Full Moon Reviews - Horror, Sci-Fi, Action, B-Movies

Superman/Batman: Apocalypse (2010)

2012-01-24T23:15:00.000-05:00

DIRECTED BY
Lauren Montgomery

STARRING
Tim Daly - Clark Kent/Superman
Kevin Conroy - Bruce Wayne/Batman
Andre Braugher - Darkseid
Summer Glau - Kara Zor-El/Supergirl
Susan Eisenberg - Wonder Woman
Edward Asner - Granny Goodness
Julianne Grossman - Big Barda

Genre - Action/Adventure/Comic Books/Animated/Fantasy

Running Time - 78 Minutes

PLOT
In Gotham City, a spaceship crashes into the city's harbor. Batman (Kevin Conroy) swims into the harbor, finding a green meteor rock. Eventually, he comes into contact with the passenger - a blonde, teenage Kryptonian (Summer Glau) who has the same exact powers [maybe a bit stronger] than Superman. Superman (Tim Daly) comes to help out, halting this stranger when he shows her how similar they are. He learns that she is Kara, his cousin from Krypton. Feeling responsible for her, Superman decides to take Kara under his wing to Batman's dismay and disapproval. When Kara's powers begin destroy the things around her, due to lack of discipline, Wonder Woman (Susan Eisenberg) and her Amazons step in and decide to train her.

Meanwhile, the evil Darkseid (Andre Braugher) sees Kara as an opportunity to destroy Superman once and for all. He kidnaps Kara, brainwashing her into his slave. Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman must travel to Apokolips to save Kara and stop Darkseid from succeeding in his diabolical plan.

REVIEW

HITS
- The action sequences. Probably the best part of SUPERMAN/BATMAN: APOCALYPSE are the fight scenes between our heroes and the array of villains that pop up. There are a few of them in this film, but some are better than others. The ones I enjoyed were - Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, and the Amazons against the Doomsday clones on Themyscira, and the battle on Kent Farm between Superman, Supergirl against Darkseid. Every fight is choreographed well and are quite exciting to watch. The film lacks in many aspects, but the action isn't one of them.

- Most of the voice acting. Not everyone works here, but the majority of the acting is very good. Kevin Conroy can voice Batman in his sleep at this point, even though he sounds a bit tired [or bored] here. But it still works. Tim Daly still rocks as Superman. Susan Eisenberg is very cool as Wonder Woman. Summer Glau does a good job as Supergirl, even though I prefer Nicholle Tom's voice from the animated series. And Ed Asner as Granny Goodness was a bit odd, since he's a man and she's a woman. But I found it funny in a strange way, so I didn't mind it.

- Most of the direction. Lauren Montgomery does an okay job with the film. It's far from perfect, but the fight scenes are visualized well and the animation [with an attempt to look similar to Michael Turner's illustrations from the comic book story SUPERMAN/BATMAN: APOCALYPSE is based on - "The Supergirl From Krypton"] look fine. She uses the frame to her advantage, making up for the convoluted story with some exciting visuals - especially during the fight sequences. It's a nice looking film, so I can't say too much was wrong with how it was directed, at least appearance wise.

MISSES
- The story. Now I didn't read this comic book arc, or see SUPERMAN/BATMAN: PUBLIC ENEMIES [which this film is somewhat a sequel to, but not really]. But I do know that it was probably difficult to cram 6 issues into 78 minutes [including opening and end credits]. This becomes a major problem because there's just too much going on here. Is it all bad? Not at all. I enjoyed some of the narrative. But it becomes overwhelming, as well as lacking, at the same time. How is that possible?

Kara's introduction is done well for the most part, as it ties her to both Superman and Batman. But then, Wonder Woman appears for no real reason but to be there. She blames Kara for destroying a park in Metropolis, but it was because Wonder Woman pretty much attacked her to get that reaction out of her. Couldn't she had just approached Superman about her dangerous potential instead of battling her? For a diplomatic character, it makes no sense!

Anyway, we're introduced to the Amazons. Then Darkseid wants Kara to destroy Superman. Then we have Doomsday clones. Then we have Big Barda. And it just continues. No room to breathe. No depth at all as to the situation. How does Darkseid brainwash Kara so easily? Never explained. Why does Batman, Krypto, and Wonder Woman hate Kara so much without getting to know her deal? This just leads to constant arguing that feels like bickering parents trying to decide how to deal with a troubled child, rather than adults trying to control a potentially dangerous situation. It doesn't help that Kara comes across as a brat who wants to fit in and be accepted [which isn't explored enough either]. It feels like I'm watching an outline of a screenplay rather than the final draft of one. The ideas are there, but they're never fleshed out.

I feel as if this film didn't do enough, yet did too much at the same time. It felt short, yet long, and that's an odd thing to comprehend. This would have worked better as a mini-series of films, or if certain characters were taken out to make it less convoluted. I hear it's very close to what the comic books presented, but I don't think it works as a film - at least in the way it was presented here.

- Andre Braugher. Now I think Mr. Braugher is a fine actor. He's done some great work both on the small and the big screen. But as Darkseid, he's just flat as a board. His voice is just too normal and too calm for the character. When I think of Darkseid, I expect to hear menace and terror. This guy is practically a God. He can kick Superman's ass pretty easily. He should sound like a monster wanting his next snack, not a regular guy strolling through the park. It's a shame Michael Ironside wasn't available to reprise the role, like he did on the Superman: The Animated Series. He was a great Darkseid. Braugher is nowhere close to that. I don't know who to blame for this - Braugher for not giving it his all, or the producers for not finding a better actor or altering the voice a bit. It's a shame because Darkseid is a great villain and he is visually here. But sound design wise, it's a total fail.

- Who is this film aimed to? Non-fans shouldn't bother, since they'll never know what's going on and why these characters are behaving in ways they shouldn't be. Comic book fans might be disappointed, as the title is misleading. Even though the title implies this is a Superman and Batman film, the focus is really on Supergirl - a character that honestly doesn't do much for me unless she's a supporting character or has a really strong arc. This film doesn't have that. Male audiences are going to be turned off by a terrible shopping montage scene [really???] and Supergirl acting like a spoiled brat. I feel this film is catered more to a teen female audience, yet I'm not sure many women would take the time to watch this. I'm not saying there aren't female comic book fans, because there are - probably more than one thinks. But men are the majority of the success of these films, and besides the action sequences, there's not much a male audience would want to invest themselves in. Superman and Batman are supporting players in their own film. So who really is the demographic for this?

THE FINAL HOWL
SUPERMAN/BATMAN: APOCALYPSE is a pretty disappointing animated feature that had a ton of potential. I hear the film was very similar to the comic book arc that it was adapted from, which makes me wonder whether the film was too short for a 6 issue story, or if the story was even worth telling in a film at all. The story could be better. Darkseid was voiced by the wrong actor. And I'm not sure who exactly DC and Warner Brothers want to watch this movie. At least the fight sequences are cool, the other voice actors are good, and the direction is solid for the most part. A pretty average film that I probably wouldn't watch again.

SCORE
2 Howls Outta 4

The B-Movie Bungalow Presents: Class of Nuke 'Em High (1986)

2012-01-22T15:55:00.000-05:00

DIRECTED BY
Richard W. Haines
Samuel Weil

STARRING
Gilbert Brenton - Warren Brandt
Janelle Brady - Chrissy Murphy
Robert Prichard - Spike
R.L. Ryan - Mr. Finley
James Nugent Vernon - Eddie
Brad Dunker - Gonzo
Theo Cohan - Muffy
Gary Schneider - Pete

Genre - B-Movie/Horror/Science Fiction/Comedy/Teens/Monsters

Running Time - 82 Minutes

Location is always important, especially when it concerns High School. Some folks have to go to a zone school, which is within or right near their neighborhood. Some people get to go away to school if they have great grades. Yours truly, for example, was able to get admitted into a good High School near a college campus where I was able to take Advanced Placement courses for college credit. That's right - I'm a genie! So you ask, why is a smart guy like me writing movie reviews on some blog?

Well, who asked you??

Wait...what was I writing about again. Oh right...location being important.

You see, High Schools in New York are by college campuses and drug dealers. In New Jersey, High Schools are by nuclear power plants and drug dealers. Are you really surprised by that? You have seen Jersey Shore, right? Luckily in 1986's Troma cult classic, CLASS OF NUKE 'EM HIGH, there are no Guidos or Guidettes. But you do get preppies, Cretins, and a monster that was the product of pot-induced sex. Hmm...now I know what inspired MTV's 16 & Pregnant.

PLOT
In Tromaville, New Jersey, the local nuclear power plant has a leak that's been reported. Like any good government official, the manager of the plant (R.L. Ryan) disputes the claims in order for the plant to keep running and for him to keep his job. Unfortunately, toxic waste is all over the place and has greatly infiltrated the local high school, Tromaville High School. One of the plant workers has created a special kind of marijuana called Atomic High, lacing the drug with chemical waste. Tromaville's debate team were the first to try out the stuff, but the special pot has turned them into The Cretins, the school's local bullies and drug dealers, led by Spike (Robert Prichard). They're the most feared of the school that even the teachers have trouble with them.

At a local party, Atomic High is passed around. Prude and preppy lovebirds, Warren Brandt (Gilbert Brenton) and Chrissy Murphy (Janelle Brady), are peer pressured into toking the stuff. The drug makes them horny and they end up having sex as some of their friends watch. Eventually, the Atomic High causes change in both Warren and Chrissy. Warren has a penis size growth and transforms into some sort of mutant that kills some of the Cretins. Chrissy becomes nine-months pregnant overnight and gives birth to some mutant that disappears down the toilet. The Cretins begin plotting revenge on Warren and Chrissy, while the mutant child wants revenge on everyone.

REVIEW
CLASS OF NUKE 'EM is a disjointed, yet entertaining B-movie that tries to be everything at once and manages to decently keep it all together. Lloyd Kaufman was inspired to make this film after a nuclear plant disaster at Shoreham, which was located just 60 miles away from Manhattan, New York. With the debacles that occurred beforehand at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, it was eventually shut down. The message about the danger of nuclear waste is there in some form, but CLASS OF NUKE 'EM HIGH is more concerned with low brow comedy, T & A, and awesome looking monsters that want to murder High School students.

Like I mentioned in the previous paragraph, the screenplay [which was written by Richard W. Haines, Lloyd Kaufman, Mark Rudnitsky, and Stuart Strutin] is a bit disjointed in terms of tone and even genre. The first act plays out like an 80s teen comedy, where the students are most concerned with drugs, parties, sex, and forming cliques that will battle each other. This is the set up portion of the film, but it sort of meanders a bit - making you wonder when the point will made when it concerns the story. The second act is more of the science-fiction portion, where the main characters begin to transform due to the Atomic High, with sets up the rivalry between The Cretins and Warren & Chrissy. This is where the film feels more like a Troma film, as we get to the nitty gritty of what the film is really about while we experience B-grade effects and filthy humor. The final act is the horror portion, where The Cretins attack the school [especially Warren & Christy], while their mutant baby emerges from the school basement and has its way with everyone. It's the highlight of the film, as there's actual tension and some very cool special effects that are very fun to watch. The three acts do manage to somehow connect, but CLASS OF NUKE 'EM HIGH does feel like three films in one. At least all three are fun in their own ways.

There is also that bit of politics about the danger of nuclear power. We get short scenes of Mr. Finley telling reporters and the townspeople that the power plant is running fine and there are no problems, even though it's obviously not true with all the waste covering Tromaville. The screenwriters, like I said, were inspired by the dangers of nuclear power at the time and obviously used that as a basis to tell their story. You don't really expect Troma to try and send a serious message about such a political matter. But in their silly way, the whole narrative with the mutation caused by the toxic waste and the mutant baby that destroys the school pretty much does that without making it all that serious. The Mr. Finley scenes are quite comical, as it's possible that something like this could and would occur in real life without much of the public not knowing until it's too late.

I did have an issue with the Atomic High itself. The way it caused reactions in characters varied, so I was unsure how powerful the stuff really was. The debate team became The Cretins because of the stuff. This is possibly due to the fact that they smoked the pot more than anyone else. But if they were dealing drugs and having returning customers, wouldn't they have transformed the same way also? When Warren and Chrissy smoked, they had interesting transformations. Warren had his penis grow exponentially [even though that angle never goes anywhere] and turns into this superhuman mutant that can murder The Cretins quite easily. But then he turns back to normal. Chrissy becomes 9 months pregnant overnight and has a mutant child. But she turns back to normal as well. Hell, even some who don't even smoke transform. When Spike kisses a fellow classmate, she turns into a Cretin seconds later! I think more explanation could have gone into the nuclear pot, since it was a major plot point in CLASS OF NUKE 'EM HIGH. I don't think it really hurts the film all that much, but it does nag at you.

The characters and dialogue, however, are the highlight of the screenplay. All the characters are diverse and colorful in kooky ways, making them all entertaining. Warren and Chrissy are the bland preppies [who have funny dialogue about a Fellini festival], but they're likeable in a normal [compared to everyone else] sort of way. It's unfortunate that as the lead characters, they aren't more interesting. But at least you don't hate them and want them to succeed. The Cretins are given more screen time and are so different, both appearance and personality wise to everyone else, that you sort of like them even when they act bad. Spike, in particular, is a cool character as the leader [with his white hair and 80s hair metal look], but the other Cretins are unique and funny as well. When they have no problem beating up elderly women for cash and "don't give a fuck about tri-farts", you can't help but laugh. They're the reasons you keep watching.

The special effects in CLASS OF NUKE 'EM HIGH are more than decent for a low budget B-movie. The mutant make-up and the bubbling skin effects are pretty good, all done with practical effects. But the real star is the mutant monster that attacks the school during the final act. Even in 2012, the creature looks pretty awesome. There was obviously a lot of hard work done in creating this monster, so kudos on a job well done. The gore effects were also pretty cool too. We get fists down throats, arms getting eaten, punches through heads, faces scratched, strangulation, impalement, decapitations, and so on. The special effects team should be proud of what they did here.

The direction by Richard W. Haines and Samuel Weil [a.k.a. Lloyd Kaufman] does what it needs to do. It's not a stylish film. It's not a great looking film, in terms of cinematography. Like I mentioned, it sometimes feels like three movies in one. But at least each section feels like it should. The final act, in particular, is quite tense and exciting to watch. The film moves quite quickly, maintaining a great pace. We also get some POV shots for the mutant monster. And when the monster is attacked, we see the film's negative image as a "special effect". Troma has never been known for its Oscar-caliber direction, and CLASS OF NUKE 'EM HIGH will not change that perception. But it visually entertains for much of the time, so how can you complain?

The acting, also, isn't Oscar-caliber. But all the actors seem to be having fun in their respective roles [Robert Prichard as Spike is especially great] and carry the shallow screenplay quite well. Not the greatest actors, but an interesting cast of characters that never grow unlikeable or annoying. They're perfect for a B-movie like CLASS OF NUKE 'EM HIGH.

And the soundtrack, by artists like Biohazard, The Smithereens, GMT, and Stormbringer, is really rad. It sounds like an 80s movie and feels like one. And the music was used appropriately as well. I enjoyed it.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE REPLACING MY PENIS ENLARGEMENT PUMP FOR SOME ATOMIC HIGH

- A bunch of toxic chemicals spilled all over the town of Tromaville, which doesn't seem to be too much of a problem for those working in the power plant. Yeah, it seemed to help The Toxic Avenger, The Joker, and Meg Ryan's face.

- Dewey drank toxic water and his skin melted. Some people take being a fan of Modern English a bit too seriously.

- Muffy rammed a nerd like a bull and then stomped on his balls. And I thought that kind of stuff was saved for during marriage...

- Atomic High gave Warren a bigger penis. Looks like Sue Storm may be looking for a younger Mr. Fantastic in the near future...

- Spike made out with a girl, transforming her into a horny Cretin. When I make out with a girl, she transforms into a clingy bitch. Serves me right for not smoking pot.

- Warren forced his arm into a Cretin's mouth and down his throat. I thought fisting involved the other end. Oh well, practice makes perfect...and bigger openings. *cringes*

- Some faculty member got shot to death for not knocking. When you don't allow the person behind the door to ask, "Who's there?", the only line that will be punched is between your eyes.

- The creature punched a Cretin through her head. When it comes to fisting, like father like son.

THE FINAL HOWL
While THE TOXIC AVENGER will always be Troma's number one film, CLASS OF NUKE 'EM HIGH is definitely a highlight in the massive Troma library. While it's not perfect in terms of story structure, direction, or even acting, this B-movie still manages to be very memorable and a lot of fun to watch. If you love silly comedies that involve sci-fi and horror elements, you could do a lot worse than this one. There's always room for brainless, B-movie entertainment by the people from Troma Entertainment - especially when it's as enjoyable as CLASS OF NUKE 'EM HIGH.

SCORE
3 Howls Outta 4

Law Abiding Citizen (2009)

2012-01-19T23:04:00.000-05:00

DIRECTED BY
F. Gary Gray

STARRING
Jamie Foxx - Nick Rice
Gerard Butler - Clyde Shelton
Bruce McGill - Jonas Cantrell
Colm Meaney - Detective Dunnigan
Leslie Bibb - Sarah Lowell
Regina Hall - Kelly Rice
Viola Davis - Mayor
Christian Stolte - Clarence Darby
Josh Stewart - Rupert Ames

Genre - Thriller/Suspense

Running Time - 108 Minutes

PLOT
A Philadelphia engineer named Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) horrifically watches two men, Clarence Darby (Christian Stolte) and Rupert Ames (Josh Stewart), break into his home and murder both his wife and daughter. Darby and Ames are eventually arrested. However, the district attorney, Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx), makes an interesting deal that allows Darby to go free after a short sentence if he rats out Ames part in the crime. Clyde is pissed off about this turn of events, especially since Darby was the one who committed the murders.

Ten years later, Darby is free while Ames is gearing towards his execution via lethal injection. With Nick present, he watches in horror as something goes seriously wrong with the execution, as Ames dies in agony due to a tampering with the chemicals. Believing Darby is behind it, the authorities go after him. But Darby is tipped off by someone, allowing him to get away. This someone is Clyde in disguise, wanting revenge on Darby by kidnapping him and paralyzing him from the neck down with some sort of chemical. Clyde proceeds to chop Darby into pieces to complete the act. Clyde then lets himself get arrested for his crimes.

Now a prisoner, Clyde continues his revenge on those who let Darby get out of his true sentence. Using Nick as a puppet, Clyde tells him that unless he receives certain favors, traps that he had set around the city will come into play and cause some major harm. Apparently, Clyde is playing murderous games with Nick and his legal team from behind prison bars, trying to prove that he doesn't have to be present in order for all of them to be killed by his hands.

REVIEW

HITS
- Clyde Shelton. The character of Clyde Shelton is just awesome from beginning to end, due to his characterization by screenwriter, Kurt Wimmer. The character has such an interesting arc and so many twists and turns, that you can't help but enjoy him, his motives, and his actions. Clyde is a character made for professional wrestling. He's the likeable, sympathetic good guy who's family was killed in front of his eyes for no justified reason. When he decides to take matters into his own hands and gets revenge on those who couldn't right the wrong, we root for him and want him to succeed. When we begin to learn that Clyde is not really the man we believe him to be from the start, we feel manipulated and start to dislike him a bit. But then, when Clyde starts managing to get the best of Nick and his legal team by killing people behind bars, we start to see him as cool. The guy is intelligent. The guy is cunning. The guy is backing up what he says without a bit of hesitation. How can we not respect someone like that, even if what they're doing is wrong? He suddenly becomes oddly likeable again. Clyde is written so simple, yet has so many complex layers that he's the most fleshed out character in LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. No one else comes close. This proves to be a problem during the final act, due to how it plays out. But other than that, Clyde is a great character to watch.

- The acting. Gerard Butler's work in LAW ABIDING CITIZEN is great. What could have been a one-note villain, Butler turns into a character with great depth and sympathy. He plays on every emotional cue needed for the role - grief, anger, regret, satisfaction, insanity - it's all there. His exchanges with the other actors grab you the instant he opens his mouth. He pushes people's buttons, he fucks with their heads, and you're convinced by Butler due to his confidence in the role. It's such a different role than what you'd usually expect from him, but he takes it for all its worth and milks the hell out of it. Butler could have played Clyde as a stereotype of what we would expect a villain in a film like this would be like. But he grounds him and keeps him in reality, even through the crazy moments. Butler is the star of this film.

The other actors do their parts mainly well. Jamie Foxx is okay as Nick. I'll get into his character later, but Foxx played the cocky, slightly dirty lawyer pretty well. I do think he was out shined by Butler in every exchange they had, but Foxx wasn't bad. I do think anyone could have played this role though without much difference. But it was credible enough. Leslie Bibb was quite good as Nick's protege, who has a bit of regret in helping Nick at times. She plays Sarah with class, acting quite believably as Nick's conscience. Regina Hall was also very good as Nick's wife. Nice to see her in a dramatic role instead of those SCARY MOVIE films. Viola Davis gives a powerful performance as the Mayor, while Annie Corley chews the scenery as a power-hungry judge. Always nice to see Colm Meaney as well in anything. Nice cast who took the script seriously and played along with the best of their abilities. I bought most of what they presented on screen.

- The direction. F. Gary Gray does a very good job keeping LAW ABIDING CITIZEN visually interesting. The film looks great, picture wise. The editing is solid. The pace is fantastic, as the film never lets up right from the beginning. There's a decent amount of tension and suspense throughout the film. I even thought Gray brought a bit of style to this thriller as well. The film is an entertaining ride, even though some of it tends to be a bit implausible in terms of narrative and story structure. But Gray tries to make those moments fun to watch as well, so I can't knock the direction at all.

- The first two acts. LAW ABIDING CITIZEN is obviously inspired by DEATH WISH, with the main character's family getting killed in front of him, which obviously causes him to deal justice in his own hands. However, Kurt Wimmer wants to take that idea and make it bigger and add more mystery to it. The fact that Wimmer makes Clyde into a sympathetic villain is an interesting challenge, as I'm sure some people will have trouble rooting for the guy once he starts becoming more maniacal [not me, I liked him more as Clyde started to turn devious in his tactics]. But the set up, I thought, was actually pretty cool. It starts out as DEATH WISH, turns into a mini-SAW [when Clyde gets revenge on Darby], and then starts going into a psuedo-SILENCE OF THE LAMBS mode where Clyde is this ultra-intelligent mastermind who has all the cards and will use them to get what he wants. He curses out judges for believing in him, he kills cell mates to prove a point, and does other nasty things to show Nick and his team that he's the one really in charge. Instead of a "whodunit?" type of mystery, we ask "how does he do it?" instead. And while I'll get to that answer in the MISSES section, at least we're never bored and it's a fun ride getting to the reveal. It's just too bad the film starts to unravel once it gears towards the finale, but it's very entertaining getting there.

MISSES

- The final act. I know cinema, a lot of the time, expects viewers to stretch their suspension of disbelief when it comes to certain plot devices. But LAW ABIDING CITIZEN takes it to another level. As much as Clyde is made to be this genius mastermind, the reveal of how he does it seems a bit too far-fetched. This type of plot device belongs in a comic book adaptation, not in a smart, exciting thriller. I kept wondering how NO ONE knew what Clyde was up to, making everyone else in the film look like dumbasses. If the film wasn't trying to be as realistic as possible, it would be totally fine. But it just comes across cartoony, even if I did think it was pretty cool.

As for the climax and resolution, I thought it was just very lame. You set up Clyde so much that the way he gets caught and handled with makes everything before that for naught. I understand the mystery should be solved and the villain needs to be stopped, but the whole thing went against Clyde's character that we were led to believe before this moment arrived. For such an intelligent character, he's made out to be a total putz. I think, while still a bit entertaining, the ending fell apart.

- Who are we supposed to root for? This may have been my biggest issue with LAW ABIDING CITIZEN - which character am I supposed to sympathize with? At the start, we root for Clyde since his family is the one who gets killed and Nick, wanting to meet some sort of quota to raise his reputation as a lawyer, doesn't give the criminals the justice they probably deserved. But when Clyde starts doing evil things out of revenge and anger, Nick is portrayed as the hero who is out to stop Clyde before he hurts anyone else. It gets really confusing because both men are severely flawed, yet Clyde is so charming and intelligent that you can't help but respect the guy and think he's cool. Nick, on the other hand, ignores his family for his job and is willing to play dirty to make sure he has a clean rep when it comes to his cases. Yet, this cocky bastard is supposed to be the protagonist? I didn't really understand why the narrative needed to do a double turn like this. Even so, it doesn't work! Clyde, even though he's made to be the villain, just has so much depth that makes him charmingly likeable. Nick doesn't give off the same vibe, as his character is a bit too smug to root for. I respect the attempt, but it really doesn't work well here.

THE FINAL HOWL
LAW ABIDING CITIZEN was one of my favorite films of 2009, and I still enjoy it now. Even with its character and narrative flaws, it still manages to be a good and exciting thriller. Instead of trying to tell a standard revenge story, the twists and turns showed that there were some creative and even thought provoking ideas here. Definitely one of Gerard Butler's best roles and I'm hoping he makes more movies like this one, instead of those lame rom-coms he's been choosing. Just a run ride for much of the runtime that I'm sure many viewers will enjoy.

SCORE
3 Howls Outta 4

The WTF? Worst Films Extravaganza Presents: Beware! Children At Play (1989)

2012-01-15T16:54:00.000-05:00

DIRECTED BY
Mik Cribben

STARRING
Michael Robertson - John DeWolfe
Rich Hamilton - Sheriff Ross Car
Robin Lilly - Cleo Carr
Lori Tirgrath - Julia DeWolfe
Jamie Krause - Kara DeWolfe
Sunshine Barrett - Mary Rose Carr
Mik Cribben - Farmer Isac Braun
Danny McClaughlin - Grendel/ Glenn Randall

Genre - Horror/Evil Kids/Cannibals

Running Time - 94 Minutes

Now that I'm in my thirties, I constantly get asked those two dreaded questions: "When are you getting married?" and "When are you having children?" Marriage? Don't care for the institution all that much, even though I love the idea. Maybe it'll happen. Maybe it'll won't.

As for kids, I'm pretty sure I'll have some annoying little rugrats around one of these days. But watching horror movies isn't helping me rush them out anytime soon. With films like THE OMEN, BLOODY BIRTHDAY, THE BAD SEED, and countless others, not knowing if your child is evil until it's too late may be too much stress and anxiety for me to handle.

Let's add the Troma distributed BEWARE! CHILDREN AT PLAY from 1989 to the list. This film adds another reason why I'm not ready to be a parent. Not just because the children here are cannibalistic bastards. But really for the fact that this movie is pretty terrible, even if it does have a very memorable ending that will be, or have been, talked about by those who have seen it. Let's see why I'm thinking of getting a vasectomy, shall we?

PLOT
A father and son are out camping, acting like idiots while singing and acting badly. The father eventually steps into a bear trap [really slowly, mind you] and gets caught in it. Instead of, I don't know, trying to pry himself out of it like any normal person, he decides to lay there so he can die in front of his son. Great parenting! Eventually, the father starts to go crazy with lack of food and water, as well as having maggots infesting his wound. He tells his son that when he dies, he'll need to eat his flesh and organs in order to survive. What the guy croaks, the kid wastes no time in diving in and having himself a kidney. Gotta love kids!

Ten years pass, and a new family is arriving near the area. The father, John DeWolfe (Michael Robertson), is an author who writes intelligent books but gets criticized for their covers of half-naked women - which leads to many boring social debates about his message. John is there to meet up with the town's sheriff, Ross Car (Rich Hamilton), who happens to be his brother-in-law. Ross' daughter has been missing for a while now and feels John could help him find her.

Soon, Ross lets John in about the fact that there have been many children missing in the area, whom the townspeople call "The Brownies". While Ross wants to find the children and bring them back home, the local townspeople who are really religious believe that they've been possessed by evil and must be stopped before it spreads any further. Too bad they didn't think about stopping this film from being made, but maybe that's just me.

REVIEW
I have three words for BEWARE! CHILDREN AT PLAY:

WHAT THE FUCK!?

BEWARE! CHILDREN AT PLAY is a controversial film that was distributed by Troma Entertainment that's extremely memorable for its ending. I have no choice but to spoil it later if you haven't seen it already in order to explain my rating for this review. In fact, the ending is so messed up that many people walked out on the trailer before a showing of 1996's TROMEO AND JULIET at the Cannes Film Festival! Unfortunately, the finale is the highlight of the film, as everything before it is boring, implausible, and just downright stupid in a *facepalm* way rather than a funny way.

