MARCH 22, 2013

GENRE: COMEDIC, MAD SCIENTIST
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

If you notice, "Zombie" is not one of the genre taggings for Zombie High, and yet that's not even the only thing wrong with the two word title. It's also set on a college campus, so they're even more off than they were with "Zombie". I mean, I guess it could be an advanced prep school, but with the average age of the actors being around 24, I'd rather accuse the title of being wrong since they already proved they weren't very good at their job. Hell at one point when everything is being explained and thus they have a perfect opportunity to say "Zombie", Virginia Madsen's character refers to their antagonists as "Vampires". I guess "Vampire Prep School" just didn't have the same ring to it.

If it had just a little more actual horror in it, it'd probably be a pretty decent little 80s movie, especially when you consider that it's a glorified student film. The producer/writer was a guy named Aziz Ghazal who ran USC's camera department and was by all accounts a pain in the ass who ran the place like a drill sergeant, and would have students work on his films for course credit (though the director was 47 years old and never made anything of note before or since, and passed away in 1999). Ghazal would go on to kill his wife and daughter, and then himself, after bungling his attempts to get the book "The Brave" turned into a movie (something Johnny Depp eventually did), a story you can read about here - it's far more terrifying and upsetting than anything in this movie, I assure you.

But I'm pretty sure this was supposed to be a comedy. If not for the fact that Ghazal produced and was involved throughout (the IMDb has a post from the guy who wrote the ridiculous Beastie Boys ripoff song that accompanies the end credits, claiming the lyrics of the song are actually a "fuck you" to Ghazal), I'd suspect it was one of those deals where a comedy was written and the director shot it straight, or vice versa. It SEEMS like a parody of Stepford Wives (with more than a touch of Strange Behavior), and one could see it as a satire of how college fraternities tend to strip members of their individuality, but it's never actually funny or even that amusing. Only the overly 80s feel of it (neon clocks! awful hair! Pin Pressions!) provides the laughter, and that wouldn't have been the case in 1987 when the film was released.

So let's just chalk it up to no one really knowing what they were doing, hence the not-shockingly thin resumes of the bulk of the primary crew members (only co-writer Tim Doyle and a couple of the producers seem to have done all right for themselves). However the cast has kept busy - obviously star Virginia Madsen has gone on to bigger and better things (and also Firewall), but her roommate is none other than a young Sherilyn Fenn, and even odder - the casting person was Fenn's Twin Peaks co-star Eric "Leo" DaRe. But the real shocker is the guy playing Madsen's annoying platonic buddy Emerson - future Freaks & Geeks creator/Bridesmaids director Paul Feig! I thought it was actually a different one when I saw his name in the credits, but sure enough it's him, playing a guy that reminded me a lot of Spitz from Halloween 5. He's just as clueless as Madsen when it comes to noticing that something is not right at their school, but it's not until he too disappears and becomes one of the brainwashed students that she springs into action and something actually HAPPENS in the movie, so thank you for your sacrifice, Mr. Feig.

Another problem is that it takes too long to really bring in the villains of the movie, a sort of Mason-like group of old dudes who are the ones benefiting from the students' brainwashing. If I'm understanding correctly, they remove part of the brain and replace it with a crystal that puts them in their drone-like state, with the excised part of the brain being used to helping them stave off the aging process. The main guy (who sounds like Christopher Lloyd when he's agitated) appears quite a bit, but the others are just anonymous schmoes we only really see in the 3rd act, where the "zombies" aren't posing much of a threat. More often than not, when we see them they're just acting like robots; there's a funny bit where they all dance in slow unison at a school dance, and a long tracking shot of them mindlessly pulling books off the shelf at the library - our villains! So it's a clunkily paced plot with a near total lack of tension - the only thing that really provides any excitement is the arc of a teacher who is part of the group (he looks 30 but he's 102) and is starting to regret it. Will he help Madsen? (Yes) Will he pay for his crimes? (Also yes).

It also seemed like Ghazal watched Re-Animator; the main old guy is similar to Dr. Hill, and the locations are pretty much the same - nondescript college basements and off-campus housing. And both films are called zombie movies but are really about mad scientists trying to beat death in some way or other, with disastrous consequences. But I doubt there will be a Zombie High stage musical anytime soon. We DO have Disturbing Behavior, which also had this sort of idea (though closer to Strange Behavior) and did it better AND gave us "Flagpole Sitta".

