Monster Mash Movie Marathon Month 2017 - Week 2

Well, well, well, what have we here? Another week of movie reviews from your blood-watching movie guy -- ME!

A much more middle of the road week, if you examine grades alone, but there were some very disappointing moments for me, personally. I've never given a Vincent Price OR Larry Cohen movie grades this low. Am I getting jaded? Were these actually subpar films? Even reading my reviews can't answer that for you, but they can offer an opinion!

How do I rate things, again??

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

And, as usual, KEEP YOUR EYES PEELED FOR THINGS THAT APPEAR TO BE SPOILERS. I'm trying real hard not to do it to you this year, but it's very possible I've fucked that up.

Now, with no further adieu, let's jump right in....

Blue Sunshine (Jeff Lieberman) - D+

Jerry Zipkin gets drawn into a mad conspiracy when one of his best friends flips out and burns three women to death in a fireplace. It would appear Jerry's friend, Frannie, was one of a handful of Stanford graduates who bought blue sunshine acid during the 60s. This particular strain, taken ten years ago, is now causing all sorts of folks to lose all of their hair, and suffer a total psychotic break! Zipkin struggles to uncover the truth of blue sunshine, and who is to blame for it's dispersal, before more Innocents are killed by these LSD-lovin' maniacs.

Ironically, like many films I subjected myself to this week, Blue Sunshine borrows from several other films to achieve its feel: Romero's The Crazies is chief among these, though there's a certain feeling akin to the early works of Cronenberg (specifically Shivers and Rabid - before he went all body horror). The trouble with that, in this case, is that both of those movies have way more class than this one. All aforementioned films feature amateur talent, but there's a lot more going on in Romero and Cronenberg's films. All you've got going on here is a weird mystery, being solved by a dud of a protagonist. It's pretty lame, which is a shame given its fun premise, and proven director (I vastly preferred Lieberman's previous genre film, Squirm).

One weird thing I'll mention: throughout the film, the audience is subjected to campaign commercials and rallies for Ed Flemming, a Stanford grad that's running for Congress. Flemming eventually plays a role in the story, but for the most part, he's a rich kid using his reputation to gain power. The last lines of Blue Sunshine feature a campaign speech from Flemming, where he ends with the slogan 'Make America Good Again'. I understand Reagan used MAGA before Donald Trump, so it's not completely out of left field, but it certainly ended this otherwise unnotable film on an unnerving note.

As Above, So Below (John Eric Dowdle) - D+

Scarlett is the daughter of a world famous adventurer that passed away trying to find the legendary philosopher's stone. After a brief prologue in Iran, Scarlett winds up in France, where she recruits Benji, a videographer and George, her intrepid ex boyfriend, who conveniently speaks Aramaic. The trio desecend into the famous Parisian catacombs, along with some local guides, where Scarlett is sure the stone can be found. Soon, every character is equipped with a GoPro camera, and a complexly cut found footage film follows.

Now, I like found footage, and I've seen a lot of it. Right out of the gate, there's a couple things you should stay away from when going about making this sub-genre. Chief among these is showing your primary camera person. My favourite found footage movie, 2007's rec., manages to go the entire film without showing you the cameraman (somehow this was bungled by its almost shot-for-shot remake, Quarantine). As Above, So Below breaks this rule almost constantly, showing us Benji at least a dozen times before the GoPro cameras appear, further giving the filmmakers license to do this. This might seem nitpicky, but consider actual 'found footage' from real life. In fact, consider most cellphone videos. Most of the time, the camera person is filming, not handing the camera off so they can have a scene. Showing the person filming tends to destroy the realism of this kind of movie (there are exceptions, but not many), and As Above, So Below is an offender.

But wait, there's more: the film manages to evoke an atmosphere of dread by way of its haunting, dimly-lit, claustrophobic setting. Yet almost always, the building tension is dissipated by the need to remind us that Scarlett is a font of lore from ancient civilisations by way of a ten minute history lesson. So drastic are the shifts when these moments occur that any fear the movie may have managed to create vanishes, and you're reminded, once more, that you're watching a product, not something realistic. Then you've got your cheap scares (the man in the black cloak, for example, looks like he arrived on set fresh from the Halloween store, as an example), which can certainly be startling, but without context of what's happening - which you don't get until the last few minutes - anything could be on that screen with loud enough music, and you'd be similarly effected.

Still, there's some enjoyable aspects. Well, really just the setting. There's moments in the first half that show promise, but they're a fondly forgotten memory by the time the characters reach the treasure. Even the gore is sparing, which I'm sure there was reason for, but might have saved some face. Ultimately this one disappointed me.

Scream and Scream Again (George Hessler) - D-

A bizarre series of murders breaks out in England, leaving local police to blunder around trying to find the culprit. A mysterious foreign power appears to have some involvement, as the mysterious Schwietz appears, delivering fatal neck pinches to anyone he comes into contact with. Something of a protagonist eventually appears for Vincent Price to explain the plot to, but by that point, the movie is almost over...

Well, it finally happened, I watched a bad Vincent Price movie (in an AIP film, no less). Usually, this MMMMM darling manages to save any mediocre film he stars in, but the absolutely vapid plot threatens to drown this movie in failure. Much ado about Price starring alongside Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, but Cushing is in literally one scene, and Lee's character doesn't even grace the screen until after the halfway point. It's a ruse, dear friends!

And how about that plot? It's pretty confusing. The foreign power that dominates almost half the film is ill-defined (is it supposed to be Germany?), and doesn't even seem connected to the action in England. Only when Johnny Neck-Pinch (aka Schwietz) shows up to off the police chief do we start to see cohesion (and by that point, it's too little, too late).

The primary offence of the picture concerns the middle 30 minutes, wherein a killer gets into a complicated pursuit with some policemen. It's essentially a 30 minute chase scene that ends with no satisfying conclusion (the killer we were watching through most of the movie is dispatched, but nothing comes of it). Given the all ready awkward pacing here, Scream and Scream Again didn't need a chase scene that lasted a third of its runtime.

I'll see you next year, Vince, and hopefully we can put all of this behind us.

The Mist (Frank Darabont) - C-

After a big storm knocks a tree on their house, David, along with his young son and neighbour, Mr. Norton (Brooklyn Nine-Nine's Andre Braugher) set off from their sleepy Maine cottage country to the local hardware store. While inside, a mysterious fog covers the town, and the occupants of the store quickly learn monsters lurk out in the mist. So begins a multi-day siege while the hardware store customers attempt to batten down and weather the hungry computer-graphics trying to devour them. Things are tense inside, as the pious Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden) seeks to assume command of the hardware store's denizens through divine right. Will David be able to escape the mist and find safety? Boy, you'd sure hope so...

