FTP: Darlin' (2019)

JULY 17, 2023

GENRE: CANNIBAL, RELIGIOUS
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

OK just to note quick before I ramble: I mostly enjoyed Darlin’, finding it the best of the loose trilogy featuring Polly McIntosh (who also wrote and directed this entry) as “The Woman”. But I find nothing about it as fascinating as the existence of this franchise, as the first film (2009’s Offspring) was based on a book that was a sequel to another book (Off Season) which has yet to be adapted, and then 2011’s The Woman was more of a spinoff from Offspring as opposed to a traditional sequel, as it only featured (you guessed it) The Woman and an otherwise completely different plot and mostly new creative team. And then Darlin' was a spinoff from that, once again retaining McIntosh’s character but going into different territory yet again. So it's a spinoff of a spinoff of a sequel to an un-adapted book! I kind of hope it keeps going, with McIntosh eventually inside the plot of a Bond movie or something.

Darlin’ also retains another character from The Woman, as Darlin’ was one of the daughters of the family that had her tied up in their shed. The Woman killed the son and the two parents in that film, taking off with their three girls (Darlin and Socket, with Peggy sort of just going along by choice), but since eight years have passed they recast Darlin’ and left Socket out entirely (Peggy is once again played by Lauren Ashley Carter, though only makes a couple of quick appearances in flashbacks, where – spoiler ahead – we learn that she died giving birth to the baby she was carrying). So this one is a two-hander, as Darlin’ and The Woman are split at the beginning of the movie and follow different journeys, with the now feral Darlin’ being taken in by a church orphanage and rehabilitated while The Woman makes (reads: kills and eats) her way around trying to reconnect with her. It’s MOSTLY standalone, but while you certainly don’t need to see Offspring it might help to at least read a Wiki on The Woman to really follow the story, as despite the long gap between films and the “spinoff” nature (not to mention this one doesn’t come from a Ketchum novel) McIntosh’s script doesn’t fully explain their relationship, and Darlin’s explanation of where Socket and Peggy went (which occurs far into the movie) is a bit hard to follow due to her broken English, so having the context of who they were will help fill in those gaps.

But what’s most important is that this movie is far less grim and unpleasant as the first two, with only scattered moments of on-screen violence and even less of the sexual assault that permeated those films. No one in the world will be shocked to learn that the Bishop who runs the orphanage is preying on his young charges, but thankfully we are spared any overt depictions of it, and the lone scene of a man trying to force himself on a woman is quickly interrupted by The Woman, who takes care of the jerk in rightfully short fashion. This allows the characters themselves to shine through without constantly alienating a chunk of the audience as the first two did, though if you’re squeamish at the sight of cannibalism then you should be warned that there are a few quick shots of such practices. I’d say the entire movie has about the same level of violence/face eating as Lecter’s escape sequence in (ahem, Best Picture Winner) Silence of the Lambs, so if you can handle that you should be fine.

That all said, the real issue here is that the two narratives don’t really complement each other all that well (two in a row!), and it’s never fully clear what one wants from the other. Early on it seems Darlin’ wants nothing to do with The Woman, but we don’t get enough of what happened between the end of The Woman and the beginning of this one for that to really land, and likewise with Woman’s communication skills rather lacking it’s difficult to parse out exactly what she plans to do once she finds Darlin’ again. It seems she wants to “rescue” her, which is understandable enough, but given that the movie seemingly takes place over several months it’s unclear why she’s taking her time with it. It finally becomes more clear near in the third act, when she tries to kidnap a baby, but that renders a lot of the earlier scenes feeling somewhat aimless. The script also pads itself out in a rather silly manner, as a caring nurse is taking Woman to Darlin’, only to get in a car wreck. The man survives, but The Woman just runs away and hooks up with a group of homeless women for a while rather than finish what she was doing. It’s like when you’re playing Zelda and are proceeding toward a tower to unlock or something, only to get distracted by a shrine and a sidequest to find someone’s horse.

Still, it’s always engaging enough; even though they’re both quick to tear off someone’s face or bite off their finger, both are still sympathetic in their own way, and it’s not hard to root for them against pedo church leaders and such. Both McIntosh and Lauryn Canny give excellent performances with a minimum of dialogue (McIntosh just has her grunts, Canny eventually speaks but in very short bursts), and I was also happy to see Nora-Jane Noone from The Descent (she played Holly, the young punk-y one) as the lone kind nun at the orphanage, as she’s basically playing the same role as Sister Margaret in Silent Night, Deadly Night, in that she wants to help this troubled sort but slowly realizes it may be a lost cause. Plus, again, it’s so much less unpleasant than its predecessors, I was mostly just happy to watch a movie in this world without feeling the need to shower after. I’d be very curious how someone who hadn’t seen the others would respond to it; I can imagine someone seeing this one first and then discovering this fact after. “Wait, so the movie where someone’s lip is eaten off is the LEAST disgusting of the series?”

The blu-ray has a few bonus features; one is called “Deleted SCENES” (plural) but there’s only one, and I had to chuckle when I saw it because I specifically noted “wow, that’s an awkward edit” at the point of the movie where it was removed, and it also makes more sense out of a later scene, so it really should have stayed in. Then there’s a 20ish minute making of piece, which is nothing special but it’s nice to hear McIntosh and Canny speak normally. McIntosh also provides a commentary, which is quite good but weirdly runs out of synch, seemingly getting worse as the film goes on – by the climax, she’s reacting to things that we saw 30 seconds earlier, which makes the comments somewhat confusing at times (“Her family rallies around her” she says over a shot of Darlin’ seeing The Woman’s homeless women pals for the first time, but actually referring to the nurse and nun characters who had run up to help her several seconds earlier). I also winced in sadness at a comment about a particular scene that had to be revised on the day because a storm hit their location and it would have been a safety issue for her camera crew… which was led by none other than Halyna Hutchins, the cinematographer who was unfortunately killed on (someone else’s) set in 2021 due to lax safety protocols. Truly a terrible reminder of the tragedy, but at least we were assured that McIntosh (a first time director) had enough brains to ensure her crew’s safety came first, unlike the dummies on the other project that I’ll never ever watch.

Basically it’s a decent movie, but I can’t help but wonder if part of my warm feelings are due to my dislike of the previous two entries, giving this one a little bump that it might not have received had I gone in completely ignorant of its predecessors. The script lacked focus and never quite found its footing when dividing lead character duties between the two women, and the geography/time was never clear enough to understand why they weren’t able to reunite sooner. These are things that should derail a movie for me, but I wasn’t watching anyone get tortured, and none of the film’s well-meaning characters are killed in meanspirited ways, so I walked away with “this is pretty good!” kind of feelings despite having several concerns. I guess it’d be like how you’d probably never drink Faygo if you had other options, but it would taste absolutely delicious after a week in the desert.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Bone Tomahawk (2015)

OCTOBER 25, 2015

GENRE: CANNIBAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

The past seven or eight years haven't been fun for us Kurt Russell fans, since he's barely worked at all (a pair of little seen indies is pretty much it since Grindhouse), but 2015 has proven to more than make up for it. He got to be one of the best parts of the last Furious movie (which grossed a billion dollars! A Kurt Russell movie made a billion dollars!!!), and he's got The Hateful Eight on the way - which should, if nothing else, be a more satisfying Tarantino entry than their last collaboration. And in the meantime, we have Bone Tomahawk, which for reasons I'll never understand became one of those obnoxious "Day and date" releases where a few screens will show it starting on the same day it's available on VOD, which will of course be how most people see it. Luckily I live near one of those select theaters, so I got to see it on the big screen where it belongs.