The real culprit of BEWARE! CHILDREN AT PLAY is where it usually is - the screenplay. Now I do like that director/screenwriter/cinematographer/editor/actor [phew] Mik Cribben used literal works as a basis to explain actions for some of the characters. Obviously, using The Bible as a source of motivation is nothing new in horror or films in general. But it does give Farmer Isac [a religious reference obviously] to look at these evil children and justify wanting to murder them by claiming it's like the sacrifice that Abraham made with God involving Abraham's son, Issac. Obviously Farmer Isac is twisting that story around to justify what he wants to do, but it's believable that some religious people would believe in this. As for the children, they're lead by the kid who's father passed way in the woods, Glen Randall. Since his father used to tell him a lot about Beowulf as a child, he starts calling himself Grendel [a villain in Beowulf] and begins devouring the townspeople and kidnapping children to make them his warriors in a way. I'm not saying these literacy references completely work [they don't], but at least it's something different and the idea is nice.

It's too bad the ideas are a lot more interesting than the execution. The Biblical idea, while believable in this day and age, still doesn't justify any sort of murder of children. Yes, the controversial ending involves adults killing kids - but I'll get to that in due time. Yes, the children do evil things, like kill and eat people. But there's no real build up for these adults to murder them, especially when they've been missing in between ten years and nothing was done about the situation. It's not like in THE GOOD SON, for example, where Macaulay Culkin's evil character was built up throughout the film to the point where he became such a threat to Elijah Wood and the rest of their family that he had to be stopped, which wasn't planned until the very moment it happened anyway. These adults in BEWARE! CHILDREN AT PLAY could have found these children and tried to help them. But it's easier to kill and just walk away from your problems than deal with it, right? These people didn't even bother to seek out their missing children and now want to kill them? They're worse than the cannibalistic children!

As for the Beowulf stuff, the poem doesn't really play a major part in the motivation of the children as a whole. The leader, 'Grendel', is a play on his real name 'Glen Randall', and his father told him the story as a kid. So obviously the story meant a lot to the boy, which resulted him in becoming this character to cope with the death of his father. I guess it's trying to be clever with the name deal. Mik Cribben is also trying to sound intelligent by using two literary references, as if this will impress others. It just makes the film seem pompous and almost vain in a way. Is the man trying to create a lamer version of CHILDREN OF THE CORN, or is trying to display his knowledge of literature? Maybe both? I'm not really sure.

So while Cribben was focused on his literary references, he forgot about everything else that a script needs. For one, screenplays should have scenes where there's a turning point and not just characters talking in length over something that's not going to mean much in context of the rest of the movie. But BEWARE! CHILDREN AT PLAY has a ton of moments like this. The introduction scene of the DeWolfe family is a perfect example. Inside of their car, we have author John and his wife, Julie, arguing over what John writes about and the fact that his books have half-naked women on the cover to market these books. It goes on for two or three minutes, while in the meantime, their daughter complains about having to go to the bathroom. Do the parents ever let her go? Not until they get to their destination, which isn't even close by really. Instead of focusing on Julie's displeasure about John's work, I was more concerned that this little girl was going to pee on herself and feel humiliated.

Hell, John's books seem to be the constant center of attention for pretty much the first act of the film. Reporters, sheriffs, and local scholars criticize the man for his writings on UFOs and other strange phenomenon, even though he was invited there BECAUSE of those things! These random conversations continue to happen, making them all repetitive, which slows the pace quite considerably. The fact that it's Julie, not John, who figures out the Beowulf reference when it comes to The Brownies [since she's a Literature professor] just makes these conversations and his writing background even more redundant. What's the point of focusing so much time on this guy if his wife is gonna be the one to solve the mystery? Nothing anyone says in this film is interesting, so why should I care? I prefer to see some action on my screen rather to hear boring expository sequences that I'll end up ignoring once boredom quickly settles in.

It doesn't help that the characters in this movie are all idiots and not likeable at all. I think Sheriff Ross Carr may be the dumbest police officer in the history of all entertainment. Here's the man in charge of keeping this New Jersey town safe, yet has the IQ of a pea. Instead of investigating the missing children situation right away, he waits until the 20th kid, who probably was his oldest daughter, got kidnapped before he decided that maybe he should do something about it. He sees clues, yet doesn't think much of them until John makes him see otherwise. He never bothers going into the open area within the woods, even though the children have created a visual camp there with fire and tents for the past ten years. I could go on and on about this guy. Let's just say that Andy Griffith and Barney Fife would have solved this case the moment it happened, while this idiot sat on his ass wondering if something is truly wrong.

The other characters are just as bad. John DeWolfe may be a popular writer, but he's a terrible father for bringing his daughter to a place where children are going missing! He also falls asleep while trying to keep an eye out for Sheriff Carr as he investigates certain grounds that The Brownies frequent. Yeah, great job bringing this guy to your town! Julie and Cleo Carr are no better, letting their daughters play outside in front of a worn fence before Carr's youngest daughter gets kidnapped in front of their eyes. Why would you let your children play unattended, knowing they're in the middle of a crime scene? Farmer Isac wants to murder children because The Bible told him to, even though one of the kids is his own. Yeah, great guy. We also have a psychic who gets murdered pretty easily by these kids, because she has a really powerful gift in seeing the future [obviously...]. And while most of the children are pretty shallow, Sheriff Carr's oldest daughter wants to fuck her uncle John and make her feel like a woman. Alrighty then. Yeah, these are people I want to follow for 94 minutes. Where can I get off of this messed up ride?

The only reason this screenplay was written was because Cribben wanted to write a finale where a bunch of messed up kids get murdered by their parents and other adults in their town. And while that's pretty fucked up if you think about it, since child murder is pretty terrible to even conceptualize and/or consider, it happens to be the best part of BEWARE! CHILDREN AT PLAY. The scene is five minutes long and it's just adults killing these kids in various ways. I can't see how Cribben could justify this ending at all. While it's visually memorable [which I'll get into] and funny in a 'I can't believe I'm seeing this' sort of way, it's also very twisted and makes these characters even more deplorable beyond belief. It's disturbing to think that instead of trying to reason with their own children and help them get over their trauma, parents would instead just murder their kids as if they didn't love or care enough about them to save them rather than themselves. Other films with evil children getting killed at the end work because the build up to it is so effective and makes you see that there may be no other way. You don't get that here at all. These people seem to care about the missing children until the final act, where they listen to Farmer Isac bring religion into it. That's when they decide to do something about these children. It's a memorable moment for sure [the best part of this movie honestly], but it just seems so fucked up and unjustified. How can one feel after watching something like this? I was actually in shock. Nothing since has come close to matching this level of insanity. And let's keep it that way, shall we?

The gore/special effects in BEWARE! CHILDREN AT PLAY is actually pretty good, given the low budget. We get a nifty man cut in his half by a sickle, showing his top half move away from his bottom half before dying. We get a woman being impaled by wooden spikes. We get another person get their throat slit. We have random body organs that look okay. And then we have the children massacre at the end, which includes gunshots in the mouth, causing brain matter to explode - as well as a rake to the throat, and a bunch of gunshots and stabbings. It's not the greatest gore effects out there, but I thought this department was pretty solid for the most part compared to the rest of the film.

The direction by Cribben isn't great really. There's not much style here to be visually stimulated in any way. The editing is a bit odd at times. The cinematography isn't spectacular. The pacing is slow at times due to all the long winded conversations most viewers won't give a damn about. He also does a 360 angle where the children begin doing an evil chant as they look directly into the lens. Since the camera isn't positioned in a way that the camera substitutes as someone's POV, it's awkward. The end sequence is shot very well, however. Cribben doesn't shy away from the violence, which makes these children dying disturbingly effective to watch. Sure, Cribben highlights the child actors still breathing heavily even though they're supposed to be dead, but I can overlook that. It's obvious that Cribben wanted to create a moment that viewers would remember. While his direction wasn't memorable, at least he got his wish with that finale.

The acting is pretty bad as well. I won't even discuss any of the actors because they were all doing amateur hour here. While it was kind of funny to watch, it was also pretty sad since the acting could have really made the script stronger than it actually was. If I had to pick the best actors, I guess Michael Roberston as John DeWolfe and Mik Cribben as Farmer Isac would be tops. I thought Robin Lilly as Cleo Carr was pretty bad though. If you're watching this for the acting, you'll be highly disappointed. Unless you enjoy watching thespians recite long lines of dialogue. Whatever floats your damn boat, I guess.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE STILL BELIEVING THAT CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE

- Fossils represent the hops and dreams of people in the past. Yeah, I'm sure death was something they were all wishing for. I'm sure glad their dreams came true for them...

- With the loss of his father, Glen Randall became a cannibal. My father left when I was three. Hey, does anyone want to come over...for dinner? *slurp*

- Annoying Kara DeWolfe desperately had to go potty, but her parents refused her request because they wanted to finish their argument first. I guess a busted bladder is less serious than a stained car seat. Parents of the Year, ladies and gents!

- Annoying Mary Rose Carr has a hand puppet named Freddie the Frog. Watching this film does have the same feeling of pain like someone having their entire arm up my ass.

- A psychic was murdered by The Brownies. Wow, she was sure GREAT at her job! I guess her crystal ball was fogged up that day...

- Some reporter ran into a board with wooden stakes, dying instantly. Judging by her bitchy behavior, that was probably the most penetration she's had in quite a while.

- Farmer Isac led the murder of all the children, wanting to sacrifice them all for God like Abraham had done in The Bible. If Casey Anthony can get away with what she did, these parents shouldn't have much trouble with the legal system.

THE FINAL HOWL
BEWARE! CHILDREN AT PLAY is a terrible horror film that wants to be CHILDREN OF THE CORN, but fails miserably at it. The acting is bad. The direction isn't all that great. And the narrative is just stupid and dull. If it wasn't for the solid gore and that memorable 5-minute sequence at the end that makes this movie infamous to begin with, there wouldn't even be any interest in checking this out. If you haven't watched this, you're just better off just seeing the memorable clip on YouTube and skipping the rest. Believe me, you're not missing anything by doing so. I'm sending BEWARE! CHILDREN AT PLAY to the WTF? Vault where it can munch on the other craptastic films still locked inside. And it isn't kissing my ass. I like the flesh on my butt, thank you very much. Avoid other than the ending.

SCORE
1 Howl Outta 4

TRAILER

END SEQUENCE

Apollo 18 (2011)

2012-01-11T23:59:00.000-05:00

DIRECTED BY
Gonzalo Lopez-Gallego

STARRING
Warren Christie - Captain Ben Anderson
Lloyd Owen - Commander Nathan Walker
Ryan Robbins - Lieutenant-Colonel John Grey

Genre - Horror/Science Fiction/Found Footage/Aliens/Infection

Running Time - 87 Minutes

PLOT
It's 2011 and some website discovers and airs some footage that details the exploration of Apollo 18, which the Government has erased from all memory and denies to have ever existed - claiming that Apollo 17's mission to the Moon was the last one recorded. However this new footage proves different, as it shows three astronauts (Warren Christie, Lloyd Owen, Ryan Robbins) on the non-existent Apollo 18 on a top-secret mission commissioned by the Department of Defense. While one astronaut circles the orbit to keep track of the shuttle from above, the other two astronauts decide to investigate the moon and collect samples for research.

During their investigation, they discover a Russian Moon Capsule abandoned nearby, knowing that something must have happened to any of the cosmonauts involved - even finding one of the bodies on the Moon's surface nearby. Nathan Walker (Lloyd Owen) finds moon rocks, but is attacked by one of them. Complaining that something is now inside his spacesuit - in fact infecting his body period - Nathan's behavior begins to change as he becomes sick by the invasion. As Nathan begins to lose it, his teammate Ben Anderson (Warren Christie) realizes that whatever was inside of the rock is using Nathan as a host body, meaning trouble for the three unsuspecting astronauts.

REVIEW

HITS
- The actors. I will discuss why APOLLO 18 was a hard sit through at the start of the film and why I was almost tempted not to finish watching this movie at all. If it wasn't for the solid acting in this found footage horror/sci-fi flick, I would have given up on it after a half hour. But Warren Christie, Lloyd Owen, and Ryan Robbins carry the movie extremely well, as I believed every one of them during their terror. Not only did all three look like they were from the 1970s, but I believed each one reacted to the same situation in very different and subtle ways that gave their one-note characters a ton of personality and dimension. I especially enjoyed Lloyd Owen's performance, who went from 'all-American astronaut' to paranoid and vicious infected victim quite convincingly. Warren Christie, who had to play off of him, was great as well as the sympathetic lead. I really thought these men did an incredible job taking a weak script and making it worth watching. If not for these gentlemen, I wouldn't have watched the entire film at all to see it actually get better as it went on.

- The special effects and make-up. While there's not much of it here, I thought the SFX was really cool. The moon rocks, which obviously hold a dark secret, were convincing in their visuals and never looked cartoon-ish or fake. I also liked the infection make-up used on Lloyd Owen when he becomes the creature that's infected him. Simple, but effective. I dug it.

- The visual style. I thought the look of APOLLO 18 was pretty authentic and helped me keep watching the film as a whole. The cameras inside the shuttle were dead-on similar looking to real life shuttle footage. The grainy footage outside the shuttle gave the film a sort of documentary, gritty look that I liked. Plus the sets were fantastic. The interior of the shuttle looked legit. And it created a nice sense of claustrophobia and tension that really elevated the film. And I know the moon setting was a movie set, but damn if it didn't look real. I thought the film looked great, so kudos to director Gonzalo Lopez-Gallego for that.

- The last two acts of the movie. I'll get to the first act in a bit. But APOLLO 18 doesn't really pick up the pace and the mood until the second act, where the astronauts locate the Russian shuttle and the dead cosmonauts. After that, the pace is very quick and the atmosphere is very tense and suspenseful. We see the villains of the film, we watch the characters freak out and try to figure out what to do, and then we see them realize that they were sent on a suicide mission by their government who they had trusted their lives and careers to. There's less scenes of just two people talking, and more scenes of two people being active and trying to get themselves out of a dire situation in vain. I also loved the conspiracy angle concerning the Government as well. I felt as the film reached its conclusion, it came off as very effective and pretty messed up [but in a good way]. Like I said, I was about to give up on APOLLO 18 after its first half hour. But once the film picks up, you can't help but watch and see how it all ends up. I literally stopped trying to distract myself with other things once the shit had hit the fan, watching the movie with great interest and actually enjoying it. If only the film had actually started and ended that strongly.

MISSES
- The first act. Now I can appreciate a slow build to the action, terror, and suspense in any film. As a matter of fact, most films like APOLLO 18 should do that to suck viewers in right from the start and give them a bit of development for the characters and the situation they're in, or about to get into. Unfortunately, APOLLO 18's set up just takes way too much time. In fact, it's a really slow paced portion of the film that left me bored and wondering why I bothered to watch it. In fact, when the film was in theaters, audience members actually walked out during this act because of the massively slow set up for future events. There's not enough time with the characters so they can be developed all that much besides their name and title. There's also a ton of conversation during this portion, and not enough action. I don't mind dialogue heavy scenes, but I usually expect these scenes in the second act, not right at the beginning. It may be too much, or too little, for many out there. If it wasn't for the acting, APOLLO 18 would have lost me. I respect and appreciate a slow burn, but this one was way too slow.

- The antagonist. I don't think the villain(s) of the story are terrible. I just wanted the antagonist to be something more major than it actually was. Even though the appearance of the villain does help the film and increase the pace, I was really expecting something more major and edgier. I also think we get to see the villain right away the moment it appears, instead of cutting away from it like it does afterwards until the very end. This is more of a personal issue for me rather than something that hurts the film, but I thought the villain could have been more threatening. Still, what was done with the antagonist was done well.

- The ending. Again, I didn't hate the ending. It was just 'there' for me. I guess after watching [REC] again recently, I was expecting an ending that grabs you by the balls and makes sure you remember what great it ended. Instead, it ends pretty predictably. Other found footage films like PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT had very memorable conclusions that end up being highlights to their respective movies. APOLLO 18 pretty much ends exactly as you would expect it to really. It's not a horrible ending, but compared to how tense and suspenseful the film is during the climax, it's kind of a letdown. I did dig the info during the epilogue of the film, proving that the worst villains were probably the ones on Earth rather than on the Moon.

THE FINAL HOWL
APOLLO 18 is a film I don't understand all the dislike and hate for. Yes, it's a tough sit through during its first act. Yes, it won't blow everyone away in terms of quality. But for what it is and what it does, I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't as bad as I heard it was. I thought the acting was the saving grace of the movie, while some of the camera work and special effects were actually quite nice. Sure there's a pacing issue, but once it picks up, it's a cool ride. If you like found footage flicks, you could do worse than APOLLO 18. Just be patient and you'll see there's a decent little film in midst of its predictably and slow pacing.

SCORE
2.5 Howls Outta 4

The B-Movie Bungalow Presents: Chillerama (2011)

2012-01-08T23:17:00.000-05:00

Genre - Horror/B-Movie/Zombies/Werewolves/Monsters/Comedy/Musical/Anthology

Running Time - 119 Minutes

MAIN PLOT
One of the last drive-in theaters in America is shutting down its business. The owner, Cecil B. Kaufman (Richard Riehle), has decided to go out with a bang [literally] by showing a marathon of four films - films so rare that no American audience has seen them until tonight. What can go wrong?

WADZILLA

DIRECTED BY
Adam Rifkin

STARRING
Adam Rifkin - Miles Munson
Sarah Mutch - Louise
Owen Benjamin - Larry
Ray Wise - Dr. Weems
Eric Roberts - General Bukkake

PLOT
Miles Munson (Adam Rifkin) suffers from an extremely low sperm count - a sperm count so low that he can only produce just one sperm cell every time he ejaculates. Dr. Weems (Ray Wise) prescribes him with an experimental drug that hasn't been approved that will supposedly increase his sperm count. Munson takes the drug, but soon realizes that something is terribly wrong. Anytime he's aroused, he's in a massive amount of pain in his groin region. After masturbating to relieve the pain, he realizes he can still only produce a single sperm. However, the drug has turned this one sperm into one that can think on its own and grow in size exponentially. Now known as 'Wadzilla', this giant sperm is a threat to mankind as it travels to have sex with the one woman who can satisfy it - The Statue of Liberty.

HITS
- The special effects. WADZILLA is the epitome of a 50's monster B-movie, so it was important for the effects to represent this. Thanks to The Chiodo Brothers, best known for their work on KILLER KLOWNS FROM OUTER SPACE, WADZILLA looks like it was made in that era but with a modern twist. Most of the effects, if not all, were done with practical effects rather than CGI, creating an authentic feel for the segment. Wadzilla looks cheesy, yet perfect as a giant sperm. The way the sperm moves and attacks is done quite believably, either by some sort of mechanics or stop-motion animation. Also the use of green screen is quite obvious, intentionally, and quite funny as well. If it wasn't for the raunchiness of the story, you would believe that WADZILLA was made years ago.

- The story. The screenplay by Adam Rifkin isn't deep or thought provoking at all. It's just about a giant sperm threatening the world because he's horny as hell. And that's why WADZILLA works as well as it does - it doesn't hide what it really is: a spoof and homage to 50s B-movies. Since the main attraction is the giant sperm, the human characters are just there to react to the madness around them. We have a love story. We have military and medical interference when it comes to the sperm. We have people being eaten and humped by this monster. All the classic camp and structure a movie like this should have is here.

I think the best part of the narrative is the homage itself. From "The Glob" showing in a nearby theater, to the KING KONG-esque ending where the military attempts to wrap a giant condom around the sperm to catch it, and to the clothing itself - WADZILLA gets it right and makes it funny in the process. When your general is named Bukkake [who wants a "money shot" when it comes to catching that sperm] and you have a female character telling her mom on a payphone that she's dating a certain guy because he has a huge penis [which would never happen in the 1950s, making the moment funnier], you can't take any of this seriously. All you can do is have fun and the story allows the viewer to do that. If you love sperm jokes from beginning to end, WADZILLA is your film.

- The direction. Adam Rifkin does a great job recreating a modern B-movie done in 1950s style. The pacing is strong, as the build up to Wadzilla keeps the viewer's interest. The editing is a bit off at times, but it's obviously intentional. The use of green screen and certain moments with the sperm, like his vision of The Statue of Liberty and the moment where he tries to ram himself up Louise's vagina, are very fun to watch. It's not an overly stylish film, but the films back then never were, so it works. Rifkin definitely did his homework and I appreciated the visual style.

- The acting. The acting here is campy as hell, as the actors overact everything to make the viewer laugh. Rifkin isn't the greatest actor, but he's watchable in his role as confused and horny Miles. Sarah Mutch is nice to look at as Louise, but anyone could have played the role really. But she does well. Ray Wise is the highlight as Dr. Weems, the man responsible for this mess due to wanting to study the sperm. And a great cameo by Eric Roberts as General Bukkake. And boy, did he get just that! A cool cast.

MISSES
- WADZILLA could have pushed the envelope more. I think WADZILLA is a great short and really comes across as both hilarious and gross. But I felt there were certain moments where the idea of this gigantic sperm could have been explored more. There's a moment where the sperm wants to burrow itself up Louise, but is stopped before doing so. I wish I could have seen this done to someone else, because isn't that what a sperm would do to a woman? We never see it happen again after that. In fact, the sperm just ends up eating people while growing a massive size just to screw The Statue of Liberty. It doesn't hurt the film's entertainment level at all, but if you're gonna give us that idea, you might as well go all the way with it and see what happens. Sex jokes are great when they work, but seeing this sperm do more than just be a typical B-movie monster would have been nice.

I WAS A TEENAGE WEREBEAR

DIRECTED BY
Tim Sullivan

STARRING
Sean Paul Lockhart - Ricky
Anton Troy - Talon
Gabby West - Peggy Lou
Adam Robitel - Butch
Lin Shaye - Nurse Maleva
Ron Jeremy - Playbear
Tim Sullivan - Coach Tuffman

PLOT
Ricky (Sean Paul Lockhart) is your average teenager from the 1960s. He's a beach boy. He has a girlfriend (Gabby West) who lusts after him. But internally he's struggling, as he's a closeted homosexual confused about his feelings. He begins to give in to these emotions when he spots Talon (Anton Troy), the leader of a leather wearing gang who rebel against authority and enjoy singing sexual songs. When Ricky befriends the gang, he's eventually bitten by Talon. Ricky soon experiences bodily changes whenever he gets aroused, turning into "bear"-like creature who wants to murder the one he lusts after. When Nurse Maleva (Lin Shaye) explains to Ricky what Talon's true intentions are, meaning that Talon wants to murder the entire school, Ricky must find the strength to control his new abilities and stop Talon for good.

HITS
- The songs. I WAS A TEENAGE WEREBEAR, in its essence, is a musical in the vein of BEACH BLANKET BINGO and GREASE. The short will frequently break into song, revealing the feelings of the characters as a way to move the story along. Not all the songs are great, but when they are, they are quite enjoyable to listen to. Songs like "Do the Werebear" and "Love Bit Me In The Ass" are quite well-written and funny. They do what they're meant to do, so I can't complain about it.

- Most of the direction. Tim Sullivan, who directed the remake 2001 MANIACS and among other horror films, does a very good job behind the camera. Sullivan captures the beach/surf film vibe well, as I WAS A TEENAGE WEREBEAR looks and feels like it could have been made during this era. The colors looked brighter than what we usually see in movies these days [mimicking Technicolor] and the musical numbers are directed well. Plus I loved the editing when it came to the gory death scenes, using dummies in place of actual people when bad things happened, making the scene that much more funnier than it had any right to be. It's not Sullivan's best film for reasons I'll get into later, but he did a nice job.

- The acting. The actors aren't the greatest, but they do their best with the material and seem to be having fun with it. Sean Paul Lockhart, who is a gay porn star, might have a decent mainstream career if he persues it. He's good as the closeted Ricky, making him sympathetic and likable. Anton Troy plays the bad boy Talon well, doing a decent James Dean impression. Gabby West, winner of Season 2 of VH1's Scream Queens, pretty much acts brain damaged most of the film [she was hit by a van], but she does it well. Adam Robitel plays a pretty convincing jerk in Butch. And we get some cool cameos by Lin Shaye [who is also in WADZILLA in a bit role] and Tim Sullivan himself as a gay coach. A cool cast that makes the short worth watching, even if it happens to be my least favorite of the segments.

- The message. I WAS A TEENAGE WEREBEAR has a strong message about accepting oneself, especially when it concerns homosexuality. The idea of the werebear is obviously a take on the whole werewolf genre, which is a metaphor for that dark secret we try so hard to repress but comes out in the surface in a scary way. The use of actual "bears", or hairy and husky men in the gay community, is actually very clever. The fact that Ricky and his gay friends have to sing to get their feelings across is obviously a play on the stereotype that gay men love musical theater. Butch's logic to rape gay men "for Jesus" in a way reveals that he, too, is hiding his feelings behind religion. And a lot of the death scenes involve penises and getting impaled up the ass. The message is very clear that this is a gay short film preaching that it's okay to be gay and have fun with the idea. I don't think many horror films do that, even the gay-themed ones, so it's nice to see Tim Sullivan be proud of who he is and want to spread that to the audience.

MISSES
- The execution of the message. While the message of tolerance and being comfortable in your own skin is commendable, the way it's told is flawed. Instead of feeling like a natural part of the narrative, Sullivan tends to preach on about it more often than one is comfortable with. I think the message is great and I wish we could all live in a world where people aren't criticized for their sexuality, skin color, and whatever else that makes everyone unique. But hammering it into the audience is only going to push people away rather than bring them together. I found it pretty annoying by the half-way mark, wishing Sullivan would just focus on the story itself rather than what he wanted the audience to get out of the film. I'm sure anyone who watches this segment will understand the message. We don't need it spelled out to us over and over again.

- The pacing and tone. I WAS A TEENAGE WEREBEAR would have been a better segment if it had any idea what kind of film it wanted to be. Was it a comedy? Was it a morality tale? Was it a musical? A horror film? The mood and vibe of the film constantly changed, so you were never really sure what you were watching. It didn't help that a lot of the jokes fell flat and probably went over a lot of people's heads. The issue is that it was too broad and should have been a bit more self-contained to what the story was trying to tell.

As for the pacing, the musical numbers frequently cutting in didn't help much. They not only interrupted the flow of this particular segment, but CHILLERAMA in general. I would get into the story a bit but then lose that feeling once the numbers kicked in. There were too many songs for a 20 minute film. I think if Sullivan had spaced them out a bit and used less songs, I WAS A TEENAGE WEREBEAR would have been stronger. Instead, it's really the weakest segment of the pack.

THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANKENSTEIN

DIRECTED BY
Adam Green

STARRING
Joel David Moore - Adolf Hitler
Kristina Klebe - Eva Braun
Kane Hodder - Meshugannah

PLOT
Adolf Hitler (Joel David Moore) and his Nazi cronies invade Anne Frank's home for a diary that was written by her grandfather, who happened to be a scientist that created a monster. Hitler wants this knowledge to create his ultimate Nazi monster to help him rule the world. Hitler kills Anne Frank and her family for the diary, taking it with him and creating his killing machine with the help of his slutty girlfriend, Eva Braun (Kristina Klebe). Both Hitler and Braun finish completing their experiment, crafting a living, breathing, monster of a man (Kane Hodder) to do their bidding. Unfortunately, Meshugannah realizes that he's a Jew, meaning that Hitler and the rest of the Nazis are in deep trouble.

HITS
- The story. When you title a film, THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANKENSTEIN, you have to expect that it will be downright offensive. And while the film is definitely that, it offends in an extremely satiric and self-conscious way that ends up being absolutely hilarious. The idea that Hitler wants to create a killing machine that ends up being Jewish is just pure brilliance, and the film makes more than the most of it.

It allows Hitler to be this incapable dictator who is clueless about anything and everything around him. His lackeys don't really respect him. His girlfriend is sleeping around on him [she admittedly has "cock breath"]. And he creates a monster that represents everything he's against, yet expects it to do his bidding, without realizing he just created his own demise. The use of a dreidel and a menorah as weapons is genius, and I couldn't stop laughing at how stupid all these characters [besides Meshugannah] were. The use of the Clapper and "99 Luft Balloons", which wouldn't even exist at this point in time, is funny as hell. The story is extremely simple and doesn't make the narrative all that complicated, which definitely works in favor of its entertainment value.

- The dialogue. The best part of THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANKENSTEIN is the spoken dialogue. The film itself is in subtitles, with Adam Green wanting to create a sort of foreign film with "German actors" who speak in German. However, the actors aren't fluent in German, so they begin speaking gibberish while the correct subtitles display on the screen. While there is some German words, you also hear French, English, Spanish, Klingon, and other languages that don't match the actual text at all. I think my favorite part is when Hitler tells Meshugannah to kill about 20 times, all saying something different each time for the same word. I had no idea "Boba Fett", "Triple H", and "Goldie Hawn" could be said in place of "kill". This is one of those films that is a lot to fun to listen to because that's where most of the comedy's strength is from. I'm sure most of it was ad-libbed, and it works way better than it probably should.

