And Soon the Darkness (2010)

* out of ****

Most who see 2010’s “And Soon the Darkness” will not know that it’s a close remake of a 70’s film of the same name. This is only appropriate, given that the original film had vanished into obscurity almost instantly after it was allowed a release, and deservedly so. I saw the 1970 “And Soon the Darkness” not too long ago – and not because I heard of the remake first – yet I can’t quite remember a whole lot of it aside from the main points. Oh, well; that was all I needed to make some connections between the “original” and the remake. They have quite a bit in common; same basic plot and set-up, same genre, same intent, same twist, same quality. The only differences are the change of location (the original was set in France; this one takes place entirely in Argentina) and a little bit of nationality swapping amongst the film’s central characters (they were originally British; here they are 100 percent American).

If there’s one thing I hate more than a movie in which nothing happens; it’s a movie that thinks it has something going for it, yet it really doesn’t. Such was the case with the 1970 original; same goes for this unnecessary remake. The film is about a duet of hot American backpackers (Odette Yustman and Amber Heard) that does indeed stop by Argentina for a night. They embrace the freedom by visiting a local bar and enjoying a night of heavy drinking and for one of them at least, romance as well; meeting up once again in the morning to catch the 8 AM bus back home.

The alcohol comes with quite the kick; and causes the girls to sleep in just a tad too late. They miss their bus and are forced to stay in Argentina for at least a few more days. They decide to make the best of it with a little sun-bathing; which goes horribly wrong when they split up after a heated verbal exchange of unfriendly proportions, with one returning to the spot after apologizing, only to find the other has disappeared.

We know what has happened. We see the girl being dragged away by some long-haired man; presumably of considerable strength. But of course, the other girl does not know this; and that is why she is ignorant enough to ask the local police for assistance, only to get nothing in return. Instead, she is accompanied on her journey to find her friend by an odd but friendly man named Michael (Karl Urban), whose girlfriend went missing in these areas some time ago.

As you can see, “And Soon the Darkness” plays out like a thriller and therefore must be labeled as one; although upon having seen it, I can assure you that there isn’t a single thrilling or particularly suspenseful moment in it. Given that I was able to remember whatever I could from when I saw the original film, the outcomes were predictable; and it sure doesn’t help that the film is just so absolutely and utterly incompetent anyways. You don’t have to see the original for all the entertainment value of the remake to be drained directly from it; you just need to know what makes a good thriller and what doesn’t.

If you’re willing to sit through 90 minutes of stupid women and clueless men chattering away like it’s their business to do so; then “And Soon the Darkness” may be your cup of tea. Also, if you enjoy cheap endings and lame excuses for thrills, it might appeal to you just the same. But I know what I like; and I don’t like watching a movie where there are dozens of moments that occur every half-hour in which something intended to be ominous and atmospheric shows up, only to rear its ugly head and give us a damn good look at its unimpressive self. I also don’t like bad acting, uninspired direction, pitifully predictable plots, and absurdity that goes almost completely uncalled for. Some films are ridiculous, and they know it; this one acts as if it’s completely unaware, or perhaps it isn’t acting at all.  Maybe it really, truly, honestly, from the bottom of its heart does not have a clue. Wouldn’t be much of a surprise to me.

Mean Streets

**** out of ****

While he had in fact directed “Boxcar Bertha” and “Who’s That Knocking at My Door?” before it; “Mean Streets” was ultimately the film that established the voice, the passion, the vision of Martin Scorsese. In that sense, it’s also regarded as his first true entry into the vast world of cinema. Having just seen it for the first time myself; I can agree with that statement. While his first two directorial features are unseen by me (at the moment, mind you); this is the kind of film that established a style for Scorsese. It set expectations for what was to come from him in the future. It was the first film in which he could tell a unique story; told more or less through his own eyes. I’ve been told that it’s partially based on a lot of Scorsese’s own life experiences; making it all the more easy for him to dictate to us this deep, gritty tale of crime and redemption.

The title refers to New York City. The film deals primarily with the parts of the city where the Italian-American mob ruled the streets. Scorsese – as observant as ever – takes his time in giving us a tour of the daily lives of the associated people. Just one of them is Charlie (Harvey Keitel). He’s given a challenge; balancing his life. He desperately wants to move up in both life and the mafia; although he’s held back by not only himself, but also his friend and fellow mobster Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro). Now, this Johnny Boy is a real live wire; violent, reckless, unrestrained. Scorsese makes this known by blasting The Rolling Stones’ “Jumping Jack Flash” over what is essentially his introductory scene.

Johnny Boy is a loan shark; he owes money all over town. It’s Charlie’s job to ensure that he gets that money back to those who desire it; that is, before things get violent. It isn’t east trying to keep someone else’s life in check if you can’t even uphold a decent grasp on your own; Charlie knows this. Regardless, it’s almost like he intentionally piles up problem after problem. His life is a living hell.

Just a few other bumps in the long, complex road that is his life; women (Charlie can’t decide whether he loves a black stripper or Johnny Boy’s epileptic cousin) and his uncle Giovanni (Cesare Danova), who employs Charlie and has him collect debts at his self-run bakery. Giovanni gives Charlie a lot to live up to; while the women, like most movie women of films that are often bleak and depressing (like this one), are mere distractions soon to become much bigger problems.

So much pressure is put on poor Charlie. He doesn’t know which path he should take in life. He doesn’t want out, he wants in; he wants to walk the streets of New York forevermore. Like most movie mobsters worth mentioning or remembering, this is his life; and he wouldn’t (or couldn’t) have it any other way. That is what makes his struggle so identifiable; the mafia plays out as a sort of metaphor for any given problem of life, big or small. I like that. It gives me something to relate to. And when Scorsese makes a movie that I can relate to, in any way, I get genuinely excited.

The narrative displays brilliant penmanship from Scorsese; successfully making connections between organized crime and religion, two things that are to become a big part of Charlie’s life in the story of the film. I suppose in a sense they are also very crucial to Scorsese’s life; as far as I know, he was never involved with the mob; he never got made.  “Mean Streets” is based upon Scorsese’s experiences in terms of what he saw during his stay in Little Italy; things that both disgusted and intrigued him on a particularly personal level.  The film is made with such raw energy and grit; it’s alive in a way that very few films – today, yesterday, any day – truly are.

If you have yet to see a single Scorsese film, this is an excellent place to start. The film was made in a time before Scorsese had gone on to make classics of cinema such as “Taxi Driver”, “Goodfellas”, and Raging Bull”; I don’t suppose it can match those films on a purely technical scale. In fact, some people seem to think that “Mean Streets” has aged, and not particularly well; although I’m quite provoked to disagree on that. It makes perfect sense that one might not appreciate “Mean Streets” as much as others if they’ve seen the other said films – but not this one; but what does that have to do with age? The impact of the film, simply put, never dies; it remains as provocative and effective as it was back in the day when it was first made, in the year of 1973. I don’t care if it’s not as technically brilliant or narratively polished as the other Scorsese features of late; it is a great film that left a mark on cinema, and not just the gangster portion of it.

One thing that I’ve come to admire most about Scorsese as a storyteller is the way in which he portrays each of his characters. He treats the mobsters as individuals; he gives them personalities instead of putting certain ones on the backburner whilst letting others take center stage. There’s a wonderful scene near the film’s peak when Charlie and Johnny Boy share a tender, loving moment; it shows that the two truly care for each-other, in spite of their hardships. Gangsters, business partners, criminals; friends. That must be their philosophy; among other things. It is the performances from De Niro and Keitel that give these characters the energy and gravity to succeed as believable, well-developed human beings. “Mean Streets” is more solid proof that Scorsese is a cinematic genius; not to be ignored, or dismissed. I think it’s safe to say that when you’ve got it made like he does; you get what’s coming to you.

