally pointless (why does he lash out and give his ‘captor’ the FUCK YOU, STOP! speech when she isn’t around to hear it?), this also makes the film as a whole even more worthless than it already was. Like The Village, the twist seemingly justifies the scenario, rather than the other way around. But since it’s so obvious, you spend all the time leading up to it wondering why they even bothered trying to hide it at all. Let us quote Hitchcock on such matters (if for no other reason than to provide perhaps the only review of Captivity that mentions Hitchcock):

Hitchcock: There is a distinct difference between "suspense" and "surprise," and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I'll explain what I mean.

We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let's suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, "Boom!" There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o'clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: "You shouldn't be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!"

Here, they should have shown the bomb first, so to speak. Just flat out say he’s the bad guy, then make the scenes of them bonding and eventually fucking at least somewhat creepy. Or at least more hilarious.

Instead, we get about 40 nonstop minutes of the same 3 scenes repeated over and over: Cuthbert sees something that might help her escape and uses it to get to another room; Cuthbert is caught and gassed or otherwise rendered unconscious; Cuthbert is “tortured” (I put that in quotes because at the end of the film she doesn’t have a scratch on her. She goes through more genuine torture in any season two episode of 24 than she does here). Then the tables are turned and we spend the rest of the movie marveling at what an inept mastermind this guy is (pretending to escape with her, he leaves her alone in a room with a television on that shows him actually going off to clean up after himself).

It’s all the more disappointing when you consider writer Larry Cohen and director Roland Joffe (not to mention cinematographer Daniel Pearl) are actually quite talented filmmakers. Just last week, I watched Cohen’s Uncle Sam, and there was more intelligence and even occasional wit in any 5 minutes of that film than the whole of this piece of shit. He (and co-writer Joseph Tura) couldn’t even be bothered to give the villain any sort of motive or reason for his doings. There’s a flashback that alludes to him being molested by his mom (hey-o!!!) but why that inspired him to drape someone in plaster of paris and then bash their head in with a sledgehammer is beyond me. Christ, I learned more about his back-story watching his interview on Bloody-Disgusting than I did in the film.

Incidentally, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the original version of the film contained none of the “torture” scenes (or even the poor dog – yes, they added in scenes of a lovable little Bichon being blown apart by a shotgun blast to ‘improve’ the film), and instead was a bit more focused on character, and featured a number of scenes with two cops who are looking for Cuthbert. The twists (and in fact the entire last half hour) are the same, but the first hour is pretty much entirely different. Perhaps this cut will surface on DVD, as it is slightly better. Not GOOD, but better. But they opted to release the “pointless torture scenes” version, and that’s the one I paid for, so that’s the one I’m reviewing. Just because there once was at least SOME validity to it doesn’t make it OK. So fuck this movie.

For once I am glad a horror movie tanked at the box office. It’s shit like this that is precisely why almost every horror movie this year has underperformed. Even gorehounds and teenagers know worthless garbage when they see it. The existence of this movie might prevent a somewhat decent one from being properly released, and that’s the only scary thing about it.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...