OCTOBER 11, 2013

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

I'm sure I've said this here before, but I'll risk repeating myself just to be sure: If you go all October without watching a Vincent Price movie, you're doing something wrong. I see folks watching hardcore gore films for the season, and I'm not going to say they're WRONG, but to me the old Price films are far better suited to get you into the Halloween mood, as they've got a devilish charm that matches the spirit of the holiday - something a splatter movie doesn't quite have. And Scream Factory seemingly agrees; their big release for the month is a boxed set featuring six of his classics, starting with The Fall Of The House Of Usher (sometimes just House Of Usher), which was also the first of his seven (!) Poe adaptations with Roger Corman.

And it's also where I started with the set, as I saw the film pre-HMAD and thus never wrote a review of it before (the other films on the set are mostly reviewed here, albeit without the audio commentaries and other bonus features Scream has assembled for this release). Plus, it had been so long that I couldn't remember much about it beyond the fact that it was similar to a couple of their others in that it involved a guy coming to an isolated manor owned by Vincent Price and inquiring about a loved one, finding himself at odds with the man, and, after some reveals, narrowly escaping with his life as the house (and Price) perished behind him. Corman was famous for reusing sets and such, but I suspect he was cribbing from his own scripts quite a bit as well.

That said, it doesn't diminish from the movie's power (plus it was the first one anyway), as this is a terrific start to the "franchise" and very much worthy of its inclusion into the National Film Registry (one of the few horror films to earn that honor - even The Wolfman hasn't been honored as of yet). Of course, it's not much of a horror film, as it's never made clear whether or not Usher (Price) is right when he says that the house is alive and cursed, or if he's just been driven mad due to his ailments, but it's still got a few tropes of the haunted house film. Our hero (Mark Damon) hears strange noises, is almost killed by a falling chandelier, and as per cinematic law there's a crypt in the basement (complete with cobwebs and a rat), giving the film the SENSE of a haunted house without actually being one. Nice trick, that.

Horror or not, though, it's another wonderful performance by Price, who sheds his dry sense of humor (and his facial hair!) to play a tough role of a man who may or may not be a villain. Throughout the film he urges Damon's character (fiance to Usher's sister, also "cursed") to just leave, and if you take his word about the house's power as fact, then he's just trying to save the guy's life. However, if he's just insane, he's dragging his sister (and their poor butler, the only other character in the film) down with him, making him less sympathetic. Price can easily play this gray area, and he even manages to invoke a few minor chuckles along the way; when Damon suggests that the house can't be responsible for the things that have happened, Price replies "Oh you think this is NORMAL?" without missing a beat.

See that's the cool thing about the movie - it can very easily just be a perfect storm of unfortunate events giving the illusion of a curse. The house is said to be on a fissure, so the constant shifts and rumbles may be just as "cursed" as any home along the San Andreas fault, and Price's symptoms can be explained away as Hyperacusis (sensitivity to sound), Photophobia (light), etc. It's interesting that we never see the sister react as strongly as Price, she SAYS that the light hurts but doesn't flinch, whereas Price is constantly grimacing whenever lightning strikes outside. Corman's decision to never come down hard on either side makes it more interesting, and either way it's a more melancholy film than one would expect from Corman OR Price.

Indeed, it's one of the more faithful of their Poe adaptations (at least one of which was actually based on another author's work entirely, using only Poe's title). In the original story the hero wasn't involved with Usher's sister, and actually was a close friend of Usher's instead of a "rival" as is the case here, but otherwise it sticks to the concept and the ending, with the house sinking into the moor, taking its inhabitants with it. And the story was long enough that they didn't have to add in a bunch of other stuff to make feature length, such as Pit and the Pendulum. Eventually they'd figure out that they could just do anthology films using three short stories rather than try to pad out one of them, but I never got the sense that this one felt like it was stretching even if it does come in at exactly 80 minutes (including an intro that just plays the theme over a title card before the actual credits begin).

