Friday Night Knife Fights: AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON VS. THE HOWLING (Conclusion)

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2012, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, Werewolf Movies, Werewolves with tags , , , , , on January 27, 2012 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981)
PART 3 (Conclusion)
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back everyone to the third and final installment of our HOWLING vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON debate.  For the past two Fridays, our panel of Cinema Knife Fighters has been trying to determine which one of these werewolf classics is the better movie.  I’m joined, as always, by L.L. Soares; and L.L., our bout between these two films has become somewhat lopsided, as AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF won the past couple of rounds and now leads THE HOWLING by a score of four rounds to one.

L.L. SOARES:  I’m not surprised.  While I like both movies a lot, I think we’re going to find that AMERICAN WEREWOLF is the better movie of the two.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  Don’t count your werewolves before they transform!  THE HOWLING is every bit as good as AMERICAN WEREWOLF and then some, and if you guys would listen to me, you’d understand why.

LS:  Be quiet, you!  We haven’t even introduced you yet!

MA:  That’s right.  L.L. and I are joined once again by Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato.  Thanks, guys, for being here on three successive Fridays.  Having fun?

MO:  Definitely.

NICK CATO:  Always a pleasure to talk about these movies.  And it’s a cheap date.

LS:  What?  No flowers?  No beer?

MO:  It’s been awesome, except my movie THE HOWLING hasn’t been doing that well in our debate.

MA:  That’s okay.  There’s still plenty of time left.  On that note, let’s get back to the business at hand.  It’s our final segment tonight, so before we go home this evening, one of these two movies will emerge as the winner.

On to Round 6.

The question is:  Which film is scarier?  Nick, let’s start off with you.

NC:  I found THE HOWLING much scarier than AMERICAN WEREWOLF.

MO:  Way to go, Nick!

NC:  But then again AMERICAN WEREWOLF was a dark comedy of sorts, so I’m not sure how scary it was trying to be.  But THE HOWLING is scarier.

LS:  I didn’t really find either movie all that scary, but I guess THE HOWLING is the more visceral story. There’s a clear-cut representation of good and evil. In AMERICAN WEREWOLF, that line is more blurred, and the movie also balances out horror and humor extremely well.

I think THE HOWLING is more scary in a “meat and potatoes” way. AMERICAN WEREWOLF, however, is more satisfying over all, in my opinion. But I give this one to THE HOWLING.

MA: I’m with you in that I honestly don’t find either film all that scary, and to me, that’s a weakness of both movies. I’d call it a draw, here.

MO:  THE HOWLING is definitely scarier.  Even if some of the characters weren’t werewolves, they’re not people you’d want to be stranded in the woods with.

MA:  That’s true.

Well, believe it or not, THE HOWLING won this Round as all three of you cited it as being the scarier film, and I called it a draw.  Round 6 goes to THE HOWLING.

MO:  Aaaawwwoooo!!!  THE HOWLING is coming back!

MA: Yep, it has closed the gap somewhat, but AMERICAN WEREWOLF still leads 4-2.

On to Round 7.

Which film, if any, belongs in the same conversation as older classics like THE WOLF MAN (1941) and Hammer’s THE CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1961)?

LS:  Well, I think AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON definitely belongs in the same class as the older classics. It’s one of the best werewolf movies ever made. Even superior to something like CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1962).

MA:  Whoa! Hold onto your wolfsbane!

Better than CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF?  I don’t think so.

Oliver Reed in CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1961), a great werewolf movie, but it really has nothing to do with this debate.

LS:  Who asked you? And since when is CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF such a cinematic titan?

MA:  Well, when ranking werewolf movies, I think it’s topped only by THE WOLF MAN.

LS:  That’s the problem  – you’re thinking again. As usual, you’re wrong.  I like CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF, but both of the movies we’re discussing tonight are just as good, if not better.

MA:  I disagree, but that being said, since AMERICAN WEREWOLF is a contemporary, updated tale with a devilish sense of humor, it is the more entertaining movie of the two, but I like the werewolf make-up on Oliver Reed so much more than the werewolf in AMERICAN WEREWOLF.  It’s just the better werewolf movie.

LS:  AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON blows CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF out of the water.  Besides, what do you know?  Has HAMMER FILMS ever made anything you didn’t like?

MA:  I’m sure I could come up with one if I thought about it long enough.

MO: Hey guys, isn’t this a battle between AMERICAN WEREWOLF and THE HOWLING? 

LS: Yeah, since when did this turn into a debate about CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF?? If you want me to tear apart what’s wrong with CURSE, just say the word, because it’s far from a perfect movie.

MA: That’ll be a debate for another night.  Okay, let’s get back on topic.

LS (to MO):  You really like THE HOWLING, don’t you?

MO: Yes!

LS: And I have to say, I don’t want to completely bash THE HOWLING. The truth is, I like it a lot, too. While I think AMERICAN WEREWOLF is better, I think THE HOWLING is still a classic of the werewolf genre and belongs in the same group with THE WOLF MAN, too, especially if Arruda is including CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF in that group. So I would say that both THE HOWLING and AMERICAN WEREWOLF fit the bill as genre classics.

YAAARGH!


MA:  Well, regarding the two movies we’re discussing today, I strongly prefer AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF.   However, I’m not sure I’d include it in the same conversation with THE WOLF MAN or CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF, which are my two favorite werewolf movies.

And I feel the same way about THE HOWLING.

The main reason?  The weakest links of both these movies are the werewolves in them.  Without decent werewolves in either movie, I can’t consider either one as a classic werewolf movie.  I think AMERICAN WEREWOLF is a notch below THE WOLF MAN and THE CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF, and THE HOWLING is several notches below.

So, my answer is neither.

MO:  I completely disagree with you.

Both films pioneered makeup effects, and both have a tragic protagonist.  If you are having a conversation about important werewolf movies (as opposed to the dozens – it seems – HOWLING sequels or VAN HELSING) then you need to include both of these.

MA:  I think our answers just cancelled each other out.

MO: You’re killing me, man!

NC:  I’d include both, too.

MA:  Well, I say neither, and the three of you say both. So Round 7 goes to both movies.

LS: Give them each a point!

MA: Okay, so now AMERICAN WEREWOLF leads THE HOWLING 5 to 3.

It’s time for the Final Round, when we ask: All things considered, which one is the better movie?

Now, remember, just like in real boxing, even though one fighter may be ahead on points, he can still be knocked out in the final round.  So, there’s still hope for THE HOWLING.

MO: And how would that work exactly?

MA:  In this round, we’re picking which one is the better movie, and so if we all picked THE HOWLING, that would be considered a knock-out.  Mark, why don’t you get this final round started?

MO:  Except for Baker’s awesome transformation, the make-up on the victims (including a terrific decapitation) and Griffin Dunne’s hilarious portrayal of undead best friend Jack, I have to give it to THE HOWLING.  If the final werewolf in AMERICAN WEREWOLF had been better with more screen time—.  Naw, I’m still going with THE HOWLING.

NC:  Despite being a fan of horror comedies, I think THE HOWLING is the better werewolf film, as AMERICAN WEREWOLF is slowed down by a couple of non-wolf side-plots. So, like Mark here, I’m also picking THE HOWLING.

LS:  I think AMERICAN WEREWOLF is the better movie, hands down. But THE HOWLING has a lot going for it, too. I think the two films make a great double-feature.

MA:  No surprise here, I’m going with AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.  It has the better script, the more memorable characters, and I like its story much better than the one told in THE HOWLING.  Both movies attempt to update the werewolf story to modern times, and both succeed, although AMERICAN WEREWOLF succeeds more.
Had AMERICAN WEREWOLF been able to include a scary, ferocious, and realistic looking werewolf in its movie, it would be one of my all-time favorite werewolf films.  I love everything about it except for the actual werewolf.

LS: Yeah, I gotta agree that the final werewolf is a letdown.

MA: So, our Final Round is a draw, as Mark and Nick chose THE HOWLING, while L.L. and I chose AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON. So each one gets another point.

That means that our final tally is AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON -  6  and THE HOWLING – 4.

Which means the winner of tonight’s FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHT is AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.

AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON wins! Hurray!

LS:  As it should be.  It’s the better movie.

MO:  Nope.  It’s THE HOWLING, but I’ll concede that AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF OF LONDON is very good, and I can see why you guys chose it.  You’re just wrong.  (laughs).

MA:  Well, before we come to blows here, it’s time to say so long, because we’re out of time.  So for the final time tonight, thanks guys!

NC:  You’re welcome.

MO:  Any time.

LS:  Any place!  Especially if it has a bar!

MA:  I’m Michael Arruda, and on behalf of L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh, Nick Cato and myself, thank you all for joining us, and we look forward to seeing you next time on FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS!

Good night everybody!

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato

Leave A Comment »

Suburban Grindhouse Memories: DEATHSTALKER (1984)

Posted in "So Bad They're Good" Movies, 2012, Bad Acting, Barbarian Movies, Grindhouse, Nick Cato Reviews, Suburban Grindhouse Memories, Sword & Sorcery, VIOLENCE!, Warriors with tags , , , , , on January 26, 2012 by knifefighter

SUBURBAN GRINDHOUSE MEMORIES PRESENTS:
DEATHSTALKER: Conan…Without Class!
By Nick Cato

I spent most of the time during the second half of my sophomore year in high school daydreaming about movies.  While horror preoccupied 90% of my mind, other exploitation films took about 8%, and the final 2% was dedicated to all things CONAN.  From the early Marvel comics to the 1982 Ah-Nuld film version, I was always a big fan of the sword & sorcery genre.  And while the success of CONAN THE BARBARIAN (1982) spawned several rip-offs, none were as memorable as the 1984 schlock-fest DEATHSTALKER, which happened to be released as I trudged through the tenth grade.

Picture—if you will—a group of fifteen year-old male teenagers managing to get into an R-rated action film with no problem.  Now picture—if you will—that same group of ecstatic fifteen year-old teenagers giggling with glee as the sword & sorcery epic unreeling before them turned out to feature some of the worst acting, fakest-looking creatures, and massive amounts of jiggling boobs this side of a PORKY’S film.  Even one-time sex symbol Barbi Benton appears as a princess, although she was better off taking another cruise on THE LOVE BOAT than accepting whatever peanuts she was offered for her forgettable role here.

Besides the gratuitous boobs and brutal fight sequences, what truly made DEATHSTALKER such a joy to watch was the title character himself.  Deathstalker was played by stuntman/actor Rick Hill, and is far less noble a warrior than Conan: he’s a conscience-less murderer and rapist, taking any woman who even looks at him as he walks by with his bulging biceps.  And in what tries to pass for a plot, a king asks Deathstalker to try and redeem himself by rescuing his kidnapped princess daughter from a tattoo-headed tyrant.  Like any social misfit, Deathstalker basically tells the king where to go, then proceeds to eat (yes, EAT) half of the king’s poor dog!  At this point, you either buckled your seatbelt and prepared to enjoy the trash that followed, or you left the theater and spared your brain any further damage.

I stayed.

There was mumbling around the theater wondering  just why this king asked a known, savage rapist to rescue his daughter, and why he even cared if the guy redeemed himself.  But such are the mysteries of rip-off, grindhouse cinema.

In one scene that drove the audience wild, a brawl goes down where one burly man (with his gigantic mallet) smashes his opponent into a bloody pancake.  Popcorn flew around the (now defunct) Fox Twin Theatre in appreciation, and at one point I started to hope some of the older guys in attendance didn’t get any ideas after the film, out in the parking lot.

Between more bouncing boobs and heads getting lobbed off, there was talk of Deathstalker also having to find three objects that were allegedly part of the world’s creation (I remember one being a sword, which he finds, but can’t recall what the other two were…and you probably wouldn’t, either).  Deathstalker eventually rescues the princess (who actually looks like an old sea hag) and takes the sword of creation from the clutches of Munkar, the aforementioned tattoo-headed tyrant (and MAN did his head-tattoo look fake!).  Just WHY Deathstalker went ahead and did what the king asked —after saying he wasn’t interested—is anyone’s guess.

