Monster Mash Movie Marathon Month 2014 - Week 4

We are moving through this nicely, folks! Another week down, and only six movies left to finish her off.

Le rating scale:

A = Excellent, a must see

B = Very good, I’d watch it again

C = Worth Seeing

D = Maybe don’t bother

F = Worthless

+ = Superior for this grade

- = Just barely makes it into this grade

This week was a sad change from last, as we got a few more Fs. In fact, nothing except for the Vincent Price sequel, Dr. Phibes Rises Again got over a C+. But that's the nature of the genre. I've got to contend with both quality AND quantity here, and unfortunately, those two things often don't go hand in hand.

Nevertheless, I've written a little something about each movie, and now it's time to read. 

Pumpkinhead (Stan Winston) - C+

Ed Harley is a single father, whose son, Billy, means the world to him. One day at their rural store while Ed is out on emergency business, some city folks hit Billy with their dirt bikes. Not long after, Billy dies and Ed tries to take the body to a local witch, hoping the crone can bring his boy back to him. She can't, but she does have access to a certain gourdy demon that will surely destroy Billy's killers, for a price. Ed performs the ritual, but quickly discovers he has gone too far, and attempts to undo the deed he has done.

Pumpkinhead is a traditional horror film of the 80s, combining a slasher-style revenge story amidst breathtaking locations. Director Stan Winston, who used to work closely with James Cameron on films such as Terminator and Aliens, borrows more than a couple images from the latter of those films. Indeed, Pumpkinhead (who I like to call PH) looks more and more like Geiger's Alien with every scene. This is to say as a central special-effects antagonist, PH is most effective in his earliest scenes. The second half of the picture, when PH is on his rampage, gets  old pretty quick. It's nothing you don't expect, either. Bad people will die, good people might make it.

Despite these shortcomings, there's plenty to like about Pumpkinhead. As mentioned, the sets, and found locations are breathtaking. With the proper lighting, the woods that the film's action occurs in are just creepy enough. In fact, many of the quiet details of what's in frame (such as when Ed visits the witch's cabin) are what makes Pumpkinhead an enjoyable watch. While the city kids that are considered the antagonists of the film aren't worthy of mention, Lance Henriksen (also a carryover of Aliens) stars as Ed, and turns in a very powerful performance of a jilted father with nothing left to lose. You really hurt when Ed loses Billy, but interestingly, you do not share his guilt in siccing PH on those city chumps. While the message that revenge is wrong is a good one, it may not belong in the horror genre.

Dr. Phibes Rises Again (Robert Fuest) - B-

Three years after the goofy adventures in the Abominable Dr. Phibes, the good Doctor revives himself, and his servant, Vulnavia. Though he's been in suspended animation, Phibes immediately hatches a plot to go to Egypt by sea in order to uncover the fountain of youth. Phibes' wife, Victoria, remains suspended, pending Phibes succeeding in his task. The plot thickens, however, when Phibes comes to learn that another eccentric with a need for the fountain is hunting for it. Darrus Biederbeck is hundreds of years old, and without the water from that fountain, will surely perish.

This continuation from one of my favorite entries of last year is a proper return to form. Vincent Price silently hams it up through the film, masterfully delivering one-liner after one-liner. Though fairly similar to its predecessor, the film abandons the curse of the pharaohs motif, and instead allows for Phibes to dispose of his enemies in new, inventive ways (such as trapping a victim's arms in spikes, and then tricking him into unleashing many scorpions in an attempt to gain his freedom). Also, much like its predecessor, Dr. Phibes Rises Again has wonderful sets and props, including the return of Phibes' robot band, Dr. Phibes and the Automatons.

If Dr. Phibes Rises Again had a fault, it would be its narrative format. It gets pretty repetitive after a while, and the kill scenes, while inventive and fresh, don't quite hit the same mark as the first film. While Phibes was seemingly the antagonist in the original, he is undoubtedly the protagonist in the sequel. The only real possible antagonist this time around is Biederbeck, who isn't even aware that Phibes exists until after they are in Egypt. As a result, there's very little tension. But that's well in keeping with the ultra campy tone the film has, so you can't really fault it. I'd say I marginally enjoyed the first more, and only then because of the storytelling.

Frogs (George McCowan) - F

Pickett Smith is a freelance photographer that has been hired by an ecology journal to study the lake area near the Crockett summer home. While he is canoeing around, taking pictures of wildlife and pollution, he is knocked in the water by the churlish drunkard in a powerboat Cliff, one of the Crocketts. Cliff, and his younger sister Karen feel bad for Pickett, and invite him to stay for lunch at their estate. Pickett agrees, and is soon introduced to the entire Crockett clan, including ultra rich patriarch, Jason Crockett. Jason, who is wheelchair-bound, belligerent and senile, begrudgingly accepts Pickett's presence, but warns Pickett that there can't be an environmental problem. There's more frogs on his property than ever, and they're bigger than usual too. Not long after, it becomes all too apparent that not only frogs are in large numbers this year. There's a veritable invasion of lizards, snakes, tarantulas and other creepy crawlies. The animals are inexplicably hellbent on killing any and every human on the island, and perhaps beyond.

Now, when I say inexplicably, I mean just that. Not once is it explained why this is happening. But you can infer, just by watching the silent opening scene of the film that the implication is that man is destroying the planet, and this is how nature is fighting back. In fact, it seems George McCowan was working along the same lines as Hitchcock with the Birds, which is famous for never really explaining what's going on. It is one of the more chilling parts of that film. Yet Frogs never comes close to the same level of terror. Or class.