Ironically, the one thing that COULD be construed as a time-stretching diversion, a nightmare scene around the one hour mark, is one of the film's highlights. For starters, it actually RESEMBLES a real dream one would have, and is presented as one right off the bat instead of the usual horror movie trick of trying to fool the audience. And it's got all these crazy colors and Price at his creepiest (and it's the only time in the movie you see anyone besides the four principal actors), so even if it could easily be removed, plot-wise, I doubt anyone has ever complained about its addition.

The Blu-ray has TWO audio commentaries, though one isn't full length and rather unnecessary to anyone who's already read up on Price's life. Ignoring the film entirely, it just has an expert on the man and a decent (if exaggerated) impressionist talk about the actor's love of art and cooking, and how he began his acting career. So she provides the background info, and then the impressionist guy plays Price with (what I assume are) direct quotes from his autobiography or something. Bizarre concept, but I'm all for trying new things. Of much more use is the full commentary by Corman, recorded in 2001 or so (he says it's been 40 years). As I've said before his commentaries are always must-listens (for his newer Syfy films, they're of far more value than the films themselves), and this is no exception; he covers the genesis of the project, his approach to the sets and blocking, and tells some of his always hilarious anecdotes about cutting corners or doing things the "wrong" way in order to get more production value (one highlight is explaining how he had a guy keep the fire marshal distracted during the shooting of the finale so that they could get away with more dangerous shots). Finally, a 40 minute audio interview with Price is included; there isn't much to look at (they change the shot a few times) and it seems to be part of a larger chat as it ends with House on Haunted Hill, but it's a delight to listen to him tell stories of the early part of his career. The trailer and some stills are also included, making this a special edition that would have been a good value had it been sold on its own.

The other films on the set are Pit and the Pendulum, The Haunted Palace, Masque of the Red Death, The Abominable Dr. Phibes, and Witchfinder General. A fine collection, though not even close to complete, so hopefully this will just be the first volume of an annual tradition (since most of them are owned by MGM, who seemingly has a strong partnership with Scream/Shout!, it's not a stretch to believe more could be coming). Volume 2 - the other 3 Poe films, the Phibes sequel, Theatre of Blood, and Madhouse, perhaps? Even without a bunch of bonus features (the set also includes a booklet with an essay on Price and stills/posters for all six films), it'd be great to have all of them in a shelf space-saving package and in typically solid high def transfers. Hopefully horror fans still have leftover money in their wallets (they've been knocking out must-have releases almost every week for the past two months) to pick it up and ensure that further sets are worth putting together.

What say you?

P.S. Keep an eye on Badass Digest and Fangoria for reviews of some of the other films. I won't have time to go through the whole set before it hits shelves on October 22nd, and I've already reviewed most of the other films here on HMAD anyway, but Phibes was another pre-HMAD entry and the number of bonus features on the others assures I can find something new to say about one of them (either Masque or Pendulum, I would guess).

Tweet

OCTOBER 2, 2013

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Every horror fan knows who Vincent Price is, but unless you were around at the time (or have done your homework), you might assume he was already an icon when he signed on to House On Haunted Hill for William Castle back in 1958. But in fact it's only his 4th horror movie EVER (one of which was The Fly, where he played a supporting character), which in a way makes his performance all the more spectacular - there's something sort of iconic about the role and how it is used in the film, to the extent that you might assume the script possibly called for a "Vincent Price type" and then they just went ahead and got the real thing. So if you, like me, adore the man and his horror roles - this is the one that started it all, really (his other two films - House of Wax and Mad Magician, were years prior and he was still doing costume epics and musicals - after this such films were the exception, not the rule).

That it's a fun flick makes it all the more essential viewing, especially during this time of the year. Sure, it probably won't cause any nightmares the way The Haunting would a couple years later, but it's so damn ENTERTAINING that it hardly matters, and it's not like any William Castle flick is known for terrorizing its audience anyway. No, he was all about the showmanship and the gimmicks, with the movies being just part of the spectacle (at least at this point in his career). And unlike The Tingler, this one works even without the bells and whistles ("Emergo", in this case - a skeleton that would float over the audience at key moments in the film), taking an "Old Dark House" scenario and adding Price to the mix. And it's better than most of those ODH movies from the 30s and 40s; the pacing is better for one thing (Price introduces each of our characters via voiceover at the top of the film, saving some time on doing it the traditional way), and it's not about someone trying to steal an inheritance from their niece or whatever, so that's a big plus.