The remainder of DEATHSTALKER features our anti-hero joining a tournament where warriors battle other warriors to the death—sort-of like a sword & sorcery tribute to the Bruce Lee classic ENTER THE DRAGON (1973).  Here the blood flows deeper than your standard slasher film, as arms, legs, and heads fly, bodies are impaled; all the while Munkar looks on with a smirk, thinking everyone who stands in his way will eventually kill themselves off, leaving him to rule the world.  MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

But as fate would have it, Deathstalker manages to kill the final opponent, a goofy-looking pig-faced warrior beast, and eventually destroys Munkar and the mystical objects of creation.

Unlike CONAN THE BARBARIAN, or better rip-offs such as THE BEASTMASTER (1982), DEATHSTALKER’s sloppy script and countless plot holes will cause even the most jaded fan of grindhouse cinema to shake their head in disbelief.  But, if you’re looking for a real GUY/party flick, full of hot babes, endless bloodshed, and acting so bad you can’t help but yell back at the screen (even if you’re watching it at home), DEATHSTALKER is a prime example of a so-bad-it’s-amazing film.  Most mind-boggling: this cinematic abortion was followed by three sequels, with Rick Hill returning in the title role for the fourth installment.  None were half as good (or bad) as the original.

Deathstalker (Rick Hill) battles a pig-faced beast during the exciting conclusion of DEATHSTALKER (1984)

© Copyright 2012 by Nick Cato

4 Comments »

Me and Lil’ Stevie: CREEPSHOW (1982)

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2012, Anthology Films, Classic Films, Family Secrets, George Romero, Horror-Comedies, Just Plain Fun, Me and Lil' Stevie, Peter Dudar Reviews, Stephen King Movies with tags , , , , , , on January 25, 2012 by knifefighter

Me And Lil’ Stevie

Feel Right at Home at the

CREEPSHOW (1982)

EXTERIOR/NIGHT.

(Establishing shot of a lone house in Late October.  There is a Jack O’lantern burning in the front window.  From inside the house we hear the sounds of a father berating his son for reading comic book-style horror magazines.  Camera pans up at the full moon hanging directly over the house, and then pans downward again at the figure of a frightening, maniacal skeleton lurking about just outside the boy’s bedroom.   The skeleton laughs and waves at the boy in a display of intimate understanding, and then the skeleton lifts its hand and pulls off its costume, revealing underneath a man with a ventriloquist dummy in the form of Master of Horror, Stephen King.)

Lil’ Stevie:  I can’t breathe in this thing!

Peter:  Greetings, and welcome to our latest edition of Me And Lil’ Stevie.  Today we’ll be discussing the 1982 George Romero sleeper hit CREEPSHOW!

Lil’ Stevie:  It was MY hit too, ya know!

Peter: …And since most of you are fans of horror, George Romero needs no introduction, but for the rest of the uninformed heathens, Romero is the mastermind behind the LIVING DEAD zombie series as well as a multitude of other beloved horror gems.

Lil’ Stevie:  Really?  What else has he done?

Peter:  C’mon…you really need to ask?  Romero filmed THE CRAZIES (1979), MARTIN (1976), MONKEY SHINES (1988), and THE DARK HALF (1993), which is also based on a story by Stephen King.

Lil’ Stevie:  So the man’s got some taste!

Peter:  As well as talent and style.  But CREEPSHOW seems to be a stand-out favorite among us horror fans, and for good reason.  Romero and the real Stephen King teamed up specifically on this picture, with a concept for an anthology-style film that celebrated the campy fun of the old E.C. Comics of yesteryear (VAULT OF HORROR, TALES FROM THE CRYPT, etc.).  The result is five independent stories, book-ended by a story concerning the boy above and his stern, overbearing father who doesn’t want him reading trashy horror comic books.  If you didn’t know, the boy in the movie is actually played by King’s real-life son Joe!

Lil’ Stevie:  Who now goes by the name Joe Hill, and writes kick-ass horror stories just like ME!

Peter: You don’t write anything, Splinter-Chin!

Lil’ Stevie:  Do SO!

Peter:  Really?  Well maybe you could help me write up an Ebay ad for a used ventriloquist dummy…

Lil’ Stevie:  (moping) I’ll be good!

Peter:  The first story is called “Father’s Day”, and it appears to be a tongue-in-cheek nod to all the other horror films around that time that were based on some holiday or other gone horribly awry (HALLOWEEN, FRIDAY THE 13TH,  etc). The story concerns the posh, snobby heirs of Nathan Grantham (Jon Lormer, THE BOOGENS, 1981), whom congregate every Father’s Day to remember their patriarch on the anniversary of his death…murdered by dear Aunt Bedelia after the old man drove her crazy.

Lil’ Stevie:  Bashed his head in with a marble ash tray!  Of course, he had it coming after he murdered Bedelia’s suitor in cold blood.

Peter:  Grantham had made the family fortune by bootlegging whiskey.  So when Bedelia visits his graveside with a bottle of booze and accidentally spills some on his tomb, the old man comes back from the dead to extract vengeance.  There seems to be a lot of extracting vengeance in this pic…but I think that mirrors the style of the old pulp comics.  There’s a moral code in their somewhere, and it’s delivered in all its bloody tongue-in-cheek fun.

Lil’ Stevie:  Leave it to Romero to lead off with a zombie story first!  I wanted to lead off with “Jordy Verrill”…

Peter: …Which leads us to the second story, “The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill”.  This story is one of the two in this movie that are based on pre-existing Stephen King stories.  This particular story is based on “Weeds”, which was published in Cavalier magazine in May, 1976 (and remains unavailable in any subsequent King story collection).  It is a retooling of the story, “The Colour Out Of Space” by H.P. Lovecraft, and concerns Jordy Verrill, a rube farmer who finds a meteor on his land.  Verrill is played by none other than…

Lil’ Stevie:  ME!  ME!  I played Jordy Verrill!  Wasn’t I stupendous?

Peter: ….the real Stephen King. Not you! Verrill finds the meteor, and dreams of selling it to the local university (to the Department of Meteors, to be specific) and pay off his outstanding bank loan.  When Verrill douses the meteor with water to cool it off, the meteor breaks in two, killing his plans immediately.  Of course, Verrill has already touched the meteor and been infected by whatever alien growth it contains.

Lil’ Stevie:  “Meteor shit!”

Peter:  You can’t swear like that.  L.L. will censor us again!

Lil’ Stevie:  “That’s the Verrill luck for ya!  Always in…Always bad!”

Peter:  (Sighing) Anyway, the rest of the story is Verrill’s downward spiral as the alien plant growth slowly consumes him.

Lil’ Stevie:  Easily the best story in the movie!

Peter:  The third tale is called “Something To Tide You Over”, and with the title alone we see more of that ironic, tongue-in-cheek wordplay that makes this movie such fun.  This is another vengeance tale, concerning crazed millionaire Richard Vickers (Leslie Nielson, AIRPLANE, 1980), who is bent on murdering his adulterous wife, Becky (Gaylen Ross, DAWN OF THE DEAD, 1978), and her lover, Harry Wentworth (Ted Danson, who played Sam Malone on the hit television show CHEERS, ’82-’93).  Richard shows up at Harry’s house and informs him that he knows what’s been going on.  Harry tries to play it cool, but when Richard informs him that Becky is in peril and that if he wants to see her alive again, he’d better do as he says, Harry allows himself to be led out to Richard’s beachfront property.  There is a hole in the sand waiting for him there, and Richard (while holding him at gunpoint), tells him to get in and start burying himself.

Lil’ Stevie: Of course, the tide is just starting to come in…

Peter:  Once Harry is buried up to his neck, Richard sets up a television and video player, right there in front of him, so that Harry can watch how Becky drowned, just as he is about to, with the return of the tide.  Of course, the two dead lovers are reunited by the sea, and come back from the dead to extract further vengeance on Richard.

Lil’ Stevie:  Not as compelling as “Jordy Verrill”.

Peter:  Or sandpaper!

Lil’ Stevie:  You’re so mean to me!

Peter:  The fourth story is “The Crate,” and it is the other piece that is a pre-existing Stephen King tale (and like “Weeds”, it doesn’t appear in any subsequent King collection.  You can find it, however, in the Arbor House Treasury of Horror & The Supernatural, 1980 or Great Tales of Horror & The Supernatural, 1981.)  The story concerns Henry Northrup (Hal Holbrook, THE FOG, 1980), a college professor who is forever cowed and browbeaten by his obnoxious, overbearing wife, Wilma (Adrienne Barbeau, also in THE FOG).

Lil’ Stevie:  Adrienne Barbeau!  Rowwwrrrr!

Peter:  Um, yeah…not in this picture.  In this story, Wilma (“Just call me Billie…everyone else does!”) appears to be the consummate pain-in-the-ass significant other; drinking, complaining, and verbally emasculating Henry at every opportunity.  So when Henry’s colleague and best friend Dexter Stanley (Fritz Weaver, MARATHON MAN, 1976) shows up at his home rambling incoherently about a crate that has been found at the university, and the monster inside that devoured the janitor who found it (as well as one of the school’s brightest students), Henry begins hatching a scheme to murder his ball-and-chain and be rid of her forever.

Lil’ Stevie:  Some things are just better off left alone…particularly if they are chained and padlocked and hidden away in a college basement!

Peter:  This segment was my least-favorite in the movie.  Adrienne Barbeau is a hottie, and to see her in this role really, unfortunately, changed how I feel about her.  She embodies the role with such efficiency that whenever I see her I instantly correlate her to the character she portrayed here.  And that’s a drag.

Lil’ Stevie:  That’s her job, you idiot!  She’s an actress!

Peter:  I’m sorry, I’m sorry!  And yeah, when Billie finally falls prey to the beast in The Crate, I did feel a sense of huge satisfaction.  I guess maybe it’s because I just don’t care to see people get brow-beaten, especially in public places.

Lil’ Stevie: And did you notice the personal nod I gave to my wife Tabby in this one?

Peter:  Yeah, one of the secondary characters is named Tabitha…and unlike Billie, she’s polite and well-mannered.  It seems almost like an inside joke that her name appears in this piece.  On to the final story, “They’re Creeping Up On You!”  This tale concerns another eccentric millionaire, Upson Pratt (E.G. Marshall, 12 ANGRY MEN, 1957), a germaphobe who has turned his upscale penthouse suite into a colorless, sanitized-white protection bubble.  Pratt hides away from the rest of the world in this bubble, where he can be a ruthless tycoon that makes business dealings that destroy other peoples’ lives without ever having to face them.  Through his personal interactions over the telephone, we get a glimpse of a man that has reduced the rest of mankind to being nothing more than pesky insects, which he loathes.

Lil’ Stevie:  So, of course, we have to call in the cockroaches and sic them on him!

Peter:  This piece is not for the squeamish.  Thousands of roaches invade the apartment, and before it is over, the dead Upson Pratt’s body literally erupts with insects as they burrow and tunnel their way through his corpse.  It’s an amazing scene to watch, with props to special effects master Tom Savini for making the body infestation so life-like you’d swear it was real!

Lil’ Stevie:  And you should note that Savini makes a cameo appearance as a garbage man at the end of the movie.

Peter:  In all, CREEPSHOW really is a standout King movie.  Even if this movie isn’t the scariest thing that either King or Romero has put out, the tagline on the poster reads “The Most Fun You’ll Ever Have Being Scared,” and that still holds fairly true, even 30 years later.  With the screenplay written by King, the all-star cast, and the great comic book animations and panel-framing, this movie is a celebration of all things dark and macabre…more like a film for summer camp than for the Cannes film festival.  It is a treasured homage to those horror-themed comic books we dug on in our childhood, rather than reading Boy’s Life or Y.M..

