HMAD Second Chances: Silent Night, Bloody Night (1972)

DECEMBER 22, 2014

GENRE: HOLIDAY, SLASHER
SOURCE: STREAMING (AMAZON INSTANT)

I first watched Silent Night, Bloody Night only a few weeks into HMAD's run, and I didn't think too much of it at the time. I will chalk it up to three things: one is the season; it's a Christmas (ish) movie that I watched in March. Not that a movie has to be timely to be enjoyed (Die Hard is awesome every day of the year), but for non-bona fide classics like this, it certainly helps to be in the seasonal mood. The second thing was the transfer; I'd have to pull it out to be positive, but I'm pretty sure the copy I watched on Amazon was an improvement, as there was only one brief section where it was too dark to see clearly, and the rest would have been one of the better transfers on my Mill Creek sets (for what little that is worth, yes yes I am aware). When you're straining your eyes and ears, it's going to just make the experience a less than pleasant one, even if it's the best movie of all time.

The third is what I already mentioned - it was early into HMAD's run. I hadn't been exposed to too many bad movies yet, so the grading curve has changed. I've also mellowed out a lot, and thus I'm more forgiving of lousy editing or confusing plot development than I was 6-7 years ago. I'm guessing there are a lot of movies in this "perfectly decent" category that got negative reviews as a result, and if I had the time I'd go back and revisit more of these older films to see if my opinion changed, but that likely won't ever happen so just accept this one "apology" as a Christmas gift to you longtime HMADers.

One of the things I definitely didn't give the movie enough credit for the first time around is a genuinely good mystery/whodunit, which skirts on the edge of being a cheat without actually going into that territory (which, if you think about it, is something they should all do, otherwise it'll be too easy to solve). The ownership of a house is at the movie's center, and someone unseen is knocking off just about everyone involved with it (the lawyer handling the sale, the town's mayor, etc), with all signs pointing to the owner's grandson, who showed up in town just as A. the murders started occurring and B. someone escaped from the nearby mental institute. Of course, if it IS him it'd be way too easy, but picking who it is out of the other suspects isn't so easy. Again, it's a bit of a cheat, but as always I have to hint that movies are a visual medium and if you merely HEAR about something then it probably isn't as cut and dry as we've been led to believe.

But how the mystery is explained does leave something to be desired, as it's done both with clunkily inserted flashbacks and at least two narrators. I know someone sitting there reciting pages of exposition isn't exactly thrilling, but I'll take that over the feeling that you're suddenly watching a different movie, as major plot points are spelled out/explained via people we don't see in the main part of the movie. If the IMDb is to be trusted, and it never should be, the movie was shot over a period of 2 years, so perhaps this sort of thing is the result of losing actors/locations and having to smooth over plot holes with new stuff that wasn't intended to be there originally.

The funny thing is, if that WAS the case, then maybe that would explain the POV shots, completely rare at the time and, like the flashbacks, a bit erratically used here. Still, the movie is a proto-slasher, and whenever you credit Halloween with some of these techniques someone will correct you and say Black Christmas did it first, but this actually came before both of them! And with the movie involving creepy phone calls and, as the title suggests, Christmas, it's a bit suspicious at times - was Bob Clark and/or Roy Moore influenced by this little drive-in cheapie? It languished in obscurity until the 80s (apparently it took an Elvira airing to come back into what passes for its popularity), so it's possible no one of note would have noticed the similarities back then, and Black Christmas itself was kind of obscure for a while (it was not a big success, and had multiple titles - including Silent Night EVIL Night, hilariously enough - that made it harder to stake a claim to anything).

Like Black Christmas, the holiday isn't really important to the plot the same way it is for Silent Night Deadly Night (or even the Black Christmas remake). There's a poorly decorated tree in Mary Woronov's house, and I guess the holiday is why no one's around, but otherwise that's about it. There's some snow on the ground but most of the movie takes place inside anyway, so that's hardly a holiday trapping. But there's something about it that taps into that darker, lonelier side of Christmas, for the folks without families or spouses nearby to spend it with. I remember when I first moved to LA, my wife was still in Mass (where this movie takes place! Filmed in NY though) when Christmas rolled around, and so I spent it alone; I went to a depressing double feature (Munich and Wolf Creek) and ate takeout from Fatburger. I think that's when I started playing Final Fantasy VII again too (this was my 4th attempt, and the first successful one as I finished it this time!). In short, it was pretty dire, and that's the kind of Christmas presented in this movie - our hero arrives in town and knows no one, our heroine is waiting for her dad to come over for their annual meal together (just the two of them), and it's just dark and quiet and sad. Plus there's a guy axing people to death.