- The acting. THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANKENSTEIN wouldn't be so funny if the actors in it weren't great. Joel David Moore, who has starred in the majority of Adam Green's projects, is fantastic as Adolf Hitler. He may not really look like him, but he takes the character and makes him a total baffoon. He overacts a lot of the time, but it works. He carries the film excellently. Kristina Klebe, from the Rob Zombie HALLOWEEN remake, is also great as Eva Braun. She gives the character a real sexual vibe and has some nice comedic timing as well. Kane Hodder, who I didn't even really recognize under the make up as Meshugannah, does what he does best - use his body language and intimidating stature to give Meshugannah a lot of personality and character. In fact, he infuses a bit of Jason Voorhees in the role, but does it with a lot of entertainment value rather than fear value. The other roles were filled in perfectly as well. Just a great cast in general.

- The direction. Adam Green has done it again. He's directed another great film that's obviously a homage to YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, but done in a raunchier and much violent manner. The black & white film, with a touch of grain, makes THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANKENSTEIN stand out amongst the rest of the segments. The blocking, composition, and framing is just great. The violent moments are done believably well. I thought one of the best moments was when Meshugannah was chasing Hitler in his lair. Instead of walking into the next set piece, Meshugannah breaks the fourth wall and walks around the set to go after Hitler. Then they break through a wall, leading to a set used in the first scene of the segment. I couldn't stop laughing at how cheap it looked, which made the moment great. I also loved the scene where one of the Nazi soldiers is choking on a dreidel for five straight minutes before dying. The actors react accordingly at first, but then start to get annoyed when the actor won't die. Green didn't try to make a serious piece here. He has having fun with the whole idea and it shows visually. I think he did a fantastic job as usual.

ZOM-B-MOVIE

DIRECTED BY
Joe Lynch

STARRING
Richard Riehle - Cecil B. Kaufman
Corey Jones - Tobe
Kaili Thorne - Mayna
Brendan McCreary - Ryan Miller

PLOT
ZOM-B-MOVIE is the wrap around segment that connects everything together. An employee at the local drive-in gets his penis bitten by his dead lover after trying to have sex with her corpse. He goes to work, even though he's in pain, spreading his now infected semen all over the place. Eventually while masturbating, the semen mixes in with the popcorn butter. During the showing of the previous three films, most of the audience is eating the infected popcorn and end up turning into flesh-eating and sex-crazed zombies. The survivors must find a way to live and escape the massive barrage of their fellow movie goers, who are dying and screwing at the same time.

HITS
- DEFECATION. This is supposed to be the fourth segment in CHILLERAMA, but is interrupted by the zombie outbreak. Introduced by fictional filmmaker, Fernando Phagabeefy [played by Joe Lynch himself], DEFECATION happens to be a film about feces. That's it. Feces on the ground. Feces hitting the wall. Feces covering people and food. It's just a movie about shit. This type of film is really just one-joke and would wear thin really quickly if it were the same length as the other segments. The good news is that it only lasts about five minutes, keeping it disgustingly funny throughout its short runtime. Lynch knew exactly when to cut it.

Also, you gotta admire a short that introduces SALO 2: THE NEXT DAY. If you don't get the joke, you need to brush up on your cinema knowledge.

- The horny zombies. The zombie genre is a pretty tired one at this point, to be honest with you. There's not much you could do with the subject matter that probably hasn't been done already. But I was not expecting to watch a ton of zombies fucking each other all over the place, spreading their infection around. It may not be totally original, but it added a different layer and feel to the zombies, making their actions perverted and entertaining all at once. Necrophilia has never been more oddly humorous.

- The characters. ZOM-B-MOVIE has the most characters of all the segments. And while many of these characters don't get a lot of depth since it's hard to focus on so many at once, at least they all had different personalities and most were actually very likeable. The main characters [Cecil, Tobe, Mayna, and Ryan Miller] have their own story arcs and they all come together very well by the end of the film. Cecil's bitterness about his drive-in closing and showing off his film knowledge by spitting random dialogue from famous films is both funny and believable. Tobe and Mayna's love angle is very cute, especially when she proves she's the tough one and he's the 'damsel in distress'. And Ryan's crush on one of the drive-in employees [who substitutes bad words with cute vocabulary] leads to his downfall. Everyone in this segment has a role to play and they play it well.

- The special effects. Every modern zombie film should have decent make-up and effects. Luckily, ZOM-B-MOVIE has both in spades. The zombies look great, as they look decayed and obviously infected. We get some nice flesh-eating moments, a penis being exposed and then ripped right off of the body, and even breasts that are lactating the infection. The infection goo is given a neon blue tint, making it look like something out of the 1980s in a way. I think the special effects and make-up teams did a great job.

- The direction. Joe Lynch does a great job bringing all the segments together while still containing ZOM-B-MOVIE as its own segment. The pacing is solid, as each act of the segment builds up wonderfully for its climax. The action, tension, and gross out moments are visualized really well. I like that Lynch wanted to make the wrap around story as memorable as the actual featured attractions, instead of doing a sort of Tales From The Crypt or Tales From The Darkside sort of deal where a host just introduces the segments, which probably leads to some sort of twist at the end. This could have been its own short film without the other segments. I think Lynch did a great job creating bookends for CHILLERAMA, creating an inviting beginning with the zombie bite and an exciting conclusion when all hell breaks loose. This is just a visually fun segment.

THE FINAL HOWL
CHILLERAMA is a solid modern anthology film that deserved the attention it got last year and still deserves now. While I WAS A TEENAGE WEREBEAR is slightly above average for not being as successful as it wants to be, the other segments [especially THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANKENSTEIN] are incredibly solid. We don't get many anthology stories these days, so I have to commend Rifkin, Sullivan, Green, and Lynch for coming together to make one horror fans can enjoy. Definitely worth a look and a buy if you like your horror to be gory, raunchy, and/or hilariously offensive.

SCORE
3.5 Howls Outta 4

[REC] (2007)

2011-12-30T15:54:00.000-05:00

DIRECTED BY
Juame Balaguero
Paco Plaza

STARRING
Manuela Velasco - Angela Vidal
Ferran Terraza - Manu
Jorge-Yamam Serrano - Sergio
Pablo Rosso - Pablo
David Vert - Alex
Vicente Gil - Police Officer
Claudia Font - Jennifer

Genre - Horror/Found Footage/Virus/Zombies

Running Time - 76 Minutes

PLOT
Angela Vidal (Manuela Velasco) and her cameraman, Pablo (Pablo Rosso), are shooting an episode for a show that documents the night life in Spain. The segment being filmed this night is centered around the night shift of a local fire station to see their routines and film them in action during an emergency. While filming mundane things like playing basketball and eating at the dining hall, the fire station gets a call to an apartment building. Angela and Pablo join two firefighters (Ferran Terraza and David Vert) as they answer to the complaints of the tenants, who are complaining about a disturbed woman who may be have come down with a bad illness. Before they get any answers, the tenants infected with this illness begin attacking the others as outside personnel decide to quarantine the building to keep the virus from getting out.

REVIEW

HITS

- The simple narrative. [REC]'s strength comes from a really easy to understand story structure that's leaves you satisfied, even when the questions increase and the answers become more scarce. [REC] plays like your typical zombie film, isolating characters within a scenario where infected/dead people want to chew on their flesh without any sort of explanation behind it. Instead of revealing any sort of backstory for the characters, we learn about each one during the course of the film just by watching their behavior and the actions they make in order to understand and survive their situation. [REC] is a film that thrives on being "in the moment". It's a familiar structure that's probably pretty old at this point, but when it works, it works.

The story is extremely well told in its simplicity. In fact, [REC] is sprinkled with hints and clues as to what's going on, making us slap ourselves for not seeing things sooner. But even when we get the answer, it still leaves a lingering question that creates a layer of uncertainty and mystery to make us want to know more. Through the dialogue and the banter between the characters, which is quite funny at times, we learn a lot about the situation and what may have caused it without really realizing it at the time. [REC] is one of those films where repeated viewings may give you most of the pieces of the puzzle due to its subtle storytelling.

As for the cause of the virus outbreak, I feel [REC] does a better job at the reveal than its American remake, 2008's QUARANTINE, does. QUARANTINE's resolution is a bit more straightforward about what's happening, making the audience figure it out pretty much two-thirds into the film. It has more of a anti-government slant when it comes to the reveal, making the military personnel who quarantine the building really look like villains who know what's going on and are trying to cover their ass by making sure the virus outbreak is contained inside that building. The fact that they shoot and kill people who try to escape shows that they want no knowledge of this being released.

[REC] doesn't make the resolution that obvious. In fact, there's never a feeling that the film is trying to criticize the government or science at all. Unlike in QUARANTINE, the people behind the quarantine seem to be doing it at the best interests for everyone, even if they do know more than they're letting on. Everyone involved seem to be clueless as to what's going on and about how bad the situation truly is, creating a greatest feeling of tension and fear of the unknown. As to why the situation is happening to begin with, [REC] doesn't give a clear answer unlike in the remake. Is it a virus? Is it something more supernatural? Is it both? None? We're never really sure. Because of this, I feel [REC] has the much stronger ending even if both versions are pretty similar. The person Angela encounters at the very end of the film seems to have more of a place in [REC] than she does in QUARANTINE, making it more chilling.

- The acting. I think both [REC] and QUARANTINE has some really good acting, so it's really tough to say which film has the better actors because they bring different things to their respective roles. I think the acting in [REC] is a bit more effective, only because the actors are more unknown and truly give authentic performances that make you somewhat believe this is actually happening. Maneula Velasco is fantastic as Angela Vidal. Jennifer Carpenter did a good job in the remake, but Velasco is more believable as a reporter who wants a juicy story. She looks great on camera, she has a ton of personality, and I believe her when she pushes people around to capture footage and when she acts frightened by this situation she got herself trapped in. Sure she can come across as bitchy, but I can believe a journalist would behave that way to create a story people will want to see and talk about. I think in some ways, Carpenter tried a bit too hard at times while Velasco does it without a sweat. The other actors are all great as well, all contributing to sell this terrible scenario, but it's truly Velasco's show all the way. She carried the film very well.

- The direction. While the whole "found footage" deal in horror is a bit tired at this point, at least Juame Balaguero and Paco Plaza use it in a way that proves it does have a place in the modern age of cinema. Using just a handheld camcorder, Balaguero and Plaza create a feeling of claustrophobia, dread, and uneasiness once our characters enter that apartment building. We see what these two directors want us to see, making the viewer an unwilling spectator to all this horror. The shaky cam can be a distraction to most people, but I think it works great here. It creates a lot of tension and anxiety for those scenes. Plus I thought the night vision at the end was a really nice touch, making what Angela sees more creepy than it would in normal light. Plus the use of scares [which still made me jump even though I knew when they were coming, having seen [REC] before] and gore [yum] aren't use all that much, making those moments more powerful. I think both Balaguero and Plaza did a solid job, as [REC] is really about what we see than the actual story itself. Top notch stuff.

- No opening credits or soundtrack. [REC] starts right away and doesn't let up until those end credits roll and acknowledge that this is indeed just a movie. I think the lack of title cards and opening credits create a realistic feeling that wouldn't be there if [REC] made it known that this was a professional film. As for the soundtrack, there is none. All we get are ambient sounds and dialogue, and it works amazingly.

MISSES

- More sympathetic characters. Besides Angela and maybe Pablo, the other characters in the film don't get enough screen time to make the viewer really care about them all that much. Sure, most of these characters are there just to die, but if I cared about them more, their deaths would be more effective. I think one of the things QUARANTINE did better than [REC] was during the first act, where we got to know the two firefighter characters a bit, making what happens to them more tragic. In [REC], we don't really get that. I think the remake did this slightly better than the original.

THE FINAL HOWL
While QUARANTINE is a good American remake, it doesn't top [REC]. This isn't because I prefer originals over remakes, which isn't always the case. It's because the story flows better and is more effective in [REC]. It's because the acting feels more real in [REC]. It's because the direction feels more authentic in [REC]. [REC] is just the superior movie, even though I believe both versions are worth watching just for comparison. Sure, [REC] isn't all that original and could be predictable at times. But Juame Balaguero and Paco Plaza get around that to create a pretty chilling film that all horror fans should definitely watch and possibly own. With [REC]2 already out and [REC]3: GENESIS and [REC]4: APOCALYPSE coming out in 2012 and 2013, the story doesn't seem to be ending any time soon.

SCORE
3.5 Howls Outta 4

Batman (1989)

2011-12-28T15:18:00.001-05:00

DIRECTED BY
Tim Burton

STARRING
Michael Keaton - Bruce Wayne/Batman
Jack Nicholson - Jack Napier/The Joker
Kim Basinger - Vicki Vale
Michael Gough - Alfred Pennyworth
Robert Wuhl - Alexander Knox
Tracey Walter - Bob
Jack Palance - Carl Grissom
Pat Hingle - Commissioner James Gordon
William Hootkins - Eckhardt
Jerry Hall - Alicia

Genre - Action/Fantasy/Comic Books

Running Time - 126 Minutes

Since everyone [including yours truly] is pretty excited about the upcoming THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, which will conclude the Christopher Nolan saga of The World's Greatest Detective, I figured it's time I took the time and watched the original 1989-1997 franchise based on one of the best comic book characters ever created, Batman. I will take a look at all the live-action adaptations [including a re-review of THE DARK KNIGHT] and maybe even discuss some of the animated feature films along the way as well. I already started with the campy 1966 film, BATMAN: THE MOVIE, as well as a recent animated flick, BATMAN: UNDER THE RED HOOD. So it's time to really get serious and discuss the major franchise, before THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is released in June, by starting with the 1989 Tim Burton blockbuster, BATMAN.

BATMAN had a pretty rough pre-production and I'm surprised the film didn't come out worst for wearer because of it. The idea for a Batman film was conceived in 1979 after the massive success of Richard Donner's 1978's SUPERMAN: THE MOTION PICTURE starring Christopher Reeve in his iconic role. The issue at the time was the supposed tone of the film. By 1979, the comic book version of Batman was somewhat darker than the 1960s television version. Producers felt that this would confuse audiences, plus having the added pressure to capitalize on SUPERMAN, who was an All-American Hero type of character that lifted audience spirits. The idea was put in the back burner until 1982 with the release of SWAMP THING, another DC character that did well at the box office. Producers were now desperate to get this idea running, even trying to convince directors like Ivan Reitman, Robert Zemeckis, and even Joe Dante to direct the project.

The film project wouldn't gain hope until 1986, when DC comics had rebooted their brand and gave Batman a grittier character that had ever been seen. The graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns was a smash hit, depicting an older and broken Batman in a grim Gotham City. In 1988, the graphic novel called The Killing Joke was released to much success as well. The success of this darker tone gave producers and writers [Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren] hope that a live-action adaptation of a modern-day Batman would go over well with audiences. The final puzzle was complete when Warner Brothers, who owned the rights to the franchise, hired Tim Burton to direct following his successes with PEE WEE'S BIG ADVENTURE and BEETLEJUICE. Things started to look bright.

Unfortunately, 1988 was a year of a devastating writer's strike. Since no writers working for any guild or union could work on rewrites for the completed screenplay, others had to be brought in and change certain aspects of what was believed to be a great screenplay. Dick Grayson, who was in the original version, was now taken out. Vicki Vale and Alexander Knox, who were supposed to die in the original version of the script, now survived for a happier ending. Other things were rewritten behind the original screenwriters' backs, causing much friction in the pre-production stage. Also, casting a comedic actor in Michael Keaton caused much controversy, as no one at the time could buy him as a dark character like Batman. This scared fans, as they were worried that BATMAN would be a campy film like the popular television show.

But there was no need to worry, as BATMAN was released in 1989 to some of the biggest marketing fanfare the world hadn't seen since probably the STAR WARS franchise years before. You couldn't get away from all the ad campaigns and publications eagerly awaiting the film. This was helped also by Tim Burton, who refused to release any promotional material until near the film's release, creating mystery and buzz over the project. The result was a $400 million-plus worldwide box office take, becoming the biggest film of 1989 and creating a franchise that's obviously continuing today. It proved naysayers wrong, as those who were expecting a campy version of the character got a big kick in the ass when the darker comic book version was unveiled and mega-successful to boot.

PLOT
Gotham City, a gritty scene of sin and crime, is slowly being cleaned up by a mysterious man in black dressed up as a bat. No one knows who he is, where he comes from, or what his true agenda is. But Batman has quickly made a name for himself, scaring the criminal world and even the police force who are unsure what side he's on. Also many journalists, including Alexander Knox (Robert Wuhl) and photographer Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger), want to sensationalize Batman as Top News. Underneath the cape and cowl is millionaire Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton), who decided to become a vigilante crime fighter after the murder of his parents he had witnessed as a child. Armed with a multitude of gadgets and incredibly high-tech vehicles, Wayne plans on avenging his parents and making good on it.

During one mission, Batman attempts to stop Gotham City's crime lord, Carl Grissom (Jack Palance), reign by attacking his group of men at a chemical plant. In midst of the fight, Batman accidentally sends Grissom's "number one guy" Jack Napier (Jack Nicholson) into a vat of toxic waste. Napier emerges from the chemicals with his skin pigmented ghost white, hair green, and a face permanently plastered as a sinister grin. Now calling himself The Joker, Napier kills Grissom to take over the criminal activities of Gotham. His plan is to poison the entire city with chemicals called Smilex, that cause its victims to laugh to death. While being insanely delighted by his new sense of power and second chance at life, Batman makes him a target. He soon realizes that he's met The Joker once before the accident...as a child.

REVIEW
I remember clear as day - June 23, 1989 - my eight-year-old self watching BATMAN in theaters on opening day with my cousins and friends. I always discuss how 1978's HALLOWEEN changed my life at a young age. Well BATMAN was really the second movie to really create an impact on me. I always liked the darker, grittier works of art and BATMAN was right up my alley. The costume design, the art direction, the colorful characters, the Batmobile - it all hit me like a ton of bricks. I was in love with BATMAN and probably watched it 4 or 5 times during its initial theater release. My mom even bought me the VHS home video the day it was released, which unfortunately was stolen years ago. But BATMAN opened my eyes to the comic book world, where I invested a lot of time in until really the end of High School in 1999 [even though I still catch up on what's going on thanks to the World Wide Web]. You couldn't escape Bat-mania. Action figures, video games [I still have the NES adaptation], and T-shirts [one of which I owned and wore proudly] were everywhere. It really was something amazing to an eight-year-old kid. I couldn't wrap myself around it. It was like BATMAN was larger than life itself.

I think the last time I had actually watched BATMAN in full was in 1995, right before the release of BATMAN FOREVER. I would only manage to see glimpses here and there on television since. Even after buying the DVD, I still didn't even bother to watch it. So checking it out again during Christmas weekend was really something. I still enjoy it immensely 22 years later, as it still manages to entertain and make its two hours feel like a breeze. But what I didn't notice as a kid was how flawed the actual screenplay was. So even though I thought it was a perfect film when I was younger, I can see now that it really isn't. Still, there's a lot to love about one of Tim Burton's better films in his massive filmography.

Like I mentioned earlier, the screenplay went through many massive rewrites - to the point where the final version of the film was nothing like the version that was greenlit for production. It really should have been more of a mess than what's presented on film, but what we do get is still pretty solid and manages to relate a narrative that's easy to understand on superficial levels, even if its depth isn't as deep as it should be given all the comic book and character history. So what works and what doesn't about BATMAN?

I think the best thing about BATMAN is really the dialogue. Even though I hadn't watched the film in 16 years, I was still able to recite the lines as if I had watched it yesterday. That's how powerful and memorable the dialogue is. Obviously, the villain gets all the best lines. The Joker is hilarious, whether he talks about Gotham City needing an enema, to pondering where Batman gets his wonderful toys, and to asking Bruce Wayne whether he's ever danced with the Devil in a pale moonlight. The Joker is dialogue king here. The other characters do get some nice dialogue as well, but The Joker is the one you remember at the end.

I also got to praise the structure of the narrative. It introduces Batman right away, creating the mystery about who he is and what his agenda may be. It also quickly sets up the villains, especially Jack Napier, eventually leading to his transformation as The Joker. We get the love story angle. We get the struggle with the dual identity bit. We see the full circle arc between Batman and Joker, who made each other who they are. It's a template many other comic book films have followed since because it actually works and creates suspense and tension a film like this should do. There are many subplots and unfortunately not all of them are developed as well as they should be, but that's sometimes a sacrifice a filmmaker has to make in order to keep the story going and the pace fast. Things are easy to follow and the structure keeps the entertainment value high as the film never gets boring. A bit superficial, sure. But at least you're having fun with it.

And while not all the characters get great development, at least The Joker's character is amazingly written. Even though the film is called BATMAN, this film is really about The Joker [unfortunately a majority of this franchise has had more interesting villains than the heroes]. Even though his mission to poison Gotham City is a bit flawed and not really logical in a business sense, The Joker shows a ton of personality that really evolves once he emerges from that acid vat. From murdering Bruce Wayne's parents [which I will get into a bit later], to being Carl Grissom's "Number One Guy" [which he passes onto his henchman, Bob], to scarring his girlfriend Alicia, to vandalizing art, and to creating a chemical called Smilex that makes his victims laugh to death - The Joker is a pretty busy guy and does everything he can with a lot of style. He'll fry a man with a hand buzzer. He'll shoot the Batwing down with a gun who's barrel is probably 2 feet long. He'll squirt acid in people's faces from the flower on his purple jacket. He's sarcastic. He's insane. He's demented. He's vicious. The Joker is one of the best villains ever created period. The man has no conscious and is more than willing to laugh about it. The writers did a great job bringing this character to life and having the perfect actor at the time to portray him. He's a ham, but he's a ham you can embrace and enjoy as a personality.

Unfortunately, the other characters get the shaft because the film focuses more on The Joker and his activities above anyone else. Especially with Bruce Wayne/Batman, who never feels like the star of his own film at all. I think a flaw in the screenplay was not making BATMAN an origin story because we barely know this guy is. Maybe that's the point because he struggles with that issue at all. But the audience shouldn't have to experience that as well. That's why 2005's BATMAN BEGINS works so well - it allows the audience to watch Bruce Wayne grow from victim to vigilante in a believable way where he's build up and developed enough for the audience to embrace him as their hero. Sure, we get Bruce's parents getting killed in a short flashback to set up his motivations, but it really isn't enough to give him a personality. Unless you're a fan of the comic books, which this film really caters to, you'll be wondering why Bruce chose a bat as his animal of choice, how he learned to fight so well as he does, and how he manages to have so many cool gadgets at hand. Just because he's a millionaire doesn't mean he knows how to make that stuff. So his backstory would have fleshed out Bruce greatly. That's the reason why I have no major issue with the fact that Napier was chosen as the killer over the original murderer, Joe Cool. At least it connects Wayne to Napier as much as it connects Batman to The Joker. It gives Batman a story arc that we can buy and that's why we want him to get vengeance on the man who, without reason, murdered his parents. Plus he has cool cars, an awesome costume, and a bad ass attitude towards crime. But other than that, what else is there?

Same goes with Vicki Vale, who is really inserted into the story because every superhero narrative needs a love interest. But we barely know anything about her other than she takes photos, sleeps with men on the first date, and is very attractive to men with mental issues. The fact that Batman is so quickly thinking about telling Vicki his secret identity still makes me scratch my head. The fact that The Joker wants to fight Bruce Wayne for her comes out of nowhere, unless the official reason for the fight is because Vicki's a hot piece of ass. And don't get me started on Alfred actually LETTING her walk into the Batcave! What makes this woman so damn special? And why didn't Bruce bat [no pun intended] an eye to that anyway? Even the screenwriters thought that was a terrible idea.

Also there's the issue of convenience that BATMAN tends to have. For example, the Batwing has a pair of shears on the front of the craft. Did Batman really know The Joker was gonna hold a parade full of toxic filled balloon floats? Speaking of The Joker, how did he just happen to keep a long ass gun powerful enough with one shot to shoot down The Batwing? He never seen the craft before that moment! Plus, the people of Gotham were willing to celebrate The Joker's parade, even though he attempted to murder them with Smilex! I guess when Alexander Knox mentioned their greed, he wasn't kidding! There's more of these moments that I never really noticed before, making the film not only a head scratcher, but pretty funny at times too.

The soundtrack to BATMAN is still pretty solid after all these years. Danny Elfman's score is still one of his best ever, really creating an epic heroic feast for the ears. It was so good that it was even used for Batman: The Animated Series. Whenever I think of a Batman movie, Elfman's score always comes to mind. The Prince songs are also pretty cool, even though they do date the film pretty immensely. I think the songs do overstay their welcome at times, but I can't knock the music since it isn't terrible. I still dig the Prince soundtrack today, so it works for me. I think the music in general really creates an atmosphere and mood of the time. And who doesn't enjoy The Joker dancing to "Partyman"?

The special effects, while also a bit dated, are still pretty cool after all these years. There's obvious stop-motion animation, especially when The Batmobile shields itself into a cocoon. Plus there's some green screen that isn't hard to see, especially when people fall from large heights. Still, the costume design and art direction is fantastic. Gotham City looks like a really messed up version of New York City [even with a former Mayor Ed Koch look-a-like], which is what it should look like. The Batman costume looks awesome and they got The Joker look right with the white paint, green hair, red smile, and purple outfit. And the Batmobile and Batwing look awesome [I still prefer these over The Tumbler]. It's everything you would envision a Batman movie to look like.

The direction by Tim Burton is very good. While an odd choice to direct this film, since he wasn't really a fan of the character until he read The Dark Knight Returns graphic novel, I think he was a great choice to start the franchise on a good note. Burton is a director who's more about style over substance, more focused on making Gotham City feel grim, gritty, and all-around dangerous. Burton's vision of Batman's world is visually impressive, as he creates a sort of film noir atmosphere but done for the 1980s. If Vicki Vale was a femme fatale character, BATMAN would fit right into the noir genre. In fact, Burton makes Gotham City a character on its own, which is just perfect. The film moves at a quick pace due to constant scene shifts, action sequences, and tight editing. I love the Smilex commercial. That could have been a short film on its own. The only real issue with Burton's direction, however, is that he doesn't really know how to direct action. While it's not bad at all, the fight choreography looks stilted and forced. Plus the editing during these scenes tend to cut away to something else. It's not Burton's strong suit, but it's adequate at best. I think his direction on BATMAN RETURNS is much better, but for his first big blockbuster Burton does a great job.

The acting is very good as well. Michael Keaton got a lot of heat for being cast as Batman, but to be honest with you, he's the best actor to play the role. For a while, I thought it was Christian Bale, but Keaton just pulls off the presence more naturally than Bale does. His Bruce Wayne comes across as conflicted and mysterious. He may not be the most handsome actor or look like a guy who can kick people's asses, but he brings a quiet intensity that gives dimension to the role. His Batman is pretty darn good as well, not needing a raspy voice to pull off the difference between the two roles. It was an inspired choice by Tim Burton and I think he made the right one.

Jack Nicholson is just phenomenal as Jack Napier/The Joker. Until Heath Ledger came along in 2008, he was the best live-action version of the character [Mark Hamill is still tops for the animated stuff though]. No one was more perfect at the time to play this role. Nicholson thrives on playing unhinged characters with glee, turning The Joker into a character you could both laugh at and laugh with as he destroyed people's lives just because he wanted to. Nicholson chews the scenery every time he's on screen, stealing the spotlight from all his co-stars and rubbing it in their faces. He has the most developed character, the best dialogue, and the most screen time - never once taking advantage that he could have just sat on his $6 million paycheck [which eventually turned into $50 million due to merchandise and box office receipts] and not bring anything to the table. You can tell Nicholson is having an incredible time in the role, which makes it fun for us to watch him. He's the star of the film without a shadow of a doubt.

Kim Basinger is decent as Vicki Vale. She doesn't really have much to do but take photos and act scared. The screaming got a bit irritating after a while, but it doesn't happen too often. Sean Young was originally supposed to play the character, but got injured in a horse-riding accident. Basinger was a very last-minute replacement and does what the script wants her to do. Michael Gough is understated as Alfred. He's a great actor and pulls off the character perfectly. Robert Wuhl is good as Alexander Knox, bringing some nice needed comedy to the film. Jack Palance resurrected his career as Carl Grissom, being as cool as ever. Tracey Walter is great as Bob, The Joker's "Number One Guy". His exit is very funny. Pat Hingle doesn't get to do much as Commissioner Gordon, but he's decent in his short amount of time. A very cool cast for a very cool comic book movie.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE DANCING WITH THE DEVIL IN A PALE MOONLIGHT

- Alicia is having an affair with Jack Napier behind Carl Grissom's back. Judging by her most famous relationship, I'm thinking Jack has "Moves Like Jagger".

