SIGN THE PETITION TO GET JACK PIERCE A STAR ON THE HOLLYWOOD WALK OF FAME!

Sign the Petition to get the official recognition for Jack Pierce that he so richly deserves! Go to:

http://www.petitiononline.com/jppierce/petition.html

Help us get this done for Jack!

Visit JUNKYARDFILMS.COM

Visit JUNKYARDFILMS.COM
Visit JUNKYARDFILMS.COM!!

13 June, 2009

The Show Goes On: The New Wave of Horror-Hosts

Some of the typical MonsterKid’s earliest memories involve watching movies like HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN or THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD via a black-and-white television, on a program hosted by a pudgy adult wearing monster make-up and a cheesy costume. With weird, outlandish names such as Bestoink Dooley, Ghoulardi, and Sammy Terry, they introduced generations of youngsters to Dracula and the Mummy, Godzilla and Gorgo, Karloff and Lugosi.
The era of the Horror-Host began at KABC, when they hired a young woman to host a series of cheap, poverty-row thrillers and Horror films. Her name was Malia Nurmi, but she became forever known as Vampira. Three weeks after she debuted in April 1955, she was featured in TV Guide, and three weeks after that, she had a photo-spread in Life magazine. With her exotic beauty, tightly cinched 19” waist, and sultry, throaty voice, she instantly captivated audiences who tuned in to see her, if not the less-than-stellar movies she hosted.

Though the Vampira show lasted only a year, the concept was here to stay. Soon, a Philadelphia DJ named John Zacherle began hosting his own program, as Roland. Funny, irreverent, and able to connect with teen-agers on their own level, he soon migrated to New York City, where he became Zacherley the Cool Ghoul, the most popular of the early hosts.

Prior to 1957 though, such programs were hampered by a dearth of quality Horror Films to screen. Limited to such low-budget, public-domain programmers as THE CORPSE VANISHES and REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES, stations found it difficult to accept that there was a demand for old Horror Films on Television, or that it was worth allocating valuable airtime to them. In that year, however, Universal, through Screen-Gems distributors, released their Shock Theatre package of films nationwide. Now, stations everywhere could, for a reasonable cost, acquire the greatest Horror Films ever made for broadcast. Hundreds of stations leapt on the opportunity, and beginning in the fall of 1957 Hosted Horror shows started springing up everywhere. Larger cities, most notably Chicago, could boast three or four such hosts; most towns large enough to have a TV station could claim one of their own.

The hosted Horror shows were staples of local broadcasting well into the ‘70’s, but eventually changing viewing habits, and increased pressure to generate greater profits from each hour of airtime, doomed the horror-hosts to a forgotten obscurity. Only a few survived to carry the tradition forward, most notably Rich Koz. Taking over for the great Jerry G. Bishop, Chicago’s beloved Svengoolie, Koz began as the Son of Svengoolie thirty years ago this week, on June 16th, 1979, with the broadcast of IN THE YEAR 2889 on WFLD-32’s Creature Feature. Son of Svengoolie remained on-air until 1986, though Koz’s character remained popular among the Chicago-area Monster faithful. In 1995, it was resurrected by WCIU-26, as The Svengoolie Show. While Koz kept many of the program’s hallmarks from the WFLD days, he also placed his personal stamp on it, growing it into what is widely regarded as the premier Hosted Horror show on the air today.

The 2007 season’s coup, the acquisition of the Universal Horror classics for broadcast locally, established Koz as the dean of modern Horror-Hosts, and WCIU as a major player in the field. The station, in the person of General Manager Neal Sabin, has demonstrated a commitment to Chicagoland Genre fans, many who’ve never previously been exposed to the Universal classics, and it would not be an exaggeration to proclaim The Svengoolie Show the best such program on the air today. This year Rich was recognized for that, when he won the 2008 Rondo for Favorite Horror-Host.

Though Svengoolie may rule the roost, his is far from a lonely perch. Just in Northeastern Illinois and Southeastern Wisconsin, several other hosts ply their trade on Public Access Cable or Broadcast TV, most notably Undead Johnny and his World of the Weird Monster Show. Though it never deviates much from the tried-and-true standard for such programs, it’s well done and entertaining. Whether it’s the cold weather, the Lake Michigan water, or the rich history and tradition of Chicago Horror shows, the Windy City and environs is definitely the hot spot for Hosted-Horror shows.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that the rest of the country is neglected. Tennessee has Dr. Gangrene, Ohio has The Mortician, Las Vegas has the Sinister Minister, and a score more are scattered around the U. S. Perhaps the best of this ‘second tier’ of hosts is New Bedford, Massachusetts’ Penny Dreadful. Portrayed by Danielle Gelehrter, Penny is accompanied on her adventures by her werewolf husband Garou, and less-than-successful monster-hunter Manfred von Bulow. Though the episodes are uneven in quality, overall they are well-done and entertaining; enough so that Penny won the inaugural Rondo award for Best Horror-Host in 2007.

But even those unlucky enough not to have a Hosted show in their area need not miss out on the quintessential MonsterKid experience. This is, after all, the age of the internet, and many hosts have on-line webcasts of their programs; many are exclusively internet-based. One of the first, and in my admittedly biased opinion one of the best, of these is Count Gore De Vol. The long-time alter-ego of Dick Dyszel, Count Gore is one of the few Old-School hosts who’ve made the transition from Television to Internet, and done so very successfully. Broadcasting for many years out of Washington, D.C., Count Gore successfully transitioned to a web-based program when his TV run ended. His web-site continues to be one of the most up-to-date and comprehensive of any Horror host’s, with original articles and columns on virtually every aspect of the genre. As a frequent contributor to Count Gore’s site, I have the pleasure of regularly appearing with some of the most knowledgeable, involved people in the genre; the likes of Prof. Anton Griffin and Halloween Jack.

While the heyday of the Horror-Host may be past, that doesn’t mean that the breed is extinct. The popularity of hosted shows is rising, as an aging populace grows nostalgic for the comfortable and familiar trappings of youth. Recently, the Documentary AMERICAN SCARY [see review below] premiered to rave reviews, as the fans whose first introduction to the monsters came in the form of a hosted show rediscovered those roots, and their love of Horror-Hosts. Though the era where locally produced programming is, if not dead, then in a coma, there still exists a desire among viewers for a storyteller, as writer John Morrow puts it in AMERICAN SCARY, a “…guide” to the underworld. Even if that guide is wearing make-up and dodging rubber chickens.














Posted by Picasa

DVD Review: AMERICAN SCARY: A Tribute to the Golden Age of Horror-Hosts

Title: AMERICAN SCARY: A Tribute to the Golden Age of Horror-Hosts

Year of Release—Film: 2008

Year of Release—DVD: 2009

DVD Label: Cinema Libre Studios



It may be hard for today’s television viewers to imagine, accustomed as we are to hundreds of digital channels delivered via satellite to our homes every second of the day, but there was a time when it wasn’t quite so easy to take TV for granted. A time before round-the-clock network feeds, nationally syndicated broadcast packages, and hour-long commercials. A time when TV was live, local, and groundbreaking.

A staple of television in those early days were movies. Movies in the morning were often presented with a viewer call-in contest, and soon became known as the “Dialing-for-Dollars” format. Matinees were in the afternoons, and of course, the “Late Shows” which came after the 10 or 11pm newscasts. Among the more popular formats was the Horror Film, usually with a costumed Master of Ceremonies playing host.

Nearly every town large enough to have a TV station had such a program. Cleveland had Ghoulardi, Atlanta had Bestoink Dooley, Pittsburgh had Chilly Billy Cardille—these and many others served as our late-night escorts into a world of Horror and Sci-Fi Films. All were broadly similar yet uniquely local. All were underpaid, overworked, and quite often far more entertaining than the movies they aired. And all are owed a debt of gratitude from those whose love of classic Horror Films was born in front of a massive console TV with a 19” screen, watching their local Horror-Host introduce DRACULA or THE WOLF-MAN.

At last, these men and women are receiving their due recognition in the form of AMERICAN SCARY, a new documentary out from Cinema Libre Studios. Written and directed by John E. Hudgens and Sandy Clark, this film is a loving tribute to the people who brought these shows to life each week, as well as a salute to the days of live TV in which they thrived.

AMERICAN SCARY is a true documentary, composed primarily of interviews with those who were Horror-Hosts, those who were their fans, and those who carry on their legacy. Interspersed with the interviews are clips from the shows themselves; not as many as this reviewer would prefer, but still a very pleasing assortment. Especially so are several minutes devoted to the women who have been hosts, most notably Vampira and Elvira. Often forgotten in the company of such great hosts as Zacherley, Ghoulardi, and Svengoolie, women have made tremendous contributions to the history of Horror-Hosts… including being the first such character.

The movie conveys a wealth of information about the history of the craft of hosting Horror Films, but it does so unevenly, with a huge block of time devoted to hosts in the Cleveland, Ohio area, but little mention of hosts in the Southern or Western parts of the country. And very little attention is paid to those hosts working today. While Jerry G. Bishop receives much well-deserved praise as Chicago’s original Svengoolie, scant mention is made of Rich Koz, who this week is celebrating his thirtieth anniversary since assuming Bishop’s mantle.

But those are minor quibbles, ones that in no way detract from the quality and value of this DVD. This is without question a must-buy for those who consider themselves fans of Horror-Hosts or of Horror Films in general. These men and women exposed generations of children to the joys of the Monsters, and to the thrill of being scared… if only a little bit. What’s more, they inspired thousands of us to keep those joys and thrills alive long past our childhoods.












Posted by Picasa

06 June, 2009

Aurora’s Monster Models

As many devoted Horror fans also enjoy building model kits of their favorite monsters, most are well aware that Modeling is not an inexpensive hobby. At a bare minimum, a decent resin kit from a reputable company will run 50-60 dollars, and the average would be well over $100. Add in tools, paints, and time, and we could easily spend thousands on this hobby we love.

But that wasn’t always the case. When I started building models, resin and vinyl kits were virtually non-existent. Airbrushes and moto-tools were unimagined luxuries, glue came in red and white tubes and paints came in little square bottles with “Testor’s” on the cap. My first kit was ancient even in 1972… Monogram’s 1/72 scale Curtiss P-36 Hawk. I doubt that I paid more than 75¢ for it, and the finished product was hardly worth bragging about. But I was instantly hooked on a hobby that I still enjoy 37 years later.

In those days I built everything and anything… from the crappy Hawk box-scale airplanes, to Monogram TBF Avengers with a torpedo that actually dropped from the bomb bay, to Aurora’s Russian Golf-class Missile Submarine. I even tried my hand at the Visible Eye… and wound up with something not even Lasik could save. But given my natural affinity for the monsters, it was only a matter of time before I found the fantastic Monster kits from Aurora.

Anyone who was a regular reader of Famous Monsters in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s will remember the ads for these kits… Dracula and Frankenstein, the Wolf-Man and the Mummy, the skeletal Prisoner chained to the section of dungeon wall, even a scraggly-toothed, wart-nosed witch, hard at work stirring a bubbling cauldron. Famous Monsters #59, November 1969, lists several of the monster kits in the Glow-in-the-Dark style for the princely sum of $1.49… quite a bit of money when you consider that you could get a perfectly good airplane or car kit for half that.

But the monsters of Aurora were hard to ignore, and, as soon as I saw one for sale at my neighborhood Pic-n-Save, I had to have it. It was, luckily, my favorite monster, the Mummy. But I wouldn’t have cared which monster I wound up with… I just wanted one of them. Somehow, I came up with enough money to buy it. How, I’m not sure; I am sure that it was no mean feat on a dollar a week allowance. How much I paid for the kit is a mystery; I doubt I could have told you the next morning the price of the model. I had one, and that was all I cared about.

When I got home with my prize, I rushed to my room and opened the box. The figure seemed huge compared to the kits I was used to building, though simple to assemble… a definite plus at that stage in my modeling experience. I can’t recall much detail about the kit, other than the Mummy was undeniably Kharis. I don’t remember what color plastic it was molded in, or how good the quality was. I just remember the joy of building it.

I later added other monsters to the collection, as well as some of the MPC Pirates of the Caribbean and AMT/Ertl Star Trek kits. There was a Tarzan along the way, as well as a Spock, a Batman, and others. Eventually, Aurora folded, the monster kits went away, and I returned to the B-17G’s, M60A1’s, and Federation Starships that I loved.

Now, some thirty-seven years later, those Aurora monsters are hot collector’s items, going for thirty to fifty dollars, unbuilt. Companies such as Polar Lights have issued their own versions of those kits, and high-quality resin and vinyl monster kits abound. These kits, especially the latter, are so far above the old Auroras in terms of quality and accuracy that comparing the two is akin to comparing a ’78 Ford Pinto to a brand-new Mercedes S-class. I just wish I could afford them.

Yes, the new kits are better in terms of quality, better in terms of accuracy, better in terms of choice of subject matter. The only thing they don’t do better is inspire joy and wonder in the mind of an eight-year-old boy.






Posted by Picasa

DVD Review: JU-ON ~aka~ THE GRUDGE

Title: JU-ON ~aka~ THE GRUDGE

Year of Release—Film: 2002

Year of Release—DVD: 2002

DVD Label: Lion’s Gate Home Entertainment




One of the few sources for original horror for the past several years has been Asia, and the prolific studios of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and most notably, Japan. Fans whose first thought upon hearing the word “Japan” in relation to a genre film is men in foam-rubber dinosaur suits stomping on scale models of Tokyo need to rethink those impressions. Films like RINGU, KAÏRO, TOMIE, ÔDISHON, and others have caught on with American audiences, inspiring in a few cases an on-going string of (what else) American-made remakes. One of these remakes is based on Takashi Shimizu’s excellent series of films entitled JU-ON (THE GRUDGE). I’ll be reviewing THE GRUDGE, the American-made remake produced by Sam Raimi, separately; here, I’ll limit the discussion (except for the purpose of drawing comparisons) to Shimizu’s original version.

As both films were directed by Shimizu, they are unavoidably similar in both style and substance, though there are a few significant differences. While both films are suitably dark, in keeping with their subject matter, the original film has a much more effective use of atmosphere and style than the remake. Shimizu’s direction is subtle and meandering; he doesn’t hit you over the head with the plot, but lets it develop slowly over the course of the film. Don’t expect to have things laid out in stair-step fashion, though. In keeping with the style of most Japanese Horror films, explanations are kept to a bare minimum, leaving the viewer to draw their own conclusions.

The cast is, for the most part, young and attractive, though due to my inability to speak Japanese it’s hard for me to pass judgment on their acting ability. Visually, they are able to convey adequately the emotional impact of the various situations revolving around the hostile spirits, which suffices for my enjoyment. Several of the actors, especially Misa Uehara as Izumi Toyama, are particularly good at conveying a sense of terror as events unfold around them.
The photography, by Tokusho Kikumura, is stunning in its realism and simplicity. Rather than being dependent on a host of Special Effects to create the mood and atmosphere, Kikumura uses a skillfully understated approach to portray visually the ghosts, as well as using slight visual cues to indicate their presence, a’la THE SIXTH SENSE. The Special Effects in the film are used sparingly, and to great effect; not to advance the story, but to enhance it.

The Lion’s Gate DVD release of the film is very nicely done, with more extras than expected. There’s a rather interesting behind-the-scenes segment, deleted scenes, and various trailers, as well as the usual Director Commentary. One bonus that I really like is that it includes both dubbed and subtitled versions. Many people dislike subtitles, but I actually prefer them. I like hearing a film in it’s original language, and subtitles don’t pose any particular challenge to my enjoyment of the movie.

To sum it up, this is an all-around excellent film, and a great introduction to Japanese Horror, if that bug hasn’t already bitten you. It, like most examples of the recent J-Horror invasion, is visually different and appealing; dark and atmospheric; and tremendously innovative. I call it a Must-Have.












Posted by Picasa

The Unimonster’s Crypt presents Junkyardfilms.com’s Moldy Oldie Movie of the Month!: REVENGE OF DR. X

[Ed. Note: This marks the second installment of a new monthly series here at the Crypt, as we welcome mstjunkie, of www.junkyardfilms.com to The Unimonster’s Crypt. Mstjunkie will deliver, on behalf of her Junkyardfilms website, a regular look at the low-budget underbelly of genre film; the movies that were never a success, but still have much to offer to the curious viewer. Enjoy her review, and click on the Junkyardfilms.com logo above to go to junkyardfilms.com and order the movie being discussed!]


Plant-asaurus! Plant-enstein!

In the opening credits of The Revenge of Dr. X the audience is promised John Ashley and Angelique Pettyjohn but as this incredible mess unfolds there's no sight of them. [Ed. Note: According to IMDb.com, the titles for this film were inadvertently replaced with those of THE MAD DOCTOR OF BLOOD ISLAND, and are completely incorrect for this movie.]

Dr. X (James Craig) works for NASA (this is verified by a matte painting outside his office window and some stock footage of a space craft lifting off) who has a nervous break-down (and with his constant over-acting, it seems as if he has one every five minutes) and is ordered to take a vacation. He decides to go to Japan to study botany. With him, he takes a Venus flytrap he finds on the road to the airport. (Ed Wood listed this under the title of The Venus Flytrap on his resume but it is also known as Double Garden; it is widely assumed that it was supposed to be Devil's Garden but something went awry in the translation of the title card. Feel free to file that info under "who cares".)

In Japan, he meets his assistant, a female who isn't even listed in the credits. So, I'll call her Mary for the sake of clarity. Telling Dr. X that her father owns a mountain retreat that is closed due to an active volcano near-by, they take off...Dr. X oozing creepy charm. At the mountain retreat, they are met by a hunchback caretaker, who I'll call Egor. Other than Dr. X's constant hysterics and his secretiveness about the Venus flytrap, nothing much happens for the next 45 minutes.

Mary takes Dr. X to the sea shore so they can find some elusive aquatic plant that he wants to graft to his Venus flytrap to make a plant-human. There, they ask a group of bare-breasted female pearl-divers to help them and they find the elusive plant. Taking the plant back to their laboratory, he works himself up to a Dr. Frankenstein fever pitch, screaming "The Earth is your mother! The lightning is your father! Rain is your blood!" as he raises the new creation on a platform up through an opening in the greenhouse. The creature lives! And, with it's rubber suit, flytraps on hands and knees and some strange sea-weed growing out the top of his head, it looks sillier than The Giant Claw! Huzzah! (For some reason, this pleased me immensely!)
But, like most Frankenstein rip-off movies, this ends badly for the Dr. as the plant kills him by toppling them both in to the active volcano. The end.

Could this be worse than Plan 9 from Outer Space? YES! With its terrible acting, silly plot, bad photography, clumsy stock footage and the most nonsensical musical score I've ever heard, I guarantee it is! Penned By Ed Wood and directed by Kenneth G. Crane (who also directed Monster from Green Hell and The Manster) it plays out like a Larry Buchanan fever-dream! A must-see for all fans of truly painful cinema!

MSTJunkie






Posted by Picasa

30 May, 2009

Too Much Horror?

Recently, my 15-going-on-25 year-old niece was visiting the Crypt, and asked to borrow my “… scariest movie.” My reply to her was that she wasn’t going to see my scariest movie, and she finally settled on WHITE NOISE, an inoffensive little ghost story from 2005. She asked me, though, what film I would name as my scariest movie, and I must admit the question gave me some pause. With over 2,200 genre films in my collection, and that number growing all the time, picking out the scariest is a challenge.

But as I thought about it, I realized that few, if any, of these movies actually have the power to “scare” me in the traditional sense. As the old saw goes, familiarity breeds… well, if not contempt, then at least a feeling of comfort. The monsters and I, even latter day creations such as Michael, Freddy, and Jason, are old friends; old friends that inspire no fear in the Unimonster.
There are films with the power to both frighten and disgust me, though—movies that are lumped in under the term “Horror”, but in truth bear a much closer relation to the exploitation films of the 1950’s, designed to appeal to the most lurid, prurient interests in the viewer. I’ve watched three such movies in recent weeks, and in each case was left wondering why anyone would watch such films for entertainment.

NEVER TAKE CANDY FROM STRANGERS—(1960): Though ostensibly a cautionary tale about child molestation, this unusual Hammer production becomes an indictment against those who would take such crimes lightly. It is a well-written, thoughtful film; however its subject matter keeps it from being an enjoyable one.

The movie is set in a small lumber town in Newfoundland, Canada. The patriarch of the leading family, the Olderberry’s, (played convincingly by Felix Aylmer…) has the disturbing habit of inviting the young girls in the area into his home, then asking them to strip naked and dance in exchange for candy. Due to his social standing, and the power his son holds, the community is reluctant to take action, despite the insistence of the parents of one of the girls so abused. When the authorities are forced to act, and the old man is placed on trial, his defense attorney shreds the young child’s testimony, and her emotional state, mercilessly. In order to spare the child further humiliation, the prosecutor withdraws the charges against the old man. The girl’s father resigns his position as principal of the local High School, and the family prepares to leave town.

As the girl goes to say good-bye to her best friend, they encounter the old man. They flee into the woods, as he pursues them. The end result shocks and rebukes the small community, as well as those viewers who might place themselves in the shoes of the conflicted villagers.
As I stated earlier, NEVER TAKE CANDY… is not a pleasant film to watch, especially the courtroom scene. The defense attorney seems to be the perfect embodiment of every negative stereotype imaginable regarding his profession, as the young girl withers under his incessant browbeating. The lawyer appears to relish his attacks upon the child’s innocence, accusing her of welcoming, even enticing, the old man’s attentions. I couldn’t help putting myself in the place of the girl’s father, as I felt a strong urge to beat the old man’s attorney about the head and neck with the witness chair.

NEVER TAKE CANDY… is an engaging movie, it is an involving movie, but it is also a hard movie. The fact that it isn’t graphic in it’s depiction of the horrors experienced by the girls is scant comfort; the viewer’s mind fills in the voids, and takes us into the shadows with them. Usually when a film accomplishes this, I rush to sing its praises… but not when the subject matter is so completely repellent.


LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT—(1972): Wes Craven’s debut film, this story of the rape and murder of a young girl and the revenge her parents extract from her attackers is a surprisingly complex and well constructed film, based loosely on Ingmar Bergman’s far superior THE VIRGIN SPRING. Though Bergman’s film is far more literate, and has a more positive ending, the parallels are undeniable.

Two young country girls, Mari and Phyllis, head into town for a night of fun, during which they have a chance encounter with a member of the notorious Stillo gang. He lures them back to the gang’s hideout on the pretense of selling them some drugs, where they quickly become the captives of the gang’s leader, Krug Stillo. (David Hess, in a memorable performance…) The criminals soon head out into the woods, taking the girls with them. Their car breaks down, and they decide it’s a good spot to finish off their hostages and dump the bodies. After the girls are tortured, raped and murdered, the killers seek shelter at the home of the Collingwoods, the only house in the area. What the Stillo gang doesn’t know, to their detriment, is that it’s the home of one of the young girls they just viciously slaughtered. When the parents of the murdered girl discover what has happened, and who was responsible, they go on a rampage of violence, one that makes the murder of the two girls pale in comparison.

Craven, who today is one of the most influential filmmakers in Horror, working with Sean Cunningham, who eight years later would create the most successful Horror franchise ever with the first FRIDAY THE 13TH, had a stated goal of wanting to produce a film that would jar audiences, shaking them from a metaphorical stupor they felt had been produced by sterile, bland Horror Films. That they accomplished this goal there is no doubt. They also created a damn good movie, one that is arguably the CITIZEN KANE of Grindhouse Cinema.
But that “… damn good movie …” is also a violent, brutal, in-your-face tale of rape, torture, murder, and vengeance. The assault upon Mari and Phyllis is presented in graphically realistic detail, and consumes much of the first half of the film. The second half, dealing with the parent’s discovery of their daughter’s murder and the revenge they wreak upon the gang is no less harrowing to watch, and includes possibly the most gut-wrenching scene ever filmed—at least for male viewers.

The film’s famous tagline is, “To avoid fainting, keep repeating, ‘It’s only a movie… only a movie… only a movie.’” If only it were that simple. The truth is that Craven is a gifted filmmaker, and he set out to create a film that would engender a specific emotional response from his audience. The wonder of it isn’t that he succeeded; it’s that the film remains as effective as when first released, nearly forty years ago.


I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE ~aka~ DAY OF THE WOMAN—(1978): Every bit as violent and misogynistic as LAST HOUSE… but lacking that film’s solid writing, direction, and performances, Meir Zarchi’s ‘masterpiece’ is a stomach-turning, audience-abusing, 90-minute exposé of the worst parts of Grindhouse and Exploitation Cinema. Where LAST HOUSE… could at least boast of quality behind the camera, I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is the purest form of Shlock Filmmaking, lacking any subtlety, or any plot other than what was absolutely necessary to drive the action.

The film stars Camille Keaton, (the granddaughter of silent film star Buster Keaton) as a writer from Manhattan who takes a country home for the summer to work on her novel. Four local toughs become interested in the beautiful young woman and take her captive, raping her repeatedly. She somehow manages to gain the upper hand, and murders the men in an orgy of righteous vengeance—in an imaginative variety of ways.

This film is nothing but that hoary old Exploitation Film staple, the “Roughie”, redressed for the ‘70’s; the age of feminism. But that redress is only superficial; the film is little different at it’s core than Dave Friedman’s 1965 film THE DEFILERS, or the early efforts of Mike and Roberta Findlay. One step above (or below, depending on one’s point of view…) hardcore Porn, Roughies were the logical result of the explosion of “Nudie Cuties” in the late ‘50’s—early ‘60’s. As hard as it may be to believe, audiences could get bored with nudity, and Friedman, who had been in the production/distribution end of Exploitation Films since the ‘40’s, recognized this fact early on, and decided to give the audience something new, something with an edge… and the Roughie was born.

My reaction to the Roughies in general and I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE in particular, is that these films are distasteful in the extreme. While in general the Exploitations could claim that they were just harmless, good-natured fun, focusing on and playing up the vices that all of us are heir to, some movies pushed well beyond the boundaries of bad taste. Movies such as the Findlays’ …FLESH trilogy, or Gualtiero Jacopetti’s MONDO CANE, or Zarchi’s I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, do nothing to entertain the viewer or to provoke thought about the subject matter… they simply leave the viewer with a vague sense of uncleanliness.


Those are three films that leapt to mind when my niece posed that question to me; there are others, but those will suffice as examples of the type of movies she’ll never see, at least not from me. Horror Films, to my mind, build legitimate scares with suspense, with atmosphere, and with a sense of unreality. The original HALLOWEEN is a prime example.

In John Carpenter’s 1978 original, Michael Myers was an enigma, a soulless, evil slayer. There was nothing human remaining in him; you’re made to wonder if there ever had been. Carpenter expertly creates a wholesome, welcoming, familiar point of reference for the viewer, and then drops this evil creature into the midst of it. The result is the best of the Slasher genre, and one of the best Horror Films of the last 35 years.

Rob Zombie’s 2007 version, however, strips away the enigma that is Michael, instead walking us through, step-by-step, the creation of a serial killer. There’s no mystery, no intrigue—never do we see Michael as anything other than what he is… a twisted, depraved human being, victimized for most of his childhood, until he one day decided to be the abuser, rather than the abused. The result is undoubtedly horrifying—but it isn’t Horror. At least, it is not my definition of Horror. And that can be said for most of the so-called “Horror Films” produced today… films such as SAW, HOSTEL, THE STRANGERS… horrifying, yes. Horror—no.















Posted by Picasa

DVD Review: FANBOYS

Title: FANBOYS

Year of Release—Film: 2008

Year of Release—DVD: 2009

DVD Label: Genius Products, llc




Fanboys, Geeks, Nerds… those are some of the nicer terms used to describe those so devoted to some facet of pop culture that their devotion borders—and sometimes ventures boldly into—obsession. The object of that single-minded pursuit is unimportant, be it Dungeons and Dragons, Anime, or, as demonstrated in the new Trigger Street Productions/Weinstein Company film FANBOYS, the universe of STAR WARS. What is important is that for those so afflicted, nothing is more important… not even a battle with terminal cancer.

It’s Halloween, 1998, and four twenty-something buddies, Eric, Hutch, Windows, and Linus, are six years out of high school, and for three of them, time has essentially stood still. Hutch still lives in his mother’s garage; he and Windows operate a small comic-book shop; they still hang out with Linus, dressing up as stormtroopers, playing video games, and generally just drifting through life. Eric, who works for his father’s chain of used car dealerships, is the only one who seems to have progressed towards adulthood since high school, and he has grown distant from his former friends, though whether this is the reason for, or a consequence of, his relative maturity is debatable.

When Eric is informed that his best friend Linus is dying of cancer, and won’t live long enough to see the premiere of the new STAR WARS film, the quartet resurrects a childhood plan to pull off the impossible mission: Sneak into George Lucas’ Skywalker Ranch in order to steal a print of Episode 1, THE PHANTOM MENACE, so that Linus can see it before his death. Along the way, between encounters with terribly misrepresented Trekkers, a pimp, William Shatner, Jay and Silent Bob, and an enraged Harry Knowles, the four discover that friendship, whatever foundation it may be built upon, really can beat the odds.

Directed by Kyle Newman, from a script by Ernest Cline and Adam F. Goldberg, FANBOYS is, as described by Newman himself, a “… love letter to STAR WARS.” The director, an admitted STAR WARS Fanboy like the characters in his film, perfectly captures what it means to be that devoted to a subject such as STAR WARS. The easy out, one which most directors would take, would be to present the characters as most people would perceive them—immature nerds, desperately in need of a life. Newman, however, allows us to discover who the characters are as people, to see them as true-to-life individuals, rather than as fanboys “geeking out” over a Sci-Fi movie. Speaking as someone who makes a regular habit of “geeking out”, this respect from a filmmaker is both rare and welcome.

The special features on the disc are nice, and as always, are appreciated. None stands out as exceptionally interesting, but taken as a whole they do add quite a bit to the package. I doubt that anyone buys a DVD for the special features; still, they are an attractive bonus.

You don’t need to be a STAR WARS fanboy to enjoy this movie; the traits of geekdom, whatever the inspiration, are universal. I myself, a lifelong Trekker, loved this movie despite its rather harsh treatment of my people. The reality of Linus’ cancer is present throughout the narrative, though not oppressively so. It never overshadows the reason for the trip, which is the quest to achieve the impossible; to get their “… Death Star …” in the words of Linus. Whether they reach this goal or not is the story, one that I can’t recommend highly enough.










Posted by Picasa

23 May, 2009

Dracula Reborn: HORROR OF DRACULA and the Rise of Hammer

Primary reference for this article was the excellent book from Denis Meikle, The History of Horrors: The Rise and Fall of the House of Hammer. I cannot recommend it strongly enough.


The mid 1940’s to mid 1950’s was a period of decline for Classic Horror. Monsters were no longer tuxedo-clad vampires or shambling, cloth-wrapped mummies. Monsters were now gigantic insects, radioactive mutants, and alien invaders. What vampires and werewolves were to be found were products of science tampering with nature, not the ancient undead or supernatural curses.

Two prime examples of this are a pair of films released in 1957: THE VAMPIRE, and I WAS A TEEN-AGE WEREWOLF.

THE VAMPIRE, directed by Paul Landres, was a nondescript programmer from Gramercy Pictures, distributed by United Artists; not a terrible film, but hardly memorable. A doctor, while on a quest to improve his mind, tries an extract of vampire bat blood, with predictable results.

Gene Fowler Jr.’s I WAS A TEEN-AGE WEREWOLF on the other hand, became something of a cult-classic, primarily because of the screen debut of a youthful Michael Landon rather than the film’s inherent quality. Landon plays Tony Rivers, a juvenile delinquent placed under the care of a psychologist (Whit Bissell).

The psychologist performs some unauthorized experiments on the young man, using hypnosis to regress him to a point in man’s development where he is a savage, feral beast. Here too, the results are entirely predictable and, for the junior wolf-man, unfortunate.

Such was the state of our classic creatures of horror through most of the decade of the 1950’s. But the pendulum was beginning to swing back towards the classics, and two unrelated events provided the impetus for that change of fortune. The first was the release, in June of 1957, of Hammer Films THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, launching the British studio to the forefront of the horror genre. Introducing Hammer’s Dynamic Duo of Horror, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, along with the studio’s star director, Terence Fisher, this film sparked a resurgence of interest in the classics, as well as changed the look of Horror Films.

Hammer Film Productions had been around, in its then-current form, since shortly after the end of World War II. A child of Col. James Carreras, Hammer was very much a small family business in the mid-1950’s, known primarily for crime, adventure, and war pictures. Ensconced at Bray Studios, Down Place, in Berkshire, a small, tightly-knit group of artists and craftsmen would create some of the greatest Horror Films ever produced, working on budgets that were fractions of what was typical in a Hollywood production.

They accomplished these miracles, at least in the beginning, through the efforts of a few very talented people, the people who created the “Hammer Look”… people such as Michael Carreras, the son of James, Tony Nelson-Keyes, Tony Hinds, and Jimmy Sangster. Jack Asher’s superb photography brought the Hammer horrors to life, painted in brilliant colors across a canvas laid before the viewer by Bernard Robinson’s perfect production and art designs.

THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN was the film that established the pattern for the “Hammer Look”… bold, vibrant colors, lush period sets and costumes, and, at least at this point in time, quality acting, writing, and directing. Peter Cushing, as the mad genius Dr. Victor Frankenstein, carries the film, creating a character at once evil yet complex, someone the viewer is unable to see completely as a villain. Lee’s Monster, by comparison, is simply cruel and brutish, lacking any of the pathos and humanity of Karloff’s creation.

Philip Leakey’s make-up, constrained as it was by threat of legal action from Universal if it too closely resembled Jack Pierce’s trademarked conception, was generic and unimpressive, doing nothing to convey the monster’s origins the way Pierce’s did for Karloff. Karloff looked like a patchwork, a being stitched together from rotting cadavers into a less than perfect whole; Lee, on the other hand, looked like nothing more than the common zombie that would populate Horror Films beginning little more than a decade later. It was not an effective look.

While the film was much closer in plot to Shelley’s original tale, it was all gloss and glitter; beautiful to look at, but lacking the heart and soul of James Whale’s landmark film, and wholly inferior to it. This movie, like Hammer Films itself, was a gorgeous façade, with very little of substance supporting it.

The second major development in the restoration of classic horror occurred in the fall of 1957, when Universal, through an arrangement with Screen Gems, released their Shock Theater package to Television stations around the country. Composed of some of their greatest Horror Films, including FRANKENSTEIN, DRACULA, THE WOLF-MAN, and CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, this led to an explosion of Hosted Horror programs on Friday and Saturday nights. Though Horror Hosts had existed prior to the Shock Theater release, it was the flood of high-quality movies and the success of hosts such as Zacherley in New York and Vampira in Los Angeles that spurred stations from Atlanta to Minneapolis to develop their own late-night Horror shows.

These trends continued into 1958, and on the 22nd of May of that year, at the Gaumont Theater in London, Hammer’s second blockbuster premiered. HORROR OF DRACULA, once again directed by Fisher and starring Cushing and Lee, took the basic blueprint laid down by the previous film and set it in concrete, defining for the next twelve years the look and texture of classic horror. Not until DRACULA A.D. 1972 was there anything more than a qualitative change in Hammer’s Dracula franchise, and decidedly not for the better.

This time however there would be a clear choice between good and evil, as Cushing was cast as Dr. Van Helsing, the bloody Count’s nemesis. Though he ably demonstrated that he could play evil convincingly in THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, it’s as the heroic Van Helsing that he found his greatest role.

Where, in 1931’s DRACULA, Edward Van Sloan had essayed an elderly, superstitious professor (for all his scientific training, Van Sloan’s character was little more than a village wise woman…), Cushing portrayed Van Helsing as a young, strong, active combatant against evil, seeking scientific explanations for the vampire’s existence, and scientific means to destroy him. Universal’s Van Helsing was a teacher; Hammer’s was a warrior, and a worthy foe for the Prince of Darkness.

And what a Prince of Darkness he faced.

For more than a quarter of a century previously, Bela Lugosi’s portrayal of the eponymous Count from Bram Stoker’s novel had been the model that moviemakers followed, and moviegoers wanted. The image of Dracula as an urbane, sophisticated gentleman, clad in black-tie formality, had become ingrained into the consciousness of Horror fans through multiple iterations of the Count and his clones.

Whether portrayed by Lugosi himself, Lon Chaney Jr., or John Carradine, the American image of the Vampire was that of Bela, in tie and tails, top hat and cape. His Dracula had a slow, languid quality, almost hypnotic to watch. It took no stretch of the imagination to picture a beautiful young woman falling victim to his spell. Dracula, as created by Lugosi, was first and foremost a seducer, a debaucher. He was, at heart, a lecherous old man.

Christopher Lee’s reinvention of the Count cast aside this “Undead Man-about-Town…” image of Dracula. While the wardrobe was little changed, the vampire inside underwent a radical transformation.

Lee’s Dracula exuded youth, power, strength, vitality. Lugosi was polished, refined; Lee was a barely concealed savage, like a wolf masquerading as a dog. Lee’s Dracula was no seducer of women; he was a rapist, in spirit if not in fact; taking his women by force, not by guile. However, in a typically post-Victorian British Male Freudian manner, his victims were all too willing accomplices to their own debasement, eager to offer up their throats for his hungry kisses.

Dracula, as rendered by Christopher Lee, was an animalistic creature of the night, savage, brutal… and just like the studio that spawned him, new and exciting.

That phrase also serves well to describe the film itself. Though no more faithful to the source material than Browning’s 1931 film had been, this script, by Jimmy Sangster, possesses an energy totally lacking in the original. Where John L. Balderston’s script for the ’31 version had been stiff and stagey, betraying its origins, Sangster, with some alterations by Fisher, crafted a script that fairly flew from plot-point to plot-point, dispensing with everything that failed to advance the story.

Gone was the slow moving, talky introductory scene of the Browning film. Here we meet Jonathan Harker (not the extraneous character of Renfield…) already arrived at Castle Dracula. In a brief voice-over, taken from the pages of his diary, we are told all we need to know: Harker, played ably by John Van Eyssen, is a friend and colleague of a Dr. Van Helsing, and is there to find and kill Count Dracula, and end his “…reign of terror.”

Harker is found out, however, and infected by a vampire’s bite. Racing against time before he too becomes one of the undead, he finds the daytime resting place of Dracula and his consort. In typical Horror movie style, he makes a monumental blunder and, as the sun is setting, decides to stake the female vampire first. This he does successfully, only to find the sun has set and Dracula has awakened.

The scene shifts to a small village Gasthaus, decked out with wreaths of garlic, where we first meet Dr. Van Helsing. He’s in search of his friend Harker, and the inn was his last reported address. The innkeeper is less than forthcoming with Van Helsing, but Inga, the serving girl, gives him Harker’s diary, found at the crossroads near the Castle.

The book leads him to the castle, now abandoned by Dracula. As he nears the castle, Van Helsing is nearly run down by a fast moving hearse, bearing a white casket inside it. Entering the castle, Van Helsing finds the body of his now undead friend, and releases his soul from its torment.

He then travels to the home of Arthur and Mina Holmwood (Michael Gough and Melissa Stribling) to inform them, and Miss Lucy Holmwood, Arthur’s sister and the fiancée of Harker, of his death. He provides no details, but simply tells them that Harker had died ten days before. Holmwood treats him coldly, and, as soon as his news is delivered, asks him to leave. The Holmwoods decide to keep the information from Lucy, whose health is fragile. However, she is already aware of her fiancé’s death, and seems strangely unaffected by this knowledge. As her brother bends to kiss her goodnight, he fails to notice the two puncture wounds in her neck, over her jugular vein.

Once she is alone, she removes a silver crucifix from her neck and opens a door leading out onto the grounds. As she lies back on the bed, anticipation on her face, Dracula appears in the doorway, and shadows and darkness engulf the young woman.

The next morning, the Holmwoods are shocked and dismayed by the deterioration in Lucy’s condition, as is Dr. Seward, the attending physician. He suggests a second opinion, and Mina decides to seek help from Van Helsing. He immediately recognizes the symptoms for what they are, and issues strict orders for the household to follow: All doors and windows in Lucy’s room are to remain tightly closed and locked between sunset and sunrise; and her room is to be filled with boughs of garlic flowers. Any deviation from these instructions, he adds ominously, would result in her death.

Lucy, however, convinces a maid to remove the flowers and open the doors, allowing her bloodthirsty lover into her bedroom. The next morning, she is found dead, drained of blood.

Holmwood is devastated by his sister’s death, and asks Van Helsing to leave them to their grief. The doctor apologizes, but informs them of the true nature of Harker’s, and now Lucy’s, deaths. He leaves Harker’s diary with Holmwood, with the admonition that if he could not believe Van Helsing, then certainly he could trust his late friend’s own words.

The diary doesn’t fully convince Holmwood, but when the little daughter of the maid is nearly attacked by someone she recognizes as “Aunt Lucy”, he goes to the family mausoleum, and finds her coffin empty. He waits for her return, and is shocked to see her walking towards him, leading the young girl by the hand. He calls to her, and she releases the girl. She approaches her brother, reaching out her arms to embrace him, mouth opening to reveal the elongated canines of the vampire.

Suddenly, a cross is thrust into view… Van Helsing has arrived just in time to save Holmwood from his sister’s bloodlust. He presses the cross against the flesh of her forehead, burning the image of the icon into her skin. She breaks away, rushing back into the mausoleum, and back to her coffin. They follow her in, and Holmwood is shocked to see the evil that is manifested in Lucy’s face; her formerly beautiful, innocent features now twisted into a vulpine grimace. He asks Van Helsing what can be done to release her from this vile curse. The answer is simple, though horrifying: They must drive a wooden stake into her heart, finally ending her existence, and releasing her spirit.

But, before they take that step, they should consider one thing: Lucy can be used to lead them to her master. They can follow her straight to Dracula’s lair. Holmwood, however, balks at this. He wants his sister freed from her curse now, before she can defile others as she has been defiled, spreading Dracula’s corruption like a virus. Van Helsing regrets his decision, but cannot in good conscience deny the grieving man. With a sigh of resignation, he drives the stake into Lucy’s chest.

With the deed done, he leads Holmwood over to his sister’s coffin. Once again, innocence and peace have returned to her visage… Lucy Holmwood is finally at rest.

The pair returns to Holmwood’s home, and begin to lay plans for an assault on Dracula himself. Holmwood still is in disbelief, despite the evidence of his own experiences. He questions Van Helsing on the legendary aspects of vampires, their ability to transform themselves, for instance. A common fallacy, he is told. Vampires have no such power. Van Helsing has devoted his life to the study of these creatures, and even his knowledge barely scratches the surface.

The first priority they have is to locate his resting place. Dracula must reside in his native soil by day, and Van Helsing believes he has a clue. The hearse that nearly ran him down that day at the castle must have been carrying Dracula in his box of earth, and to get to Karlstadt, it had to pass through the border crossing. There they might find records of the crossing, and a destination for Dracula’s coffin.

However, the border official is less than cooperative with the duo, even after Van Helsing presents his medical credentials. Holmwood, however, has better credentials… cash. A bribe reveals that the coffin was consigned to an undertaker in Karlstadt, and gives them the address of the establishment.

At that moment, Mina is receiving a message from a street urchin, informing her that Mr. Arthur Holmwood wishes her to meet him after sundown at 49 Freidrichstrasse… the same address that now holds Dracula’s coffin. She goes, oblivious to the danger, and as she enters the storeroom of the undertaker’s shop, the camera shifts to a single white casket… as the lid slowly slides open.

The next morning, Van Helsing and Holmwood have returned, though only temporarily. They have yet to visit the undertaker, hopefully to find Dracula helpless in his coffin. As they head out, they encounter Mina, returning from a night with the object of their hunt. She explains that she had taken an early morning stroll in the garden. There is an odd look of contentment, even satisfaction, on her face, and it’s perhaps a poor reflection on her husband that he does not recognize it for what it is, instead inquiring as to her health. She reassures him, and the pair leaves on their mission. At the undertaker’s, the situation is worse than they had expected. Not only is Dracula not there, but his coffin has been relocated. They’ve lost their only clue to his whereabouts.

Back at the Holmwood house, they quietly discuss their options over maps of the area. Holmwood remembers a small, neglected graveyard in the vicinity; with no other logical place to start, they decide to begin their hunt there. He turns to say good-bye to his wife, and asks her to wear, as a personal favor to him, a small silver cross. She resists, but he places it in her hand. Instantly she screams, and falls unconscious to the floor. As Van Helsing rushes to her aid, he opens her clenched fist, to reveal the shape of the cross, burned into the palm.

Holmwood is angry with himself for not following Van Helsing’s suggestion to use Lucy to lead them to Dracula, but Van Helsing tells him not to worry; there is still time to save Mina, and she can serve the same purpose he had in mind for Lucy. They will keep watch over the house later that night, and catch Dracula when he attempts to reach her.

That night, the two men patrol the grounds, keeping a watchful eye on the house. Mina watches them from her window, then turns to open her bedroom door. Below, in the foyer of the house, stands Dracula. With desire on her face, she watches him approach her. He closes the door as he enters her bedroom, and as she falls back onto the bed, he throws himself on her.

As dawn breaks, the men end their vigil. Van Helsing decides to stay there and rest, and Holmwood heads up to bed. A sudden cry brings the doctor running to find a scene of horror: Mina, apparently lifeless, rivulets of dried blood tracing paths down her pale throat.

Van Helsing hastily gives the woman a transfusion, using her husband as a donor. This saves her life, though she remains under Dracula’s control. He sends Holmwood down to rest, with an admonition to drink some wine to fortify his strength, then turns his attention to caring for his patient.

Later, he joins Holmwood in the parlor. The shaken man has taken his advice, finishing off a bottle of wine. He asks the maid to bring up another bottle from the cellar, but she demurs, saying that Mrs. Holmwood had forbidden her to go into the cellar. That sends a jolt through Van Helsing, who rushes down to the cellar. There he finds Dracula’s coffin, empty. At that moment, the cellar door opens, and just for a moment hunter and hunted stand face-to-face. Dracula runs out, pulling the door shut behind him. After Van Helsing insures that Dracula will not return to his coffin by placing a silver cross on the bed of earth, he and Holmwood give chase, and a scream leads them upstairs. Gerda, the maid, has been attacked by Dracula, though not harmed. But Dracula has taken Mina with him as he fled the house.

There is only one place he can go for shelter before the sun rises, and that is back home to his castle. They find a dead coachman; Dracula has killed the man and stolen his vehicle, and is racing to get home before dawn. They must catch up to him before he can hide himself in the basements and catacombs of his home, or they might be searching for him for years.

And for Mina.

Dracula arrives at the castle with mere moments to spare, and he must first open a grave for Mina. Rapidly he digs a shallow trench, drops her in, and begins shoveling earth in over her unconscious form. She awakens with a scream just as Van Helsing and her husband pull up in their carriage.

Holmwood leaps to his wife’s aid, as Van Helsing pursues Dracula into the castle. Cornered, Dracula fights with Van Helsing, gaining the upper hand, and slowly drawing near the doctor’s exposed throat. Van Helsing breaks the vampire’s grip, however, and notices a thin shaft of sunlight stabbing through closed curtains. He rips the curtains down, flooding the hall with light. With a pair of crossed candlesticks he forces Dracula into the sunlight, where he crumbles into dust. The threat is over, Mina is freed, and Dracula is finally dead.

This was perhaps Hammer’s best production, with the possible exception of the following year’s THE MUMMY. All the important elements were in place… Sangster’s script, Asher’s photography, the performances of Cushing and Lee, all tied together by Fisher’s competent, workmanlike direction. Together, these artisans equaled more than the sum of their individual talents, and for the brief period of time that they were all together at Bray, they produced some of the best Horror Films the genre has ever seen.

The story of the rise of Hammer Films is very much the story of a few gifted individuals in precisely the right place at precisely the right time. It wasn’t due to the inherent strengths of Hammer; there were none, as events unfolding less than two decades later would pointedly demonstrate.

When this group began to dissolve within five years, Hammer Films would take a hit, in terms of quality, from which it would never recover. The Hammer look would soon degenerate into an assembly-line, mass-produced commodity, churned out as rapidly as possible, sold lock, stock, and residual rights to the highest bidder.

Hammer, for most of its existence, lived in a perpetual cycle of brief periods of plenty broken by long stretches of lean; living from paycheck to paycheck, always trying to catch onto the latest trend. For the most part, they succeeded, at least until the fragile house of cards that was the company’s financial structure came crashing down around the head of Michael Carreras.

But in 1958, that was still twenty years away. In 1958, they weren’t trying to follow the trends, they were creating them.

In 1958, Hammer Films released HORROR OF DRACULA… and the renaissance of classic horror began.






















Posted by Picasa

DVD Review: THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (2003)

Title: THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (2003)

Year of Release—Film: 2003

Year of Release—DVD: 2004

DVD Label: New Line Cinema


Tobe Hooper’s 1974 classic, THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, was a seminal film for the Horror genre; a transformational film that altered the way Horror movies were both created, and perceived. Shot on a shoestring budget, using an unknown cast, in stark settings that were terrifyingly realistic, Hooper’s masterpiece quickly became a modern hallmark of the genre, and Leatherface, the keeper of the eponymous instrument of mayhem brought to vivid life by Gunnar Hansen, an instant Horror icon.

So it was with a (by now) familiar sense of trepidation that I received word about eight years ago of a planned remake of this movie. Remakes, in my opinion, fall into two broad categories: Re-inventions, which start with the same basic plot but develop it in ways not done with the original; and true remakes, where the same script (same dialogue, staging, pacing, etc.) is used—the film is simply reshot. Though I can cite good and bad examples of both styles, my feeling is that the re-invented film is usually of higher quality; nothing insults my love of classic Horror quite as much as some young, no-name, arrogant director thinking he or she can improve on someone’s masterpiece by re-filming it in exactly the same way. Fortunately, this film falls in the first category.

Though I was unfamiliar with Nispel prior to this project, he does a credible job here in revisiting such an iconic subject. Remaking a film this well known is a task not without its share of dangers, but he smoothly avoids most of the obvious pitfalls and traps that are built-in to such a situation. The pacing of the film, while not as frenetic as Hooper’s original, never bogs down, and flows easily from a normal drive in the country into a descent into a hellish nightmare. He keeps firm control over the largely unknown cast, and makes superb use of the locale and scenery, evoking the isolation and desolation of the original. The camera work is excellent, and, technically speaking, it’s one of the smoothest films of the year.

The story, though basically the same as the 1974 original, suffers slightly in its unfamiliarity with the dictum Less is More. Part of the quality of Hooper’s original vision is its stark minimalism. It captured you, carried you along in much the same manner that it did the characters themselves. There were no answers offered, mainly because you were too breathless to ask the questions. It just… Happened. You went from a pleasant trip to the country to visit a cemetery, (funny how those have a way of going bad) to, with the simple act of picking up a hitchhiker, a detour into Hell itself. This updated script seek to answer some of the unasked questions, and, in so doing, loses some of the ability to inspire terror that the original possessed. It isn’t an equitable trade.