Speaking of Arlington, I was tickled all over again by the movie's depiction of the city. It's a pretty bustling suburb, bordering on regular city (its only a town over from Cambridge, so that sort of spills over), but the movie would have you believe it's a very sparse small town, where your neighbor is a mile away or whatever. Since it wasn't shot in MA I assume they just picked a random name from the Big Book Of Massachusetts City Names rather than check to see which ones looked like the town in their movie. If you're a MA resident, think more Western Mass, like Sunderland or something - that's what their "Arlington" is like here. It doesn't really matter to the plot or anything, but it amused me as a former resident who now lives in LA - if you're faking LA somewhere you'll get caught instantly, but I bet most Bloody Night viewers figured it was pretty accurate.

Due to its public domain status, the movie is a budget pack staple, and while I guess there's an edition from Film Chest that is pretty good (albeit still full frame), the odds of a proper special edition are slim. Director/writer Theodore Gershuny and most of the cast (Patrick O'Neal, John Carradine, James Patterson, Walter Abel, etc) are dead; Mary Woronov is the only one of note still around, and she divorced Gershuny sometime after this movie's completion so my guess is her memories of the experience aren't fond (then again, maybe they'll make for an amazing commentary). I just compared the one on Amazon Prime Instant to the one on Youtube and Amazon's is much better (the Youtube one matches up with my memory of the Chilling Classics version; I'd have to dig it out to be sure and I assure you I won't be bothering to do that), so if you're a Prime member you'll be fine with that rather than shelling out money for a DVD that's probably not much better, if at all (the reviews claim it's merely better than they've seen; no one's exactly calling it demo quality material). Either way, give it a look if you're not in the mood to rewatch Black Christmas this year. The proto slasher elements alone make it a must see for fans of the sub-genre, but unlike some others, it's got more value than merely being a curiosity. As busy as I am, I'm glad I gave it another chance.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Second Chances: Pandorum (2009)

JANUARY 11, 2010

GENRE: MUTANT, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: SEPTEMBER 2009 (THEATERS)

As I predicted, Pandorum plays better on a 2nd viewing, and additional bonus points are awarded for watching it at home, where the confined air duct scenes feel more, well, confined. I’m still not entirely sold on the mutant scenes, and I think the Cung Le character should have been excised entirely (why are there TWO badass fighters on this ship?), but overall I was enjoying the film much more for what it was this time around, instead of being bothered by what it wasn’t.

One thing I definitely appreciated more this time around was the film’s rather simple plot, albeit with this huge backstory (Daybreakers also follows this path). The movie is basically about a guy trying to start up an engine so another dude can open a door. Sure, there are mutants spawned by a reaction to their cryo-chamber feeding tubes, and the destruction of Earth, and the titular mental condition that is causing one of our main characters to suffer the indignity of playing out one of cinema’s most overused and lame twists, but we learn about all of these things along the way, as our hero makes his way to flick a switch (sort of like how LOTR is just about a dude tossing away a ring). The similarity to some recent video games (Dead Space primarily) actually makes this more apparent and admirable - so many games extend their length by making you carry out ridiculous missions that don’t really make any sense that you might actually forget what the overall goal is, but that’s not an issue here.

I also enjoyed the sort of ballsy decision to trust a big budget sci-fi movie in the hands of Ben Foster. This isn’t like when Johnny Depp made that Nick of Time movie and left all of his quirkiness behind; this is the same sort of tweaky, off-kilter Foster performance we’ve come to expect, and it helps give the film its own identity even when things get sort of generic (mutant scenes). Even though I don’t care much for the character, his “conversations” with Le are hilarious, because Foster’s baffled expression has the sort of realistic feel that is often missing from these sort of scenes.

Also on Blu-Ray, 1080p Antje Truae. Nuff said.

(I know this would be a good place for a screenshot, but I can't do that with my Blu-ray player. Sorry.)