You may have noticed I have talked in many of these reviews about films that suffer because of lack of exposition. I also, confusingly will say that sometimes films that don't explain themselves well are some of the best. The dividing line with these films can be summarized with the question: is there anything else about this picture that can support it despite its lack of exposition? Horror movies that choose this route need to toe a fine line. If you aren't going to tell your audience what's going on, then something like your story or monster or kill scenes or photography or excellent performances needs to be able to make them care. Frogs has none of these things. It's just confusing, predictable and boring.

Perhaps the most F-worthy quality of Frogs, though, was that between every scene - and I mean every, single scene - we are treated to roughly 10-30 seconds of unrelated footage of frogs. Not interesting, or funny footage. Just footage of frogs being frogs. There are enough scenes in Frogs that at least 30 minutes of the movie are just shots of frogs not doing anything. That's a third of this movie's run time! Even if the title of your movie is Frogs, you really can't afford to show stock footage of them for a significant amount of your movie like that. It's just insulting to your audience. It also dissolves tension, which I'm sure I don't have to tell you, is extremely detrimental to a horror movie.

Lady Frankenstein (Mel Welles, Aureliano Luppi) - F

Tanya Frankenstein returns from medical school to her father, Baron Frankenstein. The Baron is up to his typical tricks, namely sewing bodies together, popping in new brains and then blasting the poor bastard with lightning (though its not clear if he's doing this for the first time, or if Lady Frankenstein is supposed to be an unofficial sequel). Tanya keeps asking to be allowed to help the Baron and his assistant, Charles Marshall with the experiment, but is told no. Tragedy strikes when the monster rises, kills Baron Frankenstein and then goes on a rampage on the countryside, ruining sexual encounter after sexual encounter as he goes. Aghast by events, Tanya sets out to clear her father's name by making a new monster out of Dr. Marshall's brain (who admits basically out of nowhere that he loves Tanya), and the lean, muscular body of simple stable boy Robert (who Tanya wants inside of her REAL BAD).

I was hoping, at least, for unintentional laughs. Even those are hard to come by here. Billed as being a sexy, scary romp, Lady Frankenstein is a dull effort that is loaded with inane, poorly-written dialogue, half-assed special effects and awkward performances. Joseph Cotten, who plays the Baron, is the only one that does an OK job (OK, but not anything to write home about), and he's out before halfway through the movie. The scenes of the monster on a rampage are repetitive and silly, often being an excuse to see naked ladies. Now, I'm pro naked ladies, especially when tastelessly used to keep an audience engrossed in something like this, but somehow, it still manages to fall flat.

There are a couple of sex scenes between Tanya and her creation (before and after the transformation, though that hardly matters). These scenes would have been pretty racy in the early 70s, one would suppose. But to a modern audience, one that can watch any amount of depraved pornography from any computer with internet access, not even these scenes are particularly worthwhile (and believe me, these were THE scenes of the movie). All said, Lady Frankenstein disappointed me across the board.

Red Eye (Wes Craven) - D-

Lisa is a manager at a popular chain of hotels. On a return flight to Miami, her seatmate, the charismatic Jackson reveals that he is an international assassin, who knows that only she can a change to a booking at her hotel to conveniently set up a hit. Lisa must now either aid in murdering Jackson's target, or lose her father and perhaps her own life too.

There's a lot of potential in Red Eye. Cillian Murphy, Rachel McAdams and Brian Cox are all fine actors, and Wes Craven is a well-established director (in case you're not familiar, Craven got started in the 70s with movies like the Last House on the Left and the Hills Have Eyes before breaking it big with the Nightmare on Elm St. and Scream franchises). The first half of the movie is strong, and ramps up nicely. You meet many of the incidental characters who are on Lisa's flight, and you get to see some building tension between she and Jackson. Jackson drops a few subtle hints that he's dangerous, but these are mostly laughed off by Lisa. And once they're in the air, and Jackson reveals himself as an assassin to Lisa, the camera angles suddenly get very tight on scenery and close to the actors, forcing the audience to feel as trapped as she is.

But then it all falls to shit. You groan when Lisa continues to resist Jackson's wishes. You know everything Lisa attempts to do to get free will fail. And even when they're off the plane, you know they're going to end up having a showdown at her dad's place. And I'm not even going to go into how ridiculous it is when a group of assassins fire a bazooka in post 9/11 America. Red Eye gets off to a good start, but tailspins out of control quickly, leaving an all but forgettable product.

Also, I'd like to throw a little horror movie wisdom your way: if you stab a guy in the throat, and he keeps coming at you, you don't have to run from him, or even look for a weapon. Hide behind a corner, and when he passes you, step out behind him, drop a witty rejoinder on him and PUNCH HIM IN THE SAME PLACE YOU STABBED HIM. Seriously. Dude might be a badass killer, but he's still going to crumble in agony when you smash the gaping hole in his windpipe.

Beyond the Door (Ovidio G. Assonitis, Robert Barrett) - D

Jessica is pregnant! But the baby isn't Robert, her husband. That baby seems to be coming faster than expected, plus it seems to be giving Jessica symptoms that cause her to act a lot like Linda Blair in the exorcist. She bugs out so hard that Robert has to send Gail and Ken, their children, away to live elsewhere while he and George (a doctor) try to figure out what's happened to her. To make matters worse, Dimitri, who is not only a servant of the devil, but also used to date Jessica, keeps turning up. Dimitri really wants that kid to be born. Almost as though his life depended on it...