And I saw it with a crowd, of sorts. All of these Image releases play in the exact same spot - Screen #5 at the AMC Burbank 8, which is located inside of a shopping mall. I see a lot of these screenings because that's where a lot of Nic Cage and Bruce Willis movies end up nowadays, and as lifelong devotees to both actors I go see these things even though I know they'll probably just make me sad. These screenings tend to be nearly empty (just a few weeks ago I had the entire room to myself with a Cage thing called Pay The Ghost), but for this movie it was probably about a quarter full. Sure, that's disastrous for a big budget movie on an Imax screen or something, but again, this is a movie that's available (for less) at home on VOD, and it was also past the mall's closing time on Sunday night, so we all had to put effort into even getting into the damn place, let alone buying a ticket. People actually wanted to see this movie, dammit - why couldn't they have at least given it a REAL limited release (i.e. a few hundred screens as opposed to a few dozen)?

Needless to say, the crowd seemed to be happy. It was almost weird hearing big bouts of laughter after a good line in this same room that I usually am free to fart out loud because no one else is in there to mind, but not as weird as the fact that this cannibal western was actually pretty funny. The plot is about four men who ride off into dangerous territory to rescue one's wife from a tribe of cannibalistic cave dwellers, which doesn't exactly suggest lots of guffaws, but since the cannibal stuff is mostly confined to the 3rd act, writer/director S. Craig Zahler made the wise decision to keep us engaged by giving his leads a lot of fun banter - but never so much that it becomes a comedy. And it's the GOOD kind of funny, in that it all stems from the characters and how they interact - nothing in the movie is PLAYED for laughs, it's just naturally funny at times.

These moments are usually courtesy of the great Richard Jenkins, who would probably earn an Oscar nomination for his work here if the movie was big enough for the voters to notice it. He's the deputy of Russell's sheriff, and he's just perfect in every scene; he's not "dumb" or even "dim", but just kind of aloof I guess, the sort of guy who forgets to eat because he's so focused on doing his job and not letting his (younger) boss down. And Russell plays off him perfectly; you instantly believe that these two have been working together for years and are totally in sync with each others' pros and cons. When Russell has to remind him to blow on his hot soup before he takes a sip, you get the impression it's something he's probably had to do a million times - and more importantly, it's something that he does so lovingly, not out of annoyance. And they both have to sigh their way through their time with Patrick Wilson, the man whose wife they're attempting to rescue. Wilson has broken his leg in an unrelated incident before they set off, so he slows them down but is determined to go along and help retrieve his wife.

Slightly less bro-ish with them is Matthew Fox, as a somewhat bigoted and fully vain hunter who joins them on their quest because he wants to kill some cannibals (he also says he feels responsible since he's the one who involved the woman in the first place and inadvertently put her in harm's way). He thinks he's smarter, faster, and just plain BETTER than the others, and in some occasions he proves himself correct, but while he's a bit of a jerk he's not an antagonist in any way - it's just how he is, and he harbors no ill-will toward them (and of course, saves their lives once or twice). Fox has had some disturbing personal drama in the past few years that has probably made him less enticing in Hollywood, but there's no denying he's a solid actor when given the right role, and someone rightfully pointed out on Twitter the other night that this is the perfect use for him; he's always kind of an unlikable hero.

There are a few other actors you'll know in the movie, but they aren't around long enough to make much of a mark. And that's not really a spoiler; there are a few casualties during the film's two (brief) horror scenes prior to the 3rd act, but the rest of the townsfolk just stay behind and are never seen again. It's kind of weird that recognizable actors like Michael Paré and Kathryn Morris have such brief and thankless roles, as if they signed on for meatier (if still small) roles and saw some of their biggest moments excised. I don't even think Paré even gets a closeup - that's not a cameo, that's a known actor inexplicably playing a background role. Russell's introduction also feels trimmed, so if I had to guess I would assume that there was a lengthier first act at one point and it was cut down to get the guys on the road faster (and in turn, get to the cannibal stuff faster). It doesn't hurt the movie really (and it's still long, 2+ hours), but it's distracting in its own way - you never want to get the impression that you're watching something that's been trimmed, even if it's for the greater good.

And while it may take "too long" to get to the action for some (I didn't mind it, though I was also warned ahead of time not to expect wall to wall action), it's certainly worth the wait. Zahler is quite fond of springing violent acts on us out of nowhere instead of building up to them - it's just as much of a shock to us when someone loses their hand as it is to the guy who just lost it. And the cannibals don't hold back, splitting one character in two starting from the groin (yes, you see junk), seemingly trying to cook another from the inside (by jamming a hot item inside a giant cut on his stomach), etc. Even the surviving characters take a good beating, so while there isn't a lot of violence, what there is is sufficiently/surprisingly gruesome. Let's be clear - this is a western with some horror in it, not the other way around, but if you're patient Zahler and co. will reward the gorehounds who heard "Kurt Russell vs. Cannibals" and had visions of some John Carpenter-y creature fest.

Speaking of Carpenter, Zahler must be a fan - not only did he cast Russell (and shoot widescreen!) but he also composed the music, including a wonderful old timey theme song called "Four Doomed Men Ride Out" that plays over the end credits. Only two others sat in the theater with me to appreciate it, which is a shame - I lobby hard for the return of movie theme songs, and I was shocked that this had one as most of the ones that do tend to be slashers (My Bloody Valentine) or just plain goofy movies (Killer Klowns). But it fit the movie as a whole, in that it was a nice surprise and satisfied nearly all of my particular cravings. Kurt Russell! A horror western! Solid characters in a genre film! No dad stuff to upset me! And it finally rewarded me for all of the times I sighed my way into the Burbank 8 for another movie starring one of my heroes, something that Cage and Willis kind of deserve at this point for making so many bad movies, but Russell certainly does not. It's a shame that so man of you won't get to see it theatrically, but it's a bigger shame that we've gotten to the point that movies like this are deemed undeserving of a shot while Paranormal Activity 6 gets 1,500 screens. Oh well. At least Quentin will give mainstream audiences the chance to see Russell's glorious bushy beard in a few months, even if I doubt there are any cannibals trying to eat it in that one.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Gravy (2015)

OCTOBER 1, 2015

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

Do you need to laugh out loud on the regular in order to consider a comedy successful? When I think of great horror-comedies, I remember laughing out loud pretty often at them, and can recall specific jokes that had me howling (Slither's "martians are from Mars" argument; Zombieland's "...Garfield.", etc), but I couldn't tell you any similar moments from Gravy and I just watched it. I know I definitely DID belly laugh a few times, but at what I can't recall - yet I know I had this smirk/grin thing on my face the entire time, and was even kind of charmed by it more often than not. So is it a win?

I know this much - it's got a pretty great cast for a movie about cannibals. There's pretty much only one location, a Mexican restaurant that is just about closed for the night (Halloween night, specifically) when a trio of cannibals show up, seal all the doors (there are no windows) and tie up the remaining staff, forcing them to play games in order to earn their way out of being eaten next. That could very easily be a straight, very dark/violent horror movie, but all you have to do is look at the cast and know that won't be the case. Michael Weston and Jimmi Simpson are both ace scene-stealers, and I've enjoyed seeing them pop up in a variety of things for years - so seeing them as the leads (and as brothers!) was a real delight. Both have a very particular on-screen persona and line delivery that is very much in tune with my own sensibilities, so again even though they weren't really earning any big guffaws I was happily watching them carry out their very laid-back plan.

