Tender-Flesh Reviews

300: Rise of an Empire (2014)

I'm coining the new term "Concurquel"

[8/10 · 7 March 2014]

I'm coining the new term "Concurquel" to describe this movie. It deftly weaves its narrative before, during, and after the events of the original 300 film. It's neither a true sequel nor a true prequel. I'd like to see more movies follow this pattern.

Beginning the with rise of Xerxes and how he came to power, the film allows Xerxes to retain the original 300 as his movie, and Artemisia takes the reigns for this film. Eva Green is evil and exquisite as the "former" Greek, Artemisia, hell-bent on watching Athens burn after her family suffered at the hands of the Hoplites. Whereas 300 was a land battle with slight references to the navy, 300 ROAE is pretty much all naval fighting, but don't let that make you think there is no hand-to-hand. There's enough to spare. Heavy on CGI blood and slow motion, if you didn't like 300, you won't like ROAE.

I found Sullivan Stapleton to much less charismatic than Gerard Butler, but he still carries the film well enough, though I keep thinking of Simon Pegg each time I see him.

Absent from this film are the strange monsters and giants of the first film, except for a brief glimpse of some unusual sea life which could merely be part of a hallucination. I know the first film got some grief for including those types of creatures, so this leaves it up to you whether these sea baddies are real or not.

I didn't find the 3D to be spectacular, so unless you just have to see things that are available in 3D, then 2D is acceptable.

Stapleton and Green have plenty of chemistry and their meeting aboard the battle barge is memorable.

I hope there will be a third movie if there is enough material, but I don't want to wait 5 years to get it. Everyone will have to get that CGI makeover and that's just not worth it.

Strangler vs. Strangler (1984)

Baby Baby Close Your Eyes

[7/10 · 12 September 2013]

As the wikipedia article on this film correctly suggests, the plot is a cross between Psycho and The Pink Panther series. Can there be a more deranged pairing of plots? Only the soundtrack is particularly serious, with plenty of kettledrum so you can throw up your devil horns. It's not easy to pull off a decent horror comedy, especially in the 80's, without it coming out very corny. Since no other reviewers here from areas far from the intended audience have commented, I can't imagine there would be much of a market for getting a DVD release of this in the States.

The strangler is a middle-aged, fat fellow who lives with his overbearing mother. She disciplines him nightly for not selling enough carnations. Thus, when he is out trying to sell his wares, any woman who refuses his flowers suddenly becomes a victim. He stalks and strangles any woman who refuses his flowers, with an amusing musical theme that reminds me of the old vaudeville bit, "Niagra Falls! Slowly I turned....!" Eventually, he's murdered enough women that the townsfolk feel they have a real serial killer on their hands. The police are baffled, as usual, and a local aspiring rock star imagines he's connected mentally to the strangler. He gets inspired to write a song about the strangler and the piece becomes a local hit, getting heavy airplay on the radio and local TV coverage from a poor-man's MTV. As the police set up more and more elaborate plans to catch the strangler, including putting male officers in drag because the department doesn't have enough female officers, the rocker suddenly thinks he might like to choke out a few girls. From here, we get the translated title, Strangler vs Strangler. It slightly reminds me of The Hollywood Strangler Meets The Skid Row Slasher, though SvS is considerably better and intentionally hilarious.

There isn't much gore to be found, with the exception of some severed ears. There is some nudity as well, but much less than typical 80's comedies. I watched this online and the subtitles were terrible and quite often seemingly direct translations, which lose the viewer on some local slang, but this also makes the movie funnier.

I'd like to see a remastered version on DVD, but don't hold your breath, unless you're being strangled.

Man of Steel (2013)

Flashy and soulless disaster

[5/10 · 14 June 2013]

Once again we get a requel, prequel, sequel, reboot. Does anyone even know what it is this time around? Anyway, of course, we have to start at the beginning, even though everyone knows Superman's origin story and if you don't, go back under the rock where you've been hiding.

First, the film was absolutely miscast. Which is more difficult to endure?--Henry's empty supersuit performance or staring for over two hours at the bad complexion of Amy Adams compounded with her horrible nose? Hard to say, really. Then there's Michael Shannon as a completely non-threatening General Zod who looks like he's constantly in need of a paper cup into which he can spit some tobacco. Round this off with Russell Crowe who's character simply will not go away.

You know the score. Krypton is going to explode, the -El's are sending their only kid(who they made the old fashioned way, they earned it) off to some other world to hopefully carry on the legacy of their people. Zod and his lackluster lackeys are sent to the Phantom Zone(again) and when they get out, they are just in time to see shards of their old world floating past. This time around, Supes is carrying the Codex, which could help repopulate Krypton. Though, apparently, that's as deep into the plot as the director wanted to go. Because, you see, there are only about ten people left from Krypton, including Supes. You have maybe a scientist or two and the rest are all hardcore military personnel. Even if Superman willingly was able to give back the Codex and work with Zod, even if he didn't care that terraforming Earth would kill all the current inhabitants, that doesn't account for the fact that 11 guys and 1 girl can't raise that many babies in their lifetime, and that's if the terraforming works. It didn't work that well the other times they tried. And, Zod, you know, Mr. Military, after Krypton is born again and the pod babies start taking their first gulp of air, is he going to suddenly be Mr. Mom? Who's going to raise all these kids? A "minor" plot hole which I'm sure Nolan fanboys will overlook.

Now, don't get me wrong, I do love DC characters and I think their animated series / films are head and shoulders over Marvel. That said, Marvel crushes the DC live-action film franchises into paste at every turn. Zack Snyder threw as many CGI effects as he could lay his hands on at the screen without remembering that, oh yea, you need a good story, good dialogue, and good characters. You don't get any here. There is no chemistry between Lois and Clark. And as Superman, he's just downright boring. It's like Superman fell into a world where tech from the Matrix is attacking the earth and the response is like the reaction in Independence Day. In fact, while I was watching this movie, I kept thinking Roland Emmerich directed it, which is funny because his latest garbage movie was shown in the trailers before this.

Oh, and Metropolis didn't look too bad after the final battle when Lois and company went back to work. It looked like a nuclear warhead was set off five minutes earlier. And for all that destruction and the countless people who died from being crushed or choking on building dust, Supes didn't work very hard to take the fight away from civilization.

There is nothing I can say to recommend this movie. And I'm sorry to say that. We should have a new Superman movie every 2 or 3 years and Hollywood just can't do it. We'll always have the Donner Cut of Supeman II, which is absolutely superior. I won't say that Christopher Reeve can't be replaced, he wasn't the be all end all of the character, but he was charismatic enough. Superman and Superman II were fun. That's the component Snyder left out, unfortunately, and it ruined everything.