Plus (spoiler for 54 year old movie ahead!), I don't know if it's intentional or not, but either way it's kind of genius that the not-always-great effects make sense in the plot, since we find out that Price has literally been pulling the strings on many of its events. The reveal doesn't quite explain everything (how'd they get the wife on the 2nd floor window?), but it's so funny to me that anytime you see a string or a shitty prop, you can justify it as realism! Of course, this lessens the amount of true scares the movie can offer (not to mention the possible body count - Price isn't going to kill these random folks), but it still has some fun little jumps, and naturally makes for a fine choice to show your kids if the season has gotten them begging you to watch some horror movies.

But if they're too young they likely won't be able to fully appreciate the dry banter between Price and Carol Ohmart as his wife Annabelle. There's a wonderful bit where he's talking to their guests and says "If I die tonight..." and then pauses to laugh and give a knowing look in his wife's direction - I've seen the movie more than once and it cracks me up every time. Indeed, the one thing I liked about the remake was that it retained the love-hate relationship between these two characters, with Geoffrey Rush having a ball in the Price role (and the ravishing Famke Janssen in Ohmart's), and it's that sense of playfulness that also elevates this above most films in the sub-genre, which were content to have bland heroes and heroines going through the motions at their center. I'm kind of curious how well received Price's performance was in 1959 - again, he's an icon now, and it's hard to remember that he WASN'T when this was originally released. It feels like a pretty typical kind of character for the actor, but back then - 4-5 years after his other horror turns - it might have been oft-putting. "Why's the guy from Ten Commandments being so sinister?"

The downside is, he's so damn fun that it makes the other characters kind of boring in comparison, and the movie can be a touch draggy when he's not around. Hero Richard Long is handsome and charming, but watching him wander around looking for hidden rooms or comforting Carolyn Craig every time she gets scared will never be as entertaining as watching Price and Ohmart spar. Elisha Cook Jr. is also on hand, playing one of his several dozen "scared, kind of drunk guy" characters, and I can only hope if ghosts ARE real that he is currently haunting the fuck out of whoever cast Chris Kattan to fill his role in the remake. I mean, sure, Price is irreplaceable but you can certainly do worse than Geoffrey Rush, and Janssen was a step up as far as I'm concerned. But KATTAN? That's insulting! But back on point, I wish some of its 75 minutes were devoted to more scenes of the entire cast interacting (usually fun) or maybe some more action for Long - it'd be even more fun and take some of the weight off of Price's shoulders.

This is the 2nd "classic" I've watched this month (yesterday's Frankenstein was the first); I'm putting together a list of "must see" movies for October and also looking for ones I've never actually reviewed on HMAD during the old days (I can't believe it's been over 6 months since I quit the daily part), plus I'm on a bit of a Price kick thanks to Scream Factory's new boxed set. However that's on Blu-ray and I'm stuck at work with only a DVD player, so it had to suffice until I got home and I honestly couldn't remember if it was any good. But I needn't have feared - this is a perfect movie for the season and holds up splendidly, and thanks to its public domain status chances are you already own a copy on one multi-pack or another (I think I have 3 copies myself). I doubt there are enough skeletons left to do any proper "Emergo" screenings, but if it's playing at your local repertory theater I highly encourage seeing it on a big screen.

What say you?

Tweet

JULY 11, 2013

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Sometimes a movie is worth seeing not because it's full on great, but (and this goes for horror in particular) because it's doing something ambitious and unique, so as long as it's WATCHABLE and professionally done, it deserves to be seen by fans of its genre. Such is the case with The Last Will And Testament Of Rosalind Leigh - it's not the best movie of the year or anything, but it's definitely one of the most interesting and unusual horror films I've seen in quite a while (and that's still a lot - I've only reviewed about a third of what I've watched since "quitting"), and thus comes highly recommend to more mature fans.