Lil’ Stevie: Just out of curiosity, if you could pick any five of my stories for a CREEPSHOW sequel, which would you choose?

Peter:  Wow, that’s a tough one…you’d want to go with the ones that are visceral enough to paint that comic book sense of grue while maintaining that almost moralistic come-uppance at the same time.  Off the top of my head, “Grey Matter” really stands out.  As does “Home Delivery” and “The Monkey”.  Of King’s more recent works, I’d say “In The Deathroom” or “Mute” would be cool.  Then again, I’d also hope that King would make the effort to write some new stories specifically for the screenplay.  The REAL King, of course, not your sorry ass. 

(Lil’ Stevie’s eyes roll back in his head, and then the dummy lunges forward, mouth wide open, and begins biting Peter’s face off.  Peter screams in agony as the blood begins to spray in comic book gushes of blood.)

Lil’ Stevie: (At the camera, with blood all over his wooden face), Goodbye, folks!  See you next time!

The scene fades into an animated sequence of Lil’ Stevie devouring the rest of Peter as camera pans out.

© Copyright 2012 by Peter N. Dudar

2 Comments »

Geisha of Gore Review: DEMON WARRIORS (2007)

Posted in 2012, Art Movies, Asian Horror, Colleen Wanglund Reviews, Demons, Foreign Films, Geisha of Gore Reviews with tags , , , , on January 24, 2012 by knifefighter

GEISHA OF GORE REVIEW: DEMON WARRIORS (2007)
By Colleen Wanglund

When I say “religious-based horror” what do you think of?  In Western horror, it’s usually movies like THE EXORCIST (1973), THE OMEN (1976) and ROSEMARY’S BABY (1968).   In Thailand, one of the predominant religions is Buddhism, and that is the basis for the 2007 movie DEMON WARRIORS.

Written and directed by Thanakorn Pongsuwan (and co-written by Yutnathorn Kaewthong) DEMON WARRIORS (or OPAPATIKA in Thai), tells the story of a battle that breaks out between humans and the opapatika.  A narrator explains that in the Buddhist tradition there are three types of natural birth.  One is sangsethaca, in which life comes out of rot and decay, like worms and maggots.  The second is anthaca which is birth from an egg.  The third is chalaphucha where life comes from the womb, like humans and animals.  There is a fourth, but unnatural, birth called the opapatika which can only occur through suicide.  These opapatika, or demons, are supernatural beings with un-human-like powers.  It is also explained that there is a price to pay for these powers, because suicide is a sin.

Techit (Leo Putt) is a private detective investigating the demons.  He is turned into an opapatika by Sadok (Nirut Sirichanya), who employs Techit to find four particular demons.  Techit is assisted by Thuwachit (Pongpat Wachirabanjong), Sadok’s human henchman (and the narrator).  The two are sent out with armed mercenaries to find the four particular demons and bring them to Sadok.  Techit is also told to follow a woman named Pran (Khemupsorn Sirisukha), whom the opapakitas seem to be drawn to.

The four opapakitas that Sadok wants brought to him are very powerful.  Paison (Shahkrit Yamnarm) is an assassin who is scarred with the lethal wounds he inflicts on others.  Ramil (Athip Nana) is an adrenaline junkie who can project a powerful and deadly spirit to do his bidding.  Arut (Ray MacDonald) is an invincible and ruthless fighter at night, but is weak during the day and has no memory of what he did the night before.  Finally there is Jirat (Somchai Kemglad) who is immortal, but he considers this a curse.

Techit and Thuwachit, along with many paramilitary types, spend a good deal of the movie tracking down the opapatikas and trying to subdue them.  That isn’t so easy.  We also eventually discover that Sadok is rotting away and will die very soon.  He needs to feed on the hearts of the opapatikas to prevent his death and give him their individual powers.  The woman Pran—who may be a demon—seems to be attempting to talk Jirat and Paison into giving themselves up, with the promise of relief from their suffering.  There are flashbacks to Paison’s life before his suicide and they include his wife’s rape and murder.  Consumed with a need for revenge, Paison killed himself to gain the power to exact that revenge.  This also has allowed him to fall in love with Pran and protect her.  Pran is seen with Jirat many times but he doesn’t trust her.  Jirat thinks something is not right about Pran and tries to warn the others.

Each of the opapatikas gains a super power when they die, but, as I mentioned earlier, there is a price to pay for that power.  The opapatikas, with the exception of Jirat, can be killed by other opapatika.  They also discover that they still suffer the grief that led them to commit suicide and seek out their present plane of existence.  In addition to this suffering, there are consequences to using their power.  Techit’s power is intuition, or reading minds.  Every time he reads someone’s mind, however, he loses one of his five human senses.  Arut, as stated earlier, is an unstoppable fighter when the sun sets but is weak during the day.  And whenever Ramil sends out his monstrous spirit, he becomes physically uglier.

While DEMON WARRIORS has an interesting story, I have major issues with its execution.  As far as the characters go, the only one who has any depth is Paison.  We see bits of his past and what spurred his choice of suicide in the first place.  We know nothing of the other opapatika, except the prices they pay for their strengths.  We don’t even know why Techit became an opapatika.  There is a brief exchange between Techit and Sadok where the detective tells Sadok that he’ll hunt down the other opapatikas as long as Techit gets what he wants….but what does he want?  We don’t know.  Later in the film, Sadok tells Jirat that he envied his gift of immortality.  We are also told that Jirat has no memory of a life prior to becoming a demon.  Was he more than just a man who committed suicide?  No idea but that could have made for an even more interesting story.  Why did the others commit suicide to become demons?  We are never informed.  The characters, for the most part are flat.  Jirat gets a bit intriguing for the pain that his immortality causes him, but even that fails epically.

During the same early conversation between Techit and Sadok we are informed that no human can kill an opapatika.  So why send all of those mercenaries to their deaths?  There are a massive amount of bloody deaths in this film, but it crosses the line into overkill.  I love a good fight scene, but after a while they just become tedious exercises in wasting time.  The fight scenes and wild shoot-outs are effectively pointless, since the human mercenaries cannot do any real harm to the demons.  And what a huge waste of money for Sadok, who must pay to arm them!  It’s just silly.

I also had an issue with the portrayal of the opapatikas.  They were dead but could still interact with the corporeal world around them.  They could be seen by others as regular humans and even have sex, and yet there never seemed to be anyone around when the fighting was going on.  And what about other opapatika?  Surely there are others….aren’t there?  If it is in fact a parallel existence then how could Paison be an assassin-for-hire and Ramil be involved in drag races?   The demons can kill humans and yet there is no real physical distinction being made.   There was some confusion, as well, when it came to Techit.  If he used his mind reading power he would lose his five senses, one at a time.  Techit lost his hearing first, but I didn’t see where this was detrimental to him.  Even when he supposedly lost his sight, he didn’t remotely seem blind.  What was up with that?  Karma may be a bitch but in this flick she’s a pussycat.

Then there is the character Pran.  We do ultimately find out who this woman really is, but for most of the movie we, as well as the opapatika are clueless.  She spouts a lot of philosophy in her quest to get the demons to work together for….what?  She promises relief from their painful existence, but what does this relief entail?  Paison has projected his feelings for his dead wife onto Pran and wants to protect her.  Jirat finally tells them not to trust her, but it’s too late.  Pran, like most of the characters in DEMON WARRIORS is two-dimentional.  There is no substance what-so-ever.

I had anticipated a decent movie when I started watching, but I ended up bored and unimpressed.  DEMON WARRIORS was a mess, in my opinion.  It ran too long, used fight sequences too often, left far too many loose ends and didn’t use special effects very effectively.  I also found it far too preachy on the subject of suicide.  Of course it’s a bad thing, but the movie tries too hard to hit you over the head with its message.  DEMON WARRIORS is rambling and muddy.   I wasted an hour and forty-five minutes of my time so you won’t have to waste yours.

© Copyright 2011 by Colleen Wanglund

2 Comments »

UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING

Posted in 2012, 3-D, Cinema Knife Fights, Hot Chick Movies, Just Plain Bad, Vampires, Werewolves with tags , , , , , on January 23, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING (2012)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(The Scene: An Expo inside a huge conference building, demonstrating the latest in 3D technology. The room is full to capacity.)

LEAD ENGINEER: Ladies and gentlemen, prepare yourself to be wowed. This is truly a historic day. I present to you the newest phase in 3D entertainment. Watch. (Points towards movie screen behind him. Aims remote control device at his laptop.)

(Voice from behind the screen—a man crying out— “Get away from there! What are you doing? Wait— no. No! NO!!!)

(A screaming man bursts through the screen, obviously having been thrown against his will. The audience gasps, and the man lands in the lap of a beautiful woman in the first row. The man quickly stops screaming.)

(L.L. SOARES and MICHAEL ARRUDA step through the huge rip in the screen, dragging a wheeled cart full of cream pies, which they promptly throw at the LEAD ENGINEER and his associates.)

L.L. SOARES (to audience): Yep, folks, the latest in 3D technology! So life-like you’ll swear it’s real! Impressive, ain’t it?

MICHAEL ARRUDA (to audience): Aren’t you glad you’re finding this out now, before you have to shell out the big bucks at the movies?

LEAD ENGINEER (wiping cream pie from his face): Not funny!

MA: Neither is paying extra for 3D.

LS: Stop ripping us off!

(Audience applauds)

MA: Nicely said. Let’s go review our movie. (They leave Expo and head out onto the street.)

LS: I’m surprised you didn’t pick some futuristic setting of our review of today’s movie, UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING (2012).

MA: That was one of the problems I had with the movie. The setting wasn’t all that vivid. In fact, I hardly remember it. These city streets will suit us just fine.

So, today we’re reviewing UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING, the fourth movie in the UNDERWORLD sa—series, (Yikes, I almost said “saga.”) chronicling the latest adventures of the vampire warrior Selene (Kate Beckinsale), as she continues her fight against both werewolves and humans.

When this one begins, Selene has been frozen inside a huge laboratory in a state of suspended animation for the past twelve years. She’s being studied by a group of scientists led by Dr. Jacob Lane (Stephen Rea). Of course, if she were to remain in a frozen state, we wouldn’t have a movie, and so she awakens, kills a bunch of humans, and promptly escapes.

LS: Actually, this one begins with a future where humans have finally discovered that werewolves and vampires exist after the first three movies, and have been steadily exterminating them. So the vampires fight the werewolves, and both of them fight the humans armed with “ultra-violet and silver” weapons. Then it goes into the whole “suspended animation” storyline.

MA: So, yes, even after 12 years of suspended animation, Selene wakes up to find that the secret battle between vampires and werewolves is still going on, even though the humans deny they still exist. Secret battle? These creatures have been battling for centuries and humans have never seen them until now? That’s because, in this series, humans must be blind. Carnage is everywhere, but no one notices anything.

(In an alley behind them, a werewolf mauls a screaming man, unnoticed by MA & LS.)

Anyway, the plot point in this movie is Selene discovers she has a daughter, Eve (India Eisley), a vampire/werewolf hybrid, who also escaped from Dr. Lane’s lab. In fact, it was Eve who awakened Selene from her frozen beauty sleep. Selene must protect her hybrid daughter from werewolves who want to kill her, humans who want to study her, and other vampires who want to give her up to get the werewolves and humans off their backs. What’s a vampire mom to do? Well, this vampire mom’s answer to everything is to shoot everybody in her way, which is entertaining for about one or two action scenes, but for an entire movie? I don’t think so.

I didn’t like UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING at all. To be honest, I’m amazed that an action movie can be this boring. I mean, we’re rivaling TWILIGHT boredom here. I know why that series is boring. Nothing happens in it. But here, we have a lot of action scenes, so how can that be dull?

LS: I was wondering that myself. This movie is about 90% action, and yet I still had to pinch myself a few times to stay awake. What is your theory, oh Jedi?