The Headless Eyes (1971)

He has the vision

[6/10 · 9 November 2012]

Bo Brundin delivers a tour de force as Arthur, a starving artist, in this early slasher. Arthur begins by breaking into a woman's apartment where he finds her sleeping. As he digs in her purse for money so he can afford his rent, the woman awakens and he tries to keep her quiet, repeating that he only needs money. She apparently still thinks he's there for a bit of in-out and while he is trying to stifle her screams, she gouges out his left eye with a spoon.

This deformity leads to severe mental anguish as he realizes not only will people stare at him, but his painting will now suffer because of his lack of depth perception. So, naturally as an artist, he finds a different medium. He turns to stalking and killing mainly women, then scooping out their eyes and placing them in his sculptures.

He maintains a meager shop where he displays his wares with a back parlor where he keeps his collection of eyeballs. I was expecting this to be a real borefest even though I have seen the original VHS boxes are highly collectible and have a decent asking price. I was happy to find it uploaded on youtube. While the beginning attack was hokey, with Arthur's screams of pain being set on an audio loop, he pulls off some of the greatest Smeagol to Gollum grade-Z horror performance I think I have seen. Brundin is Swedish and I think his accent lends an air of sophistication to his character. Critics will cry misogyny, but normally with films like this, you'd get nude girls around every corner with their bodies being groped then stabbed. Not so with Arthur. No one is naked, there are no sex scenes. There is a fair amount of blood, but this is 1971, and on this non-budget, the actual eye scooping is sort of left to the imagination, with plenty of blood running down faces, but not much in the way of money shots.

I can't imagine why this hasn't gotten a good DVD treatment. It suffers on VHS from overexposed and washed out daylight shots, which some might say adds to its naive charm.

But, given the steady supply of actual garbage that gets a DVD these days, I don't think it will be too long before this baby gets its day in the sun. My only real complaint was the ending. Of course, our man Arthur can't go on doing this forever, but his comeuppance is rather limp. The director set up something that could have been splendid in the final harrowing chase sequence. Arthur chases a beautiful down-on-her-luck model into a meat locker while the business is closed. All around are dangling hooks to hold large sides of beef and one of those points was just begging to impale Arthur's other eye. Alas, this never happens, and his ultimate end is rather meh. Overall, a solid and enjoyable early slasher film with surprising acting.

Hotel Fear (1978)

Obscure Giallo-inspired fun

[7/10 · 20 July 2012]

Hat tip to Giallo Trailers for turning me on to this title. It's not listed in any of the usual "must see" giallo reviews, so I would have missed out otherwise. I searched for this title for some time and only recently found, after having forgotten about it for a time, that it was now available on Italian DVD with no subtitles. Even then, I couldn't find it at my usual sources.

However, some kind soul uploaded the entire movie and I watched it last night. While not a Giallo masterwork, it is a very good little film. Creepy atmosphere, little blood, great setting. If you don't speak a lick of Italian, I still think you can follow the story pretty well.

Circa 1945, in a small Italian village, a mom and daughter run an old rundown boarding house, with peeling plaster and bricked windows a plenty, somewhat isolated from the town. I was immediately struck by the Agatha Christie-feel of the plot and scenes similar to those being churned out in the 70's. The daughter, Rosa, is amazingly beautiful and innocent, handling the role very well in spite of some considerable nudity. Seriously, the movie is rife with cunnilingus, which is unusual to say the least. There is also a rape scene, and you see more male buttocks that you might like. The rogue's gallery of characters include a drunk man-servant, a balding, lonely piano player, a Burt Reynolds / Antonio Banderas type and his older wife, a horny fat guy and his girlfriends. You have to be prepared for nothing to happen for the first hour. This isn't to say you'll be bored. Art house cinema fans will dig it, but it doesn't beat you over the head with its intentions.

Also, there is a man hiding away in the mother's room. She brings him food every night after everyone is supposed to be asleep. I do feel a little guilty about writing a review for a movie whose dialogue I couldn't truly follow, so if my guesses at character motivation are a little off, forgive me. I think the man is the mother's lover whom she's taken in while her husband is fighting in the war.

The mom dies in an "accident" which leaves the comely Rosa to run the house. This proves to be rather difficult since now that her mother is dead, every man in the house openly lusts after her. And that's not all that's afoot. There's a shadowy killer stalking the corridors and dripping staircases. However, if you are looking for that to be the central theme, you might be disappointed. It takes a backseat to the setting and character development.

Enter a few gangsters who stir things up. A wandering Rosa starts hearing and seeing things she shouldn't, which helps the story along. I made note of several instances where I was reminded of Suspiria, mainly with color use and voyeuristic POV shots, plus a few eyeball close ups. The score occasionally picks up and dazzles.

My suggestion is that you only see this if you are into Italian art house cult cinema or giallo films. If you are looking for a straight up stalking razor killer with high body counts, look elsewhere. Oh, there are lots of deaths, but not in the giallo style, shall we say.

Insidious (I) (2010)

No it's insipid

[6/10 · 15 November 2011]

I suggest that, if you choose to watch Insidious, that you also check out the Horror 101 that is a special feature on the DVD. It is about 10 minutes long containing interview footage of the film's creators discussing the film's background. You will see they are woefully in need of their own Horror 101 to sit through.

OK, basic plot outline, a married couple with 3 kids, two boys about 9 years old and a baby girl, move into a "creepy" new old house. There are plenty of floor creaks and the other usual trappings to make you think the house is haunted. One boy has an accident in the house, goes into an unexplainable coma, and while in the coma, weird things happen in that house as well as the new house the wife forces the husband to move them to. So, we at last are told it is not a haunted house or even two haunted houses, but rather a case of "astral projection" gone wrong. If you are not familiar with the concept, projection involves a sleeper whose soul can leave the body, at will and normally controlled by the mind, and wanders through the astral plane or wherever. The boy wanders too far and too long and eventually becomes lost, thereby leaving his physical form as an inviting new home for other lost souls or even demons. A seance is held and so on.

Oddly enough, as I was killing this movie mentally by noting all the other films this movie borrowed from, I found myself unnerved by the non-supernatural aspects of the movie. Hearing a voice in the baby monitor, real or imagined, would be scary, but it's not a new idea. And having the home alarm go off and front door open, plus the knocking at the door, would be something that'd scare me, but it doesn't have to have a supernatural force behind it. IMDb lists about a dozen films that already deal with astral projection, so for the film makers to say they didn't think this topic had been covered before is, well, pretty typical for today's moronic young horror director.

The film House from the 80's stood out in my mind the most as I watched this. If you haven't seen that, a father loses his son in an old house and goes between worlds, meeting ghosts and demons, in order to find and free him to bring him home, where they are followed into the physical world by someone(something) who knew the father earlier in life. Sound familiar? Yes, it does. Do yourself a solid and watch House instead. House had an intense impact on me as a kid, influencing much of my artwork at the time. It's not necessarily scary but far more enjoyable than Insidious. Even the repeated moving camera outside the house at night was right out of House.