And I don't mean to insult younger horror fans by saying that; while I DO feel that they might be bored (the movie is almost completely free of "action"), the real problem is that I think you need to be a bit older to appreciate the point of the movie, which deals more with regret and loneliness than typical horror elements. Our hero is an estranged son who comes back to his mother's house after she died in order to collect the objects he wants to sell as antiques (he's a dealer) before selling off the property, only to discover that his mom - who he hadn't spoken to in years - had bought all of his wares herself, hoping that it would reconnect them. Kind of a bummer premise, right? Granted, there are some haunted house style elements and a mystery involving her death and the angel cult (!) she was part of, but the focus remains on her despair and his growing realization that she was right.

See, as we learn over time, the reason he left is because he didn't buy into her afterlife beliefs - no such thing as angels or heaven. "You're there, and then you're not," he says, and so of course part of the movie concerns whether or not he was right. Being a genre film you can probably guess which side the movie takes, but there's more to it than that, which I'll let you discover for yourself as the movie has a final twist that hammers home the dramatic part of writer/director Rodrigo Gudino's film. It's a bit subtle - I actually missed it the first time around (I watched it twice, as this was one of my Netflix assignments and as usual I got caught up watching the movie and forgot to note if anyone smoked or swore - two things I need to mark down for my assigned titles), and it turned what was already kind of a sad movie into a full blown gutpunch. If you're feeling the least bit guilty about not spending enough time with your own mom (and I am, but that's what happens when you move to the other side of the country), this movie will drive you over the edge. Make the phone call or Sunday afternoon visit BEFORE watching!

But, admittedly, as much as I appreciated the movie's unusual pacing and storyline (someone needs to make a full blown horror movie about a cult that worships angels instead of Satan!), it DOES get a bit too slow for its own good. Vanessa Redgrave is 2nd billed as the mother, but she only appears in a shot or two (she was primarily cast for her voice, as the mother narrates chunks of the movie from what appears to be a letter to her son) - and that is indeed the 2nd most prominent character in the movie. We never see a single other person in the film proper until the very end, just a few voices on the phone or people in a film that he watches about the cult. Actor Aaron Poole (who looks like the similarly named Aaron Paul from the side, oddly enough) has the entire film to himself, and while he's a good enough actor to handle the task, the script doesn't have him doing all that much for most of the runtime. For example, with 20 minutes to go including (the very slow) credits, we see him call tech support for the house's security system so that he can access the surveillance footage after seeing "something" outside - the entire call (including being on hold) is shown, which is just padding it a bit to get it up to its bare minimum feature length of 80 minutes. With trimming (the girlfriend, for example) and tightening, Gudino could have made a 30 minute "short" film that would get the prime slot at genre festivals' short blocks, and everyone would be blown away - as a feature, it takes maybe a bit too much patience at times.

Needless to say, there are no deleted scenes on the disc, as I suspect they used every frame that was shot to get the movie to its runtime. However, there are some fine bonus features, including a short film from Gudino (so he DOES know how to make one! I kid, I kid) that I couldn't quite follow but had a very interesting approach to "live action" (and also featured Julian Richings, Canadian genre actor icon who also appears briefly in the feature). Of most interest is the refreshingly straight forward commentary by Gudino (moderated by someone whose name escapes me, but he's got a delightfully thick Scottish accent), where he doesn't play the obnoxious "I leave it up to you to decide!" card with regards to the movie's mysteries - he actually explains the ending almost right off the bat, and points out a few other little things I had missed. He even says that people who listen to commentaries probably want answers, so maybe he can teach a class on such things as he's clearly more tuned into his audience than many of his peers. It seems that the track was recorded as a podcast of sorts, so he's not too screen specific as it appears you can listen to it on its own and get what he's saying, so there's not a lot of technical info about the production (though I was surprised to discover that the house was made up of several different locations - it's pretty seamless onscreen!). The making of is also worth a look, as its production team clearly wanted to ape the offbeat style of the movie rather than deliver typical EPK bullshit, though I didn't find much use for the interview with the composer, mainly because I am a complete idiot when it comes to music and thus didn't fully understand what he was saying. If you're a composer or music buff, however - it's one of the longer composer special features I've seen in a while, so there's that. Some photo galleries round things out.