The cast, though young and relatively unknown, handles the material competently, though without any great effort or inspiration. Only R. Lee Ermey, as the Sheriff, rises above the average with his trademark brand of obscenely irreverent, humor-laden invective. His scenes, (most of the dialogue for which he ad-libbed) are the high points of the film, bringing just enough black comedy to the movie to keep it from being overwhelmingly bleak and disturbing. Though the rest of the cast are able to keep pace with the material, no one of them stands out as superior than the rest. Jessica Biel, though undeniably attractive, lacks the raw sexual appeal of an Eliza Dushku or Tara Reid; she’s more suited to the girl-next-door type of roles, which works very well in this film. It certainly helps that she has a certain “’70’s look” about her, which fits very well with the period in question. Her acting skills struck me as somewhat weak, and she never quite came across as believable, but overall Biel comported herself as well as the rest.

The only other member of the cast that does deserve mention is Andrew Bryniarski, who had the unenviable task of stepping into Gunnar Hansen’s formidable boots as Leatherface. Though given a new name (Thomas Hewitt) and a thoroughly unnecessary explanation of his fondness for his gruesome masks, he’s still pretty much the same chainsaw-swinging maniac that we first met in 1974. My only complaint lies not with Bryniarski’s performance; though I’m rationalizing that it’s really a different character, to keep from having to draw a direct comparison to Hansen’s. My only real complaint regarding the Leatherface character is that now, in the age of Dr. Phil and Oprah, we’re supposed to understand his motivations, to look to the frightened child inside. BULLCRAP. I don’t care one bit about what put the gas in the chainsaw; I just want to hear it fire up.

Though the Special Effects are well done, they are a minor part of what makes this film work so well, and that’s as it should be. With a minimum of high-tech CGI Effects, the old standards of latex, food dye, and Karo syrup are more than capable of providing the requisite gore. The best effects sequence in the film is the hitchhiker’s suicide, and it was one of the two scenes that needed editing to keep the film from drawing a NC-17 rating. Though there’s little here that will amaze the modern Horror fan, the effects are well-conceived, well-planned, and, for the most part, well-executed. Some of the body part prosthetics are a little too obvious, just a little too fake, but that’s a minor annoyance. Overall, though, the Effects do what they should, without becoming the focus of the film.

Though I seldom care what extras are included in a DVD release, it would be impossible not to mention the wealth of special features packed into the Platinum Edition of this DVD. From the three-dimensional metallic wall plaque, to the Ed Gein documentary, to the deleted scenes that are contained in their own documentary-style Featurette, everything about this two-disc set is top-drawer, high quality, meant-to-please-the-fans perfection. On the higher side of the cost scale, especially for a single movie, it nonetheless is worth every dime. It truly was the DVD Presentation of 2004.

To sum it up, though it really doesn’t compare to the original, it doesn’t really have to. It is a different movie; not very different, but just enough. And while it does have problems, they are few, and minor. My recommendation is simple: See it. If you’re a fan of the original, see it. If you’re not a fan of the original, see it. If you’ve never seen the original, see it. Though it’s not the Movie of the Year, it’s well worth the rental price; if you’re talking about the Platinum DVD, then spend the money, it’s a definite buy!















Posted by Picasa

10 May, 2009

DVD Review: SWEENEY TODD, THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET Two-Disc Collector’s Edition

Title: SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET Two-Disc Collector’s Edition

Year of Release—Film: 2007

Year of Release—DVD: 2008

DVD Label: Warner Home Video



When I first heard that Tim Burton was in production on SWEENEY TODD, I thought that he was remaking the 1936 British production that starred Tod Slaughter. An odd choice, perhaps, but then Burton’s made a career out of odd choices. The casting of Johnny Depp as the demon barber only heightened my interest, as I’ve become much more appreciative of his abilities as an actor in the last few years. Still, I must admit that it wasn’t very high on my radar for the year or so that it in production.

Then I caught the first trailer released for the film, the one featuring Depp performing Epiphany, and thought, “What the Hell? Is this a musical?” SWEENEY TODD, a musical? I thought that whatever weird circuitry lay in Burton’s mind, something had finally overloaded a breaker. Who produces a singing, dancing musical about a throat-slashing barber, and his mistress who bakes his victims into pies?

As you may have guessed by now, it would be a gross understatement to say that I’m not a big fan of musical theater. In fact, prior to viewing this DVD, I had no idea that it was based on a long-established Broadway musical by Stephen Sondheim, a man that I’m familiar with solely by virtue of his mention in the film SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT.

Thus it was that Burton’s project, and my interest in it, promptly retreated to a back corner of my mind. Other movies came and went, and frankly, I wasn’t going to waste time keeping track of a musical I’d probably never see. I had more important things to follow.

Not too long ago, however, I received the DVD from a friend as a gift. I had heard enough positive reports of this movie from others to pique my interests, and decided to give it a try.
I must say that, whatever I was expecting… this wasn’t it. From the first scene, as Todd sings No Place like London, one gets the distinct impression that, while this is indeed a musical, it’s a Tim Burton musical, which means it will be unlike anything you’ve seen before. By the time Todd has his run in with rival barber Pirelli, (a splendid performance from Sacha Baron Cohen…) I was hooked.

The story is told in a way that transforms this from a music hall entertainment, which were the originations of the Sweeney Todd legends, into an operatic tragedy akin to Wagner or Verdi. The music, by Sondheim, is terrific, and the darkness of Burton’s imagination suits it perfectly. I can’t say how well Burton captured the original stage production, but he flawlessly compliments the music. While it’s not my usual type of musical fare, I must admit several of the songs stayed with me for some time, most notably the duet Depp sings with Alan Rickman, portraying Todd’s nemesis Judge Turpin. Their Pretty Women is a beautiful song, performed competently by two non-singers. Depp also shines on My Friends, and co-star Helena Bonham Carter is pushed to the limit with By the Sea, by all accounts a difficult piece even for trained vocalists.

The cast is superb, particularly the leads. Depp continues to impress me as he continues to demonstrate that his “pretty-boy”, 21 JUMP STREET days are well behind him. His ability to totally become his character, to dedicate himself fully to a role is nothing short of obsessive, and he portrays Todd’s obsession, his thirst for revenge, perfectly. Bonham Carter is also excellent as Mrs. Lovett, Todd’s paramour and partner in crime; she disposes of his victims by baking them into meat pies to feed her hungry clientele. Rickman, as Judge Turpin, is especially well-cast; he has an ability to project an evil presence that is unmatched in today’s cinema, and is very reminiscent of Vincent Price at his best.


The supporting cast is good, especially the aforementioned Cohen and Timothy Spall as the Beadle. Spall, best known as Peter Pettigrew from the HARRY POTTER films, is superbly slimy as the henchman of Turpin, whether fulfilling his role as a flattering sycophant or in his official capacity as the Judge’s enforcer. Jayne Wisener, as Todd’s daughter Johanna, and Jamie Campbell Bower, as Anthony, the young acquaintance of Todd who falls in love with her, are good… not spectacular, but they turn in a competent job.

Visually, the film is pure Burton at his best. More than any current director, Burton brings a definite style and look to his films, a presentation that’s as unique and identifiable as a Salvador Dali painting… and just as surreal. It doesn’t appeal to everyone, but to those who are fans of Burton’s work, it’s familiar and welcome.

My DVD is the two-disc Collector’s Edition, and it comes loaded with special features. There are interviews with Sondheim, Burton, Depp, Bonham Carter… virtually all the important members of the production are included. There are features on the music, and on the history of the legend of Sweeney Todd, which I found especially fascinating. If you want the movie on DVD, then this is the DVD to own.

Ordinarily for something this unusual I would suggest renting before you buy, but I feel safe in giving this one a full Buy recommendation. This film will one day be considered a classic, and I think that anyone who gives it half a chance, as I did, will love it.





Posted by Picasa