This is exactly the sort of film I'd expect from the creators for Saw and Paranormal Activity. Except for an F-Bomb, this could have been a TV-movie or a decent addition to Goosebumps. I felt like I was watching a professionally made real film version of Paranormal Activity, another film I could do without.

The film stock looked cheap, almost made-for-cable and reminiscent of those Haunting shows, as if I wasn't watching a film, but a re-creation by "actors" who couldn't get a job doing anything real, repeating the lines of a story that supposedly happened to someone else.

And, just like with Paranormal Activity, I didn't care about the family because they didn't act like real people. I'm sorry, but you don't get your butt whipped by some devils in a seance then just go downstairs and chat about it. I normally don't boycott horror film directors or writers, but in this case, they have forced my hand. I will never watch anything by this "director" again.

Carnival of Blood (1970)

Barely a film yet somehow enjoyable

[4/10 · 27 May 2011]

Perhaps a single notch above Herschell Gordon Lewis in terms of production value, and that is not saying much at all, Carnival of Blood is one of the few horror films set in a place where I want to see horror, namely, the carnival.

Without much in-between, the film has a handful of locations used and re-used to try and make a movie. The balloon stand, the boardwalk, the interior homes of the heroes and the killer(which, given the budget, are probably the same house), and the tunnel of love. Oh, did I forget the gypsy who can never seem to give a decent palm reading? Anyway, yes, it is a slasher film, with a lame motive and a few red herrings, including Burt Young in a terrible role as Gimpy, a crippled guy with facial burns. I was surprised to see some disemboweling here. Oh, and teddy bears filled with guts. It seems a weirdo is on the loose at the carnival(of blood) and he kills people who have the teddy bears won at a certain games booth, where Gimpy works with his friend.

There's a stabbing, a beheading, a skull crushed with a rock or brick, followed by eye removal. But none of the effects are any good, though there is a certain sympathy to some of the characters and their distaste for each other seemed surprisingly genuine.

You better have nothing better to do if you're going to watch this movie. Like, if there are clothes in the wash, the dog needs to be brushed, or something like that. However, this film is currently available with the ultra horrid Curse of the Headless Horseman which not only doesn't deserve a review, it doesn't deserve a viewing. So, if you find this double bill, stick with Carnival and you'll be, well, sort of OK.

The Mean Machine (1973)

Listed with the keyword Slasher but don't believe it

[3/10 · 27 May 2011]

OK, here's the plan. I've been working my way through all the films IMDb has listed with the keyword Slasher. Can you tell I'm a fan? So, when I ran across this film, and look at the tagline and my screen-name...obviously I would be interested, and wow, what a piece of trash this turned out to be.

I'll be generous and tell you the score was decent, occasionally the cinematography was creative, and it's violent. But, come on. Look at the poster/cover art listed on this site. And even the name alternative. It's got horror film written all over that. But this isn't a horror film in the least. The Italian actors in a B film do as best as you might expect, which I am fine with. But, seriously, I've seen Ed Wood and Andy Milligan films with better acting than what Chris Mitchum "executes" in this picture. I can't believe this guy was in 3, count them, 3 John Wayne movies before this one. He is awful. He may have improved, but his performance here totally killed what could have been a decent action/mobster/revenge flick. He is not the least bit intimidating anywhere in the painful 90 minutes. It's almost like he doesn't even want to be there and it's written all over his face the entire time as well as his half-hearted delivery. Utter vomit.

The only, and I mean only, thing this movie really has going for it is a few nude scenes, lots of gunshot wounds, a decent fog-wrapped striptease on a car hood, and an up close and personal castration scene, which subsequently has said disembodied genitals shoved into the poor guy's mouth. But, don't be put off by how awesome that sounds. It's not even worth it for the other 90 minutes of yawns.

Eyes of a Stranger (1981)

A Cut Above

[7/10 · 26 May 2011]

Going into this film, I didn't know anything about it, other than Savini did the effects, which is, of course, the reason I watched. Up until this point, this under-discussed film wasn't even on my radar and I only came upon the title recently. Glad to see it's finally available uncut.

However, speaking of uncut, which is always the most important issue to me when watching any film, I found the effects to be rather subdued and maybe, given the nature of the film, that's the point.

Jane is a news anchor. Her little sister, Tracy, was abducted and sexually abused at a young age, leaving her with unusual mental scars that affected her sight, speech, and hearing. Tracy lives with Jane in a large high-rise apartment complex near the bay. Recently, a weirdo has been stalking women, raping them, and, perhaps simultaneously, strangling them. A similar stalker is found in the film, Don't Answer the Phone, however, Eyes of a Stranger is a better overall film, even with subdued gore and sexual violence. The unusual aspect of this film is not only does Jane and the killer live in the same complex, she suspects him while he isn't even aware of her, other than perhaps knowing she's on the news. She is not one of his intended victims, he doesn't follow or call her. So, in a crazy twist, she starts calling him, smoking a cigarette as if she's just done the deed, all the while taunting him on the phone in the same manner he's done to several of his victims.

It's a fun cat and mouse game, where at times it seems as if there are two cats. The rape scenes are not overly aggressive and a few cut throats and a gunshot wound are all we get from Tom Savini. However, I do recommend this one if you want something a little different, and, perhaps, a little more realistic. The killer isn't your typical hack and slash, like so many 80's killers. He's just a guy. Someone you pass every day or maybe you bought insurance from him. That makes it scarier. Enjoy.

African Cats (2010)

A Disney Documentary in every sense of the phrase

[6/10 · 22 April 2011]

A very average documentary. If you love big cats, then you like this. The basic plot is that the film makers followed a pride of lions and a lone cheetah mother with her new cubs. Eventually, the two groups meet, briefly. There is nothing new to this film. If you've seen any number of NatGeo or Animal Planet documentaries on big cats or the African plains, then you've seen all this before and more(we'll get to that)

The pros: Great cinematography, great sound, adequate soundtrack, plenty of great close-ups, and even a set of villains.

The cons: Although Samuel L. Jackson is the only true African Cat, I felt he was wrong for the narration. I don't have a decent alternative in mind; Morgan Freeman would be overkill. Sam didn't do a bad job overall, I just felt he was wrong for this part. I kept expecting the lead villain, Kali the lion, to invoke Jules from Pulp Fiction and strike the savanna down with furious anger. Also, what sets cable documentaries apart from this film is the true circle of life--something Disney should know something about since they gave us the Lion King. On TV, you will see plenty of after-the-hunt carnage. There are only a handful of kill scenes in the movie, most off-screen, one even conveniently hidden behind a mound of earth. Sorry if you are easily offended by real life, but if you want a good documentary about top-line predators, you better show why they are the kings and queens of Africa. I'd have much preferred to see the courtship rituals of the animals, the awesomeness of lions mating, and seeing the cubs born. You get a lot of lion roaring, running, and plenty of shots of lion testicles.