Vinyan

** out of ****

“Vinyan” has been marketed as a horror film; which is no surprise, given that the director behind it is Fabrice Du Welz. If you haven’t seen a little movie known as “Calvaire”, then that name means nothing to you; but if you have, well then, there you go. Anyways, “Vinyan” is not so much a horror film but more-so a drama with a few disturbing, haunting, creepy, horrific moments that apparently sell it off as belonging into that genre. The marketing boys responsible for this one should be put out of the job.

But that’s just a pet peeve; and it merely kicks off the decently-sized list of them that I have surrounding Welz’s second feature film. I think it would be best to start out by saying a few words: I respect this film, and having seen it, I still can say that I respect Welz for making it. But that’s not to say that I particularly liked it. This is the kind of film where it revels in simplicity; yet it has some sort of deeper agenda on its mind that never comes full circle. In my opinion, any film remotely like that is a disappointment any day; and disappointing certainly comes to mind when I think of this film, even if it’s only been a few dozen minutes after finishing it.

A lot went wrong with the film. The action is set to the beautiful back-drop of Thailand and its island regions; which makes for some excellent scenery/eye-candy. I’m fine with that; but what I’m not fine with is the story. A couple is grieving after having lost their son to a tsunami that hit the said country. It left many dead; and their child’s body was never found. This gives them some hope; although they’ve been merely hoping for some time now, and they’d like nothing more than to have their little boy back with them again.

Their belief in their child’s survival is given extreme support when the wife in this couple notices a young boy – in a video shown at some art convention or something that the two protagonists attend – that closely resembles their very own. Determined to find out the truth, both husband and wife travel to the islands of Thailand – which are heavily populated by criminals and underdeveloped tribes of primitive humans – where they shall attempt to find their kid.

I said I have problems with the film; and I do. The most I can say about my general distaste for the plot is that in spite of the intriguing set-up – which somehow throws mysticism and horror tropes into the mix – there’s still a general sense of pure boredom. I didn’t care about these characters, and therefore I kept searching for alternative reasons to give a shit about this half-assed narrative; finding no positive results. By the end; I was pissed, tired, exhausted, dazed, confused, and greatly let down.

I have no doubt that a few curious movie-goers will find “Vinyan” to be intriguing and thoroughly entertaining. I wish I could have felt the same about it, and given the appeal that Welz’s previous feature had with me; I was expecting something a little more, I don’t know, conclusive and satisfactory than this. If anything, the film is a solid approximation of what happens to most films when their maker decides to go all un-conventional and blend art-house aspirations with elements not commonly found in such films. There’s plenty about “Vinyan” that is indeed artsy – fantastic cinematography, beautiful locations, and solid performances – but little that is engaging or memorable. I wouldn’t tell anyone to avoid it; nor would I tell most to see it. Perhaps it depends on your tolerance for poorly-marketed, somewhat contrived pieces of cinema. But when it comes to me and this film, there is no problem; only minor nitpicks, which is enough to turn my head in the other direction. Fortunately, I’ll be able to move on; and with pleasure.

Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie

* out of ****

There isn’t a more proper way to begin my review of “Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie” than to express me unending admiration for the comic duo behind it. Tim Heidecker and Eric Wareheim are gifted in the field of delivering random, awkward, inappropriate situations to use as comedic material; and I like their Adult Swim original series, “Tim and Eric’s Awesome Show: Great Job”. The show itself is nothing more than brainless – but engaging – escapism for all those who are open-minded. The trouble with the movie is that it’s brainless, but it can neither be called engaging or “escapism”. To be escapism, I’d think some effort would have to have been put into the movie being mentioned; and in this case, little is offered up.

I can already tell that this isn’t going to be an easy write-up, so bear with me. I’m currently filled with an impeccable rage. I was looking forward to this movie from the moment that it was first announced, and so were the die-hard fans of the original show. I knew what to expect, I knew what I wanted to see; and frankly, that wasn’t much. Just a lot of hilarious, random facial expressions and plenty of sufficient laughs brought on by the over-the-top absurdity that these two men so flawlessly tend to employ. Well, I got the facial expressions and some of the randomness; but you know what, I’m just going to come out and say it: this isn’t funny.

And yet, it tries so very hard to be. Consider the main plot, for example: Tim and Eric play themselves, having been given a billion dollars to produce their own feature film, only to screen the finished product (which ran for about 3 disappointing, underwhelming minutes) to their employers; ultimately met with his primal disapproval of the ways in which they spent all that money. In fear, the boys flee town and settle down somewhere in a run-down, wolf-infested mall; which they attempt to bring back to both attention and life in order to be given the option of coughing up the billion dollars that they owe the studio and save some lives – including theirs – in the process.

 There isn’t much more to it. Tim heartlessly steals a janitor’s young son (this is supposedly played out for laughs; there were none), the mall-bound canines attack pizza-donning decoys, and Eric finds himself a lady. Some of the plot elements are just so utterly ridiculous that they do indeed inspire some brief chuckles; although some are rather, should I say, cringe inducing. And that’s just saying the least.

I expect nothing more, or less, than all-out irreverence from the comedy duo of Tim and Eric; but their movie goes to extremes in an attempt to make us laugh. Sometimes, it was just too twisted for my taste; and that’s coming from someone who self-admittedly has a very dark sense of humor. When Eric decides to pierce his penis; I knew the film had crossed a line, and it was one that had yet to be drawn. If that doesn’t tell you something, then I don’t know what will; perhaps the disgusting sex scene between Tim and Eric’s love interest will do the trick.

“Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie” is hopeless; a film lost in the creative freedom of its makers, and the excesses that it so joyously revels in. This is a movie so pointless, plot-less, and brainless that at moments; it becomes nearly unwatchable. I liked the cameos (Jeff Goldblum’s was hilarious), I liked the cheesy effects that were brought over from the show to the movie, and of course, I liked the moments that actually felt the slightest bit like they were ripped from the collective minds of Tim and Eric; but I hated everything else. And I’m not exaggerating; I really despised just about every moment that was spent watching this film. I imagine that some of the show’s avid fans will find something to enjoy here, and thus the cult of Tim and Eric will live on; but I’m betting on the possibility that those unassociated with Tim and Eric will be easily repelled, just like I was. And as I said; I like Tim and Eric when they have their sights set on smaller, more accessible (but still irreverent) things, but if their debut into the world of film tells me anything, it tells me to pray to the cinematic God that it’s their last.

The Grey

*** out of ****

A plane filled with passengers, headed “home” – wherever that may be – from Alaska. A crash; leaving six survivors total. A wasteland covered in snow and ice; the air riddled with only the cold. The surrounding areas belong to the wolves; and the lives of those unfortunate souls stuck there belong to nature. This situation is scary on its own, and the only thing scarier than this, in my opinion, is a lone man faced with similar struggles. But this is clearly not a movie in which one person hogs the screen; although it may be one where there remains only a single survivor of the ordeal-to-come.

“The Grey” is a good movie about bad – often times terrible – things. I have already described to you the basic premise of the film, and going in, that’s just about all you need to know. If the synopsis implies that this is a film you predict shall entertain and engage you; then have at it. But beware; this is a not the kind of film that dons a happy ending, or happy characters – only happy moments, and even those are relatively short.

The survivors are John Ottoway (Liam Neeson), Todd Flannery (Joe Anderson), Talget (Dermot Mulroney), Diaz (Frank Grillo), Hendrick (Dallas Roberts), Burke (Nonso Anozie), and Lewenden (James Badge Dale). They are all complete strangers to one-another, although it’s implied that perhaps certain members within this party have seen other members before. That doesn’t matter; most are willing to cooperate given the circumstances that they face: death, separation, starvation, cannibalism, and of course, the damn wolves.

