Fed-Up Movie Reviews

And The Vision, That Was Planted In My Brain....Still Remains.

2012-02-05T16:34:00.000-08:00

The sound....of silence.

Here's something that within most horror films today just cannot be tolerated. No present-day movie going audience wants to WAIT for a buildup of suspense or even fathom having to expect something that isn't going to happen right away. Viewers want gratification that is absolute. And they want it immediately.

As the recent release of The Woman In Black creeps into theaters this weekend, it is of note that the studio producing the film is none other than the British film company, Hammer. Who, in years past gave us some of the great icons of suspense and horror, including a Count Dracula played by Christopher Lee that didn't sparkle and could act. It should also be considered that Hammer, along with great directors such as Hitchcock, Polanski, and the great Carol Reed did use talents in order to give the audience a buildup within their films. It's not to say that all these films were great, but they included an amount of tension that, unless it's an indie film uncontrolled by a big Hollywood studio, isn't present today in about 90% of horror pictures or even suspense thrillers.

But wait, Mr. FUMoR....didn't you put a poster for some movie called The Innkeepers at the top of this blog review? Yes, and that's why I prefaced this entry with the previous paragraphs. While not a masterpiece of the macabre, Ti West's new film plays with the audience's emotions and yes, doesn't give full gratification for what is going on within 15 minutes. As a side note, Quentin Tarantino has mentioned the term of "situation movies", which are most of the time, films he dislikes. A situation movie is where the entire premise of the movie is set up within the first 15 minutes, and then the film spends the next hour and a half just trying to live up to that premise. To this blogger, that's quite unoriginal.


"There's no room here for ghosts....or Mary and Joseph."

The Innkeepers involves two hotel clerks (or innkeepers....wow! There's the title!) who decide to discover the strange history of the building in which they are employed. While not quite a ripoff of recent projects such as the Paranormal Activity films, The Innkeepers, while interesting does tend to tread into familiar territory. However, the execution is what the makes the movie work.

Ti West's previous movie, The House Of The Devil, was bombarded with review after review of utterly identical statements which said, "It's boring and nothing happens. I fell asleep. It's so stupid when you think something is about to happen and it doesn't."

No, no, no....those would be the words rightly reserved for typing a review about The Godfather. That however, is for another post, another day. West mimics here what so many of the greats like Polanski and Hitchcock and even Hammer studios tried to do back in the day, which was.....creep you out, not give instant gratification.

Now of course, this blogger is a horror fanatic. Blood 'n gore is fine in a movie like Friday The 13th. Phony scares and jump-out-of-your-seat cheesy stuff is great too, but at certain times, we just want to see that a horror film is trying to give the audience something different, aka...as the mainstream audience would say, boring stuff.

But it's NOT boring. It's cryptic horror, not satisfaction guaranteed. And The Innkeepers, while not perfect, offers up some great set pieces and great scares, one scare in particular...which is how much 25 years can take it's toll on Kelly McGillis. This was the hot blonde from Top Gun in 1986? Quite frightening.

Unfortunately, the sound of silence will still leave a mark on the audience. There will be those that will finish watching The Innkeepers and say it was the most boring thing they had ever seen. And there are those who will go see The Woman In Black and expect Harry Potter And The Hellish House Of Horrors. Have we all but forgotten a film like John Carpenter's Halloween, that movie relied more on the atmosphere and intelligence of its audience, rather than going for cheap scares? Perhaps, but then Michael Myers always was a quiet soul.

The Innkeepers (2011), Directed by Ti West
Grade: B

Eight? Enough!

2011-11-24T10:07:00.000-08:00

The following telephone conversation between JJ Abrams and Steven Spielberg took place on June 8, 2009....shortly after the release of Abrams' STAR TREK.

(Phone rings)

JJ Abrams: "Dharma Initiative, er, I mean...Bad Robot Productions, this is JJ."

Steven Spielberg: "Abrams! What's up, dude? Steven Spielberg here."

JJ: "Yeah, hi Steve, I was just getting ready to go to a meeting and..."

SS: "Just saw the new Star Trek movie and loved it! So I was thinking, how would you like to do a movie for me?"

JJ: "Um, well...we're kinda behind on the production of our new show Fringe, so I think I..."

SS: "Fantastic! So here's the deal: last night I had a dream."

JJ: "About what? That your buddy George Lucas got committed to a loony bin because of the money he's been taking from the no-life sci-fi geeks who think Star Wars is like Shakespeare?"

SS: "Ha ha, no. That's a good one, though...I'll have to remember that. No, the dream was this: You remember that scene in my movie Close Encounters where Rick Dreyfuss is trapped in his pickup on the railroad tracks with the alien spaceship above him?"

JJ: "Um, yeah."

SS: "Well, it just hit me...why don't we make a movie involving those three things...a pickup truck, a railroad track, and an alien, and you can write and direct it, and I'll produce."

JJ: "Gee, Steve, I don't know...I've been trying to come up with an ending for LOST, and we're all pretty stuck on that, and..."

SS: "And you can throw in all that conspiracy shit you like to do. You know, we'll keep it all a secret until like 8 months before the release, and then we'll make a trailer that hardly shows anything, to get the audience all riled up. Like you did with that one movie, what was it? About the dairy company? Um, uh....MAYFIELD?"

JJ: "Cloverfield."

SS: "Right, right. Yeah, that movie was pretty good, but you used too many old kids in it. In this movie we'll go right for the childhood angle, and..."

JJ: "Oh, for the love of God, Steve...you're not gonna recycle that sad kid, warped childhood angst thing that you always do, are you?"

SS: "Well, YEAH! It's what has kept my career going for so long! I mean, I dabbled in it a little bit with Close Encounters in 1977, but then when I made E.T. in 1982, it was ON!!"

JJ: (with sarcasm) "Sigh, yeah...ok. Sounds great. So what are we going to do with this movie?"

SS: "Hmm, well, let's see. Let's have a bunch of kids who look like they were rejects from that Stephen King miniseries IT...put 'em all in front of a bunch of blue screens.....you know George Lucas taught me that digital blue screens are..."

JJ: "Yes, I know what George told you. He also thinks that the Twilight movies are WELL WRITTEN."

SS: "Right. Well anyway, the premise is there's this one kid who likes to make movies and they start to make a Super 8 film about zombies and then this big explosion happens on a train track with a pickup truck and..."

JJ: "That sounds kinda cool, actually. What else happens?"

SS: "That's where YOU come in, my friend."

JJ: "Hmm, OK. How about just the whole thing be about the alien wanting to get back to his own planet? We'll throw in that guy from Friday Night Lights to play a father who's grieving from some family tragedy and have him sob and sulk the whole movie, have the kids turn into the A-Team, and put a cute girl in there as a love interest who becomes the goal for the main kid to find himself and to save her from the alien? Oh yeah, and we'll put these weird looking objects in it that look like Rice Krispies treats and use 'em as some sort of technology that the alien uses...maybe relate to some sort of water subplot or something."

SS: "Great! That sounds good. And don't worry about it being boring. I'm Steven Spielberg. I've never made a boring movie. Hell, those Transformers movies were pieces of shit and they raked in the DOLLAHS!! You just gotta slap my name on something and people will give me the Benjamins. I learned that from George."

JJ: "Yeah, that's true. OK, Steve..well that sounds great. I'll get started on that screenplay right away. "

SS: "Fantastic. I'm heading to the store to get Harrison Ford one of those new Hover-Round scooters. And the tennis balls on his walker are worn out too, but we gotta have him for Indy 5, so..."

JJ: "Yeah, that's great Steve. Hey, one more thing, you don't think this whole childhood nostalgia premise is getting old, do you?"

(click...dial tone..)

JJ: "Hello? Hello?"

Super 8, (2011), Directed by JJ Abrams
Grade: D+

Sun. Believable.

2011-11-11T14:30:00.000-08:00

It's true. You're not hallucinating. A semi-normal story is being posted on this blog for review, and nowhere in it does it involve blood, creepy scenes with possessed kids, or even a blaring Psycho-like string orchestra.

This blogger isn't heartless and in need of a strait-jacket. Sometimes the orderlies let him out of his cell and he surprises everybody with a review of something that (gasp) might be enjoyable for a wider audience.

First, it must be pointed out that romantic comedies are not a favorite here at FUMoR. Usually the dialogue is ridiculous, the buildup of the sexual tension becomes inane, and even when the outcome of love is finally revealed, it's posed with more syrup and sweets than Willy Wonka's chocolate factory coated in Mrs. Butter-Worths.

While this seems most certainly unrealistic, so are movies about killers with machetes that won't ever die, or the absurdity of Jack Bauer jumping off of rooftops or pushing an aluminum shed over with a bulldozer, so non-realism can't be held against any romantic comedy on the silver screen, as long as it's enjoyed by its audience. It's just not high on the list of genres to watch here on this blog.

Which brings this review to Richard Linklater's wonderful combination of two films that basically could be viewed as one, Before Sunrise and Before Sunset. Two people meet on a train, they talk and walk around Vienna, and fall in love. The story then continues nine years later for the audience to discover what new chapters have unfolded in the lives of these two characters. It's a simple setup, exquisitely performed.

The film's dialogue-driven parlance is different from most romantic comedies, inasmuch we CARE about what these people are talking about. And most importantly, it's not overdone. It's simplistic. It's not like a big-budget romance where there's a set-up, the actor stands in front of the actress with sadness and remorse, and we all know...."Ohhh, look...he's about to make some ridiculous speech that will contain a line that will become one of the movie's annoying catchphrase!"

Example:

This doesn't happen in Before Sunrise. Look in particular at this scene and notice that all feelings and emotions between Celine and Jesse are played out without either one saying a single word, just the melodic voice of Kath Bloom echoing within the sound booth. It's a very powerful moment that sets the mood for the film and contains so much more development than a whiny Tom and Renee.

This is why the movie works. It's not trying to be anything else but a simple love story. It also helps to have the wonderful acting talents of its two leads, played so perfectly by Ethan Hawke and July Delpy. These are just two people who just want to know each other better, and are willing to take the chance at falling in love. And that's quite simply, all that is needed.

Before Sunset takes place nine years after Sunrise, and while both characters have grown older and more mature, their spark is still there. It's difficult to describe what happens in each film considering that each one is really just one big long conversation, but the fascination with the topics of conversation are what make the stories entertaining for the audience.

Here's an amazing scene from Before Sunset. Notice the pain and sadness in Celine's face as Jesse describes his dream, and the nuance of what she does to try and communicate, but realizes that she can't:

Now watch this ridiculous conversation from Notting Hill where Julia Roberts wants to make sure that Hugh Grant knows that her sappy feelings for him are so evident, and tries way too hard to make the audience believe her saccharine-soaked diatribe. And while in the beginning Roberts does to a good job conveying her feelings with her facial expressions, the scene is ruined by the build-up to that "let's make sure we have a catchphrase" that so many romances seem to want to include.

While this blogger is certainly not a cynic, and knows that romance is about feelings and saying what you want to say with honesty, it's just the way that it can presented that can make or break a movie. You don't need huge set-ups and dialogue sounding like it was taken out of a cheesy romance novel and then stated breathtakingly with crying eyes and sobs in-between. Before Sunrise and Before Sunset are one continuous love story that makes the audience BELIEVE in the characters, and they're not just something out of a fairy tale.

It's difficult to make a point when love stories in the movies are made for all audiences who enjoy different aspects of storytelling, it's just that here at FUMoR we strive to keep the sugar to a minimum.

Here's another of FUMoR's favorite romances. While it may seem like a contradiction in terms (because really.....it's NOT the norm to stand outside your beloved's window with a boombox to win her back), if the film has believable characters who portray a TRUE sense of love for each other, then certain nuances like this can make the movie have a certain uniqueness that only adds more charm to the characters. It's the creativeness of the scene, and most of the time, if it's simple and does not need dialogue, it can have a powerful effect.

Now, if the scene instead had Cusack running up to the window, and reciting the Gabriel opus in iambic pentameter while heaving deep breaths and his eyes welling up with more salt water than you'd see on episode of Deadliest Catch, the DVD would be immediately ejected from the player and a nice, cold can of Vanilla Coke Zero would be placed on top of it. In the words of Damon Wayans: "Homey don't play dat!"

Before Sunrise / Before Sunset - (1995)/(2004)
- Directed by Richard Linklater
Collective Grade: A

Wood Work.

2011-11-06T18:40:00.000-08:00

"Is there a script?" - Edward D. Wood, Jr.

It's November. And that means the month of the turkey. And while there will always be YouTube videos of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes and bad movies with bad directors will continue to surface long after we're all gone, none will be as infamously known as Edward D. Wood, Jr. and Tim Burton's masterpiece biopic, Ed Wood.

Ed Wood is hands down, Tim Burton's best film. It is Johnny Depp's greatest performance (an Oscar nomination was due way before Jack Sparrow ever swashbuckled up on the screen). For 17 years, Ed Wood has sort of sat dormant while Burton continues to capture his once bizarre and twisted magic within his filmography.

He hasn't done it. No movie that Burton has ever made since 1994 has even come close to the brilliance of Ed Wood, even though this blogger has thoroughly enjoyed his later films. So why praise Ed Wood so much? Because its element of ridiculousness is the key. Ed Wood was a clueless idiot who loved film so much but yet had no idea how to even conceive making one. His ineptitude is what made him a legend. If Burton had approached the film with a serious tone, it wouldn't have worked. The element here is that the "cheesy" and campy nature within all of Wood's films is present within Burton's film, being played out superbly by professional actors. Sure, Burton could've used a bunch of no-name novices for the picture, and perhaps it would've worked, but the fact that the performances of his cast is so amazing (particularly an Oscar-winning Martin Landau as Bela Lugosi) shows that Burton can exhibit himself as a gifted director.

We all know by now that Johnny Depp and Tim Burton share the same brain, but this was only Depp's second collaboration with Burton after Edward Scissorhands, so their approach still appeared fresh and original. Depp plays the role of Ed completely over-the-top which is exactly what we would expect from a director who gave us such garbage masterpieces as Plan 9 From Outer Space and Bride Of The Monster. The essence that is remarkable about Depp's performance is that he stays in a mood of complete positive thinking throughout 95% of the movie. He's somebody that won't ever give up.

And yet, he's also clueless. He doesn't have a single idea about how to make a movie, but that's really not the point. He's passionate about the filmmaking process itself, regardless if he knows anything about it. And it some strange way, we cheer him on all the way through the film and want him to succeed. And when the story takes the bizarre turn and we find out Ed's secret of dressing in women's clothing (with a severe fetish for angora sweaters), well...it just adds to the campiness that his films so greatly resonate.

Burton also gets fine performances from his supporting cast, with Bill Murray, Jeffrey Jones, Sarah Jessica Parker, Patricia Arquette, and an absolutely brilliant Martin Landau so perfect as horror legend Lugosi. Landau's interpretation of a sad, washed-up, drug addled has-been is played to the hilt, with amazing comedic timing and bizarre nuances as evidenced in the following scene:

It's scenes like this that are present throughout the whole picture and make the film such a treasure. And while some people may find the movie not to their tastes because of the severe absurdity of it all, those familiar with auteur Wood's filmography will be endlessly entertained.

This blogger never saw Ed Wood in the theater, and it's a deep regret. This biography of the original "midnight movie man" is an amazing display of filmmaking, and something that Tim Burton has never recaptured. Unless you count the Planet Of The Apes remake, which this blogger found entertaining in a "so-bad-it's-good" way. I guess Wood was whispering ideas into Burton's dark, demented subconscious while he was filming that simian disaster.

Damn him all to hell.

Ed Wood, (1994), Directed by Tim Burton

Grade: A+

State And Maim.

2011-11-05T11:50:00.000-07:00

"Do I fear God? You better believe I fear God." - Pastor Abin Cooper

Thus begins the chilling first act of Kevin Smith's Red State. Here's a film that was purported as Smith's departure from his norm, as he put it: "a nasty-ass $4 million horror flick with few (if any) redeeming characters."

Well, sorta. I liked this movie a lot, but I wouldn't say that it's a TRUE horror movie. Yes, there are horror elements in it, and there are scenes that perhaps would make a novice viewer of this sort of material cringe, but the terror really bookends the movie, leaving the middle open for some stylized action and Smith's trademark brand of humor.

The film is a thinly disguised interpretation of the Westboro Baptist "Church" and its so-called "preacher", Fred Phelps. If you aren't familiar with these people, be glad that you're not.

Basically Smith's vision depicts that evil can exist in any form, and that's certainly true here.

When the trailer was first seen for this movie, this blogger was expecting gritty horror, something along the lines of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre or even more recently Rob Zombie's The Devil's Rejects. And for parts of the film, it stays true to that aspect.

First, let's make something clear: this movie would not have worked at all without the tour-de-force performance of Michael Parks. (Smith has said in interviews that had Parks not agreed to do the movie, then he would have dropped the project entirely.)

Parks has been a Tarantino staple over the years, with bit parts in From Dusk Till Dawn to Kill Bill, and also appearing in several 70's television series. Here he displays his all-out gift for being creepy and fascinating to watch at the same time. His Pastor Cooper is the epitome of psychotic, particularly in his character introduction and the speech that he gives to his congregation. Smith makes it evident that the audience is in for some disturbing stuff.

It does seem refreshing to see Smith do something different here. After beating us all over the head for 12 years with super-stoners Jay and Silent Bob, it IS a welcome change to witness something more original from this director. (This blogger never saw Jersey Girl or Zack And Miri Make A Porno). The set-up here for the evil personification of Cooper, his church, and its followers make for an interesting collective of false prophets and crazed individuals.