Overall, to see a documentary like this on the big screen is a nice change; you really do see it all and it's cool and impressive as far as the animals go. But don't expect it to be great. Disney sanitized the film to take anything potentially offensive out, except for the above mentioned lion nards.

The theater was packed on an afternoon showing. I didn't think of this as a kid's movie, but the SUV-driving chumps(way to celebrate Earth Day, guzzlers) had to drag them into the theater, with "awwwwws" at every turn for all the close-up shots of the cubs. Very annoying. Don't see this opening weekend if you plan to enjoy it. Go on a Tuesday at noon. Chances are you'll have the theater mostly free of rug rats running all over.

Scream 4 (2011)

Re-inventing the Meh

[5/10 · 15 April 2011]

So, here we go again with the re-inventing of the genre and all that nonsense talk. This movie was incredibly predictable. I won't give away the killer's identity. And it doesn't really matter at this point in the series. Now, the writing is more about "oh my gosh, who could it be THIS time?" and less about how can we make this terribly weak killer, Ghostface, into something as scary as our other standard beloved slashers. While you're so wrapped up in thinking about who is on-screen the same time as Ghostface to rule out potential killers, you sort of forget that this story is absolute garbage. It seems Craven is after laughs and in-jokes and "Horror Trivia Night" than actually doing something different for a change. He and George Lucas must drink together a lot.

To try and be brief, Sidney is back in town promoting her book. Dewey and Gale are back, with plenty of painfully obvious references to their real-life actors' relationship issues. Then we have a series of throw-away characters who you immediately don't care about upon meeting them because YOU KNOW by now that they are all meat. So, once again, someone is parading as Ghostface since Sidney is back in town, and it's the anniversary of the killings and all that bunk. Really, Neve, Wes, Courtney, and David need to pay their rent, so you get a substandard flick with pretty much no surprises, aided in its own downfall by a music-stab(get it?) film score that is constantly tipping its hand to practically beat you over the head to know a scare is coming.

Now, to the killings themselves: totally unimaginative. Simple as that. Ghostface is a one-weapon sort of guy. Now, while constant reminders are thrown at you, via lame trivia, about what weapons other famous slashers use, any fan worth their salt knows that it is the primary weapon, but other instruments of doom are also used to great effect in the other films. And the copious blood in this movie is so dark it's almost black ink. It's very sad to think Craven and Williamson are going to make another trilogy out of this garbage. They will, unfortunately, never learn that Ghostface is not a scary killer. He's annoying because he's always someone new, and his motives are beyond stupid. The ending to this film cements that.

Craven needs to learn a little something about what re-inventing the genre means. We are riddled throughout the film with tidbits of Horror 101, wherein practically every run of the mill movie is named, with only a slight reference to Peeping Tom being thrown in to make the average viewer think, wow that's darn obscure! I'm sick of the re-inventing gimmick when all we get is the same old trash. Here is a tip for Wes: learn the true meaning of horror-of-personality. You want a truly scary character? Take away his motive. The motive is what humanizes that character so that, even if we don't feel sympathy for them, we can fully understand why they started a killing spree, even if it's the dumbest of reasons, ie, this film. Now, Wes, imagine a man who has a job, a family, hobbies, a life in the suburbs, and he can go and brutally kill just because he wants to. The police would never find him. I think back to Max Von Sydow playing Ming the Merciless. When asked why he would want to destroy planet Earth, he replies, "Why not?" That's some scary horror right there. To have a character kill indiscriminately, breaking all the "horror rules" that Sidney and CO keep referring to: killing children, the mentally and physically disabled, the elderly, men, women, anyone. The killer doesn't have to be a zombie, like Jason, or a dream, like Freddy, or a crazed, deformed cannibal, like Leatherface, or a white-trash loser with mommy issues, like Michael. Just an average Joe who comes home from work, eats his spaghetti, goes out to the garage, gets an axe and goes into the soda shop and puts it right between your eyes. Then he goes home, has a beer, pets his dog, and sees what House is doing.

Another tidbit for Wes: kill all your heroes. You want to give the audience something it won't see coming? He tried something similar by having semi-famous actresses get killed in the intro to Scream 4, only to be more nonsense from "Stab." But, remember back to 1996. Scream came out, but, so did Mars Attacks. Remember all the big name stars in that movie who got killed by the aliens? Now, while not a great movie, Mars Attacks did have some big balls to kill off major Hollywood actors who normally would never die in such numbers in a film. But, since Wes needs to pay the rent and you have a sawbuck burning a hole in your pocket, he's going to crank out a new trilogy off the same tired premise instead of going for the jugular and having a scene like "The Raft" in The Burning. Have Ghostface wipe out all the major cast, including the returning characters, halfway through the movie, in a single horrific scene of carnage. Then, have a couple of characters who already didn't have much screen time or any real connection to the plot have to solve the crimes, and make everything else come out of left field, but in a believable way, not really out of left field like throwing water on Ghostface a-la Signs.

Now, whew, I didn't hate this movie, though perhaps it seems that I did. It was just more of the usual from Hollywood. Nothing surprising or shocking, and the attempts to circumvent horror rules backfired. I've seen way worse films in the theater. But, sorry, this is the last Scream I will be seeing on the big screen. From now on, dollar rentals for you, Wes.

5.5/10

13 Assassins (2010)

Total Massacre

[7/10 · 11 April 2011]

I guess I was expecting something different going into this film. I was under the impression it was going to be sort of an art house piece and the violence would be extreme. And, I was disappointed on both accounts, but, overall, this is still a very good movie. I see the international version is a different running time, which may mean there is more gore--something I hoped for. If you want serious carnage, look elsewhere. While hundreds are killed in one on one combat, very little blood is actually shown, a few severed heads tossed in, and that's about it. I suggest if you want a bloody mess, you check out the Baby Cart series, or Shogun Assassin(if your attention span is short), Lady Snowblood, or Sword of Doom. Basically, in the plot, you have a ruthless lord who can fight well, but is also something of a little girl(as you'll see in the end), and he is quickly moving up the chain of command in the samurai world. After he abuses his power on countless occasions, several men get together and decide they have to cut him down. However, they can only muster 13 men total who are going to take on 70 of the lord's soldiers. Whoops, I mean over 200(a little surprise in store for our heroes). A lot of work went into the set designs, and it seemed very much like a fantasy film, even though there are no mythological monsters to be found. Although probably lost in translation, some of the dialogue is very cliché, but it's not overbearing. I look forward to reading up on the reviews for the extended cut. Hopefully, there will be a lot more bloody goodness.