In fact, common phobias of the cold such as frostbite are put on the backburner to make room for the four-legged fiends. These nasty dogs taunt the protagonists by lingering in the dark – always somewhere nearby – striking, and leaving a fatal wound after doing so. Some survive the attacks; just as others do not. But you’d better believe that, given this is a film starring Liam Neeson, the characters will all do their part to try and fight back against the forces of nature. 

They intend to do the wolves one worse than the animals would do to them; using the resources all around them to create weapons and at one point, even a fire – which is used to embrace the victory of their first wolf kill. For those who might be just a little bit concerned; this is sometimes a brutal and relentless vision of survival. When the wolves come, there will be blood; although the filmmakers spare us the sight of seeing all the gory, graphic details, although the sound effects that accompany each kill will probably be enough for some people. Other than the wolves, these people are surrounded by potential danger; and death comes in all its forms.

The film was directed by Joe Carnahan, who hasn’t made a film this good in a while, although he hasn’t exactly made that many films at all. Nevertheless, this is a pleasant surprise; the kind of taut, impressive mixture of suspense, disturbance, and philosophy that I like to see out of modern cinema, yet seldom do. Carnahan, alas, has found a story that works for him; a story that he can tell not only through the fine print, but also through the visualization of his snow-covered locations. The film makes great use of atmospheric, lingering, haunting, foreboding shots of the mountainous regions belonging to the area in which these six men trudge through day-by-day. It also makes genuinely good use of scenes involving survival tactics. There are scenes that are kind of frightening – just about all the wolf scenes, as well as one involving drowning in an ice-cold river -  and there are also scenes that are kind of ridiculous (the one where the remaining survivors decide to jump by rope off a cliff and onto some trees in order to successfully reach the nearby river). This tale of survival isn’t going to appeal to everyone, but for what it is, I thought it was bloody well solid.

Exciting, thrilling, and almost flawlessly intense; “The Grey” is not, indeed, a flawless movie, but it’s still a very entertaining one. It isn’t entertaining, however, in the “popcorn” sense; but it does keep you engaged, whether you like that feeling or not. To me, it’s one of an early 2012 surprise; I wasn’t sure if Carnahan had enough ability to successfully stretch out his concept into a full-blown movie with a respectable plot (with equally as exceptional characters); but he did just fine. His screenplay may not have the emotional core that it aims for – or the complex set of characters that it wants – but it wants to thrill us and perhaps even scare us; and for most people, that’s exactly what it will do. It delivers on its promises; nothing more, nothing less. It is worthy of praise on its own right.

Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story

*** out of ****

“Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story” is writer Judd Apatow – and director Jake Kasdan’s – response to the modern biopic craze that started somewhere mid 2000’s. The film is intended as a sort of parody, in particular, of the musical biopics; and I guess the film’s way of poking fun at the genre comes in the form of presupposing that while there was Johnny Cash, John Lennon, and Elvis Presley – there was also a lesser-known artist by the name of Dewey Cox. This is his story; the hilarious, smartly-written ode to both music and those behind it.

Dewey (played by Conner Rayburn as a kid) began his life a farmer’s son; given only a single brother to play with in his childhood days, and only for a short amount of time. One day while the two brothers were playing around with a duo of their father’s machetes; Dewey accidentally swung a bit too hard and hit his brother, slicing the poor boy in half. His father never forgave him for this; claiming that his brother was the better one of the two. Regardless, through the experience; Dewey is able to find his passion, which is in music. One day, he just picks up a guitar and emerges a natural.

Fast-forward to Dewey’s (now played by John C. Reilly, for the remainder of the film) as a high school student; on the night of the school talent show. He will perform an original song with his five-man band. In what makes up one of the film’s funniest scenes; the show goes incredibly awry, and Dewey fails to impress his parents, but he does win the heart of another girl around his age – Edith (Kristin Wiig). At a tender age, they get married and have many children; whilst Dewey struggles to find a gig that actually works out for him. He works as a janitor in a music-night club; and he eventually bullshits his way into snagging a show for himself. From then on, he is met by fame and success; as a trio of Jewish record producers takes a liking to him, his musical style and his aspirations.

Since the tone is that of a satirical musical biopic film; “Walk Hard” must walk the line of the films that, more or less, inspired its creation. Dewey becomes famous for his music; he gets involved with both various women and many different kinds of drugs. He also gets to perform with the likes of Elvis (Jack White), Buddy Holly (Frankie Muniz), and in one scene, he even meets The Beatles (Paul Rudd, Jack Black, Jason Schwartzman, Justin Long). But I don’t think it would be too much of a spoiler to say that it all comes crashing down; Dewey’s life, his passion, and his relationships with others.

While it’s mostly intended to be funny (and oh, is it ever!); “Walk Hard” is nevertheless genuine. In works for a variety of different reasons, but I think the most important element was John C. Reilly being cast in the leading role. I like Reilly as an actor, and I get the feeling that he’s talented in playing a diverse amount of interesting, comic, and dramatic roles; this is definitely one of his more memorable roles, with him taking the spotlight for every minute of the ride. It certainly helps that he’s also a good singer too; providing the film with an original soundtrack of exceptional quality.

Here’s what you get: a crass, sometimes perverse, often times very funny satire of a genre that most people both love and hate – at the same time. “Walk Hard” may not be a perfect movie, but I really enjoyed it while it lasted. I recommend it for the Reilly performance –and the many others that aid him - the taut script from Apatow (a talented comic writer/genius of our generation), and the catchy musical tunes. For those who love music as much as I do; this is a good ol’ fashion love letter to the art written in sex, comic violence, and rock-and-roll.  It’s proof that while the Dewey Cox story may have a few bumps in its road; it’s still one worth pondering. After all; this is a rare film that takes the good with the evil (the depressing with the uproariously comedic); and in perhaps the most literal sense possible. “Dewey Cox” rocks; and it rocks rather hard.

Cop Out

* out of ****

When the end credits for “Cop Out” started to roll and the words “directed by Kevin Smith” graced the screen; I couldn’t help but cry a little inside. As a strong supporter and fan of the man’s work (I love “Chasing Amy”, “Clerks”, and “Dogma” to death); I’m used to seeing the words put as followed: written AND directed by Kevin Smith. Given that here, he’s only doing the second thing; we now have an explanation for why the movie is so darn bad.

The film is being marketed as some sort of buddy/cop action-comedy; and so it is. You know, as long as you take out both the action and the comedy, and let’s not forget the buddies. Look, I like these kinds of movies, I really do; but “Cop Out” can’t even begin to measure up to such cop comedy classics as “Hot Fuzz” (a personal favorite of mine) as well as various other films within the sub-genre. Hell, even “The Other Guys” (a better, funnier version of this film; also from 2010) stops this one dead in its tracks. There are two ways in which a filmmaker can go about making a buddy cop film; and Smith chooses the path of the bumbling idiot with a movie camera.

So here’s the gist of things: long-time cop partners Jimmy (Bruce Willis) and Paul (Tracey Morgan) have been working together for nine years, the former is attempting to come up with money for his daughter’s expensive wedding, and all the while; they have been recently suspended from pay for unprofessional conduct while on duty. This means that they’re in a bit of a crisis; Jimmy, in particular, won’t get off easy. But he must not disappoint his kid; so he goes to sell a valuable baseball card to a buyer. While in the store, the joint is robbed by an amateur criminal named Dave (Seann William Scott), who takes off with Jimmy’s card; rendering him helpless. This is where the “plot” kicks in.

 After finding, interrogating, and successfully getting the proper information out of Dave; our dimwitted (but apparently oh-so-smart) cops discover that the bastard has already sold Jimmy’s prized possession in exchange for drugs. They also get the name of the dealer; a man who goes by the street name of Poh Boy. He’s a bit of a baseball fanatic; but his sights are set on bigger and better things at the moment. Soon, after being persistent, both Jimmy and Paul are caught in the middle of an ugly, violent drug war between the dealers, the cops, and a Spanish-speaking lady found in the trunk of a lost car (that apparently belonged to Poh Boy).