It's hard to pin down exactly why this movie wasn't better. It could be the ham-handed melodrama that is served up throughout (with a particularly polarising ending -- I was on the dislike side, since there was no logical reason for the film to end the way it did). It could be the questionable length (very little happens in The Mist's two hours, so far making it the longest film of MMMMM2017) or pacing (why does everyone turn into such an asshole so fast?). It could be the Steven King source material, which, I've gone on record saying is usually a detriment. It could also be the numerous digital effects that look horribly dated ten years later. Whatever the case, a lot about The Mist is aggravating to the viewer.

But there are things to like! Probably the chief aspect to be enjoyed are the performances. Marcia Gay Harden steals the show, but some of the supporting cast (shout out to my boy, Ollie, played by Toby Jones - the true hero of the film) also stand out. The premise (a group of people are under siege in a hardware store by Lovecraftian monsters) is a good one too. The few practical effects used, such as a swollen insect sting, look great - you just wish there were more of them. While there's certainly polished parts, a lot of The Mist feels like missed opportunities, with a dash of being a product of its time.

The Void (Jeremy Gillespie & Steven Kostanski) - C+

Daniel is a police officer working a lonely beat somewhere in remote Canada. He finds a staggering man on the highway who appears to be hurt, so Daniel checks him into a local hospital, where his ex-wife works as an overnight nurse. Almost immediately, things turn sinister when another nurse slays a patient, before turning into a tentacled monster of hulking proportions, and mysterious cultists armed with blades surround the hospital. Two men, an unnamed father and son, fight their way through the cultists, demanding to kill the man Daniel rescued earlier. Daniel quickly negotiates a truce, leading to the reveal that the hospital itself is the source of these evil occurrences, and it's up to Daniel and his motley crew to end the villainous cult leader (who - surprise! - has been there, under their noses, all along) before he unleashes hell on Earth.

As so often seems to be the case this year, the first act of The Void is superb. The pacing is excellent, the effects are fantastic and old school (and very much borrowed from John Carpenter's The Thing). Leading man Aaron Poole, as Daniel, is an enjoyable protagonist (and woefully ineffective when the film is at its best), though many of the supporting characters don't rise to his level. The creature effects are very gruesome and satisfying (even if you can't tell what you're looking at sometimes), and considering this film was chiefly financed by a $100,000 Kickstarter, what appears on screen are amazingly effective practical effects. The influences (Carpenter's Thing, as mentioned, but there's also shades of sci-fi horror classic Event Horizon, as well as Stuart Gordon's From Beyond) are transparent, but handled far more lovingly than those in... Oh, let's say Blue Sunshine.

The troubles begin once the opening premise is established, and Daniel and friends have to start doing things. The entire trip to the basement sequence feels shoehorned at best, and rushed at worst (the second act of the film plods along, so that the action-packed third act throws a lot at you to process in a short amount of time). As characters begin to die, it really highlights how poor some of the supporting cast are (I don't wanna name names, but there's a pregnant girl's grandpa in the film, and he shouldn't be). Despite this, The Void is a worthwhile film, and don't let my being Canadian trick you into thinking I'm being easy on it: I'm notoriously unimpressed by Canadian Cinema.

It Lives Again (Larry Cohen) - D

Following the tragic events of It's Alive, devastated father, Frank Davis is working with a handful of doctors to try and save the killer babies before they're destroyed by police. He approaches young couple Gene and Jodie Scott, who eventually come around to Frank's point of view, when Jodie goes into labour and is surrounded by armed police. Frank absconds with Gene and the baby, where it is revealed Davis' group has two more killer babies all ready, for a total of three. Before long, the babies get loose and start wreaking havoc, leading Gene and Jodie to join the police in an attempt to polish off the threat.

Another bitter film experience for me, I'm afraid, as this is the first Larry Cohen movie I haven't outright loved. It's only natural that not everything a director releases will be up to code (or maybe I'm just too into other Cohen films and had supremely high expectations). Whatever the case, It Lives Again feels boring. The story is complex by comparison to the first film, which may be the root of the problem, and that isn't helped by much of the events of the first film being un-referenced, but mandatory viewing.

Cohen comes from a place of slowly ekeimg his monster out, like the classic B-Movies of old, but in It Lives Again, it is almost criminal how much is held back: when one of the babies is slain, an image of it in profile appears on screen for a split second before the character confronting it shoots it, but he may as well be shooting at the ground, for all we know. Flashing what he's aiming at for a couple of frames before he kills it is not a move from the basic language of cinema. And that's only one example.

Are there laughs? Yes, of course. But even then, there doesn't seem to be enough of them. Even the first kill, ostensibly just a puppet claw dancing around a surgeon's face, looks extra cheap, and doesn't excite you for more to come. You also won't find anything engaging about the cast. I'm now a little worried for my assured viewing of It's Alive III: Island of the Alive next year, but, at least that one stars Cohen leading man Michael Moriarty, so it can't be this bad, right? And even if it is, we'll always have The Stuff...

Prevenge (Alice Lowe) - B+

Ruth is murdering the people she believes responsible for the death of her partner. Her unborn daughter drives her on, whispering terrible truths to her mother, and keeping her to task. Though her doctor counsels caution and rest, Ruth is a true chameleon, stepping from identity to identity to dispatch ugly character after ugly character. Whether she's out for a night on the town, going for a job interview or posing as a charity worker, there's no killer more successful than a single mother. Will Ruth successfully fulfil her bloody mission before the baby comes?

Prevenge is an absolute scream, and triple threat Alice Lowe (Writer, Director and Star) is a big part of the reason. Her performance is absolutely solid, and she is beset upon by a cast of absolutely terrible human beings. From the piggish DJ Dave to the mistrusting fitness queen Len (played by Game of Thrones' Gemma Whalen), you don't really shed a tear for Ruth's victims. Similarly, Lowe's eye for cinematography is quite excellent, with many of the visuals being captivating despite having a seemingly minuscule budget. Thanks to these strengths, Prevenge was the highlight of my week.

The film's dark sense of humour is relentless, from each gory, but usually fitting, murder to Ruth's excellent comedic interactions with her doctor. Perhaps the best sequence of the film involves Ruth painting her face like a monstrous skull (all the while getting a peptalk from baby), before taking her supremely pregnant self to a Halloween party to take care of some business. While played for laughs, her choice of costume is surprisingly eerie and shows the film will continue to surprise you with effective visuals. A wonderful contrast to the disappointing It Lives Again.