This film is just out there. An Italian picture from the early 70s, Beyond the Door mashes up Rosemary's Baby with the Exorcist, and the end result is baffling. There's a lot of weird elements at play here, including:

• The opening of the movie is an ironic, self-aware monlogue from Satan
• Gail, the daughter, is a precocious elementary school tot that talks like a hippie and calls both of her parents by name (until she witnesses her mother's head turn around completely)
• Jessica puts her tongue in her son's mouth. Devil Mom of the year!
• A soundtrack that blends woodwind jazz and synthesizers

While all of these things are certainly amusing, that's the best this film can boast. Jessica pulls almost every move out of the Exorcist's playbook. The ending has no surprises, either, so you'll feel like you've seen most of the film before. The dialog, while it provides you with laughs, is vacuous. And the special effects? Just some green ooze, some levitating and a car going off a cliff. Most people could happily skip this one.

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (Robert Aldrich) - C-

Jane Hudson was a pretty big deal in 1917. They even had dolls made in her likeness, something her dad came up with. The darling, Shirley Temple-like Jane can sing and dance like an angel, but her younger sister Blanche seems jealous of her fame. Fast forward to 1935. Jane is washed up and can only get work because Blanche is a movie star, and forces producers to give Jane roles. One night there's an accident, that we learn in the future, has broken both of Blanche's legs. We advance further in time to 1962. Blanche and Jane now live together. Blanche has a pretty cheery disposition for a woman that has lost everything. Her fortune from her movie career in the 30s has kept she and Jane very comfortable.  Jane, on the other hand, is a miserable bitch that hates Blanche and is deeply jealous of her success. When Jane discovers that Blanche intends to send her to a doctor to "get help", Jane demonstrates she's still got some tricks up her sleeve, and can make life very difficult for poor Blanche.

Bette Davis, who plays Jane is sensational in this film. The details of her performance, from her ridiculous make up, to her volatile personality, make for a chilling rendition of a woman long past her prime desperately attempting to stay relevant. She is twisted, malicious and selfish, and Davis plays it all very well. This isn't to say, mind you, that Joan Crawford, who plays Blanche, and the other supporting actors don't do a great job. But Davis is the stand out. Jane is a crazy old woman for an arsenal of reasons. You will hate her, you will pity her, and you will ultimately be disgusted with her. In a character-driven piece like this one, Betty Davis knocks it out of the park.

On the downside, however, this film drags on endlessly. Most audiences will be sharp enough to recognize where the film is going fairly early in the story. Jane's keeping Blanche locked down, the maid, neighbor and doctor will be turned away from helping Blanche, and Jane's luck will eventually run out. Yet, despite this all being very apparent from the get go, the film takes over two hours to get there. The middle of the film is so repetitive that you wonder how any editor could have let this happen. One of the many 'Blanche almost gets help' scenes could easily have been deleted, and shaved 30 minutes off the run time. It doesn't matter how excellent the performances in a movie are, if your audience is bored. Still, this thriller is somewhat captivating early on, and definitely worth seeing for Bette Davis alone. There is a twist at the end, but that point, it hardly matters, given what's happened.

------- 

Normally, I don't know exactly what the coming week will bring, but as we are now down to only six films, I have the remaining schedule pretty solidified. Out of pure interest, here's what's left: 

Sunday, Oct. 26th - The Mummy

Monday, Oct. 27th - Jacob's Ladder

Tuesday, Oct. 28th - Tucker and Dale vs. Evil

Wednesday, Oct. 29th - Ms. 45

Thursday, Oct. 30th - the Iron Rose

Friday, Oct. 31st - Magic (Usually, I'd pick something a little more iconic, but the missus and I are thematically linked to this movie via our halloween costumes, so it must be so!) 

I will still probably release last digest on Sunday, Nov. 2nd, and take a much-needed break from Horror Movies on Nov. 1st. So, we'll see all you faithful followers then.

Monster Mash Movie Marathon Month 2014 - Week 3

Hello, once again! I'm now on week three of my marathon, and have been enjoying it endlessly this year. Since I've pledged to review each of these films, my experience is yours for the reading, friends!

A reminder of my grading system: 

A = Excellent, a must see

B = Very good, I’d watch it again

C = Worth Seeing

D = Maybe don’t bother

F = Worthless

+ = Superior for this grade

- = Just barely makes it into this grade

I watched some pretty excellent movies this week, actually! Most of them get a B- or higher rating, which is a rare treat for me during the month of October. 

You might also notice, if you've been following my daily posts on facebook, that several of this week's films have had a rating adjustment as of the time of this post. These films include: Pandorum (C- to D+) and Afflicted (B- to B). Pandorum was just less impressive after watching so many good horror films this month. Meanwhile, Afflicted was my favorite of the found footage trio I watched this year, and while I don't want to overhype it, I do think this Canadian effort is a very well made film.

So, thanks for indulging my self-criticism! Let's move on to this week's reviews. Remember ** THEY CAN SPOIL THESE MOVIES FOR YOU **, so read at your own risk!

Pandorum (Christian Alvart) -D+

In the future, Mankind's last hope is the spaceship Elysium. Cpl. Bower wakes up onboard to find no one else left except for himself and Lt. Payton. Soon, Bower sets out, with Payton guiding him over radio, to restart the ship's reactor and to get some answers about what happened to Elysium. The first third of this sci-fi film has some legitimate horror to it, but in the later thirds amps up the action... In a surprisingly low-tech way. The title of the film comes from the space madness that humans can experience as a result of deep sleep during space travel (along with convenient amnesia), which, as you can imagine, factors into the plot somewhere along the way.

It's nothing special, but Pandorum boasts neat, atmospheric moments during the early parts of the film, before you have much of an idea of what is going on. The film translates a sense of isolation to the viewer very quickly, and you can't help feel bad for poor Bower, crawling through ducts, running through corridors, and hearing the occasional heaving of starship bunkheads. Dennis Quaid, who plays the one-room wonder, Lt. Payton, does a decent job as a concerned voice, lending aid to Bower. It isn't until Bower starts to meet other survivors that the film begins to descend into a Movie-Based-on-a-Video-Game kind of feel (which it isn't, but it sure feels like it is).