This is grade-A stupidity; but credit is due, and I shall respectively credit all who are responsible for this mess. Kevin, for taking the job as a director when he knows his skill is in writing (making his position as a director ONLY completely pointless); Mark and Rob Cullen for penning such a crude, witless script; and actors like Bruce Willis, Seann William Scott, and even Jason Lee for lowering themselves to something as over-the-top juvenile as this. Sure, I expect nothing less from Smith; but I’ve come to expect wit, and that’s something that “Cop Out” hasn’t a single trace of.

By definition, comedies are intended to provoke laughter. With “Cop Out”, I didn’t even need to count how many times I laughed; because the most I did was giggle, and that was for just a quick, single moment. Since the screenplay isn’t well-written, and the dialogue is spectacularly un-Smithian (in the sense that it lacks insight, wit, or style); the film is reduced to a slew of cheap movie references, a few wasted performances, and above all, a wasted opportunity for Smith. I am told that the failure of “Cop Out” has been attributed to his constant on-set pot-smoking; encouraged by actor Seth Rogen when the two were collaborating on “Zack and Miri Make a Porno”. As funny a movie as that was; damn you Rogen for opening such doors, because you’ve just cost Smith a lot of work, and a lot of ambition. Still, I have no doubt that if Smith returns yet again – but this time as both writer and director – he can improve on this unwatchable, impeccably brainless misfire. Love him or hate him; this is one Kevin Smith joint that you won’t want to indulge in.

I Drink Your Blood

**** out of ****

A Satanic cult of hippies enters a small ghost town. They’re looking for trouble; assuming that it won’t dare confront them, knowing the kind of things that they’re in to, and what they practice. On the night of their first ritual, they rape a girl that comes from the town outside the woods in which they gather. She runs back home; injured, and before long she is bedridden. Her grandfather is broken-hearted and vengeful; approaching the hotel that the hippies now inhabit with a loaded shotgun. His attempts at revenge fail, and he is force-fed LSD. His grandson walks him home; whilst he is still suffering under the influence of the drug, mad, and in tears.

This will not stand with the grandson. He must do what his grandfather was incapable of doing; and he aims to put these hippies to rest once and for all. He does so by shooting a mad dog that was snooping around in the woods and taking some of its blood and storing it in a needle. He then injects the rabies-infected blood into some of the meat pies that his employer – a woman who runs a local bakery – has already made; causing the hippies, unaware that their food has been spiked with nasty fluids, to inherit the traits of a rabid animal and go absolutely bat-shit insane.

To my surprise, “I Drink Your Blood” doesn’t get to the bloody (AKA good) stuff until the last forty minutes or so. The rest is some sort of attempt at build-up; and a failed attempt from the looks of it. But when the side-effects of consuming rabid dog blood with your pastries start to kick in on these vile souls; the fun begins, although in my opinion, it had already begun long ago. Just think about it: a film that begins with a hippie cult leader proclaiming “Satan was an Acid Head!” can’t be that boring, can it?

I believe that the writer and director of the film – David E. Durston – is entitled to a round of applause. He has successfully created a film that is beyond being “so bad it’s good”. This is “so bad it’s great”. Yes, you heard right; I loved “I Drink Your Blood”. Every last moment of it. It’s a great shock feature; a classic in the field of horror movies that are just so poorly done that they’re, well, kind of awesome. A lot of people will hate the film for its undeniably poor quality – and for its lack of “taste” – but if you can make a movie bad – yet good – enough for people to keep coming back for more, I’d say your movie is at least somewhat abnormal.

Thus, whether you like it or not; “I Drink Your Blood” is pretty much a landmark, must-see piece of entertainment from the Grindhouse section of cinema. Yeah, it’s not going to get much respect from any major (meaning mainstream) critics, but I loved it. Durston certainly has direction, you know, for a guy who has made a movie as corny as this. His movie is absolutely loopy, trippy, tasteless, and unrestrained. The original, uncensored version of the film had been kept away from the American public for years; but now, “I Drink Your Blood” can be seen as it was always meant to be seen: uncensored and uncut. 

In a movie of uninspired dialogue and absurd situations; it’s kind of difficult hand-picking my favorite scenes since in all honesty, there are just so many of them. I’ll give you some examples from the insanity on display here: there’s a random scene where the hippies go about having a rat-killing-and-catching contest in the hotel that they invade and proceed to trash. Such a scene is just very abrupt; and that’s why it has a certain charm in the context of the film. Everything in this movie must be absolutely random and unexpected; or else it isn’t interesting. Good thing Durston doesn’t disappoint when it comes to whacky scenarios and memorable lunacy.

Here’s one thing that I can’t get off my mind: why was it that the rabid humans had a severe phobia of water? Sure, they’ll take the flesh if it’s on display; but point a hose in their direction (and use it), and look at that, they cower in fear. It’s illogical; completely illogical, but then again I suppose it is not the job of this film to make much sense. It is adored by its fans – and me – because it is completely and utterly ridiculous. It’s a stupid, brain-dead rip-off of “Night of the Living Dead”; just a lot more violent and, well, reviled by its critics. I personally found it hilarious, immensely enjoyable, and yes; one of the best ways to spend a movie night I’ve come across in a long time. If you share my demented sense of humor and endless appreciation of cinematic freak shows; then this might do something for you as it did for me. But if you’re uptight and you like your films with some form of substance; you’ll see nothing but trash and emptiness. But…for those who care; long live this masterpiece of sleaze, long live the Grindhouse/Drive-in revenue (this film was shown along with “I Eat Your Skin” as a double-feature), and long live the films that I love and you don’t.

The Roost

*** out of ****

Consider this before seeing Ti West’s first film “The Roost”; these times are not good to the filmmakers without the necessary resources, while they are plenty polite to those who do happen to have them. Year-by-year, filmmakers are given large budgets that amount to nothing; and for the horror genre, that’s even more-so a tragedy than you may think. The cinema is constantly invaded by unwanted remakes, derivative “originals”, and occasionally a film brought to life by a gifted, imaginative director; that kind who can tell a story decent enough to engage the audience for more than, say, ten minutes. That’s more than what most flashy big-budget genre pictures have got.

With that out of the way, you know what to expect from this film; when compared to Hollywood horror pictures on a purely technical scale, it seems unimpressive, but when you take a look at the big picture, it’s miles better than anything a Hollywood director can crank out in his sleep. “The Roost” has a low budget, and upon its arrival, West hadn’t yet made a name for himself; but the film is a nice introduction to what was to come from him in terms of style, but not necessarily in terms of storytelling. Looking to the future, what can I say? West has improved and learned to make more than just a simple – but entertaining – homage to his favorite genre. He’s now able to write decent characters; yet another thing that those Hollywood hacks tend to lack.

It begins with a fascination with bats, as animals and creatures of the night. I imagine that when writing the film, West had the basic understanding that when we see a bat fluttering about in the night sky, it scares the hell out of us, especially when the winged mammal disappears once again into the darkness. A lot of “The Roost” depends on our fear of the dark, our fear of the unknown and unexplainable, and our fear of animals capable of killing us.

A group of decidedly uninteresting kids (presumably of a College age) are stranded in the middle of nowhere when their car breaks down in the cold, cold night. Luckily for them, there is a farmhouse nearby; but it is there that the evil, homicide bats call home. In the farmhouse they rest; until the housekeepers venture into their territory and disturb their slumber. The twist: these bats have a nasty bite that has the capacity to render you a brain-dead zombie.