As the movie progresses, the horror element seems to take a back-seat and more instances of drama and action surface. While this is not a bad thing, it seems like a misleading tactic seeing how the movie was marketed as a horror flick, but then that's not to say one can't have some dramatic intensity in a horror movie. Also, there are some instances of comic relief that seem out of place for a movie like this. With the marketing done for the film, it's almost seems like what would've happened if Leatherface had been a stand-up comedian and told jokes before he sliced somebody's limbs off, with a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" to the camera.

Perhaps though, that's not the point here. For the most part, Smith gets fine performances from all his actors, particularly John Goodman who does some of his best work here since The Big Lebowski. And the irony displayed as the movie comes to an end makes the viewer wonder what Smith exactly was trying to accomplish, but as mentioned earlier, it seems for the most part to display that evil lurks everywhere and for all of us to be cautious, whether it be on the religious front or elsewhere.

Is Red State a good movie? Yes, it is. Is it Kevin Smith's best film? No, it isn't. But it's also a fine example of rogue filmmaking, and what can be done on a low budget, with limited resources and a good script. To be sure, the film's marketing campaign was a facade of sorts, giving audience the false hope of a retro-gritty horror story, but in the end, the movie is an interesting display of dread and fanaticism, without the Snooch to the Nooch.

Red State, (2011), Directed by Kevin Smith
Grade: B+

31 Days Of Horror: Day #31 - THE SHINING

2011-10-31T10:27:00.000-07:00

"Wendy?? I'm home." - Jack Torrance

The Shining, (1980), Directed by Stanley Kubrick
Grade: A+

There is really nothing else to say about this film that hasn't already been said. So, rather than go through a long, detailed review, all that can be stated aboutThe Shining is that it is the first horror movie this blogger ever saw, and the first movie that ever scared him. (Ironically, it was the TELEVISION version.) And it wasn't until several years later when he watched the full version, and has watched it dozens of times since. There are those that will say it is too long, there are those that will say Jack Nicholson goes over-the-top, there will be those that say Kubrick has lost his ever-lovin' mind, and there will be those that just plain don't like it. (Including Stephen King himself.)

And that's great, but it won't change this blogger's opinion. The scare factor may have gone down considerably over the years after constant viewings, but the beautiful filmmaking aspect that the movie displays has never changed. Watch these two trailers and they will tell you all you need to know about the film.

The original theatrical trailer:

A fantastic fan-made trailer:

So thusly, Fed-Up Movie Reviews names The Shining as its favorite horror movie of all time.

And with that, this brings "31 Days Of Horror" to a close. Thanks to all who read and put up with the constant tangents and ramblings. I know a month of horror movie reviews can get tedious, but then, so can seven straight years of SAW movies.

Boo! And all that jazz.

31 Days Of Horror: - Day #30 - 1408

2011-10-30T10:49:00.000-07:00

"Eight dollars for Beer Nuts? This room IS evil!" - Mike Enslin

1408, (2007), Directed by Mikael Hafstrom
Director's Cut - Grade: A -
Theatrical Cut - Grade: B -

This is an unusual pick for a Halloween list, but it's an excellent example of how a classy PG-13 psychological horror movie can be made, and also an example of how two different endings can make or break a movie.

I was hesitant to see this film because it was PG-13, meaning that perhaps the terror would have been restrained, to make it more "audience friendly". This usually involves those crazy movie studios seeing rough cuts, and saying, "Nah, take that part out...we don't want to limit the audience to just adults, put something in there that the kids will like too." Usually, I hate this. It seems like lazy filmmaking being controlled by the powers-that-be. (But then, that's Hollywood.) However, this blogger admits that he was wrong. The movie works, and probably because almost 50% of the movie depends on the performance of John Cusack, who is excellent here and proves that quirky, romantic comedies aren't his only forte.

Cusack plays Mike Enslin, a struggling supernatural horror writer who makes his living writing about supposedly haunted vacation spots, even though he knows that they're all fake. He is seeking solace from the death of his young daughter Katie. His latest "investigation" leads him to the The Dolphin Hotel, after he receives a mysterious postcard from it claiming, "Don't enter 1408." Enslin meets with the manager of the hotel, played by a deliciously still-channeling-Snakes On A Plane-and-Pulp Fiction alum Samuel L. Jackson, who continously pleads with him not to enter 1408, because it will just result in another "mess he has to clean up", and because nobody has ever lasted more than an hour in the room.

"Yeah, but at least MY cheesy airplane movie didn't have CGI snakes in it."

This setup seems tedious. It feels like something that we've seen before. "Oh, a haunted house movie, except now it's just a haunted HOTEL ROOM movie." However, since this is based on Stephen King story, chances are it can be really good ala The Mist, or a real stinkburger like Graveyard Shift or Maximum Overdrive.

And for the most part, 1408 stays true to its roots. The settings and the art direction is fantastic. We can feel even before Cusack even enters the room that he seems to be engulfed by the hotel. The long majestic tracking shots of the hallways and even the elevator door closing on Jackson while he looks at Cusack with his fed-up "You idiot" face makes the situation a creepy one.

Once Cusack enters 1408, director Mikael Hafstrom uses the opportunity to start things slowly. We don't know what's going on yet, or how things will unfold, and in a sense, we're just a clueless as Cusack.

But that all changes once we start hearing the blaring notes of "We've Only Just Begun" from the radio/alarm clock and then the alarm resets itself into a countdown clock of one hour.

"Arrgh! Something tells me I would just be BETTER OFF DEAD!"

For those who haven't seen the film yet, I don't want to give anymore away, but while the movie could have been just another tedious exercise in haunted places and their backstory, Cusack and Company make the movie seem fresh and original, all the while keeping us (lame cliched critic line coming)...on the edge of our seats.

However, there is the issue of the ending. When this blogger first saw the movie, it was in the theater, and he saw it with a friend. We both agreed that the original ending was not very good. It seemed rushed and unoriginal. Although, it was closer to the ending of the story. When the movie was released on DVD a director's cut was contained, and it was watched again.

This ending was an improvement. While this blogger had his own ideas about how the movie should really end, the director's cut actually made the movie better, and seemed more like the most "fitting" ending, while maintaining that level of psychological horror that the movie wanted to represent in the first place. The theatrical ending seemed more like a cop-out. The director's cut added closure.

So what does this all mean? 1408 is a great horror movie. It's not a bloody gore picture at all, but in the traditional sense, it has its elements firmly planted in what makes a good horror picture work: great performances, story, even a small throwback to The Shining (both films were shot at the same studio in London). And it's a movie that could have taken the cheesy route and ended up being a throwaway picture, but it ends up being a superb piece of suspense and exhausting terror.

And finally, Cusack himself is a devoted Chicago Cubs fan, so of course, he's endured countless elements of horror over the years. So he's treading on familiar territory here.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #29 - THE BIRDS

2011-10-29T12:06:00.000-07:00

"Don't they ever stop migrating?" - Annie Hayworth

The Birds, (1963), Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Grade: A -

Vertigo is this blogger's favorite Hitchcock film. Psycho is the movie most associated with horror when this director's name is mentioned. However, The Birds holds a certain certain bizarreness that makes it a conversation piece and brashly gives new meaning to a horror film with its "(Wo)man vs. Nature " elements.

It's Hitchcock's monster movie. Except there are thousands and thousands of monsters, all striving for the same goal, which is to kill. And their reason for killing is left unexplained, which adds to the element of terror. Do we have to be spoon-fed everything? Not really, it's a known fact that Hitchcock liked to unnerve his audience. He was once quoted, "I enjoy playing the audience like a piano."

For the uninformed, Melanie Griffith's mom Tippi Hedren takes over for Hitch's cool blonde actress extraordinaire Grace Kelly in the heroine role of Melanie Daniels, a socialite who follows young attorney Mitch Brenner to Bodega Bay, California and delivers his sister a pair of lovebirds. Afterwards, unending attacks by seagulls, crows, and other ornithology specimens ensue.

While many may find The Birds a tedious exercise, (continuous attacks over and over) it is nevertheless one of Hitchcock's greatest achievements, both from technical and suspense standpoints. Of course, this was all before CGI and Lucasfilm FX, so Hitch had to use storyboards and matte backgrounds to plan out the elaborated scenes of the town of Bodega Bay being overrun. For its time, this was a masterful achievement, and one of the reasons the film works so well. Hitch feeds on our emotions, not just with the birds themselves invoking fear into the stomachs of the townspeople and the movie audience, but also with the uneasiness of the human characters within the movie. Rod Taylor's Mitch, Tippi's Melanie, and Jessica Tandy's Lydia all form an army of sorts against each other, with Lydia offended by the ever-beautiful Melanie, with fear that Melanie may take her son Mitch away from her and leave her as a scared, lonely old woman. Fear is also invoked within Mitch's younger sister (Veronica Cartwright) who perhaps does not understand the nature of the horror being played out in front of her, with the birds and her siblings. And then there's Annie Hayworth (Suzanne Pleshette), a schoolteacher with a crush on Mitch, who also becomes offended early on by Melanie's presence.

All this leads up to a climatic scene within the confines of the Brenner home, with the massive amount of birds evoking their mass havoc. While Hitchcock certainly knows that at some point we've come to have some sympathy of sorts for these characters, his known sense of black humor, and unrelenting power to scare and unease comes to the forefronts within the film's final moments.

This blogger picked The Birds for today's post because of its undeniable scare factor (although many will disagree), but then sometimes the simplest of nature's creatures can have just as much impact as a maniac in a butcher apron and skin-mask wielding a chainsaw.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #28 - THE STRANGERS

2011-10-28T11:09:00.000-07:00

The Strangers, (2008), Directed by Brian Bertino
Grade: A

*Mild spoilers follow*

Perhaps it's the simplicity, or the quiet mood, or the cameo of Dennis from It's Always Sunny. Whatever the reason, The Strangers is a great horror film and one of the best this blogger has seen in a long, long time. The pacing, the performances, the unknown backstory, the long desolate shots....everything in this film is top-notch.

It was a sleeper hit when released, but was quickly dismissed afterwards and the backlash surfaced that it was "boring" and "nothing happens in it". I guess when there's evil around and it's not explained, audiences tend to want answers. But then, we go see haunted house movies and it's never explained why the residents won't do the most sensible thing and just leave the house. And then of course 17 years ago, critics wondered why Keanu Reeves didn't just shoot the tires of the bus before it got up to 50 mph. Well, here's the answer:

There would be no movie.

Film ain't reality. It's an entertainment medium and art form. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, but just remember you have to sit back and let it work its magic, or lack thereof. So within that regard, that's what was done when I watched The Strangers.

The film opens in a very glib mood. A young couple returns from a wedding reception (not their own) to a summer home where they are staying. A woman obscured by the darkness comes to the door looking for someone and is told by the couple that she is at the wrong house. Afterwards, the couple kisses, words are exchanged, he leaves to go to the store (She needs cigarettes! That's real love!) and while he is gone the strange woman returns and the terror begins, with ghoulish faces emerging from the shadows in masks, and conceived scenes of slow build-ups.

The Strangers is a basic home invasion movie, but done in the simplest of terms. Like the classic In Cold Blood, the film relies on the lighting and it's eerie effects to establish it's mood, particularly the darkness and what emerges from it. Although the movie formula of someone being in your house has been done to death, (sigh, I didn't even realize I did that) here, there's toying of the audiences emotions. The sound design is carefully thought out. We hear the noises of nature surrounding the woods, the skipping record player adds something that you might here in a nightmare. And, in one of the film's best scenes, Bertino relies on nothing but camera space, staging, and the quiet.

"Yes, Dad...I told you. You're too old to tour anymore."

The film continues its quiet sense of dread as the suspense builds, ultimately resulting in an outcome that leaves the door open for a sequel, but also with its last shot, closes the movie perfectly. And of course, earlier in the film we see Glenn Howerton show up, and those who hate the show It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia will no doubt be standing up and cheering.

"Arrgh! I've had enough of the yelling on EVERY Sunny episode!"

Roger Ebert didn't like this movie. He HATED it and considered it a waste. I don't know what he was expecting in a movie like this, as he says at the end of his review that the movie "does what it sets out to do". So in that regard, I got my fix of masks, mayhem, and murder.
And now I'll shut up...because corny alliteration is a bad thing.

31 Days of Horror: Day #27 - SLEEPY HOLLOW

2011-10-27T18:11:00.000-07:00

"I've discovered something." - Ichabod Crane

Sleepy Hollow, (1999), Directed by Tim Burton
Grade: A -

There are folks I know that don't like this movie, and that's fine. I love it. So there. While Tim Burton did screw up his career when he took on the Planet Of The Apes remake (I thought it wasn't that bad), he has for the most part, made tons of movies that I've liked. I still haven't seen his Alice In Wonderland, but everybody has told me it's absolute garbage, so I've stayed away.

Anyway, on to the review...Washington Irving's classic story gets a delightful twist from Seven scribe Andrew Kevin Walker, and Francis Ford Coppola steps in to produce. Johnny Depp's Ichabod Crane is changed from a school teacher to a forensics detective called in to investigate the murders caused by The Headless Horesman (played by a deliciously evil Christopher Walken).

What Burton's films have been criticized (a lot) for is style and no substance. While many may find Sleepy Hollow "pretty" to look at, this blogger feels that no impact of horror is left unturned. This isn't full-blown horror 'n' gore, but as Burton described it, it's an homage to the Hammer Horror films of the 60's and 70's, which were also dark, foreboding, and had never-ending creepiness. (The film also contains Hammer alum Christopher Lee, who would go on to star in other Burton films.)

Johnny Depp's Ichabod Crane is great, and played to the hilt with total cowardice and humor. It's not Depp's best performance (that would be Ed Wood), but he works just fine here.

That is not to say that Sleepy Hollow is a perfect movie. The backstory provided to explain the origins of the Headless Horseman seems unnecessary. This blogger would have liked it better if we didn't know anything about the character, and his origins remained a mystery. Christopher Nolan avoided this mistake in The Dark Knight by keeping the Joker's origins completely out of the film, so his character remained "absolute".

Then there's Christina Ricci, who is a wonderful actress, but she's not given much to do here, but wander around and looking eyebrow-less due to the fact that her light blonde hair is matched with her eyebrows, making her look somewhat mutated.

Where'd they go?

But in the end, Burton's film works and I was delighted that he even added in sound effects from the classic Disney cartoon of Sleepy Hollow, which doesn't deter from anything in the picture, and make it seem "cutesy". Plus, props to Burton for not holding back on the horror, and getting the film an R-rating. I don't think I could see a movie about beheadings that was rated PG-13. That's about as ridiculous as vampires that sparkle in the sunlight.

31 DAYS OF HORROR: DAY #26 - EXPERIMENT IN TERROR

2011-10-26T10:49:00.000-07:00

Experiment In Terror, (1962), Directed by Blake Edwards
Grade: A

I'm going to stray from the norm here, and admit that this is not really a horror movie. It's a Hitchcockian, noir-driven suspense tale. However, within the context of it all, it exudes everything that can be great about any horror film, which is manipulating you to the point of fear. This rarely seen film is an exceptional example of that.

This blogger saw this one about fifteen years ago on the TNT channel of all places. As typical for us no-lifers, it was a Friday night, everyone had gone to bed, it was about two in the morning and I was flipping channels. Then I came across this black-and-white movie with this eerie opening scene with an asthmatic psychopath taking the beautiful Lee Remick hostage inside her garage. This struck a cord and immediately grabbed my attention. The scene played out for about three to four minutes in one continuous unbroken shot, with the psycho holding Remick's neck and whispering in her ear, all the while his identity is being hidden within the shadows.

What's amazing about the movie is the director. It's none other than Blake Edwards, who gave us all the original Pink Panther films, The Party, and The Great Race. So it seems quite awkward that a director known for such classic slapstick can make a turn and journey into Hitchcock-like territory, but he does. And it works.

The film involves the asthmatic psychopath (played to the hilt by the awesome Ross Martin) threatening a bank teller played by Remick, as he plans to steal $100,000 from her bank with her cooperation, or he will kidnap her younger sister. Remick manages to contact the police and Superman's dad (Glenn Ford, who plays an investigator here.)

The rest of the movie is the setup for the investigation, and all the twists and turns that the police must wade through, as Ross Martin continues to stay one step ahead of them. Edwards gives us so many set pieces that are so strange and bizarre, you would think that this could've been an early David Lynch film back before he went insane and wore straight-jackets to the office. Yeah, I'm dogging on my favorite film director, but who cares? Everybody else does, and I'm sure he doesn't care. He's probably too busy filming a guy jogging in a rabbit suit, so I'm sure he's got better things to do than listen to me.

As the movie progresses we begin to see just how evil Ross Martin's character "Red Lynch" is. ("Lynch"! There you go.) In my opinion, his portrayal is one of the creepiest in film history, and it's such a shame that not more people have seen the movie to appreciate it.

Henry Mancini's jazzy, yet spooky score adds to the fun, and fits just as well as any Hitchcock-Bernard Herrmann collaboration. It's a great soundtrack, but this blogger was disappointed in the actual CD release as lots of tracks were left off of the disc, in particular the downright chilling growl of music over the Columbia Pictures logo as shown here. (And look closely for an uncanny Lynchian coincidence that is 28 years ahead of its time.)

The climax of the film might be seen by some as a cop-out (Nope. No pun.) But really, it's a satisfying ending. Getting to the end is what the movie is all about. And when the ending surfaces and the credits roll, you know that sometimes in Hollywood, directors can surprise us with something you would never expect of them. Good job, Mr. Edwards. May you rest in peace.