Their victims are also a wonderfully eclectic group, including the great Paul Rodriguez as the owner and Gabourey Sidibe as the restaurant's security guard (why a little Mexican joint would need a security guard is beyond me but she was a delight so no arguments). Horror fans will be happy to discover Molly Ephraim from the Paranormal Activities (she's the daughter in PA2 that pops up to give exposition in The Marked Ones) has some pretty good comedic timing as the obligatory self-centered waitress, and it took 40 minutes before I finally recognized the heroine - she's Sutton Foster from Flight of the Conchords! If you've never watched that show, go to Youtube right now and watch the video for "If You're Into It" - it's how I was hooked (and she's in that particular sequence for an added bonus). Sarah Silverman also pops up in the movie's bookending scenes, so she doesn't get to join in on all the cannibal fun, but her character is wonderfully weird, on-screen for exactly as long as she can be and still be endearing instead of annoying.

The specifics also scream comedy instead of hardcore horror. The cannibals don't just show up and start eating people - they're foodies, and task the restaurant's chef with preparing the meat in a variety of exquisite dishes. And while they pit the employees against each other, it's not like some Saw shit where they give them a weapon and make them battle it out - instead they make them play the Kevin Bacon game (Oh wait, that was one of the things I laughed out loud at! Simpson says "It's a game *I* like to call Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" and someone points out that everyone calls it that). Irreverence is the order of the day here, but don't worry - they don't hold back when it comes to the red stuff. When _____ won't shut up the 3rd cannibal (Lily Cole) settles things by biting his/her throat and chewing out the vocal chords, spraying gallons of real fake blood all over the place. It doesn't kill the person, however (leading to a fun little moment where he/she tries to play the Bacon game), and later when they DO expire their body is placed in a tableau that's so macabre you half-expect Hugh Dancy and Laurence Fishburne to show up and investigate it.

Speaking of expectations, given the number of movie references and writer/director James Roday's self-confessed love of horror (he even did a Friday the 13th episode on his show Psych, information that would have been nice to know when he showed up in the first, lesser Friday the 13th documentary), not to mention the Halloween setting, I was afraid the movie would be wall-to-wall horror references, but there are almost none! Haddonfield is mentioned, and there might have been one or two others during the Kevin Bacon game parts, but otherwise the stuff they reference isn't genre-related, thankfully (and Haddonfield is the only name reference I can recall - the restaurant isn't named "Romero's" or anything obnoxious like that).

As it continues there are some minor twists; one of the employees is a killer himself, minor romances blossom, etc. It's a touch too long (and my appreciation of Simpson and Weston's chemistry started wearing thin in the 3rd act, particularly a conversation about Weston's possible attraction to Foster), but Roday plays against expectations often enough that it's not really an issue, and even though it's a comedy he doesn't feel the need to keep things cheery - there aren't a lot of people left standing by the end. One character is sadly killed too early, but I get it - it lets you know up front that this isn't going to skip on the horror part of the "horror comedy" equation. I wouldn't want to see any of them go that soon, actually - everyone's pretty charming, and I loved how they all seemed to really care about each other. When Rodriguez suspects it's just a robbery, he tells them that only he knows the code so they might as well let everyone else go, and nearly everyone lies instantly, saying they know the code too, thus sparing him (so they hope) from a certain death. It's rather sweet - not a thing I can say about even regular comedies these days, let alone ones about cannibals.

The disc has a few extras, though they're fairly skippable. There's a commentary with Roday, Foster, and Simpson, and while group commentaries for this sort of thing tend to be pretty lively and hilarious, the track is in some serious need of Red Bull. There are a few fun anecdotes and bits of trivia, like the trouble they had securing rights to a folksy children's song that was in the script because the artist wasn't sure if she wanted her kids' song in an R rated cannibal movie, but it's also loaded with long pauses, and there isn't as much banter as I'd expect/want from such a thing. An interview with the trio was seemingly recorded in the same session, so even though it's edited down it still has some dead pauses and subdued interactions; the EPK making of is a bit better but it's also an EPK - it's hardly essential entertainment.

The film is getting a limited release theatrically on Friday (today by the time this posts) before its Blu-ray release on Tuesday, a strategy that may make sense to some folks but I am certainly not among them. I'm all for the theatrical experience and love that it's technically not going to be direct to DVD, but I also know that even if I told you it was the best movie of the year and you HAD to see it in theaters, there would be less than a dozen people there, and instead of a good crowd experience you will likely feel kind of awkward, all scattered around a big theater - it will actually hamper your enjoyment. So wait a few days for the disc, order up some tacos, and invite a few friends over instead. You'll have more fun, I guarantee it.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

We Are What We Are (2013)

JANUARY 6, 2014

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

A friend of mine recently asked what the best After Dark title thus far was, and my answer (after some thought; there's like 40 movies to choose from and my memory sucks) was Jim Mickle's Mulberry St., a low-key zombie film that stood apart from the others by actually resembling the sort of independent production that I thought the label was supposed to be catering to. Mickle impressed even more with his followup Stake Land, a terrific vampire/post-apocalyptic drama that added some familiar faces to the mix (Danielle Harris has never been better in a film, and it was great to see Kelly McGillis again), and now he's 3 for 3 with We Are What We Are, a very good remake of an impressive but very slow Mexican film that I saw at Frightfest back in 2010.

I just reread my (mini) review of the original, and I called it boring, but it's one of the films that you might not think much of at the time, but sticks with you for one reason or another, and I'd probably like it more if I ever found the time to revisit it. And I should do that before making the next claim, but screw it: I think I like this one even more (even though it's actually longer!). It's a very different execution of the same basic idea (siblings - who happen to be cannibals - cope with the loss of one of their parents on the eve of their annual "feast"), so you can watch the two movies back to back and not feel much repetition, but I think the way Mickle and his writing partner Nick Damici (who has a smaller acting role here than in their previous two films) speaks more to my sensibilities, which allowed me to enjoy it more right off the bat.

And it's amazing how it all spirals from reversing the sexes - the mother dies instead of the father, and it's two sisters and a brother instead of two boys and a girl. So everything different about its narrative stems from that basic change; the loss of a mother means that the young boy has no one to comfort and nurture him, and since the father is still alive there isn't much of an income issue. Likewise, the son isn't old enough to engage in "I'm the man of the house now" type plotting - in fact the children here don't take much of an active role in the family "tradition" until the very end of the film, whereas the original dealt heavily with the boys trying to take their dad's place and failing miserably. It's a very unique approach to a remake, which is surprising since it seems so obvious - what better way to FORCE yourself into having a fresh take on a story than to just swap the sexes of its characters and go from there?

But even ignoring the remake aspects, it's just a solid film. Like Stake Land, it's closer to drama than full blown horror, allowing those "scary movie" bits to really resonate in ways they never could in a traditional genre flick. The body count is low, but each one counts - there's a kill at the end of the second act that shocked me both times I saw the movie (I caught it during its brief theatrical run in October, but never got around to writing it up as it was during Screamfest), and it's got another gruesome moment early on (someone whacking their head on a pipe) that made me cringe all over again. It's also got an interesting, morbid hook - the small upstate NY town has been flooded thanks to constant torrential downpour, and thus the bones of the Parker family's victims (i.e. food) are rising to the surface and floating down the river. More and more bones surface as the film goes on, and local doctor Michael Parks is convinced that they're not animal. You could probably make an entire movie just about his character, in fact - his daughter has been missing for quite some time and he starts to suspect that the Parkers may be to blame, so he starts investigating sans any help from the local police. Parks is a terrific actor and plays the most sympathetic character in the film; you'll likely wish you had seen more of him when the credits begin to roll.