MA: I think it’s because the actions scenes aren’t imaginative. There’s nothing cinematic about them. As I watch Selene battle werewolves and men in body armor, I feel as if I’m watching a video game. That gets old real fast.

LS: I don’t know what it is. I normally love vampires and werewolves. But in these movies, I just couldn’t care less. Here are a few signs I noticed about when a movie with vampires and werewolves suck:

1)      When the vampires and werewolves are rival gangs always fighting each other. Whenever you see this in a movie, run. It means there’s no horror aspect involved and what you’re watching is just a glorified gang movie, and not necessarily a good one. (And just guess who the “Bloods “are in this gang war?)

MA: I agree. I’ve yet to see a vampire gang vs. werewolf gang storyline I haven’t hated.

LS: 2) Whenever you see a movie where werewolves are referred to as “Lycans,” run the other way. They do this in the TWILIGHT SAGA too. It’s become a trendy nickname for werewolves in all of the worst movies. Obviously short for lycanthropes, the first time I remember hearing it was back when role-playing games were all the rage. And that’s part of the problem. As you noted, these kinds of movies seem more like video games than movies. Screw lame-ass Lycans – I want my werewolves back!

MA: The movie also tells a boring story. The whole rival gang thing again. Vampires vs. werewolves vs. humans. Who cares!

(A vampire and a werewolf step out in front of MA & LS.)

VAMPIRE: We care!

WEREWOLF: Why don’t you care? Audiences love vampires and werewolves! What the hell is wrong with you guys?

MA: That’s a big part of the problem. Vampires and werewolves make up so much of movie history. You guys have a lot to live up to, and you’re just not doing it.

WEREWOLF: Why not?

LS (to WEREWOLF): Part of the problem is you look like a 3D Scooby Doo, you goober!

WEREWOLF: Hey! I thought we looked scary in this movie.

LS: Well, at least you’re not just oversized animated wolves like in the TWILIGHT movies. At least you look like a cross between wolf and human – the way friggin werewolves SHOULD look. But you’re still pretty hokey and not very scary-looking. Let’s face it, in the UNDERWORLD movies, the werewolves still look incredibly fake.

MA: A bigger part is your writers aren’t giving you anything memorable to do, other than fight, fight, and fight. Yawn!

VAMPIRE: How sad.

LS: Now get out of our way. We have a movie to review. (Vampire and werewolf sadly walk away, hanging their heads in shame.)

MA: As I was saying, it’s a boring story. If you’re going to tell a story about these creatures, can you at least make it interesting? Give us some memorable characters, some decent motivations, something that will enable the movie to make an impression.

LS: Which brings to mind the HBO series TRUE BLOOD. This show is also about vampires and werewolves (and lots of other supernatural creatures), and yet it doesn’t suck. Why? Well, a big part of it is that we have memorable characters. We have believable motivations. We have three-dimensional people here, who we care about. TRUE BLOOD is the exact opposite of crap like TWILIGHT and the UNDERWORLD movies.

MA: What do we know about Selene? She likes to kill. She was in love with a werewolf hybrid. She has a daughter who she fights to protect. Okay, this isn’t bad. We know a little bit about her, but it’s not enough to make her interesting. Why does she like to kill? Is she sadistic? Wronged? She’s fighting to protect her daughter. Why? Because that’s what all mothers do? She seems pretty happy running around blowing away werewolves and humans with guns. Why would she want a teenage girl following her around?

LS: Her motivations are clearer if you’ve seen the other movies, but not by much. For me, the worst aspect of the UNDERWORLD films is that I like Kate Beckinsdale a lot. She first caught my eye back in 1998 in Whit Stillman’s indie drama, THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO. I think she’s hot as hell. I think she’s a good actress. The idea of her being the star of a horror movie should fill me with joy. But it doesn’t. Because these movies are so damn AWFUL. There’s just something about poor Kate that doesn’t work in horror movies. Remember, she was also in the 2004 special effects crapfest, VAN HELSING (which you just know would have been a 3D crapfest if it came out today). Wait, let me rephrase that. For some reason, there’s something about Kate that doesn’t work in BAD horror movies, and unfortunately that’s the only kind she gets to star in. And as long as the UNDERWORLD movies continue to rake in the dough, that’s not going to change anytime soon.

Kate Beckinsdale could easily have been one of my favorite actresses. She’s the complete package. But her movie choices have been abysmal. And every time I see an UNDERWORLD movie, I curse the direction her career has gone in.

MA: Wow, you must really like her.

LS (wipes a tear from his eye): It’s a sad business, I tell you.

MA: And why does Dr. Jacob Lane keep Selene and other vampires frozen for more than a decade? Why is he studying them? He’s looking for a cure? For what? Shouldn’t he be in DAYBREAKERS (2009) then? Why not just kill the vampires? Why not go into private practice?

LS: Because Dr. Lane has a secret. And it’s such a pulse-pounding, shocking secret that it has us on the edges of our seats……NOT. I won’t reveal the secret here, but most viewers will see it coming a mile away, and it sucks. Stephen Rea was another actor with a brilliant future ahead of him. This is the same guy who starred in indie classics like THE CRYING GAME (1992) and the underrated THE BUTCHER BOY (1997). A real actor’s actor. And now he’s in dreck like this. Hell, he was even in a very good werewolf movie once – Neil Jordan’s 1984 flick, THE COMPANY OF WOLVES. It’s just too sad to see such talented people reduced to such garbage!

MA: The other characters, including young Eve, Selena’s daughter, I just didn’t care about. And the werewolves and vampires, they’re like the Storm troopers in the STAR WARS movies. They’re there just to be killed.

LS: I actually liked Eve. She’s not very well-developed as a character, either, but when she gets mad she turns into something that looks an awful lot like “Demon Bobby” from the 1977 TV-movie, DEAD OF NIGHT (Mark Onspaugh reviewed that one last August). I thought it was kind of cool she didn’t become just another CGI werewolf.

India Eisley as Eve in UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING

"Demon" Bobby from the 1977 TV-movie DEAD OF NIGHT!

SEPARATED AT BIRTH?

MA: As you would expect, the 3D effects add nothing to this one other than a few extra dollars to the admission price. Sure, the movie looks good in 3D, but you know what? It would have looked just as nice in 2D.

LS: Dude, you saw it in just 3D? Lucky you. The best showing time-wise for me was an IMAX 3D version. Cost me $18!!

MA: Wow. I thought I had it bad!

LS: Did it look good? Yeah, sometimes. The 3D effects weren’t always evident – let’s face it, the 3D in this movie sucks – but it was on a nice big screen with Dolby sound. I’m sure that made me hate it a little bit less – but it wasn’t worth the outrageous effin’ price. Because a turd covered with bright lights and whistles is still, unfortunately…..a turd.

MA: I also wasn’t impressed by the special effects. The werewolves are nothing to write home about. Yes, I agree that they are better than what we’ve been seeing in TWILIGHT, but that’s not saying much. CGI werewolves look like cartoons.

LS: Yep. Although I have to say one thing here. There is a scene toward the end where Selene is up against a gigantic werewolf, and even though the monster looks fake as hell, I kind of enjoyed that battle. Maybe it’s the IMAX talking, but that scene rose above the rest for me.

MA: Yeah, that was a decent battle, but by that point in the movie I was scraping the bottom of my popcorn bag in search of un-popped kernels.

LS: And at the same time as that fight, the cool-looking “Monster Eve” gets to fight with Rea’s character (who has since revealed his shocking secret). I dunno, that whole sequence was the only time in the movie when I felt I was even close to enjoying myself.

(A GROUP OF TOURISTS approach MA and LS, taking pictures. One of them steps up close to them)

TOURIST 1: Yes, these are the two guys who jumped out of that 3D movie back at the Expo! They still look so life-like. I feel like I could reach out and touch them!

LS (slaps her hand away): Keep your paws off us, you damn dirty ape!

TOURIST 1: I’m not an ape! What is he talking about?

TOURIST 2: Bad acting, that’s what I say.

(LS and MA start throwing pies at them again, and they run away)

MA: UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING was directed by Mans Marlind and Bjorn Stein. It took two people to direct this movie?? Are you kidding me? Even better, it took four people to write it. The screenplay was written by Len Wiseman, John Hlavin, J. Michael Straczynski, and Allison Burnett. Wiseman has lots of experience on this entire series, because he directed the first two movies in this series and received story credit for all four of them. That’s nothing to be proud of, let me tell you!

LS: Oh my God. J. Michael Straczynski helped write this? He actually has some talent. How the hell did he get suckered into this thing?

MA: I hadn’t seen any of the movies in this series until last week, when I rented the first UNDERWORLD (2003) to try to get a flavor for the series. That flavor was boredom. The first movie was also an uncreative snooze-fest. I’m almost insulted by the lack of imagination that goes into these movies.

LS: Lucky you. You only watched one other movie. I’ve seen all of the movies in this series. I guess I just always end up having to review them for some reason. And they all suck. They’re all boring. They all blur together and congeal like a giant blob of boring mucus. And I keep tricking myself when a new one comes out. I tell myself – hey, Kate Beckinsdale is in it. She gets to wear a form-hugging latex bodysuit. She’s one of the most beautiful actresses out there. How bad can the movie be? I always forget how bad the previous ones were and go anyway, and I am always disappointed. It’s just a revolving door of shame.

MA: Yep, the only redeeming value to UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING is that Kate Beckinsale is hot in her shiny costume. She’s got that Emma Peel thing from the THE AVENGERS – 1960s British TV-show going for her. She’s VERY easy on the eyes. Of course, everything in this movie is CGI created, so who’s to say we’re even looking at her real body? They just could have tacked her head onto an animated one. The things you think about when you’re bored in the movie theater!

LS: And, let me make another comment here. There is a scene where Kate escapes from a chamber where she’s been frozen for 12 years. She’s naked. She slithers out from a frosted up glass tube (frosted, so we can’t see anything worthwhile) to fall onto a floor covered in icy mist. In other words, she’s nude, but we don’t get to see anything! I’m not saying she has to show us the goods. But these movies are so friggin bad, it would have at least been a nice treat to see something that would have redeemed the ticket price! Throw us a friggin bone at least for sitting through this crap!

MA: So, yeah, Beckinsale is hot in this one, but she was actually so much better in CONTRABAND (2012) which I saw last week. That was a movie where she was actually allowed to act. Here, she just looks good and struts around shooting werewolves. But even her hot gun-carrying strut grows annoying after a while.

And I agree with you that Stephen Rea, an excellent actor, is completely wasted here as Dr. Jacob Lane, as well. It’s a dull role, and even someone with the talents of Rea can’t do anything with it. Nobody else in the cast did anything for me, as they all played like cardboard video game characters.

UNDERWOLD: AWAKENING is mind-numbing. I give it one knife, and it gets one knife as opposed to 0 knives because Beckinsale looks so good, and I don’t mean that to be a sexist comment. Her Selene is attractive and for a short while she’s fun to watch, but not for an entire movie with nothing else to offer. As both an action movie and a horror movie, UNDERWOLD: AWAKENING is an epic fail.

LS (imitating MA’s voice): “Beckinsdale looks so good, and I don’t mean that to be a sexist comment.” Look at you—Mr. Politically Correct. I’m not ashamed to say it’s not a sexist comment—it’s a friggin true comment.

MA: I agree it’s a true comment. I just don’t want to sound like I’m saying Beckinsale is only good because she’s hot. Although it doesn’t hurt that she is! (laughs).

LS: And—surprise! —I gave it the same rating. For the exact same reason. Kate is the only thing to recommend about this movie, and even that is self-defeating – because if people go see this movie for Kate, it will make money, and she will be condemned to make more bad movies that are beneath her considerable talents!

I also give it, one solitary knife.

