8.09.2017

Creepshow 2 (1987)


Creepshow 2 is the extremely inferior sequel to the awesome horror anthology flick, Creepshow.  Unlike the first movie, which contained five stories in just about two hours, a star-studded cast, brilliant direction by George A. Romero, an atmospheric score, and charming animation spots here and there... Creepshow 2 has three stories at just over 90 minutes, a cast of nobodies (with the exception of George Kennedy and Dorothy Lamour), pedestrian direction by a guy, a score that makes everything even worse, and horrible animation that goes on too long and looks like it was outsourced to starving kids in third world hellholes chained to animation desks in the basement.

In the first story, "Ol' Chief Woodenhead," nothing happens for five hours, and then a wooden statue kills three guys in five seconds while buttrock plays in the background THE END.

In the second story, "The Raft," a bunch of kids go to the titular raft and are eaten by a sentient oil slick.  Nice touch: the part where the "hero" just decides out of nowhere to molest his friend's girlfriend while she is sleeping (!), even though his friend/her boyfriend and her friend/his girlfriend were just hours ago eaten horribly (!!) by an oil slick that is right beneath their raft (!!!).  Our hero!

In the third and final story, "The Hitchhiker," a lady runs over a guy over and over for 20 minutes while a guy goes NEOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW on his electric guitar whenever something "extreme" or "scary" or "stupid" happens. When the guitar guy gets tired of quote-unquote shredding, some guy starts playing music that old people probably consider to be "funky." Good gory effects on the hitchhiker, though.

I first watched this movie as a kid on HBO at a friend's house, and even then I knew that "Ol' Chief Woodenhead" was lame.  "The Raft" terrified me then, and it's still a scary little story.  I liked "The Hitchhiker" much much more when I was a kid, and now I just find it to be tedious.  The less said about the animation parts, the better.

Worth watching for the "Raft," but be sure to bring a crossword puzzle or something for the rest of the movie.

8.03.2017

Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988)

Jason is back! But this time he's in a camp killing some adult teenagers!

Fans hated (and continue to hate) Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning because Jason is not really in it (instead, it's a guy pretending to be Jason)... but, come on.  If not for the last 30 seconds of the movie, no one would know any differently.  Besides, I liked how, instead of killing a bunch of camp counselors, "Jason" was killing a bunch of crazy kids at some mental home.

Well, Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood has got to be the low point in the series, at least until Jason got a case of wanderlust and started going to places like Hell and outer space.  The only thing that makes this movie stand is that the heroine (Tina, which is the perfect 80s name for your horror movie heroine) has telekinesis and the power to raise the dead (!), but the script does absolutely nothing with this until the last scene of the film.

I did, however, appreciate how evil and slimy Tina's psychiatrist is.  By far the best part of the movie is where he is running away from Jason with Tina's mom.  Jason catches up to them, and the guy grabs the mom, pulls her in between him and Jason, and uses her as a human shield.  Although she dies rather painlessly from just getting stabbed, the psychiatrist gets what he deserves with probably the most horrible death in the film.

Other than that one scene and a great stunt where Jason falls backward not down but through some stairs, this movie has absolutely nothing going on.  With a bad horror movie, you can usually look forward to some inventive lighting or camerawork, and of course some great gore effects. 
Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood has none of that, as it looks like a high budget TV movie, and the MPAA demanded that basically all gore and blood be cut from the film to get an R rating.  It's a miracle they even allowed the movie to have a Jason in it!

As far as I'm concerned, this is the low point of the series.  Friday the 13th Part 3, while awful, at least had some good effects and its laughable attempt at 3D, while Friday the 13th: Jason's Space Adventure brought some excellent gore effects to keep you awake.

Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989)


A bunch of high school kids and their chaperones take a cruise ship to New York to celebrate their graduation.  Little do they know... Jason is on there.

This movie is absolutely ridiculous, but so much fun.  It begins with a couple enjoying a relaxing night on a boat on Crystal Lake—the very same Crystal Lake that Jason was banished to in the previous movie, Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood.  What's interesting is that, Crystal Lake must apparently connect to the Atlantic Ocean, because that boat somehow ends up drifting into some port in New Jersey, where it is completely ignored.  You see, it is this port that the high school kids are disembarking from, to make their trip to New York.  What kind of school are these kids going to, that arranges to rent a full-sized cruise ship to take like 10 kids from New Jersey to New York??  The ship has a DISCO in it fer chrissakes.

