Archive for the Classic Films Category

The Geisha of Gore visits GOKE, THE BODY SNATCHER FROM HELL (1968)

Posted in 2012, 60s Movies, Aliens, Classic Films, Colleen Wanglund Reviews, Geisha of Gore Reviews, Japanese Cinema, Science Fiction with tags , , , , , , on May 23, 2012 by knifefighter

GOKE, BODY SNATCHER FROM HELL (1968)
Movie Review by Colleen Wanglund, The Geisha of Gore

Low-budget Japanese science fiction/horror films of the 1960s are familiar to most of us. They were dominated by rubber suited monsters threatening Tokyo with destruction; or in some cases, protecting Tokyo. These films also shared the popular anti-war theme of post-WWII Japanese movies in general. We all know Godzilla, Mothra, Gamera, and Rodan and they are amazing for revolutionizing the art of Special Effects, especially in regard to miniatures. One particular sci-fi/horror film that really stands out is Hajime Sato’s KYUKETSUKI GOKEMIDORO (1968), which translates to “The Gokemidoro Vampire,” but was shown to English-speaking audiences as GOKE, BODY SNATCHER FROM HELL.

A Japan Air flight takes off from Tokyo into a blood red sky. The passengers include Senator Mano (Eizo Kitamura); arms dealer Tokiyasu (Nobuo Kaneko) and his wife Noriko (Yuko Kusunoki); Mrs. Neal (Kathy Horan), an American going to bring the body of her husband home; Momotake (Kazuo Kato), a psychiatrist; Professor Sagai (Masaya Takhashi), who is a space biologist; and an apparent hijacker (Hideo Ko). Not long after take-off, the pilot (Hiroyuki Nishimoto) receives a message that there is a bomb on board and he is instructed to return the plane to the Tokyo airport. The co-pilot, Sugisaka (Teruo Yoshida), informs the passengers that some classified documents were loaded onto the plane by mistake and he must check their baggage. Fearing being caught, the hijacker points a gun at Sugisaka and orders the pilot to fly the plane to Okinawa. He then shoots the radio just as it was announcing a UFO over Japan. The plane is hit by a flock of bloody birds, and then fired on by the UFO, and it crash lands in a desolate area.

Sugisaka and flight attendant Kuzumi (Tomomi Sato) survey the damage and discover that the pilot and the hijacker are dead. When they discover that there isn’t much food or water, the survivors get rowdy. But wait, the hijacker isn’t dead!  He grabs Kuzumi and runs off with her, but he eventually comes upon the mysterious alien spacecraft. Hypnotized, the hijacker leaves Kuzumi and enters the craft. There we meet the evil alien entity—a mercury-like blob of a vampire called Gokemidoro—which enters the man’s head, to take control of his body. Kuzumi is found, unconscious, by Sugisaka who brings her back to the downed plane. The psychiatrist Momotake hypnotizes Kazumi so she can tell the survivors what happened. The alien in its new form makes its way to the crash site where it plans to feed. The survivors are still at each other’s throats, making Gokemidoro’s job that much easier.

So the first thing you’ll notice about GOKE is that it is most definitely low budget. But then you’ll notice all the stuff that makes this flick so cool. While in the air, the plane flies into a bright, blood-red sky—a background that was later recreated by Quentin Tarantino in KILL BILL VOLUME 1 (2003) when the Bride is on the plane flying to Japan. GOKE is saturated in bright primary colors which soon become garish as the film moves along. When the vampire feeds, its victim’s body turns a bright shade of blue; there are other scenes that are bathed in bright yellows and oranges—something ominous on the horizon, perhaps?

The characters are a cross-section of some of the worst personalities found in humanity. They are greedy, arrogant, and self-centered; completely unwilling to help their fellow man in light of their unlucky circumstances. The young hijacker brings a bomb on board the plane for no apparent reason. Momotake the psychiatrist seems to revel in the other passengers’ selfish behavior as they spiral out of control. Senator Mano and the arms dealer Tokiyasu have had illegal dealings, in which Tokiyasu promised to fund Mano’s campaign in exchange for Mano getting the committee to accept Tokiyasu’s weapons bid. True to scumbag form, Mano has no intention of keeping his end of the bargain. At one point in the film, Mano suggests using Mrs. Neal as bait to see if the alien is truly a vampire, and the others are perfectly willing to go along with the idea!  He feels that using a foreigner will cause fewer problems later on, if they survive the alien encounter. Most of the passengers use others to protect themselves from the alien vampire, as opposed to trying to kill it. It’s a disgusting display of the worst traits found in humanity. The only characters we can sympathize with are the co-pilot Sugisaka and flight attendant Kuzumi. They are the only ones who not only attempt to help the crash survivors, but they are the only ones to show any sort of compassion or faith in humanity (although that faith seems to be sorely misplaced).