The Blu has a bunch of the standard features, but they are mostly worth a look. There are close to 30 minutes’ worth of deleted/alternate/extended scenes, many of which I think should have been included in the final film. In the film, technically inclined folks might notice a lot of awkward edits, and more often than not you will see the scene played out as intended in this section (no explanation is given for any of the cuts, but I assume the bulk of them were for time, as the film is longer than average as is). The only one you should skip is the final one, which is sort of a deleted ending that makes no sense whatsoever. Director Christian Alvart and producer Jeremy Bolt also provide an audio commentary, where some of these scenes are mentioned. They also reveal that the film was indeed a combination of two separate (but similar) scripts, which might explain the sort of unfocused feel. Then there’s a short video that details what happened to Truae’s character’s team, and another that’s a commercial to join the film’s flying program. The making of is rather useless, however, as it’s too short to be insightful but it also spoils key plot twists, which makes it lousy for promotional purposes as well. The only thing about it that caught my attention was the fact that producer Paul WS Anderson was nowhere to be seen in the piece. Since he was the one doing all of the promotion for it at Comic Con (Alvart was out of the country), it’s odd that he didn’t offer up a few words for the DVD. I now suspect his appearance at Con was primarily motivated by his desire to start drumming up interest for his Resident Evil sequel (which got announced the day Con started it - SHOCKING coincidence!).

The audio and video are superb. Anchor Bay’s blu-ray output is pretty much always stellar, and this is one of their rare new (and big budget) releases, so fans are in for a treat in the video department, especially during the brightly lit climax. The audio, however, is even better - it’s been a while since I’ve heard such an active surround mix, with the ship’s “dying” sounds and scurrying mutants constantly emanating from the rear channels. And my system is hardly worth bragging about, so I can’t imagine how good it looks/sounds on a top notch LED display with full 7.1 sound (I only have 5.1). It may not be a perfect movie, but it’s definitely worth watching, and if you’re a good horror fan, you should be supporting Anchor Bay’s blu-ray output so that they continue to pursue it for their library titles (Halloween 4, for example!).

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Second Chances: 30 Days Of Night (2007)

DECEMBER 3, 2009

GENRE: COMIC BOOK, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (STORE RENTAL)
LAST SEEN: 2007 (PREMIERE)

The only real qualifying film that ever got suggested during my otherwise unsuccessful “October Extras” edition for 2009 was 30 Days Of Night, which I wasn’t overly wowed by back in 2007. But with all of the recent vampire stuff (Twilight, Vampire Diaries, True Blood) going for a tamer approach, I figured it might be nice to revisit the last major full-blown horror vampire tale, and see if it worked better on a 2nd time.

And it does! My primary problem with it remains, however - the depiction of time passing in this film is abysmal. If you take away the title cards, one might not even understand that more than a night or two has gone by (never got why the vampires kill pretty much all of the 127 residents in their first night, an action that makes the timeline even harder to get a grasp on), and Josh Hartnett’s atrocious beard is the only evidence that it’s been the titular 30 days. Normally I could care less about how long a film takes place over, but when it’s part of the goddamn concept, you’d think they’d put a little more effort into depicting that. I think they should have started the movie on the final night, down to a handful of survivors, and used a few flashbacks to show what happened. Not only would it prevent these sort of “how long has it been?” questions, but it would also allow them to focus on highlights instead of trying to show a narrative, another thing the film has trouble with.

I didn’t notice it the first time, but a LOT of things in this movie sort of happen out of nowhere, and I’m not sure why characters commit to such drastic actions at times. For example, why does Mark Boone Junior (in his only good guy role I can recall) suddenly go on a kamikaze mission? Likewise, why does Josh Hartnett inject himself with vampire blood when the sun was about to come up anyway? There were a few survivors still, he just as easily could have just run out to cause a distraction and the others could have saved Stella and the little girl (another out of nowhere plot development) in the meantime. It often feels like the movie is missing the sort of connective tissue that an A to B narrative would have that a flashback structure wouldn’t necessarily need.

But otherwise, I had a lot more fun this time around. The jump scares remain effective, and David Slade (ironically directing the next Twilight film, Eclipse) is a genius at creating subtle scares in the background (like the “bait” walking down the street, where only the most sharp-eyed viewer would see the almost completely out-of-focus vampire following her from a parallel rooftop). And even though I still don’t get why they had to break up Eben and Stella, it does have a few payoffs, such as the little moment where Stella clearly gets turned on watching Eben take down the creepy stranger (Ben Foster); a moment that wouldn’t be as important had the two been together in harmony.

And again, in the wake of Twilight and company, it’s nice to see vampires biting and slashing at people again. Even in 2007 it was sort of a welcome return to vampires being actual monsters, something that had gone by the wayside thanks to the Underworld films (where vampires would rather argue in chambers and shoot automatic weapons than actually bite anything) and a lot of indie films that took the “vampirism as disease” approach. Now it’s even more of a depressing “alternative” to watch a vampire actually FEED for once.