The vast, vast majority of the movie takes place on this cruise ship, and while the movie takes a lot of flak for that, I really don't mind.  Unlike the boring Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood, which just takes place in another bunch of cabins on Crystal Lake, I really appreciated that this movie finally introduced a unique environment in which Jason could kill a bunch of unlikable kids.

It helps that the movie is just overall more interesting.  The kids are all hateful, but at least they have some quirk to tell them apart—and I actually got a kick out of how each of their quirks basically defines them as characters and there is zero character development whatsoever outside of that.  This girl plays an electric guitar, and that's how she dies.  This guy is an amateur boxer, and that's how he dies.  This other guy walks around the entire movie holding a video camera, and that's how he dies.  Contrast that with the previous movie in the series, where you had the psychic girl, and then that guy that gets killed, and this girl that gets killed, and this other girl that gets killed.

The last part of the movie takes place in "New York," but it was actually somewhat infamously shot everywhere else but New York (with some minor exceptions toward the end), including Vancouver and Los Angeles.  Jason manages to take the entire cruise ship down, but a few survivors climb into a little rowboat and escape (the movie gets major points for a part where a teacher tells another group of survivors to wait in the kitchen while she gets help, and then she is told five minutes later that, basically, all those kids drowned so forget about them).  Somewhat hilariously, Jason apparently just swims alongside that rowboat in the middle of a massive storm because the very minute the boat arrives in New York, Jason climbs out of the ocean—this is the guy whose origin story is, he drowned as a kid cuz he doesn't know how to swim.  It's nice to see Jason grow as a person.

The New York depicted in this movie is... unique to say the least.  It's ultra violent and filthy, and in one alarming scene the heroes are told to get out of the sewers because the city floods them with toxic waste every night at midnight!

Having said all of that, this is a criminally underrated F13 film.  Sure, it's not as good as the very best the series has to offer (that would be parts 1, 2, 4, and 6), but it is far, far better than any of the others.

Sadly, outside of some great gore effects in the unrated version of the following film, Friday the 13th sadly has very little to offer to pretty much anyone from here on.

7.04.2017

Blood Sabbath (1972)

Oh god, Pure Terror why do you punish me so?  Did I not purchase you from the cruel Amazon and give you a home?  Did I not put you on my media shelf?

Blood Sabbath, aka Aquelarre Sangriento, tells the story of a Vietnam vet named David wandering around and getting menaced by a van of no good dirty hippies.  But these hippies are a bit different!  Instead of love and peace, they prefer brooms to fly on and black cats!  Cuz they are witches!!!!

I'm not sure if this movie was cut or something, because I had a hell of a time following it.  At one point the guy is being assaulted by a group of naked ladies, the next he is frolicking with a lady from the lake, then hanging out at a bar with a priest and some hobo guy.  The priest character is hilarious as he's got this great mustache and is constantly getting angry and shouting at people for the lamest of reasons (like the evil witch queen attempting to seduce him with naked ladies, or the "hero" begging him to steal his soul [can priests do that???]).

David is the lamest of heroes.  He just wanders around, having some flashbacks, dreaming about his lady from the lake, menacingly kicking over buckets of water whilst shouting.  I don't recall him really doing much of anything other than trying to find a way to get rid of his soul so that he can be with his water nymph.

The movie is just an excuse to show naked ladies running around for like 80 minutes—hey guys, no complaint here AM I RIGHT—but other than that there is really nothing here.  Not worth a watch.


The Manster (1962)

I knew it was too good to be true.  After the excellent Hands of Steel, here comes Pure Terror with another one of those boring, talky early 60s sci-fi horror/sci-fi flicks.

Larry, an American foreign news correspondent, is in Japan on his latest assignment to interview the eccentric Dr. Suzuki.  Before you know it though, Dr. Suzuki has injected Larry with some experimental drug and Larry is growing an extra head out of his shoulder and going around killing people.

Don't get me wrong.  That part is cool.  The problem with this movie is that I have pretty much summed up everything worth mentioning about this movie in just under 50 words.  And yet the movie is, like, 70 minutes long or something.