Actually most of the actors in the film are decent (particularly non-english speaking Manh, who tragically meets his end when he lets his guard down in front of an adorable alien life form). But the script doesn't take a lot of time to explain itself. True, lack of exposition fits in this kind of movie, but only up to a point. Any explanation to the monsters that inhabit Elysium is either not found, or explained so quickly you're prone to miss it. Especially in the final act of the film, the action sequences get too fast paced, and, at points, confusing. The more suspenseful beginning of the film sets a great tone, but that tone vanishes when the script demands action.

Afflicted (Derek Lee, Clif Prowse) - B

A relatively recent entry into the pantheon of found footage movies, Afflicted is the story of two Canadian college students who plan to do a tour of the world, video-document their travels, and blog about it. The film purports to be their videoblog. Derek and Clif are our protagonists, with Derek being the face and Clif being behind the camera. Early into their trip, Derek is mauled by a woman that he picks up in a Parisian club. Clif is concerned about his pal, who begins to act weirder and weirder, but Derek insists they keep traveling. Before too long, both men are all too aware that Derek is transforming into something else.

Afflicted, in many ways, plays with the found footage, and horror movie conventions in general. Before halfway through the movie, Clif and Derek have figured out what's happening, which saves you the trouble of guessing. Once the audience is let in on it, Afflicted still manages to be spooky, replacing the monsters (mostly) with Interpol SWAT teams, firmly changing the antagonist from monster to human. While there are still some scary moments, a lot of the films tensest scenes comes not from sudden scares or jolts, but from watching the degradation of Derek. This culminates around the time he and Clif go searching for a live meal, a prospect that disgusts both men.

There are problems with the film, of course. Clif is one of the more unpleasant found film narrators I've ever encountered. He is annoying, and talks too much. Thankfully, you do not have to suffer him through the whole film (and Afflicted improves by degrees when he exits). The special effects on screen are few, but well done (super strength effects are especially neat to see in a POV format). It also transitions well from the tone of celebration and adventure from the start to a much darker, tragic monster story at the end. The film does a great job of exploring its monster mythology without being too blatant. Even inconsequential scenes, such as Derek crossing paths with a dog after he's on his own, give you more information about the story than dialogue between characters could hope to.

If you watch Afflicted, be sure to keep watching into the credits for the final scene. It sets up a sequel, though it is my feeling that Afflicted will be much better as a stand-alone film rather than a franchise.

Cannibal Holocaust (Ruggero Deodato) - C+

An intrepid American documentary team has gone missing and is presumed dead. Anthropology professor Harold Monroe agrees to venture into their last known location in the Amazon to find out what became of them (and to attempt to recover their footage). After some adventures, Monroe and his guide, Chaco, meet with the Yamamoto tribe of people. The Yamamoto are reclusive, war-like, and very definitely killed and ate the American film team. Monroe, after some quick thinking, befriends the tribe, and secures the film canisters. Back in America, Monroe is approached by the team's financial backers to examine their footage and see what can be edited together to finish their film.

Cannibal Holocaust is a story of civilization versus nature, and it posits that civilized society can be even more depraved than people who eat the fallen corpses of enemy warriors. And they're right. There's even the sense that you, the viewer, fit right in with this description, since you yourself are watching this film to be entertained. Lots of depraved shit happens in this movie: multiple rapes, multiple animal slayings (real ones! This film was made outside of animal cruelty laws), genital mutilations, they're all there folks! Why, there's even a scene of a late term abortion, followed by the slaying of the mother. This stuff is still very hard to watch in 2014, so you can imagine that the audiences of 1980 were horrified by this film. Mix in the fact that it was being publicized as real and that there had never been a movie that was made in a found footage style before it, and you've got yourself a recipe for director Deodato going to court to prove that his actors were alive.

This film was one of the hardest to watch that I've ever included in my horror month. Cannibal Holocaust satirizes exploitation film-making, but also is an exploitation film itself. The reprehensible actions of the American film crew are ironically mirrored by Deodato’s cavalier attitude towards animal murder (the other horrifying acts, while not easy to witness either, are somehow more reconcilable because they are staged. No one was really raped, no one was killed, and even the aborted baby is clearly a prop). The natives were not actors, and one wonders how they were coerced into making this film. However, as bad as the images you are seeing are, in many ways, the feeling the film tries to evoke in you - one of horrified disgust - hits the mark. Atrocities committed by the natives are certainly barbaric, but they are a calculated attack on the sensibilities of the West. What is commonplace for them is disgusting to us. The first half of the film sets this tone by way of having Professor Monroe immediately wanting to intervene on anything he sees the natives doing that doesn't mesh with his sensibilities. But this gets turned on its head in the second half of the film, when Monroe is watching the footage from the American team. The Americans commit the most heinous of deeds in the pursuit of their film. They kill, they destroy, they take what they want, they wantonly kill livestock and they rape without question. By the time they get theirs, there is no question that the documentary makers were the true monsters in the setting. You don't enjoy watching their end, but it is somehow fitting.

French New Wave director Jean-Luc Godard made a film in 1968 called Weekend. I'll spare you a lengthy outline of the plot (though it is one of my favorites of all times), but the overarching message of the film is that the horrors of the West can only be answered by greater horrors. So too is the message of Cannibal Holocaust. The film even starts by saying that the marvel of landing on the moon has already been forgotten as we look to travel further into space. And yet there are entire realms of the planet that we have yet to fully understand. And so Deodato expertly captures this feeling as we follow his characters into the perilous jungles still untouched by civilized man. Not a single scene in this film happens at night, and yet there is something dark and foreboding about the setting. Something alien, that we in our comfortable city homes cannot hope to conceive of.