The anti-war theme of GOKE is glaringly evident. The survivors who turn on each other immediately reflect the Cold War era of countries turning on each other and posturing with nuclear weapons, threatening the end of civilization as we know it. The final scenes of the film only serve to emphasize the anti-war sentiment. And as with the other sci-fi movies coming from Japan at the time, GOKE’s final scenes call to mind the destruction suffered by a country that actually had nuclear warheads used against it, with devastating results. The American passenger, Mrs. Neal is another nod to anti-war sentiment. She is on her way to retrieve her husband’s body. Mr. Neal was a soldier killed in the Vietnam War, which was exploding in living rooms all over the world due to television news broadcasts with graphic images of death and destruction—something which had never been seen on a nightly basis before.

The end of GOKE holds quite a twist, which to me is shocking when you consider the other genre films of the time. Writers Kyuzo Kobayashi and Susumu Takaku and director Hajime Sato leave no doubt as to the hopelessness of the situation their characters find themselves in. GOKE is one of the bleakest films I’ve ever seen, which is something I happen to like in horror films. As much as I love the kaiju films of the same era, they always seemed to end on a positive note….stressing faith in humanity’s compassion and ability to survive. GOKE doesn’t even hint at redemption for the human race, and that is why it is so disturbing. Sato was not afraid to bring the savagery of the human race to the big screen, barely hidden in an alien invasion/vampire metaphor. It is beautifully filmed and the video and audio effects are stunning, as is the movie’s soundtrack which only adds to GOKE’s very cool apocalyptic vibe.

No one is safe from GOKE, THE BODY SNATCHER FROM HELL!

GOKE, BODY SNATCHER FROM HELL is easily in my top ten Asian horror films of all time. It is haunting, somber and considerably gruesome. In my opinion, it is a must-see flick for any serious horror fan and you can see it pretty easily on Netflix and on DVD.

© Copyright 2012 by Colleen Wanglund

CKF QUICK CUTS: FAVORITE POE ADAPTATIONS!

Posted in 1930s Horror, 1960s Horror, 2012, Classic Films, Edgar Allen Poe, Quick Cuts, Roger Corman, Vincent Price with tags , , , , , , , on April 27, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT:  QUICK CUTS
Favorite POE Adaptations

With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Peter Dudar, and Paul McMahon

 

The great Edgar Allan Poe’s work has a long history of movie adaptations.

 

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome to another edition of QUICK CUTS.

THE RAVEN opens this Friday, April 27, starring John Cusack as Edgar Allan Poe, in a tale that pits the author against a murderous psychopath who patterns his crimes after Poe’s stories.

So, with Poe hitting the big screen yet again, it leads us to the subject of today’s QUICK CUTS column:  what’s your favorite movie based upon a story by Poe?

It could be that one which you feel best captured his work, or simply that one that you just happen to like the most.

Pete, since this is your first time here, we’ll start with you.

PETE DUDAR: Thanks, Michael.  And you’re right.  I’m new here to QUICK CUTS.  I’ve been looking forward to my chance to throw in my two cents.

(L.L. SOARES throws a bunch of coins at PETE.)

L.L. SOARES:  Keep the change!

PETE DUDAR (laughing):  Wow.  Real coins!

L.L. SOARES:  What?  Don’t they have real money up there in Maine?

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Alright, guys.  Let’s get to some real answers.

PETE DUDAR:  My favorite Poe film has to be Roger Corman’s adaptation of THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF USHER.

L.L. SOARES:  The movie version was called THE HOUSE OF USHER (1960) in the U.S.

PETE DUDAR:  Yeah, that one.  In England it was called THE FALL OF...Vincent Price is one of the most beloved Poe character portrayers, and his performance as Roderick Usher is just flat-out creepy.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Yeah, Price is pretty creepy as Roderick.

PETE DUDAR:  I’m still on the fence about the new movie THE RAVEN. I feel as if Jeffrey Combs was slighted for the more popular (and better looking) John Cusack. Sometimes, integrity really is more important than box-office draw.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Well, we’ll find out this weekend.

L.L. SOARES:  As a huge fan of Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi, I really love their Poe-themed movies THE BLACK CAT (1934) and THE RAVEN (1935).

THE BLACK CAT, arguably the best of the Boris Karloff/Bela Lugosi team-ups of the 1930s.

 

MICHAEL ARRUDA (groans):  Those are my two favorites too!

L.L. SOARES:  Well, I get to talk about them first.  So, shut up and let me talk about them!

These movies were made when both stars were at the height of their fame, and are very atmospheric (especially The Black Cat). Unfortunately, neither movie was very faithful to Poe’s work, and the only things they had in common with the stories were their titles.

Roger Corman’s series of Poe-inspired movies during the 1960s and 70s weren’t always faithful either, but at least they tried a little harder to be. The best of the bunch would be a tie for me: THE HOUSE OF USHER (1960)—.

PETE DUDAR:  Nice choice!  I’m glad I thought of it for you!

L.L. SOARES:  You didn’t even get the name of the movie right!

THE HOUSE OF USHER, Corman’s first Poe film, features a terrific performance by Vincent Price as Roderick Usher, in a tale of madness and incest in a creepy old house.

But for me, it’s a tie with MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH (1964) which also features Price, this time as the decadent Prince Prospero, throwing a lavish masquerade party in his castle while a plague decimates the outside world. MASQUE even manages to include Poe’s story “Hop Frog” into the mix (although here the character is called Hop Toad for some bizarre reason).

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Maybe Corman didn’t like frogs.  Paul, how about you?

PAUL MCMAHON:  I don’t have any problem with frogs.

MICHAEL ARRUDA (laughing):  No.  What’s your favorite Poe adaptation?

PAUL MCMAHON:  My favorite Poe adaptation would have to be Roger Corman’s THE PIT AND THE PENDULUM (1961) with Vincent Price. Richard Matheson’s screenplay added a ton of build up—the story was only two pages long, after all—but the movie kept the flavor of Poe throughout. It kept my attention completely, and had a kick-ass ending.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Really?  I always thought the ending was a bit of a letdown.  I wanted that pendulum to do some damage!

PAUL MCMAHON:  I also really enjoyed THE RAVEN (1963). Yeah, it was goofy as hell, but watching Price, Boris Karloff, Peter Lorre and Jack Nicholson tearing it up makes for a fun night. I still plug it in occasionally.

L.L. SOARES: Ugh.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Yeah, that’s a funny one, but it’s not one of my favorites.

PAUL MCMAHON:  What are some of your favorites?

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Like L.L., probably my all-time favorite movie based on a story by Edgar Allan Poe would be the Universal flick THE BLACK CAT (1934) starring Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi, although about the only thing this movie has in common with Poe is the title.  It’s really not based on Poe’s story at all.  It’s still a really cool movie though, probably my favorite pairing of Karloff and Lugosi.

L.L. SOARES: Hey! I already said all that. You just copied me!

MICHAEL ARRUDA: I also like THE RAVEN (1935) again starring Lugosi and Karloff.  Once more, this one had little to do with Poe other than Lugosi’s character’s obsession with Poe, especially his instruments of torture, and the film includes a scene with a giant swinging pendulum from THE PIT AND THE PENDULUM.

You also can’t go wrong with the Vincent Price movies based on Poe.  My favorite Price/Poe vehicle is probably THE WITCHFINDER GENERAL (1968) based on Poe’s THE CONQUERER WORM, which is the film’s U.S. title.  It’s probably the best made of the Price/Poe movies, and it contains one of Price’s scariest performances.

PETE DUDAR:  No, that would be THE HOUSE OF USHER….

L.L. SOARES:  Hey, he got the title right!

PETE DUDAR:  Shut up, you!

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Ironically, THE WITCHFINDER GENERAL is not one of the Poe movies directed by Roger Corman.

L.L. SOARES: Yeah, it’s directed by the great Michael Reeves. I love that one, too!

MICHAEL ARRUDA: I also like THE OBLONG BOX (1969), with Price and Christopher Lee, THE MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH (1964) and THE TOMB OF LIGEIA (1964), in which Vincent Price dons dark sunglasses and looks like Johnny Depp’s uncle.

So, there you have it, folks, our picks for our favorite Edgar Allan Poe adaptations.

Will the new movie THE RAVEN join the ranks of favorite Poe movies?  We’ll find out this weekend.

L.L. SOARES:  So be sure to join us this weekend for our CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT column on THE RAVEN.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Yes, definitely join us for that!  And thanks Peter and Paul for joining us.

L.L. SOARES:  Yeah, and next time bring Mary!

PETE DUDAR:  It’s been a blast.

PAUL MCMAHON:  Fun as always.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  On behalf of L.L. Soares, Pete Dudar, Paul McMahon, and myself, Michael Arruda, thank you all for joining us.  Good night everybody!

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Peter Dudar and Paul McMahon

Suburban Grindhouse Memories: SWITCHBLADE SISTERS (1975)

Posted in 1970s Movies, 2012, Biker Films, Classic Films, Gangs, Grindhouse Goodies, Nick Cato Reviews, Suburban Grindhouse Memories, Tough Girls! with tags , , , , , , on April 19, 2012 by knifefighter

SUBURBAN GRINDHOUSE MEMORIES: SWITCHBLADE SISTERS (1975)
THE JEZEBELS: The Coolest Girl Gang on Earth
Review by Nick Cato

This time I’m doing something slightly different. I didn’t see this one in a theater, but it’s a grindhouse gem. I saw it on VHS when it was re-released by Quentin Tarantino’s Rolling Thunder Pictures in August of 1998.