Bloodlust (1976)

Bread Before Honey

[7/10 · 8 April 2011]

This film is sometimes referred to as Mosquito The Rapist. Bloodlust is a much more fitting title, especially since our "hero" never rapes anyone at all. Although the film was floated around on the tongues of those who sought to ban films under the Video Nasties era, and it probably was banned or severely edited, the movie was not an official entry on that list. Still, it probably should have been. The back of the currently available DVD version(also in Spanish, hurray!) takes you back to the time before the Nasties, as the producers decided to show, on the back of the DVD case, two nude women enjoying a box lunch while Mosquito watches, with smaller photos of blood drinking, disembodied eyeballs, and a decapitation. Let's hear it for the Swiss! The plot revolves around a deaf/mute man who works as a clerk in some nondescript office and lives in a small apartment, and how he is the subject of intense ridicule at both locations. One drunken neighbor slaps him around, other neighbors don't trust him and gossip about him whenever he's around(he can't hear it anyway!). His co-workers are constantly playing jokes on him, including feeding on his love of girl's porcelain dolls by visiting a sex shop and enticing him with a blow-up girl. There isn't one specific instance where Mr Mosquito snaps and becomes a depraved lunatic. His life, often revealed through flashbacks, shows a poor creature who was so severely beaten by his father that Mosquito became deaf and dumb. We also catch an unsettling glimpse of his father, after thoroughly trouncing Mosquito, deciding to fondle his own daughter. Yikes. So, up through manhood, our intrepid hero lived in a world of silence, where we are privy to all that goes on around him, but he is not. His childhood haunts him, his co-workers and neighbors think he's a freak, so, naturally, he simply becomes one.

He's been collecting dolls for some time and has a small collection in his apartment. This dates back to memories of his sister's doll being smashed by their father after the previously mentioned pseudo-incest scene. The dolls are silent and watching, just like him. We never learn what happened to his family as they are never shown or mentioned in the current timeline. Mosquito has no friends, but he does have a slight infatuation with a neighbor girl, a free spirit who seems to love nothing more than to dance the day away whenever you see her. So, after a time, Mosquito does what we all will probably do someday....he breaks into a funeral home and starts stealing body parts! Here is where the gruesome scenes come in. However, we must first note that none of these bodies have been embalmed. Maybe that's a cultural thing, but I'm fairly certain that funeral practice takes place in Europe. Anyway, if the bodies were embalmed, we wouldn't have a film. He begins by cutting a few girls, then later, he removes a girl's eyeballs and takes them home to put in a jar, occasionally playing with them. Then decapitation and general stabbing of corpses takes place.

Now, don't think Mosquito himself doesn't realize he's a freak. He makes several attempts to be intimate with women, living ones, that is, but he just can't seem to get turned on. So, off to the cemetery to dig up a date! But, even then, he never actually has sex with any of the bodies. He does kiss them, and, like his namesake, begins to drink their blood. Purchasing some strange sharp glass tubes that look like straws, he begins plunging the instrument into necks and breasts alike to enjoy a cherry Slurpee.

The best aspects of this film are that, even though it's low budget and horribly dubbed, you can really sense Mosquito's descent into madness, how he really is controlled by his bloodlust, having no will of his own. He's weak, can't stand up for himself, and probably has more than his fair share of real-world people who are exactly like him. A deranged score adds to his unnerving reality during the funeral home adventures. Recommend for fans of the sicko film, but be prepared for the slow burn.

Reykjavik Whale Watching Massacre (2009)

Worth a look

[5/10 · 15 December 2010]

Here in the States, my rental was called Harpoon and not Reykjavik. The film certainly doesn't go for the same old setting in a slasher film. I'm not sure if the rest of the title, Whale Watching Massacre, helps or hinders prospective viewers from picking this up for a boring Tuesday night. Anyway, the story revolves around several people from different countries who board a rusty old bucket for some supposed whale-watching. Things go awry, and one of the crew is killed, which leaves you to wonder exactly how things would have proceeded had he not died, albeit accidentally. After that death, another small craft rescues the passengers and motors them off to another vessel waiting some distance away. Now, it seems like the crew of the second ship are cannibals or something, but we never get down to that because they aren't known for restraint and almost as soon as the passengers all board the Cannibal Cruise Line, one of the villains, who appears to be a rather dim bulb, attacks them. This sends people scattering in all directions, including one guy swimming away(which I'm sort of surprised they all didn't do) only to be harpooned! His body hangs off the side of the ship for the remainder of the film.

The harpoon gun kill aside, there is also a hand-held harpoon kill, a "suicide bomber," a flare gun face-shot(reminds me of Dead Calm), a beheading, and a final and hilarious off-screen death that would make Richard Harris very proud(or very ashamed).

My biggest complaint about the film is the sound. Those who could speak English either didn't speak it very well or the sound-mixer was drunk. Still, Icelandic horror films are rather rare, and those set aboard whaling ships are rarer still. Could it be setting a precedent for a new genre, similar to the much-loved or much-maligned Nazi Zombie film? Thar she blows.

The Bloodstained Shadow (1978)

The shadow isn't very bloody

[5/10 · 8 October 2010]

The Bloodstained Shadow is a later entry into the giallo genre. The film revolves around an unsolved murder from many years before the picture begins, leading to subsequent murders in a section of Venice. A college professor returns to the village to visit his brother, the local priest. Soon after arriving, the priest witnesses a murder but cannot identify the killer. This leads to séances, blackmail, and a film that is about 20 minutes too long.

Unlike many giallo films, this one never becomes sleazy, though there is an extended nude scene at one point. The killer is not a "sex maniac" as is so often the case in these sorts of films. Rather, blackmail is a main plot point. There isn't much bloodshed, and even less stalking, though the director does manage to throw in some voyeurism, back alleys, gloved hands, and POV shots. Nothing to really recommend about the feature; it's a very average entry.

Of passing interest is that Blue Underground DVD seems to have swiped a musical sample from this film's score and used it as their bumper music at the intro of any DVD they release. This is interesting since The Bloodstained Shadow was released on DVD by Anchor Bay.

Halloween II (2009)

So Laurie Strode is a replicant?

[3/10 · 9 September 2010]

With all the white horse nonsense, I was expecting Deckard to show up and retire Laurie Strode and maybe leave a paper crane for Michael to play with.

While I didn't care for Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween, his sequel is a downright abomination. I know it's difficult to make characters that people care about in horror films when most of them are just going to end up on the chopping block. But, seriously, did Rob have to make Haddonfield a herpes nest of the nastiest looking girls he could find? This isn't the usual vat of sexpots we expect to be bumped off. These girls look genuinely filthy, as in unwashed for weeks. And the mannish Scout took acting lessons from Lindsay Lohan's real-life temper tantrums, obviously.

Dr. Loomis didn't even seem to fit hardly at all into the plot. The "big reveal" for Laurie's character could have easily come about some other way, so why revive Loomis with no discussion of how Michael darn near crushed his head in the last movie? To have them all three meet in the end was just silly and foolish.