One more thing. Sitting in the theater, watching this one in 3D and IMAX, it reminded me of the last time I’d seen an IMAX/3D flick, the last RESIDENT EVIL movie, RESIDENT EVIL: AFTERLIFE (2010). And it amazes me that the more I think about it, the more it seems like it’s the same exact series. They both feature hot chicks shooting guns (in Jovovich’s case, it’s her indestructible character, Alice). They both have awful scripts and seem more like video games than movies. And both that last RESIDENT EVIL movie and this new UNDERWORLD movie end at a point where we are forced to endure the damned TO BE CONTINUED moment, where it’s clear the whole movie has just been setting us up for the next sequel. We’re like a room full of suckers playing the “find the ball under the cup” shell game, and wondering why we keep losing.

The only difference is, the RESIDENT EVIL movies are actually a tiny bit more fun, and I don’t hate them as much. But really, these are the same exact thing, except in UNDERWORLD it’s vampires and werewolves and in RESIDENT EVIL it’s zombies and the mysterious Umbrella Corp.

Which leads into the revelation that the next RESIDENT EVIL movie will be coming out this year as well. It’s just déjà vu all over again.

MA: Yeah, and as if to rub it in, the theater played the trailer for the next RESIDENT EVIL movie before the new UNDERWORLD movie started. Lardy-flippin-dah! Though I agree with you that the last RESIDENT EVIL movie was better than this movie.

Well, that’s it for now. See you next time here at Cinema Knife Fight!

LS: And remember, an inflated ticket price is a terrible thing to waste.

-END-

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Michael Arruda gives UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING ~ 1 knife!

LL Soares also gives UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING ~ 1 knife!

Leave A Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights – THE HOWLING VS. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON – Part 2

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2012, Animals Attack, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, Horror, Werewolves with tags , , , , , on January 20, 2012 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981)
PART 2 (of 3)
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh, and Nick Cato

From THE HOWLING

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back, everyone.

Tonight it’s PART 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981), where our panel of CINEMA KNIFE FIGHTERS attempt to decide which of these two werewolf classics is the better movie.

Once again, L.L. Soares and I are joined by Nick Cato and Mark Onspaugh. Thanks again, guys, for being here.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  No problem.

NICK CATO:  As long as I don’t have to howl at the moon anymore.

MO:  Not into howling at the moon?

NC:  No.

L.L. SOARES:  What’s the matter with you, Nick?  Not into howling at the moon?  What kind of a werewolf fan are you?

NC:  Sane.

MA: Okay, after two rounds in PART 1, both these films were tied one round apiece. Ready, guys?  It’s time for Round 3.

Which film has the better cast of characters?

LS:  I think Dee Wallace is pretty good in THE HOWLING, and she has some interesting supporting actors like Patrick Macnee (Steed from the classic AVENGERS TV show from 1961 – 1969), character actor Slim Pickens as the sheriff, and even old-time horror icon John Carradine as a strange old man. The rest of the supporting cast is pretty good, too.

I also like that there are a lot of fun cameos in the film, including director Roger Corman as a man waiting to use a telephone booth, Corman regular Dick Miller as a bookstore owner, Forrest J. Ackerman as a bookstore customer, and even screenwriter John Sayles as a coroner.

But there are some weaker characters, too. Don McLeod as T.C. is just such a stereotypical creepy character that he doesn’t seem believable at all. And Elizabeth Brooks, as the seductive Marsha Quist, certainly looks the part, but isn’t a very good actress in this movie (it is her film debut, however, to be fair).

Don McLeod as T.C. Quisp in THE HOWLING.

That said, the acting in AMERICAN WEREWOLF is just that much better. David Naughton is terrific as the lead, David Kessler. Griffin Dunne steals every scene he’s in as David’s buddy Jack Goodman (even after he’s dead) and provides a lot of humor in the story, and I have to admit to having a crush on Jenny Agutter as Nurse Alex Price back when I saw this in the movie theater as a kid.

MA:  Me, too. And I relived that crush all over again when I rewatched this one.

MO (howls):  Aaaawwoooo!!!

LS:  The acting chops are just a different level in this movie, while THE HOWLING seems more like a B-movie you’d see at the drive-in (although better than average for those kinds of flicks).

It’s also funny to note that there’s a scene in THE HOWLING where Dee Wallace’s character is trapped in a car while werewolves slam into the doors and try to get in. This mirrors another movie she would star in two years later, CUJO (1983), where her character was in much the same situation.

MA:  So, are you saying that you like the cast in THE HOWLING better, but you prefer the acting in AMERICAN WEREWOLF?

LS:  Actually, no. I like the cast of THE HOWLING, but the cast of AMERICAN WEREWOLF is superior in just about every way.

MA:  Nick, how about you?  What do you think of the casts?

NC:  I’m with L.L. on this one. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON has the more interesting cast, especially the dead friend, Jack.

MO:  You guys are both wrong.

While I think David Naughton, Griffin Dunne and Jenny Agutter were all good in AMERICAN WEREWOLF, how can you compare them to a movie with Patrick MacNee, Slim Pickens and John Carradine? And Bob Picardo is amazing as “Happy Face” serial killer Eddie; as are awesome “bad girl” Elisabeth Brooks as Marsha and Don McLeod as redneck psycho T.C.

I love the whole dynamic of werewolves who are joyously evil vs. scared victims, some of whom come to embrace their bestial nature, and the pompous psychotherapist (MacNee) who recommends the worst course of therapy imaginable…  I go with THE HOWLING.

MA:  I dunno, Mark. I think I’m siding with L.L. and Nick.

MO:  The horror of it all!

LS:  When you’re right, you’re right!

MA:  I’ve always liked the characters in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF better. David Naughton is OK as David Kessler, the werewolf.

L.L, you said you thought Naughton was excellent as David, but I’ve always found him running hot and cold in this movie.

LS:  What do you know!

MA:  I like it when he’s being goofy, but other than the transformation scene, he doesn’t have the angst and pain of a guy who’s now a murderous beast.

But I agree with you that Griffin Dunne steals the show as David’s undead friend Jack. And I also really like Jenny Agutter as David’s love interest, Nurse Alex Price, and John Woodvine is also memorable as Dr. Hirsch. They all deliver solid performances.

Griffin Dunne as Jack Goodman in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON provides comic relief, even after he's dead.

Interestingly, David Schofield, who plays a dart player in a key scene in the movie, was also in the recent remake of THE WOLFMAN (2010) as a police constable.

I agree that THE HOWLING has a more impressive cast, with Patrick Macnee, Kevin McCarthy, John Carradine, and Dee Wallace in the starring role, but I’ve never warmed up to the characters. As such, I prefer the cast in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF OF LONDON.

Since L.L., Nick, and myself all chose the cast of AMERICAN WEREWOLF, Round 3 goes to AMERICAN WEREWOLF, giving it a 2-1 edge over THE HOWLING.

Next up, it’s Round 4, and the question is, which film’s director does a better job, Joe Dante on THE HOWLING, or John Landis on AMERICAN WERWOLF?

MO:  It’s interesting, both directors are known for their senses of humor – and Dante peppers his film with werewolf references and even a cartoon Big Bad Wolf.

MA:  You’re right, but I think the humor works better in AMERICAN WEREWOLF than it does in THE HOWLING.

MO: Funny you should say that because I actually see AMERICAN WEREWOLF as a tragedy.

MA: It is a tragedy. It just has a lot of funny parts in it.

MO:  And I see THE HOWLING more as a “monster picture.”

Both are entertaining, but I find THE HOWLING darker and scarier – and that’s often what I look for. So, I go with Dante and THE HOWLING.

LS:  Like I said before, Dante gives us an above average drive-in movie. But John Landis gives us something more, with more believable characters and just a higher standard of writing and directing. While I like what Dante did on THE HOWLING, I don’t think you can compare it to AMERICAN WEREWOLF in the directing category. Landis was at the top of his game.

David Naughton in a dream sequence from AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.

MA:  I agree.

MO:  What am I going to do with you two guys?

MA:  I definitely prefer Landis’s work on AMERICAN WEREWOLF. He created the more memorable transformation scene, and the opening bit when David and Jack are attacked on the moors is probably the most suspenseful scene in the movie, and far more suspenseful than anything in THE HOWLING.

I also thought Landis was far more successful pulling off the comic relief, as there are many humorous moments in AMERICAN WEREWOLF.

All in all, I’m going with Landis.

MO:  Nick, help me out here, dude.

NC:  I wish I could, but when it comes to these two directors and their work on these two movies, I don’t have a clear preference. I’m calling it a draw.

MA:  All right, Round 4 goes to AMERICAN WEREWOLF, giving it a 3-1 lead over THE HOWLING. It’s starting to pull away.

Round 5. Which movie has the better screenplay?

I’ll go first.

Hands down, AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF. No contest. It’s a very creative screenplay, and includes off-the-wall humor and some memorable scenes with Griffin Dunne as a walking dead man.

I did like how THE HOWLING included in-joke character names, like Dr. George Waggner (the name of the man who directed THE WOLF MAN (1941), Terry Fisher and Fred Francis [two of Hammer Film’s more famous directors. Fisher directed Hammer’s THE CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1962)], and Erle Kenton (who directed HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944) and HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945).

In terms of story and characters, though, I prefer AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF to THE HOWLING.

LS:  Funny enough, I just read the original novel of THE HOWLING before watching the movie again recently – it’s by Gary Brandner – and I was surprised how much the movie changed the story. Not all of the changes make sense – since there are very strong motivations in the novel that are not as clear-cut in the film. I’m surprised by this, because the script was written by John Sayles (along with Terence H. Winkless), and Sayles has a reputation for being an above-average screenwriter—and has had an accomplished career since as a director—even for a movie like this. I actually wish it had stuck more to the original story.

The main changes are the fact that Karen White is a news anchor and a local celebrity (in the book, she was just an average woman), and that the “retreat” she goes to after an attempted rape is some kind of group therapy getaway (in the book, it was a small town that the Whites go to recover from Karen’s actual rape – no attempted in the book). It just seemed that the characters were stronger in the novel. While I don’t hate all the changes the movie made, I just think it’s a so-so script, when it could have been a really good one.

In comparison, John Landis’s script for AMERICAN WEREWOLF is smarter, his characters are more fleshed out, and the motivations are more believable. So AMERICAN WEREWOLF wins the screenplay competition hands down.

MA:  Well, Mark, here we go again. Are you going to side with THE HOWLING on this one?

MO:  Actually, I have to admit the writing is a bit better on AMERICAN WEREWOLF.

NC:  Yes, AMERICAN WEREWOLF has an excellent screenplay.

MA:  Round 5:  AMERICAN WEREWOLF. It’s now up 4-1 over THE HOWLING.

And believe it or not, that’s all the time we have here tonight.

MO:  Already?  Man, that went by fast.

LS:  And see, Nick, you didn’t even have to howl!

NC:  I’ll let you guys do the howling.

MA:  Join us again next Friday night for the third and final installment of our HOWLING vs. AMERICAN WEREWOLF bout. Will AMERICAN WEREWOLF continue to beat up on THE HOWLING?  Or will THE HOWLING come from behind and win with a knock-out?

Tune in next Friday night to find out.

Good night everybody!

—END Part 2—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato

1 Comment »

Bill’s Bizarre Bijou: WILD WILD PLANET! (1965)

Posted in 2012, Bill's Bizarre Bijou, Cable movies, Clones!, Mutants!, Outer Space, Science Fiction, Strange Cinema, William Carl Articles with tags , , , , , , , on January 19, 2012 by knifefighter

Bill’s Bizarre Bijou

By William D. Carl

This Week’s Feature Presentation:

WILD, WILD PLANET (1965)

“It’s a mod, mod, mod world!”

Welcome to Bill’s Bizarre Bijou, where you’ll discover the strangest films ever made. If there are alien women with too much eye-shadow and miniskirts, if papier-mâché monsters are involved, if your local drive-in insisted this be the last show in their dusk-til-dawn extravaganza, or if it’s just plain unclassifiable—then I’ve seen it and probably loved it.  Now, I’m here to share these little gems with you so you too can stare in disbelief at your television with your mouth dangling open. Trust me, with these flicks, you won’t believe your eyes!