The characters feel unimportant, uninteresting, and terrifically underdeveloped. They are simplistic and always seem to stick to “types”. So does the story; although there’s a whole other dimension of intrigue to separate it from the mediocrity of the people that populate it. West’s inspirations from the story obviously stem from 80’s slasher, midnight, and horror movies; the first two following under sub-genres within a single large one – the third thing type of film mentioned. As homage, “The Roost” feels successful and scary. As an original tale, it’s good but not great; yet it never falls short of the expectations that one should have when going into low-budget horror-fare.

The photography is mostly handheld and digital; so Mr. West’s plan to make “The Roost” feel like an old-fashion late night horror flick actually goes through, with impressive results. What he lacks in camera equipment and technical software, he makes up in a solid amount of non-CGI blood and guts. I was actually surprised by how gory the film was; for its kind, I mean. One would not expect a film like this – given its low budget – to deliver the gory goods quite like it does. It’s not in your face, it’s creepy when it’s creepy; scare when it’s scary, and while it’s certainly imperfect, West has an eye for atmosphere and style. “The Roost” may not be my all-new horror movie obsession, but I respect it completely; and shockingly enough, I found it to be a really enjoyable movie.

The best scenes, undeniably, are delivered by Tom Noonan as a late-night horror host; the kind you might see playing on nighttime television sometime around midnight. All scenes with Noonan are shot in glorious black-and-white; the visual presentation is condensed and reduced to a little square, much like that of an old television (fitting, if you ask me). Noonan appears before and after the events of the film; and “The Roost” itself is presented as a sort of movie-within-a-movie. That was the effect that Ti West wanted; and that is the effect that he got. So you see: when you put some actual EFFORT into scaring your audience and creeping them out big time; it all pays off. This was just the beginning for West; and look where he’s at now. I’d say he’s been growing on me for far too long now; I freaking love this guy. And “The Roost” does nothing to discourage that adoration.

Opera

*** out of ****

As the opening credits for “Opera” begin to roll, we get a glimpse of a black bird, a Raven; perched somewhere in an Opera House. We learn that they serve somewhat of a purpose in the production that is at work down below – Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” – although if we learned anything from Edgar Allen Poe, we learned that Ravens are instantaneously a sign of danger, or even death. Both are the case in the context of the film; which is one of the last good, watchable movies from the famed, beloved Italian-born master of horror, Dario Argento.

                                         

The lead of the in-film Macbeth production is a shy – but talented – young woman named Betty (Christina Marsillach). She is given the role when the original leading lady is unexpectedly injured at random when she’s hit by a car; forcing her to become hospitalized since it is mainly her leg that has been fractured. The production director and all those who work alongside him are initially somewhat skeptical of how Betty will do as the replacement actress – and she’s crossing her fingers along with them – but much to their surprise, she does quite well, wows the audience, and by the end has herself some adoring fans.

Too bad her biggest fan turns out to be a deranged serial killer! One-by-one, the villain assaults and murders Betty’s friends and co-workers. Since this is normally a boring plot element, Argento adds a twist; in the form several needles that are stuck to a piece of tape and placed under Betty’s eye when the killer ties her up, thus forcing her to watch as her friends are slaughtered alive. The killer explains that if she closes her eyes, then she can wave goodbye to both of them.

However, the killer seems to derive pleasure from Betty’s fear and emotional deterioration. There are several scenes in which he ties her up and puts the tape on; but every time, he never makes an attempt to kill her. It’s implied that perhaps the killer is targeting Betty for reasons at first unknown; which means that all shall be revealed in one of Argento’s classy twist endings. And while it’s hardly one of the best endings Argento has pulled out of the hat; “Opera” is still a wild, deceptive ride. In my opinion, it has all the bare essentials of a good mystery; a plot that keeps the open-minded viewers involved, characters that – while somewhat under-developed and difficult to remember after the movie has been experienced – come off as decent regardless, with the only real twist being the pleasures of Argento’s signature visual stylistics.

Through the pitch-perfect combination of what we hear (music) and what we see (the visuals of the film); Argento is able to work with the story and use it as a vehicle for his artistic ventilation. Thematically, Argento doesn’t try anything terribly new here; but it’s just so goddamn beautiful to look at, to hear, and to experience that you lose the ability to care very quickly indeed. “Opera” demanded my attention and I gladly gave it just that; an early Argento feature, after all, is almost always worth it.

But of course, the film has its minor – and major – drawbacks. In spite of being a delightfully bloody and grotesque visual feast of artistry in a genre that often lacks just that; the plot doesn’t always hold up as well as we might want it to, and the film sort of goes over-the-top and beyond within the last ten minutes, which were, in my opinion, just plain unnecessary. Entertaining, just like the rest of the movie; but unnecessary. Also, the acting isn’t anything particularly special either; although I’m thankful that it was at least competent and watchable. As usual, attention to detail takes center stage over any real human beings; but I’ve come to expect that from Argento, so I was not surprised.

The kills are fantastic, the cinematography is beautiful, the gore effects are remarkable, the blood is plentiful, the suspense and build-up is genuinely impressive, Claudio Simonetti’s score is energetic and off-kilter, the mystery at the center of the story is thought-out with much skill and consideration, and overall; this is another 80’s Argento offering that isn’t great; but is nonetheless quite good. If you aren’t the director’s biggest fan, then you’ll probably think differently; but I stick to what entertains me, and among other things, I find Italian horror films with gore and style to boot especially attractive. They may not be critical favorites, but they are often creepy and satisfactory to those who like them the most. If you’re like me and you consider yourself to be a part of the Argento-faithful; then you might just want to see “Opera”. Good, bad; it’s got a voice, and there’s no denying that.

Gummo

*** out of ****

Harmony Korine has been hit with some pretty harsh criticism ever since he wrote “Kids” for Larry Clark, who directed it. It doesn’t help that his debut as a filmmaker, “Gummo”, was met with even more polarized reactions from movie-goers and critics everywhere. Most people think Korine is simply a madman with a camera; intent on shocking us and nothing more. Then, there are others; who believe his films possess a more emotional core. After seeing “Gummo”, I can safely say that, for now, I’m on the side of the second group of (mentioned) people; there seems to be more at work here than just a scrapbook of pure shock value.

In fact, I’m going to come right out and say it; I liked Harmony Korine’s “Gummo”. I did some research on the filmmaker before pursuing any of his cinematic offerings; and I feel that this film is nothing more than an honest representation and approximation of the man’s trippy, weird imagination. It’s a difficult film to like, but you know where I’m coming from; it’s also a difficult film to simply dismiss. Yes, it has all the necessities of a glorified exploitation film, and that may be all it is, to most people. But to me, there’s a deeper human understanding; if only in specific scenes. But then again, “Gummo” is a film that imitates life; in the sense that it is made up of little scenes that tend to have little connection to one another. It’s different, but in my opinion, it’s also a little bit special.

Xenia, Ohio was struck by a disastrous tornado in the year of 1974 that destroyed many lives and many homes. Korine’s central story exists purely in fantasy; in his world, the town never recovered. The tornado left behind countless oddballs, borderline-psychopaths, junkies, drunkards, and sexual deviants. Just about every character would feel out of place in the world that we live in today; but I imagine that’s one of the many reasons why Korine decided to make the film in the first place.

For most of the movie, we follow Solomon (Jacob Reynolds) and his badass buddy Tummler (Nick Sutton). The scene that begins the film’s central narrative is enough to provoke a few faint-hearted folks to exit the room or theater and walk far, far away; it involves the drowning of cats. What’s the purpose of this? We learn shortly after that Solomon and Tummler have been selling the dead carcasses of these poor animals to the local butcher in exchange for money; yes, they are THAT desperate.