You might also wish there were several hundred more hours of Jeff Grace's score when all is said and done. The film actually has a few composers; apparently Grace did some music and then Mickle needed more, but Grace was unavailable, so other composers Phil Mossman and Darren Morris were brought in for the rest. And their stuff is good, but Grace's contributions are simply phenomenal; there's a cue called "Preparing the Body" that plays over a rather sad montage of all these lonely, broken people going about their day - it's the sort of thing you'll put on repeat if you had the CD (the editor of the making of doc apparently feels the same way - he uses it several times). I've sung Grace's praises before, but this is his crown jewel, in my opinion, and I honestly believe it elevates the film. Likewise, the gloomy cinematography and near constant rainfall also adds to it - it's hard not to instantly feel for these people when they can barely step out of their house without drowning.

And that's even more impressive when you watch the making of (which runs just under an hour) or listen to the commentary and discover that there was only ONE shot in the entire film where it was actually raining during its production. It's not even an important shot - just one of the still shots that make up the opening title sequence. Everything else was faked with machines and digital trickery (and the cinematography by Ryan Samul, who has served on all of Mickle's features), making the documentary pretty interesting at times because you'll see how bright and shiny it was during the film's gloomiest scenes. It's not much of a doc though; apart from occasional "Oh the camera's pointed at me so I'll say something" moments, it's just a silent assembly of footage from the film's production. Things occasionally seem to be going wrong, but there's no one to explain to us what the issue really is, so it can be a bit of a dull affair given its length - you'll see how a dolly track is assembled, but insight on what they're shooting or how it fits into the story.

The commentary is much more essential; at first I was a bit worried since Mickle and Damici are joined by Samul and two of the actors Bill Sage and Julia Garner); a red flag that it could turn into a jokefest, but it's actually pretty enlightening and chock full of real info on both the production and its story (plus some good natured ribbing). There are some priceless anecdotes about Parks, and Samul doesn't get too bogged down in technical details like some DPs tend to, so it's as accessible as it is entertaining. There are also a few interviews with Mickle, Sage, and Garner, where they talk more about the characters and story, and the line of thinking that got Mickle wanting to make the movie in the first place (I won't lay it all out, but basically it amounts to when you start to question your families' traditions). The film's trailer is also included, making this a pretty nice package, though I should note the audio mix could have been a bit clearer - Sage in particular is hard to decipher at times since the character is soft-spoken. Subs are included if you still can't hear him when you turn it up full volume!

Ordinarily I'd roll my eyes at the idea of an exciting new filmmaker dipping into remake territory so quickly, especially when it's a remake of a film that's only a couple years old (it was hitting festivals at the same time as Stake Land, in fact), but they've done a great job of making this story their own while paying the original its due respect (the father still repairs watches for a living). It's not like Let Me In where it seems simply doing the story in English seems to be the primary motivation - this is a fully developed film that can stand on its own (while encouraging folks to check out the original if they haven't already). And it just further positions Mickle as one of the most interesting new genre directors working right now, so it's a winner all around.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Green Inferno (2013)

SEPTEMBER 23, 2013

GENRE: CANNIBAL, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (FESTIVAL SCREENING)

During the Q&A for The Green Inferno, an audience member asked if the Peruvian government had given Eli Roth and his team any sort of grief over their portrayal in his newest film, and the filmmaker practically laughed. He then explained that their government doesn't care, that they understand that it's a fictional movie and that you'd basically have to be stupid to think it's a proper reflection of their country. It was a relief to hear, especially when you consider that Wrong Turn, a movie even more ridiculous than this one, caused some official from West Virginia to denounce the film at the time of its release, while assuring the rest of the world that folks wouldn't run afoul of mutant hillbillies when entering his state. It wasn't even shot there!

But it's a fair question, because Green Inferno is very much in line with films like Cannibal Holocaust and The Man From Deep River, both of which (and many others) the victim of much scrutiny and outrage - some of it even deserved. Those films have their fans (I enjoy most on my one viewing; I rarely have any desire to revisit them), but are largely considered to be trash thanks to some unfortunate storytelling decisions - i.e. a lot of rape and the on-screen murder of a few animals. Add in the usual approach to Italian genre filmmaking in that era (basically, rip off and top the guy who did it before you) and you can see why the sub-genre has been dormant for so long - who could possibly get away with such a thing in this day and age?

Eli Roth, of course. He's been MIA from the director's chair for far too long (six years, not counting the Hemlock Grove pilot), focusing mainly on acting and producing, and to his credit he didn't dip his toes in the shallow end for his comeback - he dove right in and has delivered what may be his most violent film yet. It's certainly got the biggest body count: our protagonists are a large group of activist college students who fly to the rain forest to prevent their destruction, only for their plane to crash (a horrific sequence that provides a few of the film's gory deaths) and to find themselves captives by a tribe of natives who look at a human being the same way we look at a cow or pig.

So in some ways it's directly in line with Roth's Hostel films - once again Americans go to another country and get killed by locals (you can even reduce it to "if you travel you will die" and include Cabin Fever in the group), and with the previously mentioned films (and the more extreme Cannibal Ferox) being an acknowledged influence, one could levy the complaint that there's no new ground being broken here. But that's not true - this film will be going out on just as many screens as his other movies, a luxury never afforded to Ruggero Deodato or Umberto Lenzi. This will be the gateway film for many audience members, and Roth is happy to introduce that subgenre to newcomers - the end credits even list the primary entries one should seek out in chronological order. I can honestly say this has to be a first - I don't see Scream or Hatchet's credits encouraging viewers to go back and see the original Halloween or Friday the 13th.

Also, it's the first I've seen that can be considered "fun". It can be grim at times, but there is thankfully no sexual violence of note (the head woman of the tribe checks to see if any of the girls are virgins, but it's not graphic and most certainly not misogynist in tone), and the local turtle population didn't have to worry about any of the actors chopping their heads off on camera. The cannibalism is in line with the others, but Roth's usual gonzo approach to kills (and the makeup FX by the similarly minded folks at KNB) keep it from being too unpleasant an affair, and there's even a damn poop joke to lift our spirits. Hell he even holds back at times; at least one major character's fate is left open ended, and another one is killed off-screen (with proof of her demise executed not unlike the "I never sliced anyone" bit in Rocky Horror Picture Show). I'm not saying "Bring the kids!" - this movie definitely earns its R rating* - but Roth clearly wants the audience to have a good time, something that is next to impossible for even a genre audience with something like Ferox.

This was a make or break film for Eli, as far as I am concerned at least. Hemlock was nearly unwatchable, as was his production of Last Exorcism II, and I wasn't overly thrilled with Aftershock (which showed at last year's FF). But this (and The Sacrament, which he also produced) has put him right back around the top of current genre heavyweights. And even better - he seems HUNGRY; I don't think we'll have to wait another six years for another film (though I was disappointed to hear he's working on a sequel to this already - I guess Thanksgiving is just never going to happen), and he is forming partnerships with other filmmakers like Nicholas Lopez and Aaron Burns (who was the 2nd unit director here and plays the film's most sympathetic character besides our heroine, the daring and lovely Lorenza Izzo) to keep those creative juices flowing. Welcome back, sir.

What say you?

*This was the R rated cut; not sure if there IS an unrated one but Eli claims that he had a very good experience with the MPAA on this one.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Eddie: The Sleepwalking Cannibal (2012)

OCTOBER 15, 2012

GENRE: CANNIBAL, COMEDIC, HERO KILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SCREAMFEST)

With a title like Eddie The Sleepwalking Cannibal, I was expecting a full blown comedic splatter fest along the lines of Dead Alive or something, albeit with a cannibal in lieu of zombies. But to my surprise (and the movie's benefit), it was actually a pretty low-key affair, keeping the comedy limited to dry dialogue and the occasional sight gag while telling a more character driven tale of an artist with a most unfortunate handicap - he can only be inspired in the face of tragedy.