I've gone on at length now about the content, so let's briefly talk about format. As mentioned, this film was the first ever found footage movie. While this format was popularized almost 20 years later by the Blair Witch Project, before Cannibal Holocaust, even art cinema never attempted such a thing. Now, it's not true found footage, not like we know it today. Only the last 45 minutes of the film, the footage from the Americans being viewed by Monroe and some executives, could be considered part of the genre (Monroe's journey is filmed in a more or less typical style). Even then, music is added and commentary by those viewing it is peppered through it while they are watching it. It is not one long segment either: the film takes pauses for the concerned characters to digest and discuss what they've been witnessing. The last 15 minutes, including the final audacious acts and subsequent killing of the Americans, purports to be unedited, but still the soundtrack plays. And even this sequence is broken up by the projectionist having change reels. Due to these minor differences, the found footage style isn't exactly present. It is merely the building blocks for what comes later in the genre (much in the same way Bird With the Crystal Plumage wasn't a true slasher, but clearly influenced the genre, or at the very least was before its time).

Given the amount of emotional impact the film had on me, I'm kind of forced to give it a decent grade. It is a well-made, and groundbreaking film without trying hard to be. It makes valid social arguments and can be enjoyed on a theoretical level. But please understand, though I analyze the film and put it in a positive light, it is not something the majority of people will ever want or need to see. I'm serious, folks. Just take my word for it. They fish a real turtle out of a river and destroy it. Beheading and all. Please carefully consider my words before ever watching it. As they say on Futurama: you can't unsee it.

Cloverfield (Matt Reeves) - D

Rob is moving to Japan for work, so his older brother Jason throws him a surprise going away party. Jason is supposed to film this party, but instead he passes the buck to Rob's slow-witted best friend Hud. Things get dramatic when Rob's friend Beth shows up with a pretentious new boyfriend! Turns out Rob and Beth slept together not too long ago, and Rob is in love with her now. After a brief altercation, Beth leaves the party... And then a giant monster starts decimating Manhattan. All of a sudden, Rob, Jason, Hud, Jason's girlfriend Lily, and redshirt Marlena are in a found footage monster movie.

This, along with Paranormal Activity,  is probably the best known found footage film since the Blair Witch Project. Cloverfield is the least horror-themed found footage piece I've ever seen, being more of an action adventure style situation. The problem is that most of the film's scenes after the party at the start are just the characters running and screaming. The moments where the characters have any control of the situation they are in are few. They, like the audience, are mostly along for the ride. This creates tension, sure, but as most of the movie is the same kind of tension (frantic running!), and that gets a little tedious. While there are a couple sequences (the subway tunnel and subsequent visit to the doctor) that have an excellent genre feel to them, these scenes are few.

It's amazing that even with probably one of the largest budgets in found footage history, Cloverfield has some of the shoddiest camera work I've ever seen. I know the notion is that an amateur is taking this footage as he runs through a disaster, but a significant amount of time is spent with Hud having the camera pointed at the ground. There are many plot points that seem implausible, such as why the military is so cool with letting Rob and his party do whatever they want all movie. This may also mark the first product placement for found footage (because nothing cleans monster bites like the fresh feel of Dasani!). Cloverfield is light on information about what's going on. While it can be argued that this is realistic because we're watching a disaster from the perspective of a citizen, it also allows for lazy writing, and allows us to get at least 20 more minutes of running under our belt. It also probably encouraged people to take part in Cloverfield's viral marketing campaign - the only way to get ANY back-story on the creature (which, let's face it, no one is going to do six years after the movie was released). I know producer J.J. Abrams loves his viral marketing content, but forcing it on us to find out what the hell is going on in your movie seems like a bit of a dick move in hindsight.

What I liked about Cloverfield, though, was its premise. It was a fresh take on giant monster movies, even if it was not executed in a satisfying way. It just did not take the premise in a suitable direction. If you aren't willing to provide your audience with exposition, then you damn well better make sure your film doesn't lull (which Cloverfield tends to do, since the love story of Rob and Beth continues to try and claw its way to the forefront in the face of a world-changing disaster). There are better found footage movies, and far more satisfying monster movies (which segues nicely to...).

Q (aka Q: the Winged Serpent) (Larry Cohen) - B-

Shepard (played by awesome kung fu guy, David Carradine) and Powell are investigating a bizarre series of rooftop abductions and ritualistic flayings. At first the cases appear to be isolated from one another, but as Shepard begins to find evidence implicating the Aztec wing at the history museum, and more and more reports flood the Manhattan police station about a giant flying reptile eating citizens in broad daylight, it begins to look like there may be a connection after all. Meanwhile, small time crook and reformed junkie Jimmy Quinn can't seem to do anything right. After a failed bank robbery, Quinn hides in the top of a skyscraper under construction. He is surprised to find several skeletal remains along with a giant egg in a nest. These storylines merge when Quinn steps forward to assist the police in locating and destroying the giant reptile terrorizing New York.

I'm going to admit, I was hugely surprised by this film. It is a ridiculous premise, sure. And even though Q doesn't take itself all that seriously, it still manages to be a damned good giant monster movie. Questzalcoatl's attacks ramp up at a good pace, showing you more and more of the creature with every convenient rooftop victim being snatched into the sky. On the Aztec sacrifice side of the plot, this storyline fades into the background slightly, but they bring you back into it with a jarring bloody corpse now and then. But most of the story focuses on the bumbling actions of Quinn: a man that literally doesn't do anything well, tends to complain about everything and expects the world of everyone he speaks to. Because of this, the picture takes on an extremely silly, B-Movie tone. And yet the camera work and storytelling manage to keep you interested. We are treated to many dazzling aerial shots of Manhattan, often feeling like a premonition to some poor sod (often a bikini-clad babe) being grabbed off a rooftop by a giant green claw.