So in between what passes for action or even plot in this movie, you get the standard scenes of people standing there in a room expositionin' at one another.  There's also this subplot about how Larry's marriage is on the rocks, so you get some heated phone conversations.  Rather than being some comical misunderstanding where Larry is cleared in the end, actually he is over in Japan getting drunk and cavorting with women, the slug.

So I don't know if you are supposed to relate to Larry, or feel bad for him or what, because he is kinda sleazy (and murders people and has a monster head growing out of his shoulder).  Who are we rooting for here?

Well, this movie was terrible, and now a picture is forming in my mind to explain why I gave up watching this set for so long.  Disc 2 was a complete wash, with garbage like The Thirsty Dead and (shudder) The Werewolf of Washington, and Disc 3 is not looking much better.

7.03.2017

Hands of Steel (1986)


Oh wow.  Oh.  Wow.  What was I thinking?  Right after the horrible The Thirsty Dead, we have this masterpiece.  Do some basic research and you will see that this movie was originally titled Vendetta dal futuro, and if you are familiar at all with the kinds of movies I cover on this blog, you will realize that we have struck ITALIAN GOLD.

Hands of Steel is the story of a guy with robot hands who is programmed to assassinate a political rival of the evil government.  He then goes into hiding, falls in love, does a lot of arm wrestling, and then has to face the government that created him if he wants to hold on to his humanity (using his robot hands).

So this movie is like Over the Top combined with, uh, one of those cyborg movies where the Over the Top.  So yes, just another example of Hollywood shamelessly copying cheap Italian genre flicks.
cyborg has to fight evil to hold on to his humanity.  Or at least, I was going to say that, but this came out BEFORE

You better like arm wrestling, because that is like 30% of the movie.  It's like Terminator 2 but instead of shooting people, Arnold just arm wrestles them.  Or West Side Story where the gangs arm wrestle instead of dance.  Unfortunately there is no point to the arm wrestling, because our hero has robot hands so he is destined to win.

Even without any suspense whatsoever and all that pointless arm wrestling, this is a fun one to spend a boring night watching.  Highly recommended.

The Thirsty Dead (1974)


Somebody get these dead a drink!

Alternate opening "joke."
SO ARE THEY THIRSTY OR DEAD? WHICH IS IT FELLAS?

This Pure Terror set has really demotivated me.  Disc 1 had some really fun movies on it, but from then on its been discs and discs of horrible movies.

The Thirsty Dead starts off strong with a title that makes you think you will be in for some great Italian zombie ripoff movie.  I even liked the title screen.  Then you get some go-go dancing and you are certain you are going to be in for a great 70 minutes or whatever.

BUT WAIT.  This movie actually just sucks.  Women are getting kidnapped and brought to a magical island with some cult of people in futuristic clothes.  Turns out it's a cult of vampires or something because they need the blood of women to stay young and alive.

UGHHHH this movie is horrible.  I've watching it two or three times but I lose interest and end up doing research on wikipedia on different types of potatoes or detailed production history notes on Family Ties.  It has single-handedly stopped me from posting on my beloved blog for, like, five years or something.

Well, I am not gonna let this movie control my life!  I am taking the reins of my own destiny sled and driving that sled on through the snow and the rain of these horrible movies.

There.  That should be long enough so that the text all wraps around that poster.  Next movie!



2.13.2014

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)

Growing up in the early 80s, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was notorious as an almost mythically gory horror movie.  Part of its infamy was due to the "based on a true story" introduction (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is "based on" the Ed Gein case in the same way that Predator in based on my life- not at all). When I first saw it in high school, I was honestly a little disappointed.  At that time I was obsessed with horror movies, having refused to watch them my whole adolescent life out of fear, and like the Cenobites in Hellraiser I was on a never ending quest to reach new heights (or depths) of horror and gore.

The thing with The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is that it is really not very explicit at all.  Like Halloween and Psycho, much of the violence is suggested so expertly that your mind fills in the blanks.  For a young gorehound this was too much work and I hadn't had the experience watching (good) horror films that I do now, and it was impossible for me to appreciate just how good this movie is.