- Jack is Grissom's "Number One Guy". I heard R. Kelly tell someone this as well, but I think the meaning was disgustingly different.

- "Eckhardt, think about the future!" Judging by his poor diet and sinful behavior, his future was all of 5 minutes.

- The plastic surgeon was disturbed by his work on The Joker's face. Not like his work on Joan Rivers was any better!

- Never double cross The Joker. All the push-ups in the world won't make you bulletproof.

- Both Batman and The Joker have an interest in Vicki Vale. She's too much trouble. You'll end up marrying her, having children, getting a bitter divorce, calling your children "pigs", and end up getting kick off an airplane for playing Words With Friends. It's not worth getting your Schwedy Balls busted over.

- Batman destroyed a building by dropping explosive balls from the Batmobile. Just like Justin Beiber destroying pop culture once his balls dropped.

THE FINAL HOWL
Besides a slight weakness in its screenplay, BATMAN is a great comic book adaptation at a time where it was rare and not all that optimistic for a live-action movie about a comic book character to be possibly good. It's got great acting [Jack Nicholson tops everyone], cool direction by Tim Burton, and a narrative that does justice to the Batman character even if it is flawed. If it wasn't for its high entertainment value all these years later and still managing to hold up better than I thought it would, BATMAN would have received a lower score. Not my favorite of the original four live-action films [that would be BATMAN RETURNS], but still a solid entry in the superhero genre and a precursor of things to come. Shine that Bat Signal proudly because BATMAN is still a blast to watch.

SCORE
3.5 Howls Outta 4

TRAILER

PRINCE - "BATDANCE"

PRINCE - "PARTYMAN"

Silent Night, Deadly Night 5: The Toy Maker (1991)

2011-12-24T18:14:00.000-05:00

DIRECTED BY
Martin Kitrosser

STARRING
Jane Higginson - Sarah Quinn
William Thorne - Derek Quinn
Mickey Rooney - Joe Petto
Tracy Fraim - Noah Adams
Brian Bremer - Pino Petto
Neith Hunter - Kim Levitt
Conan Yunza - Lonnie
Zoe Yunza - Brandy
Eric Welch - Buck
Van Quattro - Tom Quinn

Genre - Horror/Holiday/Mad Scientist/Killer Toys

Running Time - 90 Minutes

Out of all the horror franchises out there, the SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT series has to be the most unique one of them all. The first one dealt with some traumatized kid, named Billy, who punished the naughty while dressed up as his biggest nightmare, Santa Claus. The second film dealt with the younger brother of the traumatized kid, Ricky, picking up where he left off and killing people while shouting "Garbage Day!". Hell, Ricky had flashbacks of things he had no right having [since he was just a baby and wasn't even there when the events of the first film were taking place]. The third film continues Ricky story, only this time he has a punch bowl on his head and wants to murder a psychic blind chick. And let's not even get into the fourth film, which steered away from anything Billy or Ricky related. Instead, it was about man-hating witches who got off on worms and cockroaches while not caring much about the Christmas spirit.

So what's next? Deadly toys? Kids watching their parents and babysitters have sex? A robot who's bitter because he doesn't have a penis? An abusive Mickey Rooney?

Wait...SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 5: THE TOY MAKER does have all of the above? Oh. Well, let's get to the review then...

Man, this franchise is messed up.

PLOT
One night, a young boy named Derek (William Thorne) wakes up hearing his parents Sarah (Jane Higginson) and Tom (Van Quattro) having sex. Probably disturbed, Derek sneaks downstairs and opens the front door after the doorbell rings. He finds a present on the doorstep addressed to him, with a note saying not to open until Christmas. Derek, being a kid, refuses to listen and begins opening it. But Tom stops him and yells at Derek for being awake, sending him back to bed. Being a great dad, Tom decides he'll open the present himself. He finds a ball with decorations of Santa Claus on it. It doesn't seem like much at first, but once the ball releases strands of rope from the sides and begins to wrap itself around Tom's head, he panics and ends up fatally impaling himself on a fireplace poker. Derek watched the entire scene, now traumatized by his father's death as Sarah freaks out.

Weeks pass and Sarah tries to make Derek, who is now mute due to trauma, feel better about what he had seen. She takes him to local toy store, run by Joe Petto (Mickey Rooney), who seems to have a lot of history in their neighborhood. Even Joe's creepy son, Pino (Brian Bremer), tries to force a toy larvae on Derek, who refuses it. More creepy is another visitor to the store, Noah (Tracy Fraim), who can't stop staring at both Sarah and Derek for some reason from afar. Sarah and Derek leave empty handed, but Noah buys the toy larvae and is suspicious about this toy store for some reason. Noah begins destroying the toys he's bought from Joe Petto's store, trying to see if there's anything strange about them. However, his research is paused by his landlord who is ready to evict Noah for late rent payments. Noah doesn't have enough money, but convinces the landlord for an extension by giving him the toy larvae. Unfortunately the extension is permanent as the larvae comes to life and kills the landlord.

Meanwhile, Derek receives another anonymous present on his doorstep. Wanting none of it, he tosses it out in the trash. His neighbor Lonnie (Conan Yunza) takes it for himself. Seeing that they're roller blades, Lonnie tries them out. Too bad they're laced with rockets, sending Lonnie into an oncoming car. Derek realizes that someone is targeting him with these gifts, potentially making this holiday season both silent and deadly.

REVIEW
It's really funny how SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 5: THE TOY MAKER is the last installment in this franchise. While SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT PART 2 is a 'great' film because it's so bad and cheesy, THE TOY MAKER is honestly the best sequel due to quality and competence. I'm not saying it's the best horror film out there or that it demands to be watched every December. But it's a whole lot better than both the third and fourth installments and has the most Christmas-y feel since the original.

THE TOY MAKER's odd, but watchable, narrative [written by Martin Kitrosser and Brian Yunza] is based on several sources that are familiar to many people. The big one is obviously the killer toy aspect of the story. I'm really surprised someone in this franchise didn't tackle this sooner, since it actually makes a whole lot of sense. The Christmas season is the biggest and stronger season for toy makers, due to children demanding them from stressed out parents. So having killer toys traumatize children and unsuspecting adults in a Christmas horror movie seems like the perfect fit. Also by the time this movie was released to home video, horror was pretty big on this horror aspect anyway. After all, 1988's CHILD'S PLAY turned Chucky the Doll into a pop culture phenomenon, which helped bring about other films like 1989's PUPPET MASTER and brought more attention to 1987's DOLLS. It's also handled pretty well in the story as well, as these toys don't appear much until the end really, which helps make these scenes more effective. These toys are not the coolest or the most inventive, but they fit within the context of the story quite well and help create a decent mystery that's pretty obvious to figure out.

The other part of the narrative is the story of Joe Petto and his son Pino. Now if you know your fairy tales and children stories, you should realize what's going on here. THE TOY MAKER is pretty much Pinocchio but more evil and during Christmas time. Joe enjoys making toys, mainly as a way to deal with the fact that he lost a child years ago and these creations are like his own children. His son Pino is pretty strange and kooky, as if trying hard to gain the attention of his father in vain. Pino pushes toys on customers. He invades people's homes. He wants a mommy to hump and love [not kidding]. Pino is a troubled young man who doesn't feel like a real boy because his drunk abusive father puts him down and is missing a certain things that would make him feel complete. It's an interesting subplot to use, but it actually works here. Sure, it sort of gives away who is behind the deadly toys deal, but it's interesting to watch and is told well enough to be watchable and intriguing.

Even though the subplots are pretty strong, the narrative still is still too shallow to mean much of anything at the end of it all. It doesn't really help that the characters don't have much depth to them or are all that likeable really. Derek isn't too bad since usually child characters can be really annoying. But Derek doesn't speak at all for much of the film and just stares and sort of acts scared, I guess. His trauma is understandable, so we can kind of feel for him. But he isn't someone I would necessarily root for. Sarah, on the other hand, is a terrible mother and wife. She has sex with her door slightly open, knowing her son could just open the door and watch in horror. When her husband is murdered, we barely see her grieve or care that he's gone. When Noah reappears, who happens to be an important figure in Sarah's life [and unknowingly for Derek as well], she has sex with him in a parking lot the moment she sees him. Then when her son and/or Noah is in trouble, she takes her time helping them out. I had no sympathy for this woman at all. Noah isn't in the film enough to care about. He comes across as creepy and sneaky, then suddenly turns heroic at the end? The only interesting characters are Pino and Joe Petto. They are the only ones who have an aura of mystery about them. They're the only ones who also do things that are memorable in the story. It's one of those screenplays that should have interesting characters, but are written flat for whatever reason. They all seemed autistic because they all lived in their own world and didn't react much to anything. How am I supposed to believe characters like that?

Also we get unexpected cameos from Kim, Lonnie, and Ricky from SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 4: INITIATION. I guess this is to tie this installment to the last one, but it just ends up confusing me more. For one, Ricky was killed off in the last film, but is totally fine here. Does this film take place before part 4? But that can't be possible because Kim is taking care of Lonnie due to the aftermath of the last film. And why is Lonnie such a prick all of a sudden? I guess it's a cool nod to fans of the last film, but these characters really don't need to be in this film because they don't add anything at all but fan service [are there any fans of INITIATION out there?].

Also, the toys end up killing characters who are barely in the film to begin with. I'll get to the actual special effects and death scenes soon enough, but it's pretty pointless and not all that effective to your story having people who are barely in the film for five minutes get murdered when you have characters with larger screen time ready to be cannon fodder. Not once did I ever feel that any of the main characters were in any sort of threatening situation. The closest one is Lonnie, but even he survives quite easily. I feel it was a lost opportunity really to create tension for the narrative.

I will say that the ending was actually pretty good and very weird, but in a cool way. The twist was actually presented well and I believed it, even if it was pretty bizarre. I wish I could give away a certain scene that really made me laugh, but it involved dry humping without the necessary anatomy parts. I thought the aftermath was solid and quite twisted, which I enjoyed.

The special effects by Screaming Mad George are well done. I thought some of the toys were pretty cool. The Santa Sphere that suffocated whoever played with it was a fun one. I thought the larvae that crawled through people's mouths and then ate out their eyes was sweet. The toy soldiers firing real rounds were fun to watch. I will say the hand that enjoyed fingering men's butts was a bit odd, especially when said man enjoyed it and wanted more of it while humping his girlfriend. They weren't the greatest or most original special effects out there. But for a low budget, they worked and they were presented on screen well. I wish there was more gore to really add to the damage, but what can you do?

The direction by Martin Kitrosser is decent. There's not much style to the visual presentation really, but it's competent enough to tell the story well. The final act has some decent tension, even if the film isn't all that gory or scary. The death sequences are shot well. The editing is decent. Honestly, I can't really complain about the direction for THE TOY MAKER. It's not all that impressive, but I've seen a lot worse. It gets the job done and that's all I can ask for.

The acting was surprisingly decent, even if the characters weren't written all that well. Mickey Rooney out-acts everyone here as Joe Petto. He charms as the kind old man who enjoys making toys for children. He's also pretty hilarious and convincing as the sinister father who doesn't mind getting drunk and beating on his son, Pino. Ironically, he was one of the bigger opponents of SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT's release back in 1984, calling the film immoral and a disgrace to the holiday season. I guess those checks dried up there, eh Mickey? Hypocrite.

The other actors are okay. Brian Bremer was good as Pino, giving off a very creepy and bizarre performance that I actually dug. William Thorne was okay as Derek. He really didn't do all that much but stare into space and watch his co-stars have sex. I guess that's not a bad way to spend on set. Jane Higginson was good as Sarah, even though I disliked her character. Tracy Fraim was also good as Noah, pulling off both creep and hero decently. We also have cameos from Neith Hunter as Kim and Conan Yuzna as Lonnie. Neither one added much really but weren't too terrible.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE ENJOYING THE SENSATION OF THAT TOY HAND SCRATCHING MY ASS

- Tom opened one of Derek's presents that resembled a Pokeball that ended up smothering him. Who knew Death was the 494th Pokemon? Oh well...gotta catch 'em all!

- "It was perfectly natural for a child to stop speaking after a traumatic experience." If only someone had traumatized Justin Beiber years ago...

- Joe has been disappointed in his son, Pino, constantly yelling at him and putting him down. Looks like Joe needs to send Pino to BOYS TOWN to learn how to be a good son.

- Some dude got choked out by a giant toy larvae that invaded his mouth and crawled out of his eye sockets. Now he knows how Pamela Anderson felt all those years being married to Tommy Lee. Or so I assume...

- Pino tried to drag Noah through a trap door inside the backroom of the toy store. Pino must have learned that tactic from Joe during Joe's days at AMBUSH BAY.

- A girl who looked about thirteen-years-old stood in line for Santa, eagerly sitting on his lap. She doesn't believe in Santa Claus. She just has a grandpa fetish.

- Pino rushed out of Sarah's closet, scaring her and Derek. Michelle Bachmann's husband did the same thing during their first date, but she still married him anyway.

- Lonnie got hit by a car due to a pair of jet-powered roller blades that went out of control. Who was he kidding? Only Tootie could handle skates like that. Just The Facts of Life, guys.

- Derek spotted his babysitter screwing her boyfriend in his bed. This kid knows more about Dick Chaney meeting multiple times with George W. Bush than he does the birds and the bees.

THE FINAL HOWL
SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 5: THE TOY MAKER is bizarre and unintentionally funny at times, but still manages to be a pretty watchable sequel. The acting is okay, the direction is competent, and there are some interesting moments that will stick in your brain whether you want them to or not. Plus watching Mickey Rooney's hypocrite ass get drunk and push his movie son around is always fun. THE TOY MAKER happens to be a highlight in an otherwise uneventful holiday horror franchise. I say watch the first two and then this one. They are the only three films Santa would want you to watch anyway. And if you watch SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT III and 4, just expect a toy hand fingering your prostate. Just sayin'. Happy Holidays everyone!

SCORE
2.5 Howls Outta 4

Silent Night, Deadly Night 4: Initiation (1990)

2011-12-21T21:35:00.000-05:00

DIRECTED BY
Brian Yuzna

STARRING
Clint Howard - Ricky
Neith Hunter - Kim
Tommy Hinkley - Hank
Reggie Bannister - Eli
Allyce Beasley - Janice
Maud Adams - Fima

Genre - Horror/Holiday/Supernatural/Witchcraft

Running Time - 85 Minutes

Well it's that time of year again and I want to wish everyone who celebrates, Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year! And since it's less than a week away, I might as well complete a Christmas horror franchise I started reviewing back in 2008 - 1984's SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT. Oh yes...that controversial slasher film that got parents up in arms over its depiction of a less-than-friendly Santa Claus, when in reality it was your typical holiday slasher film that got more hype than it probably should have. Because of the success of the film, we were treated to a sequel several years later that has gain quite a life of its own.

1987's SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT PART 2 is one of the worst films ever made. The first half of the film is just footage from the first film told by the brother of the main character in the original, even though he wouldn't have been old enough or aware of what had taken place during that movie! But when you have a classic moment like Eric 'Eyebrow Wiggler' Freeman yelling out "Garbage Day!" before shooting someone, you can't help but love that flick. It's one of the guiltiest pleasures in cinema history.

SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT PART 2 wasn't a box office success, which led the next several sequels to be released straight to home video. The first of three, 1989's SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT III: BETTER WATCH OUT! was a dull continuation of the Ricky Caldwell story that just happened to be one of the worst slasher films I have ever witnessed. I mean a mute Bill Moseley slow stalking a blind chick while wearing a punch bowl on his head? Not my idea of a good, scary time.

So I had a lot of hope when it came to 1990's SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 4: INITIATION [a.k.a. BUGS]. Haven't never seen this film before this weekend, I was wishing it would at least be an improvement over the insomnia curing third installment. And while INITIATION is better than BETTER WATCH OUT!, it's still a terrible film like many of my friends claimed it was. But at least it's interestingly terrible...

PLOT
A homeless dude (Clint Howard) named Ricky watches a woman leap off of a roof to her death while she was in flames. This obviously becomes local news, where the idea of spontaneous human combustion is discussed. The story catches the attention of Kim (Neith Hunter), who works at the local newspaper with her reporter boyfriend, Hank (Tommy Hinkley). Kim wants to do a story based on what happened, but her boss (Reggie Bannister) decides to give it to Hank instead due to the fact that Kim is a woman and works at the Classifieds section. Kim is obviously ticked off by this and decides to handle the investigation on her own.

Kim's research finds her in front of Fima (Maud Adams), who owns a book store that just so happens to be underneath the roof where the dead woman fell off of. Ricky also happens to be around this bookstore with a special interest in Kim. Fima is also interested in Kim, kissing her inappropriately and making her hang out with her friends - who happen to be witches. Soon enough, Kim is traumatized by visions of Pagan rituals and bugs. A whole lot of bugs. Yeah.

REVIEW
SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 4: INITIATION is one of those films I have trouble really discussing about. While it's refreshing that it strays away from previous films in the franchise [sort of like HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH did after the first two HALLOWEEN movies], it's still a bad film with interesting ideas that don't mix well together for several reasons. While I was somewhat entertained by HALLOWEEN III, I honestly can't say the same for INITIATION.

The film's failure is surprising due to the fact that it was co-written and directed by Brian Yuzna, a cult figure in horror who's done some interesting work in films such as THE RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD III, THE BRIDE OF RE-ANIMATOR, and SOCIETY. While his trademark 'body horror' is here [which I will get into later], it doesn't manage to save a severely confusing and messy script. Written by Yunza, Woody Keith, Arthur Gorson, and S.J. Smith, the screenplay seems to be many things at once, but can't focus on any of them to present a cohesive story. For one, the SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT title is pretty misleading. The film has nothing to do with the other installments, which isn't a terrible thing. But when you name a character 'Ricky' in this film and you're not sure if he's connected to Ricky Caldwell in any way, that's a problem. It doesn't seem like he is, but you never know in these movies. Also, the film "takes place" on Christmas but doesn't deal with killer Santas or anything like that. Honestly, this film could have taken place on July 4th and it wouldn't have changed a thing.

Also, the attempt to write a film based on witches is a solid idea. But when there's not enough explanation about this coven or their motives. In fact, their motives were so blurred that I had no idea what they were really trying to do by the end of the film. Now I understand they wanted to replace the victim, who was part of their coven, for personal reasons that I won't spoil. But it didn't make sense why they wanted to bring that person back in Kim if the real person couldn't handle the power given to her. Why makes Kim so special? Also, the coven had to drug Kim in order to get this going. If anyone knows anything about the occult, you can't be forced into something. If you don't go in willingly in some way, shape, or form, your magical plan isn't going to happen. Witchcraft and covens don't really work that way. Another thing, why did these witches have to hate men? There's no real explanation as to why they want to have men murdered or sacrificed, except for Ricky who seems to be a slave for this coven. If they're a group of lesbians, then hey - that's cool with me. But they spout man hate whenever the topic is brought up without saying why. What does that have to do with the girl burning in flames and jumping off of a roof?

I won't be completely harsh on these men hating women, because the men in this film are pretty misogynistic as well. First we have Kim's boss, Eli. who sees her below any of the men working at the newspaper. When she begs to do the story about the dead roof girl, she's pretty much ignored and dismissed right away. When her boyfriend accepts the story, he never bothers to fight for Kim's honor or convince Eli to change his mind. Speaking of Hank, his father also puts down not only Kim, but Hanks' mother as well. When Hank's dad is disgusted that Kim is Jewish and unable to celebrate Christmas, he starts spouting out that women belong at the home and doing feminine things while the men do the real work. In fact, even the witches are weak. For them to summon the Goddess, Lilith, they need to sacrifice a man. They also need Ricky to rape Kim in order for her to possess Lilith's power if she's the perfect shell. The story contradicts its message by doing that alone. Not a female empowering film at all.

Also, things just happen for the sake of happening without any sort of set up or explanation as to why. The scenarios are just as shallow as the characters in the film. I honestly didn't care about any one of them. All the male characters are there to be there and they don't add a thing to the film. The women all have motivations and aren't passive, which is great for a character on paper. But when you know nothing about him personality wise, what's the point? Even Kim, our main character, comes off bland. She seemed like such a strong, passionate character in the beginning. But once Fima gets her hands on her, it all goes to hell. She becomes the stereotypical weak victim that becomes more annoying as the film rolls on. It's sad when Hank, a character that doesn't add much to the plot at all except play the boyfriend role, gets more of a backstory through his family than our main character does. Kim did nothing for me. Actually, none of these characters did. Ricky is okay only because he's weird, so he stands out. But other than that, the characters aren't worth mentioning due to lack of depth.

Even though the screenplay is a muddled mess of subplots that don't get enough time to mean anything substantial, at least I respect the attempt to create something different for this franchise. Sure, it's still a terrible story that not many people will want to watch again. But I would be more bitter about INITIATION if it were just another bad slasher film like BETTER WATCH OUT! was. So yeah, INITIATION is a craptastic sequel, but at least it kept my interest and it was different. So it gets some points for that.

The highlight of the film, without a doubt, are the special effects. Knowing this is a Brian Yunza film, you know the film is going to have some disturbing 'body horror'. And for a low-budget flick, the effects for the creatures are pretty darn good. The giant larvae that constantly make an appearance are pretty disgusting. When one crawls into a woman's vagina and we watch it crawl through her body until it exits her mouth, it leaves you pretty disturbed. The giant cockroach was another disturbing creature, as I dislike roaches to begin with. But to see a giant one amongst its regular-sized brethren is just creepy as hell. Unfortunately, we don't see enough of these effects in the film. But I can't complaint about this aspect of the film at all. It's probably the most memorable thing about SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 4: INITIATION.

Brian Yunza's direction isn't terrible either. Yunza puts in a ton of mood and atmosphere into this film, creating a creepier vibe than any of the SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT films. The pacing isn't too terrible, even if the film is a bit dull, and the scenes with the creatures and members of the coven attacking Kim aren't badly visualized. Even certain scenes have a nice bit of tension and suspense. I do think the direction could have helped make the script less confusing and help tell the story better than the text actually did. But it's pretty much a point-and-shoot deal and not much style, except during the trippier scenes [like Clint Howard sporting A CLOCKWORK ORANGE mask in a rape moment]. Honestly, the film could have used more of those. At least it wouldn't have turned out as boring as the film sadly becomes. Yunza does better work in his other films, but it's not all that terrible here.

The acting is pretty bland here. It's not like these actors are horrible, but they don't make much of an impression. Neith Hunter as Kim is consistent. At times she's good. At others, she comes across as unconvincing and fake. Her character wasn't that great and if she were a better actor, I think I would have enjoyed her story arc more. Maud Adams, former Bond Girl from 1983's OCTOPUSSY, looks bored as Fima. Reggie Bannister is barely in the film as Eli, but at least he makes the most of his limited screen time. The only one who does anything noteworthy is Clint Howard as Ricky. He comes across as strange and mysterious, which is the opposite of what anyone else in the cast tries to present. I have always liked Howard, especially when he's quirky, so I liked him here as well. I've seen worse actors, but not even this cast could overcome a confused script.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE BUYING THE BIGGEST CAN OF RAID I CAN FIND

- Some chick exploded into flames as she jumped off of the roof. The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire - we don't need no water...let the motherfucker burn!

- Kim and Hank were having sex while the news was on television. If they'd have seen KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE, they'd know it's a bad idea.

- "The butcher thinks all women are hookers." Pretty ironic when people are paying him for his meat...

- "Fuck the attitude. Fuck the job. Fuck you." Spoken like a true member of the 99%.

- Kim got penetrated by a giant larva that entered her vagina and crawled out of her mouth. She also got the larva's goo splattered all over her face. It's like having sex with Jeff Goldblum in THE FLY, but without the regurgitation.

- Ricky raped Kim wearing a mask with a long pointed nose. While it's pretty messed up, some droogs out there would sickly appreciated this act of ultraviolence.

THE FINAL HOWL
While it's better than the atrocious SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 3: BETTER WATCH OUT!, SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 4: INITIATION is still a weak installment in the franchise. If the special effects weren't cool, the direction decent, and some of the acting watchable, this film would have been higher on my Naughty List. But while the story doesn't make a lick of sense and is too shallow for its own good, at least it's a different kind of Christmas movie that I don't believe has been attempted since. So INITIATION at least gets a candy cane in its stocking for that. Otherwise, this film is not mandatory viewing around the holidays and are only for those who want to see every film in the franchise. If you don't care either way, don't bother. You're not missing anything special unless you have a fetish for man-hating witches and disgusting bugs.

SCORE
1.5 Howls Outta 4

Warlock (1989)

2011-12-16T19:34:00.001-05:00

DIRECTED BY
Steve Miner

STARRING
Julian Sands - The Warlock
Richard E. Grant - Giles Redferne
Lori Singer - Kassandra
Mary Woronov - Medium
Kevin O'Brien - Chaz

Genre - Horror/Action/Witchcraft

Running Time - 103 Minutes

It's been a while since I discussed a film about the concept of witchcraft. Actually, the last time I did was for THE CRAFT and that was back in September of last year! It's surprising since I really enjoy stories involving witches and magic. But I tend to never spotlight many of these films on my blog.

But that changes with this post, as I finally get to review one of my guilty pleasure films of the 1980s/1990s: WARLOCK. I hadn't watched this film since I was a kid, but watching it years after the fact reminded me why I enjoy this Steve Miner flick so much. Sure it's not perfect and it's pretty hokey at times, but it's solid entertainment from beginning to end.

PLOT
In a rural village in 1691, we're introduced to a man (Julian Sands) in shackles, kept in a tower prior to his intended execution. The townspeople believe him to be a sinister Warlock, wanting to punish him for his crimes against God. A witch hunter named Giles Redferne (Richard E. Grant) is in charge of his sentence, but wonders why the Warlock is so calm. Suddenly a storm hits and Giles sees the Warlock disappearing before his very eyes through a weird portal. Wanting justice, Giles follows suit through the portal.

Both end up landing in modern day America. The Warlock is found first, flying through a window into the home of Kassandra (Lori Singer) and her roommate Chaz (Kevin O'Brien). When Kassandra is at work the next day, the Warlock kills Chaz for his ring. He later finds a medium (Mary Woronov) in order to speak to his father. Even though the medium is pretty much a fake, the spirit eventually possesses her. The Warlock's father tells him to seek out The Grand Grimoire, a book of black magic that's been separated into three parts that contains the true name of God. If uttered, the entire world would be destroyed and the Warlock would become the one begotten son. Murdering the medium, he uses her eyes to locate the book.

Meanwhile, Giles locates Kassandra and both embark on a mission to stop the Warlock from finding the book. Giles has to because it's his job. Kassandra has no choice to help because the Warlock has cast an aging spell on her that will kill her fast.

REVIEW
WARLOCK, even after all these years, is still highly entertaining even if the plot is slightly ridiculous. While it's not scary, the action is fun and some moments are unintentionally hilarious. It may not be the best witch flick out there, but you'll never be bored by this movie.

The screenplay by future THE FUGITIVE, PITCH BLACK, and THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK writer David Twohy is very well-done. The biggest advantage Twohy has with the script is keeping the focus on a small cast, especially since WARLOCK mainly focuses on three characters: The Warlock, Giles Redferne, and Kassandra ("With a K"). While the character development isn't as deep as one would expect with such a small cast of characters, at least we're given enough time with each one to learn their goals, motivations, and their personalities. The Warlock is deviously evil, wanting to gather three parts of a book together so he can learn God's name and use it to destroy the world and become the one begotten son. This monster will do anything to make this happen - make out with men to bite their tongues off just to steal their rings, trick mediums and murder them so he can have the spirit of his father control their eyes as a outdated GPS system, and even murder children who aren't baptized just because he's hungry. We don't need his background to know right away that we should hate this bastard and want him stopped. Giles is the heroic type. He follows the Warlock into the future to stop him. He has devices that help him locate the Warlock by using the villain's blood. He has a foreign accent that makes the ladies swoon. We want him to succeed because he's just as active as the Warlock, instead of letting others do the work for him. Kassandra is a nice addition because she's the modern girl who wants nothing to do with this caper. She's only involved because her roommate was murdered by the Warlock, he took her bracelet and used it to accelerate her aging process, and because she's smitten with Giles and his duty to save the world. All three have a purpose in the film and are all likeable in their own way. Plus Kassandra and Giles both achieve some decent character growth at the end of the film, which is what every story should accomplish. I think it was smart not using a big cast. I'm sure budget constraints had a hand in that, but it was definitely the best move.