At first I didn't know what to make of the movie, but as it went on (and then on my second viewing) I found a lot to admire. I can't deny I was a bit bored at times, but I was also drawn in and even kind of lulled by its melancholy tone and admirable "no generic horror bullshit" approach. Give it a chance; I honestly can't think of another "horror" movie that is anything like it - the closest I could think of was Premonition, the underrated Sandra Bullock thriller, as it also focused on how letting a relationship crumble can have depressing (and slightly scary!) consequences, but that would be selling it short as that movie was mainly more interested in being a thriller. This is the real deal - I've asked for more dramatic horror and got my wish!

What say you?

Tweet

APRIL 12, 2013

GENRE: COMEDIC, HAUNTED HOUSE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

If you loved the gag in the Scary Movie 5 trailer where Charlie Sheen got his balls rammed into the door over and over, I have good news and bad news. The bad news is, that bit, along with a few others in the trailer, was excised from the final cut. The good news is there are about a dozen others just like it; Simon Rex in particular seems to take a hit to the groin, gut, or face every 30 seconds or so, and I'm pretty sure everyone in the movie would have been killed from physical trauma by the end (though, I don't think anyone actually dies in the entire thing except for Charlie - remember when these movies were rated R?). However, I myself hate that kind of humor and always have, so the movie was seriously trying my patience during the extended bits of Rex being hit in the face over and over, or an ape being hit in the face over and over, or Terry Crews being hit in the face over and over... you get the gist.

See, I love a good physical comedian - Chevy Chase was (OK, is) my hero and he certainly has made us laugh by falling down as Gerald Ford or knocking over priceless items (Foul Play, Caddyshack II, European Vacation... probably more). But there's a difference between that and getting hit in the face or balls - ANYONE can take (or deliver) said hit, but you need to actually have a gift to pull off the sort of physical humor I actually find funny. Molly Shannon is one such performer, and has a great bit where she is covered in casts and braces (after yet another "getting physically injured = funny" sight gag) and trying to get inside of a bathroom stall - THAT is funny to me (and to star Ashley Tisdale, apparently - the obligatory blooper reel has her cracking up several times at Shannon's exaggerated (and hilarious) movements as she tries to get inside the door). So it's a shame that for every one gag in that vein there's about 20 that involves nothing more than someone being hit in their groin and making a pained face.

In between all that intolerable shit (seriously, any scene with Simon Rex is just a black hole of comedy), there are a surprising number of good gags, and I'm shocked (saddened?) to admit I laughed at least 20 times, which is 20 more times than I did at its trailer - it's important to note that my expectations were very, very low. But if you're keeping score, that's still about 5x as many as laughs as A Haunted House, the last horror spoof deemed worthy of theatrical release (there were more that went DTV. I believe this is the 5th time I've seen a full length parody primarily based around Paranormal Activity). It's interesting to note the jump in quality; while neither of them are even worthy of being in the same section of the video store as Airplane or even Hot Shots Part Deux, the Scary Movie franchise DID begin with Marlon Wayans, who has long since abandoned it. So David Zucker and Pat Proft along with director Malcolm Lee have effectively beat him at his own game this year - not only spoofing the same movie he did, but doing a better job of it - and in the series he started! It's more interesting than anything on screen, at any rate.

Actually I take that back - I was pretty fascinated by the fact that Mama was parodied just as much as Paranormal Activity, given that it just came out less than three months ago and the jokes aren't just copied from whatever they might have learned from the trailer. No, some of them are actually really specific to the movie, like Tisdale (standing in for Jessica Chastain) playing her bass, or the fact that one of them needed glasses. Hell the entire finale is a shot for shot copy of the cliff sequence (and I had to chuckle, as this cheapo Halloween store witch looks scarier than that movie's abhorrent digital thing), so if you haven't seen Mama yet some of the gags might not land as well, which is unusual for a parody as they tend to stick with what people know from the trailers (i.e. when spoofing Ghost, you do the pottery wheel, not, I dunno, Sam kicking the sculpture to get it through the window). Likewise, there's a lengthy bit involving sentient pool cleaners that probably only works if you've seen Paranormal Activity 2.