And so we draw a close to another week of horror movies. Don't you worry, though, there's another week looming just ahead. Tonight I'll be enjoying (I hope) seminal 80s horror film The Monster Squad (hopefully at my local art house theatre!), so that, at least is on the docket for the week. Find out what I think of this, and six other films, next week around this time!

Monster Mash Movie Marathon Month - Week 2

Right out of the gate this week, I watched some movies I thought were quite good, before descending back into the depths of mediocrity I am used to with this exercise. Still, it's always appreciated to find something entertaining in this sea of screams, rubber suits and computer-generated blood splats. Not to mention, the ones I enjoyed the most were from the last couple of years - I think you all know by now how rare that is for me.

Enough jabber. Here's what my letter scores mean:

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

So, without further adieu, let's start the first full week of reviews! REMEMBER: My reviews might SPOIL these movies. I am better about revealing details about more recent films, but if you haven't seen Them! by now, you can't be too mad at me for telling you how it goes...

It Follows (David Robert Mitchell) - B+

Jay, and Hugh, the man she's recently begun dating, finally knock boots. While she's reminiscing about how she thought dating would go as a child, he proceeds to chloroform her, and strap her to a wheelchair in her undies. When Jay comes to, Hugh explains to her that by having sex with him, a thing (its nature is never explored) is going to be coming for her. It is always a person, but sometimes it's people she knows and sometimes it's strangers. No matter what, though, she can't let it get to her, and the only way to escape it is to sleep with someone else, and transfer it to them. After a couple encounters with the creature (in which all that happens is someone gradually walks directly at her), her friends become concerned, and they try to help her get to the bottom of this mysterious malady (starting with finding Hugh, who, they learn, is not really named Hugh at all). Will Jay be able to pass the curse on before whatever it is gets her?

It Follows has a sharp, unique premise and a very strong filmmaker at the helm. Literally all the monster really does is walk towards Jay most of the time, but the menace comes from the music, the camera work and the expectations the viewer will quietly form about where it will come from next. The film loves showing you empty space, with the understanding that you will assume anything that walks into frame is the monster, and instantly captures your attention. Indeed, only once are we given a sudden, shocking scare. In the other scenes, we see the thing coming literally a mile away, slowly pacing towards Jay. I would argue that this is drastically different from most modern horror films, and because of this difference, it gives an audience that is fatigued by modern horror tropes a breath of fresh air.

The pacing of the film is slow, and while this is integral to the film's success, some viewers might get bored. Faithful readers may consider me a hypocrite for feeling slow pacing is an upside (citing something like my review of Ti West's House of the Devil, in which I complain nothing happens, and the director is clearly more in love with his camera work than telling an engaging horror story), but why It Follows can get away with a simple premise and being light on things happening is because it has characters you care about, an appealing (if not heavy-handed) sense of style, and doesn't just threaten you endlessly with menace. It Follows manages to keep you as on edge as much as the characters living its terrifying plot. Horror directors of the 50s could take a lesson or two from this film about how to cheaply make a horror movie with a goofy idea while still making a quality product (I know time doesn't work that way, but darn it, I can dream).

Small complaints I'd make would be the retro style of the movie, while pleasant, is unnecessary. It's established early on that it takes place in a time with touchscreens and cellphones, but the music and locations often make you feel like you're watching something from the 80s. The soundtrack was eerily reminiscent of the score of Stranger Things (which I feel is a plus), and that's all well and good, but why give it that feel and not set it then? Technology never plays an intricate part in the story. It could have been the 80s. No one tries to look at the thing through a camera lens, or get rid of their death-curse-by-fucking on Craigslist.

But, whatever. It Follows is a pretty good modern horror movie in my books. It has style, a unique premise, and some genuinely disturbing moments. I will need further time to process how I feel about it, but I'll confidently say I liked it at least as much as anything I watched last year. I would caution though that this kind of thing only works once, so if we get sequels, it's bound to get fucked up somehow.

Krampus (Michael Dougherty) - B+

Max is a little old to believe in Santa, but he does. He tries his best to be good, but it's hard around the holidays when his stupid extended family shows up and gets up to their vicious, bullying crap. This Christmas is a little different, though, and once Max tears up his wish list, symbolically giving up on Santa in the process, things get spooky. Starting with a neighborhood blackout shortly after the family is assembled, Max's older sister Beth goes missing. Max's father and uncle go out to look for her, but soon return after Uncle Howard is almost dragged under the snow. That night, Howard's oldest son is fished out of the house via the chimney in front of everyone. Max's German grandmother knows what's up: Krampus (the evil, german-folklore Santa counterpart) has come back to punish the wicked. Now, Max's family is besieged by giant, angry Christmas toys that are hellbent on destroying them all. Escape seems impossible, but the family has to try...

Krampus came out last year around Christmas and quickly vanished from theatres. While the easy finger to point would be at Star Wars episode VII, it's possible that this was maybe a little too October for Christmas. Sure, it's very much a Christmas movie, but Krampus is also a very great horror movie too. Many genre are observed and executed quite well. We only get hints and screams as family member after family member are picked off, but by the time most of the children are gone, the monsters (Krampus' helpers) are seen in their full glory. What starts as a 'you've seen this story before' Christmas tale quickly turns into Have A Holly, Jolly Night of the Living Dead. Indeed, as the family lock themselves into grandmother's house and start barricading the windows, one cannot help but harken back to the mother of all zombie survival films.

The cast of Krampus, well, the adult cast of Krampus is superb (With particularly good performances by Adam Scott, David Koechner and Allison Tolman). The creature effects are alarmingly effective (until, perhaps, the finale where it looks like the designer was struck by a confusing Guillermo Del Toro obsession), with many of the characters we see probably being actual actors in costume (except the ginger bread cookies which are definitely computer graphics). Some excellent sound design and camera work help to sell the isolation of the family as bleak and hopeless. With the brilliant opening musical vignette (in which a department store opens its doors to have a crowd of riotous Christmas shoppers surge, who proceed to get into brawls with one another, before sadistic security guards taze them, smiling. The song used? Have Yourself a Merry, Little Christmas), the film feels like it's going to go into a preachy 'remember when North America was well-behaved during Christmas?' territory. But while morality does play a part in the story, no one learns a lesson or changes their ways. Krampus holds a mirror to our bad behavior, but offers no solutions, only repercussions. And that's probably what society needs anyway.