I also like how simple and straightforward the actual main arc is. We know exactly why The Warlock wants The Grand Grimoire and why Giles and Kassandra want to stop him from collecting the pieces. There are no twists in the story. There is never a sense where the viewer feels insulted about what a character does and why a certain events happens. The flow and story structure is great and easy to follow. That's all one wants in a horror/action movie hybrid. You're never confused by what's going on and it leads to a satisfying conclusion.

I also enjoyed the things that related to the Warlock's witchcraft effecting the society around him. Fire that burns blue, cream and milk that spoils overnight, sweating horses, and pastry that doesn't rise - the level of attention to his power is great. It really creates a different mood, as we know something isn't quite right and that his presence will do more harm than good. The evil has a presence and the film doesn't attempt to hide it or brush it under the rug.

Also the dialogue is quite good, even funny at times both intentionally and unintentionally. Not one characters sounds the same and when they do speak, it's always of importance. Sure there's a bit of exposition and some of the lines don't work as well as they should, but you still have fun with the dialogue because it flows well and it leads to something.

That said, while the story is indeed entertaining and simple to follow, it still could have been more depth to things going on. I think the fact that both The Warlock and Giles being stranded centuries into the future could have been played with more. After all, it's not every day a witch and a witch-hunter take a trip through time to a world they don't really understand. Obviously The Warlock didn't care about where he was as long as he found the book. But Giles had more to play with due to his association with Kassandra. Sure, we get moments where Giles doesn't understand modern technology and inventions, such as cars and his reluctance to travel on an airplane fearing people would think he's also a witch. But there could have been more fun with that angle. A 'fish-out-of-water' story is a great story to tell because there's just so much that could be done with it. I think seeing Giles deal with the fact that he's not in his own time and doesn't understand the modern world would have not only given his character depth, but his relationship with Kassandra as well. In a way, she could have been his hero, helping him guide through this new world while he protects her from his old one. But it never really goes all the way with it, instead teasing us with moments that could have been explored more. By the way, I doubt any airline would allow a passenger to bring a long metal weapon on board their planes. Just sayin'.

Also, the rapidly aging sub-plot didn't last long enough to really matter much. It was a nice concept since it showed what the Warlock was capable of. And how messed up for this witch to curse a woman by having her age quickly? But nothing is really done with it and gets resolved way too fast. Here is a chance to really create some tension and dread for one of the main characters, but it's treated as if it's run-of-the-mill. This should have been explored more, but it's sort of a wasted opportunity that was never capitalized on.

The special effects here are a bit dated and very cheesy, but they kind of raise the fun factor. The Warlock has an assortment of powers, such as casting fire and laser beams out of his hands. They look pretty hokey and drawn in [you can actually see the outline of the flames - ha!], but it was the 1980s! The Warlock flying stuff is obviously green screen and no one will mistake it for anything else. And the aging stuff looks ridiculous at times. I did love the eyes the Warlock would carry to find the book though. The gore was pretty okay too, especially the tongue part and the finger cutting. But the cheesiness of it all is very charming and endearing. Anyway, the SFX are never in your face anyway, so it doesn't hurt the film at all.

The direction by Steve Miner, who directed FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 2, FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3-D, HALLOWEEN H20, and 1986's HOUSE, is good. The film looks more than decent. The film's pace is very well done, as it feels much quicker than its 103 minutes. There's not much style to the film visually, but there's really no need for it. Miner creates a fun film regardless if it's really a point-and-shoot sort of deal. Miner is not known for his visual style anyway, so the lack of any is no major deal. The film does what it needs to do and Miner should be complimented for a good job.

The acting in WARLOCK is good as well. Julian Sands is perfect as the devious Warlock. He's very charismatic and seems to enjoy being vicious and evil. He's also very charming due to the accent, but Sands does a great job with the role. Richard E. Grant is probably the best actor in the film as Giles. He's very convincing as the heroic witch-hunter, even though his accent changes every now and then and hams it up quite a bit. But I found it all entertaining, so can't complain. Lori Singer is good as Kassandra. She isn't the strongest actress, but she handles her one-liners well and carries an attitude about her that I dig. All the actors seem to be having fun in this film and it shows, making it fun for all of us as well.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE KEEPING THE TRUE NAME OF GOD TO MYSELF

- The Warlock's spell created a tornado in Malibu dubbed "The Devil's Wind". Or in terms one can understand - an Ann Coulter fart.

- The Warlock made out with Chaz and bit his tongue out. He obviously isn't French.

- The Warlock has to put together the three pieces of The Grand Grimoire to gain great power. Link and the land of Hyrule better watch their backs.

- The Warlock aged Kassandra massively with a spell. Maybe this is what happened to Lindsay Lohan instead of the drugs.

- Don't tell a Warlock you're not baptized. Your vital signs will decrease Step By Step.

- Putting pennies in your mouth can ward off evil magic. Judging by how much they're worth these days, no wonder many of us are shit out of luck.

- Nailing a Warlock's footprints in the sand can cause him great pain. I'm sure nailing him somewhere else will have the same effect.

- Giles is scared of airplanes, feeling he'll become a witch if he flies inside of it. He should be more worried about eating the fish and wondering if the pilot has a thing for movies involving gladiators.

THE FINAL HOWL
WARLOCK is a guilty pleasure that one shouldn't feel guilty for liking. It doesn't have the deepest story out there and it won't change any genre it's associated with. But it's entertainment value is extremely high and you can't help but love the campiness and cheesiness of it all. WARLOCK deserves a look if you haven't seen it yet and want to enjoy a fun film without having too think too much. It may cast its spell on you like it does on me.

SCORE
3.5 Howls Outta 4

The WTF? Worst Films Extravaganza Presents: Grizzly Rage (2007)

2011-12-12T00:21:00.000-05:00

DIRECTED BY
David DeCoteau

STARRING
Tyler Hoechlin - Wes
Kate Todd - Lauren
Brody Harris - Ritch
Graham Kosakoski - Sean

Genre - Horror/Slasher/B-Movie/Killer Animals

Running Time - 85 Minutes

I don't know why I keep giving David DeCoteau a chance to impress me. The last couple of reviews I've done for his films, they've ended up right in the WTF? Worst Films Extravaganza. BROTHERHOOD V: THE ALUMNI? Ugh. RING OF DARKNESS? Snore. Where's the dude that directed the B-movie classic, SORORITY BABES IN THE SLIMEBALL BOWL-O-RAMA? That was a pretty sweet flick! DeCoteau needs to make more films like that!

Unfortunately, GRIZZLY RAGE [DeCoteau's 2007 Nature-Run-Amok flick] isn't that film. What should have been a silly B-movie about a Mama Grizzly Bear killing stupid "teenagers who happen to be in their twenties" in really gruesome ways ends up being a chore to sit through. When you've seen better violence on reality television and crazier animal attacks on the Animal Planet, you have a problem. The only rage that's associated with this movie is the rage I'm having by wasting my time reviewing a film that had no right passing through the pre-production stage and boring me for 85 minutes.

PLOT
Four High School friends [who look like they've been left back a few years] get into their SUV and travel to the woods for some graduation celebration. Yes, trespassing through a closed area in the forest, ready to drink, smoke, and probably have sex [even though there's only one girl for three guys...hmmm] sounds like a ton of fun. Unfortunately, the group speeds so fast that they hit and run over a cute grizzly bear cub.

Before they can react to what they've done, the mother of this cub decides she wants revenge. The graduates get the hell out of there, but come across car trouble and no cell phone reception that stops them all in their tracks in the middle of nowhere. Eventually, the bear smells this bullshit from a mile away, mauling them one by one until the two best looking cast members (Tyler Hoechlin and Kate Todd) are left to show some skin and fight for survival. Or whatever.

REVIEW
I have three words for GRIZZLY RAGE:

WHAT THE FUCK!?

Where do I begin with this piece of shit movie? Do I talk about the terrible screenplay? The generic direction? What about the bland acting? Or those not-so-cool bear paws some dude is waving around at these characters from behind the camera? Maybe I should talk about the fact that I was bored out of my mind, when this type of premise should have been cheesy and silly enough to be so bad that it's entertaining? Hell, I can even talk about the headache, heartburn, ulcer, and constant diarrhea I suffered just by subjecting myself to watching this "fine" movie. This movie is such a failure on every filmmaking level, it boggles my mind!

Let's get the story portion out of the way. What you read there for the plot is pretty much it. Nothing more, nothing less. It's pretty sad too because either good or bad, I usually have a lot to say about someone's screenplay and the narrative presented to the viewer. But this script is so straight forward and shallow as a puddle of urine that I honestly don't have much to say about it. The story plays out exactly as you would expect it to. No twists and turns. No real drama between characters. No explanation as to how this bear manages to find these teens at every turn they make and manages to hide herself long enough to ambush them. There's nothing here. Nothing at all.

There are some attempts, I guess, to explain why this bear is such a threat. Supposedly there's a tiny, brief moment where the story mentions a toxic waste dump near the woods. I guess we're supposed to figure out that it's possible that this bear is mutated with some sort of superpower or something. But the bear looks normal and doesn't have much power other than super-strength. Then again, bears are really strong to begin with, so who knows? But like I said, it's briefly mentioned and completely forgotten about for the rest of the film. So what's the point of bringing up in the first place? I could have just believed that this bear was smart and hated these characters as much as I hated them. It was an unnecessary plot device.

There are also moments in the film that just baffled me. For example, the SUV that these characters drove was probably the safest, most efficient vehicle ever created in the history of motor vehicles. It drove off a cliff, yet was still able to run. Add flat tires to the scenario, which would hinder any vehicle, but not this one. And the car is easy to push just in case you run out of gas too! It just keeps going and going. KITT, the General Lee, and Herbie the Love Bug have nothing on this automobile. I wonder if Geico, Allstate, or Progressive insures this car.

Also, the characters are so beyond stupid and annoying that I'm surprised they even graduated kindergarten, let alone High School. They all call each other "Bro", even Lauren, so much that in this film that you could make a drinking game out of it. But then again, you'll end up drinking anyway to pass the time watching this shit. They decide to trespass a gated area since they're geniuses. After running down the bear cub, Lauren wonders why a bear would be in the woods.

WHY ELSE WOULD IT BE THERE, YOU STUPID BITCH?? IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S A BEAR'S NATURAL HABITAT!!

Instead of leaving the area from where they entered to escape the bear, they decide to drive DEEPER into the woods, causing them to crash their car into a tree. Realizing the bear is hunting them, they decide the best hiding spot is behind a tree. Yeah, because bears don't have keen senses of smell for hunting. They eventually start blaming themselves for what's happening. Well no shit, since you FUCKIN' RAN DOWN THE BEAR'S CUB! Hell, Lauren believes that her hit-and-run of a parked car a while back is the reason why karma is having the bear attack her and her friends.

I really want to make a blonde joke, but I won't out of respect of my blonde-haired readers out there.

Thanks to screenwriter Arne Olsen [who also wrote COP AND A HALF...ugh], the dialogue is terrible [never heard this much poser dialogue since MALIBU'S MOST WANTED] and there's no character development at all. All these characters do are yell, call each other "Bro", stand around their car hoping it'll keep running, and get thrown around by this bear. There's no depth to them at all. Usually, characters have a stereotype. But fuckin' stupid would apply to each and every one of these idiots. If they didn't have names, I would have had trouble telling them apart personality-wise.

Speaking of the bear, I would have loved her to murder these characters an hour faster than she actually did. The fact that she didn't pissed me off quite a bit. But she was still my favorite character since she hated these assholes as much as I did. As for the bear itself [which was actually on the set, rather than stock footage], it was probably the least vicious bear I've seen on film in quite a while. From what I read, it was fairly tame and all the growling sounds had to be edited in post-production. Too bad the bear was hardly ever in the same scene as the actors. Instead of seeing the actual bear maul them, we got some dude wearing bear paws claw at them. It's more sad than funny, but it is what it is. I think the screenplay should have had more bear action. After all, the film is called GRIZZLY RAGE!

Speaking of the "special effects", since the bear wasn't doing any damage for much of the film and a man had to put on bear paws, there's no big amount of gore or blood in the film. Hell, the one who suffered the most violence was the damn SUV! So to compensate for this, it was someone's bright idea to use CGI blood to splatter any time someone got clawed. In fact, the blood would splatter so much that it would actually stick to the camera lens for "added" effect. Instead, it just made the film more cheap and silly in the process. I did laugh when this happened, so I'll give the film that. My favorite effect, though, was probably a tank top getting clawed in one shot, but totally put together for the rest of the film. Not only was this car invincible, but so was the clothing. Amazing.

David DeCoteau could have used some visual flair to at least raise the entertainment value of GRIZZLY RAGE. But instead, he just goes through the motions and films this flick as if he doesn't really give a damn. Instead of giving the viewer tension, suspense, or even camp, we get long ass scenes of characters driving on the road, pushing their car up a cliff, running through the woods, and so on. We also never see the bear cub get hit - instead just seeing the aftermath and even that isn't bloody or anything. There's no nudity. There's no violence. The editing is crap. The visual style is dull. DeCoteau gives no energy to a movie that desperately needed some. I miss the old David DeCoteau who actually gave a shit about his movies. He just took this one for a simple paycheck. I hope it was really big.

The acting is a non-factor. All of them are bland and don't really stand out at all. Kate Todd is pretty hot, but that's basically it. And Tyler Hoechlin did better work in ROAD TO PERDITION and would later do better stuff on MTV's Teen Wolf. He's probably the best actor by default, but he doesn't save the film. Of course, we get to see him only in his underwear during the final act. This wouldn't be a DeCoteau film without some sort of male skin, now would it?

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE DUMPING HONEY ALL OVER THESE STUPID CHARACTERS

- Wes wrote a speech that he had no idea what it meant. Looks like we have the future President of the United States. After all, intelligence was never part of the job description.

- The boys wanted to take a shortcut against Lauren's wishes. If only that was an option for me while watching this piece of shit.

- Don't play hide-and-seek with a bear. She hates any game where she's required to count. Unless it involves salmon.

- The surviving characters spent minutes of wasted film time to pull their car up a rocky hill. If I were running up that hill, I'd make a deal with God to have them all dead in a car explosion because this bear is taking too damn long killing them!!

- The bear pushed Lauren back first into a bear trap. The safe word was "honey", sweetheart.

THE FINAL HOWL
Do I really need to write here that GRIZZLY RAGE blows? There's no redeeming value here at all. We got a bare bones screenplay. We got boring direction. We have terrible special effects. And the acting is boring. Just don't bother with this movie. I'm sorry I had to even subject you all into reading this review. Let's just send GRIZZLY RAGE into the WTF? Vault where it can shit in the woods. 1976's GRIZZLY is still enough for your killer bear needs. Let's leave it at that.

SCORE
BOMB

In the Mouth of Madness (1995)

2011-12-09T19:36:00.001-05:00

DIRECTED BY
John Carpenter

STARRING
Sam Neill - John Trent
Julie Carmen - Linda Styles
Jurgen Prochnow - Sutter Cane
Charlton Heston - Jackson Harglow
David Warner - Dr. Wren
John Glover - Dr. Sapirstein
Frances Bay - Mrs. Pickman

Genre - Horror/Thriller/Mystery

Running Time - 95 Minutes

If you know me pretty well on a personal level, you know that John Carpenter was the director that really got me invested in watching horror movies and doing something in the film industry period. 1978's HALLOWEEN started my love for horror in 1985 at the age of four and it has been my favorite film ever since. On this blog, I have reviewed a few of his other films, such as THE FOG, 1982's THE THING, and THEY LIVE - all films I enjoy on various levels. Many consider THEY LIVE to be Carpenter's last great film, even though Carpenter has done some decent work on other films post-80s.

1995's IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS, a film inspired by H.P. Lovecraft, is one of Carpenter's films that seems to get lost in the shuffle whenever the director is discussed. It barely made a dent at the box office. It gets overshadowed by one of his weaker efforts, the remake of VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED that was released in the same year a few months later. Plus 1995 wasn't a huge year for horror, just missing the profitability of 1996 with SCREAM. It's considered a cult film now, with many loving the film while others dismissing it as one of Carpenter's weaker efforts.

Personally having not seen this since my teen years, I still am fond of IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS. Is it as great as many say? Well that may be a bit of fiction, in my opinion.

PLOT
Private investigator John Trent (Sam Neill) is locked in a padded room inside a mental institution. Dr. Wren (David Warner) talks to him to find out where Trent's mental instability has stemmed from. He tells the story about how he as hired to figure out the whereabouts of Sutter Cane (Jurgen Prochnow), a horror novelist in the vein of Stephen King who has gone missing. He has a novel that's about to be released and no one knows where he is, or if he's even alive. Funny enough, Cane's novels tend to bring out the evil out of people, causing his readers to become unstable and commit harsh acts. Trent believes that this whole deal is a publicity stunt, until he starts having really odd dreams related to Sutter Cane. Compiling the covers of Cane's novels, he figures out that, put together, they form a map of New Hampshire. Feeling Cane is hiding out there, Trent goes there to solve the case.

Taking Cane's editor, Linda Styles (Julie Carmen), along, Trent finds the town that appears in Cane's novels - Hobb's End, which can't be located on any map. However Trent and Styles find it after a night of surreal events that seem to be right out of Cane's novels themselves. Both realize that Hobb's End is exactly as Cane has described it, and find Cane writing his latest novel, In the Mouth of Madness, inside a church. Trent soon realizes that Cane's novels are coming to life. And if In the Mouth of Madness is completed, it will release demonic gods and create chaos of apocalyptic levels.

REVIEW
IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS is a pretty good 90s horror flick that takes an idea that was very popular around this time - the blur of reality and fiction, creating a meta-world where both meet to the point where it's hard to decipher what's real and what isn't. Many other films have tackled this concept - 1983's VIDEODROME and 1993's THE DARK HALF come to mind. In fact, a year before IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS' release, Wes Craven released NEW NIGHTMARE, which was set in the real world, yet had Freddy Krueger coming to life and haunting the actors and production crew to great effect. IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS isn't as good as NEW NIGHTMARE due to its flawed storytelling, but at least it manages to throw ideas at you that keep you interested for the long haul.

The strongest part of Michael De Luca's screenplay is really the concept itself. The idea is so strong and imaginative that any screenwriter could have a lot of fun playing with the separation of fiction and reality, putting characters through a memorable journey for them and for audiences. In fact, IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS is inspired by the works of H.P. Lovecraft, who loved dealing with psychological horror that dealt with the battle of light and darkness and ancient gods who saw humanity as nothing but pests that needed to be eliminated. In fact, the title itself is a take on Lovecraft's 1936 story, At the Mountains of Madness - which is about a man who is locked inside an asylum after going insane, as he recounts the events of the horror that made him turn mentally unstable. Not coincidentally, IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS starts out the same way, with John Trent being locked inside an asylum mentally ill as he recounts what happened to him, whether others believe him or not.

Speaking of how the film opens, it's really strong and gripping. Usually I have issue with seeing part of the aftermath right from the start and then seeing the story unfold as flashback. But seeing Trent get dragged into a padded room and watch him draw crosses all over the room and on his own body before telling his story not only captures your interest, but makes you wonder what the hell happened to the guy to make him behave like this. De Luca manages to keep that interest for the first two-thirds of the film, creating scenes that come across as dreams or visions, but end up being real as its effects the world surrounding the main characters. Is it possible for works of fiction to get so popular that they end up becoming real? Look at the world of Reality Television and how the stars of this genre have become celebrities. What about those fans who go to conventions and actually dress up and behave as their favorite characters? Maybe we're there already, which is a scary thought.

The moment where the film begins to play with this idea is when Trent and Styles begin travelling to Hobb's End. During the drive there, Styles begins experiencing weird visions - stranger when she recognizes them from coming from Cane's novels themselves. She leads Trent through this mysterious town, recognizing characters and buildings just from reading the stories. This help leads to the whereabouts of Sutter Cane, which causes all hell to break loose. It's all interesting stuff and it's great to see the characters deal with the fact that it's possible that the novels they've read have now come to life, with them being the actual characters played in Sutter Cane's upcoming novel. The way the story is structured and how the scenes are written and play out create a world that's neither real or fake, blurring the lines quite convincingly.

Unfortunately, this also leads to the film's downfall in its final act. Instead of maintaining a level of logic needed for a satisfying conclusion, it just ends up being so cliche that the effectiveness of what happened before it is gone. We never really understand the reason why Sutter Cane would want to start an apocalypse since he's only a pawn in a greater scheme when he has so much power in the pop culture world. We never get the point as to why Linda Styles is even involved so much in the story period. And then there's Trent's descent into madness. Now obviously, it's because of what he experiences at Hobb's End. His hallucinations become real and as a skeptic, Trent really deal with it properly. The problem with that is that Trent starts having these dreams and visions way before going to Hobb's End. He's barely completed one Cane novel and is already getting screwed in the head. This becomes an issue since we never learn how powerful Cane's books are. If you read a single page, are you scarred for life? Does it take half a book? An entire novel? The whole collection? I think the story needed to explain how powerful Cane's influence was. Sure, others got affected. But a lot of people who read these books weren't. And when people didn't get their fix of Cane's novels, they went mad too. It's like his fans were crazy no matter what. So this aspect needed more depth.

Speaking of the final act, it felt too disjointed and rushed for me. We watch Trent struggle with what he experienced, which is fine. But suddenly we get time shifts, random character appearances, the novel Cane was working on haunting him whether he got rid of an old copy or not. Things were just happening and none of it was being explored. And then the very end of the film is supposed to be thought provoking, but it just left me more confused than before. I get what it was representing, but if it were stronger, it would have been stronger and more clever than what De Luca and Carpenter were going for. Instead, all I got were ideas being played with but none of them feeling at all substantial or satisfying. It felt like it had to happen this way because it was expected, rather than it feeling natural. It just feels like one dream sequence after the other, more focused on the hallucinations and the cliche visual scares rather than the actual plot and characters. It's hard to like a film when you're never sure what you're seeing is real or not without some sort of hint that gives you that "a-ha!" moment.

Speaking of characters, none of them come across as deep enough to become sympathetic or even likeable. John Trent is our main character - a non-believer who comes across as a real jerk for whatever reason. He refuses to believe the phenomenon of Sutter Cane, even thinking his missing report is a way to build publicity for the new novel. He even thinks a fan trying to kill him with an axe is a silly stunt! Huh? For most of the film, he thinks what he's seeing is being done just to promote Sutter Cane's novel. Then when he realizes that isn't true and that everything is really happening, he becomes automatically insane. We're part of his journey to figure out the case, which is good. But there's nothing about this guy that makes me want to root for him. He's so cynical and hardened by his detective work that he comes across as an asshole. If we knew why he was this way, it'd make things easier. But we don't really know much about him - only during the course of what we see of him in the film. Sutter Cane isn't really deep either, but at least I can understand his role of the crazy villain with the lust for power, even if it is evil. His character never changes, even though it's rather shallow and cliche. The other characters don't mean much in the course of the film, especially Linda Styles. She's supposedly meant to be the love interest for John Trent, but that never happens. Instead, she's more of a pest to him even though she's the only one who sees Hobb's End for what it is before it's too late. She doesn't really add much besides being the only major female presence in the film. It's as if she was there because every film like this needs a female lead and she HAD to be there, instead of her naturally being there because she'll aid the hero or be a foil in some way. Neither one describes Styles at all. She's just there because the screenwriter wants her there. She did nothing for me as a character.

KNB's FX work, while dated, still works well. The effects are similar to what was done in Carpenter's earlier film, 1982's THE THING. The creature special effects are mostly done in a practical manner, looking gross and disturbing but never truly scary. Honestly, my favorite effect was one done with computers [or possibly good old-fashioned film editing], when Cane peels away at his body, revealing pages of a book. It was very cool and I loved the metaphor that it created. I think the film could have used more of that. We don't get a lot of gore or special effects even, but what we do see is very good. No complaints. This film definitely took advantage of the SFX, especially in detail of how different the monsters look, human or otherwise.

The direction by John Carpenter is mostly good. While I do feel the pacing felt pretty slow, which is funny since IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS is only 95-minutes long, I thought his visual work was quite strong as one would expect. There were moments where the direction was reminiscent to some of his earlier work, like HALLOWEEN, THE FOG, and THE THING where scene composition was concerned. Things happen to pop up in the foreground and background quite nicely at times, either to jolt the audience or present a hint or clue that one would miss since our focus would be elsewhere. I do think he does this a bit too frequently towards the end, but the framing and composition reveal quite a lot that words don't. The soundtrack is okay, but I barely remember any of it. The music doesn't really pull you in, unlike his more superior work in HALLOWEEN, 1976's ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, and THE THING. I thought the editing by Edward A. Warschilka was pretty damn good though. Whenever the action or horror would happen, the editing definitely helped quicken the film's pace. That said, this isn't Carpenter's best flick director-wise. But I still like the visual presentation.

The acting was good as well. Sam Neill is more than decent as John Trent, a man who is either trapped inside a messed up nightmare, or a man who realizes he's just the figment of a horror writer's imagination. He really shines at times playing the cynical jerk, although he doesn't play the insanity aspect of his character enough for me during others. His performance did make me like his character more than I probably should have though. Neill is a good actor. Just wish he had a meatier role. Jurgen Prochnow is probably the best actor in the film as Sutter Cane. While the character is underdeveloped, Prochnow makes the most of it and creates a memorable performance. Just his body language and his commanding voice makes the man one to watch. Again, I wish he had a meatier role. Julie Carmen is probably the weakest actor as Linda Styles. She does nothing for me as a character or an actress in this film. It feels like she's sleepwalking through the role, never becoming convincing as Trent's potential love interest or his psuedo-assistant. Honestly, she was given a nothing role which should have never been in the film anyway. Neither Carmen or the character added anything at all. Others, like Charleton Heston, John Glover, and David Warner do well in their shorter roles. And watch out for that cameo by Hayden Christensen as a teenager on a bike.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE WONDERING IF I'M CHARACTER IN SOMEONE'S NOVEL ABOUT A NEW YORKER WHO WRITES REVIEWS IN HIS FREE TIME INSTEAD OF BANGING STRIPPERS

- John Trent was locked in an insane asylum strapped in a strait jacket. I guess there are still some folks who don't believe that dinosaurs still exist in modern times...

- Trent drew crosses all over the padded walls and on himself. It's kind of ironic since he grew up to be the Anti-Christ and all...

- "Don't make your wife a partner. And if you do, don't fuck around behind her back." At least One and a Half Men followed that rule...

- Trent had really weird nightmares after reading Sutter Cane's books. I had the same reaction with the Kama Sutra. My legs and hands have to go where?? Screw that!

- Linda had an episode after she got a sneak peek of Sutter Cane's new novel. I guess she's having a FRIGHT NIGHT 2, huh?

- Linda swallowed Trent's car keys. She sounds like a good time. Hey there now...

THE FINAL HOWL
IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS is one of those films I can respect and appreciate due to the interesting ideas and concepts, but the execution of it all brings it down a notch or two. If the story had more depth instead of relying on cheap gags to get a rise out of the audience, the film would have come across better. At least the direction, special effects, and most of the acting works enough to keep you invested. IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS wants to be clever and original, but ends up being mostly cliche and more confusing for its own good. As the end of the unofficial "Apocalyptic Trilogy", the conclusion isn't as satisfying as one would want. And while it's nowhere close to being my favorite John Carpenter flick, at least IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS is mostly solid and worth a rental. And remember...it's just a movie. Well I think, at least.

SCORE3 Howls Outta 4

The WTF? Worst Films Extravaganza Presents: Universal Soldier III: Unfinished Business (1999)

2011-12-06T19:32:00.001-05:00

DIRECTED BY
Jeff Woolnough

STARRING
Matt Battaglia - Luc Devereaux/GR 44
Chandra West - Veronica Roberts
Burt Reynolds - Gerald Risco
Richard McMillan - Dr. Walker
Claudette Roche - Grace/GR 83
Juan Chioran - Charles Clifton
Jeff Wincott - Eric Devereaux/GR 87

Genre - Action/Science Fiction

Running Time - 96 Minutes

PLOT
In this second "unofficial" sequel, Luc Devereaux (Matt Battaglia) and Veronica Roberts (Chandra West) travel to some internet conference in Toronto, Canada. Apparently Veronica knows someone in the journalism business [an ex-boyfriend (Juan Chioran)] who she feels could release the story about the UniSol program to the media and the entire world. Before anyone can make that happen, both end up in a hostage situation where Veronica's ex gets fatally shot. Obviously Luc manages to save the day and kill the terrorists, but Veronica is believed to have been working with them - as well as Luc being seen on television, which infuriates some Government officials who want UniSol to remain secret.

Luc and Veronica end up coming back to the United States, where both are still wanted and learn that Luc's parents and their home were burned down in a fire. Luc realizes that the Universal Soldiers did this, under the control of Deputy CIA Director Gerald Risco (Burt Reynolds), who created the UniSol program and names the soldiers after him. Apparently Risco is a dirty government official, using his creations to steal a shipment of gold that's being sent to the victims of the Holocaust.

While Luc and Veronica plan revenge against Risco, Dr. Walker (Richard McMillan) takes some of Eric Devereaux's (Jeff Wincott) DNA and makes a clone of him. He raises the clone as his own, using him as a weapon to bait Luc and bring him back to the UniSol program.

I have three words for UNIVERSAL SOLDIER III: UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

WHAT THE FUCK!?

HITS

- Slightly better acting than in UNIVERSAL SOLDIER II: BROTHERS IN ARMS. Again, nothing exceptional or anything. But at least the actors here seemed a bit more comfortable with their roles this time around. Chandra West and Jeff Wincott did well just like in the first unofficial sequel. Matt Battaglia, who was awful in the last film, fares a bit better in this installment. While he was still a bit wooden and robotic at times, his acting improved as the film ran on. He was more human in the final act of the film and I liked him a lot more. Richard McMillan was decent as Dr. Walker, just like he was in the last installment. And even though his Irish accent went in-and-out like a groom on his wedding night, Burt Reynolds and his presence somehow made the film more important than the last one. It wasn't great thespian work or anything like that, but I bought the performances more in this installment.

- More interesting subplots. Unlike UNIVERSAL SOLDIER II, this installment had different subplots going on at once that had me involved in what was happening on screen. Since this 90-minute film was meant to be two one-hour episodes, UNIVERSAL SOLDIER III: UNFINISHED BUSINESS seemed to be what the rest of the planned season would have been about if the series had actually been picked up by The Movie Channel. Luc's life transitions after his parents are murdered, his "brother" returns, and his bond with Veronica Roberts grows. Also, with the return of Gerald Risco, the guy who created the UniSol program, the main villain of the show was set up and would have led to some decent confrontations between the two parties. This is other stuff, like Veronica's past being slowly revealed, and Dr. Walker's obsession with Luc and using a clone of his brother to bait him and prove that he could just create a better Universal Soldier out of DNA. Plus add in a hostage situation and more scenes where things actually happen rather than for padding. Now as for how they're executed, that's a different story I'll get to in just a moment.

- Better use of soundtrack. While the music wasn't great and still kind of annoyed me, at least it was used at the right moments. Plus we didn't have songs that didn't relate to the scene they were accompanying. Wish the soundtrack was more interesting to listen to though, but at least my ears were spared this time around.

MISSES

- The direction - again. Jeff Woolnough returns as director and the visuals are just as terrible as they were in the last film. Constant use of slo-mo was annoying. Quick jump cuts and edits were distracting as usual. The action sequences were horribly choreographed and lacked any sort of energy. Again, I'm sure the budget was small for this and the film couldn't look more than what it was - two television episodes. But the production values were still pretty bad. And the action - I don't count someone shooting a gun, walking away for two minutes, shooting again, walking again for two minutes, and shooting a third time as really exciting action sequences. I've seen cheaper movies with more energy and better choreography. There was more action in this one, but it still wasn't great. Oh well.

- The execution of the narrative. Like I mentioned earlier, there's more going on in this installment. That's a good thing because the last film didn't have enough going on. But just because you have interesting ideas doesn't mean that they'll come across as more than just ideas. The depth level in UNIVERSAL SOLDIER III: UNFINISHED BUSINESS just isn't there to make these ideas matter at the end. Gerald Risco wants to steal gold - but it doesn't really go anywhere. For one, it doesn't help that Risco is barely in the film to begin with. You'd think Dr. Walker was the main villain with his massive screen time. Hell, I don't even remember why he even wanted the gold to begin with. That's not good storytelling! Also, Veronica's fugitive status doesn't really seem like a big deal since she pretty much walks around in bright daylight with hardly anyone recognizing her unless there's a Wanted poster of her nearby. And she gets pardoned at the end by uncovering the UniSol program. Why would she be pardoned for doing that? The program is Government funded! Makes no sense. The biggest one really had to be the Eric clone. He's raised in a lab his entire life, thinking Dr. Walker is his dad and that Luc is the enemy. When Eric and Luc have their confrontation, Eric remembers Luc as his brother. But Eric couldn't have known that if he were a clone. DNA doesn't work that way. It left me completely baffled! Plus we got another person who didn't react well to the UniSol reprogramming, but it was never explained why this person had the ability to reject it while most others can't. I'm glad the writers brought up multiple sub-plots to keep the film moving, but they were just handled very poorly.

THE FINAL HOWL
UNIVERSAL SOLDIER III: UNFINISHED BUSINESS is a slight improvement over UNIVERSAL SOLDIER II: BROTHERS IN ARMS. Even so, it's still a bad flick with a shallow narrative [with great ideas that don't matter] and visuals that will leave many bored. At least the acting was a drop better and the soundtrack wasn't such a terrible distraction. But I wasn't really entertained by this one either and I'm kind of glad these two films were "erased" from canon. I'm sending UNIVERSAL SOLDIER III: UNFINISHED BUSINESS to the WTF? Vault where it can be reprogrammed along with its "unofficial" brother-film. I'm done with this franchise for the time being. As far as I'm concerned, these two UNIVERSAL SOLDIER sequels can...

SCORE
1 Howl Outta 4

The WTF? Worst Films Extravaganza Presents: Universal Soldier II: Brothers In Arms (1998)

2011-12-02T17:26:00.000-05:00

DIRECTED BY
Jeff Woolnough

STARRING
Matt Battaglia - Luc Devereaux/GR 44
Chandra West - Veronica Roberts
Gary Busey - Otto Mazur
Jeff Wincott - Eric Devereaux/GR 5
Richard McMillan - Dr. Walker

Genre - Action/Science Fiction

Running Time - 93 Minutes

PLOT
After escaping the Universal Soldier program with the help of journalist Veronica Roberts (Chandra West), Luc Devereaux (Matt Battaglia) is trying to readjust to his new life after being resurrected. While hiding at Luc's parents' farm, the people behind the Unisol program [mainly Otto Mazur (Gary Busey) and Dr. Walker (Richard McMillan)] activate some sort of homing device that was supposedly implanted inside Luc's body. This triggers Luc to return to Chicago where the Unisol headquarters is at, where he has his memory reprogrammed for a return into the Unisol program.

Veronica obviously follows and sneaks into the Unisol lab to save Luc. Instead, she ends up finding Luc's older brother Eric (Jeff Wincott), who had apparently died during the Korean War but resurrected for the Unisol program. However, Eric didn't react well to the change and was kept hidden there. The two Devereaux brothers shortly reunite, but Mazur manages to ruin things in order to sell the Universal Soldiers to terrorists.

I have three words for UNIVERSAL SOLDIER II: BROTHERS IN ARMS:

WHAT THE FUCK!?

HITS

- Gary Busey, Chandra West, and Jeff Wincott. While the acting in this made-for-TV unofficial sequel isn't exceptional, at least three actors managed to keep this terrible movie from receiving a BOMB rating. Gary Busey is usually memorable in anything he does. While this isn't his best performance in a movie ever, at least he took the material seriously enough to be a pretty cool villain in Otto Mazur. Too bad he wasn't in a better film, but it's obvious he wasn't just in this movie for just a paycheck. Chandra West takes the role Ally Walker had originated from the original UNIVERSAL SOLDIER, and I kind of liked her more than Walker actually. West has a spunkiness that I dug for the role, plus she's very easy on the eyes. She was also game for anything and had some good one-liners. As for Jeff Wincott, it sucks this martial artist didn't get to do more action scenes, instead sitting down or just standing around most of the time. But he was more believable in the Universal Soldier role than anyone else in this film. Hell, I thought he would have been a better fit for the Luc role rather than Matt Battaglia. I really liked his performance. These three are the saving grace of the film.

- It ended. And thank God for it.

MISSES

- The story. Where do I begin here? While I appreciate that it actually continues from the original film, unlike the first "official" sequel, 1999's UNIVERSAL SOLDIER: THE RETURN, I kind of wish this "Made for the Movie Channel" sequel never existed. While there is a semblance of a plot here, there's nothing really holding it together. For one, why couldn't Eric adapt to the Unisol program? What made him so special and so resistant, while his brother wasn't? Why did they even keep him around, knowing he was a failed experiment? And how come the filmmakers didn't explore Eric trying to adjust to 1998, especially since the last time he was conscious was during the early 1950s? This could have been an interesting subplot to play out.

Also, Otto Mazur wanted to sell these Universal Soldiers to the highest bidder. Yet there were only like 4 guys and he just kept killing people just to reprogram them. Is this what the evil consumer was paying for? I would feel pretty ripped off having a middle-aged man being my personal UniSol! Hell, the UniSols other than Luc and Eric had no personality and were just window dressing until it was their time to die or retreat. What's the point?

And the worst part of the story is that it was pretty much all bones but no meat, meaning I watched two hour-long episodes edited together into one 90 minute movie where 40% of it was actual storytelling and the rest was just annoying padding. I learned nothing about the UniSols. I learned nothing about the brotherly relationship between Luc and Eric. Veronica and Luc were meant to be lovers, but there was nothing really going on there except for a kiss Luc couldn't forget. There's just really nothing to chew on here. The original film had an actual story you could be entertained by. This was a shadow of that film. Even as a TV show, I doubt anyone would watch this for longer than three episodes until giving up.

- Direction and non-action. Jeff Woolnough directs UNIVERSAL SOLDIER II: BROTHER IN ARMS like a made-for-TV feature, which is fine because that's what it was supposed to be. The film doesn't look particularly interesting to look at photography wise and just is what it is. The problem is that Woolnough has no idea how to direct an action film. I'm sure budget restrictions had a hand at how the film turned out [meaning cheap], but that's no excuse not to have decent action sequences during an action show/TV movie. What does qualify for action here is pretty lame, and few and far between. If you consider action one guy kicking and another guy blocking that kick really slowly before they repeat the sequence again, then this is for you. Sure we get explosions and gunfire and stuff like that, but there's not much of it. Instead, the film is making people discussing what they're gonna do and/or doing something, like riding a train for 10 minutes when that could have been edited in three minutes. It doesn't help that the dialogue is boring is hell. Plus the slow motion was terrible. The quick editing sucked. The production values were pretty bad. Money or not, there should have been something that fans of the original film could enjoy. Instead, they'll end up stopping this before getting to the end. Shame.

- Matt Battaglia. I've seen Battaglia act in other projects and he isn't a terrible actor. But he's not the right guy to replace Jean-Claude Van Damme in a UNIVERSAL SOLDIER movie. For one, Battaglia has a gruff Southern accent. Isn't Luc's family French? Also, he takes the robot thing a bit too far by acting like a machine rather than a human struggling with being programmed as a machine. Plus he doesn't get much to do anyway. He's either sitting or standing making duck lips, spouting one-liners Arnold Schwarzenegger wants back, or showing off his ass. Not much acting and not much of a good impression either.

- The soundtrack. Oh God, this is probably the one thing I hated the most about this film. The songs themselves aren't terrible. Hell, Norman Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky" plays near the beginning of the flick - to Gary Busey and some noobs walking in slow motion before killing someone. What does that song have to do with any of that? Then we have a pop-rock song while Veronica finds Eric in some sort of chamber that has doesn't reflect the situation or mood at all! We even have a country line-dancing moment that doesn't add to the film at all. It's like the director and/or editor had no idea about sound design. If you're gonna use music to enhance the film, at least have the songs make sense and go along with the film in a way that it's telling us something. I laughed at how bad this was at first until I just found it sad and annoying. It pretty much ruined the film for me.

THE FINAL HOWL
What's there to say about this terrible "sequel" to UNIVERSAL SOLDIER? UNIVERSAL SOLDIER II: BROTHERS IN ARMS is a horrible film in almost every way. The story is non-existent. The direction is bland and distracting at times. The soundtrack is used wrong. And there's not enough action to make this qualify as an action sequel. If it wasn't for three actors who actually tried to make the most of this crap, I would have given this the lowest rating possible. But I've actually seen a lot worse than UNIVERSAL SOLDIER II: BROTHERS IN ARMS, although this came close. I'm sending this sucker to the WTF? Vault where I can reprogram it so I can forget it even exists while it can...

SCORE
0.5 Howls Outta 4

Kalifornia (1993)

2011-11-30T22:35:00.000-05:00

DIRECTED BY
Dominic Sena

STARRING
Brad Pitt - Early Grayce
David Duchovny - Brian Kessler
Michelle Forbes - Carrie Laughlin
Juliette Lewis - Adele Corners

Genre - Thrillers/Drama/Serial Killers

Running Time - 117 Minutes

PLOT
Brian Kessler (David Duchovny) is a journalist who is obsessed with the world of serial killers. His more level-headed girlfriend, Carrie Laughlin (Michelle Forbes), is persuaded to take a road trip with Brian to California through Arkansas and Texas in order to visit the places of famous American murders for a book he's writing and wants Carrie to take photos of these locations.

Being a genius, Brian decides to place an ad about this adventurous research for people to join them and share expenses, such as hotel, food, and gas. The ad is quickly answered by Early Grayce (Brad Pitt), a former convict, and his dim-witted girlfriend Adele Corners (Juliette Lewis). While Brian is fascinated by their white trash behavior, Carrie is turned off and sees the two as a threat. Slowly Brian realizes Carrie's right, as Early proves himself to be a serial killer - wanting to be Brian's next story.

HITS

- The acting. If there's anything this underrated film will be known for, it's the fantastic acting by the four leads. David Duchovny, before his X-Files fame as Fox Mulder, does well as the naive yuppie journalist who realizes his obsession with serial killing could cost him either his own humanity and/or his life. Michelle Forbes, who has done some memorable television work since this film, is also great as the cool and cautious girlfriend. In a lot of ways, she is the conscience and voice of the audience. But the film belongs to both Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis. Lewis, who would become another serial killer girlfriend in NATURAL BORN KILLERS almost a year after KALIFORNIA, is amazing to watch as an empty-headed woman. She first comes across as funny, but as the film rolls on, we realize how tragic she is and feel sorry for her when she discusses how Early beats her only "when she deserves it" and how Early saved her after being raped. I know some found the performance annoying, but I was pretty captivated by Lewis. More so, however, with Pitt - who really used this film to prove that he was more than just a pretty face in Hollywood. He looks like crap, probably didn't shower at all while filming this movie, and gives a complex performance that proves the man can act with the best of them. He's charming one minute and then pretty creepy the next. Just an exceptional performance. Great cast.

- The direction. Dominic Sena would later do more mainstream movies like 2000's GONE IN SIXTY SECONDS, SWORDFISH, and SEASON OF THE WITCH, but KALIFORNIA is his best work. Along with cinematographer Bojan Bazelli, the two men capture a gritty, striking, and beautiful film. The locations used are just fantastic - from deserts, to rural homes, to beaches, and even to nuclear test ranges - the images are just stunning and become a character itself. I also thought Sena brought out some nice tension, especially during scenes where Early would kill like in the gas station bathroom and inside the store. Nice editing, composition, framing - just great filmmaking visually. Definitely Sena's finest hour.

- The story. While it's not perfect, the screenplay by Tim Metcalfe is still well-written and well-structured. The characters are all different and have quite a bit of depth to them. Brian sees the good in everyone, which is why he's fascinated by serial killers and their motives. Why do they do what they do? This naivety almost destroys him at the end, but it's an interesting journey. Plus his conclusion at the end is pretty profound. Carrie is the viewer's character, wondering why she has participated in this whole deal and realizes she and Brian need to get out fast before they end up dead. While a bit tough at the beginning, we see her grow close to Adele, almost becoming a mother figure to her. She also captures the eye of Early, who sees her as a strong woman he wants to break down rather than a dumb little girl like Adele. Early is the typical serial killer - charming and friendly at first to lure people in, but once you get to know him, he ends up a total psychopath, scary and dangerous. All four of these characters together create a lot of drama and tension between them, crafting a solid narrative. Plus the journey each character takes for their respective arcs are both interesting and tragic. It also makes you question those who kill and the other side who are fascinated by it through books and media. KALIFORNIA never glorifies the violence, but it does make you wonder how desensitized one must be to realize when too far is just that.

MISSES

- The setup. It's just too easy and convenient for me. Brian puts up an ad and just happens to be answered by a serial killer, especially when Brian wants to write a book on serial killers [which isn't on the ad itself]? It's such an obvious plot device and doesn't really make the story feel natural. What are the odds of that really happening? Sure, it's possible. But on the first try? I'm not sure how else these characters could have been brought together, but the whole idea just seemed odd from the get go.

- Brian's narration. While the narration itself isn't bad, it takes away from what's being shown onscreen. As Brian tells us about the events, the surprise and some of the suspense is missing because we pretty much know how it's gonna play out. I think the film could have worked without it. If Brian was already telling this story right from the start of the film, I can guess who survived and who didn't. Takes away some of the effectiveness, in my opinion.

THE FINAL HOWL
KALIFORNIA was a box-office flop and a film not many people have seen, even today, but it's definitely a solid thriller that deserves an audience. It has a well-structured narrative, beautiful visuals, and fantastic acting - especially by Brad Pitt. A lot of people will compare KALIFORNIA to NATURAL BORN KILLERS [which came out a year later], but both take the general idea but present it differently. I think NATURAL BORN KILLERS is more about glorifying the violence. KALIFORNIA is more about the humans behind the violence. Which ever film you choose, you can't go wrong. But KALIFORNIA is well worth the long ride seeing if you're in the mood for it.

SCORE
3.5 Howls Outta 4

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

2011-11-29T01:11:00.000-05:00

DIRECTED BY
Tim Burton

STARRING
Mia Wasikowska - Alice Kingsleigh
Johnny Depp - The Mad Hatter
Helena Bonham Carter - The Red Queen
Anne Hathaway - The White Queen
Crispin Glover - Knave of Hearts

Genre - Fantasy/Science Fiction/Action/Adventure

Running Time - 108 Minutes

PLOT
In this sequel to Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There, 19-year-old Alice Kingsleigh (Mia Wasikowska) is forced to go to some society function where she's been set up for the Lord's son, the stuffy Hamish (Leo Bill), to propose to her. With all the attention on her, which adds to her confusion, Alice runs away. She follows the White Rabbit (voiced by Michael Sheen), falling down a rabbit hole while chasing after it.

Alice is transported to a fantastical land inhabited by strange looking creatures and people, including talking animals and dangerous playing cards. The inhabits are unsure whether they retrieved the real Alice Kingsleigh, as Alice has no recollection of her past adventure in Underland [not Wonderland as it's incorrectly called]. Only The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) believes her to be the real Alice, seeing her as the only hope for the salvation of their land.

Apparently The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) controls Underland under a tyranny, where she uses the Jabberwocky (voiced by Christopher Lee) to keep her reign as it destroys all threats to her power. A scroll foretells that Alice will slay the Jabberwocky, which in turn will hand The Red Queen's power over to her good sister, The White Queen (Anne Hathaway). Knowing this, The Red Queen orders her knight, Knave of Hearts (Crispin Glover), to find Alice and kill her before Alice finds the Vorpal Sword and makes the prophecy comes true.

HITS

- Art direction and costume design. ALICE IN WONDERLAND should look like a fantasy come to life, and that's exactly what this Disney sequel does extremely well. All the characters look distinct and the CGI looks cartoony, but in a good way since this is really meant for children. I also liked how dark the look was as well, as it truly depicted the Red Queen's reign over Underland, while not being so scary that it'll frighten children. The costumes are great as well, as the characters from the novel look exactly how you'd imagine they'd look. It looks like a Tim Burton film and I think the live-action stuff mixed with the green screen and CGI gave the film a magical feel this story deserves.

- Tim Burton's direction. This one is more hit than miss, in my opinion. While I do miss the Tim Burton of old [pre-PLANET OF THE APES], I do think his direction here isn't all that bad. While there are some pacing issues because this film is probably longer than it needs to be, the visuals are quite stunning and the editing is top notch. The action scenes have some nice tension and excitement to them, which is a definite plus. While I miss his more original, darker stuff, I still admire Burton quite a great deal and will watch anything attached with his name. He's almost becoming a parody of himself at this point though. I hope DARK SHADOWS gives us more of the Burton of old.

- Mia Wasikowska and Helena Bonham Carter. Both actresses are really good in ALICE IN WONDERLAND. Waikowska is quite fetching in the role of Alice, giving the character a quiet vulnerability while maintaining a hidden strength that showcases her independence and fight for what's right. I would like to see her in more films. Carter, for me, was probably the best actor in the film. She just steals the show in every scene she's in, enjoying being a total bitch with a huge head. I dug it.

MISSES

- The story. Now I don't think Linda Woolverton's screenplay was terrible. But it definitely was lacking in many areas. For one, it was hard at times to decipher whether ALICE IN WONDERLAND was a true sequel or a reboot of sorts. Some scenes play out just as they in the novels, even though we're led to believe that Alice has already gone through these trials when she was younger. Also, the tone of the film was inconsistent. Was this a fantasy film? Was this an action film? A science-fiction film? It was like watching THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA, THE WIZARD OF OZ, and HOOK all in one film. THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA feel came from the adventure portion of the narrative. The evil Red Queen and the good White Queen remind me of the two Witches in THE WIZARD OF OZ. Hell, the Red Queen even had simian servants! And HOOK is obviously due to Alice's age and her return to Underland so she can remember her past there and save the day.

Speaking of Alice's arc, that too was a bit conflicted. For much of the film, she's too wrapped up in what she believes is dreaming that she's in Underland. While I get it as a plot device, it becomes frustrating towards the end when her arc is really about something deeper - becoming an independent woman who can handle herself and doesn't need a man to sustain her. I also thought the ending was a bit much, especially when it sort of seemed like it was supporting imperialism. Really? Is that what ALICE IN WONDERLAND is really about? Coming into an unknown world and becoming some sort of hero in order to take it over? Wow. I just wish the film had more depth to it, that's all.

- Johnny Depp. I really hate putting Depp in a MISS category. I'm a huge fan of the actor ever since the 1980s. But his portrayal of The Mad Hatter isn't really that great. It's just okay. For the biggest name actor in the film and the most promoted, his performance was pretty lackluster. He just seems to be going through the motions here, not being mad enough to really be an interesting character other than Alice's somewhat conscience. He looks like Carrot Top with a top hat and bad make-up. I know Burton and Depp are a package deal these days, but I think this could have been one occasion where Depp took a break and someone more interesting could have played the Mad Hatter role. Depp is a great character actor, but he did nothing for me in this film.

- Anne Hathaway. Just an annoying performance as The White Queen. I get that she was the opposite of the Red Queen, but she had no depth to her at all. Hathaway is a good actress too, but this wasn't a good role for her.

- The Futterwacken Dance. I did not need to know or see what it was.

THE FINAL HOWL
While it's not a horrible film and children will enjoy it [so did adults with the $1 billion-plus worldwide box office], ALICE IN WONDERLAND may be one of Tim Burton's and Johnny Depp's least interesting and satisfying films. As long as these two have been around, you'd expect more out of each of them at this point. It's a beautiful looking film and the two lead actresses carry it quite well. But it's not engaging enough as a story and it'll just make you dust off your Lewis Carroll stories and re-read them again instead. ALICE IN WONDERLAND is a film I can either leave or take with not much care. Let's hope the next Depp-Burton collaboration is a lot more interesting.

SCORE
2 Howls Outta 4

Universal Soldier (1992)

2011-11-22T22:08:00.000-05:00

DIRECTED BY
Roland Emmerich

STARRING
Jean-Claude Van Damme - Luc Devereaux/GR 44
Dolph Lundgren - Sergeant Andrew Scott/GR 13
Ally Walker - Veronica Roberts
Ed O'Ross - Colonel Perry
Jerry Orbach - Dr. Christopher Gregor
Leon Rippy - Dr. Woodward
Tico Wells - Garth

Genre - Action/Science Fiction

Running Time - 102 Minutes

While Full Moon Reviews is mainly a horror-centric blog, I do love action films. Watching things explode, epic car chases, and people getting done in by a multitude of weapons onscreen gets this guy's blood pumping. Sometimes watching people scream as a masked killer causes blood and guts to spill out can get a bit old. So watching a good action flick, especially from the 1980s and early 1990s will do the trick.

Two of my favorite action stars happen to star in the very film I'm reviewing here today. Dolph Lundgren has been a fave since 1985's ROCKY IV, which happens to be my personal favorite of that entire franchise even though the first ROCKY is better made. I watched Lundgren in 1987's MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE in theaters, which I'm pretty afraid to watch nowadays knowing that the cheese factor will cause my Lactose Intolerance to act up. Add THE PUNISHER (1989) and 1991's SHOWDOWN IN LITTLE TOKYO and you got yourself a fan.

And then there's Jean-Claude Van Damme - an action star I wanted to be as a kid ever since I saw him kick ass in 1988's BLOODSPORT. I have seen all of his early films such as 1989's KICKBOXER and CYBORG, 1990's LIONHEART and DEATH WARRANT, until 1994's STREET FIGHTER: THE MOVIE adaptation that soured me on Van Damme. He's done some good recent work as of late, especially 2008's JCVD film that garnered much critical acclaim.

Lundgren and Van Damme would team up a few times during their careers, but it all started in 1992's action classic UNIVERSAL SOLDIER. While the two men would later star in two UNIVERSAL SOLDIER sequels as well as the upcoming THE EXPENDABLES 2 [next year's anticipated action film], the first time is always the most special. I had seen UNIVERSAL SOLDIER in theaters during its release and I loved it, especially Lundgren's demented performance as a former Vietnam soldier. It did solid business at the box office and made Roland Emmerich's career as an action film director. But does the film still hold up 19 years later?

PLOT
We start out during the Vietnam War, where Luc Deveraux (Jean-Claude Van Damme) confronts his Sergeant, Andrew Scott (Dolph Lundgren), who has gone insane and has decided that torturing civilians and cutting their ears off for a necklace is good medication. The two end up stabbing and shooting each other to death. However the two don't rest in peace as a group of scientists hired by the government find the two to hide the evidence and use them in some sort of experiment that reanimates their corpses.

Many years later, Luc [now called GR 44] and Andrew [now called GR 13] are now part of a secret Government militia where the two men have been programmed to be fighting machines with no trace of their former lives. However, a nosy reporter named Veronica Roberts (Ally Walker) begins investigating these soldiers after they stop a terrible hostage situation. Her curiosity leads to the death of her cameraman, after Andrew kills him while taking photos for evidence. This causes Luc to have memories of his time in Vietnam, stopping Andrew and escaping with Veronica. Slowly, both Luc and Andrew begin to remember their former lives - Luc wanting to protect Veronica and find out the truth while Andrew sinks further into the pool of insanity started during Vietnam. The two eventually confront each other, battling to settle an old score and to see who truly is the UNIVERSAL SOLDIER.

REVIEW
UNIVERSAL SOLDIER was one of those films back in the day that was considered epic for action film fans who wanted to see Dolph Lundgren and Jean-Claude Van Damme kick the crap out of each other onscreen. It seemed perfect for action audiences, with the science fiction elements bringing in another audience who probably wouldn't have been as interested. Even 19 years later, UNIVERSAL SOLDIER could have been more than what it ended up being. Even so, the film is still pretty solid and watchable after all these years.

The screenplay by Dean Devlin, Christopher Leitch, and Richard Rothstein is extremely formulaic. We get the typical good must conquer evil story. We get the amnesia subplot that leads to the main characters remembering their past and hatred for each other while revealing other mysteries. We get the nosy female character who ends up being the hero's ally/love interest. We get the cliche explosions, car chases, and final battle. It's all been done before in other films, probably even better in those other films. But while UNIVERSAL SOLDIER ends up being predictable and eager to capitalize on the success of T2: JUDGMENT DAY [which was released a year prior], the screenplay follows the formula quite well and still manages to craft an entertaining, while very shallow, narrative. It's an action sci-fi movie and makes no disguise of what it is.

That being said, there are moments in the film that either don't make much sense or just added in for pad on unnecessary time. The illogical moments is best represented right at the start of the film, where Andrew Scott is murdering Vietnamese citizens and cutting their ears off after he's gone insane. While this probably happened during the war, it's odd that Andrew seems to be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder during the war rather than after it. Maybe the guy was just mentally unstable from the start, but we don't know that because the story begins towards the end of his madness rather than at the beginning. There's no idea what set Andrew off like that, especially when Luc still seems rational enough to comprehend what's real and what's right - making it weirder when both men were brothers in arms the whole way and experienced the exact same things.

Also, the whole experiment that took Luc and Andrew and made them Universal Soldiers is never really explained in enough detail to understand how it was possible. I understand the reasoning behind it somewhat, and we see some of the process during the experiment, but the issue could have been addressed better - especially since it was a huge part of the film. I mean, how did the ice heal Luc's injuries but not some of the others? I also thought the final subplot with Luc's family was too rushed and didn't feel organic at all. Not sure if it was the writing or the acting.

Then we have two filler scenes. The first one involves Luc inside the diner, where he eats a bunch of food and beats up people after they realize he's unable to pay for it all. While the scene does manage to be quite comical in a good way and allows Luc's more playful and childlike innocent personality display itself, it doesn't really move the plot all that much really. It's there just as an excuse to have Van Damme display some kick ass moves to a bunch of nameless victims. Same goes with Andrew's scene at the truck stop, which is just a scene for Lundgren to kick some nameless ass as well. While both scenes do allow some drop of personality for all characters involved to come through, the film wouldn't have changed all that much if these scenes were absent.

But the screenplay does have some decent dialogue scenes and funny one-liners by both Luc and Andrew. And the characters, while very formula and cliche, work well for the story. The innocent and moral hero, the demented villain, the nosy reporter who says she wants a story but is really falling for the hero, the power-hungry military man, and the regretful scientists - they're all here and their parts are perfect to a tee.

The highlight of UNIVERSAL SOLDIER are the action scenes. Roland Emmerich, who would later direct INDEPENDENCE DAY, STARGATE, 1998's GODZILLA, THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, and 2012, does a damn good job creating some big action sequences. The scene where the truck driven by Andrew is ramming into a bus holding both Luc and Veronica is quite the sight. A lot of the fight sequences are quite bloody and brutal to watch. We get sliced ears. We get a lot of bullets hitting body parts, especially the head. We get broken necks, explosions, and a really bad spiking. Emmerich makes all these moments quite energetic and memorable. The film looks quite polished due to its decent budget and the pace is very good, as the film moves quite fast. We also get the typical slow motion when the hero rises up to get the upper hand against his foe. We get some nice angles. We have some great locations, creating some beautiful cinematography. Emmerich handles a very good action film visually here. I think out of all the films he has directed since UNIVERSAL SOLDIER, this one happens to be one of his better ones even to this day. It's what everyone expected out of a 90s action film, using cool visual moments and entertaining action sequences to compensate for a limited and predictable story.

The acting is better than one would probably think out of a film starring both Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren. Van Damme, while not the best actor in the film, does display some decent chops through Luc's emotional journey by creating sympathy and vulnerability that allows the audience to care and root for him. Plus he handles comedy quite well also. He's really at his best when he lefts his hands and feet do the talking for him. And yes, he even shows his butt in UNIVERSAL SOLDIER. You can't have a Van Damme film without one of his trademarks, now can we? On the other hand, Lundgren manages to become the star of the film in his demented role as Andrew Scott. I bought the guy at every turn. He chews the scenery with the best of them, obviously having fun playing the villain and creating some humorous moments while still being a major bad ass. He has great chemistry with Van Damme and when the two meet, they banter and confrontation is quite entertaining. As for the other main actors, Ally Walker [best known for her role on TV's The Profiler] does okay as Veronica Roberts, nosy news journalist. The character on people is kind of annoying at times, but Walker makes the most of her part and tries to give the character some depth. She's not bad to look at either. Ed O'Ross as Colonel Perry plays an asshole and does it well as usual. And Jerry Orbach makes a cameo as well towards the end of the film. Always nice to see Mr. Orbach in anything.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE ASKING SOME RANDOM LADY TO FIND "SOMETHING HARD" [IT MEANS THE HIDDEN TRACKING DEVICE IN MY LEG, YOU PERVERTS]

- Andrew Scott made a necklace of ears during his run in Vietnam. No matter how many he'll collect, he'll still have trouble understanding Luc through his accent. If it didn't work for Rocky, it won't work for Guile.

- Luc became unresponsive as he started to remember his past. I've been the same way lately while remembering listening to that Metallica/Lou Reed album. Make it go away...

- Luc is in constant need of cooling down, standing naked in front of air conditioners and bathing in ice. If the female character was a maid, Arnold Schwarzenegger and probably Joel Schumacher would have jumped all over this.

- Veronica couldn't understand why Luc was acting so strangely. For a Profiler, she sure has trouble figuring people out.

- Andrew Scott destroyed most of the military personnel who brought him back to life and gave him orders. Once you've been one of the MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE, being THE PUNISHER of those who believe they're better than you comes quite easily.

- Luc and Veronica had issues trying to gain control of a police bus after the driver was shot by Andrew. See, this is why Sandra Bullock has an Oscar and none of these actors do not.

THE FINAL HOWL
Almost twenty years old, UNIVERSAL SOLDIER still manages to be a good action film that will entertain fans of the genre. It's still a popular film, especially since no one knew it would spawn two made-for-TV sequels, a theatrical sequel, and two direct-to-video sequels [with one coming out in 2012]. Not surprising since the original happens to contain what action fans want - fast car chases, brutal fights and kills, humor, and two action legends kicking ass and having some fun doing so. Film snobs will crap over the fact that the narrative doesn't have much depth and is completely predictable. But that's not the point with a film like UNIVERSAL SOLDIER. It may lack in brain cells, but it compensates for it with a ton of energy and entertainment. There are better action films before and since UNIVERSAL SOLDIER, but it's still solid enough for watch when you need an action film fix.

SCORE
3 Howls Outta 4

Indie Horror Spotlight: Tape Me: Reel 1 (by Christopher Eric Outridge)

2011-11-19T01:52:00.000-05:00

TAPE ME: REEL 1 is the new short film by Christopher Eric Outridge of CEO Productions. Chris founded CEO Productions in 2008, where he focuses in all aspects of filmmaking; directing, screenwriting, cinematography, editing, coloring, etc. I've worked with Chris and can tell you that he is very passionate about film and editing.

Inspired most likely by his love for the SAW horror series, TAPE ME: REEL 1 is as follows:

TAPE ME is about a serial killer named FACELESS who video tapes himself stalking, torturing and murdering his subjects, based his interests in their own "human flaws." He takes his murder reel and sends it to each of his new victims. When they watch his murder reel, they become his next victims. Faceless Watches Them, He Tortures Them, HE TAPES THEM... In this film, Faceless forces a cheating lothario named Trevor to choose between his girlfriend, Jayah, and his actress friend and current mistress, Vanessa. Whatever the result, Faceless garuantees their will be a choice, and it will end with murder.

This 11 minute film is an interesting start to what Chris feels will be a longer series of short films. While the audio levels are a bit off at times, the acting is convincing and the narrative will keep you interested in seeing what Trevor's outcome will be. While much more could be shown about Faceless's world of terror, Chris will probably present more about the killer's origins in the next set of films he plans on making about the character. Check it out and support indie filmmaking. Thanks Christopher Eric Outridge for keeping the horror scene alive 11 minutes longer.

TAPE ME : REEL 1 stars Damien Colletti, Kailn Adalina and Vanessa Bontea. Also featuring Kelsey Lynn Stokes, Robert "Legend" Simmons, Tobi Percy and Casey Leigh Thompson. Directed, written and cut together by Christopher Eric Outridge, Director of Photography Jacob Osborn, and Make Up / Visual Effects Artist Aileen "Margie" Salerno, with stunt work by Tony San Miguel.

Another Award for Full Moon Reviews!!!

2011-11-15T20:54:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the lack of blogage [it's a word, I made it up!] lately. October and all the horror movies I've watched had burnt me out. The last couple of reviews were films I actually watched last month. But I'm in the process of watching some stuff finally this month and there should be reviews for these films soon.

In the meantime, I was honored a couple of weeks ago with a new Blog Award by the lovely Jenny Krueger of Memoirs of a Scream Queen [it's a blog you should all follow if you haven't already done so]. I want to thank Jenny for the iDig Your Blog Award. Pretty darn neat. :)

Here are the blog award rules: 1 ) Gratefully accept this award. 2 ) Link to the person you received it from. 3 ) Post 3 interesting facts about yourself. 4 ) Pass this award around to at least 5 blogs you dig. 5 ) Notify them.

THREE INTERESTING FACTS

1. I'm addicted to Swedish Fish.
2. I always eat lasagna on my birthday. It's been a tradition for who knows how long.
3. I used to break dance back when I was younger during the 80s. Now, I'll probably break something dancing...

FIVE BLOGS I DIG

1. Jude Felton from The Lair of Filth
This dude is a horror freak just like yours truly. He posts news and reviews quite frequently and always tells it like it is. I really enjoy reading his stuff.

2. Matt Poirier from Direct to Video Connoisseur
Great blog and great guy in general. He focuses on films that go straight to the home market rather than theaters. Plus he has an (un)healthy obsession with Dolph Lundgren, not like that's a bad thing...

3. Nathan Hamilton from Son of Celluloid
Another horror freak, Nathan is one of the many people I met through Facebook's Halloween Hack & Slash Madness contest that I happened to be a judge [one of three] of. He posted a list of 31 Darwin Awards during the entire month of October, listing horror characters that were pretty...how can I say it...stupid in context of the film they happened to be in. Entertaining and a lot of it very true, I feel this series of blog posts justifies a plug and an award.

4. James Gracey from Behind the Couch
James is the writer of this fantastic horror blog where he really dissects the films and analyzes them quite intelligently. He took the time in October to review every single HALLOWEEN film, really looking deep inside each one and giving his honest opinion of why it did or didn't work. I don't agree with all of his posts, but I do respect each one since he puts a lot of time and love into each one while backing up his point.

5. Eric King from Robocop's Sad Side
Eric is one of my biggest supporters on Blogger and on Facebook, so I figured I'd return the favor. Eric's blog is funny, honest, and entertaining to read. He doesn't have a lot of followers [he should] and he works hard to entertain his audience. So he gets an award as well without hesitation.

The Sentinel (1977)

2011-11-09T21:30:00.000-05:00

DIRECTED BY
Michael Winner

STARRING
Cristina Raines - Alison Parker
Chris Sarandon - Michael Lerman
Eli Wallach - Detective Gatz
Burgess Meredith - Charles Chazen
Ava Gardner - Miss Logan
Arthur Kennedy - Monsignor Franchino
Christopher Walken - Rizzo
John Carradine - Father Matthew Halliran

Genre - Horror/Supernatural

Running Time - 92 Minutes

PLOT - A beautiful model named Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) signs a lease for a new apartment in Brooklyn, New York. She's been in-and-out of psychiatric hospitals due to suicidal tendencies and has made a good life for herself due to her career and her engagement to an up and coming lawyer named Michael (Chris Sarandon). While Michael wants to marry her and live with Alison, she still wants her independence for a while.

The apartment, at first, seems like a perfect place to live in. It's furnished, quiet for the most part, and her closest neighbor Charles Chazen (Burgess Meredith) seems like a kind fellow. However, Alison soon sees things differently upon meeting the rest of her neighbors. There's a strange lesbian couple who have no problem showing their lust for each other - as a matter of fact one of them enjoys masturbating in front of Alison. There's an older woman who says the weirdest things. Even Charles has an obsession with his cat, inviting Alison to a birthday party for the animal.

While the neighbors are a bit laughable, the noises Alison constantly hears upstairs are not. Supposedly this apartment has been abandoned, but it sounds like someone is there banging the floor and striking metal objects. After an inspection of the apartment, Alison sees it completely empty. As a matter of fact, Alison's neighbors are proven to be dead! The only man upstairs is a blind priest who constantly looks out the window, waiting for something - or someone. What's going on here?

While Alison tries to process all this information, she constantly falls under the influence of headaches and visions of her late naked father canoodle with two healthy women in bed, as well as her late neighbors who constantly haunt her. Michael, worried about Alison, investigates the apartment. He learns that the people Alison sees were notorious killers and that the building sits on the entrance to Hell, which the Catholic Church is well aware of. Apparently, both sides have plans for Alison. Which side will win out?

REVIEW

STORY - THE SENTINEL is based on a 1975 novel written by Jeffrey Konvitz who co-wrote the screenplay along with director Michael Winner. THE SENTINEL was a very controversial film upon its release in both literary and cinematic forms, due to the story's heavy emphasis on Catholicism and its commentary on the eternal damnation of those who participate in same-sex relationships, murder, and especially suicide - with accepting God being one's only salvation. It turned off a lot of people at the time due to the heavy-handedness of it all. Sure, there were a lot of religious supernatural films during this period of horror cinema, but they were pretty subtle in their storytelling. THE SENTINEL pretty much hammers into your head that you're going to Hell if you commit any of the sins I mentioned earlier.

It's probably why THE SENTINEL did nothing for me as a narrative. I have nothing against good vs. evil stories that involve religious subtexts. But this one is so in-your-face about it that I pretty much zoned out for much of it. To be honest, I didn't think the screenplay was all that great anyway, as it doesn't seem to know what kind of film it wants, or needs, to be in order for THE SENTINEL to be effective as a story. Is it a psychological thriller? Is it a detective story? Is it a haunted house movie? Is it propaganda for the Catholic Church? You're never really sure because each act of the film has a different tone. In fact, Konvitz himself hated the way the screenplay turned out, feeling Winner used his novel as a way to create shock [which he failed at] instead of telling a simple horror story. I mean seriously, was using people with real-life human deformities really necessary to tell the audience that the gate to Hell was opened? Regular looking people with make-up or special effects couldn't have been used instead?

The story never feels complete at all. I understand why Alison was being sought out by both sides [the Catholic Church wanted her to be the new Sentinel while evil wanted her to kill herself to stop it from happening], but there's no depth behind the motives and just seems to explain itself during the last few moments of the film. Even mysteries give you better hints and clues than this screenplay does. There's also no real explanation as to why Alison was chosen to begin with. There are so many people in the world that have attempted suicide or done worse things in the eyes of God. So why was she so special? Because she was hot? Because she attempted suicide while living in a world known for excess? It's never really told. Would it have helped the film? Who knows?

The characters, while not deep at all, are at least interesting, I guess. Alison has a very interesting backstory that's never given the treatment and spotlight it really deserves. But she's likeable, beautiful, and believable. However, she's these things because she's presented as the victim from the start and she never really gains strength even at the end. Her decision was made for her either way, making her choice against her will really. Instead of powerful, she comes across as someone who was taken advantage of. That's a cheap way to gain sympathy, in my opinion.

Michael is the supportive boyfriend, although why Alison refuses to marry him or even live with him could have used more explanation. Plus there was something about his first wife commiting suicide that never was explored, but used as a red herring of sorts to the "mystery". The two lesbian couples don't hide their lust for each other, playing with their kitties right in front of Alison. At least I remembered them for something. Charles is infatuated with animals and having birthday parties for his cat. He also seems to be the leader of the villains, which is great since he has the best personality of any of the characters. Then you got the police detectives who think Michael may be behind Alison's problems. Too bad the story was convoluted, the dialogue was overbearing, and the main plotline was trying to hard to shock people when it was really boring them. I couldn't buy anything here, sorry to say.

DIRECTION - Michael Winner has done some great stuff, like the first three DEATH WISH films. THE SENTINEL is nowhere close to any of these films. Winner has no idea how to tell this type of story, at least not in a subtle, scary way. First of all, there's no tension or suspense at all in this film when there really should be a lot. Loud noises and seeing strange visions aren't scary or creepy unless there's something leading up to them. Too much of the film relies on providing viewers with false facts and red herrings to build up the weak mystery. The final act where Hell is opened to scare Alison into suicide before she's convinced to become the new Sentinel should be thrilling and creepy. But there's no real reason tension or excitement to the scene. I just found it laughable and silly. There are some memorable visual moments though, like the weird birthday party for the cat and Alison seeing visions of her naked father and then killing him [at least in her mind]. But Winner can't hold the film together due to its off-pace and variation in tone and mood from one scene to another. Here was a chance to really improve on the weak script with some strong visuals. Unfortunately, you don't get that here at all.

EDGE FACTOR - While the language is pretty standard for a horror film, THE SENTINEL isn't a really violent film. While we do see people killing each other, most of it is either off-screen or hidden in shadow. And besides Beverly D'Angelo playing with herself, the film ain't all that sexy either.

ACTING - The acting from this all-star cast is probably the biggest reason to watch THE SENTINEL. Cristina Raines is okay as main character Alison. She's beautiful and likeable in the role, but I felt there should have been a stronger actress to conquer the role to give it more power. But Raines is decent. Chris Sarandon is cool as Michael. He doesn't really emote much because the script doesn't allow him to, but he makes the most of it. Burgess Meredith is probably the best actor as Charles. He's crazy, kooky, and just plain weird in a very charming way. I really enjoyed him here, wishing he had been in a more interesting film. Eli Wallach enjoyed chewing the scenery as Detective Gatz. Ava Gardner gave a campy performance as Miss Logan. And we get appearances by Sylvia Miles, Beverly D'Angelo, Jeff Goldblum, Christopher Walken, Arthur Kennedy, Tom Beringer, Jerry Orbach, and John Carradine. Great cast and with some very good performances. Too bad they starred in a boring film called THE SENTINEL.

THE FINAL HOWL
THE SENTINEL didn't knock my socks off. Yet, it's not the worst film out there, even if its message is a bit forced and the final act tries to shock but instead comes across as offensive. I recommend it only for the awesome cast and their attempt to make a weak script into something more, even though it doesn't really succeed. THE SENTINEL is average at best. It's a film that could have been very interesting and well told, but just comes across as mainly boring and wastes a terrific cast. And in my opinion, that's a huge sin in itself.

SCORE
1.5 Howls Outta 4

Batman: Under the Red Hood (2010)

2011-11-04T16:40:00.000-04:00

DIRECTED BY
Brandon Vietti

STARRING
Bruce Greenwood - Batman/Bruce Wayne
Jensen Ackles - Red Hood/Jason Todd
John DiMaggio - The Joker
Wade Williams - Black Mask
Neil Patrick Harris - Nightwing
Jason Issacs - Ra's Al Ghul
Jim Piddock - Alfred Pennyworth
Kelly Hu - Ms. Li

Genre - Action/Crime/Drama/Fantasy/Comic Book/Animated

Running Time - 76 Minutes

PLOT - Based on the the Batman story arcs, A Death in the Family and Under the Hood, the film begins with the second Robin, Jason Todd (Jensen Ackles), being brutally beaten by the Joker (John DiMaggio) in an abandoned warehouse. Batman (Bruce Greenwood), on his Batcycle, races to save Jason but is too late as the warehouse explodes and Jason is killed. This has haunted Batman for years, claiming that Jason's death is his greatest failure.

Five years have passed and Gotham City's crime world has been making some noise due to a masked vigilante calling himself the Red Hood, one of the monikers The Joker had used years back. Due to his ruthlessness, many drug lords decide to work with the Red Hood out of fear and respect. This new alliance doesn't sit well with Gotham City's kingpin of crime, Black Mask (Wade Williams), who decides to have a war with the Red Hood to prove his dominance.

Obviously, Batman gets involved and catches the ire of the Red Hood. However, Batman notices that Red Hood's fighting maneuvers are familiar. After a fight, Batman finds some of Red Hood's spilt blood and analyzes it. Batman is shocked to learn that the Red Hood is a resurrected Jason Todd, who wants revenge on The Joker.

REVIEW

STORY - BATMAN: UNDER THE RED HOOD is an animated film that takes the major plot points of two of Batman's most historic story arcs, A Death in the Family and Under the Hood, and puts them together in a neat 76 minute package. A Death in the Family (1988 & 1989) is one of the biggest comic book stories of all time, dealing with the death of Jason Todd, who was the second person to use the Robin name after Dick Grayson had graduated into the hero, Nightwing. While well-liked in the beginning, Jason Todd lost his appeal after his origin was changed in the continuity revamp after Crisis on Infinite Earths in 1986. DC Comics decided that it was make-or-break time by setting up a 1-900 number for fans to call in where they could decide whether Jason Todd would live or die. Even though there have been debates about the legitimacy of the votes [some claim the calls were rigged], the results showed that the fans wanted Todd dead at the hands of The Joker. This incident would effect Batman's life for years until 2005 where comic book writer and former The Real World: San Francisco star, Judd Winick [who also adapted his work for this film], brought Jason Todd back from the dead and turned him into the Red Hood. It was a very controversial move, with many fans feeling it was unnecessary to bring him back. Still the story was a big success and Winick was offered the opportunity to turn it into an animated feature.

Winick, already familiar with his own work, writes a very solid screenplay that showcases the most important moments of the two arcs. For a cartoon, BATMAN: UNDER THE RED HOOD doesn't play for children, but rather adults who probably remembered the A Death in the Family and teenagers/younger adults who know Under the Hood. After all, the first scene deals with a teenager getting beaten to death by a crowbar with glee. A lot of the scenes carry some strong, intense writing that sometimes make you forget that you're watching an animated film. My favorite scene happened to be towards the end, where Jason sets up a situation where he tries to force Batman to kill the Joker for killing him and hurting others, questioning Batman as to why he hadn't done so already. The back-and-forth dialogue and the delivery of all parties involved really created tension and drama I appreciated. Scenes like this are sprinkled all over the film, bringing a much needed weight to the narrative.

I also liked the struggle internally between both Batman and Red Hood. Both beat the hell out of each other. Both debate about what's wrong or right. Both are trying to fight crime in Gotham, but doing it with different philosophies. It makes you question who's making the better choices when it comes to this crime filled city, as well with the Joker. Is Batman too old hat to change with the times and make some serious moves to clean up Gotham? Is Red Hood too violent in his approach that seems to actually change things? It's just classic stuff between two foils who have the same idea, but have different methods and beliefs in making it come to life. It's like Shakespeare sometimes, but with men dressed in costumes. I dug it.

I also thought the whodunit angle was handled quite well. Let's be honest: there is no mystery as to who the Red Hood is. From how it begins, it's quite obvious Jason Todd is using the alias to get closer to Batman and The Joker. This allows the film to focus less on the mystery and more on the characters and the action surrounding the narrative. There's no twist. There's no surprise. We know what's going on and it allows the viewer to be more invested in the actual plot. Smart move.

I also thought the characters were absolutely true to their comic counterparts. Batman is a smart detective who still has a soft spot for Jason. Even when he knows he's the Red Hood, he still wants to help him get back to who he was. He also has great banter with Dick Grayson/Nightwing that's actually pretty funny and showcases their relationship quite clearly. I also thought The Joker was maniacal as usual, beating up poor defenseless teenage sidekicks and enjoying the chaos around him, as well as the strained relationship between Red Hood and Batman. So true to his character. Black Mask, Ra's Al Ghul, and Nightwing were also cool additions, supporting the main players in the story well.

I do have issues with some of the screenplay, however. I think my major gripe is Winnick pretty much glossing over A Death in the Family, just giving the viewer pretty much the cliff notes version of that story while focusing mainly on the Under the Hood story. For comic book fans, this isn't an issue at all. Since I'm included in that, I already know the deal with Jason Todd, his death, and his resurrection at the hands of Ra's Al Ghul to make up for his alliance with The Joker at the time of Todd's death. Todd's relationship with Batman wasn't smooth sailing at times, which is seen in flashbacks thankfully - but I feel that their relationship should have more depth to really bring out the drama. And that's the problem - mainstream Batman fans who only know the character through television and film are going to be confused as to who Jason Todd is. On TV and in the movies, the Robin character have been portrayed mainly by Dick Grayson [1st Robin] and Tim Drake [3rd Robin]. The Jason Todd story has never been done in film form until now. I think the film should have taken the time to somehow reveal who Jason Todd was, his relationship with Batman, and why The Joker wanted to kill him. It would have made Batman's guilt and grief much more effective. Same goes with Jason's anger and frustration that Batman hadn't killed the Joker for what he did to him. Knowing the backstory with slightly more emphasis on the A Death in the Family arc would have helped viewers get an idea of who Jason Todd was and why he's so important in Batman's life. There wasn't enough of that.

Also, using more from A Death in the Family would have answered some questions for non-comic readers. Such as, why was Ra's Al Ghul working with the Joker and why did he regret doing so after Jason Todd's death? How did The Joker capture Jason Todd to begin with in order to murder him? It gets into the story a bit too quickly, leaving non-comic fans disoriented and confused as to why this is all going on.

Also, I felt like some of the character didn't get to do as much as they probably should have. Ra's Al Ghul's presence is just enough for viewers to understand why he's there and his scenes are quite effective. My main issue with with Black Mask, who has enough screen time to be a major antagonist like The Joker, but falls flat. He's there as merely a plot device - a gateway for Batman and Red Hood to confront The Joker again. Hell, Black Mask doesn't even confront Batman at all in this film, nor do we see him getting punished for his involvement in the whole mess. It's like he was forgotten when the climax set in. Also, I like the Nightwing character and wish he was in the film more. He's a pretty major presence in the first half, where you'd kind of expect him to battle Red Hood in the battle of the former Robins. But it never really happens. It would have been nice to see one fight between them and even their thoughts about each other. But at least they're in the film and it creates a nice universe that we would expect from a Batman film.

DIRECTION - Brandon Vietti does a great job with the visual portion of the film. The pacing is absolutely fantastic, as there's always action going on, making the film go by pretty fast. The action, itself, is visualized quite well and definitely feels like a comic book come to life. I liked the darker tone and atmosphere to the film, which reflects the actual story. It definitely looks like a more mature Batman: The Animated Series flick, as the characters look more realistic than they did in the actual cartoon series. I thought Vietti handled the film really nicely, even complimenting the storytelling with visual flair.

EDGE FACTOR - It's a Batman cartoon, so sexuality and language [there is some] isn't there. But BATMAN: UNDER THE RED HOOD is a very violent film. There's blood, brutality, deaths by gunfire or explosions, and even realistic talk about drug smuggling. It's a very mature animated feature that young Batman fans shouldn't probably watch until they're 12 or 13 unless there's parent supervision. It's more in the tone of THE DARK KNIGHT rather than BATMAN & ROBIN.

ACTING - The voice acting is top notch. Bruce Greenwood does a very good job as Bruce Wayne/Batman, playing up to Batman's struggle between hero and vigilante. But I still prefer Kevin Conroy in the role. But Greenwood is a nice substitute. John DiMaggio isn't close to Mark Hamill's level as The Joker, as he sounds a bit too sane and normal for the character. He got better towards the end, as he was kind of rough for me in the beginning. I think he had a lot of pressure to live up to really, as Hamill is considered the best Joker to many Batman fans, so he felt like he had to come close to impersonating the voice rather than making it his own. He's not terrible in the slightest, but it's odd hearing the character's voice done by someone else. Jensen Ackles, by far, was the best voice actor as Red Hood. He gave the character a menace that was extremely believable. I thought he really shined here and stole every scene he did the voice acting for. Also nice to hear Neil Patrick Harris as Nightwing and Kelly Hu as Ms. Li. Top notch voice acting for the most part.

THE FINAL HOWL
I usually don't watch many animated films these days, but BATMAN: UNDER THE RED HOOD may be the start to get me watching them again. It isn't the greatest Batman adaptation out there and it may confuse mainstream Batman fans. But the adaptation of two memorable comic story arcs wrapped in a 76 minute package is done really well and the movie is a solid comic book action-adventure that will please Batman fans for sure. I would definitely watch more of these comic book animated films and give you my thoughts on this blog when I do. I hope they're as good as BATMAN: UNDER THE RED HOOD.

SCORE
3.5 Howls Outta 4

Indie Horror Spotlight: Siko Mike's Hallowscream (2010)

2011-10-31T22:37:00.000-04:00

Even though Halloween is almost over on the East Coast of the United States, I still wanted to highlight a short film one of my coolest friends made a year ago. Called HALLOWSCREAM, Siko Mike created a short that was inspired by his love for all things horror and his obsession with Batman [especially the Joker]. Directed and written by Siko Mike, he also stars in it along with his younger brother, Josh Huntley, and their friend Ray Perry.

Here's the synopsis:

Fred and Jason are best friends, but totally opposite people. Fred always seems to find himself in trouble. Jason however doesn't approve of Fred's mischief. On Halloween night, the two teens decide to trick or treat at the crazy neighbor Psycho Mike's creepy house. Jason gets angry at Fred and leaves. Fred sees a house that appears to be empty with a bowl of Halloween candy on the front porch and nobody around. While stealing some of the candy, Fred notices that the front door is wide open and decides to just walk in and see what he can take. What Fred doesn't know is that the residents of the house are not Human, but monsterous homicidal clowns that eat trick or treaters that just so happen to come to their home on All Hallow's Eve. The season of fear is back this Hallowscream!

While this micro-budgeted film isn't perfect - some static shots linger way too long and the editing and audio sometimes aren't leveled enough - there's still a lot to like about it. The Jester is pretty funny and the actors seem to be having fun, which is what's important. Please check it out and show some love to indie filmmaking.

Happy Halloween everyone!

ALSO CHECK OUT: SIKO MIKE'S BLIND DATE

SIKO MIKE'S MIDNIGHT SILENCE

Dawn of the Dead (1978 & 2004) - A Special Original vs. Remake Article

2011-10-30T23:17:00.001-04:00

DIRECTED BY
George A. Romero [1978]
Zack Snyder [2004]

STARRING
[1978]
David Emge - Stephen
Ken Foree - Peter
Scott Reiniger - Roger
Gaylen Ross - Francine
David Crawford - Dr. Foster
Tom Savini - Motorcycle Raider

[2004]
Sarah Polley - Ana
Ving Rhames - Kenneth
Jake Weber - Michael
Mekhi Phifer - Andre
Ty Burrell - Steve
Kevin Zegers - Terry
Lindy Booth - Nicole

Genre - Horror/Action/Zombies

Running Time - 127 Minutes [1978]/ 110 Minutes [2004]

**This is something I wrote for one of my college classes in December of 2009, comparing the narratives of both versions of DAWN OF THE DEAD. I did watch the films again a few days ago and the scores at the end reflect my feelings on both films. Let's just say that I feel both movies are worthy of a watch if you have not yet seen them - and if you haven't, shame on you.**

In 1968, a low-budget horror film about cannibalistic zombies took audiences by storm. It was called Night of the Living Dead and it was directed by George A. Romero, a man who not only wanted to scare his audience, but educate them as well with social commentary. 1968's Night of the Living Dead used its "survivors" and zombies to relay thoughts on racial strife, the Vietnam War, and the general disillusionment of the government and general authority types. Costing a little over $20,000 to make, the film was a huge success and is considered one of the most historical and influential films of all time.

In 1974, Romero visited a mall in Monroeville, Pennsylvania with a friend whose company ran the mall. While visiting, Romero spotted parts of the mall that weren't accessible to the shoppers inside. He believed that these hidden spots would be quite useful in case something really horrible would happen in the mall or in the general location period. This idea led to the writing and directing of his next zombie feature, 1978's Dawn of the Dead. Taking place at the Monroeville Mall, with make-up effects done by FX master Tom Savini, and creating satire by using the zombies as social commentary for the mall culture and the idea of corporations and consumerism, Dawn of the Dead was both a critical and commercial success. In fact, the success of Dawn of the Dead would inspire other zombie classics such as Zombie and The Return of the Living Dead.

In 2004, director Zack Snyder directed a remake, or "re-imagining", for Dawn of the Dead. While the film still took place inside a mall and had similar themes, the remake couldn't be more different than its predecessor. So why and how are the two versions of the same movie so different from each other?

One of the major differences between the two versions of Dawn of the Dead is the use of social commentary behind the plot of the film. In Romero's Dawn of the Dead, the commentary on mall culture and consumerism is not hard to find. According to Mike Molesworth in his article, he considers the "punch line" of the film is that "the zombies are consumers". Stephen Harper, in his article, compares the roles of the survivors and the zombies to that of Marxist beliefs. He feels that the zombies act as "lumpenproletariat", or "walking symbols of any oppressed social group" that are "synonymous with oppression and slavery". According to Harper, the "human survivors" in the film are "literally and etymologically 'living over' the zombies".

This idea is best shown in a number of scenes in Dawn of the Dead. The whole idea that the zombies are actually playing the part of brainwashed consumers during a time where mall culture was very prevalent in American society is best shown during the scene where Peter tell Stephen and Fran the reason why the zombies are even at the mall. Stephen believes that it's because the dead is after them, but Stephen disagrees, believing that the zombies are actually after the place. Stephen claims that the dead remember how much the mall means to them in their past lives and they just want to be there, leading to the classic quote, "When there's no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the earth." In fact, in a similar scene prior to this one where Fran and Stephen are on the mall's roof looking down at the zombies trying to get into the mall, Fran wonders why the zombies are so attracted to the mall. Stephen claims it's "instinct".

This leads to Harper's idea that the zombies are an oppressed and slaves to consumerism. If one is to think about this idea, Harper is pretty much correct on his assessment. Americans are born into a culture where we're told to buy things, whether we need them or not. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, consumerism was at an all-time high because new products were constantly being produced and advertised on television, almost brainwashing people into believing they needed the latest fashion, cookware, and recreational equipment. Big corporations use subliminal messages to lure unsuspecting Americans into buying what they're selling. The fact that many Americans, and other nationalities in general, need these things to survive and/or to feel better about themselves as individuals shows that we're slaves to product placement without even realizing it. The zombies represent that the role of the consumer is a very important part of our behavior as human beings. It's instinct. It's one of the few things all of us really know how to do because it has been embedded in all of us, even if we don't want to succumb to it. Harper believes that the mall represents "the epitome of corporate capitalism", and at the same time, the "potential site of resistance to the forces that regulate consumerism."

In fact, the zombies aren't the only characters in the film that reflect this idea. The human survivors also cave in to this consumer slavery throughout the movie. Once they trap themselves inside the mall, the characters create a parody of how people shop. They take money from the bank. They entertain themselves with video games, playing with weapons as they stock up to protect themselves, and even put on make-up as if there wasn't a zombie invasion happening around them. They grab food, clothing, and even unnecessary things like fur coats and jewelry. Besides food and weapons, the other items are completely unnecessary. Yet, these characters have this instinctual need to own these materials, as if they wouldn't be able to live without them in their possession. Even as Romero directs these scenes, they're played as almost a utopian paradise of materialism, upbeat musical soundtrack and all.

For example, there's a scene where Fran sees zombies roaming about aimlessly. Instead of grabbing a gun and shooting them, she just raises the collar of her fur coat as a way to protect herself. This passive aggressiveness shows what Fran really values. It isn't her physical well being. It's her emotional and social well being that takes precedence.

But eventually, the characters, even with all the goodies at their disposal that many of us would dream to own ourselves, grow distant and become displeased with their utopia. These products that supposedly keep them safe lose their sheen as they realize that the one thing they all want can't be bought at any mall: freedom. And it's here that what Romero is trying to say is evident: consumerism takes away our freedom and individuality. We have this need to shop because it makes us feel better about ourselves. It reveals our social status, feeding into our self-esteem and self-worth. Feeding into greed and gluttony keeps some people grounded emotionally and mentally. The humans hide inside the mall for the same reason the zombies want to get in: it's our "fool's paradise" revealing our "visceral indulgence" for things we probably don't need in order to survive. The survivors are just as oppressed and dead (although not physically) as the zombies who are threats to their very lives. Like Peter points out in the film when they discuss the zombies: "They're us." Both sides of the coin could be considered "cultural dupes". This mentality leads to the downfall of the survivors, especially when the motorcycle gang arrives to take over the malls themselves. Stephen, or "Flyboy" as he's called throughout the film by Roger and Peter, tells the bikers that the mall belongs to them - that he and his friends took it for themselves. This leads to chaos, as Stephen and several of the bikers get bitten by zombies the biker gang accidentally let in. This forces Peter and Fran to escape on a helicopter with pretty much no fuel. While downbeat, the fact that they might not survive the escape doesn't bother the characters one bit. As a matter of fact, their deaths represent the freedom they didn't enjoy inside the mall. The idea of envy and want is in all of us. We all want something. We all want to have it and get jealous when someone else does. The act of wanting could possibly turn malicious because of envy. This is what is believed to be the result of consumerism.

While the mall is still the setting in the 2004 remake, the commentary on consumerism is completely lost. This is mainly due to the fact that in modern society, malls aren't seen as the hotspot for our consumer needs. With the invention of online shopping, especially Amazon and eBay, going to a mall to buy isn't as prevalent as it was 30 to 40 years ago. In his article "I Shopped With A Zombie", Phillip Matthews felt that Snyder "had nothing to add to Romero's view of that culture," and that the remake felt "less like a critique than a demo reel." While I agree that Snyder doesn't create the commentary as Romero did in the original, there are still scenes in the remake that reflect consumerism - especially in the form of product placement. There is a shot of a Cosmopolitan magazine and bottles of Aquafina are splattered throughout the film. So while the remake doesn't comment on consumerism, the remake is sure a product of it.

The real commentary in the 2004 version is obviously the post-9/11 threat of terrorism. The opening sequence of the film is very bleak and dreary, showing footage briefly of praying Muslims. This correlates with the scene during the end credits where the zombies attack the survivors as they make it to an island. Snyder wants to express that all hope after 9/11 for a brighter future is gone and lost. There's no hope anymore. Just chaos. Just death. The zombies in the 2004 version represent the terrorists that still haunt many people. The world doesn't make sense anymore. How does one stop this outbreak of zombies? Why is this even happening to begin with and why won't anyone explain? What you once thought safe is now dangerous and full of uncertain.

Even the zombies in each film reflect the change with the times. The original's zombies are slow, mute, clumsy, and not much of a threat unless one lets them get close. The fact that you could have pie fights with them and they don't really counterattack unless the advantage is there proves that fact. The remake, however, has zombies inspired by the viral infected humans in 28 Days Later. These zombies are quick, brutal, violent, feral, and hungry for flesh. These zombies are more aggressive and more of an in-your-face threat. One can run away from a Romero zombie. But it's a lot harder with a Snyder zombie, making the possibility of surviving slimmer. The faster, meaner zombies reflect today's society in a post-9/11 world. Terrorists attack innocent people with planes, gas, and bombs. There's no escaping it and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. As much as we try and understand, as much as we try to run away from the problem, it always bites back when it catches up with us. We live in darker times and the remake uses the zombie characters to reflect that. Unlike the original Dawn of the Dead, the remake plays on fears that we can truly understand from a visual experience, not a philosophical one.

Besides the commentaries, there is also a big difference between the characters in each respective film. This is no more evident than in the female leads of both Dawn of the Dead's, as they couldn't be further different from each other. In the original Dawn of the Dead, Fran tries to be the epitome of a feminist woman, trying to show her independence and usefulness in a small group of men. But the character is weak from beginning to end on these merits. As I was doing research, I found two different thoughts of Fran by two different authors. Stephen Harper considers Fran to be the "moral insight" of the film and the one expressing Romero's point of view on the consumer issue. Harper feels that Fran, while not as aggressive as her male counterparts, does aid them in protecting the mall and wanting to learn how to fly a helicopter and use a gun in case something bad happens. And the fact that she refuses to domesticate herself at the beginning of the film gives Harper the belief that Fran has feministic qualities.

Shane Borrowman, however, pretty much considers Fran to be of "limited value in her tiny, well-stocked world". I agree with Borrowman here. Fran doesn't do much of note in the film. Whenever she has a gun, she hands it to one of the men rather than taking shots herself (which she does on rare occasion). While not wanting to play the role of a housewife and mother, that's exactly what she becomes. She nurses people, especially a bitten Roger, for much of the film. Refusing to cook in the beginning, she ends up doing so later, almost becoming a domesticated wife and mother. When it comes to decision making, she stands or sits off to the side smoking while the men take care of creating plans for their survival. And in one of the scenes, she dolls herself up in makeup and lavish clothes and jewelry to feel more feminine in a way. These aren't feminist qualities. Fran never stands up for herself. She's caught in the ideal roles of women. She's a lover. She's a mom. She's a sister. She's a fantasy. But she's never just Fran. Her passivity makes her more of a decoration than an actual member of the group. For a professional woman, she rarely displays any sorts of leadership skills in the film.

The same can't be said for Ana, the protagonist of the Dawn of the Dead remake. Ana is a highly skilled nurse who doesn't let the men around her put her in the background. She's smart, strong enough to take care of herself, and takes charge of situations when no one else will. This is evident in the opening of the film, where Ana has to save herself both from her zombified husband and her equally zombified young neighbor. While emotionally devastated at the loss of her husband, Ana still manages to be brave and clever enough to prevent him from biting her and killing her, escaping out of a bathroom window and running away from her house without looking back. When inside the mall with others, she asks questions, rallies the troops, and takes initiative without asking permission first. Despite one scene where Ana does go to Michael, her love interest, for help in escaping the mall, Ana is more independent, and in a sense, more of a feminist than Fran before her. It's similar to the first two versions of Night of the Living Dead (1968 and 1990) where the Barbara character in each one are completely different (the remake's Barbara is more of an action heroine than the fragile, catatonic original Barbara). The world is more accepting of strong female characters in entertainment now than they probably were 30 years ago, making the audience relate more to Ana's "fight or flight" behavior than Fran's passive aggressive nature.

Another difference between the original and the remake is the idea of family. In the original Dawn of the Dead, the family dynamic between the four main characters isn't exactly tight-knit. The best relationship between the four is with Roger and Peter, who goof around shooting zombies and looting the mall. They trust each other, communicate all the time, and are the leaders of the small group. Even when Roger tells Peter to kill him after he's been bitten, we can see and feel Peter's hard time dealing with the fact that he has to kill his best friend, his brother, in order to keep himself, Stephen, and Fran alive. They're the only two in the film that seem to have a relationship built on something real.

The other couple in the film, Stephen and Fran, don't seem to fare well with each other like Roger and Peter do. They disagree on a lot of things. Especially when it comes to Fran being left out of discussions with the other members of the group, and her pregnancy. Stephen, just as weak as Fran when it comes to being active, seems very indifferent about her pregnancy. The topic of abortion comes up once, which Stephen mostly dictates until Fran asks whether he wants her to get rid of the baby. Instead, Stephen gives her what Borrowman calls a "vague and halfhearted negative". Even when it comes to her own unborn child, Fran doesn't seem to have much say. Peter says that they'll deal with "it" away from Fran's presence and she's the mother! All Fran does is smoke and brood, snapping at Stephen over her ejection about the subject and his unwillingness to stand up for her and himself. There's a lack of communication and understand between Stephen and Fran that's not there with Roger and Peter. Same goes with Fran and everyone else. That makes Dawn of the Dead more bleak. The zombies aren't the monsters. The survivors, constantly bickering with each other and excluding each other out of difficult and important situations, are the real monsters.

In the remake, there's more of a family feel between the survivors. They communicate with each other normally. They eat together. They sleep together. Most of them are willing to protect the others over themselves. There's a sense of camaraderie between the survivors, each other accepting their roles, and working together to survive as long as possible.

But the family issue also becomes a bad thing. This is true in the case of Andre, who hides his pregnant wife Luda, who has already been bitten, in a room and lies to the others about her condition. His love for Luda blinds him to the fact that saving his wife is a hopeless cause and that the baby will die because of it. When it's revealed that Luda has transformed into a zombie and gave birth to an actual zombie baby, Andre shoots down a fellow member of the group who attempts to kill the baby before killing himself. With no one in the way, the rest of the group destroy the zombie baby, realizing that innocence no longer plays a role in this post-apocalyptic world. Borrowman calls this subplot "the ultimate inversion of family values".

Also dealing with the family issue is the character of Nicole, who loses her father who's been quarantined in a room inside the mall after he's been bitten. She attaches herself to a young guard named Tucker and a dog she finds, using both as surrogates to fill the void left by the loss of her father. However, Nicole's loyalty to the dog gives the group problems as the dog runs away every now and then, forcing Nicole to go after it, putting herself and the others in danger. Her sense of loyalty and family to this dog brings more tension and grief to the other survivors. So while the family aspect is stronger in the remake, it also creates just as much tension, if not more, than in the original.

Even though the remake of Dawn of the Dead is so different visually and philosophically than the original Romero version, I still find the remake to be a refreshing take on the zombie genre and a great film in its own right. I feel it's impossible and a waste of time to achieve the same level of commentary Romero put in his version, as the issue of consumerism is not as important today as the issue of terrorism, although it is up there with the recent downturn in the economy. I admire that Snyder went into a different direction, even with using the same plot. I think both films have a place in the horror genre and can be enjoyed for different reasons, even though both outcomes are
depressing.

SCORE
DAWN OF THE DEAD (1978)
4 Howls Outta 4

DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004)
3.5 Howls Outta 4

DAWN OF THE DEAD (1978) Trailer

DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004) Trailer

ChromeSkull: Laid to Rest 2 (2011)

2011-10-19T23:29:00.000-04:00

DIRECTED BY
Robert Hall

STARRING
Brian Austin Green - Preston
Nick Principe - ChromeSkull
Thomas Dekker - Tommy
Mimi Michaels - Jess
Owain Yeoman - King
Gail O'Grady - Nancy
Danielle Harris - Spann
Johnathon Schaech - Agent Sells

Genre - Horror/Slasher

Running Time - 93 Minutes

Judging by box office receipts this year, it seems less people are going out of their way to watch horror movies in theaters. While INSIDIOUS was a success no one really saw coming back in April, horror movies since then haven't done as well as projected. I'm not sure if this is because audiences have been disillusioned by the current state of the genre [due to reboots and remakes, as well as focus on 3-D] or because of the economy, but horror seems to be at a crossroads these days. Fortunately, the genre is still thriving due to foreign filmmakers and the massive independent scene [thanks to home video].

One of these independent horror films that struck a chord with horror fans was 2009's slasher film, LAID TO REST. With a unique killer in ChromeSkull and gore effects that will amaze anyone, LAID TO REST was a great Nu-Slasher that didn't try to reinvent the sub-genre, but just give its fans exactly what they wanted. And even though it seemed final at the end of LAID TO REST, the success of the film led to today's review: CHROMESKULL: LAID TO REST 2. Even though it was heavily anticipated and much discussed within horror circles, is the film necessary? Was the first LAID TO REST enough or is the sequel a decent enough continuation that will keep audiences wanting more?

PLOT
Picking up where LAID TO REST left off, ChromeSkull (Nick Principe) is barely alive after his incident with The Girl. He's found by an underground group known as The Organization, who seem to help ChromeSkull run his operation in murdering people and crafting those nifty weapons he sports. Preston (Brian Austin Green), as ChromeSkull's right hand man, gets a group of surgeons to try and salvage ChromeSkull's face as much as they can, even though the recovery process would take three months.

In the meantime, Preston [who wants to be just like ChromeSkull] decides to finish what ChromeSkull started. First, he kills The Girl. Then he kidnaps Tommy (Thomas Dekker), who was the last witness besides The Girl of ChromeSkull's destruction. Another girl, Jess (Mimi Michaels) is kidnapped due to ChromeSkull wanting another toy to play with, even though she's losing her sight.

However, Preston seems to want to be in charge of it all, making ChromeSkull pretty angry that his protege is trying to take over his spot. Not to be outdone by Preston, ChromeSkull quickly recovers and picks up where he stopped, hunting victims of his own. As the two compete for supremacy, will Tommy and Jess survive the war?

REVIEW
CHROMESKULL: LAID TO REST 2 is a film I was looking forward to all year, due to my love for the original and the cool trailer that was posted months in advance of its release. After watching it, I was not disappointed in the film at all. It's a slasher through and through with buckets of blood and gore and an interesting twist to ChromeSkull's background that kept me glued. However, the film is far from perfect and it probably raises more questions than answers. Still, CHROMESKULL manages to be a fun time for slasher fans around the world.

The problems for CHROMESKULL lay in its narrative. Even so, there's still a lot to like about the screenplay. For one, director Robert Hall listened to fans who critiqued the first film, wanting feedback in how to make this sequel better. Out were stereotypical slasher characters [who I did enjoy in LAID TO REST] and a predictable set up for his killer. For those who watched the first film, we watched The Girl bash Chromeskull's face in with a bat that should have killed the man. Obviously in slasher films, the killer never truly dies. So I kept wondering how ChromeSkull was gonna be brought back. Lightning? Magic? A dog peeing fire on his corpse??? How was Hall gonna bring this dude back? Simple - make ChromeSkull the head of a corporate structure that has doctors who can save his life and some of his face. How refreshing! I guess ChromeSkull is somewhat human after all and can get hurt badly. It took a stereotypical set up and gives it a realistic edge I was not expecting. I actually dug it!

Speaking of The Corporation, I liked this plot device as well. Instead of having ChromeSkull be undead, an inbred, or someone who had childhood demons he needed to let out, ChromeSkull is the hired hand of a bunch of corporate pricks who enjoy kidnapping young women and torturing and/or killing them before putting them in a coffin while they're videotaped. While there's still a lot to be explored with this aspect of the story [which I will get to momentarily], at least it's different and gives ChromeSkull a fresher feel from his other slasher monsters, such as Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, and Freddy Krueger. We still don't know ChromeSkull's backstory and I'm kind of glad we don't. Just the fact that he's working and seems in charge of this underground group is intriguing in itself. There seems to be a bigger picture when it comes to this character and I think some decent sequels could be set up from this [I'm sure we're getting another one].

I also liked the fact that the cops played a big part in the narrative as well. Usually in slasher films, the cops are probably the dumbest characters and usually end up being annoying because they refuse to believe the victims' cries for help. In CHROMESKULL, the cops seemed mostly intelligent enough to investigate ChromeSkull and his group in order to save Jess and Tommy from being their next victims. I'm writing mainly about the King character, who was written competently, even if we didn't know much about him. He never rolled his eyes. He never tried to push his own beliefs on the victims, which is an annoying trait in most of these films. He actually listened, investigated, and worked hard to figure out what the hell was going on by what Tommy had told him about ChromeSkull. That made him instantly likeable and refreshing for me. The other cop characters were fine until they found leads and ended up screwing themselves in the process, but they were lambs to the slaughter as expected. I just feel that the cop element really added an element of urgency and survival to the film due to the fact that they actually behaved like real cops.

I also enjoyed the straight-on continuation from the end of LAID TO REST. It reminded me of 80s slasher films, such as HALLOWEEN and HALLOWEEN II, as well as several of the FRIDAY THE 13TH films that continued right after the other. I liked that the issue with The Girl was resolved in a believable way and that Tommy played a big role in the sequel since he was pretty small in the original. It showed that ChromeSkull and his organization wanted to clean the mess up from the first one while starting another one.

I also really enjoyed the Preston vs. ChromeSkull rivalry as well. One, I think it's great that the main villain had a protege. The fact that someone wants to be just like this crazy dude is actually intriguing and reminds of me the SAW franchise where Jigsaw had apprentices to carry on his work after his death. The thing is, while ChromeSkull is still a cool character and I enjoyed his subtle relationship with the Spann character [who is a manipulative little bitch - but in a good way], Preston is really the most developed character in the entire film. While we don't know why he's even part of this group or how he became ChromeSkull's #2, we do know that he wants to be in charge of the whole shindig, to the point where he wants to be ChromeSkull in looks, killing style, and respect. He hates it when ChromeSkull doesn't acknowledge his accomplishments. He gets frustrated whenever ChromeSkull undermines him. His jealousy of ChromeSkull is what drives this sequel and it's handled very well. I kind of wish their rivalry played out more than it did, but I thought it was a cool idea that worked.

Unfortunately, not all of the characters had as much depth as Preston. In fact, a lot of them seemed one-note in my honest opinion. Tommy was decently developed in terms of how ChromeSkull's rampage had effected him, but I kind of wish he was the focus of the film rather than who they did focus the film on - Jess. I didn't hate Jess at all, but she wasn't as interesting as The Girl from the first film. At least they developed her somewhat with her medical condition and her strained relationship with her mom, but she pretty much just whines and plays with a telephone or camera for much of the film. I kind of wished her ailment would have played more of a part during the Final Act, but it's your pretty normal conflict. I thought she was okay but I wasn't really invested in her as a Final Girl. Spann was an intriguing character who ChromeSkull seemed to trust quite a lot, but nothing else was done with her. The cops were written well, but none of them really stood out besides King. As much as the original characters were stereotypical, at least they had depth to them and you could understand why they were in ChromeSkull's bloody path. Since a sequel normally has a larger number of characters, it's harder to maintain that same level of focus. While not stereotypical, CHROMESKULL's characters seemed shallower.

I also felt there wasn't enough done with The Corporation. I thought the idea and set up was interesting [reminded me of HOSTEL for a bit], but it was just vague and not enough was explained about the whole deal. Did ChromeSkull fund this organization, or is just a hired hand? Why is this Corporation so concerned with making caskets to place young girls inside? Why is there a random tattoo artist nearby, waiting for work? How does one even get involved in something like this? It's a sub-plot that needed a bit of fleshing out, especially when much of the film focused on it. It nagged me for much of my viewing experience.

The true highlight of CHROMESKULL is obviously the kills. And by God, Hall and his crew did an amazing job with the death sequences. While some CGI was used, most of it was practical and it looks awesome! The film showcases these brutal kills within great pacing, as they don't occur all the time and take place when they need to. There's so much to list here: decapitations, bodies split in half, stabbings, gunshots, faces being sliced off, knives going through mouths, hooks to the shoulder, electrocutions, torsos being ripped in half, and so on. I actually cringed at some of these - that's how good they look. Gore hounds will absolutely love this film, as it's more brutal than the first. Add in some nudity and we got ourselves a true slasher flick. Two thumbs up.

The direction by Robert Hall is very good. The film looks great, first of all. Very bleak and grim looking - almost cold and industrial to be honest. I do think some of the quick cuts during the editing took away from some of the death sequences, but it wasn't a frequent thing. There's quite a lot of shaky cam and handheld filmmaking here that adds a bit of tension to the film. There was some suspense thrown in as well. I do feel that Hall loses some of the intimacy that made LAID TO REST work though. And things don't feel as mysterious as in the previous film, but that's to be expected in a slasher sequel. It's obvious Hall has become a much better director since the first film and you can tell he has more installments set up that will probably explain the questions I have. While not perfect, I think Hall's direction improved somewhat and he deserves kudos for visualizing a bloody massacre that horror fans like myself will enjoy.

The acting in CHROMESKULL is also surprisingly good as well. Nick Principe returns as ChromeSkull, this time bringing a more dangerous and brutal edge. Principe is more confident in the role and really portrays a killing machine quite believably. Thomas Dekker also returns as Tommy, doing well in a much bigger role. I believed his trauma and fear of ChromeSkull, as well as his grief over losing his best friend and The Girl - bringing some guilt to the role. Mimi Michaels did well with what she was given as Jess. The character didn't really capture all of my interest, but Michaels still stands out due to her looks and her convincing portrayal of a victim suffering with an illness. She never annoyed me and is actually quite likeable. Gail O'Grady also impresses in her limited role as Jess' mom. Owain Yeoman was cool as King, playing a cop with some substance for a change in a horror film. Danielle Harris playing a bitch as Spann was quite a turn on and a pleasant change of pace for her. I really enjoyed her short role and hope it's expanded in a future installment.

But by far, the best actor was Brian Austin Green as Preston. I was really surprised by his performance here. Seeing him grow up on Beverly Hills 90210, go through his ridiculous gangsta rapper phase, and being jealous for a time for actually banging and marrying Megan Fox didn't really give Green any favors. But he's really impressive in this film, stealing the movie from everyone around him. He's imposing, charming at times, and especially nutty when he goes full "slasher mode". I thought he was a great foil for ChromeSkull and matched Principe's intensity very well. I hope to see Green in more projects like this because CHROMESKULL proves the man can act when the right material is in front of him.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE GETTING A SKULL TATTOO ON MY CHEST

- Preston sliced The Girl in the mouth, giving her an extended smile that upset her. Some people will see that as ungrateful. Seriously, "Why so serious?"

- Spann seems able to calm and soothe ChromeSkull. When it comes to knowing what makes masked men tick, she's been an expert at the age of 10.

- ChromeSkull stabbed a girl on the side of her face and pulled it off as she was making popcorn. I'm sure that wasn't the type of ear she had in mind.

- Cops were worried that Preston kidnapped Tommy from the police station. I wouldn't be too preoccupied. There's probably a Terminator that needs its ass handed to them.

Preston wanted to be so like ChromeSkull that he shaved his head, got a skull tattoo on his chest, and put on his own ChromeSkull mask while hunting. I have a feeling this move was 90210-no...

THE FINAL HOWL
While I feel the first one tells a better story, CHROMESKULL: LAID TO REST 2 is still a worthy follow up to blooming horror franchise. The gore is off the charts, the narrative is interesting yet a bit shallow, the direction slightly better, and performances like Brian Austin Green's keep the sequel afloat. If you enjoyed the first LAID TO REST, there's no hesitation in watching CHROMESKULL since I'm pretty sure you'll enjoy it just as much, if not close. But whatever you do, don't dress up like ChromeSkull while watching this. When it comes to imitation, it isn't the sincerest form of flattery...

SCORE
3 Howls Outta 4