I have seen The Texas Chain Saw Massacre now half a dozen times, and it gets better with each viewing- more suspenseful and tense, more beautiful.

Concerned by news of corpse mutilations in Texas, Sally, her brother Franklin, and their friends decide to check out their grandfather's grave to make sure he is still there and intact.  Along the way they pick up a disturbed hitchhiker, setting into motion the events of the rest of the film.

What makes this movie work is, unlike the slashers of the 80s and 90s, Sally, Franklin, and the others are generally likable kids.  The movie starts off slowly and is mostly the kids driving around and chatting.  They're good kids and their reason for getting together is innocent and noble.  Franklin is often cited as an unlikeable character, and while he does whine a lot I found him to come across as a sympathetic and even charming character.  He seems genuinely interested in communicating with the bizarre hitchhiker for example, when most characters in horror slashers would act dismissive and insulting.

The pacing is impeccable.  Starting off slow, once the murderous and infantile Leatherface shows up the movie hits breakneck speed and doesn't slow down until the end.  The introduction of Leatherface in particular is an amazing and shocking scene.  In fact, Sally's attempt to escape from the family of cannibals is so frantic that it almost feels like a single 40 minute take, broken up only when she is knocked out- only for her to wake up in an even worse situation and renew her escape.
Special mention must be made of the house much of the last act takes place in.  Its rooms are filled with bizarre sculptures made of human and chicken bones, its floors covered in feathers and grime. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is a particularly (surprisingly?) beautifully photographed horror film.

There is also a surprising amount of character development when it comes to the cannibal family.  At first they are presented as an actual family, but later in the movie you realize they are more a clan than anything.  They stick together more out of necessity than anything and it is clear that they don't really much care about each other though they try to maintain the semblance of a family.  The "father" is a very interesting character, who, contrary to his "sons" claims to get no pleasure from killing, but at the same time cannot help but smile as the others torment Sally.

While the empty and meaningless slashers that were influenced by this landmark film could be fun, they missed what made The Texas Chain Saw Massacre work- likable characters and villains with (some) depth.  This movie has become a Halloween tradition for me, and I am eagerly awaiting this year's viewing.

Psycho (1960)

Psycho is so entrenched in our popular culture that, even as a huge fan of horror movies, until now I have never really felt the urge to watch it.  I knew the story, I had seen the most famous scenes more times than I could count, I even knew all about the true story it is roughly based on.  I suppose I felt that the film had been ruined for me in a sense, and that it would hold no surprises for me- no suspense, and what would be the point of watching a Hitchcock movie without suspense?  Having finally watched it in its entirety, I realize I could not have been more wrong.

Marion (Janet Leigh) is handed $40,000 in cash to deposit for a client but decides instead to take the money and run.  As the weight of her crime weighs on her conscious she begins feeling and more importantly acting paranoid, attracting the attention of a police officer and a used car salesman.  Finally she checks in to the Bates Motel, managed by Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) who has a disturbing relationship with his mother.

The rest is cinematic history.  Much of the audience was likely drawn by Leigh's appearance in the film, and it must have been unbelievably shocking for them to witness her violent death halfway through the movie.  The movie then switches to the perspective of private investigator Arbogast (who is also suddenly murdered) before finishing up from the point of view of yet another set of protagonists.

I really enjoyed Anthony Perkins' performance.  His portrayal of Norman Bates has been
parodied and referenced to the point where I was expecting a one-note depiction of an awkward mama's boy.  I was surprised to see that Bates is instead boyishly handsome and charming in his own way. His mask of sanity slip now and then, but he almost always seems to realize when he has gone too far or said too much and reels himself back in.

When he is being interviewed by Arbogast he starts out cool and friendly but within a few questions he has been caught in a lie and ineffectually tries to modify his version of the story.  What he doesn't realize is that the local sheriff pretty much considers the case closed, assuming that Marion has run away with the money.  His problem, like Marion, is that he cracks under even the slightest pressure.

Technically, the movie is perfect of course.  The black and white photography is moody and beautiful with excellent use of shadow, and Hitchcock's direction is of course masterful.  The pacing is perfect (with one little problem I will go into later) and while I still found the movie to be suspenseful having known the story before watching it, even if I didn't the movie would have been a pleasure to watch.  It is always fascinating to watch people doing something they are expert at, and that is a fitting description of Psycho.