It's Alive (Larry Cohen) - C+

Frank and Lenore are about to have their second baby. After dropping 11-year old Chris at... um… Uncle? Friend of the family? Some dude named Charlie's, they arrive at the hospital. Lenore complains about something being different about her labor this time, but Frank and the doctors ignore her. Turns out, they shouldn't have when the baby massacres five doctors and nurses. It appears the baby is some kind of mutant killing machine (it is implied the mutation is a result of modern pharmaceuticals, though never explicitly revealed), and after escaping through an operating room skylight, it begins chewing its way through Beverly Hills, one victim at a time. Frank becomes a man possessed with destroying his evil offspring, callously signing its body away to science, and asking investigating officers to tag along on attempts to put the thing down. After many cat and mouse chases, the police manage to corner it in the city sewer system. Frank finds it first, and has a sudden, predictable change of heart. This doesn't save the baby, which does end up going down in a blaze of gunfire (along with the doctor that cannot wait to autopsy it), and as Frank and Lenore leave the scene with the police lieutenant in charge of the task force, all three learn a grim fact: another monster baby has been born in Seattle.

I love Larry Cohen. The man is not a celebrated director of horror, but he consistently made effective, eclectic movies. It's Alive is probably his best known work in the genre (there are two sequels that follow, including a pairing of Cohen with his best leading man ever, Michael Moriarty in part three). While It's Alive is a perfectly decent monster story, its wacky creature, all over the place acting, and predictable story are downright amateurish. But there's a lot going on behind the scenes, especially with regards to the script. It's Alive is a satirical commentary on parenthood, media, police incompetence, drug companies and other normal things that were taken for granted by its audience. This rich tapestry of subtext is subtle (no one ever comes out and starts ranting "What's the matter with this country?"), and is ultimately the most interesting thing going on in the movie.

Though I did enjoy it well enough, it wasn't the most compelling Cohen film (Q: the Winged Serpent is a classier monster movie, while The Stuff is a richer social commentary on American society, albeit from a different angle). The first half of the film is rather bland; next to no creature effects grace the screen, and I feel like the existence and hostile response to the infant are kind of glossed over so that Frank's character can be fully established (which would work better if this was a drama or thriller, not a monster movie). The two final scenes make up for this though, as the two parents soften and begin to realize there is room for a little monster in their lives.

Ghoulies (Luca Bercovici) - D-

Jonathan just inherited his estranged father's house. Why was he estranged, you ask? Because he used to be some kind of crazy warlock that was tight with demons and fed them human sacrifices. He was, in fact, going to sacrifice Johnathan as a baby, but his mother put a magic necklace on baby Jonny that prevented him from doing so. Anyway, not long after arriving at his new digs, Jonathan discovers his dad's library and becomes conveniently obsessed with the occult, much to the chagrin of his girlfriend Becky. The mired couple throw a housewarming party, and afterwards, Jonathan, Becky and six of their closest friends ‘do a ritual'. It seems to fail, but doesn't. Not that it matters, as later, Jonathan just keeps casting spells and eventually populates his house with little demon puppets. Then he summons two dwarves, and they promise they can make his wishes come true, if he performs a special ritual. Naturally, Jonathan enacts the spell, summoning his Zombie Pops back into existence. Zombie Pops reveals he's been controlling Jonathan the whole time, and aims to steal his youth. Then you get to the wizard battles...

All I knew about Ghoulies going into it was it is considered a Gremlins rip off. That's not entirely accurate, as it turns out, but people are probably referring to the demons that get conjured up by all the black magic going on. These, unlike the Gremlins, are almost just window-dressing to the film, only showing up to fill (steal?) screen time away from the woefully-lacking script. Indeed, given the first shots of the movie show you the creatures right off the bat, you can't help but feel like someone was incredibly proud of their puppet monsters. But, as was often the case with cheap monster effects, the more of the monster you see, the less impressive it becomes, and Ghoulies shows you these little bastards a lot. In fact, very soon you figure out there's probably only four or five models that get used multiple times, and can't move more than their eyes and lips. Later, over halfway through the film, you come to understand that they are more of a talking point than something that impacts the story, you begin to wonder why so much time is being spent on them.

There's a lot of heart here, but also some really terrible acting, a director that makes weird decisions about timing and editing, and a script that dictates too much time on dreck, and not enough time on the plot. These factors make Ghoulies dull and difficult to like. It's got decent special effects beyond the inanimate puppet monsters (the best of which being a tongue that crushes a dude's throat), but for 1985, even these are kind of lackluster. Eraserhead star Jack Nance makes an appearance and narrates the film, but the real surprise is the chick from Law and Order: SVU (she's dating the dud) in her first credited role. Not that she is particularly stand out, or anything.

Creep (Patrick Brice) - F

Josef has hired Aaron to come out to his isolated cottage and make a video documentary about a day in his life. But this is a found footage horror movie, so his story turns out to be bullshit. Josef has lured Aaron out there to be murdered, but Aaron smartly drugs Josef and eventually confronts him. You're made to think Aaron dies, but it's revealed he hasn't. Josef terrorizes Aaron a bit more and then eventually does kill him. Turns out Josef does this kind of thing a lot.

I enjoy found footage, but maybe I've seen too much. Within the first few minutes of the movie, I could tell:

•  Because the footage was edited, one of the two characters would have survived and made a movie
• Because this was a low budget indie movie, there'd be no gore or special effects
• Because there was going to be no gore or special effects, the film was going to rely entirely on startling you, or showing you things in frame that Aaron doesn't see or notice.
•  Because the story is going to be about two characters in mostly isolated locations, the success of the film is going to really depend on the performances of the two leads.
• Because of how much they show our camera man, Aaron, we are in for a tacky ride (showing the person filming in found footage is highly unrealistic).

With regards to the last two points, Aaron screams a lot and makes some stupid choices. Josef is better, and his character does transition from weirdo to psychopath more-or-less at an appropriate pace, but anyone who has seen the trailer knows at once that his story is bogus, and spending 2/3s of the movie on the set up to get to 'Josef is actually a murderer' makes most of his stories unimportant. Inexplicably, the filmmakers thought doing a 5 minute scene with the lens cap on the camera was a good idea (the movie is about 75 minutes long, so that's not insignificant), but actually this is an awful choice, as it slows the film down even further. Honestly, Josef is at his best wearing his Peachfuzz outfit (a legitimately unnerving werewolf mask). This is played for laughs earlier, but no one is fooled.

As to showing Aaron, I knew it was going to be rough when he was filming himself at the start, as it set the stage for further scenes. Now, in a two person found footage movie, I get that you gotta show more than one character or it verges into ultra-boring territory, but, showing the camera person often only serves to remind you that you're watching a movie, which in turns shatters the extreme realism needed to pull off a movie in this sub-genre. It shouldn't have shown him at all until after the escape from Josef's cabin.