What follows is a series of random, often unconnected and irrelevant events involving the other residents of the town. There’s two blonde-haired sisters (one played by Chloe Sevigny); a strange kid wearing only bathing suit trunks, tennis shoes, and bunny ears to cover his head; a brief vignette involving a particularly romantic albino; and a young woman with Down syndrome whose brother is pimping her in exchange for extra cash.

I recognize that this is a crazy, bizarre, disturbing, unnerving, perhaps even pointlessly shocking movie; but to me, it was never a boring one, and that counts for something in my book. There aren’t many films that I’ve seen, in which the filmmaker behind the material decided it was time for something completely different and ended up boring me to tears; I often have deep, unending sympathy for the ambitious. In a whole, Korine’s first film isn’t even THAT ambitious; not in his eyes, and not in mine. It’s a view of the world through his twisted, fragmented eyes; and there are as many odd moments as there are surprisingly moving and humane ones. Consider a scene in which an intoxicated loner (played by Korine) pulls some moves on an openly gay midget. I liked that scene a lot; and there isn’t much more that I can say about it.

Another scene that really stood out for me came towards the end; the somewhat famed bathtub scene. Praised by Werner Herzog for the bacon taped to the walls surrounding the tubs; the scene, or vignette as one should probably say, depicts Solomon bathing in filthy water as his mother brings him dinner and eventually dessert, and also washes his hair with shampoo. There’s something oddly beautiful and perhaps even symbolic/metaphorical about the film; and I’d be happy to dissect it one of these days. “Gummo” is a film that I will gladly watch again sometime because of its many moments of beauty; I was simply unable to resist it. On the contrary, I cannot say that I recommend it, for I fear most people will find it utterly and helplessly pointless in what it does (whatever that is, right!). However, there’s always a chance that you might get as absorbed in Korine’s imperfect, dangerous world just like I did; and once you’re in, there’s no getting out. “Gummo” is, more or less, truly provocative.

Casino

***1/2 out of ****

“Casino” is a fascinating film; in which there are many characters involved who live, breath, and absolutely love money, as well as the things that it can buy and the places that it can get he/she who has as much of it as they use. A few of these people presented in the film may partake in the smoking of cigarettes  - or perhaps the consumption of alcoholic beverages – but their home is on The Strip, and their true addiction rests in the slot machines and casinos of Las Vegas.

Based on a non-fiction novel by Nicholas Pilleggi (who had previously collaborated with Scorsese for “Goodfellas”); the film is intended as some sort of in-depth documentation of how Vegas casinos are run – or were once ran – when they were still in their prime. This is the story of the rise and fall of a business partnership, shared between Sam Rothstein (Robert De Niro) and Nicky Santoro (Joe Pesci) – both of whom are sent to Vegas to work for the mob; more or less shown through their collective eyes. De Niro narrates most of the film; with Pesci occasionally substituting to fill up the gaps in between.

Sam and Nicky seem like polar opposites; the latter is ruthless and free-spirited, while the other is ruthless, but also restrained. It is because of these differences that they get along and enjoy the joys of living life at large while they can; and it’s also why the empire that they single-handedly crafted will have to come slowly crashing down some day. It is truly interesting though; watching these people indulge in the pleasures of Vegas – the money, the women, the drugs. It wouldn’t be much of a surprise if one of these wise guys took a look in the mirror at the end of the film and asked where – just where – they lost their way in life.

A common theme that is prevalent throughout Martin Scorsese’s (the writer and director) work is the role of women in these broad, epic tales of organized crime. In “Casino”, a romance that Sam shares with an ex-prostitute named Ginger (Sharon Stone) serves as a side-distraction. Ginger is able to effortlessly act as a human tornado; slowly forcing the lives of those around her to deteriorate. One moment, she’s madly in love with Sam, and he’s madly in love with her; in another, she’s yelling at him furiously and threatening murder.

By the time the film has ended, I think it’s safe to say that just about every character has found themselves at the mercy of money, the greed that comes with too much of it, and the complications of both life and a strong, life-long adoration for anything. Each individual character is searching for power; they hunger for it, even if they always seem to have it. Simply put, they want more; and they will get more. Sam is fine with his station in life, Nicky is a bit of a wild child, and diamonds are Ginger’s best friend. It is their very greed that breaks them apart; and it’s the momentary happiness that tends to accompany such a thing as that which keeps them together as long as it does.

While it’s not his best film, “Casino” always feels like a Martin Scorsese film should. It’s very cinematic, sometimes beautiful, sometimes very violent (it’s common for Scorsese never to sugarcoat anything; much less violence itself), and always immensely entertaining. Sure, it has flaws that keep it just one note off from perfection; such as a noticeable sense of repetition, a script that falls just a little short of some of the best Scorsese has worked with, and a plot that is almost meant to polarize audiences. Many say that this is far from a Scorsese masterpiece; and in a sense, I have to both agree and disagree. This is a very good film no matter how you put it; and a very approximate recreation of Las Vegas as a city of sin and temporary delights.

This is easily the most visually complex film that Scorsese has done thus far; in which he employs a lot of techniques that he seldom has worked with before. Here, you shall see Dutch angles; insanely fast editing; and lights galore, all typical of cinema that takes place in Vegas. In my opinion, Scorsese did his best to recreate the look and feel of the city; and with all due respect, he’s done one of the best jobs making a movie set look like Vegas that I’ve seen. Scorsese has a tendency to work his magic like that; so I wasn’t surprised.

Throw in excellent performances all across the board (Stone, in particular, is riveting); and you’ve got yourself a Vegas classic. Yeah, I don’t absolutely love it as much as I absolutely love “Taxi Driver”, “Goodfellas”, and many more films that Scorsese has directed; but what the hell, right? “Casino” is exploding with charisma, energy, and boundless information. There never seems to be a moment when Scorsese isn’t committed to shedding light on each and every little detail of the story that he’s telling; and that, my friends, is passion. And if Scorsese’s “passion” is ever lost, well, then that’s when he’ll stop being a great filmmaker. I’m tempted to laugh at the thought.

Frozen

*** out of ****

The trio of protagonists in Adam Green’s “Frozen” – Parker (Emma Bell), Dan (Kevin Zegers), and Joe (Shawn Ashmore) – find themselves in a sticky situation. They’ve hit the slopes for a few days to spend some time skiing and/or snowboarding. They insist on leaving all electronics back at wherever they are staying for the time being; and they’re ready to embrace the snow, the ski lifts, and those who are just as passionate about their pastime as they are.

However, this trip to the mountains is different. After a normal – but thrilling – day of doing what they love to do whilst in the mountain regions; it is now night and the slopes must shut down for another week. After persuading the man in charge of operating the ski lift to allow them one last ride down the mountain; they board the lift once again, only this time, they are left behind by the arrogant operators who eventually tire and leave their posts.

This means that the three are stuck in the lift together until somebody can make an effort to get them back down. They await help for a few hours, and that’s enough to make them snap. Soon, it becomes perfectly clear that nobody is going to come and rescue them from this risky, dangerous situation; not until the next week, when the ski resort opens yet again, that is. If they want to get home any earlier, they’re going to have to gamble with both nature and themselves.

And that’s not going to be easy; especially with a pack of hungry wolves on the prowl below in the nearby snowy forest. So if one of them is to, say, jump; he/she is putting herself/himself at the risk of being eaten alive. Plus, you either don’t survive the great fall from the lift to the ground at all, or you break a few limbs. That’s how it seems to work.

“Frozen” does about all it can do with its premise; it is a film that spans a good 90 minutes, and I imagine that given its central concept, that will be more than some movie-goers can handle. If you are easily bored by situations in which all action takes place in the same place for more than ten minutes, you’re probably going to want to stay far, far away from Green’s latest horror offering. However, if you’re willing to kill an hour and a half without killing all your brain cells; I’d say this is a good way to go about doing just that.

After seeing his debut, the hit horror-comedy “Hatchet” – and being very impressed by it – I kind of knew what Green had in store with “Frozen” and at the same time, kind of didn’t. It’s a very different movie from the aforementioned one in the sense that it takes itself completely seriously. While the extended scenes of dialogue and character development that take up the film’s first twenty minutes (or so) are laced with an unexpected sense of humor; I think that it was Green’s intent, among other things, to prove that he can actually stage horror that is real, genuine, and stomach-turning.

“Frozen” plays with our fear of heights, the danger of the relentless cold of winter, and nature itself. This is a real horror movie; sometimes, it is frightening, and other times, it is merely scary. Nevertheless, I find it kind of ingenious – how a filmmaker known for his smooth balancing of horror and comedy – could make something so utterly realistic and disturbing. It isn’t a great film, but it plays on our phobias and wins the dark side of our hearts. I liked how this time around, Green sticks to his undying love for the horror genre but leaves his intent to pay homage at home. Unless you count his “Spiral” (which he co-directed with Joel David Moore); this is Green’s first film that is, more or less, almost entirely original. I don’t know about you; but I have yet to see another film centered on the horrors of Mother Nature and what they can do to our bodies and our souls when we’re stuck on a ski lift from night-into-day. But I’ll check back in with you all on that one.

Calvaire

*** out of ****

It may not have the best story, or the best characters, or the best of anything; but I still found myself admiring Fabrice Du Welz’s “Calvaire” a whole lot, and consistently to boot. This is one of those films that tries hard enough to succeed, in spite of its shortcomings (and I assure you, there are many), and the end result will either repulse you with its “awfulness” or surprise you with how genuine it is. A lot of loving craft went into the picture and I respect that; it all pays off. Welz has made a chilling thriller that truly aims to distress its audience. At this point, it isn’t a matter of how much you love or hate the movie; it’s how disturbed you are.

Normally, I wouldn’t like this approach, but there’s something about the way in which Welz goes about staging all three acts of his film. It’s the story of pop singer Marc Stevens (Laurent Lucas) who is leaving a show at a retirement home when his car breaks down somewhere deep in the woods; and he finds himself stranded there, searching for help. Eventually, it comes his way in the form of a strange man searching for a lost man; and it is this same kind but quirky guy that leads Marc to an Inn not far from where his car remains. The Inn is run by a man named Bartel (Jackie Berroyer); who appears kindly, or at least kindly enough to tow Marc’s car to the premises and attempt to fix it up a bit.

Marc stays a few days; a few nights. Bartel is comforting and nice; but there’s work to be done. The car needs repairing, and so do Marc’s emotions, which are in a tangle. To ease himself of this burden, he takes walks around the local and surrounding areas; troubled only by an instant in which Bartel warned him of a nearby village – telling him never to approach it. When Marc fails to listen and makes his way to the village regardless of Bartel’s warnings; there is a dramatic turning point for the story that comes in the form of a scene depicting ritual-like bestiality between man and pig.

Oh, and that’s just the beginning of the weirdness that is soon to unfold. The story keeps getting stranger…and stranger…and oddly, a little more complex; as it goes on, of course. Since I’m hoping that a good few of you reading are curious about the film and wish to pursue and ultimately see it, I will not go any further in describing the story; because going further would mean spoiling a lot of the nasty surprises present throughout the remaining portion of the story.

I like this movie because it does not cheat its audience. There’s always a foreboding feeling of dread from the minute Marc hops in his van and hits the road; and Welz is very peculiar in how he builds suspense. He builds it through characters, dialogue, location, visual style, the off-kilter lack of a musical score, and horrors that have yet to reveal themselves. This is not – and I repeat, NOT – a horror movie; but more-so a quiet, deceptive, engaging thriller that does indeed have some thrills, some chills, and some scares. This is a film that makes its mystery known before it’s even revealed; yet it’s made with such taste and style that we don’t call it “cheap” or “disappointing”. Or maybe that’s just me being opinionated; because I’m told that not everyone respected the ordeal while it lasted.

While I’m kind of sad that this isn’t a great film; I’m also glad that it isn’t a bad one either. I imagine that it could have been better had it have been given a stronger opening scene (it begins with Marc singing to some old people; there were probably many other mapped-out choices in terms of how to begin the film, and I’m sure they were all better than the final pick) and more interesting, multi-dimensional characters. However, it’s got enough genuine tension and skill put into it that I can push those things aside and recommend it to those willing to trudge through some thick, thick muck.

In a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to live with movies like “Wolf Creek” and “August Underground”. But this is not a perfect world, and therefore the sick, perverted bastards behind such exploitative garbage are allowed to run wild in order to freely express their “art”. The primary reason why I enjoyed “Calvaire” is because it’s just as disturbing as the said films; yet it doesn’t provoke disgust out of what we see. Rather, it’s all atmosphere, tension, and build-up; something that those repulsive, sick insults to cinema lack. And if I had to choose how I’d want to be disturbed, I’d choose a film like “Calvaire” over some torture porn feature any given day of the week.

Demons 2

** out of ****

In Lamberto Bava’s “Demons”, a private showing of a never-before-seen horror film at a city theater called “The Metropol” meant death for all those who attended the screening; as the reels of the film came with a deadly curse. The movie-within-a-movie was about the discovery of ancient artifacts of demonic lore; and thus, the theater would seem swarm with fast-running yet zombie-like demons. It was a clever mash-up of the kind of sensibilities brought up by classics such as “Night of the Living Dead” and the films of Hershell Gordon Lewis. For me, it was a night at the movies to remember; and to others, it’s an exploitative gore-fest made specifically for the gore hounds, and lacking in all substance. They’re right.

Now, Lamberto (who is the son of Mario Bava) has made “Demons 2”. Perhaps it takes place at the same time as the first film, but just in a different place; the setting this time around is in a large apartment building, on the night of one girl’s birthday party. The birthday girl isn’t having much of a good time at all – in spite of the loud music that is so gleefully pumping and the large selections of various desserts and foods that have been prepared – and thus, she retires to her bedroom and starts watching a television program that is airing on that particular night.

Little does she know, the program that is being broadcast has the same conditions as the film screened in The Metropol from the first film. It’s a show about demons; and in an instant, one of the in-movie villains pops out of the screen and attacks the woman. She then becomes a demon; infecting everyone else present at the party, and soon the whole building.

It would seem that this horror sequel fared well with genre fans as well as avid gore-hounds; but it didn’t exactly impress me. I’m a big fan of “Demons” and I’d even go so far as to call it great, classic, but undeniably guilty entertainment; I have seen it so many times, and each time I love it. My prediction for “Demons 2” is that I won’t be so eager and quick to revisit it in the future; because on the first try, I really didn’t enjoy myself. “Demons” created a very large mountain for Bava to climb; and he only makes it to the half-way point. Once again, he displays unique visual style; but this time around, he just lacks the ambition and “what the hell” attitude that made the original work so well. Some people appear to have been able to look past my main complaints; good for them. I’m just not seeing it.

Returning from “Demons” is the lame (but funny) dialogue, the poorly fleshed-out characters, and fan favorite Bobby Rhodes (who plays a gymnast here instead of his “Tony the Pimp” character from the first film). You might notice that I didn’t mention a return of the outlandishly over-the-top gore effects from the first film; and that is because in all honesty, it just isn’t there. Sure, “Demons 2” has a few good, inspired scenes of gruesome deformation and mutilation, but it still feels like a big step down from the daring material on display in “Demons”.

I know, I know. I’ve been comparing “Demons 2” to its predecessor perhaps a bit too much; but how else could I go about reviewing it? There is no other way to vent my frustration and disappointment other than to consistently bring up just how much Bava’s debut feature set up for the bigger, and literally “badder” sequel. While “Demons 2” is far from a bad film, it fails to provide the sort of wild, likably ridiculous ride that you’d expect given its awesome premise. Others might think just a little differently, and if you like the original film, you might want to check this one out; but underwhelming gore and a few good laughs can’t make up for a lack of soul and a lack of genuine entertainment value. I’m sorry to say; but “Demons 2” may just be one of the most potentially fun but boring films ever made.

The House by the Cemetery

*** out of ****

“The House by the Cemetery” is an exceptional example of a movie so bad that it’s actually pretty good; perhaps even great. Under the direction of Lucio “Godfather of Gore” Fulci; it’s a film plagued by boring characters, narrative incoherence, a slew of illogical situations, silly dialogue, and fame by way of the Home Video market. Okay, maybe that last one isn’t so bad; given it’s more of a fate, and not one that all films are lucky enough to meet. In my experience, people only like a movie if there’s something about it if they like; because you cannot like, love, or even despise something without reason. The films of Fulci are often noted for three things: their gore, their atmosphere, and their surrealistic qualities. “The House by the Cemetery” is really no different when compared to Fulci’s other works.

Here’s what I’ve learned to do. I come into these movies with an open mind now; something I was unable to do when I had first begun discovering them. Yes, as a critic; I’m not supposed to like movies like this, because in theory, they are trashy, and nothing more. Indeed, there are few redeemable qualities to any of Fulci’s films, other than that they can be immensely enjoyable as long as you’re able to suspend your disbelief. We’re expected to do that with just about every other film, so, why is it so difficult to do it when it’s absolutely necessary?

“The House by the Cemetery” had me hooked and entertained because it displays all of what I’ve come to expect from the great gore-master. I’ve come to believe that Fulci is a poet of the macabre; and his films are all about style and the basic set-up of horror rather than substance. That’s a logic that has always been prevalent in horror; but it seems to have been abandoned as of late for bigger, better things known as story and characters.

To me, the story is almost unimportant. But here’s the basic run-down; a family of three – Lucy (Catrionna MacColl), Norman (Paolo Malco), and son Bob (Giovanni Frezzi, who has the most annoying voice EVER in the English dub of the film) – move from their city home in New York to somewhere a little quieter. The house rests just outside of Boston; and it is, indeed, a house by the cemetery.

However, upon arrival, it becomes very clear that something just isn’t right about this particular homestead. The sound of a whimpering, unseen child is heard each night and sometimes in the day. The door leading to the basement is barricaded by boards conveniently nailed right on it. Also, every board in the house – be it in the basement, in the walls, or in the attic – creaks non-stop. It’s enough to drive anyone mad.

However, a great evil lurks underneath the floorboards. There is a damn good reason why the basement is sealed off; and why the house gives off an ominous aura. That reason is Dr. Freudstein; a tall, horrifically deformed man who went bat-shit crazy and became an amateur surgeon of some sorts. It is said that he died and was later buried; but this could be a cover-up for the fact that he still maintains existence. Of course, this is a very predictable movie; so from the beginning his name is mentioned, we know for a fact that Freudstein is still alive; operating on helpless victims and their tender flesh, while those above resume the day’s typical activities.

Even though it’s a simple, on-dimensional horror story; it has its peculiarities. Lucio Fulci can make films both fascinating and unintentionally hilarious; such a formula is employed here, and to me, it works. “The House by the Cemetery” is a stupid, senseless film; made without wit or intent other than to shock through gore and jump scares. But it’s also a film that now works as a sort of Midnight Movie; and if you look at it from that perspective, then it kind of works. It’s been given a new, polished transfer from Blue Underground - and now, you can see it as it was meant to be seen; without some half-assed English dub, with restored images of Giannetto De Rossi’s fantastic make-up/gore effects, Walter Rizzati’s creepy original score, and Lucio Fulci’s full devotion. I’d say it’s one of the director’s best; and whether that means anything to you or not depends on how much you either love or loath the famed voyeur of the grotesque.

Hatchet II

** out of ****

Making “Hatchet II” work wasn’t much of a task. I was almost sure that Adam Green – returning for the sequel as both writer and director of Victor Crowley’s legacy – was more than up to the challenge after seeing and in many instances just down-right loving the original “Hatchet”; but it would seem that he’s gotten lost in his own mythology. There are as many reasons that attribute to why “Hatchet II” is not a good film as there are to why the original was; and I’ll do my best to give each issue worth mentioning full, devoted coverage. You know, the kind that Green denied this film.

What went wrong? “Hatchet” was merely a very well-done homage to slasher cinema; and “Hatchet II” doesn’t exactly aim for higher ground. Green has shown us that he’s a talented filmmaker; and even after this minor but regrettable train-wreck of a horror-comedy, I still think he’s one to watch. I know he can make up for this little screw-up as long as he tries a bit harder; one of the many problems of the film is that it just feels so darned rushed. I have no doubt that if Green decides to allow his next story/film to develop a bit more before setting up his shooting schedule, he can express his ideas with care as well as the kind of precision that has defined him as a filmmaker ever since his outstanding debut.

If you remember the first film, it was about a boat filled with people – headed by a quirky, Asian tour guide – that capsized while on a tour of a legendary swamp. Those people abandoned ship and made their way to land; only to discover that the swamp is haunted by the disfigured, aforementioned serial murderer: Victor Crowley. In the end, only one person survived; her name was Marybeth. In “Hatchet”, she was played by Tamara Feldman; in “Hatchet II”, Danielle Harris plays the role. Guess which one is superior to the other.

As “Hatchet II” begins, we see Marybeth fight off Victor Crowley and escape from the scene that ended the original film. From there, she gets back into town (New Orleans, if you have a bad memory) but does not feel that her job is done. Therefore, she consults Reverend Zombie (Tony Todd) – who appeared for just a minute or two in “Hatchet” – to assist her in tracking down and eventually killing Crowley; once and for all.

But they can’t go back into the swamp alone. That is why – in a “Jaws”-esque scene – the Reverend invites/rounds up some of the local area’s most ruthless and daring hunters to accompany them on a search-and-destroy mission of some sorts. Of course, to get their attention, he presents a handsome reward; although the Reverend seems sympathetic towards Marybeth, and therefore, it’s clear that he shall try his best to help her out in this situation; however dangerous it may be.

Here’s how it goes from there; all those willing to participate board the boats, enter the swamp, and get killed off one-by-one as Crowley discovers their presence. So basically, it’s “Hatchet” minus a few of its central charms; such as its incredibly dark lighting, the consistent sense of humor, and the likably stereotypical characters. The only thing that “Hatchet II” has – that many slasher sequels do not – is an abundance of impressively staged kill scenes accompanied by a whole lot of bloody carnage. People get cut up, some guy takes a boat propeller to the face, and that ol’ crocodile from the first film that supposedly “drinks his own piss” gets choked by his own intestines. Really, if there’s anything good I can say about this movie; it’s that Green does a good job in providing half of his audience with a sufficient amount of bloody mayhem. The kills are brutal, bloody, and creative; although they can’t make up for the emptiness that lies beneath.

This just doesn’t feel like an Adam Green film. You can slap that title onto any movie; but it has to have that feel – that passion – to it to actually, you know, work. And in that sense, “Hatchet II” simply does not. It tries to do just about everything that “Hatchet” did right; although it isn’t nearly as funny (although it does have a few big laughs) or easy to admire. It’s not a bad horror flick, and it has a few elements that will please certain genre fans (cameos/roles played by the likes of Tom Holland, AJ Bowen, Lloyd Kaufman, Joe Lynch, Mike Mendez, and R.A. Mihailoff are a plus); but for every right, there’s a plethora of wrongs. And that’s something that not even exploitative, over-the-top kills can even hope to cover up.