But I still can't forgive you for Son Of The Pink Panther.

The most chilling scene in Experiment In Terror. (Spoilers, of course.)

31 DAYS OF HORROR: DAY #25 - JOHN CARPENTER'S THE THING

2011-10-25T10:58:00.000-07:00

"Nobody trusts anybody now. And we're all very tired..." - R.J. MacReady

The Thing, (1982), Directed by John Carpenter
Grade: A

I am probably going to anger lots of people by saying this, but this is probably my favorite John Carpenter movie. Yes, I think it's better than Halloween. While Halloween most certainly is an important film in its own right in the horror genre, The Thing succeeds every possible way in making terror into an anonymity. The premise of the film is so simple, it could be very easy to turn the movie into an unintentional laughfest. (SAW is a great example of this.)

Plot: Twelve people at a research outpost station in Antarctica discover a parasitic alien being that has the ability to kill any living thing and then copy it perfectly. While this sounds much like a version of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, the premise is handled very differently.

The main thing here (so to speak) that adds so much to the film is the snow, ice, and the cold. It is a character in the film. And Carpenter's camera that pans through the confined spaces and cramped quarters all add the deep, building terror. Kurt Russell's R.J. MacReady leads the group head-on as one of our great "fed-up" actors, and delivers a performance of caliber and raw emotions.

What's great about the movie is that once the alien "thing" takes over, we're not sure who anyone is anymore. I was halfway expecting "Who Are You?" to chime in at any minute over any given scene. And also, Ennio Morricone's foreboding score fits so perfectly with the coldness and the dank interiors of the research station, that it almost feels like the music itself is stalking the characters. The sound design of the outside wind, the rustling of plastic canopies over snow equipment, and even the moving air inside the rooms all make for incredible suspense.

Of course, this is a horror film, so once everything kicks into high gear, the blood and gore ensue. Rob Bottin, the makeup artist, does an incredible job here. It's hard to imagine how the creatures could have looked any other way, now with the advent of CGI (and this blogger has not seen the just-released prequel yet), but the creations that Bottin brings to the screen are just breathtaking and horrifying at the same time.

And who else do we have in the film but Mr. Quaker Oats himself, Wilford Brimley. While his performance of Dr. Blair is subdued throughout most of the movie, once he discovers that the "Thing" can kill enough people to take over the world, he merges into a psychotic rage that would make any of his Liberty Medical commercials seem like pure normalcy.

The film ends on an ambiguous note, which might turn some viewers off, but after seeing what the characters have experienced and all the pieces have fallen into place, it does not seem like there could be any other ending possible. (At least for it to be a satisfying one.)

When released in 1982, The Thing failed to find an audience and did poorly at the box office. This was mostly due to the fact that another alien movie had been released that same summer, and was a smash hit, so therefore Carpenter's masterpiece got lost in the shuffle.

And Reason #32,788 for FUMoR to hate this waste of film.

No matter, Carpenter's vision is the vastly superior film, and that's someTHING I'll take to the grave with me.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #24 - ROSEMARY'S BABY

2011-10-24T12:04:00.000-07:00

"We're your friends, Rosemary!" - Mrs. Gilmore

Rosemary's Baby, (1968), Directed By Roman Polanski
Grade: A+

*This review contains minor spoilers*

Ah yes, the infamous film that is Rosemary's Baby. While many may argue that the film has become a dated joke of what it once was, this blogger sees nothing in it but pure fright and downright terror-stricken symbolism. The film bases its scares on the unseen, and in recent years audiences have become impatient with psychological terror of the mind and instead want immediate gratification with their horror movies.

Rosemary's Baby is all about the buildup, the countdown to the birth of the child. And while this seems like a tedious set-up for a horror movie, it isn't. (And if you have a short attention span, then just go watch Transformers 4: Revenge Of The Fallen Career Of Michael Bay Who Now Lives On The Dark Side Of The Moon.)

Rosemary and Guy Woodhouse move into a high rise apartment in New York, and become acquainted with the strange and mysterious neighbors that live there. At first, they appear harmless, but....and this is where the terror starts to build....we soon realize that there is something quite "off" about these neighbors.

Then Rosemary (who is played to perfection by Mia Farrow) learns that she is pregnant, and what follows is a rollercoaster of psychological horror that only the director Roman Polanski could unfold upon the audience with such sincere yet maniacal prowess.

The superb Ruth Gordon (in an Oscar-winning performance) plays one of the seemingly normal neighbors. At first, she appears to be like that sweet old lady neighbor who brings you cookies and cakes to welcome you to the complex, but then her appearances start to become more and more of an annoyance, until soon it becomes clear that she (and her friends) are definitely not what they seem.

But the key to whole film is Farrow. There would be no movie without her. And, in one of the most terrifying moments of the film, when she informs her husband, Guy (John Cassavetes) that "She feels the baby moving inside her" and starts crying tears of joy, brings forth a sense of such sheer creepiness that this blogger had to stop the movie for a second a take a breath before continuing.

When the outcome is finally revealed, Polanski does an interesting thing, which is to not show the baby after its birth. To have done so would have lowered the psychological suspense and, in a way, cheated the audience. While there may be lots of viewers who disagree, the film is really not about WHAT the baby is or what it looks like, but the effect it has on these characters. Their reactions are far more stronger and eerie than showing a result of what the baby is or the ugliness of evil that it contains. And in the end, Mia Farrow's final expression of when she realizes that above all, she is the baby's mother, brings the film to such a satisfying conclusion that you realize it could not have ended any other way.

Rosemary's Baby is one of my favorite horror movies, because it takes its time in its buildup. We feel Polanski stretching our emotions to such strong limits, we are ready to snap at any second. Of course, when showing the movie to a mainstream audience today, I seriously doubt its effect would be as powerful as it was 43 years ago. But again, we've changed as a society, and this blogger seriously hopes that Hollywood will not turns its eye towards this Polanski masterpiece and do their evil bidding of a remake.

Yeah, right.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #23 - THE DESCENT

2011-10-23T11:16:00.000-07:00

"Hey, there's something down here..." - Holly

The Descent, (2005), Directed by Neil Marshall
Grade: A

For the rock climbers and cave explorers in this film, claustrophobia is the least of their worries. Director Neil Marshall brilliantly channels (and yes, I will say it), the great Alfred Hitchcock in this horror film filled with unbearable suspense and terror. While "Hitch" never made a monster movie throughout his illustrious career (unless you count The Birds as one), the filmmaking aspects of The Descent, carefully conceived, reminded this blogger somewhat of Rear Window.

The story involves a cave expedition of several young females. They end up becoming trapped in said cave due to a tunnel collapse, and must then fight for their lives against...well, some....things. And that's all I can say without giving too much away.

When this blogger first saw Rear Window, there was an unsettling feeling being brushed upon the audience by Hitchcock. A sense of dread, not knowing what to expect, and the final confrontation between good and evil.. All of these are present in The Descent, while leaving the viewer (and the characters), gasping for breath.

What's even more amazing is that the cave scenes in the film appear so realistic, you would not be able to tell that they are an actual set, which is also what Hitchcock did with Rear Window, and constructed a full apartment courtyard on the Paramount lot where filming took place.

There is so much going on in The Descent that makes it creepy and terrifying that it's hard to believe how simply crafted the film is.

While one could argue that The Descent and Rear Window have nothing in common (and they ARE two totally different films), they both use encased surroundings as their means of conveying suspense. Jimmy Stewart was confined to a wheelchair due to a broken leg and his "cave" (so to speak) is the courtyard complex outside his apartment window. He is, in a sense, trapped. The women in The Descent experience similar confines, but they are in an actual cave (well, a set of a cave), that limits their capabilities to seeing what is around each corner and desperately trying to find a pathway to freedom. Like Hitchcock's movie, The Descent's main characters continually have one goal: to find out just what is going on; and with the darkness that surrounds them at every turn, the suspense becomes unbearable.

Of course, unlike Hitchcock's film, The Descent establishes itself as a true horror movie with the standard violence and blood, which one might see as a turn-off. It shouldn't, because it's such an elegantly crafted film of unrelenting suspense and terror, and is probably one of the best horror movies of the last ten years.

And for those interested in other work by Neil Marshall, check out his debut Dog Soldiers, which offers an original twist on the werewolf genre, WITHOUT CGI!

31 Days Of Horror: Day #22 - THE EXORCIST III: LEGION

2011-10-22T11:38:00.000-07:00

"I have dreams... of a rose, and then of falling down a long flight of steps." - Patient X

The Exorcist III: Legion, (1990), Directed by William Peter Blatty

Grade: A

Once again, General George S. Patton enters the realm of the supernatural and fights off demons. Suffice to say, this blogger thinks this film is superior to The Exorcist. Yes, that's a horror classic, but Exorcist III delves deeper into the subconscious, and provides numerous scares that are ultimately more terrifying.

First, we must forget about the laughfest that was Exorcist II. That film was pure camp and actually if taken as a comedic exercise isn't that hard to sit through. Exorcist III picks up fifteen years after the original Exorcist, with Lt. Kinderman (George C. Scott) investigating the murders of a serial killer that seem to have a dark, religious motive.

The events that take place soon bring forth demonic forces that were present in the original film, as the serial killer claims to be by the original demon that took over Regan MacNeil fifteen years earlier, exacting revenge by possessing patients in a psychiatric ward and having them commit murders. (Got all that?)

What follows is an exercise in cinematic scares, including a scene in the hospital which is so cleverly constructed and set up, and it builds and builds until.....well, watch the movie.

Exorcist III was written and directed by William Peter Blatty, the writer of the original novel and film, and is one of the reasons why the movie works so well. Blatty's original source material is what allows Exorcist III to unfold so cleverly. Blatty knows these characters better than anybody, so his vision makes for a satisfying horror film that wouldn't have worked with another director. George C. Scott plays his part well, although some may argue echoes of Jack Nicholson's performance in The Shining, which was accused of being over-the-top. No matter, Scott gives a well-rounded performance that works. Scenes are eerily set up where we as the audience can feel the terror and experience the dread that is oozing out through each scene.

Of course, when released in 1990, the film was a critical flop and was quickly disregarded. Also, certain scenes were dropped and the studio, after viewing Blatty's first cut, wanted a scene added involving an actual exorcism so as to market the film properly. (Originally, there was NOT one present in the first cut.)

This is a shame, because over time Exorcist III has become a cult classic of sorts, and has stayed within the horror oeuvre as a sort of a curiosity piece. It's a movie that contains everything needed in a horror film, which allows for its audience to experience terror first-hand. Sadly, Blatty's original version is said be lost, so we may never actually see what could have been.

But no matter, what remains is an excellent horror film and you get to see Patton face off against the voice of Chucky, so that's a winner in my book.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #21 - THE OMEN (1976)/(2006)

2011-10-21T13:00:00.000-07:00

"Have no fear, little one...I am here to protect thee." - Mrs. Baylock

The Omen, (1976)/(2006), Directed by Richard Donner/John Moore
Both Films - Grade: A

There's always been a classy filmmaking aspect about The Omen that has made it one of my favorite horror films. Perhaps it's the plotline about the existence of evil and how much power it has over the world if it is not fought against, or the presentation of Satan incarnate as a young child.

Whatever it is, the presentation given on film of The Omen makes for great horror cinema. The set design, the cinematography, the eerie Oscar-winning music by Jerry Goldsmith, and all the performances contribute. And strangely enough, as hard as it is for the blogger to admit, the 2006 remake of The Omen is just as well done as the original.

Robert Thorn and Katherine Thorn are the proud parents of a young baby boy. The problem is, this boy is the son of Satan and has plans to take over the human race and unleash a never-ending reign of terror across the world. With Robert Thorn as a U.S. ambassador to Great Britain, this adds an element of spookiness among the political world and the elements that surround it.

Both films use to an extent identical approaches. Scenes are basically the same and the plot is the same. However, while the original was a masterpiece, the 2006 version also establishes itself as the same, but without ruining any of the power the original had.

As I've said, I hate it when remakes are just remakes for the sake of making a quick buck and trying to be "hip", and with the box-office failure of the 2006 Omen, I guess this is one instance where I'm glad it failed. With a remake, all producers want to do is "make it cool" for the young crowd and draw in all the audiences they can. While this is all well and good I guess for Hollywood, it diminishes from the quality, and usually we end up getting something that will easily be discarded as nothing. (Psycho remake anyone?)

With The Omen, something different happened. The remake was a flop, nobody saw it, and many critics continually bashed it. And basically, if this had been the first time the film had been released and it wasn't remake, it probably would have been hailed as a great horror flick with tons of originality.

To be sure, that's the way I felt about the remake. It's a great film. Every little detail is handled carefully. There are even some parts that are added that do not deter or ruin anything about the film, such as the still from the following scene:

Perhaps the case being that the camera does not linger on this image for very long, and it could very well be subliminal. That's what makes the scene work. It creeps into your mind and stays with you, all the while in front of you the movie continues to unfold on the screen. It's little touches like this that make the remake just as memorable as the original.

While many may feel that screen legend Gregory Peck could not be replaced as Robert Thorn, Liev Schreiber does a commendable job and even evokes (in an eerie way), the persona of Peck. Julia Stiles was criticized by many viewers as being too young for the part of Katherine. I disagree. While it would have been interesting to see what an actress such as say, Naomi Watts could have done with the role (and I wouldn't complain about that, and neither would Schreiber), Stiles' performance works very well, and exhibits all the inhibitions of a mother and a terrified woman on the brink of madness.

Then of course, there is Damien himself, played by two very different child actors (Harvey Stephens and Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick), but both performances are of equal, where both actors play Damien with a subtle wit and an unusual sense of silent malice.

The Omen films are classics. I even liked the two sequels to the original. And whereas I don't think we'll be getting a sequel to the remake any time soon, it's refreshing to know that there are some parts of the industry that want to retain filmmaking as a true art form and not just an excuse for a quick cash grab. More recently, another remake that was every bit as good as the original was Let Me In, which you can read my review for here.

In the meantime, sit back and enjoy one of the greatest horror films ever made. It's something scary that will give any episode of Toddlers And Tiaras a run for its money.

1976 Trailer:

2006 Teaser Trailer (which is actually Davey-Fitzpatrick's screen test):

31 Days Of Horror: Day #20 - PARANORMAL ACTIVITY/PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2

2011-10-20T10:44:00.000-07:00

Paranormal Activity/Paranormal Activity 2, (2009)/(2010), Directed by Oren Peli/Tod Williams
Collective Grade: B+

Today, yours truly is fighting a massive cold/sore throat that was probably unleashed upon him by some spirits of the underworld. As such, take in my past review of the Paranormal Activity movies to gear up for Part 3 which is released in the cineplexes tomorrow.

See you folks later. Watch out for evil pool cleaners. (For the uninitiated, that's a reference to Part 2.)

31 Days Of Horror: Day #19 - EVIL DEAD 2: DEAD BY DAWN

2011-10-19T11:17:00.000-07:00

"Groovy." - Ash

Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn, (1987), Directed by Sam Raimi
Grade: B+

As I mentioned the other day, Tremors was a comedy with horror elements. Evil Dead 2 is a horror movie stuffed with comedic elements. And what a ride it is. The young folks who are only familiar with the director Sam Raimi as "that guy who made the Spider-Man movies" have missed out on where he got his start.

Of course, this is a sequel to The Evil Dead, but unfortunately the original Evil Dead wasn't that great of a movie, and Evil Dead 2 is basically just an Evil Dead Redux with a slightly bigger budget and with different actors except for the main character Ash, played by the always iconic Bruce Campbell.

The movie, such as it is, is what would happen if a blood-and-guts horror movie were made like a Warner Brothers cartoon. The simplicity of the plot is so borderline ridiculous, you wonder how a full-length movie could ever be made out of it:

A clueless idiot named Ash fights evil demons in a cabin in the woods.

That's it. You mention that plotline to any horror fanatic and they will know instantly what movie you are referring to. The rest of the film is just an excuse for Raimi and Co. to reach into their crazy bag o'tricks and throw any pun, joke, or stylized slapstick at you. It also gives Raimi the opportunity to pay homage to his favorite comedy trio, The Three Stooges.

The film's low budget does show, however. This was 1987, and CGI was just beginning. A year before with the Spielberg-produced Young Sherlock Holmes, the first CGI image was rendered on film, but here in ED 2, we still get the stop-motion animation of demons, zombies, and other evil apparitions. Strangely enough, it works for the film. With the movie's cartoonish persona, it seems unlikely that CGI-generated effects would have fit as well with the film's tone and mood.

In the end, the film sets itself up for the final chapter in this horror-trilogy, with Ash being sucked through a portal and travelling back in time to fight demons once again, but with knights, wizards, and warriors. The sequel was titled Army Of Darkness, but what was Raimi's original title? The Medieval Dead.

Is Evil Dead 2 a great film? Probably not, but it's great fun, and sometimes that's just as important.

Although, I think Jack Black would state otherwise:

And for an example of the film's no-holds-barred, tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness, look no further than the following scene:

31 Days Of Horror: Day #18 - NIGHTMARE AT 20,000 FEET (1983)

2011-10-18T10:14:00.000-07:00

"There's a man on the wing of this plane!" - John Valentine

"Nightmare At 20,000 Feet" - 4th segment from Twilight Zone: The Movie, (1983), Directed by George Miller

Grade: A

This is a cheat, I know. I'm reviewing just PART of a movie? Well, it's because while I like 80% of the entire film (the Spielberg segment is just horrible), this is the only one deserving of being in a Halloween post. And it's the best story in the entire movie.