Ultimately, the most disappointing aspect of the film is its conclusion. As mentioned, the third act of the picture concerns Aaron having escaped and more terrorizing from Josef. At this point, really the only clever point in the movie, the script had a chance to go in another direction. Aaron has some nightmares in which he and Josef are more similar than Aaron is comfortable with. I found myself wondering if, after all, Aaron would end up slaying Josef and take up being a serial murder himself. That would have been a real twist. But instead, these scenes don't go anywhere and Josef ends up killing Aaron (a cool shot, but hardly anything mind-blowing) before the plodding story reveals Josef lures many hipster videographers to their death. This is a far more typical ending than I think the screenwriters care to admit. Ultimately, Creep is just a forgettable experience.

Piranha (Joe Dante) - C+

Maggie, a spunky private investigator, is dispatched to look into the disappearance of two teens in Flordia-like backwoods. Not long after she arrives, she meets up with Paul, an alcoholic divorcee who seemingly wants nothing to do with her. Nevertheless, the two trace her quarry to an abandoned military station in the mountains, where they encounter Dr. Hoak, and unwittingly free his creation. Hoak had been working on a special breed of piranha to be used by the American military in the Vietnam War, but the war ended before they saw use. Now, the mutant monsters have been released into the local waterways, and Maggie and Paul race against time to stymie the spread of the fish, and save as many locals as possible.

Piranha is a successful, if not notorious franchise all on its own, so let's skip the obvious comparison to Jaws (the second scene of the film shows Maggie playing a Jaws arcade game - a direct nod to this film's inspiration). What we have here is a charming enough B-Movie for its day, but it's actually fairly typical when compared to others of its ilk. Some of the special effects are impressive (especially earlier in the film when you see a man's legs have been chewed to the bone, and there's an unexplained stop-motion animated fish-thing in Hoak's lab), but most are of the usual, cheap, don't let the audience see it much variety. We get many underwater shots, but these become so commonplace that you start to lose your appreciation for them as the film goes on.

Piranha has way too many characters in it for such a simple story. Maggie and Paul get the most screen time, but there's a subplot with Paul's daughter at summer camp (introducing her, along with three camp counselors that have multiple scenes), a military cover-up subplot (including scientists and a crooked colonel, arguably the film's human antagonist). Add to that Dr Hoak, Maggie's boss, a greedy resort owner, Paul's spritely neighbor, and a gaggle of other victims, and you drastically reduce the time you can dedicate to your story. Perhaps the filmmakers figured that the oodles of piranha attack scenes would be the main attraction (and probably were), but it just makes for a very repetitive experience. An attack on the summer camp is followed directly by an attack on the resort, and they're so similar, you wonder why they weren't rolled into one, longer scene. Piranha is a classic, and absolutely worth a watch, but not by much.

Them! (Gordon Douglas) - C

A pair of New Mexico police officers find a little girl wandering the desert, followed by the wreckage of first a trailer, and then a general store. One cop, Ben, leaves the scene to bring back more men (a good choice, as his partner wanders off frame, shoots his gun a few times and screams). An unusual print is found in the sand when Ben returns. The police send this to the scientific community and are soon joined by an FBI agent named Robert, and a pair of scientists from the department of Agriculture, Dr. Harold Medford and his daughter Pat. Medford immediately suspects the culprit is giant ants (a result of nuclear bomb testing in the area), and his suspicion proves correct, leading Ben and Robert to a nest that the group promptly wipes out (using a combination of bazookas, cyanide gas and flamethrowers). Alas, they have discovered the nest too late and young queens have already flown the coop to make hives of their own. One is quickly discovered in Corpus Cristi (it is dealt with efficiently), the other in the Los Angeles sewer system. Due to the urban location, humans have begun to go missing in the big city, so Ben, Robert and Dr. Medford lead the charge into a final confrontation with the nuclear-grown insects. Will the American military be defeated? Not on your life, bub.

On the one hand, Them! is a pretty standard from the 1950s collection of sci-fi horror. A monstrosity created by scientific disasters threatens the American way of life, and the military needs to stop it. The conclusion is a given (it's rare we see the military portrayed as villains today, and unheard of during these early cold war years), and no one is really acting in the modern sense of the word. At no point do you feel as though there is any danger to the world, on account of how efficiently those good ole American boys dispatch ant after ant with common know-how. The cringing moments of heavy sexism makes the film seem incredibly out of touch (though, in its day, this was business as usual).

To its credit, however, Them! doesn't waste a lot of time getting to man vs. giant ant. Bob & Co bust out flamethrowers before the halfway point. Actual military hardware was used, and, in some way was probably very reassuring to see that if these weapons were good enough to deal with giant ants, they were certainly good enough to crush the Communist threat. Cool as this is, it feels - as many 50s sci-fi horrors do - as though it's more propaganda about the assured success of the military against fantastic odds.

How about the giant ants? Well, they're cheesy, but not terrible. They do suffer from diminishing returns the more you see them, but there's one giant ant that's hanging out of an anthill with a fake human rib cage hanging on its mandibles that deserves mention (you definitely don't see an image like that every day). Later, though, Dr. Medford starts telling other characters about how ants work, his explanation is heard over a nature documentary about the insects. It really felt like I was back in elementary school.  This film is better than most of its contemporaries, but that’s not saying much.

----- 

Well, that does it for another week of MMMMM reviews. I hope you enjoyed reading about them. This week, we forge on with another seven films. The line-up is somewhat fluid, still, but tonight is The Witch! I've heard good things, and I hope to see them come to life (well... in movie form). Til next time, my Bloody Buddies.

Monster Mash Movie Marathon Month - Week 3

We're over halfway through now, and I'll be damned if I'm done with it.

The usual: grade can change between here and Facebook, look out for SPOILERS (there's many in this week's digest), and so on.

Here's my grading system again:

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 batch of films included my Christopher Lee festival. It was ok, but even if Lee was an excellent specimen of the 50s and early 60s, my interest in that time period only stretches so far. However, one of these films currently holds the best grade of the year. So that's a little exciting, eh?

Onwards...

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

Horror Hotel (aka City of the Damned) (John Llewellyn Moxey) - C-

Back in the bad, old days of New England, Elizabeth Selwyn was burned for being accused of witchcraft. For once, the angry mob got it right. Just before she burns, Satan grants Elizabeth a brief reprieve to curse the town of Whitewood forever. Flash forward to modern day, Nan Barlow is hearing a lecture by Professor Driscoll (CHRISTOPHER LEE). Driscoll is a bit of a witchcraft buff, and Nan approaches him, revealing her desire to study a small New England town with a sinister past. Driscoll recommends - where else? - Whitewood, and from there Nan is lured into a trap that features her as a living sacrifice. When she is gone for two weeks, her older brother Professor Dick Barlow, her sweetheart Maitland, and Patricia, a descendant of the Whitewood's non-witch community, try to find out what's happened to her.