I have two problems with this film.  The first is the shower scene.  It just doesn't work for me.  I've not been stabbed to death in a shower so I can't say for sure, but I never get the feeling that the knife is actually even touching Marion.  I'm not saying it needs to be more explicit, but something seems off about it... knife seems to slow, angle is off, the way Marion slides down the wall seems overly theatrical and not realistic.  Having said that, the lead up is perfect.

Regardless of my hangup over the shower scene, it doesn't diminish the movie in any way.  That can't be said of the closing scene.  First we get Norman Bates shrieking "I'M NORMAN BATES" as he rushes into a room wearing his mother's clothes.  He doesn't even seem to be saying it, and it appears to have been dubbed in after.  Was this done in fear that audiences would not understand what was going on?  Next, we get a hammy, rambling speech by a psychiatrist explaining what exactly is wrong with Norman Bates, and it completely spoils the pacing of the movie.  Finally, a long shot of Norman Bates that would have been way more effective without his internal monologue.

I can forgive the last 10 minutes due to the strength of the rest of the movie.  Psycho is still an effective thriller and a masterpiece of suspense half a century later.  Who will even remember garbage like Saw in 2060?

2.12.2014

The Shining (1980)

Very few film adaptations can be said to be unquestionably better than the books they are based on in every way.  The Shining is one such film.

As a fan of Stephen King I had resisted seeing The Shining due to Stephen King's dislike of the adaptation.  The film is indeed quite different from the novel; the changes go way beyond those one would normally expect in adapting a 200,000 word novel into a two hour film.  Whereas King's novel focuses on how alcohol can turn a decent man on his family, Kubrick's movie seems to assume that the same man is bad from the start and seemingly destined to go off the deep end.

I can thus appreciate that King himself is not a fan of the film and I would not blame a diehard fan of the novel for looking down on the adaptation.  Having said that, I believe that King's novel would have been almost impossible to film effectively as it was in 1980 and I appreciate the work that went into changing not only the story but the characters as well in order to get it up on the screen.  This is really a fantastic movie that is beautiful to look at and atmospheric in a way that the original novel is not.

Jack Torrance accepts a job as caretaker of a massive hotel during the winter, and brings his wife Wendy and young son Danny along.  The hotel is remote and secluded and a previous caretaker had gone stir-crazy and murdered his family with an axe.  Jack has got no problem with that, since he wants to be left alone to do some writing.

The movie then follows Jack's (predictable) descent into madness as he first becomes frustrated
with Wendy's interrupting him while he is writing, then becomes seemingly jealous of her closeness with their son.

It's a great movie, and the pacing is perfect; before you know it you have been sitting there for two hours and the movie is over.  As far as I am concerned the movie is perfect... if not for two things (one of which is not really the fault of the movie).

First, Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Jack Torrance, while fun, is so over the top he is almost campy.  As a madman stalking his family with an axe he's fine, but he gives Torrance a menacing edge from the very first scene.  He is constantly fidgeting and making bizarre facial expressions even when he is supposed to be "normal" at the start of the movie.  It's possible that the intent was to show that Torrance was off from the very beginning, but I would have appreciated a gradual descent into madness rather than going from "kinda crazy already" to "jumping off the walls insane."

The other problem I have with this movie is actually a problem with the novel.  The titular Shining (Danny's psychic powers) just does not work for me.  In the novel it plays a more important role, since the hotel itself is some kind of entity and wants to eat Danny's "Shining" powers.  Even when I first read the novel in high school, I felt the book would have been better off without explaining this at all.

Watching the movie, I feel like Kubrick wanted to reduce the importance of the supernatural stuff, but had to keep the Shining in for the title to make any sense.  This is downplayed so much that the character of Halloran, who shares a psychic connection with Danny, could pretty much have been cut from the film with no effect.  As it is, he exists to deliver exposition (on the Shining itself) and then rush in during the last scene to be killed.  The movie would have been stronger without the explanation.

It thus goes without saying that I approve of the changes made to the supernatural elements of the story.  I feel like they distract from what the film is saying, but even distract us from the point of the novel.

Having said that, the film works as is, as does the novel.  They are different enough that it is worth experiencing both.