When the film begins, our hero Lars hasn't painted in years, and has taken a job as a teacher at a remote, drastically underfunded art school. There he meets Eddie, a mute, mentally challenged man who just sort of hangs out at the school making fingerpaints, something they allow since his only living relative is a primary donor to the school. But when she dies, Lars agrees to take him in, despite the caveat that he sometimes sleepwalks and kills animals in the process. Lars quickly sees this as a way of getting rid of his neighbor's noisy dog, but there's a slight hiccup - Eddie kills/eats the owner as well. At first he's horrified, but then Lars realizes he's suddenly gotten his creative spark again, and quickly produces a piece that sells for a pretty penny, which he donates to the school.

So basically we have a Bucket of Blood type scenario, except in this case the struggling artist isn't the one doing the killing. Using meat on a string and other tricks, Lars just guides Eddie to the location of a "deserving" victim (some assholes who picked on Eddie, a drunken driver, etc) and lets him do his thing, with the results inspiring yet another piece. Obviously, things spiral out of control before long, as Lars becomes obsessed with producing more work and manipulating Eddie to uncomfortable degrees. The friendship between the two is one of the film's key assets, and it's pretty damn heartbreaking when Lars, needing Eddie to feel stressed and upset, starts mocking him and telling him that he's a loser and that no one else wanted to deal with him. Both actors are terrific, with Thure Lindhardt (who looks like Paul Bettany fused with Simon Pegg) perfectly toeing that line between being a terrible monster and a sympathetic protagonist, and Dylan Smith making a fully realized character without ever getting to speak. I've said before, it's rare that you can watch a horror film (especially one with a goofy title) and walk away impressed with an acting performance; that this film offers two is just extraordinary.

It also offers up a pair of Pontypool actors, which helped to remind me that I STILL haven't read that movie's source novel (I bought it the week after I saw the movie, three years ago!). Stephen McHattie pops up in a couple of scenes as Lars' agent, a complete asshole who seemingly encourages the deviant behavior required to produce the artwork (which we never see, by the way). And the lovely Georgina Reilly plays Lars' colleague and would-be love interest, and gets plenty of screentime here (her Pontypool role was too brief, as I recall). In fact the whole cast is solid; I loved the sheriff, who is immediately suspicious of Lars (they have an amazing exchange regarding a deer that Lars accidentally hits - part of it is in the trailer below), and the school's principal was a delight as well. And even though we never see him, the radio DJ might be my favorite character of the year, though I'll let you find out why when you see the movie

Director/co-writer Boris Rodriguez also wisely keeps the cannibalism to a minimum. Since we're supposed to sympathize with these guys to some degree, it would be pretty hard if we were constantly seeing Eddie murder innocent people (or even seeing the resulting artwork), so everything is suggested or partially obscured until the final reel. But he makes it count that way, and I was legit surprised at the amount of blood a particular character is covered in by the end of the film - you really get a sense of how dangerous things have gotten and why they need to stop. The humor is still there (and I like how his inspiration sort of dries out while he's trying to paint - it's basically treated like impotence), but the stakes are real - the escalation from "Eh, he had it coming" type kills (like the dentist in Little Shop Of Horrors) to "OK these guys are terrible people" is handled perfectly both on the script level and in the direction - not bad for a guy making his first theatrical feature.

It was preceded by Smush, a short film from the guys behind DeadHeads, a great zombie comedy that premiered at last year's Screamfest. A prequel focusing on the character we know as Cheese, it was a fine pair with the film, as both focused on monsters we kind of love (and both had extended audio based gags playing over the end credits, oddly enough), and didn't shy away from practical gore (yay!). It also reaffirmed that there is still potential in the crowded zom-com field, so kudos to the Pierce brothers for pulling that off - hopefully they'll have another feature soon (not necessarily a zombie film - I'd love to see their approach to a monster flick though).

According to the IMDb (...), the film has been picked up by Music Box for US theatrical play, which is great as they've handled tricky stuff before (they did the US releases of the original Girl With The Dragon Tattoo movies) and actually DO put their acquisitions into theaters, unlike certain other studios that may or may not rhyme with Schimension, or Brian's Hate. Obviously it won't be in the multiplexes, but I'm happy it will find its way into genre fans' hands soon. A highlight of the fest so far.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Gnaw (2008)

AUGUST 16, 2012

GENRE: CANNIBAL, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Nothing makes me happier than discovering Blockbuster or Netflix has listed the wrong runtime on a movie. In Gnaw's case, they said it was a standard 90, but it was actually a scant 76, allowing 14 extra minutes that I probably wasted on Twitter or something. But still, awesome. However, the IMDb also led me astray, claiming this was a horror comedy, and being British, I thought I was in for a Severance-like take on Texas Chainsaw Massacre. As it turns out, there's no real humor in the movie at all - it's just Texas Chainsaw Massacre with different accents.

For a movie without a single new idea in its head, it's not too bad. Again, it was only 76 minutes (and that's with credits and a hilariously overwrought opening text about how many people go missing each year), so I couldn't be too offended when it began following TCM beat for beat. It's like when kids make backyard versions of their favorite movies - there's something almost kind of sweet about it. Plus, they DO make one big change at the very end that's impressively grim, so props for that one.

I also liked the killer's disguise, though the digital video was never good enough to get a really great look at it. One difference from Chainsaw is that there are only two villains, basically Leatherface and the chef (a woman here). But the masked guy looks pretty normal, so he does his thing without it sometimes. I'm not sure if we were supposed to be surprised that they turned out to be the same guy, but if so it was a waste of their time trying to implement it, as I never doubted it for a second.

And they go all out with the cannibalism, which was nice since the last couple of Chainsaw sequels/remakes more or less ignored it. People find teeth and hair in their food, the chef bakes a tongue, and at the end... well, I'll leave that little surprise to you, but I will say it's kind of incredible. And unlike the insufferable Squeal, the guy takes his cannibalism seriously, trapping folks and taking care of how he cuts them, instead of just hacking away like that movie's Pig-men did more often than not.

I do wish the characters were a bit more likable, however. Once again we have a group of friends who seemingly don't really like each other - the nerdy guy everyone picks on, the girl who is banging her friend's boyfriend... why are these groups always so dysfunctional? I can assume that the idea is that they're so caught up in their own drama that they don't notice when people go missing for long periods of time, but that doesn't really come across, and even if it did - can't you find a better way to handle this issue, rather than making everyone we're supposed to be worried about kind of obnoxious?

The disc has a nine minute making of that's worth a look, if only because it actually provides some real information about the film's production. You certainly won't find anything like that on the commentary by director Gregory Mandry, who speaks so infrequently that I often just found myself watching the movie again and then getting disrupted by him actually saying something. Plus some of his comments are merely narrating the action or pointless "it was cold in here" observations, so it is entirely a waste of your time. The trailer rounds things out, and I'll link it below with the warning that it is not work safe (nor is there a "red band" to warn us).