On Blu-ray the film really shines too. I’ve always said it was a well-shot film, and it makes for one of the best looking Blu-ray’s I’ve seen. Seeing Melissa George in high def glory is reason enough, but there’s something wonderful about seeing individual drops of blood on the snow, and even though the film is (obviously) quite dark, the higher resolution and contrast ratios afforded by the format keep it from looking murky or underlit. That it was nearly all shot during the day, and that the town largely existed on an INTERIOR soundstage makes it all the more impressive.

Those are two things I learned on the 50 minutes’ worth of featurettes included on the disc (not sure if they are on the standard def). It’s a very nuts n’ bolts look at the process of creating the film, going into more-than-usual detail on story development, set construction, photography (the film was originally going to be shot digitally; Slade and his DP successfully battled against such a terrible idea), etc. We also pretty much learn 100% for sure that Sam Raimi had fuck all to do with this movie’s production (much like all other Ghost House productions), with Robert Tapert doing all the executive producing work. Strangely, Hartnett and George barely appear in the pieces, even though they did provide a commentary (with Slade) that I didn’t bother to listen to, seeing as Slade already said a lot on the making of stuff and I generally don’t care what actors have to say unless I am specifically a fan of that actor (and even then, not so much. Ever hear Willis on a commentary? Yikes). Sadly, there aren’t any deleted scenes. I assume that the rushed feel of the plot/timeline is at least partially due to some editing (the movie is just under two hours, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it was even longer and they scaled it back as much as they could) but if so there is no evidence of it here. Maybe when the sequel comes along Sony will miraculously find a longer cut to release around the same time.

Until then, I still think the movie is weakened by its lack of patience with characters, as well as the non-vampire aspect of surviving the 30 days, but it’s still a fun (but not funny), refreshingly violent take on the story; a nice companion piece to Snyder’s take on zombies in (the far more successful) Dawn of the Dead. Now, if someone could make a werewolf movie with the same sort of gusto...

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

HMAD Second Chances: Wind Chill

OCTOBER 26, 2009

GENRE: BREAKDOWN, GHOST, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)
LAST SEEN: APRIL 2007 (REVIEW)

I wanted to do “second chance” reviews as a mini "October Extras 3", but with this being the only entry for the month, I guess I’ll just turn it into a monthly feature (so keep the suggestions coming!). But I definitely wanted to kick it off with Wind Chill, which I didn’t like much at all when I saw it in theatres but always had the suspicion that it would play better at home. The isolated setting, the emphasis on atmosphere... it’s far more fitting for a small television than a 60 foot screen.

And I was right! It IS indeed better. But sadly, not by much. The two main things that I disliked about the movie (overly convoluted third act, unlikable protagonists) will be constant regardless of how the film is viewed. Sure, both are easier to digest (I think I even get the ending now, though I’m still a bit fuzzy as to whether or not certain events actually happened), but it still kept me from getting really engrossed in the film. Blunt’s character is introduced as, and for the most part remains, a complete bitch to the guy, and he’s no prize either, what with his creepy stalker-ness and inability to act like a human being. Who argues about laser surgery?

I do love how the film was shot though. Most of my issues are script-based; director Gregory Jacobs and DP Dan Laustsen did some terrific work here (something I did not appreciate my first time, but in my defense I am usually focusing on story when I first see a movie, not technical aspects). Having driven through Pennsylvania/Delaware backroads in the middle of winter myself, I am astounded at how well they fake Canada for them, and they match that gloomy coldness perfectly (I love how all of the daylight scenes seem to have been shot at 4 pm). And while the 2.35 aspect ratio is a bit surprising due to the confined setting, Jacobs fills it well all the same. Carpenter would be proud.

The DVD has a 15 minute making of (it was cold, everyone worked hard, etc, etc) and a commentary by Jacobs and screenwriters Joseph Gangemi and Steven Katz. I enjoy this type of track, as you get story details, casting details (they wanted Shannyn Sossamon - fools!), and technical nuts and bolts stuff, plus the three men occasionally rib each other. One thing they do NOT mention is executive producer George Clooney, whose involvement I am beginning to suspect was honorary.

As one of the few thousand people who saw this film in theaters (US anyway), I almost feel kind of bad not being a big fan of it. Like any film, the hard work of everyone involved shouldn’t be tossed under the rug, even if it wouldn’t have been a very big hit (then again, I always wonder - don’t the executives read these scripts before spending 10 million or whatever on making a noncommercial film?), and I would have liked to have championed it. With a little less convolution and maybe some toning down of Blunt’s bitterness, it would have been a pretty great little chiller, instead of a mildly enjoyable one.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...