And I hope Rob gets divorced soon. I'm tired of seeing his wife in all of his movies. She's a stripper, not an actress. We really don't need so much of Michael's back story that it keeps popping up in a white dress every 10 minutes with moronic dialogue. Part of his character that makes him interesting is the mystery. The same with other popular slasher "heroes." We don't want garbage added to the canon to make it difficult for following directors to have to work around that nonsense.

And, what of Michael? He's gone from a boogeyman to a giant to, now, the Gorton's Fisherman! And he even gets a bit of dialogue. Isn't that nice? And several scenes in the film have Michael blatantly without his mask and he looks like a really tall Rob Zombie. Gee, I wonder why. Instead of being "The Shape," he's grunting every time he kills someone, then at the finale, he utters a single word. It doesn't matter what the word is: Mikey ain't supposed to talk!

Now I guess we can mull over the plot, such as it is. Laurie is living with the Sheriff and his daughter. She is highly medicated, having nightmares, hallucinations, and is in therapy with an actress who is no stranger to that, I'm sure. Meanwhile, since the story takes place I believe 3 years after the last, Michael has been wandering cross country from God knows where and he's wearing a hoodie and looking like a hobo. He isn't menacing in the least. He kills a few people who don't matter a darn to the plot and finally finds Laurie. Then there is a "big" showdown at the end, with more ghostly encounters with Mrs. Zombie and her bratty little son and mostly unmasked big son.

And where was the famous theme? I expected it to be peppered throughout the picture, but apparently Rob knows best. This film is the final nail in Rob's movie career. Oh, he may make more movies, but he's quickly become the Steven Seagal of horror directors. In fact, that's even being to kind since Seagal had a handful of early enjoyable movies. Rob had one, and that's Devil's Rejects. I'm sure he's got plenty of excuses about why the movies keep turning out like dog poop, such as blaming studio executives and such. The fact is, he's over and overrated. Now quit screwing around and reform White Zombie, the only good thing you ever did. Stay far away from Halloween 3.

The House of the Devil (2009)

House of the Rising Son

[8/10 · 27 June 2010]

I'd been hearing the buzz about House of the Devil for several months, but I had never looked into it or read anything about the plot. So I went into it cold, and right off the bat I would say I'd prefer if director West had not included his statistics blurb at the outset.

Being a big fan of the original Halloween, and, more recently, Absurd, and the babysitter "genre" in general, I was surprised to find a director once more treading the familiar waters, especially in the wake of the underwhelming Rob Zombie Halloween remake. House... puts Zombie's remake to shame and also puts a huge dent in the car door of the Grindhouse Double Feature from a few years ago that sought to recreate the vibe of late 70's exploitation films. While I enjoyed Grindhouse a lot, I found it lacked what House... supplies, that is, total immersion in the decade. I felt as if this could have been a film straight out of the early 80's that just slipped below the radar and was finally getting a DVD release after wallowing in decades of obscurity and rare eBay pop-ups. I rented this movie and watched it alone, but I have a plan, which is to purchase the movie and watch it again with my wife, but not tell her when the movie was made and see if she can guess.

I don't want to give away too much of the plot because frankly, there isn't a whole lot of story going on. This may put many viewers off, since a good portion of the show has the lead, Samantha(who I hope will star in plenty more horror films in the future--she has the face of the perfect 80's final girl), wandering around a strange house doing a "babysitter" gig for an unseen adult. Her employers are strange birds and they pay her an unusually high fee for her services, which, if nothing else, will tip you off as to what's to come. One of the best aspects of Samantha's character is that she's somewhere between the typical hapless, helpless heroine and a real person in a real horror situation. Too many female leads in movies like this just scream and cry and get naked and die, but Samantha is different. She fights back and takes advantage of her situation, and while you're thinking of the usual heroine stumbling around crying, asking yourself why didn't she get a weapon, why didn't she do this or that, Samantha actually does it and with red red vino results. I found her self-defense to be totally believable and not some Rambo wannabe stalking her assailants with impossible precision.

Also of note, the soundtrack is succulent!

If you are a fan of 80's horror, be prepared for a film that out-80's the 80s' and you should try and trick your friends to see if they can guess, after viewing, that this was made just last year. I hope to see a lot more of director Ti West, and I hope that he ventures into the realm of 30 year old horror at least a few more times, perhaps tackling the slasher genre next(although this certainly has elements of that type of film). A very good way to spend a Saturday night.

The Scorpion with Two Tails (1982)

Bury it

[1/10 · 12 June 2010]

I haven't seen a movie this downright horrible in a long time. Even movies that most people consider to be bottom of the barrel often have some, perhaps unintended, viewing value. The Scorpion with Two Tails is not such a film.

Apparently, this film may have been intended as a giallo, and if handled properly, it could have been one. But instead, all we get is a totally wasted extended cameo of John Saxon, and an over abundance of the lead "actress" Elvire Audray. She gives new meaning to the term Casting Couch. Each scene where she encounters a dead body involves her seeing the corpse, screaming, then we immediately cut to another scene where she's no longer anywhere around the crime scene and she's totally fine.

The hokey plot involves Audray's husband, Saxon, looking over some Etruscan tombs. Audray's father wants the crates of artifacts sent to him, but there are drugs in one of the crates, so you have a drug deal gone bad and characters wandering around without much to do except look at each other and some bad sculptures. Oh, and let's not forget the large quantities of maggots. Apparently, the director thinks that repeated close-ups of maggots constitutes a horror film. Anyway, Audray moves from man to man in this movie, trying to find the answer to the Etruscan riddles that may or may not include her as a re-incarnation of some whatever or something. There is no gore, only a few gunshot wounds poorly staged and way too many broken necks, as if breaking someone's neck is an easy thing to do for some average jerk who's into archaeology.

There is nothing redeeming about this film, and I advise you to avoid it all the peril of your life because you will be bored to death.

Day of the Dead 2: Contagium (2005 Video)

Surprisingly entertaining

[5/10 · 12 June 2010]

Going into this film, I had a lot of preconceived notions that it was going to be really, really terrible. I had inflicted some bad viewing on my friends and they, in turn, gave me this movie as payback. But, I have to admit, even as low budgeters go, I actually was interested in the plot and the characters.

Don't get me wrong, this is pretty low budget. I had read this film had a 9 million dollar budget, which is totally insane. If that's the case, the director spent maybe 1 million on the movie and the rest on himself for some beach-front property.

I think the biggest problem is the title. It's rather misleading and while certainly not a sanctioned, cannonical Romero film, you don't see much to connect it to the "of the Dead" series. Basically, the usual zombie-creating bio-weapon is "misplaced" and after a military shoot-out at a quasi-hospital(I like hyphens), some time passes and the installation is rebuilt as a looney bin for the seriously ill as well as people with anger issues and cutters. As you'd expect, most of the staff are huge jerks and you know who's going to get what's coming to them a mile away. One doctor has a "crew" of patients he treats using unusual methods, which are never wholly explained. Some of the patients are going to be released soon as "cured." While out cleaning up the grounds(I've never heard of the mentally ill being used as groundskeepers), one of them stumbles across the bio-agent hidden inside a thermos. It is eventually opened, and the chemical is inhaled by the doctor and his patients. But here is where it differs from the usual zombie fare. Although their bodies get "sick" and eventually shut down, they can still think, reason, and talk, plus they have a mental bond with one another. When a few of the zombies take to flesh-eating, it turns them more hideous, and they, in turn, try to force-feed the others so they will turn also. Meanwhile, an orderly is bitten by one of them(the sexy Emma) and the rest of the non-infected patients either go on to become zombies or food.