Basically, if you like these sort of movies, you can do much much worse. Sure, I'd like to have been surprised by some more of its storyline, but it met its minimal goals and didn't offend my eyes or ears with poor filmmaking. So it's a fitting entry for this week - maybe it's the heat or something, but everything is "Yeah, OK, good enough". Maybe I'll hate tomorrow's movie so we can get some kind of a grading curve, here.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Warlock Moon (1973)

APRIL 26, 2012

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

If you follow Cabin In The Woods chatter online (don’t worry if you don’t – I’m not going to spoil anything), you’ve probably come across the phrase “Vampires circle the moon”, which refers to a now legendary Rex Reed review of the film where he simply made everything up. After my 2nd viewing of the film, I noticed that his nonsense was even funnier because, as I said, “it’s the only horror movie in history that doesn’t even SHOW the damn moon”, which I was sure was not accurate but sounded funny. So it’s great that a few days later I see Warlock Moon, which also goes through its runtime without ever one showing the moon, despite the fact that it’s in the title.

It also lacks a Warlock, though there is a blood sacrifice/ritual that I guess could be considered witchcraft, and there’s a guy involved, so maybe he’s a warlock and just doesn’t talk about it much. The ritual is mainly conducted by a woman, but Witch Moon would just be silly, I guess. Also the ritual has to occur at midnight, when the moon would be out, so it’s just a really abstract, “gotta think about” title. Like Syriana.

Anyway, it’s a fun little B movie; the sort of thing I’d be delighted to find on a budget pack but probably wouldn’t want to buy on a dedicated release for more than a couple bucks. It’s slowly paced and riddled with plot holes, but it’s got a breezy charm that so many movies lack, and it more than makes up for its problems. You also can’t dismiss a movie that combines ghosts, witchcraft, AND cannibalism, plus a random ax wielding mute (who looks like Rob Zombie!) for good measure. Even better, it actually gels together, more or less – it doesn’t seem like writer/director Bill Herbert is just making things up as he goes along, or pulling a Pieces and inserting elements into his movie at random because a producer wants it in there.

It also has great chemistry between the two leads, Joe Spano and Laurie Walters. After engaging in the creepiest and over-elaborate “meet-cute” I can recall ever seeing in a movie, they take off on a little road trip and end up at our main location – an isolated, run down spa (!) somewhere in California. Oddly, after spending some time there and getting spooked, they leave, and end up going BACK a few days later in order for Spano to write a story about the place for his newspaper. Now (spoilers), I actually noticed this was kind of goofy, but it wasn’t until a bit later that I realized Spano was actually one of the villains and it was all a setup. It’s the sort of thing I should have seen coming right from the start, but their flirty, charming chemistry actually distracted me enough to not think about it too much. Well played, Herbert.

Or should I say, HOBLIT? According to the commentary by Joe Bob Briggs, it is impossible to find any real information on Herbert (who used a different name for the screenplay), but Spano once mentioned making a low budget horror film with Gregory Hoblit, and has appeared in many of his more respectable films like Hart’s War. Seems to me someone would have figured it out for sure by now, but I like to think it’s true. It would make up for Untraceable.

Briggs’ commentary is a hoot, by the way. He’s a fan of the film, but has no problem pointing out its many puzzling elements (such as why the ax wielding guy is trying so hard to kill her when they need her to willingly enter a magic circle before they can do their ritual) and mocking Herbert’s/Hoblit’s less than ace directing skills. There’s a bit where Walters is supposedly falling victim to drugged tea, but the camera stays behind her most of the time, so we can’t see her being affected by ANYTHING. I was also tickled by the fact that she seemingly has to poison herself, as the lady serving the tea insists she put sugar into it (or maybe it would mask the taste of the poison – but either way, why didn’t she just do that herself?). He also provides some bibliographical info on the actors, and points out some fun trivia (like that they shot part of Tron in the same area), so it’s definitely worth a listen whether you liked the movie or not. The trailer and an alternate (and mute) opening sequence is also included, but curiously not the 6-10 minutes of footage that is missing from the film itself. For reasons unknown, even though this is a “special edition”, the film has a few scenes shortened or removed, including one with two cops that sounds kind of important.

Speaking of the cops, they appear in the film’s closing scene, which actually occurs under the end titles. It’s quite odd, I’ve certainly seen post-credits scenes (Nick Fury joke), but this is like the credits just didn’t want to wait around anymore and thus start playing while the main narrative is still finishing up. Then they finish and the movie keeps going as if nothing happened, leading to the best closing shot ever (one of the movie’s many awesome freeze-frames). Just part of the movie’s odd charm though. Recommended!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Hillside Cannibals (2006)

DECEMBER 16, 2011

GENRE: CANNIBAL, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

At first I thought Hillside Cannibals might end up being the rare Asylum mockbuster that actually turned out pretty decent (all things considered), with the admirable slaughter of most of the cast in the first 15 minutes and some decent FX to boot. I find that their "originals" tend to be of better quality than their mockbusters, but even though this was clearly a cash-in on the Hills Have Eyes remake, this first reel displayed some semblance of a real horror movie.

Sadly, it all collapsed after that, and is ultimately just as bad as their other copycat films. Worse, it's what I originally liked that proved to be its biggest problem: they kill most of the teens right off the bat, and then spend the rest of the movie either going in circles or introducing new characters out of nowhere that are killed just as quickly. See, at first I figured they were trying to pull off the "this is not our main group" twist, not unlike the Friday the 13th remake (but with the bonus of a no-name cast not spoiling the "surprise" right off the bat). So when everyone started getting knocked off, I was like "OK, good job Asylum! You tricked me! Now, where's the real group?" But there isn't one, and thus the rest of the movie is little more than our surviving final girl getting captured, escaping, getting captured, escaping... By the 40 minute mark I was pretty goddamn bored, and there was just as much time to go.

Attempts to mix things up aren't much help. A revenge seeking dad shows up somewhere in there (in a scene set in a forest - I thought they were in the desert?), and kicks a little ass, but he's dead before long too. They even finally DO introduce a new car full of teens at the top of the 3rd act, which of course is too late to help much, but again, at least the FX are pretty decent when they too are killed 5 minutes later. It's as if screenwriter Steve Bevilacqua couldn't be bothered to plot out his movie in advance, raced through every idea he had in the first 25 pages, and then just grasped at straws to meet a minimum page count.

It's also impossible to care about anyone on either side of the "battle", because they can barely be bothered to let us know the characters' names, and the murky cinematography was no help - more than once I thought a character had died only to realize that it had to have been someone else once he/she "returned" in better light a few scenes later. The ending is supposed to be a shock twist, and it IS admirably grim/darkly funny, but again, it's so hard to see who is who, I almost missed the point of it entirely.

Plus everything just drags. One of the cannibals gets an iPod, and there's like 3-4 minutes of him playing with the damn thing; our girl seemingly spends half the movie either running out of harm's way or running back into it to save her boyfriend, and even the aforementioned "twist" ending goes on way too long. Basically one of the cannibals is screwing one of his "sisters" while she wears the face of a victim, but it goes on so long that even if I could make any of their faces out, I wouldn't be stunned by the reveal. Mostly I just sat there wondering if this cannibal had practiced tantric sex or something since he seemed to be able to hold off unusually long for a movie character. Hasn't he seen Halloween? Those guys knew how to get in and out of there so we can move things along!

Not content to merely steal from Hills, they also toss in some Texas Chainsaw plot points, plus a cop who turns out to be working with them, something that we've seen in a dozen or so of these movies. But like the other would-be heroes, the cop subplot seems tossed in when they realized the movie was coming up short, and amounts to absolutely nothing. He doesn't even die - he features in the penultimate scene and then the next just shows the sex - it's like they skipped a scene in between. I guess they figured it'd work better to preserve the surprise, but instead it just feels abrupt and awkward - you've been dragging things out for over 70 minutes, and NOW you're going to speed it up? Hilariously, the end credits run for like 7 minutes; I had time to read the first one 5 times before the second name appeared.