The monster effects are stop-motion, done in a style reminiscent of Ray Harryhausen, the celebrated creature animator of Clash of the Titans fame. The effects do look a little dated today, but given everything else in the film being tongue-in-cheek, this actually adds to the film's tone. The ending is fairly predictable, but it's supposed to be. And, again, the visuals of the film (mostly aerial establishing shots) are excellent, and even the Aztec regalia worn by the cultists are surprisingly sinister. Q is a good time, for sure, and has only improved with age.

Inseminoid (Norman J. Warren) - D-

Somebody really liked Alien! On a remote planet, a crew of scientists gets infected by some kind of xenomorph. Ricky, the first crew member to be infected, gets off light, but Sandy, after a period of abduction is recovered. She has all the same signs of trouble as Ricky, but she's also suddenly two months pregnant. Before too long, Sandy has gained super strength and attempts to slaughter the crew.

Inseminoid has the look of a professional film, but its all smoke and mirrors. The props are cheap, the acting is uneven and the script is pretty bad. The look of the film, as mentioned, is borrowed directly from Alien, right down to the very incorrect technology that mirrored plausible futuristic super computers, based on the technology of the 1970s. The creature effects are few, and seem to be of the rubber suit variety. Most of the tension comes from the batshit expressions of actress Judy Geeson who played Sandy.

The one quality of the film that stands out is the photography. Inseminoid has a surprisingly good framing that makes you occasionally forget its lesser qualities. And while its final sequence is predictable and repetitive, Inseminoid manages to keep you involved with its cat and mouse game finish.

Les Yeux Sans Visage (Eyes Without a Face) (Georges Franju) - A-

Dr. Genessier, a brilliant plastic surgeon recently lost his daughter, Christiane, in a car accident. Or at least, that's what he tells the police. The more complicated truth is that Christiane did not die in the crash, rather, her face was left horribly scarred. No longer able to be in public (she wears a mask that makes her look like an animate mannequin), her father keeps her housebound while he sends out Louise, his loyal ex-patient, to walk the streets of Paris and find suitable young women. Once found, Louise brings them to the professor's house under false pretenses, and he steals their faces to try and graft them onto Christiane. The good doctor is a man driven, you see, and he will not rest until he had restores his daughter.

Tame by all standards today, Les Yeux Sans Visage is a hauntingly beautiful film. It is also the first film to feature a mad surgeon as its villain. With sprawling interior locations, a never-ending series of shots featuring dead trees, and a surprisingly upbeat soundtrack, we don't need a surgeon making a bloody mess to tell us that we should be frightened. Indeed, there really aren't any monsters in this picture. The professor, while certainly breaking the law, and being resolute in doing so is driven to a vile purpose, not deranged, nor evil. He attempts to make his facial victims comfortable, even after their surgery. Louise, his Ygor, isn't sadistic or single minded in her duties. She is a former patient and very much believes that the doctor is in the right (a position that nets her being clubbed over the head and later murdered). As such, you don't really wish any of the characters to meet their end, making this film all the more tragic.

This is a genre classic, making the top 20 in many credible horror movie lists, often beating out better-known classics like Frankenstein or I Walked With a Zombie. While horror audiences of today may not find it to be gruesome enough (it is fairly goreless, given the subject matter), the tone of the film is far darker than most of the films I've watched this month. Many films I've cited as having good photography or framing pale in comparison to this effort. A necessary watch for horrorphiles.

-----------

So onwards! Today I'll be watching 1988's Pumpkinhead, starring Lance Henriksen. Beyond that, I have no exact plans, but the choices are narrowing. Stay tuned to this space for more as the month creeps on.

Monster Mash Movie Marathon Month 2014 - Week 2

Well, it's Sunday, so it's time to tell you all about the movies I watched this week, and how I felt about them. But first, here's another friendly reminder of the grading scale.

A = Excellent, a must see

B = Very good, I’d watch it again

C = Worth Seeing

D = Maybe don’t bother

F = Worthless

+ = Superior for this grade

- = Just barely makes it into this grade

I know many of you don't agree with some of the grades I give out, and it just goes to show you how personal the horror genre can be. And, as usual, please be aware that THESE REVIEWS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!! So, without any further ado, let's get into the reviews...

Insidious (James Wan) - C+

Josh and Renie have just recently had their third child, and have moved into a beautiful new home. Almost immediately, though, after their eldest son, Dalton, slips into a coma, Renie starts to have horrifying experiences and seeing figures that no one else can. She convinces Josh that they need to move. At first the new house seems to have done the trick, but it isn't long before Renie has the same old problems. Renie hires a psychic, someone Josh's mother knows. The psychic immediately informs the couple that their son is the source of their haunting, and from there, it gets complicated.

This film received a lot of positive hype when it was released, but probably only because it was being made by the creators of successful horror franchises like Saw and Paranormal Activity. It did a very good job of making both houses feel very sinister. The usual format of ghost movies, in my experience anyway, is that the paranormal aspects enter the film slowly, revealing the restless dead piece by piece to the viewer, often not letting the audience see an active ghost til the final confrontation (though, many times, this is probably due to budget-related reasons). Not the case here! The ghosts haunting Dalton physically appear very early in the picture. While at first I found this to be a refreshing change, it didn't leave much suspense for the finale. And while the monsters were very cool to look at, it's hard to be scared of ghosts that always smile. Or of a demon that looks like Darth Maul.