Again written by one of my favorite authors, Richard Matheson, "Nightmare At 20,000 Feet" was originally done for the Twilight Zone TV series, involving an irate airline passenger who sees a gremlin on the wing of an airplane, but can't get anybody to believe him. That version starred Captain Kirk and a fuzzy but evil teddy bear.

"GAHH!! This is the last time I use Priceline.com!!!"

While the original version of this story provided for a memorable TZ episode, the results were more campy than scary, and Shatner's trademark emoting was what provided most of the scares (not in a good way), while the Teddy Ruxpin on the wing generated more laughs than creep-outs. Matheson said in an interview during the time that the episode aired that the interpretation of his story was a disappointment of sorts.

Then in 1983, when a TZ revival happened with the movie, director George Miller went back and re-did the story, with impressive results. John Lithgow replaced Shatner, and the gremlin was turned into a real "monster" with hellish, demon-like qualities.

"GAHH!! This is the last time I visit the 3rd Rock From The Sun!!!"

While both versions tell the same story, George Miller's vision evokes the most scares. The thunderous rain outside the plane with constant lightning screeching across the sky at almost every single second, along with the sound design of noises throughout the plane's cabin and the eerie visuals of Lithgow's John Valentine seeing the monster outside the window, produce a sheer terror that wasn't present in the original.

Also, the main highlight here outside of Lithgow's incredible performance is Jerry Goldsmith's magnificent score. This soundtrack CD was a highly sought-after collectible back in the day for this geeky blogger and his soundtrack friends. We went on massive flea market and dusty book store bin hunts for this score. (I ended up finding the cassette, but didn't buy it, which I really regretted later).

The score is fantastic, not just for this segment but for the entire film. However, if it wasn't for Goldsmith's masterful vision, this "Nightmare" would not have had the impact it had. It's an extremely spooky piece of music. Just watch the beginning of this clip and listen as the music builds and the subtleties in Lithgow's face that make his performance incredible as he slips into total madness.

The segment has always been called the best story of the TZ movie, which is in a way unfortunate because while the other stories, save for Spielberg's, had spooky TZ qualities about them, none of them packed the wallop that this one did.

This is another reason why I love the anthology format. It's proof that a good story can be told on film in just 20 minutes or less, and the results can be just the same as watching zombies devour brains and innards, or watching a ghost take over a family's house on a security camera.

And of course, the story let us have this great little joke:

31 Days Of Horror: Day #17 - TREMORS

2011-10-17T10:23:00.000-07:00

"That's why Edgar never got down off that damn tower." - Val McKee

Tremors, (1990) Directed by Ron Underwood
Grade: A -

Not all horror movies are disgusting and ugly. Sometimes they can just be fun. Tremors is nothing more than just an enjoyable comedy with horror elements. And that can be just as entertaining as watching Linda Blair vomit pea soup.

I never saw this in the theater. I saw the trailers and instantly thought it looked 100% stupid. I had surmised that "Man, Kevin Bacon must be hurtin' for a paycheck. I guess those Footloose residuals have finally run out." When it was released on video, I never bothered with it. Then one day when I was in my oh-so-awesome high school chemistry class, a fellow classmate said, "Have you seen that awesome killer worms movie with Kevin Bacon?"

No, I can't say that I had. So I had the curiosity seed planted in my brain (not difficult since there's a lot of empty space in it), and I went to the video store and took it home and watched it.

Boy, was I wrong. This is a great movie! Even those people who don't like horror films could probably stomach this one. The main thing that makes the movie work are the performances by Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward portraying handymen Val and Earl.

Bacon and Ward give a duo performance that bounces off each actor with Abbott And Costello-like skill. No, they're not performing comedy skits left and right, but the rapport between the actors is incredible and what made Bud and Lou (and now Kevin and Fred) memorable. Plus, Bacon had already proved his horror skills in the original Friday The 13th ten years earlier.

Of course, then you have the main element in the film that all of us horror fans want to see. Bring on the monsters! The sleepy town of Perfection, Nevada starts to be overrun with underground seismic activity and of course all the residents have to band together to stop the newly discovered species, GRABOIDS!


"Perhaps if I just stay still I'll be mistaken for the Paramount logo."

The Graboids are giant-man (and woman) eating worms with an attitude. They are a memory of the B-film monsters of the 50's such as Bert I. Gordon's Earth vs. The Spider, or Robert Lippert's Lost Continent. With that in mind, remember that the Graboids are supposed to look cheesy and ridiculous, and with the low-budget that Universal provided for Tremors, that works out just fine. (But it is still the opinion of this blogger that the effects look much better than anything purposely CGI-lambasted in any Transformers movie.)

Add in Michael Gross (Family Ties' Steven Keaton!) and Reba McEntire (What?!?) and you have an entire 96 minutes of pure ridiculousness and fun.

It never won any pristine awards, and I'm assuming after 21 years it probably never will, but Tremors establishes itself as a true B-movie horror/comedy classic and is a film that everyone on earth should see at least once.

Plus, I believe this is the only format of digital media that this blogger owns that has Reba McEntire on it.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #16 - CARNIVAL OF SOULS

2011-10-16T07:51:00.000-07:00

Carnival Of Souls, (1962), Directed By Herk Harvey
Grade: B+

First let me say that yes, I know this is a cheesy movie. The budget was restrained (an approximate $33,000) so we're going to get something Ed Wood-ish here. Of course, that was by 1962 standards, so when inflation-adjusted for 2011, it can be seen as almost a quarter-million dollars. (I believe that's how much Nicole Kidman's monogrammed towels cost for her dressing room.)

Even MST3K's Michael J. Nelson did a commentary on one of the many DVD releases. The difference between this movie and an Ed Wood movie is that while the acting and direction may not be first-rate, the cinematography and set design are amazing, something that Ol' Ed didn't even seem to bother with so as long as he got something on film to yell "Print it!" to. Carnival Of Souls has also been cited as a major influence for David Lynch, this blogger's favorite director.

The film has been in the public domain for years, so that means any Joe Schmo company could rip this movie off the internet and burn it onto a DVD and sell it. It's also found its way onto late night TV viewings, as I believe I saw it advertised on one of Elvira's Movie Marathons.

For those unfamiliar, the story involves a young woman (Candace Hilligoss) who is in a car crash due to drag race which opens the film, and the aftermath of her survival when the car she was in inadvertently drives off a bridge and into a lake below. She appears unharmed, but soon starts to experience visions of a strange powder-faced apparition following her, played menacingly by director Herk Harvey himself. Hilligoss is also constantly drawn to a boardwalk containing a rundown carnival where other nightmarish visions appear.

The best DVD to see is the Criterion version, which is really the only way to watch the film in a remastered print that doesn't make it look like it was recorded off of a 1980's TV with aluminum foil-wrapped rabbit ears. The Criterion DVD presents two versions, one with a few more minutes of footage that doesn't really add or detract from the viewing experience.

Most of all, the film's dream-like, lush camerawork is intact with the ever-so-creepy organ music adding a chilling feel to the proceedings. For a modest budget, the director Herk Harvey accomplishes a sense of dread with great skill. Of course the "B-movie" feel is always lurking over the film, but in a way in adds to the creepiness. (Harvey was a director of educational shorts and even took the helm for an episode of "Reading Rainbow". I wonder how he got along with Geordi La Forge?)

Carnival Of Souls is somewhat of a cultural icon in the history of film. A major influence on many directors including as mentioned, Lynch, and also George A. Romero, and praised by Stephen King....the film is an excellent example of what can be done on a small, industrialist budget. Of course, some could say the same thing about a "project" involving a certain witch. Although this movie does not include a sobbing, overacted on-camera apology.

That would be needed for any Ed Wood film.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #15 - CANDYMAN

2011-10-15T13:39:00.000-07:00

"It was always you, Helen." - The Candyman

Candyman, (1992), Directed by Bernard Rose

Grade: A

About as far away from the song that became Sammy Davis Jr.'s trademark, Candyman is a traditional full-blown horror flick. Penned by Clive Barker from his short story "The Forbidden", the film deals with an urban legend that spills over into reality, and the horrifying consequences that ensue.

The always lovely Virginia Madsen plays Helen, a graduate student that begins a study on local urban myths and legends. Her research leads her to the story of Candyman, an artist who was a plantation slave's son that was rebelled against by locals, and was killed in a bizarre death ritual which resulted in his hand being replaced with a hook. The legend involves saying his name five times while looking in a mirror and he will appear to enact revenge, usually resulting in the death of whoever has summoned him.

What follows is the definition of a horror film. All the elements are here: blood, gore, violence, screams, and some of the best music ever written for a horror movie by Classicist composer Philip Glass. The movie prides itself by not bowing to the usual horror cliches and becoming another "dead teenager movie" (Thank you, Roger Ebert for that terminology).

I saw this movie in the theater, and I remember the impact of hearing Philip Glass' music blasting away throughout the film and how it actually BECAME part of the story. It was an actual character in the film. Most likely, Candyman would not have been nearly as effective without it, as evidenced in this track which still invokes chills whenever I hear it:

The film spawned two lame-ass sequels, which were a huge insult to the original, but as always in the movies, especially in the horror genre, building a franchise is always a hopeful for the producers. New Line Cinema wouldn't even EXIST today if it wasn't for Freddy Krueger, and sadly....Lionsgate might still be a low-end indie production company if it wasn't for that idiot Jigsaw.

But whatever, I highly recommend Candyman. It's a great horror film that stays with you and taps deep into the emotional psyche, and the direction and production values are first-rate, along with Tony Todd giving the performance that would make him famous among the horror community.

And I shall now end this post with the most cliched, boring, and most over-used line that any film critic says when giving his positive review of a horror movie:

"Watch this one alone at night with the lights out."

Ugh. That's all I could come up with? Not too sweet.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #14 - THE CHANGELING

2011-10-14T10:54:00.000-07:00

The Changeling, (1980), Directed by Peter Medak
Grade: A -

First off, no...this is not that Dirty Harry-directed drama starring one-half of "Brangelina". In the words of comedian David Cross: "Totally different thing, totally different thing."

This is an elegant haunted house thriller starring Oscar-rejector extraordinaire George C. Scott. And also, this isn't a movie for you short-attention span people. The pacing is deliberately slow and there aren't any loud explosions...except for Scott's trademark yelling, which I believe is where Al Pacino found his niche, at S.C.A.H. (the George C. Scott "School of Creative Audible Hollering".)

The Changeling's opening prologue is essential to the rest of the film. Music composer John Russell (Scott) suffers a horrific family tragedy and decides to rent out an old mansion to put his life back together to find some sort of solace. As it turns out, the house has a history. (Don't all of these houses have one?) Scott starts seeing things, hearing noises at night, and witnessing bouncing rubber balls effortlessly finding their way downstairs with all the skill of a toy Slinky.


"But the morning sun isn't shining around here!"

(*Note: For an explanation of the above caption...go here.)

For the most part, the obvious question of "Why doesn't he just leave?", seems appropriate. But after the film's beginning sequence, it becomes clear that Scott's character can't leave. The house is his goal in life. He wants to figure out what is going on because it gives him a purpose, albeit a very bizarre one. Scott soon discovers that the mansion is linked to a senator, played by the always wonderfully eerie Melvyn Douglas.

I can't say much more without spoiling everything, but I will say that this is a true definition of the genre "psychological horror". It challenges the viewer to solve the mystery. There aren't any serial killers running around with machetes, there aren't stagehands standing by with buckets of red Karo syrup to splatter on walls when a person is stabbed, and there aren't any Netherworld monsters emerging from Hell to write the next script (script?) for the newest Michael Bay movie.

The Changeling sets itself apart from most haunted house movies as being elegant. It's a superbly crafted thriller, and one of George C. Scott's greatest performances. Mr. Scott would also emerge again 10 years later in another overlooked horror film that this blogger considers great, but that post will be forthcoming.

*Strange-but-true fact: I avoided seeing this film for years because I misread the title thinking it was "The Challenging", which I thought was really lame. Perhaps I thought there was some sports connotation connected to it, and I thought George C. was going to challenge the spirits of evil to an all-out fight.

Maybe he thought he had a chance.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #13 - DEVIL

2011-10-13T10:51:00.000-07:00

Sorry folks, Thursday is treating me like Monday around here at work, so I'm going to have recycle this old review for the horror movie of the day.

As you know, the film is more psychological than horror, but its premise is the stuff that Twilight Zone fans like me love.

Back tomorrow with a new review.

31 Days Of Horror - Day #12 - SUSPIRIA

2011-10-12T10:34:00.000-07:00

Suspiria, (1977), Directed by Dario Argento

Grade: A -

Suspiria is a "love it or hate it" film. I really don't think there's any in-between. I can't imagine anybody who can look at the works of Dario Argento and just say, "Eh, that was pretty good, but nothing great." Argento, who after his debut film The Bird With The Crystal Plumage was dubbed "The Italian Alfred Hitchcock", has a style that he has made all his own, as it's most notably been called the "Giallo Genre" for film. Suspiria has strong use of colors and art direction that Argento has used fully in his other films such as Deep Red and Opera.

The story of concerns a young woman moving to a ballet academy and the strange events that start occurring there. Sound familiar?

Yes, I'm sure Aronofsky was influenced somewhat by Suspiria, but Black Swan was nowhere near the vicinity of Suspiria at all. (That's the Suspiria theme being played over this TV ad. The Academy Of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences bought the rights to it and made this ad during Oscar season.)

Personally, I have to say this: Suspiria's plot is pretty thin. Basically the film is just a set-up for the beautiful cinematography and the creepy set design, and the chaos that ensues. Sounds boring, I know....but Argento allows his camera to be at a complete 360 here and with his style of direction, and with the incredibly horrific soundtrack by Goblin, the movie works more so as a play in several acts than just a movie itself. Nowadays in horror films, everyone wants the gore piled on, and while there are some scenes of that in Suspiria, it still stands out as something different, because of the way it looks and feels.

Argento's style is incredible, and while the movie was made in 1977, the obscurity, the build-up, and the kitschy imagery really make the movie what it is, which is a different sort of horror classic.

And I just noticed...not too many sarcastic, fed-up sentences in this review. Guess I'll have to do better next time.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #11 - THE FOG (1980)

2011-10-11T10:14:00.000-07:00

"Hey, there's a fog bank out there!" - Drunk Sailor #2

Note: Today's post will be sparse, due to other commitments I can't avoid, namely...work. (I usually post these reviews during my lunch breaks, which is short today.)

The Fog, 1980, Directed by John Carpenter
Grade: A -

As much as I love the original Halloween, John Carpenter's spooky ghost story The Fog about the revenge of evil apparitions that descend upon the sleepy waterfront town of Antonio Bay has always been a better film to me. (Yes, I just said that.)

I really like this film. It's atmospheric and it's creepy. The special effects are clever. (A fog machine was used, and the film was then run backwards in some scenes to show the illusion that the fog was following the residents through the town.) Ah, the days before CGI.

Old pros such as Janet Leigh and Hal Holbrook contribute their talents, as well as Adrienne Barbeau and Janet Leigh's daughter, Jamie Lee Curtis. While not the greatest acting ensemble ever, they are all are just perfect for this low-budget ghost story.

GAH! The monster! Oh, wait...that's just Mr. Carpenter.

The great John Houseman (not doing a Smith Barney commercial), opens the film with the ghost story legend that will set up the plot. It's an eerie opening sequence, heightened just perfectly by what I believe to be John Carpenter's best score he's ever done for any of his films.

The film was panned upon release, with critics (I'm assuming here), wanting a better follow-up to Halloween. Whatever, the film works on so many levels of scares, so it ended up to this blogger being a perfect follow-up. Watch this one on a rainy night with the lights out and enjoy cheesy B-movie goodness.

Just don't get Mrs. Kobritz to baby-sit for your kids.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #10 - SEVEN

2011-10-10T10:26:00.000-07:00

"This isn't going to have a happy ending." - Detective William Somerset

Seven, (1995), Directed by David Fincher

Grade: A+

It's a masterpiece. David Fincher's film about the inner workings of a homicide department and the serial killer it must bring down recalls everything remembered from gritty cop crime thrillers of the 70's and gives homages to the great direction of past masters like Friedkin, Penn, and Lumet.

While not considered full-blown horror, this incredible film makes its way onto this list for a simple reason: it's virtuoso filmmaking. I don't care if you get your kicks from watching Law And Order or even CSI: Whatever-The-Hell-City-It Is-This-Week, this is ultimate crime thriller storytelling all the way.

For those who have been hiding out with the Kardashians for the last year and therefore have had all the oxygen sucked from your brains due to being around pure stupidity, the story of Seven concerns a serial killer (aptly named simply "John Doe") who murders his victims via the way of the seven deadly sins, and the two homicide detectives who are assigned to the case.

It's not a happy subject. It's not a smiley Romper Room story. It's bleak and it's gritty, it's bloody and it's desolate, but more than anything it's fascinating to watch. And while Seven is most certainly not a movie for all tastes, even for those who end up hating it, you have to admit...it's a clever premise, elegantly told.

As the story unfolds, you seem to think that the horror can't get any worse, and then it does. And at the same time, as much as you may want to look away, you can't, and that "edge-of-your-seat" suspense takes you over, and you're glaring at the screen in bewilderment.

Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt take on their roles as the two detectives masterfully, and after it's all over, you can't think of any other actors playing these characters. Sure, we've got the dogged, retiring cop and the young, smart-assed rookie as his partner that we've seen countless times before, but Freeman and Pitt make the concept work and seem fresh and new. The direction of David Fincher makes you completely forget the problems he had with his previous film Alien 3 (although this blogger liked it), and instead shows immediately his skills a major Hollywood talent. The dark streets and rainy locales all add to the film's feel of menace, and the subjective camerawork gives hints that all will not end well...but for who?

The strange thing is, I wasn't interested in seeing this movie all. When I saw the trailer, I immediately thought, "Oh...here we go again. Same old, same old." But then, my brother came to me and said, "No, man....you gotta see it. In the THEATER. It's THAT good."

For the average viewer, it's a tough film to watch. Many will find the violence unsettling, and the set pieces absolutely horrifying, but that's the point of the film. It's rated "R" for a reason. And just when you think you've seen it all, Fincher and screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker reach into their bag of tricks and throw another surprise at you.

Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman attend a screening of the latest Woody Allen film.

Now, I'm sure for you readers many of you may say, "OK, we get it! You like the movie! Shut up!" This is why I don't think I could ever be a film critic professionally. Nobody wants to listen to you. People must decide for themselves whether or not they ultimately want to watch a movie or not, and could care less about blogging cynics like yours truly telling them what's good and what isn't, but I'm here to tell you, if you haven't ever seen it, see Seven. And for those viewers who worry that the final climax may present itself as ambiguous, don't worry. The movie has a beginning, a middle, and an end. In other words, there will be no Seven 2. (Or is that Seventy-Two?)

31 Days Of Horror: Day #9 - WES CRAVEN'S NEW NIGHTMARE

2011-10-09T10:08:00.000-07:00

"Miss me?" - Freddy Krueger

Wes Craven's New Nightmare, (1994), Directed by Wes Craven

I'll probably get a lot of hate for this, but I like 1994 Krueger better than 1984 Krueger. Don't get me wrong, the original A Nightmare On Elm Street is a great film, mostly because it introduced a horror character that had a personality and wasn't just a silent killing machine like our pals Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, and Leatherface.

There's just something about Wes Craven's 1994 re-visitation that I like better. Perhaps it's the cool new Freddy outfit, complete with a long trenchcoat, a cool felt green fedora, the razor-sharp new glove and combat boots, or the slick art direction and the clever script. Quite possibly however, it gives us just a glimpse of what it could have been like had Craven waited 10 years and given us Freddy Krueger in the 90's instead of the 80's. To be honest, Freddy Krueger re-defined 80's horror, so I think that's where his iconic status should remain, but it sure is cool to just wonder what 90's cinema would have been like had we gotten Mr. Krueger a decade later.

This is what happens to people when they don't watch my directorial debut "976-EVIL"!

You all should know the story by now: all the actors from the original Nightmare play themselves in this film, and suddenly without warning, the characters they play on-screen pass over into reality, resulting in a cool retro horror showdown.

For all the non-horror fans reading this (What? People read this blog?), perhaps you may think that the series of Nightmare films are all the same. In the early stages, they were good, but after Part 4, it seems like they got progressively worse. (Don't even get me started on that pile of horse dung that was Freddy's Dead.)....."No screamin' while the bus is in motion!!!" Ugh. Really....Roseanne and Tom Arnold in cameos? Desperate much??

At the end of that movie, we all knew that Freddy wasn't REALLY dead. The powers-that-be at New Line were just biding their time to bring him back....and the only person that could really do it right, was Freddy's creator.

It's my favorite Nightmare film. From the cool "no opening credits" beginning sequence, the freeway scene with a Krueger clone-mob, and even this cool trailer that doesn't even really show Freddy in it AT ALL. (Suspenseful marketing done well.) I'll always be grateful to Wes Craven for returning to the franchise and making his iconic character more awesome than he's ever been. Yes, Mr. Krueger, we have missed you.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #8 - BURNT OFFERINGS

2011-10-08T09:25:00.000-07:00

Burnt Offerings, 1976, Directed by Dan Curtis
Grade: B+

I really have to be honest here: I'm a big fan of Dan Curtis. Tim Burton is finishing up post-production on his version of Curtis's 60's horror soap opera "Dark Shadows" (a show I have never seen...so I guess that cancels out my Curtis Fan status, yes?)

Curtis produced the original high-rated TV movie, "The Night Stalker" and directed its sequel, "The Night Strangler" both of which are considered by this blogger to be true TV-horror classics.

Burnt Offerings is another of my favorite haunted house movies, a film that I thought at one time was a made-for-TV movie, simply because I saw a commercial for it on a breezy Sunday afternoon, and was intrigued..however, for whatever reason, I only watched like 30 minutes of it and never finished it.

It wasn't until years later when I rented the film from the local Turtle's that I began to appreciate its sheer creepiness...and that's not just because of Oliver Reed's completely wacko performance.

The movie (based on a novel of the same name) most definitely looks like a film from the 70's. Washed out colors and bland art direction abounds...is it just me or did every movie in the 70's look like someone spilled beer on the film stock? (Thank you, Tom Servo for that line.) Anyway, none of this deters from the film's greatness. The entire movie seems to look like one big long hallucination as experienced by the residents of this most unusual mansion.

As a Blues Brother reject, "The Chauffeur" found gigs only singing and smiling in haunted mansions overrun with campy over-actors.

Karen Black continues her pace as the woman slowly slipping into madness, with just a touch of camp added to her performance. Oliver Reed as always looks like he's had one too many and is phoning in his acting skills, but that's the fun of this film. Add in the always wacky Bette Davis, the original Penguin himself (Weh! Wehhh!) ...Burgess Meredith, and the scariest looking chauffeur-in-sunglasses you will ever see, and you have a recipe for a wonderful night of scares.

Dan Curtis slowly builds his direction to an unexpected ending climax, which was altered ever-so-slightly due to the fact that Curtis and the producers didn't like the ending of the book.

No matter, Burnt Offerings is a fun film and one of the great creepy camp classics.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #7 - INSIDIOUS

2011-10-07T08:10:00.000-07:00

Insidious, 2011, Directed by James Wan
Grade: A -

A great horror flick from the creators of SAW? And it's PG-13?? What? This is not my beautiful house! This is not my beautiful wife!!

I saw this a couple of months ago, as I didn't get the chance to make it to the theater to experience it first-hand. (I thusly avoided the screaming and whooting of college frat-boys and their girlfriends whining, "Wherrre's Edwaarrrrd Cullennnnn?")

Darth Maul proves to be trouble on the set as he can't even get through one take without laughing.

James Wan tips his hat to the great Italian horror maestro Dario Argento with the title "INSIDIOUS" plastered across the screen with colorful lighting effects and a blaring string orchestra. It reminded me so much of Argento's brilliant Suspiria, another film that will probably make it onto this countdown before the end of the month.

The movie takes a different approach to the whole haunted house cliche, and this time, audiences can't ask: "Why don't those stupid idiots just LEAVE??" The story is turned on its ear as the true terror unfolds, and if you ever were terrified by Tiny Tim's rendition of "Tiptoe Through The Tulips", this movie drives that point home effortlessly.

I can't give very much away, other than saying that I was intrigued by the film's gorgeous cinematography and a strong supporting role by Barbara Hershey (so much better here than in Black Swan).. so let me just say that this a great film. I was quite surprised considering the source of where it came from. Although, James Wan also directed another movie that liked called Dead Silence, which was about evil dolls and ventriloquist's dummies. When I was nine, I was given a Charlie McCarthy dummy for Christmas, and I wanted to start up a show and be the next Edgar Bergen or Jeff Dunham, but that didn't pan out...so maybe my fascination for evil puppets is a result of that. Who knows?

31 Days Of Horror: Day #6 - DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004)

2011-10-06T10:16:00.000-07:00

Dawn Of The Dead, (2004), Directed by Zack Snyder

Grade: A -

I really have to be honest here: I'm not a fan of George Romero. Yes, he made the zombie genre famous with Night Of The Living Dead, but to me that movie really wasn't all that great to begin with. The only 2 movies that he's directed that I have liked are Creepshow and The Dark Half. Other than that, his movies kinda bore me.

...Which is the way I felt about the original Dawn Of The Dead. It bored me. I couldn't tell you one memorable thing that I remember from it other than zombies walking through a shopping mall. Roger Ebert loves it and considers it a classic. Um, ok. I like reading Ebert's reviews, but sometimes he can confuse me. (3 stars for the remake of The Honeymooners? Rog, come on!)

Like I said, I was bored with the original Dawn Of The Dead, so when the remake was released in 2004, I wasn't really that interested in seeing it. However, my curiosity got to me and I went and saw it on a Saturday matinee all by myself.

I loved it. The director Zack Snyder took a boring film and made it better. Yes, he added MTV-style editing, yes, he added Disturbed's "Down With The Sickness", yes he used washed-out color palettes. And yes, these are all things I was complaining about earlier on making a horror movie "hip". So call me a hypocrite, but to me...the original wasn't that great, so if you have to make a horror movie "hip", do it to a boring one. Sometimes it works.

And let's not forget, when you have bad acting in a horror movie, it can diminish it to the point where it doesn't matter how cool you think you've made it. i.e. Exhibit #1:

31 Days Of Horror: Day #5 - DARK NIGHT OF THE SCARECROW

2011-10-05T11:12:00.000-07:00

"Bubba didn't do it!"

Dark Night Of The Scarecrow, 1981, Directed by Frank de Felitta (Made-For-TV)

Grade: A

I watched this movie by total mistake. It first aired in 1981, and then was re-run on CBS in 1985. I had gotten my first VCR the year before, and I think I was trying to record ABC's airing of Superman II. (You know, back in the days where once a movie aired on TV, that was it! Ain't no Hulu for you, so you better record it!). Anyway, I had programmed in the wrong channel, and it started recording this instead. I was intrigued, so my younger brother and I started watching it. After about 30 minutes we had to turn it off, because it freaked us out so bad.

Am I actually saying this about an el-cheapo TV movie starring NOBODY famous? Yep. I actually saved the recording and ended up watching it in its entirety about a year later. And it is seriously one creepy-ass film. I still can't believe that CBS aired this. Considering how "politically correct" we've become as a society, there is no way this could air today. It gives a bad connotation to scarecrows everywhere. I wonder if Ray Bolger wrote in and complained?

The plot basically involves a wrongfully accused mentally handicapped man and the so-called "justice" that is carried out towards him. Said accused "hides" in a scarecrow (so convenient that its clothes perfectly fit him) and meets an untimely execution by a bigot gang of misfits led by Charles Durning. (He's a mailman who apparently has a power trip for his governmental employment, since he wears his uniform throughout the ENTIRE movie). As it turns out, these fellas messed with the wrong guy and now The "Scarecrow" stalks the backwoods hillbilly land to kill them all one by one and steal their cans of Skoal. Look out!

Filled with a creepy atmosphere and containing more blowing gusts of wind than you could find in the empty stands of a Hanson reunion concert, Dark Night Of The Scarecrow may be a micro-budget TV-movie, but it achieves the cinematic scares of a theatrical release.

And it's scarier than just about any episode of Hee Haw. (Well, maybe not.)

31 Days Of Horror: Day #4 - "M"

2011-10-04T10:51:00.000-07:00

"M", 1931, Directed by Fritz Lang
Grade: A

Widely known for its reputation for being the first mainstream movie about a serial killer (and the best…until Seven came along 64 years later), director Fritz Lang (whose Metropolis would go on to be a major influence on Paul Verhoeven’s RoboCop), creates the ultimate sense of dread and uneasiness in his first sound film.

I love this movie. It’s so elegantly crafted. And I don’t care what anybody says… THIS is a horror movie, and while not a full-blown instrument of feeding terror to the audience, (well, wait...perhaps it is) it gets a lot more done than anything involving whiny teens and PG-13 ratings.

One of the greatest character actors ever, Peter Lorre, creates a child-like evil and dwarfing qualities that easily put his character at the top of some of the greatest villains is cinema history. Yes, the film is in German, yes, some of you may not like reading subtitles, but lest we forget....in the Golden Age days of cinema, film was a still an art-form MEDIUM, and not just a blatant marketing tool. Whuuuut??? Dat be crazy!!!

31 Days Of Horror: Day #3 - MAGIC

2011-10-03T10:08:00.000-07:00

"I can't make it." - Corky Withers

Magic, 1978, Directed by Richard Attenborough
Grade: B+

I've always been fascinated by horror movies involving dolls and/or ventriloquist dummies, and here we have Anthony Hopkins perfectly portraying a creepy psychopath 13 years before he would even sit down with that census taker, some fava beans and a nice chianti.

I don't want to give too much away about this little seen film (from the director of Gandhi?), but I will say it is a standout in the genre, even if hardly anybody has ever heard of it. Hopkins plays a ventriloquist named Corky who has a slight "affixation" with his dummy Fats (who gives some of the best wooden acting this side of Hayden Christensen in Episode II). What follows is something slightly-off kilter and deliciously deranged, which I guess is also what you could say about any line uttered in Jerry Maguire.

Of note: The Jerry Goldsmith score here is absolutely spooky. Never would I have thought the sound of a harmonica to be so terrifying. Well, that is unless you saw Taylor Hicks on American Idol.

While not a perfect film, I love this movie. It's simple and creepy. And that's really all you need. Even the trailer can give you nightmares.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #2 - THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE

2011-10-02T10:36:00.000-07:00

The Legend Of Hell House, 1973, Directed by John Hough
Grade: A

Conceived as sort of an homage to the Hammer Horror Pictures of the 70's which I really like, The Legend Of Hell House is one of my favorite haunted house movies. It's proof that you can make a scary movie without tons of blood and gore, and rely solely on the suspense and atmosphere. The writer Richard Matheson is one of my favorite storytellers, who has provided tales for The Twilight Zone, the superb Trilogy Of Terror, and more recently the ill-fated Richard Kelly sci-fi bomb, The Box. (Which I thought was actually pretty good, so nyah.)

Consisting of a cast of British regulars, along with Roddy "Caesar" McDowall, Hell House holds your interest throughout, and not once is there a shrieking music video editing style montage, washed out gritty palettes of color, or the blasting of the latest Nine Inch Nails song to make you remember, "Hey! You are watching a hip horror movie!" (You hear that, you nutso SAW creators?)

31 Days Of Horror: Day #1 - THE MIST

2011-10-01T10:34:00.000-07:00

With the start of October, I will be posting quick reviews every day up until Halloween of 31 of my favorite horror movies.

Horror Movie #1:
The Mist, 2007, Directed by Frank Darabont
Grade: A -

What's this? The 1,945,781st adaptation of a Stephen King story? Yes, but this one is different. It's in the tradition of the great old B-movie horror pictures of the 1950's and 1960's. Special effects are sparse, as the budget was low and the crew was the same crew used in one of my favorite TV shows "The Shield". While not a hit at the box office, it created quite a stir with its mix of terror, religion, trust, and the horrors of humanity. I loved this movie while others didn't, but nevertheless, it's a great horror movie to kick off the month with. Oh yes, and by the way...the ending will stay with you, whether you liked it or hated it.

Quick Review: A Look Back At Some Cold Weather.

2011-09-12T18:24:00.000-07:00

I just recently watched The Ice Storm again with my girlfriend the other day, and since I hadn't seen it since it was released in 1997, I had forgotten almost everything in it.

From the director of Hulk and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: it's the feel-good, go-and-give-someone-a-hug-warm-the-cockles-of-your-heart movie!

Within the confines of 1970's America, Spider-Man (Mr. Maguire) comes home for the Thanksgiving holidays to spend time with his family, and learns life lessons that could only happen in the messed-up 70's sexual revolution. This film about a family living and breathing the the aroma of the Nixon administration and lava lamps is a true example of stellar filmmaking.

Another great ensemble cast is here: as I mentioned, Spider-Man, Wednesday Addams, Frodo Baggins, Pat Nixon, Otto West, Lieutenant Ellen Ripley, and the future Mrs. Tom Cruise.

The film itself is about discovery, the myriad of problems that are faced in every family, but perhaps to not as harsh extremes. The Ice Storm sets up its premise, the problems that occur, and their outcomes, whether they be good or bad. Personally, I think that this is Kevin Kline's greatest performance. He was awesome in A Fish Called Wanda, but if I had to choose between that comedic tale and this sorrowful story, I would have to pick The Ice Storm.

The movie also proves that up-and-coming stars that could very well have descended into the "Shia" Syndrome, and just ended up being in every BIG movie that comes along because the studio wants a "young hot star" to draw in the teeny-boppers. (Whoever said that putting that kid from Even Stevens into every movie was a great idea?)

But here, Maguire, Ricci, Wood, and Holmes all prove that they are all very talented actors. And all of them would go on to have very successful film careers and not just fade into a drug-induced, Tatum O'Neal obscurity.

The film's core is about life. It's about the little things that make us curious, and about certain temptations that we should sometimes not pursue. Regardless in any event, after seeing the movie for only a second time, I have to say that it is probably Ang Lee's best work. (And this is coming from one of the 8 people in America who liked his Hulk movie.)

The Ice Storm is a forgotten classic. I would be willing to bet that if you mention the title to someone and they look at you funny, start telling them who is in it and they'll probably say, "Oh yeah! That one!" The film is one of those lost treasures, a movie that was overlooked in 1997 (probably because that big sinking-ship movie from the director of Avaturd got all the attention.) But it's a movie you should seek out and watch at least once. It's an interesting interpretation of Americana, and how we have changed from the days of Leave It To Beaver and Eisenhower, and have found our way to the days of Archie Bunker and Watergate.

The Ice Storm, (1997)
Grade: A

What's The Time? It's Time To Get Ill.

2011-09-10T21:02:00.000-07:00

*Warning: Mild spoilers.*

I took in a showing of Steven Soderbergh's latest last night with some friends, and while there seems to be some debate over certain plot elements that remained unresolved, I have to say that this was Soderbergh's best movie since Traffic.

(Yes, I liked all the Ocean's movies, but if you think about it, those were just pure fun 'n fluff entertainment, and 11 was the only one that was superior.)

I found a lot of the look and feel of Soderbergh's vision like Philip Kaufman's 1978 remake of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, except we have a real threat to humanity and not an alien invasion. There's a sense of dread lurking over every scene, the sinister feel of Soderbergh's camera (he also served as his director of photography) is evident, much as it was in Traffic. Soderbergh uses color pallettes to identify certain plots, and while it's not as strong as it was in that previous film, it certainly adds to the suspense.

Here's an excerpt for the IMDb trivia section explaining the color schemes in Traffic:

To achieve a distinctive look for each different vignette in the story, Steven Soderbergh used three different film stocks (and post-production techniques), each with their own color treatment and grain for the print. The "Wakefield" story features a colder, bluer tone to match the sad, depressive emotion. The "Ayala" story is bright, shiny, and saturated in primary colors, especially red, to match the glitzy surface of Helena's life. The "Mexican" story appears grainy, rough, and hot to go with the rugged Mexican landscape and congested cities.

Contagion begins with Mrs. Chris Martin (yes, we all know who that is...and did you check out her hilarious post about being a hard-working mom?) coughing and eventually rolling into a comatose state of dread. (Man, why couldn't they have used Soderbergh favorite Julia Roberts in this role? I would have loved to see her coughing and foaming at the mouth while she hallucinates and starts spouting stupid lines from her past movies...."They're called boobs, Ed!" ......."You hurt me, don't do it again!"...... "This is my one chance at happiness. I have to be ruthless!"

Anyway, the point of this opening scene is to set up the threat of the virus, and the destructive path that it takes.

"N-N-Nooooo! My husband's gonna tour AGAIN?"

There is a huge ensemble cast here. Laurence Fishburne is a doctor at the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, gorgeous Oscar-winner Kate Winslet is a doctor brought in to help with the understanding of the virus, gorgeous Oscar-winner (Part 2) Marion Cotillard is a doctor tracking the path of the virus, and Elliot Gould is a doctor unable to cope with being taken off of the virus research team. (Let me just take a moment to say, I don't think there were enough doctor people in this thing..which is strange for a virus outbreak movie. I guess Soderbergh's budget was limited after they paid all of the actors' salaries.)

Matt Damon once again plays Jason Bourne here in The Bourne Immunity! Not really, but it ran through my mind as I watched his character become more and more unstable and just wanting to karate chop any doctor to the ground. (Or his daughter's impatient boyfriend.)


"AHHH! NO! I will NOT be in The Legend of Bagger Vance 2!!"

The real amazing turn in the film comes from The King's Speech actress Jennifer Ehle, who puts all her heart and soul (did I just say that?) into her performance, as Doctor (yet again) Ally Hextal, whose major discovery (and how she finds it) creates the sense of hope that the movie eventually comes around to.

Corny attempts at humor in this review aside, (and you know there already has been some), this film is an example of why Soderbergh remains at the top of his game. He always has time to show his actors thinking and reacting, showing their presence as an integral part of the film. Soderbergh said in an interview that he wanted to do his research and make the aspect of science in the movie as realistic as possible. My girlfriend who was a college psychology major, gave it her stamp of approval, and that dear folks, is a major compliment...especially since she is not a movie person. I was halfway fearing that she was going to hate the movie and we would be engaged in a cinema-war on the way home from the theater, but fortunately our discussion just involved my filling her mind with geeky useless trivia about aspects of Soderbergh's direction. ("Yeah, and the guy who did the music was once a drummer for The Red Hot Chili Peppers!")

There's also a surprise cameo that I will not give away so not to ruin anything for anybody. (Quirky Comedy Central humor-watching geeks be on the lookout.)

"What? I'm The Brit In The Plastic Bubble!"

And then there's Jude Law. Here his character is displayed as a media-hungry cult leader, who tries to get people to listen to him by reading his blog. (Hmm, that sounds familiar, not sure why.) And when I first heard his character speak, I admit I rolled my eyes and thought, "Oh brother, ANOTHER cliched pseudo-journalist who runs around and annoys people and trying to be the master of all he surveys."

But as the movie went on, I was glad to see Law's character onscreen. And it ended up not bothering me at all, it kind of added a ridiculous interpretation that bloggers can change the world. (Again, that sounds familiar.) It's always good when he plays a slimy, no-conscience individual, (Check out his role in 2002's Road To Perdition as the creepy Gollum-like photographer Harlen Maguire.)

I had mentioned at the beginning of this review that I was reminded of the great Philip Kaufman's direction in 1978's Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. That film was a remake of a 1956 black and white sci-fi movie of the same name directed by Dirty Harry helmer Don Siegel. It's also a movie I have never seen. However, if you look at Contagion and its set-up, Soderbergh wastes no time throwing the viewer into the action. Kaufman did the same thing: a scientific threat, immediately executed, that starts affecting average people everywhere, and scientists are brought in to figure out a cure. But are they too late, and have already become/caught in the threat that is taking over? Even the freaky looking "knobbed trees" are present in both films.

Kiefer, I forbid you to play a CTU agent on a TV show!

Both movies end on a similar note. We see the outcome and what it has done to society, however Contagion takes us in a different direction with an origin while Body Snatchers shows what basically will happen once its "virus" takes over completely. Plus, I find it of interesting note that both films use a vocal reverberation. Contagion begins with a black screen and a cough is heard, Body Snatchers ends with a scream and goes into a black screen.

Contagion is most certainly not an uplifting movie, but with its sly sense of direction, creepy atmospheres, and a cool pulsating Tangerine Dream-like soundtrack, Soderbergh hits another home-run and makes it work.

Contagion, (2011)
Grade: A

And just for fun, here's the trailer to another great virus movie from 1995: Terry Gilliam's 12 Monkeys, which deals more with the post-apocalyptic future and the impact the virus had. Plus I really like the trailer, and it contains Brad Pitt's greatest performance, not counting his feigning of enjoying being married to Jennifer Aniston.

Note: I have not forgotten my review of Red State, people. Just chill.

Coming Soon: Seeing Red.

2011-09-02T17:11:00.000-07:00

NEWS FLASH: This blog just won a major award for being the most updated on recent posts. (The award itself was made out of glass, so it was very fra-jee-lay.)

Anyway, this weekend I will be partaking of Kevin Smith's latest, RED STATE; which is a film that has garnered more buzz through its marketing than the plot of the film itself.

Stay tuned.

The Films Are Not What They Seem.

2011-04-01T09:46:00.000-07:00

Warning: This post contains spoilers.

Ever since the debut of the surreal soap opera Twin Peaks in 1990, I've developed a fascination with the works of David Lynch. Since then, all his movies have made their way into my DVD collection and I have proclaimed him as my favorite film director.

I was watching a scene from Blue Velvet the other day, and after seeing the movie close to 20 times since I bought the VHS back in the day, something just knocked me over the side of the head: David Lynch isn't the great director that I thought he was.

I had always stated that Lynch was a director of twisted originality. Even if you watch a film of his and don't understand a damn thing in it, you have to admit that at least it was something weird and crazy, and perhaps something you hadn't seen before. I remember that was the case after I saw Lynch's debut feature, Eraserhead.

Here's a movie about a guy who holds up in a hotel room with a mutant baby in his dresser drawer and a woman with huge cheeks in his radiator singing "In Heaven, everything is fine."

While that would generate in any normal viewer a huge "What the...?" moment, I saw it as a cinematic experience of pure surrealism.

Well, I now realize that I had been brainwashed. Eraserhead was a cinematic experiment and that was about it. I think I had been overcome with what I was watching and immediately saw it as something original, when all I was really watching was a bad nightmare put on film, and a poorly made film no less. Besides, Luis Bunel and Salvador Dali already did what this film tried to do anyway.

And then there's acting in a David Lynch movie. After watching Blue Velvet again, I realized that Dennis Hopper's portrayal of Frank Booth was just over-the-top and stupid. It was a hammy performance and I don't now HOW Lynch could have thought that it was worth anything. Just watch his reaction here to Dean Stockwell's singing of Roy Orbison's suave ballad "In Dreams". The whole performance seems forced and extremely uninspired.

And while Laura Dern would act far better 4 years later in Lynch's Wild At Heart, she's nothing but a wooden stick figure here with a bad 80's perm. No wonder Kyle MacLachlan saw more of an attraction to Isabella Rossellini.

Lynch's other works, The Elephant Man, Dune, Lost Highway, Mulholland Dr., and his recent Inland Empire, all share some of the same traits. Acting is subpar in a lot of these films, and I really can't understand what made me like them in the first place. Although I thoroughly admit Lost Highway is a really good movie, and contains one of the creepiest scenes in film history.

Then there's Twin Peaks. For 20 years I have proclaimed the TV series as one of my all time favorites, and I still watch episodes from time to time. However, once again, I've noticed that hammy acting rears its ugly head. Ray Wise as Leland Palmer goes overboard with his loss and sorrow for his daughter Laura, and who can forget Sherilyn Fenn's nutty jazz dance in the Double R Diner? Was this done for laughs or drama? To tell you the truth, I really don't know.

And the resolution for the murder of Laura Palmer was a cop-out. An evil spirit manifesting itself as a demonic, long gray-haired trucker guy in a denim jacket? Yeah, once again we get an easy way out.

After years and years of watching Agent Cooper and his posse drink damn fine coffee and track down clues and mysteries that not even the most fervent LOST fan could figure out, I realize now that David Lynch was just toying with his audience for no apparent reason.

Which brings me to this: David Lynch is no longer my favorite film director. Look, the guy has an eye for the camera, and I still think he has the ability to make a really good film, but I think all these years of watching weird craziness unfold on-screen with talking dwarves, creamed corn, powder-faced maniacs, and a prom queen wrapped in plastic, I think it's time for me to look elsewhere for a true artist in the film industry to admire, such as Terrence Malick, Joel Schumacher, or dare I say it.....Woody Allen.

Now that I think about it, Annie Hall isn't that bad of a film. As a matter of fact, Diane Keaton kinda has it going on in a cute, Kate Beckinsale-y way.

Cam. A Lot.

2011-03-06T12:49:00.000-08:00

You know, I mentioned this in another post and I guess I'll say it again: Why do audiences point out the so-called "bad acting" in a horror mockumentary? I don't get it. If the movie is filmed like a documentary, displayed as such to "real" events unfolding, the people being portrayed in said film are like regular people and NOT Oscar-worthy actors. People whined and moaned repeatedly about how wretched The Blair Witch Project was because of Heather Donahue's "awful awful" emoting. She even got nominated for a Razzie award. I'm assuming the "regular people" actors have to make you believe that you are actually watching "regular people", but either way it does not deter from this blogger's enjoyment of the films.

I went on a 4 mile hike last weekend in the woods with my girlfriend and a bunch of other people, and if a camera had been following us around for 3.5 hours, I'm assuming that we would be considerably attacked for not having motivation for displaying our range of acting talents. I can hear somebody saying, "Boy, he sucks at drinking from a Deer Park bottle! I don't believe him for one second! Boooooo!!!!"

All this being said, I will now roll into my reviews of Paranormal Activity and Paranormal Activity 2. These films, as I previously mentioned are horror mockumentaries displaying a wide range of awful acting talents (according the norm, not by this blogger). Movies of this sort are taken in (at least by me) as a different viewing experience. I didn't want to see either one in the theater, because I knew I would be surrounded by a bunch of loud, drunk-whooping teenagers yelling at everything at the screen and laughing at the most inept moments. (Because as we all know, every teenager that yells out something at the screen is always funny, all the time). Yeah, ha ha. I would rather be chained to a rocking chair and watch Death To Smoochy again.

Anyway, after seeing both films on DVD by myself, I can say with utmost certainty that both films are of equal caliber.

Both movies display a certain creepiness that I've always admired. I love horror films, gory or not. However, my favorite types of horror have always been the types that go by the horror that you don't see. Sure, we've had movies like The Exorcist, Halloween, and Night Of The Living Dead, but we've also had more obscure films such as Let's Scare Jessica To Death, The Other, and probably the most important (although not obscure), Jaws. I mention Jaws because if you watch the film again, you'll notice that you do not even see the shark fully until about an hour into the movie. Spielberg relied on the suspense and the buildup of the unseen terror that the shark resonated, and it was most certainly effective.

So what does all this have to do with the Paranormal Activity movies? It's the unseen terror. What we're looking at here is the reaction of people to what they are seeing (or not seeing). Unfortunately, in today's society, the evolving of movie audiences has changed. They want instant gratification, and if they don't experience that in a horror movie, they start to get impatient. (Hence, the drunk-whoop yelling at the screen.) This is also why we are having so many remakes of older franchises like Friday The 13th, A Nightmare On Elm Street, and Texas Chainsaw. "Hey, if it worked before, it'll work again!", said the money-hungry studio.

It's refreshing to note that the PA films both made a lot of money, and were popular with moviegoers. (However, so did the SAW films, so maybe you should ignore that previous statement.) The PA movies both follow a certain timeline that eventually comes full circle. In the first film, a young couple is terrorized by an unseen apparition that manifests itself mostly at night, while these actions are recorded on video. However, we never actually SEE what it exactly is. It's all done through sound editing and creative special effects. I will not spoil the ending of the first PA since I am sure there are a few that have not experienced it yet. In PA2, there is more of the same, but in its situation there is a family involved, and lots and lots of security cameras. Oh, and an awesome automatic pool cleaner that should have gotten its own place in the credits considering how much screen time it gets. It's been proven that inanimate objects get acting credits in movies: just look at Hayden Christensen in Star Wars - Episode II :

Whatever the case may be, I'll just say that I enjoyed both PA and PA2. They get the job done. It's the distinct creepiness of each that make them so effective, plus I really enjoyed the repeated fonts of "Night #3 or Night #12", which just added more to the documentary feel. Neither film is Oscar-worthy to be sure, but they are most certainly horror-worthy, and here, that's just as important.

Paranormal Activity (2009) and Paranormal Activity 2 (2010):
Collective grade: B+

One Plus Two Plus Two Plus One.

2011-02-18T17:39:00.000-08:00

Ridley Scott is supposedly working on producing a live- action movie based on Parker Brothers' classic game Monopoly. And when I first found out about it, I remember thinking, "Wha??? How in the hell is that going work? That's more ridiculous than John Woo directing a new movie version of The Flash." (See, because John Woo directs just about everything in slow-motion, and it wouldn't.....never mind.)

Then I remembered that this has been done before.

Here's a nostalgic turn. I'm going to wax ecstatic about a guilty pleasure of mine. Clue: The Movie was the first major motion picture based on a board game. For the 3 of you that don't remember and instead decided to shout, shout and let it all out in 1985, the game involved a murder and six colorful suspects. Players eventually had to solve the crime, which was committed by such weapons as a wrench, gun, or a knife. (Three weapons I'd like to use on Joel Schumacher for what he did to the Batman franchise.)

Clue was an absolute flop in the theater which nobody saw. I remember when it started coming on cable and a review in the TV Guide gave it one and a half stars and stated, "Was it Mrs. Peacock in the study with a candlestick?...Do you care?"

I never saw Clue in the theater. I received it on VHS for Christmas in 1988, and the thing about it is that you don't really appreciate it the first time you see it. There's so much going on that it's not until you watch it again that the real comedic roots embedded into it become unleashed at full-force. Quotes, comedic nuances, and jokes you may have missed the first time show up upon repeated viewings. Plus this film had a gimmick, which was three different endings, and you could pick the theater which was showing the ending you wanted to see. All three were included on VHS and later on the DVD.

The cast is excellent. All the actors play their roles so well and play off the comic timing with such sheer perfection that you can't imagine anyone else filling the shoes . Tim Curry's Wadsworth the butler, always maintaining (well, almost) his cool, British persona, seems such a far cry away from his Rocky Horror's Dr. Frank-N-Furter. Spinal Tap alum Michael McKean is a hoot as Mr. Green, Christopher Lloyd now plays a Prof (not a Doc?), along with Martin Mull, Lesley Anne Warren, and Eileen Brennan adding hilarity support en masse. But it's Madeline Kahn's Mrs. White who is the real surprise here, as she plays the character with a sense of sadness and madness both executed in such a manner that you can't help but laugh. (Who can forget "Flames....on the side of my face....")?

The sad thing is if Clue was remade today (and the studios ARE working on that), we would probably get a cast consisting of Shia Leboffo (whatever, I don't care about spelling it right), Zac Efron, Kim Kardashian, and, at the rate she's descending, perhaps Lindsay Lohan could play the part of the dead body.

Just for fun, here are my picks for the cast of a Clue remake:

Wadsworth - Ricky Gervais
Colonel Mustard - Sacha Baron Cohen
Miss Scarlet - Kate Beckinsale
Mr. Green - Steve Carell
Mrs. White - Helena Bonham Carter
Mrs. Peacock - Bonnie Hunt
Professor Plum - Ed Helms
Yvette - Scarlett Johansson
Mr. Boddy - Albert Brooks

Some of you folks can probably think of better people, so....sorry if this isn't up to 100% comedic standards and practices. (And yes, I realize I have three Office alums, what's it to you? Can you imagine the in-jokes?)

Clue: The Movie, 1985
Grade: A

Blood Actually.

2011-02-06T17:04:00.000-08:00

Ah, yes. The remake. No film in Hollywood is safe these days from that dreaded word. I'm still waiting so impatiently for the redux of Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mama's Hung You In The Closet and I'm Feeling So Sad. And before you ask, yes, that's an actual movie from 1967 starring Jonathan Winters. And now that I think about it, after you read its IMDb summary, it kinda already has been remade.

The point being, it seems like every movie these days is being grabbed and thrown into the recycle bin and used for the next cash cow. I mean, really...Gulliver's Travels with Jack Black?

Anyhoo, when it was announced that the director of Cloverfield would be helming the remake of the Swedish vampire import Let The Right One In, (entitled simply Let Me In) I was left scratching my head. The original is a masterpiece of horror and quiet desperation, so I was skeptical if we would just get another wannabe PG13 scare flick with teeny boppers running around.

Imagine my surprise when the film started and I saw the "Hammer" films studio logo. Hammer Studios had produced lots of British anthologies and horror stories throughout the 1950's through the late 70's. Perhaps that shows my age, or my bizarre taste in horror films, but I've always been fascinated with Hammer's work and the great British actors Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee adding their "veddy veddy" cockney wit to any movie drenched in blood.

Let Me In's story concerns the friendship between Owen and Abby, two youngsters who both seem to share a common bond of loneliness and sadness. Owen is bullied at school and comes home to a divorced, religious freak of a mother who ignores him, and Abby, who has moved in next door with an older man who appears to be her father. Only problem is, Abby is not who she appears to be. (She's a human paintball test model for Sherwin-Williams red paint.)

The original movie carried with it a quiet sense of dread hovering over every scene. Surprisingly, this version does too, and that makes the movie work. It was quite the shock considering what I was expecting. After 2 years of dealing with movies about vampires that sparkle with glitter bought at the local Hobby Lobby, it was refreshing to finally see a horror movie that doesn't pander around and resist the temptation of a PG13 rating in order to get the Hannah Montana crowd in the theater.

Not only that, the film is not just a story about blood and gore, but the strain of relationships between people. Let The Right One In was originally a novel dealing with the suppressed angst between the characters in a more realistic way, which is more than what we can say about the degree of sadness (if you can call it that) lurking around between Bella and Edward. Isn't it really just BAD ACTING?

The film has a magnificent soundtrack, done by Michael Giacchino, who gave us blaring crescendos and fluttering strings for 6 years during the network run of LOST, and it's evident here as well, but appears darker and much more creepy. Unfortunately, it seems like the music is used a little too much. So much can be conveyed in a single glance or a suspenseful scene where just the eerieness of silence can portray true terror, which was what the original film did. Here, as great as Giacchino's score is, it seems a bit out of place in some scenes. Rather than just letting certain scenes play out to their full potential, we are "told" early on that something bad is about to happen by the music, thereby ruining any source of suspense or terror. Perhaps the director Matt Reeves was trying to let the music be part of the story, just like Hitchcock did with Psycho, or John Carpenter with Halloween.

Crap, did I really just type a whole paragraph about a movie's musical score? That's very, very scary.

But seriously folks, see this movie. It's a great tribute to what makes a great horror movie. Both film versions of the story convey a sense of silent, inner grief without succumbing to the dreaded underdevelopment of the characters. All too often we get junk poured on-screen where the main concern is to make a buck, and I for one am one moviegoer that appreciates a fine horror film when I see one.

Now, if you will excuse me, I must go watch my Slugs DVD again....

Let Me In, 2010
Grade: A -

Reynolds. Wrapped.

2011-02-04T17:47:00.000-08:00

I know, but my first choice of "Reynolds. Surrounded by wood, stuck in a coffin, thrown in a hole, and buried alive with an all-powerful Zippo." sounded too cliched, so I went with the obvious lame-o pun instead. Thank you, yes...it's what I do.

Stuck within the confines of 90 minutes (and I'm not counting the opening and end credits), Rodrigo Cortes' Buried is somewhat of a minor miracle. There is one actor, one set, and one story: Ryan Reynolds is buried alive and the entire movie is him in a coffin trying to get out. That's it. No other characters on-screen (although we do hear them through a cell phone), no flashbacks to how Reynolds ended up in the coffin, and no other sets.

While this sounds like a set-up for the latest SAW movie (It isn't?) No, and an actor of Reynolds' talent would not allow himself to get sucked into such a mess of a franchise. Buried turns out to actually be a nifty little thriller.


"I don't know why, but I foresee a certain superhero role in my future."

The suspense becomes unbearable here as Reynolds races against time to get a pizza delivered to his coffin, or else he'll be dug up and be subjected to watch a Lifetime movie marathon at gunpoint instead. OK, so not really, but the latter sounds more torturous to me than anything that Jigsaw could think up. I know I'd turn into George C. Scott from Hardcore if I had to watch anything on Lifetime. (AaaHH! Crystal Bernard! Delta Burke! TURN IT OFF! TURN IT OFF!!)

Reynolds is buried alive in a coffin with a cellphone and a magic Zippo lighter that was apparently left behind by one of the Superfriends at the offices of the Hall of Justice. (Perhaps Zan and Jana took drags on doobies in-between saving the world and Gleek was a hallucination, I don't know), but I mean, OK, we have to suspend disbelief, but the lighter must have some sort of super power because as many times as he uses that thing, the oxygen would've been sucked out of that coffin faster than Kate Gosselin emptying Jon's bank account. (But as she's said, it's all for the kids, so it's all good.)

Really though, once you get past that, the movie really does make itself known as a true suspense-driven tale. Why is this guy there? What is the motive? What can he do? This blogger can't really say much else without giving most of the major plot elements away, but I must call attention to the fantastic opening credit sequence that recalls the early work of frequent Hitchcock collaborator Saul Bass, who created title sequences for Psycho, Vertigo, Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder, Kubrick's Spartacus and Scorsese's Casino.

Opening titles for Vertigo, ca. 1958

Buried's estimated budget is rumored to be $3 million, which seems like a lot when you just have one set, and I assume Reynolds' fee. (I guess he needed an indoor bowling alley or something), but director Rodrigo Cortes takes advantage of his camera and uses it to explore the confined spaces of the coffin and even uses aerial shots that work to deepen the sense of claustrophobia. Victor Reyes' tense soundtrack recalls in some scenes the very essence of Hitchcock-era Bernard Herrmann. And Reynolds, ever the smart-ass, even manages to supply some comedy to reduce the tension in some major scenes. We feel the cramped space, we hear the dirt from the outside seeping in, and we wonder: "Is he going to make it out?"

Watch and see, but let me tell you this: they should have at least given Reynolds some Robitussin, because his coffin's really bad...

...just like that joke. (Hey, I started with one, why not bookend it?)

Buried, 2010
Grade: A -

Pleased To Meet You, Hope You Guessed My Name.

2011-01-30T15:23:00.000-08:00

Let's get this out of the way first: I do not believe that we have witnessed the end of M. Night Shyamalan. Everyone hates everything he does now, expecting everything to live up to the "I see dead people" craze, but I'll be the first to tell you that I didn't really care for The Sixth Sense as much as everybody else did when it was released. I found it to be somewhat boring and Haley Joel Osment got on my last nerve. I consider Signs to be Night's true masterpiece, and The Village was vile, putrid garbage that smelled up a room more than a stink-ridden Police Academy script. And....I liked The Happening, it was a great throwback to B-movies of the 50's and 60's with suspense that was drenched in everything that was campy. I took it as that, and as such, the movie worked for me. Nobody else saw it as anything other than the last nail in a directorial coffin. So basically by me saying the preceding statements, that could pretty much damn this review all to hell, but I guess in this case, that's a good thing.

But I firmly believe that Shyamalan is at least trying to keep the trend of psychological terror going, and although he never will compare to him, I think the beginning of "The Night Chronicles" could be something that keeps the spirit of the great Rod Serling alive. Serling was a master of combining the ironic with the terrifying, and also a writer/producer who knew when something was crap and when something was not. (Oh, how we could have used him in Season 6 of LOST).

That being said, I enjoyed the M. Night-penned story (but not directed) Devil, the first in the series of films. I was hesitant, due to early word-of-mouth, and Hollywood's obsession with Satan has become more overused than Charlie Sheen's room at the local rehabilitation clinic.

This was a good movie. It was simple, short, and got to the point....all the while building an interesting story that could've been found at CBS studios on Rod Serling's desk back in 1960: 5 people get stuck in an elevator and one of them may be the Prince Of Darkness. This recalls for me an old Twilight Zone episode entitled "The Howling Man", which uses a similar story.

What works in these situations is the buildup. The un-knowing. I'm a junkie for any horror movie, but my favorites always tend to be the ones that use unseen horror. A prime example being Roman Polanski's Repulsion, a movie I believe was an inspiration for Darren Aronofsky's critically acclaimed Black Swan. Repulsion is a movie that slowly builds, and you know that something is not quite right, and that lingering dread which is present in every single scene is crucial. When you're sitting there watching a film and feeling uneasy and you don't know what it is that makes you feel that way, that can be just as terrifying as watching Jigsaw throw Shawnee Smith into a pit full of used syringes. (Yeah, I watched SAW II. I think I was coming down with the flu that day so my mind was not clear.)

Devil is not perfect, it has it's share of flaws. Toast falling jelly-side down and security guards breaking into psychotic prayer add a bit of ridiculousness, plus a twist (Gasp! In a Shyamalan movie??) that if you are paying attention is blatantly obvious after the first 5 minutes. But the movie works and I would have really enjoyed it if there was a feature on the DVD to watch it in black-and-white so I could revel in the nostalgia of a story that was "submitted for my approval". Hey, they used it on The Mist DVD.

Two of my favorite Satan-inspired horror movies are The Omen and Rosemary's Baby; both of those films use psychological horror and the unseen to a masterful degree. However, I must admit that the Devil has never been more comically played in film than by Billy Crystal. If you don't know what I'm talking about, see this, which is a great movie that's strange for me to recommend seeing how I consider that director very overrated, but it was one of his better efforts. It puzzles me, since I don't know the nature of his game....

Devil, 2010
Grade: B

Cowboys & Coens.

2011-01-28T18:59:00.000-08:00

At this point, I daresay that True Grit is hardly a "new" film by the Coen Brothers considering it's been almost a month since I've seen it and this review is just now being posted. Eh, whaddya want? I'm thankful I was just able to get this review up at all.

There's a moment in True Grit that made me immediately flashback to a great western. When main characters Rooster Cogburn and Mattie Ross are on top of a rickety cabin's roof and they look down to witness the approaching villains confront Matt Damon's Le Boeuf, I was instantly reminded of George Roy Hill's masterpiece, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, when Paul Newman and Robert Redford look down from atop a cliff to witness the villains approaching in the dusty and rocky valley below who have been tracking them for several days.

But I don't think this is the time for me to get all nostalgic. (Although perhaps it helps this review out considerably.) I made a severe mistake when going into this movie, which was that I was expecting a Coen Brothers western, and instead I just got a traditional western. This is strange considering that the Coens stated in an interview with TIME magazine that they didn't watch any classic Westerns or even the original True Grit before making this film.

So what am I saying? Is True Grit not a Coen Brothers movie? Yes, it most certainly is, but I would suffice to say it's "Coen Brothers Lite". It has all the makings of a passion piece from Joel & Ethan, with longtime Coen director of photography Richard Deakins providing the sweeping western landscapes and a somewhat demented performance from Josh Brolin as the film's main villain. Matt Damon's LeBoeuf plays out well as the sidekick who seems to hold everything together. The quirky characters are there, the sweeping cinematography, even the Coen mainstay of the "character behind a desk"*, but just don't expect a Miller's Crossing version of the western.

The story of Rooster Cogburn is told very straightforward. And basically it's The Dude with a lasso and a horse. OK, no it isn't, but wouldn't that be a great movie? ("Hey, careful, fellow gunslinger, there's a beverage here!")

The film also has an interesting supporting character, Carter Burwell's score. Burwell has scored and supervised the music in every single Coen Brothers movie, and I believe this to be one of his best. In a moment of sheer geekiness, I found myself humming along to the music as I watched it the film in the theater. I'm not sure if that personifies an avid movie watcher or a pathetic cinephile crying out for help. Whatever the case, it still added sheer flavor to the film, at least for me.

Then there's Hailee Steinfeld, a wonderful young actress who makes an impressive debut here. However, it was the opinion of this blogger that her performance somewhat dilapidates into a minor annoyance. Now, having never seen the original True Grit (yeah, The Duke bores me, sorry.) or never having read the novel, perhaps the character of Mattie Ross was intended to be that way, with her fast-talking delivery and her know-it-all attitude, but it became repetitive and I think I might have had a flashback to Jennifer Jason Leigh's character in the Coens' underrated gem, The Hudsucker Proxy. (Which, now that I think about it, was quite the annoyance as well.)

So True Grit 2010 isn't a masterpiece, and I firmly believe that the Coens have done better, but compared to the mess that was The Ladykillers (or the "Tom-Hanks-channels-Mark-Twain show"), it's a welcome addition to the J&C filmography.

So would I recommend this True Grit redux?

In the words of Sidney J. Mussberger: "Yeah, yeah! Sure, sure!"

True Grit, 2010
Grade: B+

*In every Coen Brothers movie, there has always been a character sitting behind a desk, which usually is the main character or a character that will drive the plot or actions of another character (i.e. Jerry Lundergaard in Fargo, Leo in Miller's Crossing, Jeffery Lebowski in The Big Lebowski, or Jack Lipnick in Barton Fink).

Coming Soon: The Dude Takes On The Duke.

2011-01-06T18:46:00.000-08:00

"That rug really tied the saloon together."

Schmuck. Schmuck. Goose.

2011-01-05T19:11:00.000-08:00

Steve Carell and Paul Rudd were comedic gold.....

....in The 40-Year Old Virgin.

But not here.

Holy crap, what the hell happened? A cast that includes Carell, Rudd, Zach Galifianakis (ZG again), Ron Livingston, and even the sometimes-funny Jeff Dunham becomes a mish-mash of unfunny set pieces and made for an unsatisfying movie.

Perhaps this would've worked better had Will Ferrell executive produced, re-written the script, and posted only the actual "dinner" segment as an online short on his Funny Or Die website, because despite a clever setup and a few guffaws along the way, I can't even fathom why any of the producers didn't see what an immensely padded waste of time this actually was.

To be fair, the premise is intriguing: Rudd's slimy corporate boss (played by an embarrassed-looking Bruce Greenwood) tells Rudd that in order to fulfill a higher position on the company's slippery ladder, he must track down the biggest idiot he can find and invite him to the boss' dinner, where the executives will then make fun of and pick a winner out of a sea of zany bozos. Carell becomes the likely candidate.

Steve Carell is funny, he's a likable goofball, and he will be missed when this season of The Office comes to a close (although my girlfriend will tell you otherwise), and Paul Rudd gave one of the funniest speeches ever in The 40 Year-Old Virgin ("If I have to hear Yah Mo B There one more time, I'm going to Yah Mo burn this place to the ground."), so you would think that Carell as the clueless idiot playing to Rudd's bad-back straight man would ensue hilarity.

It did. For a total of about 5 minutes.

When Rudd's Tim meets Carell's Barry in an altercation in the middle of the street, the film's funniest moments ensue, including Barry's "Mousterpieces" diatribe.

And that's it. Done. Fin. End.

Nothing that follows within the remaining hour and and a half (Yes folks, this thing is an hour and 54 minutes long) is even remotely worthy of being laughed at. (Well, maybe the pathetic script.) How many damn subplots can you throw in before we realize that this movie has more padding than the future holding cell of Lindsay Lohan at the Betty Ford Clinic?

Do we care about Rudd's girlfriend's client artiste extraordinaire and his midnight trysts as a satyr with half-naked women in the cliched penthouse studio? Does Rudd's crazed one-night stand stalker provide any humor into the already weak script? Does Carell's co-worker played by ZG provide a much needed injection of hilarity into a movie that's already thrown up its hands in sheer agony?

If you answered "yes" to the above, then re-runs of Home Improvement and According To Jim are waiting for you downstairs on your Sony Bravia.

The sad thing is, when we finally get to the actual "Dinner For Schmucks", it comes off as just plain stupid. There's no substance of humor lurking around in any given scene. It's almost if the director Jay Roach (who's done better with Austin Powers and The Fockers) said, "OK, let's just throw the entire main cast into a room and just......well, just keep the camera running!" Hey, Jay...that worked for Robert Altman, and if you don't believe me, go watch Short Cuts or Gosford Park, but for you....just turn the camera off.

And I am fully aware that this film was a remake of a French comedy with the same premise, so maybe I'm just not fully understanding international whimsy.

My sense of humor is warped anyway, so perhaps this review means nothing to readers. Perhaps you'll just say, "Screw this guy. I'm watching this!"

Yeah, but I recovered, and was able to rebound with an episode of The Office afterwards.

You, dear reader, may not be so lucky. You may stumble across a re-run of Two And A Half Men.

Dinner For Schmucks, (2010)
Grade: D -

The Bandwagon Cometh....

2010-12-31T16:18:00.000-08:00

....and I jumped on it.

My movie watching in 2010 was sparse, and I haven't seen half the films I wanted to. And since there's no way for this blogger to compile the geeky "Who Cares?" Top 10 List that comes at the end of the year, I'll just stick to what I think is the best movie of 2010.

Inception.

Understand, I didn't think I would like the movie. Everyone and their live-in maid waxed ecstatic about the film and made it out to be the Second Coming, which is what has become of another film involving a hammy over-acting Marlon Brando, oranges, Al Pacino, and a horse's head.......but I daresay I won't go down that boring road. Yes, you know what movie I'm talking about, and I still say it's the cure for insomnia.

Inception is the brainchild of Christopher Nolan, which for the life of me I can't understand why this guy hasn't gotten an Oscar yet. He's created so many original films over the past 10 years with The Prestige, Memento, and The Dark Knight, and still he's stuck in the same hole Hitchcock was. Yes, the Master of Suspense never won an Oscar either (but was nominated 5 times.) I'm halfway expecting Uwe Boll to win an Oscar before Nolan just so the Academy can play a sick joke on all of us. I guess they figured The Dark Knight had H.G. Wells' The Invisible Man for a director.


As the city crumbles, Leo and his crew rush to find Christopher Nolan's Best Director Oscar.

The film's origin was written in an 80-page treatment by Nolan nearly 10 years ago, but due to budget restraints and warring studios, the film never got off the ground until 9 years later.

What Inception brings is more of a thinking elegy. Curious, because the film involves the mind, and the dreams it creates. Honestly, I may have to see the film a second time in order to fully "get" all of it, but I was very intrigued by what I saw. For those who have been living inside Charles Foster Kane's snow globe for the past year, Inception involves the analyzation of the mind and its dreams, and a team of experts hired to explore the levels inside them.

What follows can be conceived as the typical "heist" movie being given a shot of adrenaline as jarring and awakening as what was given to Mia Wallace in Pulp Fiction. Nolan takes his time here, which is something quite unheard of in these days of audiences wanting instant gratification, ala Twilight 20 (Oooh! Glitter!) or SAW 1,899 (Wow! Gore!)

Thomas The Tank Engine's dream goes horribly awry.

Leonardo DiCaprio and his posse of Cillian Murphy, Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt all do an excellent job, with Michael Caine doing an awesome bit of 45 second acting, and even Mr. Sniper Tom Berenger (!) shows up. But the film would not work without the presence of Nolan, who sets up all camera shots in his films himself, and does not use a second unit (some advice that Michael Bay may want to take into consideration).. I don't know if I can say Inception is his BEST movie..but it's certainly in the top 5. And with all the ridiculous garbage that passes for entertainment these days (Edward and Bella must be stopped!), it's refreshing to see something new and original.

11 years ago, a little movie was released called The Matrix, a film similar in style but relied too much on effects, a lambasted soundtrack, and well...Keanu Reeves. While I thought that film was good and its sequels were the stuff you line a birdcage with, Inception does it better and makes this blogger recommend it highly.

But what's really going to bake your noodle later on is...would you still have watched it if I hadn't said anything?

Yeah, probably.

Inception, (2010)
Grade: A

Obscure Christmas Part 4: Mysteries Wrapped In Enigmas.

2010-12-24T15:39:00.000-08:00

(The "Obscure Christmas Series" is a continuation of some of the more lesser-known films inside the holiday canon and/or just movies that failed to ignite the box office and disappeared into a snowy oblivion.)

The great Lance Henriksen with Brittany Tiplady from the MillenniuM Christmas episode, "Midnight Of The Century".

Yes, I know. It's a TV episode, not a movie, but this is my blog and I'll make the rules....

14 years ago, a show debuted on the FOX network involving the story of ex-FBI profiler Frank Black (not from The Pixies) and his "ability" to see what serial killers see. He worked with an organization of people known only as "The Millennium Group" who were out to stop the conspiracies and evils of the world before the year 2000. The show, created by Chris Carter of The X-Files, was simply called MillenniuM.

An episode that aired during the second season in December of 1997, was entitled "Midnight Of The Century", and directed by Friday The 13th vet Dwight H. Little. There's so much that can be said about this episode, but if you are not familiar with the series at all, then it's like trying to teach acting lessons to Megan Fox. There will be no understanding...

The show MillenniuM was a lost enigma. It was up and gone before anyone gave it a chance. It lasted 3 seasons, but each season was very different in the fact that production credits changed so much. Nevertheless, I enjoy watching this Christmas episode every year, as dark as it is, because it's a testimony to family and the trouble and pain that can be healed during the holiday season. Frank Black was in essence a good man and father who just wanted to protect his family from the evils of the world. (With some help from LOST's Terry O'Quinn).

Even Frank Black couldn't figure out the mysteries of that damn island.

The Old Man's secret weapon against The Bumpus Hounds.

What makes this episode special is the presence of The Old Man himself, A Christmas Story's Darren McGavin. He plays Frank Black's father, and it's great to see these two actors play off each other. Interesting still is the fact that McGavin is also famously known for playing Carl Kolchak, from the 1970's series The Night Stalker, which Carter has stated was an inspiration for MillenniuM.

So much would be wondered had MillenniuM lasted longer, but we must appreciate what we have. And on this cold Christmas Eve (at least here in Georgia), that's a good lesson for all of us. Merry Christmas.

I will now dispense with the warm and fuzzy talk. Go drink some damn egg nog.

MillenniuM episode #2.10 (1997),
"Midnight Of The Century"
Grade: A

Obscure Christmas Part 3: Rescue Me from the demonic mother-in-law.

2010-12-09T14:00:00.000-08:00

The Ref.

Well, okay.....so this movie isn't THAT obscure, but I always felt it got lost in the DVD holiday shuffle when everybody else was watching Ralphie get pushed down the toy store slide for the 9,491,567th time or listening to Cousin Eddie explain to Clark why he was emptying his RV chemical toilet into the sewer.

This movie HAS to be on this list just for the sole fact of Denis Leary. He's the king of all that is fed-up. Sure, some people moan and groan that he stole his whole act from the late, great Bill Hicks, but it wouldn't surprise me if both Hicks and Leary conspired before Bill's death to have Denis carry on Hicks's material as one last Andy Kaufman-esque style joke.

But I'm getting off the point here. The Ref is one of those movies that has a certain charm to it, even if it is constantly profane throughout. The film was released in March of 1994, with an awesome trailer of Leary doing his trademark rant at the camera while a tagline pops up at the end claiming, "The ultimate Christmas movie is coming this spring." (Sadly, this fantastic trailer has never resurfaced anywhere on DVD or otherwise. So because of no evidence, I could be perceived as a total nut-job and I just hallucinated the whole thing. Thank you, Buena Vista!)

The story involves one bickering couple (played with great aplomb by then non-Oscar winner Kevin Spacey and the always on-target Judy Davis.) Christmas is coming, and they've both left their marriage counselor with so much hate for each other that you'd think that they're both ready to burn each other's SAG card.

Enter Leary, a cat burglar on-the-run, who decides at the last minute to take the wrong married couple hostage as leverage to get himself out of the country. We all know how great Leary can be, and not to make this review sound bias (Well, OK I guess I will...who cares anyway), but the movie would not work without Leary's mad-as-hell protagonist. The upcoming events he faces with the Dysfunctional Family From Hades is nothing short of amazing.

Spacey and Davis are exceptionally good here. Their constant bickering would normally get old after 5 minutes in another movie, but it's the comic timing of each that make it work. And while Leary always seems to one-up them at every turn, you can't help but feel a little sorry for what these people have to endure in the duration of 93 minutes.

I must make note of the great British actress Glynis Johns (most people remember her as sister-suffragette Mrs. Banks from Disney's Mary Poppins). Here, she's with Disney's Touchstone Pictures to create one of the most repulsive, smug, and egotistic mother-in-laws from hell you will ever meet. I swear, this blogger wanted to reach inside the damn cathode-ray tube and beat the woman to death with a sledge hammer. She's THAT discomforting.

The movie has some weak points, such as a subplot with inept police officers trying to track down Leary which involves a videotaped broadcast of It's A Wonderful Life, (yeah, we get it...they're really stupid), and a worn-out joke involving the scent of cat piss (How many times can you say, "What's that smell?"), but they're all minor in comparison to the film's awesomeness.

Watch this one on a night when you've had a bad day at work, you come home to bickering in-laws, and you just feel like you want to take a machete (not Danny Trejo) and start severing some heads. Nothing puts you in the mood for the season than Tommy Gavin vs. a mother-in-law lusus naturae.

The Ref, 1994
Grade: A -

Review for Nolan's Latest Coming Soon.

2010-12-07T17:13:00.000-08:00

Only one is left standing with dignity after an in-room double feature screening of Armageddon and Transformers 2.

Obscure Christmas Part 2: Another Side Of Lieutenant Dan or Johnny Drama's Other Entourage.

2010-12-05T14:22:00.000-08:00

Keith Gordon's A Midnight Clear : 15 years ago, I had never heard of this movie. Then I started seeing the VHS in stores for rent at Blockbuster, but I never sought it out to find out what it was. Surprisingly, a friend of mine told me about it and said it was one of his favorite movies of all time. If you knew my friend then you would know that I was so skeptical about it because our tastes in movies are so opposite, it's always a battle to the death when we talk about them. (We've had an ongoing war about Raising Arizona for years. He loves it, I don't. Yeah, I know...I'm a traitor and a pathetic individual, but I'm sorry, the movie ain't funny to me.) But that's for another post.

The story is based on a novel by William Wharton and takes place in France towards the end of World War II. The year is December 1944, and a cast that includes Ethan Hawke, Peter Berg, Kevin Dillon, and Lieutenant Dan himself, Gary Sinise. Surprises abound during a snowy night when this group of American soldiers encounters a German platoon and what their demands end up being.

What's important about the film is that you should know almost nothing about it when going into it, so all I will say is that this is a poetic Christmas fable, filled with excellent performances and assured direction, and keep in mind it was released 6 years before Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. The movie explores the certain horrors of war and the ascension of boys to men...to MotownPhilly and back again. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

The film recently went out-of-print on DVD, so finding it may be more difficult than finding a good Michael Bay movie, but if you ever come across it, give it a watch. Disappointing is the fact that the disc was in the fullscreen aspect ratio of 1.33:1, so the gorgeous snowy landscape cinematography cannot be enjoyed to the fullest. Director Keith Gordon has gone on record (albeit 4 years ago) saying that there has been a remastered anamorphic widescreen print with a new sound mix created for a new disc, but due to legal issues with the monsters at the movie studios, a new DVD and Blu-Ray have yet to surface or be available in stores. (Thanks so much, Sony.)

Seek it out, find it. And if you can't find the DVD, the film is posted up on YouTube.*

A Midnight Clear, 1992
Grade: A -

*The YouTube print appears to be widescreen, but with its framing this blogger cannot be entirely sure. Damn, I hate it when I don't know these things.

Obscure Christmas Part 1: John Cusack is Cool As Ice.

2010-12-04T18:41:00.000-08:00

And here we go. The Christmas rush begins.

From now until the holly-jolly day, I will (hopefully) be supplying this blog with quick reviews of some of the more "obscure" Christmas movies that failed to ignite the box-office or just got lost in the holiday shuffle.

All these movies I recommend, so if you don't dig them like I did, sorry....you didn't have to listen to me anyway.

First up is the 2005 blink-and-you-missed it movie The Ice Harvest. I wanted to see this in theater, but I couldn't get anybody to go see it with me. And then when I decided to just go to the theater myself, the thing had already been assassinated as D.O.A. at the box office.

This is a dark comedy, with John "Nope, I'm not in American Beauty" Cusack (if you don't know what I'm talking about, check out the infamous viral interview here), and Billy Bob Thornton as two pals who attempt extort $2 million from mob boss Randy "Always on the Run" Quaid. The story takes place on Christmas Eve, and certain over-the-top hilarity ensues.

What follows is a great, darkly satiric portrait of small-town Americana, with a supporting cast (including the great-as-always Oliver Platt), supplying laughs and guffaws along the way, and comedic vet Harold Ramis (we forgive you for Year One) in the director's chair. Sure, this film didn't fare well at getting people into the seats in the theater, but who cares? We have it to enjoy now, and usually when I mention this movie to anyone, I get looked at like I have lobsters crawling out of my ears. (Thank you, Jean Shepherd.)

Parts of the movie are mean-spirited, providing the Scrooge-like aura that should at least be present in all Christmas movies at some point, but just remember that this R-rated gem ain't a film for mom and grandmother to be watched while sipping egg-nog and enjoying macrame. Watch it by yourself, as I did, presumably late at night, and enjoy a more obscure Christmas tale about a heist gone wrong.

And if you hate it, well....then go watch The Grinch again.

The Ice Harvest, 2005
Grade: B+

6 Turkeys: Bad Movies/Box-Office Disasters That I'm Thankful For

2010-11-24T15:14:00.000-08:00

With Thanksgiving almost here, I decided to make a list of six cinematic turkeys/box-office bombs that were ill-received when they were released, but still captured some fun sentiment in the heart of this movie fanatic.

1. Toys (1992)

I really do not understand why this movie got so much negativity. Sure, the plot is thinner than a bulimic/coked-up Paris Hilton, and the script is as invisible as Adam Sandler's humor (sorry, had to), but with an amazingly subdued Robin Williams, magical cinematography and art direction, cool gadgets that any kid would love, and a catchy pop-synth Hans Zimmer soundtrack (including Tori Amos), this has become one of my favorite holiday movies. I saw it in the theater the day it opened and loved it. It's not a masterpiece or a great addition to cinema, and it pretty much falls apart in the third act, but it IS great fun to watch, even if the "Sea-Swine" at the end was a last ditch attempt at well...something.

Rotten Tomatoes Grade : 27%

FUMoR's Grade: B+

2. Hudson Hawk (1991)

This has become the epitome of the box-office disaster. Any list you read of bad movies, this will probably be on it. And yes, I will say..this IS a bad movie, but it's also an ENTERTAINING one. And let me tell you, sometimes that's all you need. If you watch this movie and early on you realize, "Wow, this is....awful.", but as the movie goes on you find yourself laughing, quoting lines from it, and when you reach the end you are stymied to realize that you just sat through a real stinkbomb and that you STILL enjoyed it? Folks, that's just the magic of cinema. I have to thank my friend Eddie (check out his movie blog) for introducing me to this, it's top notch entertaining cheese to the 1000th degree. And where else will you find Bruce Willis and Danny Aiello SINGING "Side By Side" as they try to save the world? Pure genius.

Rotten Tomatoes Grade: 20%
FUMoR's Grade: B

3. The Happening (2008)

All right, so here's where the movie geek in me comes pouring out. This film was really never made for a mainstream audience. Even if you did like The Sixth Sense (which was a movie that was vastly overrated anyway and wasn't The Second Coming of film that everyone said it was), Haley Joel Osment's whispery voice was as annoying as Quint scratching his fingers on the chalkboard in Jaws. M. Night Shyamalan said before this film was released that it was meant to be seen as an old B-movie. It was a throwback to the cheesy 60's films of lore recalling the works of Roger Corman and the great Bert I. Gordon. So you got campy, infantile dialogue and Mark Wahlberg talking to a house plant. So what? In my opinion, it's Shyamalan's second best movie, after Signs. There, I said it, and I'm proud!

Rotten Tomatoes Grade: 18%
FUMoR's Grade: A -

4. Slugs (1989)

This is a pure guilty pleasure. I re-discovered this through a friend of mine, and it's become one of my favorite bad movies of all time. Look! All the corpses (male and female) wear the same grey-haired wig! Wow! An actor says a line before he's supposed to! What? Half the cast didn't speak English so their voices had to be dubbed! Awesome! You CAN make a paper-mache finger to scale and it STILL looks stupid! And who knew that a simple front-yard garden can immediately take your mind off two deceased nice people that you liked a lot? And where else can you hear the immortal line: "You ain't got the authority to declare HAPPY BIRTHDAY! Not in this town!"

Even scarier than the movie itself is the fact that this dreck was based off of an actual NOVEL.

Rotten Tomatoes Grade: 0%
FUMoR's Grade: B

5. Police Academy 4: Citizens On Patrol (1987)

Let's be clear: All the Police Academy sequels are awful. Really awful. The acting is bad, the scripts are bad, even throwing Bobcat Goldthwait into the cast doesn't make them any better. Hell, Steve Guttenberg didn't even stick around for Part 5. However, the fun of watching them throughout the 80's plants a giddy amount of happiness into this reviewer. It's nostalgia, pure and simple. I can't even begin to fathom saying to a fellow movie buff: "You know, if you haven't seen any of the Police Academy movies, then you're missing out on cinematic greatness!" But there's something about these films that still make them fun all these years later, and #4 in particular always seems to be my favorite. Maybe it's because it was directed by Jim Drake, who directed many episodes of Night Court, maybe it's the pseudo-rap title tune performed by Michael Winslow ("So ya call the cops, they won't do no good, cuz they won't even come through this neighborhood!"), or the catchy P.A. theme that I'll be whistling all day after the movie's over.....

Or maybe I'm just plain crazy.

Rotten Tomatoes Grade: 0%
FUMoR's Grade: B

6. Very Bad Things (1998)

Yeah, I know. The puns are endless. "Very bad acting!", "Very bad script!", "Very bad movie!"....the list goes on and on. Well, I liked this movie a lot, thank you very much. It didn't make a dime, and was in and out of theater before you could get in your car to drive to go to see it. The premise involves an out-of-control bachelor party in Vegas, and lots of Christian Slater mugging for the camera (Jim Halpert must've learned from him). Everything that happens in this movie is so utterly bizarre, and the entire ensemble cast which includes Cameron Diaz, Slater, Jeremy Piven, and the director of Iron Man (speaking of BAD movies) overacts to the nth degree, but to quote a fellow fan of this film: "I like comedy so dark it scares you." Couldn't have said it better myself.

Rotten Tomatoes Grade: 44%
FUMoR's Grade: A -

That's all. I'm done. Pass the stuffing and mashed potatoes.....