Glad Netflix saw fit to get this on their streaming program though. All the great movies that aren't even available on DVD yet, but this fucking thing is accessible no matter where you are!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Frightmare (1974)

NOVEMBER 23, 2011

GENRE: CANNIBAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

When I watched/enjoyed Schizo, I made a mental note to check out more of Pete Walker’s films, but now it’s two and a half years later and I’m finally getting around to doing that. Frightmare (aka Cover Up, for some reason) is worth a look, but not quite as good as Schizo, and now I’m wondering if it’s worth checking out his others, since this is one of his most well-regarded. Then again, as I re-read my review of the other film, it sounds equally slow and stuffy, so maybe I just need to be in the right mood.

And by stuffy I mean, well, British. Part of my problem with this movie is that it’s far too “proper” to work as a crazy cannibal film, and the contrast doesn’t quite pay off. Certainly good horror films can be made out of putting certain ideas in an unusual context (such as Bloody Reunion, a rare Korean slasher film), but the blend just didn’t work for me here. I’m sure the ratings board didn’t help either, but you can look at any given moment of the film and see nothing more than well-dressed middle aged British folks standing around talking and drinking tea – the cannibalism (read: horror) element is so underplayed and infrequent, the occasional murders don’t shock as much as cause me to say “Oh, finally, proof this is a horror movie.”

Plus there are four people in the cannibal family unit, with their dysfunction played for minor black comedy – remind you of any other 70s horror films? I don’t think Pete Walker set out to make The British Chainsaw Massacre or anything, but even back in 1974 I’m sure some folks were watching this and thinking “I’d rather just watch Tobe Hooper’s film.” The body counts are similar, but the key difference is that he built up the atmosphere and suspense of the film’s situation, making it a far more effective horror film.

He also gave us someone to root for. The closest thing to a heroine in this movie is one of the cannibal’s daughters, who herself seems a bit off, and probably more likely to side with them (or her sister) than the closest thing to a hero – her psychiatrist boyfriend, who spends a chunk of the movie muttering and conversing with others trying to get to the “bottom” of things, which would be more exciting if we weren’t always a step or two ahead of him. I don’t know about you, but I find watching people “discover” things that we in the audience have already been told to be quite boring. Now, I’m not talking about knowing that Michael Myers is in the room before they do – I am referring to scenes that serve no purpose other than for a character (a hero, in fact) asking questions or reading documents that allow him to learn things we learned from other characters five or six scenes ago.

That said, it does have some oddball charm, particularly in the scenes with Sheila Keith as the mother/head cannibal. I don’t know what her claim to fame was, but it felt like the type of unhinged performance that a previously “respectful” actress might give, not unlike Betsy Palmer in the original Friday the 13th or maybe Mia Farrow in the Omen remake. I quite enjoyed the bit near the end where the shrink hero goes to see her under the guise of wanting a reading (she acts as a Tarot reader to lure in victims), only for her to see right through him (and then kill him). It’s a fun, clever little bit – too bad there weren’t another dozen of them.

I was also quite smitten with both of the actresses playing the daughters. Both Deborah Fairfax and Kim Butcher are strikingly beautiful, and I was baffled to learn that neither of them had much of a career after this (Butcher only made a single other film). Not only were they obviously the type of girls you’d love to have on a poster, but both were pretty good actresses to boot (particularly Fairfax, who has the most depth of all the characters here). Unlike the equally attractive lead of Schizo (Lynne Frederick), however, there’s seemingly no scandal or anything that caused their careers to be cut short – they seemingly just walked away. On the commentary, Walker points out that one of them was working as a waitress shortly after the film’s release, and then the moderator says she now does voice work, but Fairfax’s last credit was in 1991, as a doctor in a non-animated series, so if that’s true it must not be particularly notable work – is she merely in a walla group or something?

It’s one of the few points of interest on the commentary, which is even drier than the film itself. Walker’s memory isn’t the best; he often just repeats whatever the moderator is saying, and the moderator is much like Greg Mank on those Cat People discs in that he enjoys pointing out other roles of the performers as if we couldn’t just look at the IMDb ourselves. Die-hard fans of the film may be more interested, but I found little use for it (though I was surprised to hear Walker say he didn’t like horror movies – why did he keep making them, then?). The trailer is also included, and it is worth a look since they show pretty much every action moment in the film.

There’s definitely an audience for this slow but quirky cannibal tale, and I might even find myself in it someday – just not today. I do recognize that it’s better than the other Frightmare (which is wholly unrelated), but so are most films.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Trespassers (2006)

FEBRUARY 15, 2011

GENRE: CANNIBAL
SOURCE: NETFLIX (INSTANT)

It’s kind of a bummer that horror movies *have* to take place at night, and also that the heart of the genre lies within independent films, which are now all shot with digital cameras that produce less than flattering images in the dark. At its core, Trespassers (aka Blood Waves) is actually a pretty cool movie, but the lo-res and underexposed images just turn the entire 3rd act into an incoherent blur of pixels and artifacting errors. In fact, even the daylight stuff looks pretty bad at times, which makes me wonder just who the hell chose this camera and/or who was in charge of transferring it.

Ironically, this problem is made worse by the film’s biggest asset – it’s inspired by 70s horror fare like Hills Have Eyes, in that it doesn’t really kick into high gear until that third act. So the first hour, which is largely visible, is mostly just folks walking around looking for the other folks who wandered off earlier, or talking to locals, and generally not getting killed. And that's fine - I like slow builds and I dug the throwback approach. Problem is, once they get to the goods, the film's already questionable presentation just gets worse.

But there's a lot of sexual frustration to enjoy! One dude legitimately runs away from the others so he can jerk off. Also, the two female characters, played by uber-hot Michelle Borth and Hatchet’s Joleigh Fioravanti (though she uses the name Pulsonetti here, for whatever reason) are fighting over one guy who seemingly doesn't seem to care which one he ends up banging. There's also a gay dude, who was my favorite character because he stayed out of their shenanigans and was also the most intelligent of the group. Joleigh hits on him too, but then returns her attention to the hero guy, at one point even offering to “suck your cock all the way back to LA”, which sounds exhausting for both parties.

And thus, of course, Borth’s character is a prude, not even letting him put lotion on her backside (but getting angry when Joleigh encourages him to do the same for her), and then getting angry at the two of them and taking off with the other guy to go look for help. But she makes up for it in the most random way possible; igniting a sex scene after they’ve been chased into a little cave by the cannibal zombie things. Of course, it’s so dark you can’t see a goddamn thing, but it’s the thought that counts I guess (also, they are interrupted before he can finish, so the poor sod has to fend off zombies and run around and such with blue balls).

The back-story is also a bit more novel than I am used to/was expecting) Rather than the usual “look if you go to a foreign country you’re just going to end up being killed” xenophobic approach, the cannibals are actually former or recruited members of a cult that was in love with the land and thus decided to live off of it. But when food ran scarce (possibly because they set up their HQ on a friggin’ beach – try a farm, assholes), the leader decided to start feeding them little kids without telling them what the “meat” was. Things got ugly, folks died, and now they attack anyone who comes around that is disrespectful of the land (i.e. by dirt biking around on it, or littering, etc). Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but I like that it was almost sort of noble – they kill only to eat and to keep douchey surfers from trashing the place. Can’t really go fault them on that one.

Also, I liked that it took place on the beach, which is surprisingly rare for horror movies. I racked my brain while watching, and honestly couldn’t think of another horror film set entirely on the coast and in various sand dunes and such near the water. Most of the time, it’s stuff like Jaws or Piranha, where there will be a few scenes on the beach and then they get out on the water or lake, but here they stayed on dry land for pretty much the whole movie.