The film's pacing suffers. While it does reveal some of the ghosts early on, you only get frustrated when the reveals end too quickly. It feels like you're just waiting for the next scene that features something other than the protagonist family. It picks up somewhat when the psychics and her lackeys enter the picture, but then it gets real Poltergeist. You know somehow that things are going to be OK, and it seems kind of silly on the film's part to try and convince you otherwise. Still, the presentation and visual effects are good enough to keep you going.

The Thing (2011) (Matthijs van Heijnengen) - D+

A remote Norwegian science team has made the discovery of the century! Frozen in the ice near their base is a friggin' alien! The leader of the Norwegians, Dr. Sandor Halvorson, enlists the help of some American scientists, led by Kate Lloyd. Once back on the scene of their discovery, Halvorson cracks the ice to get a tissue sample, and it’s not too long after that the alien wakes up and parties like its 1982! Before long, only Kate and Carter, her crackerjack pilot ally, are all that stands between the Thing and the end of humanity.

Sound familiar? It ought to. This prequel to John Carpenter's version of The Thing examines what happened to the Norwegian science base that the Americans find destroyed. While it nicely sets up many tie-ins with Carpenter's movie, it also borrows almost every tense moment from it too. The famous blood test scene, the old dead-body-coming-back-to-life-at-an-inconvenient-moment trick, all the classics are there. It also prefers a more direct approach with its monster, rather than relying on building a character story to play off the paranoia of the premise. You get to see a lot of CGI Thing creatures running around in this movie. Big ones, little ones. And most, not all, but most of them have pretty grizzly vagina dentatas.

Maybe that's sour grapes. Carpenter's Thing is one of my favorites in the genre. This movie takes a neat premise - what happened to the last guys that found this impossibly hard to kill alien? - and bungles it. The reason Thing 82 was such a good movie was because there was a decent build up to the meat of the plot, thanks to having strong characters. Macready was a cynic who hated having authority thrust on him, Childs was skeptical of everyone, Blair was paranoid of the legitimate threat to humanity, Palmer was a chuckle-hungry stoner, Windows was a fuck-up who deserved to be badgered through the whole movie and so on. In Thing 2011, you really only get to know Kate as your protagonist, Halvorson as the asshole who was in it for fame, and you kind of got to know Lars, the only Norwegian at the base who doesn't speak English. The trouble is, there's probably over 20 living characters at the peak of people being alive in the film. That's a hard number to keep track of. There's really no chance to get to know many of the characters before they start getting eaten. I think a solution to this problem would have been to dispose of the American team all together. True, Kate is your protagonist, so the story would have to be retooled a little, but the Norwegian characters were all solidly done, so it seems clear they could have done this and still managed to make an excellent film (though it would have been a reader).

Thing 82 largely succeeded because it didn't attach a morality to its characters, leaving the audience to make their own decisions about who was good and evil (other than Macready, who was the only obvious protagonist). Even characters that went bad, like Blair, often did it for very plausible reasons. In Thing 2011, we are supplied with this information. Kate and Lars are good guys, Halvorson is the bad guy, and anyone who supports either immediately falls into that camp for the viewer. As such, it greatly reduces the paranoia the audience feels. While in Thing 2011, there is the ever present threat that some good characters are aliens, there's a whole group of characters that we aren't supposed to like, and whether they're Things or not doesn't add anything to the narrative.

I'm also not sure how to explain this, but the advanced CGI effects somehow seemed more fake to me than the creature effects in Thing 82. Especially the scene in which we first see a character turn into one of them. He's just talking, then his face ripples and then he morphs suddenly into a monster. But you can almost tell when he stops being just an actor. I found several of the effects, specifically when transitioning from human to monster, to look extra fake. This movie had a real tough act to follow in the special effects department, though, so maybe I should be less critical.

Race with the Devil (Jack Starrett) - D-

Frank and Roger, along with their wives, have got a plan to go skiing up in Aspen. They have this new-fangled RV, you see, so they hitch up some dirt bikes, and they get traveling. One evening, thinking they've managed to spy on a hip, young orgy, the pair are horrified when they discover what they witnessed is in fact a ritualistic sacrifice. Those hippies are Satanists, who are pretty pissed off when they realize Frank and Roger saw their misdeed. From there, the RV crew races desperately to flee pursuing bad guys who manage to be around every corner.

There's not much to say about this one. It billed itself in the trailer as one long car chase, but this really only happens for about 12 minutes towards the end. This chase scene is the only scene in the movie of any note. It does contain a lot of shots of Roger and Frank's RV getting smashed, a few car tricks, and some spectacular crashes. I imagine a good portion of this films budget went into pyrotechnics, as more than one car goes up in a huge fireball.

But the majority of the movie is spent watching the characters go through an increasingly frustrating series of attempts to get help. Everywhere they turn, they meet resistance. They, and by extension, you in the audience don't trust anyone they meet. The wives tend to handle every challenge by going hysterical (earlier they try to help by stealing some books on witchcraft from a local library, but this moment of helpfulness is overshadowed by every scene that follows having them scream and cower). The locals are colorful, but you can immediately tell that they are up to no good. In fact, when you realize that every scene in the movie leading up to the car chase is the same thing done over and over again, you lose interest. This is compounded by the film not even taking the time to explore its antagonists. Once you see the sacrifice and our heroes get back on the road, very little is discovered about the satanic society. All you get to know is they're everywhere. But not why. Or to what end. Ho-hum.