I found the mental connection the most interesting concept and that some tried to remain as normal as possible while the others evolved into intelligent, non-shambling flesheaters.

I'm almost ashamed to say I enjoyed this as much as I did after hearing so much negativity about it. Definitely worth a look as long as you don't try to make any connections to Romero's work.

Trick 'r Treat (2007)

Needs more teeth

[7/10 · 24 May 2010]

The ratings system doesn't allow a 7.5 but that's what I'd give this out of 10.

Trick r Treat is a good Halloween film dare I say to watch with the family? I think there is only one brief nudity shot which can easily be overlooked. Overall, it played like the best made Goosebumps ever. I didn't feel it was adult enough, and maybe that wasn't the market the director sought. I wouldn't even say it was scary, but it's very entertaining.

I think the best aspect, besides Sam who I'll get to in a moment, is interweaving the stories and messing with the timeline of the narrative compared to other anthologies such as Creepshow where you have one story following another. Dylan Baker is great and I hope he gets more roles in horror. And I'm not sure what Brian Cox is doing in this, but he certainly gets his props, too.

The overall story revolves around inter-related incidents that happen on Halloween night in a small town. Those who pay the price are people who defy the traditions of Halloween such as leaving Jackolanterns lit all night or giving out candy when children come to the door. And you get a bit of every thing most horror fans have some interest in: zombies, werewolves, and vampires. Throw serial killers on top of that and add a dash of an evil pint-sized roaming Halloween spirit, and you've got a goodie bag.

You'll see a lot of things coming a mile away, once you realize how inter-related everything is. As for the effects, they are quite good, especially the werewolf sequence. Far too many werewolf films have characters growing hair instead of ripping off their human skin to reveal the wolf underneath. Nice touch. And, then there is little Sam, a character the director developed in an animated short in 1996. He's child sized, with a laughing child's voice, but sadly, when his flour sack mask is removed, much of the mystery goes with it and his "real face" was sort of a let down.

It's too bad they had such a problem getting this to theaters. They release a lot of movies that are vastly inferior so I can't see what the holdup was. Regardless, the success of the film festivals and word of mouth have done well for the rental world and there is a sequel on its way. I hope the director sticks with the same time-shifting narrative, and my only real suggestion is to make it a little nastier this time, brutality-wise.

Bloody Birthday (1981)

Make a wish

[6/10 · 24 May 2010]

I'm not a real fan of the murderous moppet genre. But, Bloody Birthday is entertaining. Apparently, there is a long-standing rumor this film was made 5 years previous to release, then shelved, and finally someone dusted it off. I can appreciate that rumor because anyone who has seen this film, released in 1981, can look at two other very important films of that year, Evil Dead and An American Werewolf in London, and see compared to those, Bloody Birthday looks significantly older. First, two rants, then a review. Who let Arlon Ober near a recording studio? Ober can't decide between the overwhelming strains of daytime 1970's television and being overtly influenced by Harry Manfredini. Second, why is Jose Ferrer in this? Did he lose a bet? He's just as criminally wasted in a totally useless role as RG Armstrong was in Evilspeak made the same year. Then, three years later, he adds class to Dune, but really, why is he floundering around here with such scant dialogue and looking totally lost? Rants aside, you should see Bloody Birthday. It's not the typical slasher film. In many such movies, you tend to root for the killer, if he's cool enough and if his victims are dumb enough. But, here we have three killer kids born during an eclipse which supposedly suppresses their emotional responses to what would otherwise be atrocious acts. It seemed a little confusing at first because I thought the three kids were related, but it's two boys from one home and one girl from another, who were born in the hospital on the same day and grew up together. Some professional reviews I've read stated that the birthday is what triggers the events. Sadly, this is a holiday movie where the special occasion is totally misused and misleading. These bastards were little poops well before their tenth birthday, and that day itself is rather a minor scene in the film. What I expected was kids who were acting a little weird, then would totally go off the deep end during their party. I think that would have worked better.

However, this doesn't mean the movie isn't enjoyable. The kids are pretty darn evil, with one four eyed kid taking a supreme liking to the dead sheriff's revolver and putting it to good use repeatedly. There's nothing particularly graphic in terms of gore, considering the other films already mentioned it had to contend with in 1981, not to mention, The Burning. So compared to other horror of its day, Bloody Birthday is relatively weak, but it's fun. The clothes, haircuts, even an old 7-UP can, and, of course, a little girl charging boys to see her sister get naked, all bring back the old days.

Basically, the terrible trio plan in advance to bump off certain individuals in the community who have wronged them, or, as in the case of the sheriff, could be a potential problem in the near future. Their teacher is a super milf and she is obviously going on the list as soon as we meet her. Then we have the aforementioned sheriff, some horny neighborhood teens, and our heroes, a boy the same age as the trio and his 18 year old sister. While the film doesn't necessarily drag, the big reveal at the end(well after the party, I might add) has the kid and his sister running for their lives in a security-locked house with the evil eclipsers hot on their trail using the gun, a butcher knife, telephone cord, and bow and arrows. So that's fairly intense.

I supposed I'd rate this as a guilty pleasure, sort of like The Pit. It has a very similar feel even beyond the murderous juveniles. However, I would hope that if anyone ever remade this, and I doubt they will, that the birthday aspect is properly used.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Low Rent Demon

[3/10 · 20 May 2010]

Yes, the Low Rent Demon That Could. That's what this should be titled. I had very low expectations for this film, partly because it took 2 years after production to finally make it into theaters, a place it never belonged.

The premise is something you see every day on cable TV shows like A Haunting or Ghost Hunters or whatever. Two people move into a house, they have some strange occurrences, they record it, etc. I won't give away the ending.....because the trailer already did! Anyway, I am not a fan at all of those TV shows or hand-held camera or ShakyCam as it is also known. So, immediately, this film wasn't holding much water for me at the start. We begin with Katie and Micah, who annoyingly has his name pronounced Meeka, which is abominable. They are dating, living together, and "engaged to be engaged." Katie has been experiencing weird things and seeing shadows moving since she was eight, and her house burned down when she was little. Flash forward to today, I mean 2006, where Micah has purchased a camera and is now documenting anything that happens. The creators of this film obviously loved the Amityville Horror series because very often, the "horrors" take place right around the same time every night, sometimes even 3:15, just like in old Amityville. But, we don't have a ghost going bump in the night, we have a demon. It is obsessed with Katie and sadly never rips her clothes off to reveal the only thing anyone wanted to really see in this film. Thus, after filming begins, we get the usual haunted house trappings. Things go bump in the night, usually around the same time, sheets get moved around, lights turn on or off, the door closes, etc. Towards the end of the film, obviously the film has to lead somewhere, we get more intense happenings as footprints are left in powder on the floor, Katie is dragged from her bed, and then there is the finale. Or, rather, 2 endings. One you see in the trailer(idiot producers!) and the other is an even more unbelievable bit of tripe.