Continuing with my series of reviews of the Italian space opera “Gamma I” series, directed by the great Antonio Margheriti (YOR HUNTER FROM THE FUTURE, 1983; KILLER FISH, 1979; CANNIBAL APOCALYPSE, 1981), I want to take a gander at WILD, WILD PLANET (1965). WWP was made at the same time as SNOW DEVILS (see previous Bill’s Bizarre Bijou), WAR OF THE PLANETS, and Il PIANETA ERRANTE, but it was released in America first to astounded little kids everywhere and their groaning  and grinning parents. It actually comes second in the Gamma I quadrilogy. Confused?  Not as much as you will be after watching this fabulously kitschy movie.

Gamma I, if you recall, is a space station positioned above the Earth, spinning lazily on a wire, but WILD, WILD PLANET starts with various model shots of toy cars in toy cities and toy rockets shooting into space while elevator music mixed with weird Theremin sounds plays in the background and the yellow credits roll. A trio of astronauts climbs from the toy rocket and float gracefully over to Gamma I. Hey, they’re on strings, too!

Inside the twirling station,  a professor conducts bio-experiments concerning living organs and shrunken body parts, most of which are encased in big tubes. Commander Mike Halstead, this time played by Tony Russel (SWORD OF DAMASCUS – 1964 and the voice of Django in the English-dubbed DJANGO, 1966), doesn’t like having such gruesome experiments performed on his ship. He doesn’t want supermen; he’s “satisfied with people the way they are…I’m a person, not a bunch of meat!”  They’re expecting guests, but quite a few of them have mysteriously disappeared.

We are the introduced to the lovely Lt. Connie Gomez, this time played by Lisa Gastoni (MESSALLINA VS. THE SON OF HERCULES, 1964 and WAR OF THE PLANETS,1966), who is teaching a judo class to a large group of people. Two men discussing her say, “She’s a perfect specimen!”  “Specimen?  She’s one hundred percent woman and one hundred percent for our commander.”  Turns out the admirer is Mr. Nurmi from The Corporations. We instantly know he’s bad, because he’s wearing dark sunglasses and black leather coat. He promptly moves in on Connie, dropping sexual innuendos like handkerchiefs until she agrees to go to dinner with him. Nurmi is portrayed by Massimo Serato, star of DON’T LOOK NOW (1973) and AUTOPSY (1975). After he leaves, Lt. Jake (the great Franco Nero, star of the cult classic DJANGO,1966; as well as  CAMELOT, 1967; CONFESSIONS OF A POLICE CAPTAIN, 1971; and ENTER THE NINJA (1981) all the way to last year’s CARS 2!)  tries to schmooze Miss Gomez, and is rebuffed by a judo chop to the belly.

Big hair and bald clones - oh my!

Dinner is held in a room where many inhabitants of the station dance wildly to 60s disco music wearing Technicolor clothing. Mr. Nurmi may be a jerk, but he can cut a rug!  After discovering Lt. Gomez is going to Earth for a vacation, he tries to get her to go with him as a guest of The Corporations. After getting drunk, Connie gives a speech about how women are “obviously different from men,” then she decides to go with Nurmi on his dream vacation.

A letter comes, and Commander Halstead and Jake find out another scientist has gone missing. On Earth, a mob of towering-haired women in flimsy gowns and aqua blue eye shadow are given their orders by an even bigger-haired Amazon and a bald man in black sunglasses and a black rain poncho. They go to a house where an Opie Griffith look-a-like is peering through a microscope. The bald man whips his poncho around the kid and something awful happens beneath it. The kid is shrunk to doll-size and put in a small suitcase!  Soon, other scientists and politicians are similarly diminished and snatched.

Halstead and Gomez arrive on Earth and drive around in a little bubble-car discussing their relationship like characters in a Noel Coward play. Nurmi takes Gomez to a nightclub where people in butterfly costumes pretend to dance around each other badly. Ah, romance among the La Dolce Vita.

Baldie tries to shrink another scientist, which is interrupted by a little girl witness, who screams, “Grandpa!  Grandpa!” and is promptly strangled by one of the big-haired beauties. The scientist, now midget sized, scrambles away on his little legs. The female assassin informs the bald poncho-wearer that he has failed. She stabs him, and he promptly disappears from view. The woman hurries away in one of those cool bubble cars.

Gamma I investigates the disappearances, led by Commander Halstead, the granite-chinned, ever-tanned Tony Russel. When the midget scientist is found in a coma, our heroes discover a bevy of beauties and poncho-wearing men are working for The Corporations (they always say it as if capitalized). And Lt. Gomez is their latest victim!

Tony Russel and Franco Nero to the rescue in WILD WILD PLANET!

When a woman and bald man are spotted at an airport, a plucky cop shoots a ‘red tracer’ on their car so they can be spotted. This tracer is a disc that shoots out pink smoke all over the place, and Commander Halstead follows it, swooping down in his candy-colored spaceship. It’s so slow; you’d think you could walk faster than these guys drive and fly around. Of course, there’s nobody in the escape car when they retrieve it. They do discover a small briefcase with three teeny-tiny people in it, and they’re still breathing.

Gomez is shown around the evil lair of The Corporations, where they clone bald men in sunglasses and wear bright polyester pantsuits during down-time. She discovers a shower that drips blood in her room (ooh!  Can I have one of those?)

Meanwhile, Commander Halstead and his fellow spacemen find one of the bald clones, who, when stripped naked, has four fused-on arms and cat’s eyes!  Somehow, they discover the whereabouts of the Amazons (please don’t ask me how), and the three men invade their hotel room. This leads to a five minute knock-down, drag out fight between three women in see-through nighties and bikinis and stiletto heels, and our Commander and his two best men. They really go after each other, and Halstead shouts, “Watch out for those gadgets on their chests!”  When one gets stabbed by what looks like a comb, she disappears, leaving only the salmon-colored nightie behind her. They discover books left behind with the names of everyone who’s been kidnapped and everyone who will be. Halstead is disappointed to find he is not listed.

And we’re back in the nightclub where 101 Strings are playing, and people dressed like butterflies in capes chase each other, and the audience watches enraptured. I like to think they can’t believe how crappy the entertainment is, but this is an Italian nightclub in the cinema of the 1960s, so that’s kind of a given.

The plot gets more than a little muddled, but it boils down to the evil scientist wanting to meld Connie Gomez with himself, thus creating the first ‘perfect’ human being. His plans are interrupted by Halstead and his space rangers, and they do battle in a huge room full of a blood-like substance. The pool bursts, flooding everything in the red stuff. Funny story; a pipe cracked on the set, and nearby residents in Rome turned on their water taps to find all their water tinged red by the food coloring.  Try explaining that to your local plumber.

Will the good guys triumph over the evil Mr. Nurmi?  Do you even have to ask?

More mod clothing, hair, sunglasses, and furniture than you could throw a Barbarella at, WILD, WILD PLANET is oodles of 60s fun. The music and dancing will have you rolling on the floor, and the toy-like miniature cities and space stations only add to the innocent fun. Not to mention, the plastic toy guns that shoot out a foot of sparks and flames!  Where can I get one?

The movie moves swiftly, much faster than SNOW DEVILS, and there are plenty of whacky actions sequences to keep your attention when you’re not wiping tears of laughter from your eyes. And when was the last time you heard a superior officer call his subordinate ‘Helium Head?’  You also get a cosmic room of mirrors, a basement full of mutants, more stunning women than you can imagine in one movie, and a really nifty performance by an astonishingly good-looking young Franco Nero. The cast as a whole will never win any Oscars, but they all get it. They really roll with the campy silliness of the movie, so the performances actually work.  Any kids (or anyone on mind-altering drugs) are going to fall in love with this flick. Even as an adult, I’d take its immature charms over the big budget sci-fi product Hollywood’s been producing lately.

WILD, WILD PLANET is available on a nicely restored DVD from Warner Brother Archive.

I give WILD, WILD PLANET three midget scientists out of four.

© Copyright 2011 by William D. Carl

1 Comment »

BEST AND WORST COMEDIES OF 2011

Posted in 2012, Best Of Lists, Comedies, Kelly Laymon Reviews, R-Rated Comedy, Sex Comedies, Worst-Of lists with tags , , , , , , on January 18, 2012 by knifefighter

THE BEST AND WORST OF COMEDY IN 2011
By Kelly Laymon

This past year saw some great comedy that needs a glance back.  But I have a few notes before we start.  First of all, while my main focus here is the raunchy R-rated stuff that I generally handle, I’m going to have to highlight a great PG-13 comedy.  Also, I’m covering a few films that I was going/supposed to do and couldn’t because they weren’t in wide release, my neighborhood was hit by a small yet disruptive hurricane on the opening weekend, or I was on a road trip with my mom.  I’m also touching on ones that were released before I joined Cinema Knife Fight, but that LL reviewed.  Also, I am not listing films in any particular order or ranking.

BRIDESMAIDS got a ton of well-deserved attention.  I generally don’t like Kristin Wiig much and find that Maya Rudolph is better when she’s less over-the-top and more dramatic, as in AWAY WE GO (2009), but this worked for me because the film really played to their strengths as more understated actors.  All of their interactions seemed real.  My only complaint is that there should have been more scenes involving ALL of the gals.  When all six characters were together, it was at its best.  I was particularly fond of the exchanges between the seasoned Wendi McClendon-Covey and naïve Ellie Kemper.  The Jon Hamm scenes deserve an award of their own.  Sometimes I wonder if he’s trying too hard to prove his comedy chops because he’s SO handsome though.  But the Irish cop (Chris O’Dowd) was the real star of the film.  And while I thought Melissa McCarthy was good, I think some of the praise she’s received has been undeserved.  Entertainment Weekly called her the new Queen of Comedy.  Gimme a break!  And this film was a nice finale for the late Jill Clayburgh.  In the blooper reel on the DVD, they apologize for the horribly dirty lines she has to say.  She just laughs and says something along the lines of, “No, I’m having so much fun.”

WHAT’S YOUR NUMBER? is a film that I expected to completely suck.  All in all, it wasn’t that bad.  The trailers made it look very silly and slapstick, but the actual film was a bit more down to earth and semi-amusing.  Anna Faris reads an article in Marie Claire about the average number of men women have sex with in their lifetime.  Since she’s reaching the dreaded #20, she decides to re-visit all of her exes to see if she can make a relationship stick with one of them.  Some of the scenes are humorous, though it would still be nice to see Anna Faris in better material.  Her films always seem to JUST miss the mark.  And it was a sad waste of the great and snarky Joel McHale.

On the flip-side, OUR IDIOT BROTHER was a bit of a disappointment.  It suffered from what I sometimes refer to as “the overly quirky and precious indie problem”. (Side note: Two of the worst offenders in my book are LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE (2006) and JUNO (2007)).  Paul Rudd is good as the dopey brother who needs to pull his life together at the expense of his mother and three sisters.  One sister’s a savage career woman (Elizabeth Banks), another’s a quirky lesbian comedian who’s not any good (Zooey Deschanel, who I’m very tired of), and the third’s a put-upon and poorly-treated housewife (Emily Mortimer).  Fellow co-stars Rashida Jones, Adam Scott, and Elizabeth Banks—all three of whom I like a lot—couldn’t save the overly meaningful lessons that the “idiot brother” inadvertently teaches everyone.

CEDAR RAPIDS was an enjoyable film that didn’t get a ton of attention.  Ed Helms plays a naïve insurance agent who goes to the big city for the region’s yearly insurance convention.  His roommates are the very funny John C. Reilly and Isiah Whitlock, Jr..  Reilly plays a seasoned con-goer and all-around bad influence, while Whitlock is straight-laced, but goofy.  Anne Heche is the married “what happens at a con, stays at a con” love interest.  Aside from enjoying the humor in this, I saw a lot of myself and my friends in the characters and some of the convention antics.  The film ultimately has a good heart and leaves you with a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Steve Carell and Ryan Gosling in CRAZY STUPID LOVE, one of the better comedies of 2011.