Sounds a bit like Psycho, doesn't it? Just in that a female protagonist gets slain halfway through, and her family and boyfriend have to pick up where she left off (not to mention her murder in a hotel). Released the same year as Hitchcock's classic, there are definitely some similarities between the two thematically. 

However, where Horror Hotel has trouble is that its second half is too similar to its first. With all the reveals out of the way, watching Dick and his crew follow after Nan feels kind of tiring. Luckily, there are plenty of excellent sets, lighting, and ambiance to keep the mood going, it just gets a little dull. Even the finale, in which Maitland obliterates the witch coven with the power of Christ, can't save it from this fate.

Lee as Driscoll is one of the better performances in the film, though his other nefarious co-stars, Valentine Dyall as Jethrow Keane and Patricia Jessel as Elizabeth Selwyn are suitably sinister. Jessel especially steals the show, but she gets far more screen time than Lee or Dyall. The young folks are your typical, hapless college folk though. They're oblivious to every warning sign, and probably deserve to be blood sacrifices.

The Gorgon (Terence Fisher) - C

Its 1910, and man oh man, has it been a bad week for the Heitz family. First older brother Bruno was found hanged in the small community of Vandorf. Then, Professor Jules Heitz, hot on the trail of the local murderer no one wants to seem to help him find, is turned to stone. Finally, Paul, youngest of the Heitz clan, arrives to find a note from his father warning him about the town. Paul attempts to unravel the mystery himself, but is constantly harangued by Dr. Namaroff (played By Hammer Horror's other star, Peter Cushing), owner of the local insane asylum. Both of them have fallen for Namaroff's assistant, Carla. Namaroff is resolute in stopping Paul's investigation, and almost gets away with it until Paul's mentor, Professor Meister (CHRISTOPHER LEE) shows up. Meister is essentially the Chuck Norris of The Gorgon. He arrives on the scene only in the last third of the film, but he immediately knows what's up: Carla is, somehow, the reincarnation of the Greek gorgon Magera. Any who look upon her will surely turn to stone. He tries to stop Paul from absconding with Carla, but Paul is headstrong, and ends up having a final battle with Namaroff in Carla's statuary lair. In the end, both Paul and Namaroff are turned to stone, leaving Meister to behead the monster.

In many ways, The Gorgon is similar to Horror Hotel. They both feature a xenophobic, small town with a dark secret that an outsider has to unravel. In both films, the character you think you're going to watch save the day is slain early, and in both films, the community rails against the solving of its mysteries. What really got me into The Gorgon was watching Christopher Lee play a hero. You almost never see that, as he was a pretty grim-looking (and sounding) fellow. He steals the show the second he turns up in Vandorf, making smart choices and having the foresight many of the Heitz family seems to lack. There's undeniable chemistry between Cushing and Lee, who, at this point, were old hands at doing this kind of film for Hammer (though in this movie, they only share one scene).

The special effects were a bit puzzling, though. On the one hand, the make-up effects used for characters turned to stone are very well done (this was long before computers, or Tom Savini, at a time when Hammer's make up and especially gore effects were held in high regard). On the other hand, the monster - basically a Medusa - is awful to look at, but not in the stone-turning way. The snakes in her hair look especially terrible, which says nothing of the reptilian tone they gave the actress' skin, or the giant, bright green maternity dress they clothed her in. Thankfully, you only get a good look at Magera during the finale, so you're not subjected to that horror for long. And, hey, it’s not every day you'll see a Medusa in a genre film.

A Taste of Fear (Seth Holt) - C+

We open on authorities pulling a woman's body out of the water in Europe. We later learn that this is Maggie, a friend and helper of Penny Appleby. Penny is the only daughter of Father (this is the only name Mr. Appleby is given), who owns a chic estate in the Ivory Coast. The film starts following the wheelchair-bound Penny, who had been summoned by her father to his estate. She is collected at the airport by Robert, her father's chauffeur. Robert seems a sweet sort, and he informs Penny that her father left just before she arrived. At the house, Penny meets Jane, the woman her father married after her mother died, and Dr. Gerard (CHRISTOPHER LEE), a local doctor that has been more and more in Jane's company of late. On her first night, Penny goes into a room she spies a light on in, and comes face to face with her dead father, gazing at her with dead eyes. But when Jane and Robert come to investigate, there's no sign of Father's body anywhere. Penny eventually becomes convinced that Jane and Dr. Gerard have killed her father, and are now conspiring to drive her mad, thereby negating Penny's claim on Father's inheritance. Penny recruits the sympathetic Robert to help her find proof of this crime, and bring the guilty parties to justice. Normally, I'd tell you how it ends here, but there's a few twists at the end of this one (unprecedentedly clever for 1961), and it's the kind of slow burn you need to experience for yourself.

A Taste of Fear is a thriller, for sure. The tension amps up nicely, and there are only a few moments in which you feel the movie stoops to cheap scares (these almost always come on the form of a Point-of-View shot from Penny, as she looks around a room slowly, eventually finding her father's corpse). Even though these scenes are technically as relevant to the plot as the rest of the film, they feel like they set the narrative back a few minutes. At times, Penny can be a bit insufferable, as she's almost inexplicably sharp about the murder of her father, and takes action against Jane and Gerard a lot faster than you'd expect from a wealthy young lady. This is somewhat explained by the ending, though. A Taste of Fear features breathtaking sets and locations. Father's mansion is especially detailed, and the camera does a good job of letting your eyes drink these details in.

But what about my boy, Christopher Lee? Well, once again, while he is the top name in the cast, he takes a back seat to Penny, Jane and Robert. Nowhere in A Taste of Fear does Gerard get menacing or evil, rather, Lee plays him as a concerned doctor, that truly wants to aid in Penny's comfort. Also worth noting, Lee pulls out all the stops by using a French accent for the character (and in the process, no longer has the same dour tone to his voice). He takes a bit more of the spotlight in the finale, but even then, it’s mostly a Penny-Jane-Robert affair. Ultimately, Lee steals the show when he's on camera, but he's not on camera nearly enough.