Now, I know there are people out there who believe in ghosts to their core and this movie will cater to you just as the aforementioned TV shows do. But the finale comes out looking like something straight out of The Ring or The Grudge and is very weak. Of course, plenty of fools think this is real film footage. I will say that acting like they are not acting is something these actors are sort of good at, better than TV haunting shows but certainly not ready for the big screen.

The main problem I have with this plot is that the haunting itself is not believable nor is the reaction of the participants. First, when does Katie go to school? I thought she was a student. We see her study, finally, towards the end of the film, and Micah is never at work, he's always screwing around with the camera or his computer. Next, no one stays with them to verify the story. It only happens to them, and when the psychic visits, he gets some vibes, but he doesn't actually see anything good. To alleviate the issue, if the demon is so troublesome, have other people stay in the house and get some night jobs! Seriously, everything is scarier at night(not to mention that these idiots never seem to want to turn the lights on downstairs when they repeatedly wake up to bumps and thumps. Therefore, work at night! Sleep during the day! I've done it! And get a dog. And get a few friends to stay over. That's some of the more unbelievable aspects I found myself pondering during this "film."

I can't believe some guy spent 20 bucks taking his girl to see this garbage at the theater. I know, there will be some staunch supporters of this tripe who will lavish praise on its non-existent budget and what inventive people can do with just a camera. Well, that's fine, but unless you are 16, today's horror audience wants a little more than what they can find any day on afternoon cable. As far as low budget films like this go, do yourself a favor and just watch Blair Witch Project again. Even that isn't original(see The Last Broadcast to find out what I mean), but at least it has an element of fear that is sadly lacking in Paranormal Blah. It reminds me of the way many people on this site who are younger(and would be attracted to and scared by this movie) comment about how Jaws and the Exorcist are laughable. Amazing.

Phantasm II (1988)

Entering Perigord, Oregon....POP. 891

[7/10 · 20 May 2010]

This was always a childhood favorite of mine, and unfortunately, it doesn't hold up well over time. I've seen it several times, though upon writing this review after having watched it again, this most recent viewing marks the first time in about 8 years or so that I've seen it, and it's lost some of its sparkle.

My main complaints concern several scenes of very stilted acting, particularly during the ret-con introduction. A new actor is playing Mike, and while the original actor wasn't an Oscar contender, his replacement is quite lackluster, though adequately naive. Reggie is back, thankfully, and now armed with a kick ass 4 barrel shotgun that is woefully underused. I also hated the unnecessary constant face close-ups that occurred several times. It gave it a bad-TV-pilot feel at times.

This being said, I still enjoy the movie immensely, in spite of some of the obvious flaws of a low budget 80's production. A new sentinel sphere makes its grand entrance here, a golden ball of evil sporting some very nasty and effective hardware. I felt like the brain drilling scenes could have had more blood, but you can't have everything, I guess.

Angus Scrimm is back(Boooooooooooy!) and he's great even though his speaking role is limited. The character of Alchemy is a rather silly and pointless addition to the cast, and she only shows up to reveal her small cup size(but, I can't really complain about that). And Liz has some weird mental connection with Mike that isn't really explained and no one really cares, anyway.

This is my favorite of the series, followed by the original. I never cared for parts 3 or 4 and haven't seen either of them more than once.

And remember, this is only a review. (No. It's not!)

Vampyr (1932)

Memento Mori

[10/10 · 15 May 2010]

A dreamscape wrought with images death, shadow, and the afterlife which utterly crushes Dracula into the churchyard soil, Vampyr just muscled its way into my top 10 films of all time.

The naive Mr. Gray finds himself in the French countryside, about to fall headlong into a world of forbidden occult mystery, doom, and the undead. Gray reminded me from the start of Lovecraft. Slicked back hair, severe features, an everyman with a taste for unusual adventure that gets into some serious trouble. A town is plagued by an old woman who has returned from the dead as a vampire. Many of the usual folkloric elements of vampirism are present, but not in the hokey way Hollywood tended to view it. No crosses thrust up in front of vampires who shrieked away with their capes drawn up over their faces. You really should go into this film with no knowledge of the plot. The story itself is very simple, but the atmosphere will require you to bring along a change of underwear. The score is excellent, certainly one of the best of the period, and one of the better scores for any horror film.

Vampyr goes beyond Dracula in that when people today think of Universal Horror Films, they think of "well, it's a classic." But this goes beyond that. It's very cerebral and dreamlike. Unfortunately, the critics and audiences of the time either didn't understand what was happening in the director's mind or they didn't care. The film can be slow moving, but it's only an hour and fifteen minutes long, so it can't drag that much! There are what some might call the trappings of the "old dark house" genre, and I tell you I am just fine with that! Doors opening or closing of their own accord, moving skulls, ghostly encounters and out of body experiences, oh my! Yes, it all depends on how you go into the movie as to what you will take out of it. Remember, this is the early 1930's, and you aren't watching today's vampires. This is the classic, Victorian view of the beast, something that today's Hollywood directors probably wouldn't dare risk since, after all, Vampyr bombed when it was released, and again, its dreamscape is something of an acquired taste. But if you love older movies, and also tend to pay attention to what the director is saying and not what the actors are saying, then you may just find this also in your top 10. I recommend the Criterion Collection, even if it is a bit pricey.

It Happened Here (1964)

Grim, stark, fascinating

[10/10 · 12 May 2010]

I don't hand out 1's and 10's often, and while the production on this film is quite low, with the sound quality for dialogue being the absolute worst, this film is totally compelling and you will be grateful you gave it a chance.

The movie is shot as a pseudo documentary, following the life of Pauline, a strangely attractive nurse who must relocate to London in a world where Nazi Germany has more than a foothold in England; Soldiers occupy the nation and many British citizens have become their collaborators. You should read the interesting history behind the making of this film which took something like 6 years to complete, if you can believe it. But wait until after you watch the movie, of course. I'm glad I didn't know much about it before I began watching. Fans of science fiction, dystopian fiction, and Orwell will eat this up and want more.

This is a war film like few others in that you don't see much of the war itself, by that I mean the front lines. You see the daily life of citizens in a country where all their normal daily routines have been stamped out and they are recast in the roles of pseudo-Nazis whether they like it or not. What are you waiting for?