What say you?

Tweet

MARCH 21, 2013

GENRE: MOCKUMENTARY, MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

So here's an interesting situation - The Frankenstein Theory thankfully avoids the problem I've seen in a lot of found footage movies as of late, in that it almost never has characters filming things for no reason, doesn't have "coverage" (a problem I was very afraid of since it was from some of the producers of Last Exorcism, one of the worst offenders), and, most importantly, isn't about a haunted asylum. But because it follows the "rules" for the most part (it has a score at times, and whoever found the footage apparently wanted to classy it up a bit with occasional establishing shots even when things have gone to hell), it has another problem: it's kind of a chore to sit through.

For starters, writer/director/producer Andrew Weiner has clearly seen Blair Witch Project and possibly Troll Hunter (the movie is copyright 2011, same year Troll Hunter first started playing in the US), and apes their structure a bit too closely at times, especially in the 3rd act where a character disappears without a trace, howls are heard in the middle of the night when they think they're safe in their tents, etc. The deja vu got to be a bit much for me, and that's for a movie that already hadn't done much to win me over. Perhaps it's just because I've seen a lot of these things, but at no point did I find myself thinking "Oh, that's new!".

But isn't it about Frankenstein? Yeah, technically. The setup is the best part: our flawed hero is a descendent of the real Frankenstein (named Venkenheim), who believes that his creation inspired Mary Shelley's book and that the creature is still roaming around in the Canadian part of the Arctic Circle. So he does what anyone would do: gathers a documentary crew of four (really three; the camera guy is very serious about his job and we almost never see him - he's like Cambot from MST3k) and heads into the wilderness with more film equipment than food, no weapons of note, etc. To be fair, they didn't expect to be gone for as long as they end up being there and they do hire a guide (who is very matter of fact and has a thick accent, which is what made me think of Troll Hunter, though at one point the movie just becomes Jaws as he tells a horrific story about an encounter with a polar bear), but still, don't any of these folks ever hire some off-duty police officers or something when tracking a dangerous monster?

And that's the other thing - it's an awesome concept, but it sadly plays out just like any other FF about trying to find Bigfoot, trolls (natch), etc. Even when Venkenheim (Kris Lemche, the only actor I recognized, though the sound guy reminded me a lot of Joe Lynch) is talking about his ancestor and the science of the monster, the movie never really dives into it enough for it to have its own identity apart from those others. Also (SPOILER), we only really see the monster once in the last shot, and looks pretty great which doesn't help matters any - why didn't you let us see him throughout the movie? And why turn him into a generic lumbering brute, instead of something with a bit of character and intelligence like in the 1994 film (which is one of the few (only?) to use the idea of him being in the Arctic)? It's like they had all these potential paths to take that would turn this into something really memorable, and opted to do the same sort of stuff even a casual fan of the genre has probably seen enough by now.

It's also difficult to tell the characters apart at times, as they're all bundled up (even the coat colors are similar!) and often in the dark - the third act has a lot of night vision where even Lemche (who has a distinctive face) kind of blends with the others. That said, I do like that it was set in the snow, which is rare for these things and boosted the survival aspect to some extent, especially since (again) they're stuck out there longer than planned. Plus, even if it kind of hurt the movie in the long run, there IS some realism to the idea that people shooting a documentary under extreme conditions might end up with footage that isn't exactly movie-ready. But this is a "meet me halfway" genre; we can accept some boredom and not getting everything in the shot, but every now and then it's OK to cheat to provide us with some release. I mean, hell, all of the kills are off-screen - one or two makes some sense but come on, they can't offer ONE SHOT of the guy with the camera walking right into the monster?

And it's a shame, because this is actually the most likable cast in one of these things that I've seen in ages. I loved the interplay between the sound guy and the backup camera operator (not sure if he had any other function), and the girl who was directing was charming and did a fine job of looking out for her team while keeping Venkenheim on track. Venkenheim butts heads with the others from time to time, but it's natural frustrating coming to a head, not the usual just plain dickishness that clouds a lot of these movies. And Weiner keeps shaki-cam and other obnoxious staples of the mock-doc genre to a minimum, and even finds a few ways to add excitement before they even get to the snow: there's an early bit where the director is talking to the camera while driving and almost hits a guy (who then tries to pull her out of the car), and an interview subject who also happens to be a meth-head suddenly turns hostile and pulls a gun on them. So that stuff, along with the setup, makes this the rare found footage movie where the first act is better than the others - usually these things are interminable until the back half, but that's pretty much where this one's problems really start.

However, Weiner definitely approaches this sort of thing more logically than most of his peers, so hopefully he will try again with a more unique script. I was saying the other night on a podcast - the GENRE isn't "found footage", it's applying it TO a genre. You can take any of those sub-genres listed on the right and make a found footage movie out of it, so there's no need to stick to ghosts in buildings and monsters in the woods all the time. I know most of the review is negative, but it's really not a bad movie, and if you've only seen the Paranormal Activities out of this recent wave I'd definitely recommend it if you don't mind a lack of on-screen action (it's not rated but it could be PG-13 save for language). I'm mostly disappointed in the vast chasm between the promise of the setup and the execution - if you strip Lemche's dialogue out it's basically yet another Bigfoot one. Better than the other two I've seen recently, but not enough to stave off the feeling I had already seen it.

What say you?

P.S. Filmmakers, I BEG you - change the damn Final Cut Pro default font for your titles! As soon as I see it, it just sends one word to my head: "lazy". I swear they make it ugly on purpose so that people DON'T use it and you go ahead and do it anyway.

Tweet

What happened to all the classic horror movies that many generations of people knew and loved? Well, they are still there somewhere hidden in old movie sections of video rental stores, waiting to scare the crap people again. Many original films in black and white have bee restored and digitized to DVD format, some remain in their original black and white, while others have been inked.

What was the classic horror films that attracted many spectators and over again? It was the state of the art special effects at the time, stop-motion camera techniques, so that you see Lon Chaney Jr. transform a normal person on the tortured soul of the Wolf Man, how many people look at this transformation in absolute horror, although they knew they watched a film?

When people see horror movies today, they assume that most of the special effects were installed today born of classic horror films of the past. Stop-motion photography, masks, rubber and other add-ons, make-up techniques, all were unknown before these films were released. Special effects team back in the day was not all computer-generated graphics at the time and had only with the letter of their own imagination.

It was not just the special effects, the classic horror films have something to watch over and over again, it was also actors that often animates their hearts and souls into their work. Although the classic Dracula has repeatedly, like Frankenstein and spin-offs of the Wolfman was rebuilt, many of us will always remember, Bella Lugosi, Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney Jr. in these traditional roles. Not only does it perfectly to life these characters, they put heart and soul into these classic monsters.

To see fans of horror movies horror movies for different reasons. Some look simply because they are bored. See other horror shows because they think that nothing scares them. But overall, most people watch horror movies because they want to be scared. Now, why would anyone do that to themselves?
Well, for my part, it's sometimes fun to add a little spice in our lives by making a horror movie scare you call us to add really good. Sure, we all know that this is fiction, and probably would be a really good laugh about it later. However, there is nothing like it for more than 90 minutes to try a cheesy horror movie to be scary to see, but it really is not. So this is definitely a good idea to get caught not in a theater with a large tub of popcorn with butter, and realize the horror movie you are currently viewing, you will not be frightened. And look, we have to pay attention to the signs.
You know, a horror movie can be observed most likely be of interest if you see these signs. First of all go official website and watch the trailer. Horror trailers often contain the best parts of the movie that this is all part of marketing. If you can not put off the trailer, the show probably will not be able to scare you either. But even if the trailers are really good, do not be caught in the moment. For all you know they may be the only good part in the film. Spend time on other websites to read all the comments. Better yet, you expect some fan forums and read what others have to say about the show. If the show is good, you have to read reviews idiots. Otherwise, you can drop the idea of ​​watching the show entirely.
Then you might want to go a little deeper and see the team production and sales. Who is the director of the film? Horror films of renowned directories like Steven Spielberg will probably want to monitor. If the whole production team and threw a number of newcomers, so you might have to rely solely on your evaluation reviews for the film.

MARCH 20, 2013

GENRE: MONSTER
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX)

After I saw and thoroughly enjoyed Fiend Without A Face, my good friend Ryan Turek recommended The Monster That Challenged The World, another 50s monster movie that he particularly liked. So in true BC/HMAD fashion, I said I'd watch it right away and then proceeded to forget all about it for a month or so, even though I've watched several movies on Instant in between. I'm afraid to even LOOK at that recommendation thread at this point; I'd probably feel horrible for all the movies I never got around to seeing.

Anyway, it's not as good as Fiend; it's similar (Army bases, half baked romances, etc), and equally slow but the finale doesn't make up for it. The monster is pretty awesome, but it's a giant animatronic instead of stop motion beasties, and he doesn't move much - it's kind of like the end of Little Shop of Horrors where you feel the characters would be safe if they just left the room where the non-moving beast could reach them anymore, so there's not a lot of excitement to it. Plus it's a little girl in danger, and this is a G rated monster movie from the 50s, so come on! Put some random soldier in there so we can tense up a bit! That said, it's admirably kind of grim when the lovely Audrey Dalton as the heroine (also trapped/completely safe) tells the girl to close her eyes and holds her tightly, pretty much saying "We're done for, don't watch as it eats us". There's also a hilarious bit where they try to add some excitement to the proceedings by cutting to the hero and his scientist pal, who are en route to the lab where the monster is wreaking havoc (which they don't know about yet). The hero asks the other guy if he wants to stop for food, so of course the audience will be like "Oh no, don't do it!" but the movie doesn't even try milk it - scientist dude instantly says "No, I'm good, but we can stop if you want," to which the hero says "No, it's OK." It's like they wanted to scare the audience a bit but didn't feel like going through it.

I had more fun spotting the movies it may have influenced, in particular Jaws, as there's a pair of young lovers who get attacked late one night much like the opening sequence of Spielberg's classic. Plus a guy is looking out for the welfare of some kids in the water and ends up being the one to die, which is like the rowboat dude that capsizes trying to help Brody's older kid. And I swear to Christ the end was copied for Shining, as the monster is just smashing through a locked door and looking through the hole trying to get at its intended victim. But for the most part, it just follows along the pattern of other 50s monster movies, largely indistinguishable from the sort of thing they'd watch on the later seasons of MST3k where they had a little more money and thus did a lot of similar movies from the era (Revenge of the Creature in particular must have been an influence on this one). The characters are all pretty stock, with the exception of a museum employee played by Milton Parsons, who seemed to have wandered in from a Tobe Hooper movie or something. Not sure if it was the way the role was written or if it was Parsons' acting, but even though he's just a guy supplying maps and such to our heroes, he left me more unsettled than the monster did.

But alas, most of the movie is just the scientist talking about mollusks, or people listing numbers during the lengthy 2nd half attempt to find the creature in the area after dividing it into lots. Half of the dialogue during this section is just people saying "Lot 23, cleared!" "Lots 10-12 are clear..." etc. There are some isolated creature moments (including a hilarious bit where he basically eats a guy's head), but they are too infrequent, and thus the movie never really gets very exciting. You'd never know it from the Wikipedia though; while some of it is correct most of it seems to be discussing an earlier draft or a different movie entirely, including an opening attack on New York that we don't see and a scene where it "wrecks everything in its path", when in reality the monster just sort of stands in one spot and knocks some shit over. Also, he's not killed by electric shock delivered to some weak spot on his forehead - our hero sprays him with a fire extinguisher for a while before a bunch of random soldiers show up and shoot it a bunch. I want to see the Wikipedia version!

I guess it ultimately depends on how much you love these movies. If they're your "thing", then you'll probably be pretty entertained. It's well made and the characters are likable (I love how easily the hero forgives another guy for almost getting him killed; the guy tries to apologize and he's like "Nah, it's OK, things happen!"), and the monster, when you see it, looks pretty awesome. And they really tax their G rating, stabbing its eye out at one point and showing it flop to its death in the finale - I think the MPAA needs to up this one to a PG before some 5 year old sees it and tries to mimic the action on the family mollusk. But to a casual fan like me, this isn't one I'd otherwise feel the need to hunt down - it's pretty much a filler entry in the genre. And it certainly doesn't live up to that awesome title - what challenge? What world? He is sort of angered into a turf war with some army dudes, that's about it.

What say you?

Tweet