The PG-13 ringer on my list is CRAZY STUPID LOVE.  It would be impossible to talk about the comedies of 2011 without highlighting this one.  The entire cast is solid, but the film really belongs to the relationship between the newly separated, dorky, forty-something Steve Carell and Ryan Gosling.  Although their makeover scenes have some flashes of THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN (2005), they totally work.  Ryan Gosling, who’s mostly known for more dramatic roles, is great as a sarcastic, know-it-all, trendy, hipster womanizer.  He’s the kind of character that could be totally unsympathetic, but is played just right.  The “big speech” at the end is kind of corny, but sometimes even really good movies have a semi-lame moment or two.

PAUL is a tough one to talk about.  It plays so much to the nerdy fan boys who know about authors, comics, and conventions that I don’t know how normal people viewed it.  As someone who knows the convention circuit and a lot of authors and has traveled the UFO regions of Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico, I totally dug it.  Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, of SHAUN OF THE DEAD (2004) and HOT FUZZ (2007), are great as two English buddies on a nerd tour that starts at the San Diego Comic-Con and is supposed to take them on a UFO hot spot voyage.  Seth Rogen is the voice of the vulgar, pot smoking alien they stumble upon, and we have yet another nice performance from Jason Bateman.  And if your eyes are dry when Paul visits the girl whose yard he crashed into sixty years ago, you have no soul.  Kudos to Blythe Danner.

THE HANGOVER II wasn’t as bad as people said.  For a sequel, it held up better than most.  As with the first one, which I loved, I found more humor in the simple dry throw-away lines than in the big, crazy situations.  I liked that they paid tribute to the first right down to the music cues (Danzig on the opening credits, Kanye West during the arrival scene, Wolfmother as they make it back for the wedding), etc..  And the fact that Zach Galifinackis’s Alan was still obsessed with what happened in Vegas was a nice touch.  I was disappointed that Ed Helms’s Stu wasn’t marrying Heather Graham’s stripper Jade from the first one.  And Stu’s “big speech” at the end about his inner demons seemed forced and almost silly, whereas his “big speech” at the end of the first one had a cheer-worthy power to it.

Although he didn’t ruin THIRTY MINUTES OR LESS, Nick Swardson resumed his usual roll of the anti-funny with BUCKY LARSON: BORN TO BE A STAR.  It is a fantastic…waste of a supporting cast.  Don Johnson and Christina Ricci both co-star in this train wreck.  I won’t even bother to describe this exercise in lameness other than to say that it’s a terrible attempt at porno humor.  I’m convinced that Adam Sandler is funding Swardson’s career through Happy Madison Productions in order to make us appreciate Sandler more.  It is so ridiculous and over-the-top, without even a toe dipped in reality.  And, when it comes to the comedies I like, the characters and situations need to be relatable.  I need to see tiny bits of myself, my friends, and things that have happened to me or could happen.  I knew it would be pretty bad and even texted a friend when I sat down to watch it that “I must really hate myself to be watching this.”  If you want to see a comedy about porn that’s actually funny, go for Kevin Smith’s ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO (2008).

Don Johnson had a small role in another small and little-seen sex-themed comedy in 2011, A GOOD OLD FASHIONED ORGY.  He plays the rich, jerky father of Jason Sudeikis and owns a posh beach house in the Hamptons.  He no longer uses the house, but Sudeikis and his high school pals (including comedy staples you’d-know-’em-if-you-saw-’em,  Martin Starr, Lake Bell, Nick Kroll, etc..  Luckily, the annoying Will Forte is toned down and plays it straight…and he’s not in it much.) still party at the house each weekend during the summer.  Once Johnson puts the house up for sale, Sudeikis decides that they need to have one final legendary bash over Labor Day weekend and he lands on the orgy idea.  Sudeikis has been very likable and funny in a few films over the past couple of years, such as GOING THE DISTANCE (2010) and HORRIBLE BOSSES.  We’ll just pretend that the super-mediocre HALL PASS (2011) didn’t happen.  And I enjoyed this one too.  It’s a dumb guy plot, but the dialogue and jokes worked for me.

I’m not going to rehash the films I already reviewed, but the links are below.

© Copyright 2012 by Kelly Laymon

OTHER COMEDY REVIEWS BY KELLY DURING 2011 (Just click on the title):

HORRIBLE BOSSES
THE SITTER
YOUNG ADULT
50/50
THE CHANGE-UP
30 MINUTES OF LESS

2 Comments »

THE NEW DAUGHTER (2009)

Posted in 2012, Ancient Civilizations, Cinema Knife Fights, DVD Review, LL Soares Reviews, Monsters, Peter Dudar Reviews, Supernatural with tags , , , , , on January 17, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: THE NEW DAUGHTER (2009)
DVD Review by L.L. Soares and Peter Dudar

The DVD cover for THE NEW DAUGHTER, starring Kevin Costner

(THE SCENE: A mound in the middle of the woods. L.L. SOARES stands atop it, shouting down to PETER DUDAR who is running around with a video camera)

LS: I’m king of the mountain!

PD: Wait, wait, I’m trying to get it all on film.

(Something screams in the distance)

PD: What the hell was that?

LS: Probably a chipmunk. I dare you to come up here and try to push me off the hill.

PD: That’s not a hill, Paleface! It’s an ancient Indian burial mound full of blood-thirsty monsters.

LS: ….Now you tell me.

(Monsters start coming out of the mound and chase LS and PD through the woods)

PD: Hey, while we’re getting in a nice jog, why don’t you tell people what today’s movie is about?

LS (breathing heavy): Sure.

Sitting down to watch THE NEW DAUGHTER (2009), it had a few strikes against it to begin with. First off, it has an awful title that really does not do the film justice. Secondly, it stars Kevin Costner – not an actor whose work I’ve ever really enjoyed. Let’s just say I’m not a fan.

PD: You didn’t like ROBIN HOOD, PRINCE OF THIEVES (1991)?

LS: Nope.

But this guy here (points to PD), Dudar, insisted that I give the movie a chance, so I did.

For once, Costner plays things pretty low-key, as John James, a single dad of two kids, and a writer, who moves his family to a new house after his wife has abandoned them for another guy. Trying to start over, John has decided a change of location will do them all good.

But not long after they move in, John’s daughter Louisa (Ivana Baquero) starts to act strangely. At first, he chalks it up to the fact that she’s a teenage girl—reason enough for her to seem strange to him—but something more insidious is going on. There is a mound in the woods in back of their house, on their property, and the girl is drawn to it. When she starts coming home caked in mud and leaving dirty footprints throughout the house, you know something really weird is going on. Even when John tells her not to go near the mound anymore, she just can’t help herself. Late one night, John checks in on his daughter and finds that she has a strange-looking doll made of roots and weeds clutched in her hand, but when he asks her about it the next day, she has no idea what he’s talking about.

From there, THE NEW DAUGHTER gets more suspenseful and compelling, as we learn what is happening to the girl. Not only is she “changing” because she’s a teenager becoming a woman. She’s also “changing” in a much more sinister way.

PD: Yeah, the whole “transformation” issue has a lot to do with tension-building in this movie. It reminded me a lot of Linda Blair’s character Regan McNeil in THE EXORCIST (1973). Both Regan and Louisa are turning into something different while their single-parent is forced to watch helplessly. To me, there are two different types of horror films; the first relies on popcorn scares and gratuitous violence. The second relies on revulsion through suggestions and implications. THE NEW DAUGHTER relies on the latter, with Costner’s character racing to figure out what this deeper mystery is while his daughter is going through these changes. And it works because as a parent, I was able to project those implications toward my relationship with my own daughter.

LS: Good point.

As John does research on the house they live in, and its former occupants, he finds out that something weird also happened to the previous family’s daughter. The girl’s mother locked her in a bathroom and disappeared, years before. Through some online research and information from the shady realtor that sold him the house, James tracks that girl to the home of her grandfather, a recluse named Roger Wayne (played by James Gannon in his last film role). Wayne is a spooky old guy who seems slightly crazy, who explains how he had to take desperate measures when dealing with his “changed” granddaughter (he got custody after the police found her), and that James may have to do the same.

We also learn that the mound is an ancient Indian burial ground and involves the mythology of “mound-walkers” which were god-like beings that the Native Americans in the movie had worshipped at one time. The role they play in the daughter’s transformation is kind of fascinating.

PD: It’s actually not a stretch for Costner to want to do this movie. Mr. DANCES WITH WOLVES (1990) has always had a fascination with Native American customs, so it seems this piece was almost tailor-made for him. And I’m still not understanding the animosity you hold toward the guy. He hasn’t had a terrible film career at all, and as an actor he really is pretty decent. We can laugh about ROBIN HOOD and WATERWORLD (1995), but he also was in FANDANGO (1985) and SILVERADO (1985), both of which are good, solid movies. And DANCES WITH WOLVES  is a masterpiece!

LS (reading from a script): So is a good wedge of Limburger cheese……Err, what is that supposed to mean? That’s the last time I let you write dialogue for me!

But what can I say? I just don’t like the guy.

PD: The point is that you totally judged a book by its cover on this one. And I can’t blame you because the DVD cover for this pic is Costner holding a shotgun with the silhouette of his daughter standing behind him. The poster art for this says absolutely nothing about the movie, other than Costner is starring in it. It’s like the Jim Carrey Phenomenon. Every Jim Carrey movie has a poster of Jim Carrey making a goofy face. After a while, it gets annoying and you just want to smash that goofy smile right off his face.

(JIM CARREY jumps out from behind a tree)

JIM CARREY: Is somebody talking about me?

(LS pulls out a shotgun and shoots a hole in JIM CARREY’s stomach. CARREY makes a goofy face, as a bunch of Mound Dwellers come out, grunting and slobbering, and surround the wounded comedian.)

LS: You were saying?

PD: Had the cover to this DVD been a picture of anything OTHER than Kevin Costner, you’d have been far more receptive to watching it. Then I wouldn’t have had to harass you for over a year to get you to see it.

LS: Well, let’s face it…your movie picks tend to stink like, well, a good wedge of Limburger cheese! (Takes a cheese wedge out and starts nibbling it. The Mound Dwellers look up at the cheese and start salivating). What are you creeps looking at?

The theatrical poster for THE NEW DAUGHTER was a bit of an improvement.

So how did you even find out about this movie, anyway? I hadn’t even heard of it before.

PD: I’d read a review of it in RUE MORGUE Magazine. They pretty much unabashedly trash any movie that isn’t to their liking. So when I read the review and they went on and on about how great it was, I decided to check it out.

Aside from the whole “transformation” aspect, this is also an all-out monster movie. They are explained in the movie as being Indian holy figures, but they more resemble the monsters from THE DESCENT (2005). They are formless creatures with deep black eyes and mouths filled with razor-sharp fangs. At one point in the movie, Costner confers with a local professor named Evan White (Noah Taylor) about the mounds, and the professor gives a bit of exposition as to what they are, and it’s through these discussions that we hear the words “teenage girl” and “mating ritual” in the same sentence, and the last of the mystery falls into place for Costner.

(In the background, the Mound Dwellers are beginning a mating ritual with the wounded JIM CARREY, who screams).

LS: Which mirrors the whole metaphor of James’s other child, Sam (Gattlin Griffith), and his ant colony. Through the movie we watch Sam learning about bearded ants, their queen, and how the colony cannot survive without the queen to lay eggs. It’s a nice parallel to the other storyline.

PD: All in all, I thought this is remarkable horror film. It is very well scripted and has good performances by all the actors. And to me, it was scary. It’s always a thrill to watch a horror movie that isn’t geared toward teens and PG-13 ratings. I could relate to this one, and that kept me on the edge of my seat. And the movie’s ending is dripping with claustrophobia-inducing tension that would give ALIEN (1979) a run for it’s money.