I just wish I could have SEEN it! I mean, I can cut it some slack because I’m sure Netflix’s stream didn’t help, but I can tell the difference between a poor transfer and a poorly made movie. The cameraman’s shadow makes so many appearances it should have been given its own cast credit, and the lighting (when they have it) is obviously a bright spotlight being moved around, getting as much of the actors and background in its beam as possible. It starts to resemble a documentary or episode of Ghost Hunters or something, because there’s a constant light source that has no place in the scene but never lets you stop being aware of it. And then, again, for the 3rd act they didn’t even bother turning it on anymore – you never really get a good look at the monsters, and I could never tell who was winning during most of the fight scenes until someone walked away (thankfully, or perhaps intentionally, the hero wears a light sweatshirt, so he’s easy to spot). The camera itself seemed kind of low-rent too – you know how any movie with a character who has a video camera will switch to his/its point of view, and it’s noticeably different than the footage being used for the actual movie? Yeah, that doesn’t happen here. We switch to his POV and back and I couldn’t even tell the difference.

And I find that odd, because the director had several other (non-horror) films under his belt, plus Borth and Fioravanti were already established actors... why did they have to shoot this thing on what appears to be a Youtube brand camera? Or did someone just fuck up royally in post? Either way, most dark rooms are better lit than this movie, so it wouldn’t have helped the “hey what am I looking at here?” aspect of many of the action scenes. A pity – the script was worthy of a better presentation.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Don't Go Near The Park (1982)

DECEMBER 31, 2010

GENRE: CANNIBAL, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

For whatever reason, I was under the impression that Don't Go Near The Park was a Last House On The Left ripoff or something along those lurid lines, and almost considered watching something else for the day since my wife was around and she gets upset with those sort of things. So I decided to check, saw that it involved a 12,000 year old curse, and figured it was 'safe'. And thus, I am happy to report that it was a gloriously way to close out another year of HMAD, as it was not without some sleaze, but was 82 minutes of pure nonsensical entertainment.

While most films are content with a sole "_____ years ago" in its first 10 minutes, Park has two, and then leaves it up to our imagination/logical deduction powers to figure out the other time periods that are depicted until we finally catch up to the present day (a half hour into the movie!). The 12,000 years ago one shows some cavemen arguing with their elder, who puts a curse on them, which is fine, but it's the second title card-ed period ("Sixteen years ago") that really kicks things off, as we see one of our cavemen (who is immortal as long as he disembowels and eats a young girl every now and then) stalk Linnea Quigley and then rent a room at her home. After she discovers he's a murderer, she instantly falls in love with him, they get married, she has their kid, their marriage deteriorates, and we see that he dotes on the daughter. Again, this is all the first half hour of the movie.

So now the girl is 16, and after her parents have a hilarious fight during her birthday party (the guests all awkwardly leaving as she cries), she runs away and meets up with some other runaways in Griffith Park. From there the plot continues to get more convoluted, and to make up for the head-scratching elements, writers Lawrence D. Foldes (who also produced and directed) and Linwood Chase occasionally toss in some T&A, largely courtesy of Tamara Taylor, playing the 16 year old (19 in real life, thankfully). Foldes and Chase play a pair of would-be rapists who paw at her, she falls for a guy named Cowboy who goes to 2nd with her about 17 seconds after they first meet (and later gets it on with for real), her dad rips her clothes off near the end (purportedly to sacrifice her to end his curse, but it comes off more like he's trying to rape her). Hell, even the little runaway kid she bonds with cops a feel while she's sleeping, and when she shrieks he offers "I didn't know you were alive!" as an excuse. Like I said, the movie is lightly sleazy, but mostly it's just that special sort of batshit nonsense that I love.

I mean, it's only 82 minutes long, but we get all of the above and more - at one point, reporter Aldo Ray goes on and on about the history of Griffith Park. And there are a number of out of nowhere situations, like when some dude tries to mug the little kid, or a girl looking for her dog (curiously named "Starshine"). Plus a parade of some sort, and then, in a plot twist of some sort, we find out our immortal cannibals also have laser eyes! Hell, zombies even make an appearance in the final moments! It's cinematic stew - just toss in whatever you got, as long as there's some sort of center that folks can latch onto.

The one thing it DOESN'T have an abundance of is legit horror scenes. There's a few of the afore-mentioned stomach eating scenes, but they're all the same and the effects are too terrible for them to be enjoyed from a technical viewpoint. The zombies (!) don't show up until the very end, and a lot of subplots and characters (Linnea Quigley, for example) just disappear rather than end in another kill. I kept thinking Quigley would come back into the movie, but nope, she argues with the caveman dad and is never seen again. But honestly, I was too busy laughing or yelling "HUH?" at the screen to really notice until it was over. "Hey, was that even really a horror movie?" Good thing it had the zombies.

Of almost equal entertainment value is the commentary by Foldes and Quigley, moderated by Dark Sky DVD features guru David Gregory. Foldes has a really pleasant and young-sounding voice - he sounds like a PR rep or something, which just makes his often tasteless stories and anecdotes all the more hilarious. He randomly begins discussing Aldo Ray's drinking problem, gleefully points out that "as the director I got to cop a feel", and at the very end confesses that he wanted to jump Quigley's bones. He also more or less admits that the film existed solely to fit the needs of a few investors and try to make everyone some money, which might explain the film's record number of plot elements and out of nowhere actions (the laser eyes, for example - you can almost hear a producer saying "Hey, we need some sci-fi in there to make an extra 10% on foreign sales!"). There are a number of gaps in the track though; not sure if it's because they had to remove some comments or if they were just as momentarily stunned by the movie as I often was.

The rest of the extras aren't as entertaining. The "gore outtakes" are completely worthless, it's just a bunch of holding on shots of blood dripping from a wound or something. There's a lengthy deleted/extended scene piece that runs about 25 minutes, but half of that is just footage from the movie that they left in for context (or pure laziness). Most of the scenes are pretty worthless - most of it consists of Bondi and the other runaways talking, though there's a full frontal shot of Quigley that will be of interest to her fans. On the commentary, they discuss their guerrilla style shooting of a scene in front of Mann's Chinese, but the scene was cut from the film and doesn't appear here, which is a shame as it was pretty impressive how they pulled it off (even posting some ADs with 8x11 sheets of paper saying "By entering this area you consent to being filmed" at the sides of the area to cover themselves legally). The final extra is the film's rather misleading trailer, which makes it look like a full blown zombie film ("Zombie on a rampage of blood and terror!" - in the movie they wake up, move about 7 feet to the left, and kill the bad guy. Some rampage.), though I wouldn't envy someone who had to make a legit trailer for this movie that depicted its actual plot.

If you notice, I have added the label Video Nasties for this review and will go back and add it where appropriate for the others. Partially spurned on by Jake West's documentary that I saw at Frightfest, my goal for 2011 is to see all of the Video Nasties that I haven't already, because I'm pretty tickled by what made the list. This movie is pretty tame compared to say, Pieces, an equally batshit but far more gruesome film that was NOT on the list. But also, I was given the 3 disc set to review and I realized that I couldn't because they kept spoiling all of the movies on the bonus features (which, given the doc's brief length, the bonus features are sort of the meat of the release). So once I see them all, I can finally write my review - hopefully by the time it sees release in the US (as of now it's not available on Region 1 disc). Hopefully I can do it; I'm sure some of these movies are no longer available (or never were) on DVD and thus VHS will be expensive. And I want to stick to legitimate releases, so don't offer your bootlegs.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...