Troll (John Carl Buelcher) - F

The Potters have just moved into a new apartment building. Little Wendy rolls her ball into the laundry room, and ends up being abducted by a troll, a hairy, diminutive, super strong humanoid (some kind of faerie, we are later told). The Troll has a magic ring that allows him to somehow pose as Wendy, who then proceeds to become the problem child of the century. Mom and Dad are a little too busy goofing off through the movie to realize that their small daughter is throwing their son, Harry Potter Jr, into the the ceiling. While Harry befriends Eunice, a friendly witch that lives on the top floor, Wendy starts visiting each stereotyped character's apartment one by one, zapping the occupants with her magic ring. This turns the apartments into limitless outdoor fantasy worlds that spawn a bunch of little singing creatures (or in one case, makes Julia Louis Dreyfus prance around, 90% nude, shooting bad special effects into the air). Eunice informs Harry of what's really going on: the Troll is her jilted ex-lover that seeks to turn the entire apartment building into a universe for faerie creatures, thereby allowing such beings back into the world. When Eunice fails to stop him, it falls to young Harry to pick up the wizard mantle, and save his family.

Look, I'm giving this an F, but it's pretty absurd and isn't trying very hard. You could watch this and get a few laughs, but here's why you shouldn't, and instead, watch its 'sequel', Troll 2 (which is absolutely worse from pretty much every conceivable angle, and yet, it manages to be probably one of the funniest movies you could ever hope to see because of it):

• Both child actors are awful. Wendy you can kind of excuse, because she's younger, and actually a troll. But Harry Potter Jr is on the screen a lot, and is just horribly awkward. Not one line he delivers sounds natural, or even fits with the hammy adults he interacts with.
• Pretty much squanders Michael Moriarty, who is amazing in bad movies. No one can deliver a cheeseball line as well as this man, and sadly, he is wasted or off screen through most of the picture.
• When it came to special effects, Troll chose quantity over quality. You'll see a lot of weird, little creatures, but they are pretty much models with maybe one or two moving parts. They sing Latin, though.
• Baffling twist ending. Not one you don't see coming either, it just doesn't make any sense. Plus you get no closure on any of the characters but Eunice.
• Hard to tell who this movie was made for. It has all the elements of being a children's movie, but also features the S-word way too many times for 1986 to get away with marketing it to kids, and features a sleazy, misogynist creep that disappoints random women in his apartment. Oh, and its kinda racist against little people.

So, yeah. Not quality cinema, and nowhere near as rewatchably terrible as its completely unrelated follow-up. There are moments that might make you chuckle, but they're few and far between.

 A Return to Salem's Lot (Larry Cohen) - B-

Joe Weber is an anthropologist, and while studying indigenous tribes in South America, he receives a phone call from his ex-wife. It seems their son, Jeremy, has been incredibly difficult lately, and she wants to pass him off to Joe. Though he agrees, Joe is currently between homes, and their only solution is to move to Maine, where Joe's aunt Clara has left him a house. Within one night of their being there, Joe and Jeremy discover their new home in sleepy Salem's Lot is a community of vampires (and their servants, whom the bloodsuckers call drones). The vampires, led by Judge Axel, have lured Joe there to chronicle the history of their race. Joe is hesitant at first, despite everyone in town suddenly being real friendly, so Axel secures his loyalty by starting to turn Jeremy. A bizarre stranger, an old man named Van Buren, and Joe eventually join forces, and attempt to destroy the vampires to save Jeremy's soul.

Now, I've never seen Salem's Lot (a Stephen King property, directed by Tobe Hooper). This film is an unofficial sequel (King's name only appears in the credits once - inspired by characters written by:), so I can't really tell you how it compares to that movie. But, as a standalone effort, A Return to Salem's Lot is actually a very decent vampire adventure flick from the 80s. Likely because of its sequel status, this one doesn't pussyfoot around slowly revealing what the town is, or explaining the back story, or detailing what kills the vampires. It sets out to create a narrative about a problematic father and son, who conquer diversity, and overcome their selfish differences.

The effects are used very sparingly, and mostly at the beginning (within the first 20 minutes, the entire town sets upon a carload of punks that are in the wrong place at the wrong time). While they are not necessarily impressive, Cohen seems to grasp the effectiveness of not allowing the camera to linger on them too long. The last third of the film, where Joe and Van Buren start systematically destroying vampires, coffins and drones, is especially engaging. Both Michael Moriarty, who plays Joe, and Samuel Fuller, who plays Van Buren turn in excellent performances too. Cohen knows just how to blend the comedic timing, and the suspense, making for a very effective picture. Many of you will probably scoff at this one's age and low budget feel, but the narrative is solid, and I was consistently entertained.

Larry Cohen is an often unmentioned director of this genre, but having now seen a good chunk of his filmography, I'm convinced he's one of the better directors of his day. He might not have the most breathtaking style, but he does much more with a lot less than many other filmmakers. If you're looking for something different in a horror movie, try checking out one of his. This is a good one, as is Q (the Winged Serpent), which I watched last year as a part of MMMMM2014. Something a little more goofy, but still rather solid is The Stuff, a cult classic about an alien that disguises itself as a marshmallow dessert, and takes over any human that eats it. All of these films feature Michael Moriarty in a starring role as well, and displays a range from him that many other directors neglect to evoke (like in Troll, for example).

Interview With The Vampire (Neil Jordan) - C+

In 1994, a New Orleans journalist Daniel Malloy sits down with a vampire, who is eager to chronicle his centuries of existence. The vampire, Louis, was turned in the late 1700s by Lestat, a loose-moraled monster that doesn't care much for his new progeny's squeamishness. Louis is soft hearted, and refuses to kill any mortals, opting instead to feed on rats and other vermin to slake his thirst. Not much later, Louis happens upon Claudia, a child that has just lost her mother to plague. Louis feeds on her in a fit of hunger, but when Lestat turns up to gloat, Louis finds he no longer has the stomach for it. Lestat turns Claudia as a companion for Louis, but after 30 years, and realizing she'll never grow up, Claudia turns on Lestat. With Louis' help, the pair first slashes Lestat's throat and dump his body in the swamp. He returns almost immediately to take revenge, but Louis sets him ablaze with an oil lamp. In the chaos of Lestat's destruction, Claudia and Louis escape to Europe, where they hope to meet others of their kind. Eventually arriving in Paris, Louis makes contact with a coven of vampires that run an abstract theatre. The group's leader, Armand, is very accepting of Louis, but he and the other vampires are repulsed by Claudia, who is not only in a child's body (something they don't do in Europe), but also was the ring leader in killing Lestat. And so the Parisian vampires leave Claudia out for the sun, planning to entomb Louis forever in the walls of their lair. Armand rescues him, but it is too late for Claudia. Louis loses all vestiges of his humanity then, and kills all the Parisian vampires, save Armand, who he abandons to his own fate. Louis travels Europe until the modern day, where he encounters Lestat, back in New Orleans. Repulsive now to behold, Lestat has led a life of seclusion and has completely been unable to adapt to modern times (a helicopter shines a flood light into their window, and Lestat loses his shit, thinking the sun has suddenly risen). Louis finishes his story, and Malloy scampers off to publish his article. Lestat intercepts him on the freeway, and, while showing us he's learned to drive, reveals he plans to now turn Malloy.

This movie was a big, big deal in its day, featuring the star power of Brad Pitt (Louis), Christian Slater (Malloy), a child-star Kirsten Dunst (Claudia), Antonio Banderas (Armand) and Tom Cruise (Lestat). While you might imagine some of these actors are miscast, keep in mind that Anne Rice's novel the film is based on was one of the most popular book series around, and many in Hollywood were probably interested. As it stands, though, the cast does an admirable job. Sure, no one has an accent, but pretty much everyone plays their part well. Dunst as Claudia is especially effective, and you feel the years in her character the most. Montages of her growing up with Lestat are some of the warmest (though still suitably dark) in horror. Tom Cruise, who I'm usually not a fan of, is passable as Lestat. I felt he yelled a lot for a character that's supposed to be so detached, but that's hardly a major complaint. Also, have you always wanted to watch Brad Pitt and Antonio Banderas almost kiss, but never could find the movie to do it with? Well, search no further. There are a truckload of homosexual overtones to our vampires, none of which are really addressed (or acted upon - likely too hot button of an issue for Hollywood to touch in 1994), but it's so blatant that it's impossible not to understand this is exactly what was being implied about these characters. That's fine too. Rice's Vampires' desire for blood is their new sexuality.

But where I do take issue is with the pacing of the film, and with the details you are given about your protagonists. At just over two hours long, the first half of the film, featuring Louis and Claudia being turned, and the eventual 'murder' of Lestat is very long, and very repetitive. By comparison, the second half has a lot of action, but not a lot of exposition. Louis' quest for answers just gets violent. It is really surprising, for example, when Louis manages to wipe out the Parisians because we've never seen him in battle before. In fact, Louis never displayed any powers, save for when he reveals himself to Malloy, and it's implied that older vampires are much more capable (which certainly a majority of the Parisian vampires are, compared to Louis). Very little exposition is given on any aspect of the film's details - the sources of Lestat's wealth, the extent of Louis and Claudia's powers, and much about vampiric society is left unexplored. It's all well and good to have a good looking cast and the budget to afford lavish sets and props, but when there's gaps in your exposition, it lowers the stakes, and as a result, the action and drama are less exciting. If you don't tell me how your world works, why should I care? Speaking about things I should care about, let's talk about the movie's score. It is atrocious. The score REALLY misses the tone the film sets out to create, and instead, feels like it should have been in an action/adventure film (one that isn't about vampires). As it is, Interview With the Vampire feels a little flavor of the month to me, likely cashing in on the 90s Vampire craze Anne Rice created (and later destroyed), with little regard for the film surviving with age (featuring the hottest actors of the day, a trendy director of the moment, and MONEY). Bram Stoker's Dracula is better in almost every conceivable way, and still manages to hold up. 

Red State (Kevin Smith) - B+

Three young men, Travis, Jarod and Billy Ray, are on their way to meeting up with a lonely cougar for a night of gangbanging. But soon after their arrival, they're all drugged and taken prisoner by the fanatical Christian Cooper family (think a heavily armed Westboro Baptist Church). After a lengthy sermon by Abin Cooper, the evangelical patriarch of the clan, Jarod & Billy Ray free themselves and attempt to escape. Billy Ray is caught and executed, taking one of the Coopers with him. This buys Jarod enough time to hide. In the confusion, a sheriff's deputy is slain by the Coopers, leading to back up being called in. ATF agents, led by Agent Joseph Keenan, arrive and lay siege to the Cooper compound, resulting in a major shootout between themselves and the Coopers (and, surprise, surprise, Jarod is the first casualty). Cheyenne, the Cooper tasked with protecting the children, frees Travis and attempts to escort him to the agents so that the remaining Coopers can be taken alive. The agents shoot both Travis and Cheyenne dead, however, as they are under strict order to take no prisoners. Just then, loud trumpets echo across the county. The Coopers lay down their weapons, convinced these horns symbolize the arrival of the rapture. The film cuts from this to Keenan being debriefed by his superiors. The horns were not the rapture, merely the Coopers' neighbors fucking with them at exactly the right moment. Keenan managed to take the rest alive. The film closes on Abil in jail, still preaching, but now to an unappreciative audience.

I really liked this one. While many wouldn't consider it a horror film, I'd argue that being abducted by fanatical Christians is a modern day take in the vein of being abducted by cannibals in 1974. It's a modern concept, for a modern audience. The first half plays out this way especially, and lingers far longer on Abil's sermon than most directors would both to give you a heavy earful of fanatical rhetoric and to make the viewer extremely uncomfortable, waiting for violence. The escape attempts of our trio are sufficiently heartbreaking, and each one really gives you hope they'll escape. Michael Parks, playing Abil, steals the entire goddamn show. Abil is exactly the kind of person most of us would never want to be in the clutches of, and the more you learn about him, the worse and worse you feel about his captives' chances of survival.

What Red State does that I've never seen a genre film do before is displace the focus of the film's protagonist not once, but twice. The first third of the film is undoubtedly the story of Travis, who is even warned about the dangerous Cult that lives in the next county. The second third puts you mostly behind Abil Cooper, and while he's not a protagonist, strictly speaking, he dominates the camera, and you do feel as though you're watching his story. The final third, and ultimately the ending, follows Agent Keenan (played by John Goodman). It's worth mentioning that Keenan rails against a violent outcome through the film, arguably in the face of the ATF agents usurping the mantle of villain from the Coopers. This is a tricky device to attempt, and director Kevin Smith manages it with grace. It's also notable that I'd probably rate this as the best Kevin Smith movie I've seen since Dogma. This film represents a huge shift in his direction, as I'm fairly certain this was followed up by another genre film Tusk.

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

In the coming week, from Monday to Friday, I'll be watching my Asian Film Mini-Festival (featuring, in probably order: House (1979), Tetsuo, the Iron Man (1989), Audition (1999), Noroi; the Curse (2005) and Thirst (2009). This wasn't intended, but it actually gives a pretty good idea of selections that came out of Asia (well, only Japan, really) by the decade. As for the bookends to this festival, the jury is still out.