The Wizard of Gore (Herschell Gordon Lewis) - F

We open on a monologue from Montag, the Magnificent. Montag is a magician that butchers lady volunteers during his act in just the bloodiest ways possible. Each night of his show he does a different "trick". These tricks are obviously fatal (being sawed in half, having a metal spike driven through a brain, swallowing swords, etc.), but somehow the volunteer is miraculously unharmed after some trippy editing. At least, until about an hour after the show, when the women suddenly die in the same fashion that Montag killed them on stage. Sherry, a day time talk show host, and her fiancée, Jack, see Montag's first show, and Sherry is determined to have the wizard on her program. He agrees, but only if she keeps attending his performances.

This film was completely a vehicle for its gore effects. You can tell by the emphasis the film puts on its gross-out scenes, and by the lack of talent with any other aspect of the movie. Microphones pick up wind in outside scenes, there are millions of jump cuts giving the picture a terribly disjointed feel, and none of the actors are particularly good at acting.

So let's talk about these gore effects. Since it’s obvious by the lack of any sort of talent through the rest of the film, and Lewis used to be considered quite the gore-maker of his day, the special effects have to be kind of impressive. But the way in which they are presented - with uneven, repetitive music, confusing jump cuts, and Montag leering and running his hands through their wounds - leaves a lot to be desired. Nevertheless, fans of bad horror will be delighted by the acting here. Some of the lines are comedic gold, including a little piece in which Jack panics about his friend’s hands.

The Beyond (Lucio Fulci) - C+

Liza purchases a fixer-upper hotel somewhere in Louisiana. Decades previous, however, a murder had taken place, the body boarded up in room 36. As it turns out, room 36 contains a doorway to hell. When Liza has an ill-fated plumber begin to work on the pipes, it sets off a chain of events that threatens to bring hell to Earth. With the aid of smarmy, nonbeliever, Doctor John and the mysterious blind woman, Emily, Liza attempts to find out exactly what is going on with her hotel.

Now, the above paragraph sounds pretty straight forward, but this movie is kind of all over the place. From our first on screen death, the kill scenes are varied and even somewhat confusing. Early it becomes clear that deaths are not confined to the hotel, but it’s not exactly explained how. The special effects are oddly inconsistent. In scenes where ghosts arrive to haunt Emily, you can tell that what you're looking at are rags and paper mache made to look humanoid. Yet not five minutes later, some excellent gore effects happen. Sometimes this can be quite the contradiction (such as a scene where a man who has fallen off a ladder is beset by tarantulas. While some of the spiders are real, others are unabashedly fake). But then, at the same time, some of the gore effects are awesomely done (I howled with laughter and rewound several times when Doctor John offs a character in the last few minutes of the film).

But Fulci is no hack. The cinematography is pretty wonderful. The visuals of the film make up for some of the shoddier special effects. But some of the scenes go on too long. The aforementioned spider scene goes on about three times longer than needed. This movie could be a good time, as long as you don't take it too seriously.

The ABCs of Death (Various Directors) - B+

This collaboration is an anthology film quite unlike any other. 26 contemporary horror directors were each given a letter, and got to pick a word (or phrase) that corresponded to their letter. The result: 26 different short films in which at least one character dies. I couldn't possibly give you the premise of each film, so I'm not going to try. Besides, it’s best to go into a film like this knowing as little as possible.

These films are truly all over the map. The feel of ABCs runs from satirical to hilarious to gory to disturbing. But it evokes these emotions skillfully. It is an international effort, bringing several different languages to the table.  It also includes different formats such as animation, claymation, puppetry and found footage. But the common thread through most of the anthology is talent. Say what you will about the content of some of the pieces, each one is done particularly well.

While not every short could be considered horror, those that are are fairly disturbing. People that can't stand the genre (or violence) will probably not be able to stomach it, but overall, I found ABCs to be an excellent appeal to the horror geek in me. And people like me are most definitely the film's audience.

And while I really don’t want to talk about the specific shorts, I will let you know my favorite letters: D, F, Q, S, U & Z (Which is perhaps one of the strangest things I have ever seen. Thanks Japan!).

Carrie (Brian De Palma) - B

Nobody likes Carrie White. Though she may have secret telekinetic powers, she gets pushed around daily in just the most unthinkable ways by her high school peers. And when her almost-definitely-a-lesbian gym teacher interferes in the pranks against her, ringleader Chris decides Carrie must suffer even more. Of course, it doesn't help that Carrie's mother is a religious fanatic who makes her daughter's private life hell too. What's a girl to do? Hey, I know! After getting pushed to the limit at her prom, she goes berserk (mentally) and annihilates as many people as possible.

Director Brian De Palma tackles the celebrated Stephen King story, and he does a good job of it. True, much of his style is borrowed from Hitchcock, but he still shows a lot of class here. Many of the girl gym sequences are dazzlingly choreographed, and De Palma even brings his signature split screen effect to the table for Carrie's famous meltdown (though, personally, I found he used this technique to greater effect in Sisters). Some of the performances, including Piper Laurie, of Twin Peaks fame, as Carrie’s devout mother are excellent. The film also features a funky, electronic-sounding soundtrack that adds to some of the more surreal scenes.

Parts of Carrie are baffling to me (why does the house implode?), but the film is captivating enough that these details don't matter. Even knowing exactly where the story is going, watching Carrie discover new experiences in life only to have it all crash down around her is a satisfying experience. At points she seems to climb impossibly high, so high that you can't believe that she doesn't realize it's all a ruse. But she needs to climb that high in order for her fall to have the correct emotional impact.

----------------

That does it for another week! This coming week, I think, will be my found footage marathon, including Afflicted, Cloverfield and Cannibal Holocaust. Tonight, though, I'm going to be checking out 2009's Pandorum, starring.... Dennis Quaid? Am... am I sure about this? Aw, mannnn....