As with Scary Movie 4 (I can't recall a damn thing about 3 anymore), it's not just horror that gets mocked, though it's not as bad as that one's parodies of Brokeback Mountain and Fahrenheit 9/11. The excursions are at least in the sci-fi/fantasy genre (Inception, Rise of the Planet of the Apes), and they stick to Paranormal, Mama, and Black Swan for the most part. There's also a lengthy Evil Dead gag, which has to be a first for a parody - you can go next door and see the WEEK-OLD movie they're spoofing! Curiously, that and (again) the Mama gags are fleshed out and seem to prove that the screenwriters actually saw those films, whereas the Sinister and Insidious spoofs - films that are months/years old - are quick and wholly extraneous, as if they were thrown in at the last minute to keep the film fresh. Even for this woefully flimsy narrative, the Sinister one in particular just doesn't make a lick of sense, and comes/goes out of nowhere, like it was something they shot just for the trailer and accidentally edited it into the film. Why are the newer films more fleshed out than the ones that have been around for a while?

But hey, I can't just list the things that made me laugh like last time, so that's a good thing. I particularly loved the extended sight gag where Darren Aronofsky's penchant of filming someone walking down a street with lots of jerky camera movements is spoofed to a ridiculous degree - it will probably go completely over the heads of the target audience, but I appreciated the effort, same as I did for adding "Gort" back into the obligatory "Klaatu barada nikto" for the Evil Dead parody. And even if the joke was swiped from Spice World (!) the bit where a toy car is shown driving to a locale when they couldn't afford to show it for real was pretty cute. I also found myself laughing more often than not at the fake Morgan Freeman voice that narrated the movie (he even made a fart joke land, that's impressive), and while Tisdale is certainly no Anna Faris, she at least puts the effort in and can make some of the gags work, which is more than I expected from a High School Musical alumni. I couldn't help but wonder if she was supposed to be Cindy, however - especially when she finds herself saddled with a sassy black friend not unlike (read: exactly like) the Brenda character played by Regina Hall in the previous entries.

On that note, they seem to be going out of their way to toss out any existing "continuity" from the older entries - while I understood Charlie Sheen was playing himself and not his character from the others, I was baffled that Rex ALSO seemed to be playing a different guy - yet he's still the brother to Sheen's character, rendering it needlessly confusing for anyone who would give a shit (hopefully not many). But why cast Rex, who can't land a single joke in the movie, if he's not even playing the same guy? Literally any other actor in the world would have made more sense, including Sheen again since it's a Mama spoof (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau played both brothers in that one). With Haunted House so recently spoofing the same thing (it's amazing how many jokes are the same - including a noise from a closet that turns out to be someone in a very tiny bathroom), I can't see anyone but die hard Scary Movie fans (I'm sure some exist; the average gross for a Scary Movie is more than most of the stuff its parodying) turning out for this thing, and even they are likely to be scared away by Dimension's awesome new tactic of hiding the movie from the now-traditional Thursday late shows. Advanced press screenings were out of the question, but when they won't even let the possibility of real critic reviews (meaning: not guys like me) show up until Friday afternoon, they're obviously embarrassed and/or worried. Sadly, it seems they didn't have to be - it's just as "eh, fine" as the others, despite the lack of Faris (who can make anything watchable), which alone is something of a victory.

And if you DO see it, make sure its at a matinee to get your money's worth. The end credits run for a whopping 14+ of its 85 minutes - meaning just under 20% of the movie is not the actual movie, though each full-screen credit is interrupted by a (usually unfunny) blooper, some of which center around gags that were cut, softening the blow some. If you make it all the way to the end you can see an extra scene that (spoiler, but seriously?) reveals the entire movie was a dream Sheen had, which I like to think is their way of leaving the potential for Faris and the others to come back and just writing this one out entirely. As if it would matter.

What say you?

Tweet