LS: I don’t know if I’d compare it to a movie like ALIEN, but it’s a solid little movie that deserves a bigger audience. Spanish filmmaker Luiso Berdejo, who directed THE NEW DAUGHTER, is probably best known as one of the screenwriters of the cool horror flick [REC] (2007) and its American remake, QUARANTINE (2008). Berdejo does a great job here, and I hope he directs more movies.

Like you said, it’s well written and has good acting, too. Aside from Costner and the kids, who all turn in good performances, I also liked Samantha Mathis as Cassandra Parker, a teacher at the kids’ new school, who becomes something of a love interest for Costner’s character as the movie develops. I thought she was really good here, too.

What can I say? I liked this one a lot, and I guess I should thank you for recommending it. I give it three and a half knives out of five, and recommend that everyone check it out.

PD: Well, I give this movie four and a half knives.

So, like, can we become Blood Brothers now?

LS: Yeah, sure…why not?

(PD pulls out a knife and jams it into LL’s stomach)

PD: From now on your Indian name is Pushes Up Daisies!

(LS pulls out a knife and jams it into PD’s stomach)

LS: From now on your Indian name is Sleeps With Fishes!

(LS and PD collapse on top of the mound as JIM CARREY continues to scream below)

-END-

© Copyright 2011 by L.L. Soares and Peter N. Dudar

LL Soares gives THE NEW DAUGHTER ~three and a half knives.

Peter Dudar gives THE NEW DAUGHTER ~four and a half knives.




2 Comments »

CONTRABAND (2012)

Posted in 2012, Action Movies, Cinema Knife Fights, Crime Films, Gangsters! with tags , , , , , , on January 16, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: CONTRABAND (2012)
By Michael Arruda

 

(The Scene: A huge cargo ship. A group of FEDERAL AGENTS searching for illegal contraband have descended upon the ship from helicopters. They are holding MICHAEL ARRUDA at gunpoint, while they search a van being transported on the ship.)

AGENT: Tell us where it is.

MICHAEL ARRUDA (calmly, as if discussing a stamp collection): I have no idea what you’re talking about. I told you, I’m on this ship to review a movie. I’m not smuggling anything.

(AGENTS rip through the back of the van. They remove a spare tire and don’t seem to notice the inside of the tire is filled with DVDs.)

AGENT: Whatever it is your smuggling, we will find it.

MA: I don’t know how. I’m not smuggling anything.

AGENT: Search him. (Agents search MA and discover magazines stuffed into his pants). What are those? (reads) Famous Monsters of Filmland. What the hell is that?

MA: Nothing. Just reading material for the bathroom.

AGENT #2: There’s nothing to be found here, sir.

AGENT: Damn! I’m sure he was smuggling something! (To MA) Don’t go far! We might be back.

MA: Where am I going to go? We’re on a ship. (AGENTS leave). Now that they’re gone (removes magazines from his pants and puts them in the back of the van) I can review today’s movie, CONTRABAND (2012) the new action-thriller starring Mark Wahlberg.

In CONTRABAND, Mark Wahlberg plays Chris Farraday, a former smuggler who has since gone legit, running his own home security business, happily supporting his beautiful wife Kate (Kate Beckinsale) and their two young sons. But when his teenage brother-in-law Andy (Caleb Landry Jones) screws up a run and ends up owing a huge amount of money to a crazy crime boss named Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi), Farraday steps in to save the day.

In order to come up with the money to pay Briggs, Farraday decides to return to his old business and engage in one last run, an elaborate scheme to go to Panama and smuggle back counterfeit money. Farraday assembles his team, which includes his buddy Danny (Lukas Haas), but leaves his best buddy Sebastian (Ben Foster) behind to look after his wife and kids, since Briggs has threatened them.

Everything that could go wrong does go wrong, and the suspense builds as Farraday, his pals, and his family get deeper and deeper into trouble. Yet, through it all, Farraday keeps his composure, breaking about as much sweat as Mr. Rogers putting on his shoes. Even when they cross paths with an insane Panamanian crime boss named Gonzalo (Diego Luna) and become involved in crazy scheme to rob an armored truck, in the movie’s best action sequence, Farraday seems to know he’s going to survive unscathed.

And this is one of the biggest problems with CONTRABAND. Wahlberg’s Chris Farraday is like Bugs Bunny. Everything he does works. This kinda kills the suspense after a while. You’re not going to be that worried about the safety of Farraday and his family when you realize, hey, this guy can do no wrong. He can be in the cross-fire between an army of South American police with high powered rifles and a gang of bad guys with machine guns, and you know what? He’s going to walk away without even a scratch! Bugs Bunny material!

(There’s a knock from inside the van. MA opens it and finds BUGS BUNNY inside.)

BUGS BUNNY: Er…..What’s up, doc?

MA: Bugs Bunny! How cool to see you! You’ve always been one of my favorite cartoon characters of all time!

BUGS BUNNY: I hear I’m in this new movie you’re reviewing.

MA: Actually, you’re not in the movie. I’m just using you to make a point.

BUGS BUNNY: Really? Tell me more.

MA: Yeah. The main character can do no wrong, and everything he touches ends up smelling like roses, and this reminded me of you.

BUGS BUNNY: I’m not in the movie?

MA: No.

BUGS BUNNY: You realize this means WAR!

MA: What? (BUGS lights a cannon and aims it at MA). No. Wait. I didn’t make the movie. I just—.

(Cannon explodes. There is a huge animated BOOM! and a puff of smoke, and when it clears, BUGS is gone, and MA is covered in black powder.)

MA (brushing himself off): That was unexpected. Oh well. Like I said, Bugs Bunny always comes out on top.

But back to CONTRABAND. Not only is Farraday unable to fail in this movie, but he knows it. No matter what happens, how difficult things become, he acts as calmly as if reading a newspaper. It just didn’t ring true.

And a lot of the situations in the movie felt contrived as well, like the aforementioned sequence where Farraday and Danny get involved with the Panamanian criminals as they attack an armored truck. Great action sequence, no doubt about it, but it’s completely unbelievable.

CONTRABAND is a fairly entertaining movie as these things go, as there’s genuine intrigue surrounding the whole smuggling caper, but it’s too contrived to be mentioned in the same breath as some of the other gritty action thrillers of recent years, films like GONE, BABY GONE (2007) and THE DEPARTED (2006).

But you can’t fault the cast, which is probably the best part of the movie. That being said, it’s not the two leads in this one who impress the most.

That’s because Mark Wahlberg is just OK as Chris Farraday. Again, my biggest problem with his character is all these horrible things are happening to him and his family, and he’s as relaxed as a guy on a sofa. Wahlberg was certainly better in THE FIGHTER (2010). There’s also something very smug about his performance here, as if he knows he’s Bugs Bunny.

The other lead, Ben Foster as Sebastian, also fails to impress. I like Foster a lot— he was terrific in 3:10 TO YUMA (2007), but he’s just not that memorable here. Part of the problem is his character undergoes a transformation from cool guy to loser.

Sebastian starts out like he’s a really cool customer, a major player, Farraday’s best buddy and right hand man, but as the movie goes along, it becomes apparent that Sebastian is not this guy at all but the complete polar opposite. He’s really a big loser.

But the movie’s not really about him, and so when everything falls apart for him, we don’t feel that sad for him. We just want him to go away. I would have liked to have seen Foster more in this one so he could have delivered a deeper performance.

Wahlberg and Foster are both OK, but it’s the rest of the cast that shines.

Kate Beckinsale— who we are going to see again next week in UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING (2012) is very good as Farraday’s wife Kate.

(A bunch of vampire warriors crowd into the door, chanting, “Kate! Kate! Kate!”)

MA: Hey, settle down! I’m reviewing a movie here!

VAMPIRES: Kate! Kate! Kate!

MA (slams door on them): Sounds like the crowds outside the polls on Election Day. Jeesh!

Anyway, Beckinsale gives a solid performance, and I enjoyed watching her.

The best performance in the movie probably belongs to Caleb Landry Jones, as Kate’s younger brother Andy, the guy responsible for all the trouble in the first place. Andy is one character in this movie who is scared, which is refreshing in a gritty movie like this where people should be scared. Jones was also memorable in THE LAST EXORCISM (2010) as he played the possessed girl’s weird brother in that one, and he also played Banshee in X-MEN: FIRST CLASS (2011).

(Door bursts open again, and now a bunch of X-Men mutants are in the door, chanting “Caleb! Caleb! Caleb!”)

MA: What is it with everybody today? (Slams door on them). What kind of a ship is this? There must be a convention on board.

Getting back to my discussion of the cast, as Tim Briggs, the main bad guy in this movie, Giovanni Ribisi delivers an excellent performance as well. The problem is, as the movie goes on, Briggs turns out to be less of a villain than we originally thought. Whereas everything Farraday does goes right, everything Briggs does seems to go wrong. He ends up not being a very effective villain. He starts off seeming almost as ruthless as the Albert Brooks character in DRIVE (2011) but by the end of the movie, there’s no comparison.

In smaller roles, J.K. Simmons is memorable as the ship’s captain, and Diego Luna makes the most of his brief screen time as the Panamanian crime lord Gonzalo, who I wish had been in this movie more.

Lukas Haas is also in this one, as one of Farraday’s buddies, Danny. It’s a decent role for Haas and he’s good here, playing a character who, like Andy, actually seems to be afraid that he might die when he’s being shot at. What a concept! It’s certainly a better role for Haas than his last one, in RED RIDING HOOD (2011), where he was almost an afterthought.

(Door opens and Red Riding Hood and her pals The Three Little Pigs, and the Gingerbread Man fill the doorway, preparing to shout.)

MA: Don’t even think it!

(Slams door on them before they can utter a word).

MA: CONTRABAND was directed by Baltasar Kormakur, and for what it’s worth, some of the scenes here do generate decent suspense, my favorite being the armored car heist. But most of these scenes are eventually done in by the knowledge that you know what the outcome is going to be, and that is because, once again, the screenplay by Aaron Guzikowski tells a story that is incredibly contrived.

The characters in this movie should all be dead. There’s no way Farraday and his buddies should survive, yet they live to tell about it.

Even the whole premise of this movie is contrived. Briggs threatens Farraday’s family, and to handle it, this is the best Farraday can come up with? Concoct an elaborate smuggling scheme that involves riding a freight ship to Panama to smuggle counterfeit money? Isn’t there an easier way to deal with Briggs? Yeah, I know, smuggling is what Farraday knows, but even still, Briggs blatantly threatens to kill Farraday’s wife and kids, and yet Farraday leaves them alone to go to Panama? Again, sure, he leaves them with his best buddy Sebastian, but really now, what husband would do that when he knew that a crime boss was ready to take out his wife and kids? I didn’t buy this.

Yet, in spite of this, I actually had fun watching this movie. I just didn’t believe much of it. Ultimately, it ends up being less like MYSTIC RIVER (2003) and more like OCEAN’S 11 (2001).

I give CONTRABAND two and a half knives.

Hey, it looks like the ship has reached port. Time for me to get back to the mainland and prepare for next week’s movie.

(Door opens and FEDERAL AGENTS return).

AGENT: Stop. Where do you think you’re going?

MA: To the movies.

AGENT: Really? Can we come?

MA: Only if you promise to silence your walkie-talkies.

AGENT: Deal. Come on, boys, we’re heading off to the movies! (to MA) Can we get popcorn?

MA: What’s a movie without popcorn? (Agents run out of room ahead of MA) Okay, folks, that’s it for now. We’ll see you next week with a review of another new movie. (Calls after AGENTS) And don’t forget to read CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT afterwards! (to camera) You can never have enough readers.

(MA exits, closing door behind him).

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda

Michael Arruda gives CONTRABAND ~ two and a half knives!


Leave A Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers