House II: The Second Story (1987)

NOVEMBER 30, 2011

GENRE: COMEDIC, HAUNTED HOUSE

SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

Much to the dismay of Phil Blankenship, I was not a big fan of House, which I finally saw for the first time at his first New Bev all nighter back in 2008. And now I disappoint the equally awesome Matt Serafini, who told me that he’d cock-punch me if I didn’t like House II: The Second Story when I mentioned I’d be watching it. Well, hopefully he'll reconsider, but I guess Phil can take some solace in that it makes me think House wasn’t so bad after all, because I was enjoying that one occasionally, whereas this one I only found myself entertained for a 10 minute segment featuring John Ratzenberger.

In what I assume was an intentional “carrying of the torch” casting decision, Ratzenberger plays a similar role that his Cheers-mate George Wendt played in the first film, namely that of a guy who seemingly walked in from a different, better movie. When Ratzenberger first enters and starts casually knocking over Arye Gross’ shit and addressing everything with a laidback response (including the presence of an alternate dimension), I began wondering how infinitely more fun the movie would have been had his character been in it all along.

Because most of the movie is given to Arye Gross and Jonathan Stark (Billy Cole!) mugging their way around the house, or just being plain unfunny. I kept hoping Royal Dano (as Gross’ great grandfather, a cowboy who is resurrected) would just shoot them and take over from there, but no dice. The movie also wastes the rest of its cast, including a fairly amusing Bill Maher as some yuppie and the lovely Jayne Modean as would-be love interest, both of whom exit the movie with little fanfare and are never mentioned again. The movie doesn’t even bother to reunite Gross with his girlfriend (New Blood’s Lar Park-Lincoln), who takes off after a misunderstanding, as is demanded by the screenwriting rules of the 1980s. To say it’s sloppy is putting it mildly – this movie seems to forget plot elements as soon as they introduced (and forget about even trying to connect it to the first film).

It’s also barely a horror movie, heavily skewing toward the comedy portion of things. In fact I remember why I never bothered watching it as a kid – the PG-13 rating told me it would be “lame” (benefit of being a kid who could watch R rated movies – I didn’t have to settle for this sort of shit). In fact I’m surprised it even got that much; I assume because it’s technically a horror movie the MPAA figured a PG wouldn’t fly, even though absolutely nothing happens in the entire movie except for a cheap zombie (Gramps’ enemy) losing his head. But with all the sci-fi/fantasy elements surrounding it, I’m sure they could have made a case for a PG and gotten it. Almost all of the Star Trek movies got them, those always had similarly non-violent deaths.

And that would be fine if it were funny, but the attempts at comedy are so half-hearted and weak that most of them barely register as jokes. I guess it’s supposed to be amusing when Gross begins chasing a baby pterodactyl puppet around the house, but I didn’t even crack a smile (Pterodactyl was funnier!). Stark’s mugging as he played the “wacky best friend” also got on my nerves after a few minutes, which is unfortunate since Gross seems far more interested in hanging out with him than his hot girlfriend. Other than Ratzenberger, my biggest amusement was seeing how well Gross and Stark accepted their new zombie friend – they don’t seem to consider it weird or scary at all. I’d like to think that after watching a couple thousand horror movies I wouldn’t be too fazed by finding a zombie cowboy in my basement, either. I’d be more surprised to discover I had a basement.

At one point I had to check the IMDb to make sure Charles Band had nothing to do with this thing, what with the alternate dimensions, tiny creature puppets (a cute little “dog” thing), and even a few sorcerer type baddies for good measure. That’s the sort of shit he puts in all his movies! But no, this is the work of his slightly more respectful producer rival Sean Cunningham. The composer credit gives that much away, in fact – instead of Richard Band, we have Harry Manfredini, which means half of the score is lifted from Friday the 13th sequels. To be fair, this is otherwise one of his more spirited efforts, with some old Western/adventure style cues to go along with his usual horror junk.

But I guess that can sum up the movie’s problems quite nicely, huh? When Harry Manfredini’s score is one of the brighter spots, you know you’re deep into bad horror movie land. Probably why the movie has a zero percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes. At any rate, if I ever get around to seeing House IV (there is no real House III, see Horror Show for minor explanation), at least it ignores this one and returns to the slightly more enjoyable story of the original film.

What say you?

Warning! Falling glass carries dangers of injury or death!

Iron may be harder and more durable, but splintered glass can be pretty darn fatal.

My wife and I watched Iron Man 2 on Sunday night. It's the kind of movie we probably would have seen when it first came out on video, except we trusted the negative buzz. Turns out, we probably enjoyed it better than we thought we would. But I still give it a marginal thumbs down when all is said and done.

One thing I thought was absurd was how cavalier the movie was about the damage that can be done by glass shrapnel.

The first such instance is when Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) gets drunk at his birthday party. Being kind of a jackass seems to be the trademark of many of these superheroes, Bruce Wayne being one of the more prominent examples. Stark's particular brand of jackassery involves blowing up glass objects with the weapons in his suit. (See, he finds the iron man suit to be more comfortable party attire than a tuxedo.) Sure, the first blast, when he destroys a glass wall, is accidental, and no one is in harm's way. But then he and other people start tossing vases and champagne bottles and other objects into the air, so Stark can skeet shoot them into oblivion.

Instead of running and screaming, blinded or with serious abrasions on their face and throat, the partygoers cheer him on. See, they can't be hurt by the glass objects exploding five feet above their heads, because then that would be really irresponsible of Stark, not just cutely irresponsible. (Oh, and it would appear that neither do any party guests get hurt when the subsequent brawl between Stark and Colonel Rhodes (Don Cheadle), each wearing their own iron man suit, destroys Tony's whole house.)

At least the second glass danger situation isn't something the hero is directly responsible for.

At the Stark Expo in Flushing, Queens, villain Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) debuts a bunch of drones -- robots that are designed to function more or less like an iron man, but without the pilot. Hammer is told by worse villain Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) that the drones are only far enough along in their development to be able to salute. Turns out, both Hammer and the world get a big surprise when the fully operational drones burst through the glass roof of the Expo building to go off and wreak havoc on the world.

So as they smash through that glass ceiling (so to speak), it would stand to reason that glass is raining down on the hundreds if not thousands of Expo attendees below -- this time from a height of more than a hundred feet, probably more like 200. This time, they do run and scream. But, since it's a movie, no one appears to be getting killed by giant shards of falling glass, or even cut by smaller ones. Of course, people could be shown getting hurt here, because it would be the villain's fault rather than the hero's. But Iron Man 2 pusses out, which is really not so surprising -- to dwell on people getting peppered (so to speak, Ms. Potts) with falling glass is just not that useful in terms of forward narrative momentum.

It's debatable whether a person would be more hurt by glass falling from a greater height, at only the speed of gravity, or from a closer distance, blown outward at explosive speed. But I'm guessing that Stark would have killed/seriously injured more people by blowing up vases just above their heads than would be killed from a glass ceiling falling in. For one thing, those who designed the glass ceiling would probably use the same shatterproof glass that prevents you from impaling yourself on a jagged edge of your car windshield if you're thrown through it. Whereas a glass vase being blown to smithereens has no such safety-conscious engineering.

Realism. If I'm trying to find it in the movies, I'm really looking in the wrong place.

Little Deaths (2011)

*On DVD December 13th
Hobo Rape. Nazi-gimp sperm milking. Dog domination. These are the main ingredients in Little Deaths; a crazy, demented little movie made up of 3 vignettes, all about the horrors of relationships. I swear, the fucking British are always on about something that manages to creep me out.

"House and Home" is the first story of the three, and involves a rich couple who love Jesus, and love to spend their time doing good deeds. They also love to invite homeless people to their crib, drug them, and then take turns raping them, because who in their right mind doesn't love to rape homeless people? The wife is a snooty bitch and her hubby is a simpering puss-bag, so right off the bat you can see who's in control... I'm pretty sure it's her he wants to rape and kill, because she really deserves it. But, let's take out our anger on some poor destitute homeless chick instead...

Which brings us to Sorrow; the hot homeless chick with a very foreboding name. Right off the bat you should know that raping "sorrow" cant be the best of ideas. It's like trying to stab "hate", or bitch slap "rage." Nothing good can come of it.

And of course, nothing does. Nudity, bondage, rape, face pissing and blood ensue. Lots of blood.


Cheeky bitch.

Freaky bitch.
Things get way crazier in the second story, "Mutant Tool." It's the story of an ex-hooker who is trying to fight the urge to keep banging random strangers, yet keeps banging random strangers; and a Nazi-era gimp with the largest wiener I've ever seen, who is kept chained up so that he can be milked for his mutant load, which is turned into a pill which enables people to have some sort of ESP high... I think. None of that is exaggeration. In fact, I'm holding back on some of it, to avoid crazy spoilers.

Seriously, this gimp is rocking the joint of a large Rhino here, and it's kinda scary. Being fed pureed human organs doesn't make things any less creepy, and seeing the chick take these crazy sperm pills and have a psychic link to the gimp while pissing blood doesn't help either. This is definitely Cronenberg territory.

It's hard to properly break this story down without using about 5,000 more words, so let's just leave it at this; it's trippy, creepy, and gross. Also, it might be best to watch this on some sort of hallucinogen. We're not condoning drug use, but it's true.


Biggest man-hammer ever.

Yeah. That's exactly what you think it is.
The last segment's title, "Bitch", has a double meaning; on one hand, it refers to the girlfriend of the story, because she's a raging bitch; on the other, it refers to her boyfriend, because he's a spineless man-bitch. Then again, it also refers to dogs, which can be bitches too, so really it has multiple meanings.

Bitch is the most twisted of the three, in a way, because it's a story that is real and you know things like this just have to go on in daily life with many couples. She's the Dom, he's the sub, and he loves when she humiliates him, bangs him in his brown balloon knot with a strap-on, bangs other people and makes him watch, makes him walk around on all fours like a dog... which she's profoundly terrified of.

After a while he grows tired of his bitch treating him like a bitch, and since he's not one to bitch, he gathers up a bunch of bitches, ties her up despite her bitching... and we've said too much already. Suffice it to say that every bitch eventually bites back when beaten enough, and sometimes they travel in packs. Bitch. Just wanted to say that one more time.


Walk in, see this... what do?

Do this.
Little Deaths is a very visual movie, using sex and violence tell its story. It's not all exploitation though; it's also interesting to see the reds, greens, blues and different hues on display here. The movie is arty, without feeling pretentious or self important. It's obvious the 3 directors wanted to shock and maybe even make a small statement with their vignettes, but they also wanted it to be interesting and different. Maybe that's why the movie works.

All three segments were enjoyable in their own way, and for different reasons, but if we had to pick on as our favorite, it would have to be Mutant Tool. It was definitely the most "out there" and it was about an abnormally ginormous dick... how can you not love that? *Disclaimer: we do not, as a general rule, "love" dick. We prefer boobs. Although one of us, who is a girl, likes dick and boobs, but that's neither here nor there. Thank you.

What did we learn?- Don't rape homeless people. Don't be a hooker. Don't do drugs. Also, be nice to bitches.
The Master Says- B+ This was a different, fun, disturbing, sexually charged look at sexual dysfunction and it's end results. Nudity, sex, blood and gore are the stars here, but there's also a big psychological component that drives the movie and its stories forward. If you like it disturbing and mentally challenging, then you should grab a copy of this and give it a go. then again, you'll probably like it if you enjoy large peen and beastiality too. And piss. An buckets of sperm.

Final Thoughts- Since there's a Pitbull in this movie, we thought we'd take a second to show some love to one of the best breeds of dogs in the world. Don't believe the hype; Pits are sweet, loving, amazing dogs, unless raised or mistreated by cocksuckers. Then again, that rule tends to go for humans as well.

Kidnapped (2010)

NOVEMBER 29, 2011

GENRE: THRILLER

SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

The home invasion genre doesn’t have a lot of wiggle room when it comes to plotting; even the slasher film has more “think outside the box” potential. They all have their own touches, of course, but if you say “that movie where the people are terrorized in their own home by a couple of dudes in masks”, you’ve just described like 90% of the genre. You gotta add the specifics to be more clear – so if someone said the above and added “and the entire movie unfolds in about 15 or 16 long shot takes”, then you know they’re referring to Kidnapped (Spanish: Secuestrados).

And for the most part, that’s the best thing about the film, which is almost depressingly light on story and not even particularly scary. Filmed normally, this might be one of the weakest in the genre, as the robbers are merely after money (no plot twists whatsoever here), the complications are as cliché as they come (the boyfriend comes over! A cop comes snooping around!), and no one on either side of the equation is particularly interesting. One of the robbers is strangely calm, almost coming off as an intellectual of sorts, but this character tic is just that – it doesn’t amount to anything or have any bearing on the “story”.

It’s also TOO damn grim – the movie actually closes (SPOILER!) on a shot of one of the family members being repeatedly stabbed in the chest. Even when everyone dies there’s usually some sort of “epilogue” to let the audience decompress a bit, but this literally ends on one of the most upsetting moments in the entire film. There’s also an unnecessary rape scene, as if the movie wasn’t unpleasant enough in its third act.

But on a technical level, it’s damn impressive. Again, the entire movie unfolds in long takes; I almost tried counting them but realized I’d be focusing on the wrong thing – there are less than 20 I think though. This isn’t an easy thing to do in ANY genre, but it’s even more laudable in a violent thriller of this nature, where things (and faces) are smashed up and everyone needs to be in their exact right spots for things to go smoothly. A mistake could take quite a while to reset for a second take, and if said mistake occurred at the end of a complicated 6-7 minute shot… I wouldn’t want to be the guy who fucked it up, that’s for damn sure.

This also results in some terrific performances, particularly the two female characters who (sigh) are terrorized the most (the dad barely gets a scratch on him over the course of the movie). Without the constant cutting (and what I assume was an in sequence shooting schedule), their growing panic and breakdowns come across far more believable than you usually see in these sort of things. The dad is also pretty good, though I had to wonder if (anti-spoiler?) we’re supposed to suspect he might be in some way involved? He seems oddly calm at a few key points, and I was unsure if it was just an actor issue or if they were trying to trick the audience somehow. Director Miguel Angel Vivas does pull off one misdirect quite well, so it’s not too much of a stretch to assume he might have been trying it here.

It’s a damn shame that Netflix Instant betrays those performances by only offering the dub track, however. I know I usually prefer the dubs since subtitling is often so poorly done, but in this case I think I would have much preferred the original language, especially since most of the dialogue was incidental anyway. The dub actors had the complete wrong tone of voice in their line readings more often than not; what was obviously harmless, almost silly bickering about a knick-knack between the two adults was dubbed as if it was a serious matter. There were also a number of awkward translations that, even if retained in the subtitles, would have at least SOUNDED right. The IFC DVD release has the original language from what I understand, so why Instant is only offering a dub is beyond me. Oh well, it’s just another thing for me to use as ammo whenever some schmuck tries to convince me that this service is superior to physical media.

Having largely tired of unpleasant movies such as this, I assume those who are still “excited” (for lack of a better word) at the idea of spending 85 minutes watching folks suffer (mentally or physically) will enjoy it even more than I did. By no means is it a bad film, and I can’t even really fault its story when Vivas (and co-writer Javier Garcia clearly wasn’t interested in a twisty narrative. Hell, if you apply this same sort of approach to a genre I’m still enthusiastic about it’d be one of my favorites of the year. A solid film I never want to watch again.

What say you?

Kevin Smith & Scott Mosier: Texas Chainsaw SMassacre

Cody: As covered in the Film Appreciation article 25 Years in the Devil's Playground, I love The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. I will take any opportunity to reference that movie, discuss it, gush over it, and put as much positivity about it out into the world as possible. So I was very glad to hear Kevin Smith and Scott Mosier do the same in the latest episode of their SModcast podcast, #192: Meta-Benji. I was so glad to hear them talk about TCM2 that I decided to make a video combining the clip with some pictures, and here it is...

Warning: Explicit language.

Last Of The Living (2009)

NOVEMBER 28, 2011

GENRE: COMEDY, ZOMBIE

SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Like a jazz riff, zombie comedies are all pretty much the same, relying on their own little inventions and moments to stand out amidst all the others. Last Of The Living is a good example – at its core is just another version of Shaun of the Dead, with two slackers (there’s actually three, but counting the other guy is like counting NPH as part of Harold & Kumar) sort of lazily dealing with a zombie apocalypse with video games before finally springing into action (using their video game expertise, no less). But it more or less works as a fun excursion, with the New Zealand setting and a pretty good pop/rock soundtrack (including a theme song!) adding some flavor.

One thing I particularly liked was that they actually address what exactly still goes on after zombies first start appearing. When our heroes pass by a music store, one of them wants to see if they have an album that was finished recording just before the breakout. The others argue that there’s no way that the label bothered pressing the album to disc and sending it to stores when there were much pressing matters to worry about, and then they break in to see who’s right. It’s something I’ve often wondered about myself in these things, particularly in the Romero films since they span decades (until he rebooted the timeline in Diary anyway). Like in Dawn, they have technology that didn’t exist in 1968 (the time of Night), so did the world keep developing things and manufacturing “non-essential” items, or was this just a goof (or an example of fluid time, not unlike comic books). Since these movies aren’t usually taxing my brain, I can ponder these pointless things without losing my way with the storyline.

The chemistry between the guys is fun too. Too many of these things end up having one guy be the “serious” one and the other more of a loudmouth, and while you can Morgan and Ash in those categories, it’s not as much of a contrast as say, Mike and Brent from Deadheads. It’s more like Trey and Matt in Baseketball, where the difference is fairly inconsequential and only seems to exist to provide SOME semblance of conflict. But it’s equally balanced – Morgan is slightly more inconsiderate but he’s also the one who takes charge more often than not, whereas Ash takes things a bit more seriously but is also a bit of a nebbish who’d be long dead if not for the fact that Morgan was watching his back.

Oh, and they actually call the things zombies, which is always a plus. Just last night I watched two characters on Walking Dead argue if they should be called “Walkers” or “People”, and I just sat there thinking “What about ZOMBIES?” Again, after over 40 years of this type of zombie, I think they’ve made their presence known to the world like vampires or werewolves – you don’t see anyone in a recent vampire movie trying to come up with something to call them. I know the argument is that they’ve been around for nearly two centuries, but how long does a monster need to exist before he is accepted as “canon”? It’s not like it took 100 years after Stoker’s novel for the basic vampire myth (which is what made it popular, much like Romero’s film did with zombies) to be something we all took for granted.

I was also impressed on a technical level; it’s not the prettiest movie ever, but it’s energetic and well-staged for the most part, and they got some great production value – not a lot of low budget horror movies have the bulk of their climax set in an airplane, and their journey takes them through several locales, giving it a scope that even Shaun lacked. Speaking of scope, it’s scope! Ballsy move for low budget – you risk showing off more of the obviously not really deserted world around you, but I think they do a pretty good job of showing a “dead” world (certainly better than I Am Omega anyway). Director Logan McMillan also works in a lot of fun transitions with sliding doors and such, though after a while he mostly settles for standard Star Wars-ian wipes (guess he ran out of ideas but wanted to keep the basic theme going).

One thing that baffled me was the rather melancholy opening and downer ending, which went against the more care-free tone of the rest. Shaun (I hate to keep comparing, but it’s the one everyone knows, and it’s also the best) found a nice balance between the need to take things seriously but retain the overall spirit of the film – I think McMillan was a bit off here (the death of a major character is also much too casually dealt with, too). And he should know better than to include fart jokes – at that point he’s just ASKING for an unfavorable comparison to Edgar Wright’s film.

I’m also baffled how it ended up on a budget pack with 3 other movies already – it’s only a couple years old, and it’s a lot better than the usual drivel on these things. You guys got a shit deal!

What say you?

Film Appreciation - Are You Scared Now?

Cody Hamman revisits a childhood cable favorite, Far from Home (1989), for Film Appreciation. 

Charlie Cox and his daughter Joleen are nearing the end of their month long road trip vacation and Joleen can't wait to be done with it. She's about to turn fourteen and this vacation with her dad, who she sees as a hopelessly clueless, incompetent dweeb, has not been her idea of a good time. She wants to get back home to her mom's place and celebrate her birthday in style.

But things don't go according to plan, as the Cox family truckster runs out of gas and the fuel pumps at the nearest gas stations are dry, leaving Charlie and Joleen stranded in a small, remote desert community.

Things are clearly off right from the start. The locals are an odd bunch and one of the first things Charlie and Joleen do in the community is stumble across the body of a murder victim in the town grocery store. This victim is just the first of several.

While Charlie and a fellow desert castaway search for gasoline, Joleen gets mixed up with a couple local boys; the violent tempered Jimmy and the awkward Pinky; and a mysterious killer continues lowering the town's population by knife, by gun, by fire, by bathtub electrocution.

As with many of the movies I've written about on here, Far from Home is one that I watched repeatedly on cable with my grandmother. It was shown on the movie channels regularly around 1990 and I was always into watching it whenever possible. It's got a weird atmosphere and tone that has stuck with me over the years.

Watching the film now, it comes off as even stranger, especially given how inappropriate some of the elements are. Joleen is played by Drew Barrymore, who was the same age as her character when this film was made, thirteen going on fourteen, and there are all sorts of moments dealing with burgeoning sexuality. When she first meets Jimmy, he immediately, wordlessly starts rubbing an ice cube on her arm. Soon after, she goes swimming and while wearing a bikini spies on a couple having sex (a cameo by porn star Teri Weigel) and gets cornered by a lascivious Jimmy, who is so enraged when she gets called away that he punches a wall. Attempted rape and attempted loss of virginity follow later. I thought nothing of all this when I watched the movie in my younger days, I totally forgot about it until my most recent viewing, when it was uncomfortable to see and added a whole new layer of sleaze to the proceedings.

Not that there wasn't always sleaze, Jimmy's bad home life with his mother - who doesn't even stop smoking and drinking beer during a bath - is up there with the beginning of Rob Zombie's Halloween as far as over-the-top dysfunction goes.

What drew me to this film in 1990 was the setting, the insanity and the murder mystery, and it still holds up as a decent killer thriller.

Far from Home was written by Tommy Lee Wallace, writer/director of such films as Halloween III: Season of the Witch, Fright Night Part 2, and the miniseries adaptation of Stephen King's It, and was directed by Meiert Avis, a music video director best known for the U2 videos of the '80s. Avis doesn't go as flashy as many music video directors do, but does make some unusual lens choices.

 

The cast is impressive. In addition to Barrymore, there's Matt Frewer as Charlie, Richard Masur as a Vietnam vet who refuses to deal with money, Susan Tyrrell as the trashy trailer park owner, the great Dick Miller as the town Sheriff, Karen Austin and Jennifer Tilly as others in need of gas, Nightmare on Elm Street 4's Andras Jones as Jimmy, and Anthony Rapp as Pinky. With his roles in this, Adventures in Babysitting, and Dazed and Confused, Rapp was one of the top young actors of my childhood.

Somehow this film wormed its way into being a cornerstone of my cinematic world, it's one of those movies you encounter in your childhood and never shake. While I haven't watched it many times since the early '90s, something about it has always been lodged in my brain. I would often think back to the electrocution scene or Pinky and the microwave tower, I've had dreams in a setting similar to Pinky's abandoned apartment building hangout. As it's determined to stick in my head, it's one that I will continue to rewatch over the years.

Supply and OnDemand

The pricing of movies -- from their theatrical release through their ultimate arrival in the cheap bin at the drug store -- is like a lesson in Economics 101.

When the demand is highest for a movie, its cost is also going to be highest. This is why a shitty movie that was just released can actually be $19.99 (or more) on DVD, and maybe even ten bucks more than that on BluRay. The perceived novelty of it drives up the price. A year later, that same shitty movie may be worth only five bucks in either format. It's all a matter of waiting it out.

The same is true for catching a movie in rented format. Earlier this fall, Universal played around with the idea of charging customers $60 to rent Tower Heist the same day it hit theaters (or very soon afterward). The idea was that the price would seem reasonable because the demand is so high for a just-released studio film to be available immediately in your own home. Films that are a month old, but haven't hit DVD yet, can be bought in a hotel room for usually $12.99 or so. Then the price goes down once they've hit DVD, usually to either $4.99 to rent it on pay-per-view (OnDemand), or essentially free as a Redbox rental (just over a buck) or part of your monthly Netflix plan.

Theatrical also works this way to some extent. Within the same theater, ticket prices usually stay the same from the time the movie arrives until it leaves. However, you might get to pay a bit less by waiting a couple weeks, if there's a theater that shows second-run movies near your house. (Too far away, and you're sacrificing your savings on the ticket by paying more for gas.)

What I really want to concentrate on today, however, is rentals. Universal may have scrapped its plan to charge $60 for Tower Heist, but the idea may have been right, especially for someone like me, who can only get out to the theater a finite number of times. Especially when I place a premium on watching the movie before the middle of January.

I've been an unusually high customer of VOD (video on demand) for about the past month, and it has everything to do with getting to watch a movie at home now rather than waiting until it comes on DVD (probably in February or March). See, I try to watch all the movies of significance that I can from a given release year before the morning the Oscar nominations are announced -- which will be January 24th in 2012. That's when I finalize my list of rankings from first to worst, and in order for the list to seem complete, I'd like movies from November and December to be (almost) as well represented as movies that came out in March or April.

But that second group has the distinction of being available to watch on DVD whenever I want. The first group does not.

And so it is that I've been like a heat-seeking missile, focusing on movies currently in theaters that are also available at home on my TV right now. It's this mentality that has led me to pay a combined total of $23.97 to watch Melancholia ($9.99), The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence ($6.99), and most recently (this past weekend), Margin Call ($6.99).

I guess it's better than paying $60 for Tower Heist.

Actually, I've liked all three movies to varying degrees. (Yes, even Human Centipede.) And if I'd gone to see them in the theater, those movies might have cost me more like $40 rather than $24.

But only Melancholia is a movie I might have actually seen in the theater. With the others, it was all about trying to make my list of year-end rankings seem more comprehensive.

I guess I should tell you that traditionally, I'm a bit puritanical when it comes to using pay-per-view, or OnDemand, or video on demand, whichever term is really the correct one. I'm generally not willing to pay the extra couple bucks for the convenience of being able to watch a movie on the spur of the moment, rather than waiting for it to arrive through Netflix or going to a Redbox kiosk to pick it up. In fact, I'm the guy who will go to incredible lengths to be sure I don't pay a late fee for a rental, or don't let my Netflix rentals sit around too long collecting dust on the coffee table. I'm always conscious of the margins, if you will.

But with Margin Call and the others, the demand truly did win out. These movies released theatrically in October (or with Melancholia, November) carry an extra value to me in that they contribute slightly more to my certainty that I've surveyed the complete list of available options from a given release year before determining which movie I like best (or worst). And in each case I was able to watch it at a time when a theatrical screening wouldn't have been possible -- with Melancholia and Centipede, it was late at night, and with Margin Call it was during the day while I was watching my son. (See, I didn't think I should subject him to the grotesqueries of Human Centipede, which certainly has me in the running for Father of the Year.)

However, I should say that I'm glad not all movies are made available this way. It could get very expensive for me very quickly.

Then again, isn't part of being a movie fanatic that you can't count your pennies too much? If you're like me, you've probably made the determination that it just costs what it costs to see movies. If you're determined to see a movie in the theater in 3D, and it costs $16.50, well then that's just what it costs. If we were model train lovers, we might spend $20 on a row of bushes to go alongside the tracks. But our hobby is movies, and so we spend that twenty bucks on a movie and a popcorn instead.

If you are counting your pennies, you can always wait until DVD -- but then what would you talk about at cocktail parties?

However, the characters in Margin Call itself probably wouldn't have been too happy with me. I bought their security at an increased price despite seeing it in a compromised format (at home rather than on the big screen), and don't even have any assets to show for it -- not even the toxic asset of a DVD that'll take up space on my shelf.

Guess it's good that I'm a film critic rather than a day trader.

The Booth (2005)

NOVEMBER 27, 2011

GENRE: ASIAN, GHOST (or PSYCHOLOGICAL)

SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Some folks think that it’s important to know as much as possible about a movie before going in, but I am the total opposite. Beyond knowing for sure that it’s horror, I’d be perfectly happy not knowing a single thing before I sat down, and that includes the filmmaker in some cases. Certainly had I realized that The Booth (Japan: Busu) was from Yoshihiro Nakamura, the same man behind A Boy And His Samurai (my favorite non horror movie of the year), I would have had much higher expectations. Because it was just “OK”, but luckily I wasn’t expecting much to begin with.

Let’s start with what I liked. For starters, this is a J-horror film from the 00s, but it does NOT have any long haired ghosts or any of the other generic trappings of these movies (including Dark Water, which Nakamura also wrote). Hell there’s even a plot point about a girl being found in a river, which may or may not have something to do with our protagonist, yet we are spared the “dripping ghost” shots we’ve come to expect. Similarly, it doesn’t try to make us afraid of a particular electronic device like some of the others (cell phones, cameras, videos, etc). Even though the entire movie takes place in a booth of a radio call-in show, the “ghost” is tied to the area itself, not the phone. At first I was like “oh Christ, they’ve REALLY run out of ideas”, but the movie could have taken place anywhere and the “ghost” could have used any object to contact him – indeed, at times he just seems to be hearing it “live”, not over the air.

Now, I keep putting “ghost” in quotes, and I hope it’s not spoiling anything to say that part of the fun of the flick is deciding whether he’s just paranoid (think “Tell Tale Heart”) or if there’s an actual ghost after him. A series of flashbacks clues us in to not only the answer, but also rounds out the DJ’s character to let us know that he’s kind of a dick to everyone, not just the girl who may be taunting him through the airwaves. Thus, it’s much more character driven than most J-horror films I’ve seen; more interested in getting into a character’s head than providing “boo!” moments at frequent intervals (indeed, there’s only like 2-3 traditional attempts at scares in the whole movie).

The problem is that it’s just too long, even at 74 minutes. This is very much a Twilight Zone type tale (or better yet, Tales From The Crypt, whose characters were usually this sort of mildly despicable), and would have been amazing if presented as one instead of a feature. As a result there’s a lot of repetition in the plotting (it’s also told more or less in real time, which always results in potential recycling regardless of the type of story it’s telling); the scene with the chess player in particular feels like it’s just regurgitating things we already knew.

It also gets a bit silly at times. A character shows up for work with what seems like the type of wound that a doctor would make you stay overnight to treat properly, yet she just gets bandaged up by one of the other radio station crew members as if it’s a mild scrape. It’s just there to serve part of the twist, and I appreciate the idea, but I think it would have made a bit more sense to have the character come in after having been treated by an actual nurse (I assume we are meant to think the person is a ghost at first; if so it’s not successful). They also get a lot of mileage out of the DJ’s panic about forgetting or not having the names of the songs he’s about to play – do radio DJs in Japan actually tell you the songs they’re playing without fail? I know I’ve certainly never been able to identify good tunes I’ve heard because the DJ was more interested in telling us about their upcoming Acoustic Christmas show or whatever instead of saying “Hey, this is Angie Aparo.”

But it’s entertaining enough, and watching the guy unravel in real time is quite fun. When I think of the other real time movies I’ve seen (or 24), the protagonist is the guy we’re rooting for, not the one you eventually kind of want to see dead. Not that he’s a full blown VILLAIN, but he cheats, he treats others like shit, etc – I’m certainly not hoping that ghost leaves him alone. Ryuta Sato does a laudable job of walking that line between hateful and sympathetic; if the movie was remade in the US I could see a guy like Bradley Cooper having fun with the role, as he excels at playing that sort of “likable douche” character.

Tartan’s DVD has a few extras, most of which focus on Sato. Nothing too exciting, and it’s a shame that Nakamura wasn’t heard from more, especially as this turned out to be his final horror movie as of this writing. His previous films were mostly horror, but after this he has stuck to dramas and comedies – did he just lose interest, or was he just taking jobs in order to build up some clout in order to the sort of movies he was more interested in? Either way, we got Boy And His Samurai out of the deal, so it’s not the worst thing in the world, but still, kind of a bummer he has seemingly left the genre behind. Japan’s Cronenberg!

What say you?

10 reasons why The Thing (2011) didn't suck like we thought it would...

*Maybe still in theaters now, on DVD in early 2012
The big reason that this movie works so well for us is because instead of being a remake or sequel, it was a prequel. Sure, John Carpenter's 1982 classic was itself a remake, but it was, and still is to this day, a superb horror movie. When we heard that it was getting the redux treatment, we cringed and wished death on whomever came up with the awful idea of messing with such an absolute classic...

Having seen it though, under protest, we have to admit that we were wrong, and that the 2011 Thing was a pretty damned good movie. It bears similarities to the 1982 version, as well as having some very Alien-esque moments as well, but it's not entirely fair to call this a new version, is it? It is in fact a prequel, so really, it's its own entity. Even if it had been a direct remake, we'd be hard pressed to hate it.

If you liked Carpenter's 1982's opus, there's really no reason you shouldn't enjoy the hell out of this one too. It's not as good of a film, but it doesn't have to be. It's good enough for what it is.

Here are 10 reasons why we liked this prequel/updating:

Mary Elizabeth Winstead- She's no MacReady, but come on man, she's way hotter than Kurt Russell, even with his epic 80's beard.

Joel Edgerton- Because he's awesome. If you haven't seen warrior yet, you should check it out asap. Great flick.

Eric Christian Olsen- Because he's funny as hell in Fired Up, and is awesome as Deeks on NCIS:LA. And am I the only one thinking that he would make a pretty good serial killer?

Mr. Eko- Because he was one of our favorite LOST characters, and because trying to spell his real name is way harder than just spelling Mr. Eko. So... Mr. Eko it is!

The FX- Because even though they were more computer-generated than practically applied, they were still pretty awesome.

This Thing- Because they way it turned it's head was creepy.

The Oral Sex Scene- Because anytime some Alien tries to ram its overpositor down someone's throat, it's a good thing.

This Thing- Because what in the hell is going on here!

Whatever This Is- Because it reminds us of Christmas, and makes us believe that Alien's love Christmas too.

The Scene After The Credits- Because it was just pure nostalgia love.


The Master Says- B+ This was a good addition to the Thing mythology and series; it's a great sci-fi creature flick, much like its 1982 inspiration was. The fact that it's a prequel really does make it that much easier to swallow. Hopefully this movie will inspire the younger generation to seek out the 1982 version, and watch them back to back. That really would be a pretty good double feature. Jesus, that just made me sound old.

Final Thoughts- Let's take a minute to admire Kurt Russel's Epic Beardness circa 1982; he looks like a sexy, bad ass Dan Haggerty, don't you think? Minus the bear, of course.

Snowbeast (1977)

NOVEMBER 26, 2011

GENRE: MONSTER

SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Instead of the usual Monster or Predator tags, should I just make "Jaws Ripoff" its own category here at HMAD? Snowbeast in particular follows Spielberg's movie quite closely, providing all of the major plot points (albeit in a different order) as if they had some sort of checklist to go by. Opening scene death of a local girl, check. POV shots of victims instead of showing the monster, check. Happy locals killing the wrong animal, check. Main characters finally deciding to go out there and take care of it themselves, check.

And of course, the "close the beaches" plot, which in this movie is the 50th annual celebration at the ski resort where the entire movie takes place. The dialogue is even pretty much the same, with the main town spokesman (Sylvia Sidney!) having to tell our hero that the town depends on those tourist dollars. And as with Jaws, the monster ends up causing chaos at the event around the halfway point, which makes Sidney regret her actions. I mean, why is it ALWAYS this exact scenario? Is there a single movie of this type where they DO close everything when it is first suggested, only to end up having a few kids sneak in and party anyway? Hell it would even be cheaper - you wouldn't need to hire a bunch of extras to point, scream, and run away.

But as long as you know it's been Jaws-ified, the movie is pretty fun. 70s made for TV horror was pretty well done - its no surprise that a lot of these movies played theatrically in other territories. Can you imagine any TV movies of the past 5-10 years playing theatrically? Half of them look cheaper than the shows that they're temporarily replacing that week. But hell, this one even has cigarette burns on it for when the reels changed! There's no real on-screen violence, but they make for it with a hilariously awesome/cheesy fade to red whenever Snowbeast is about to lunge at a screaming victim.

There's also no on-screen monster, at least not in full. We see his arm/paw or his head or whatever, but never a wide shot showing Snowbeast in all his glory, which is a bummer. I don't know if Standards & Practices didn't allow it or if they just opted not to show what was probably not the best looking costume, but it's a shame either way. There are photos online HERE of actor Mike London in full costume, so it's almost puzzling that there's no real reveal in the film itself, even when he's (spoiler) dead. Even if it looked shitty when he was running around, why couldn't they toss in a shot of the damn thing lying on the ground?

Taking up much more screentime is the most casual attempt at cuckolding that I've ever seen in a movie. Hero Robert Logan (from Across The Great Divide! Amazing movie) openly tries to take Bo Svenson's wife (who is his ex) away from him, and it seems like she's not exactly resisting at first. Hell even Svenson is pretty cool with it; at one point he sees them share a quick smooch and laughs about it with Logan. I'm sorry, but if I saw my wife kissing one of her exes, I'd be pretty pissed off, I think. I certainly wouldn't sit down with the guy and share a drink and laugh about it, or go in a hot tub with him after to discuss our Snowbeast problem.

Some of the dialogue is priceless, too. The script was by none other than Psycho scribe Joseph Stefano, and when he's not just copying Jaws he finds some funny little exchanges here and there. I particularly loved when Logan tells the sheriff that he'll recognize a victim when he sees her face, to which the sheriff replies "She doesn't HAVE one." There's also a lengthy bit where Logan and Svenson's wife (Yvette Mimieux) discuss the sex dreams she's been having about him, also quite casually. Also: "The TIARA!!!" (I'll leave that one for you to discover on your own).

There's also a lot of skiing and snowmobiling, which is fine by me. Nowadays, everyone's on a damn snowboard, so it's nice to go back and watch legit and untainted skiing footage. The Colorado resort is quite beautiful, and everyone with their hideous 70s clothes (Logan's post-tub robe in particular is more terrifying than Snowbeast ever dreamed of being) provides a nice, colorful contrast with all that white (I was also happy to see that it looked OK - I had watched a movie the night before and every time a scene had a lot of white in it, the screen would show these vertical lines. Thought my TV or player was failing, guess it was just that particular disc). It wasn't even that bad of a transfer, considering it was on a disc with three other movies (on the same side) from one of those Mill Creek type companies. Oh, public domain!

The climax is a bit lame though. Snowbeast topples a curiously large pile of logs that's in the middle of the woods, which knocks over the group's RV (some of the logs even end up inside the main cabin, which is physically impossible given their position to each other). So Logan, Svenson, and Mimieux run off, wander around for a bit, and then go right back to get some guns. Meanwhile, Snowbeast is still just sort of hanging out nearby - he didn't even really chase them! Really clunky, and makes the whole running sequence seem like padding in a movie that's already pretty short (86 minutes). That does seem quite short for a TV movie of that era, but apart from a kill scene that was cut and replaced with another less violent one, I can't find anything relating to deleted scenes, so perhaps they just had a lot of commercials, or it aired in a 90 minute block?

Syfy remade this one recently, interestingly enough starring John Schneider, who SOUNDS exactly like Robert Logan. At least, it has the same name and "Bigfoot in the snow" concept; it doesn't have anything to do with skiers or "Winter Carnivals" from what I understand (it hasn't aired yet), so maybe it will be less Jaws, more Lake Placid? I guess I'll find out when it airs. Or in 20 years when it ends up on a budget pack and I'm somehow STILL doing this.

What say you?

Worth Mentioning - Friends Divided

We watch several movies a week. Every Friday, we'll talk a little about some of the movies we watched that we felt were Worth Mentioning.

This week, Jay discusses football rivalries and machete maidens introduce Cody to a one mama massacre squad.

HARVARD BEATS YALE 29-29 (2008)

Directed by Kevin Rafferty
Starring Don Gillis (voice) and the Harvard and Yale football teams from 1968

Harvard Beats Yale 29-29 takes its title from a headline which proclaimed "Harvard Beats Yale 29-29", even though the score had obviously resulted in a tie. It was an article in the Harvard student paper, and even though it makes little sense, it's completely accurate.

This documentary, directed by Kevin Rafferty, finds key players from the 1968 Harvard squad and 1968 Yale squad sitting down to talk about their lives, and of course, the 1968 matchup between the two rivals on the football field.

This is a very enjoyable watch for fans of football, but also for anyone wanting a great perspective on the 1960s lifestyle and how much things have changed. Here we are learning about two different groups of people, both who attended Ivy League schools, but seemed to mostly be from different economic backgrounds and upbringings.

This piece isn't flashy at all-- the interviews are very blandly lit and photographed, and the only other real escape from the interviews is footage from the 1968 matchup. It works though because the interviews are, for the most part, very engaging, and the game footage is perfect. The interviews range from talk about life during the '60s to actual gameplay conversations. It's a nice balance.

To make sense of the title you would have to understand that Harvard was a huge underdog going into the game. No one gave them much of a chance, and for over three quarters, they were completely outplayed by Yale. Late in the game, Yale was still playing for more points, and it is because of their desire to completely embarrass their rival that they actually allowed them opportunity to get back into the game. The final two minutes of this game, and the end of this documentary, are definitely the highlights. Once the big plays start, the interviews get very intense and much more interesting. I was surprised at how funny some of the interviews are as well. The players have great perspective and it's wonderful to see how some of them view such huge moments in the game. Even all these years later you can still see the shock, excitement, and sometimes even fear in them as they relive those moments all over again. 

Worth noting: Tommy Lee Jones is featured throughout this documentary as he was a Harvard football player, and one of the Yale football players dated Meryl Streep during college.

ROLL TIDE/WAR EAGLE (TV Documentary - 2011)

Directed by Martin Khodabakshian 

Starring Charles Barkley, Nick Saban

This documentary recently aired on ESPN and documents the hatred displayed in one of college football's most well known rivalry games, the Iron Bowl, played between Alabama and Auburn.

I am mentioning this now, as well as Harvard Beats Yale 29-29, because it's rivalry week in college football, and because I am an Alabama fan. The documentary features a highly condensed recap of the history of both programs and the rivalry itself. Former players and coaches, as well as current coaches, from both schools sit down to recap some important moments in their respective history. As a younger fan, my knowledge really picks up when the documentary starts to talk about the Gene Stallings coached Alabama teams of the 1990s.

The Iron Bowl is a story and a rivalry that is currently at its peak in popularity and importance. Since 2008, and including this year, the Iron Bowl has featured a team in the hunt for the National Championship. Being the last regular season game for both teams, this game has even more at stake than ever before, so much so that it spurred a despicable act by an Alabama fan after last year's game saw Alabama blow a 24-0 lead. Auburn went on to win the National Title, their first since 1957, and it affected Alabama fan Harvey Updyke so much that he poisoned two trees on the Auburn campus. These trees represented a ritual for Auburn fans after victories, they would toilet paper the trees in celebration and it is a long standing tradition for their program. This act led to Updyke becoming the most hated man in Alabama, and he now faces prison time for his actions. His actions have added more gas to the fire of an already ugly rivalry that some feel has finally slipped into a truly dark place.

The documentary covers the Harvey Updyke saga as well as the action on the field, but also touches on the deadly tornado outbreak of April 2011 that did major damage to Tuscaloosa, home of the Alabama campus. This is definitely a very informative documentary for those who may not have a firm grasp on the history of both schools and what the rivalry means to the people in the state of Alabama. I think it does a good job of highlighting key individuals on both sides, but maybe lingers a bit too much on Updyke (giving him a prominent on screen role) for this Alabama fan's taste. I understand why, but I'd hate for any outsiders to get the idea that the lot of Alabama fans are like Updyke, which they aren't, even if Auburn fans have started to refer to Bama fans as "Updykes." I think both fanbases would agree that the Paul Finebaum radio show is also featured a bit much as well. It should be noted, and is documented here, that during the Updyke scandal and during the tornado aftermath, both programs and fans came together and donated tons of money or helped out in relief efforts.

The production values are great and some classic moments from both schools are documented in what is overall a very fine-looking documentary. If you're already a football fan or just someone who wants to try to understand what this game means to the people of Alabama, then I highly recommend this one. I believe it is replaying on one of the ESPN channels from time to time, but it's also currently available on YouTube for free.

Cody's mentions:

MACHETE MAIDENS UNLEASHED! (2010)

This documentary takes a look at the exploitation movies of all types - horror, women in prison, blaxploitation, martial arts pictures, a little person action hero - that were in constant production in the Philippines from the late '60s through the early '80s.

Filmmakers and actors including Roger Corman, Jack Hill, Joe Dante, Eddie Romero, Eddie Garcia, John Landis, Brian Trenchard-Smith, Pam Grier, Sid Haig, Dick Miller and many more are on hand to discuss this wave of grindhouse awesomeness, covering everything from the Blood Island trilogy to the massive production of Apocalypse Now.

I always enjoy hearing stories about filmmaking from this era and of the production/budget level that these films (aside from Apocalypse) were made on, and this documentary from director Mark Hartley is very well done and interesting. It might even inspire you to go out and make something crazy yourself.

T.N.T. JACKSON (1974)

With that dynamite bod, she's a jet black hit squad

This was one of the films produced by Roger Corman and shot in the Philippines, and of the movies featured in Machete Maidens Unleashed! that I hadn't seen yet, T.N.T. Jackson landed on the top of the list of those that I had to seek out as soon as possible. A movie about a big-haired black woman kicking ass, with taglines like "T.N.T. Jackson, she'll put you in traction" and "She's a one mama massacre squad", that's right up my alley.

The set-up for this blaxploitation martial arts revenge film is quite simple: Diane "T.N.T." Jackson's brother got mixed up with some American heroin dealers in Hong Kong and disappeared, so she's come to China to figure out what went down.

Treat her fine or she'll shatter your spine

Directed by Cirio Santiago from a script rewritten by the great character actor Dick Miller, this is a fun flick that doesn't mess around, filling out its under-72-minute running time with an action scene every 5 minutes or so. Our titular heroin ring busting heroine is played by Playboy Playmate Jeanne Bell, who was actually the first black person to ever be on the cover of Playboy. She does a fine job carrying the film and beating up the bad guys, even when she has to fend off attackers while wearing nothing but her panties, as she does in the film's most popular scene.

You'll know you've been kissed by her ebony fist when the blood from your face stains your diamond necklace