From the jail-breaking dames in 1955’s SWAMP WOMEN to “The Man-Eaters” in H.G. Lewis’s SHE DEVILS ON WHEELS (1968); from the seldom-seen knife-wielding thieves in the 1973 Japanese cult classic, YASAGURE ANEGO DEN: SOKATSU RINCHI to everyone’s favorites, “The Lizzies,” in 1979’s THE WARRIORS, there’s nothing cooler than a group of pissed off, rebellious ladies out on the streets marking their own turf and making their own rules.

But when it comes to nearly non-stop action, campy violence, and man-battering domination, you can’t get much better than the “Dagger Debs,” the all-girl gang from 1975’s SWITCHBLADE SISTERS.  And unlike the previously mentioned films, The Debs are (for the first half of the film) part of a male gang, the “Silver Daggers.”   Sick and tired of being treated like second class (gang) citizens, they create their own clique and before long director Jack Hill —the man who also brought us such classics as SPIDER BABY (1968), THE BIG DOLL HOUSE (1971) and two of Pam Grier’s best films: COFFY (1973) and FOXY BROWN (1974) —treats the viewer to one of the wildest, craziest, coolest gang films ever made.

Let’s get the silliness out of the way:  this is first and foremost and exploitation film, chock full of horrible acting and dialogue.  The director packed it with plenty of self-mocking sequences.  There’s obese lesbian prison wardens and high school gang members that look way older than 18; there’s chicks fighting over the same goofy-looking guy and a massive shoot-out at a roller skating rink (not to mention an all-black female gang who have a custom-built street tank!).  There’s dope-dealing and prostitution in the school bathrooms.  Yet despite all this, SWITCHBLADE SISTERS is a story of female empowerment.  It was released on the tail end of the Vietnam War and shortly after the sexual revolution, yet still portrays the world as anything but friendly to women.  Hence the strength when Lace (played by the cute and oh-so 70s-looking Robbie Lee) decides to break away from the boys and sort-of lead her own clique.  The film makes an even stronger feminist statement when new member Maggie (played by the even cuter and even more oh-so 70s’ looking Joanne Nail) eventually takes over the group (after their men are wiped out during an ambush) and re-names them “The Jezebels,” now fully separating them from their male co-bangers.  It’s not until the last section of the film when The Jezebels join forces with the aforementioned black female gang to take on another rival gang (led by the wonderfully named “Crabs”), that we see total female unity, power, and determination.  There’s bits and pieces of this hinted at beforehand, but in the end (before all hell breaks lose and the Jezebels begin to turn on one another), these ladies are not to be messed with.

Again, SWITCHBLADE SISTERS is a 70s cult film and an exploitation flick if there ever was one.  To some who have seen it, they might be thinking I’m giving the pro-woman message a bit too much credit here.  But when you look at how female gangs have been depicted in the cinema, few have the charisma, the drive, or the purpose as The Jezebels.

Long before "Girls Gone WIld," there were the original wild girls, SWITCHBLADE SISTERS (1975).

Adding to SWITCHBLADE SISTERS’ coolness factor are the fashions.  The girls are (mostly) seen in leather and lace, with studded boots, bell bottoms, and funky hats.  The black gang sport afros that are the epitome of 70s blaxploitation.  There’s something to be said for ladies looking this tight and still being able to flick their blades and have gun duels without ever ruining their threads…

I think its Joanne Nail’s character, Maggie, who makes SWITCHBLADE SISTERS work.  When she joins the Dagger Debs, she’s dressed (almost) like the star of a 70s roller-disco porno flick in her tight T-shirt and short-shorts.  But when she assumes the role of leader, she puts her sarcastic comments behind her and takes things seriously, not afraid to get things done, even if it means taking a life for the cause.  She may not have the toughest-looking face, which only makes her that much deadlier.

If you’re one of the unfortunate souls who didn’t grow up in or around the 70s, and can overlook the cheesiness and bad acting, SWITCHBLADE SISTERS is an amazingly entertaining film that—thanks to Quentin Taratino’s 1998 re-release on VHS and the later DVD—continues to find new fans every year.

© Copyright 2012 by Nick Cato

Quick Cuts: WHO WOULD YOU CAST AS THE THREE STOOGES?

Posted in 2012, Classic Films, Comedies, Quick Cuts, Remakes with tags , , , , , , , , on April 13, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT:  QUICK CUTS
THE THREE STOOGES Recast

With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Paul McMahon, Mark Onspaugh, and Colleen Wanglund

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Welcome to another edition of QUICK CUTS. 

Today we’re talking about The Three Stooges, because today, April 13, the new movie THE THREE STOOGES opens with a new trio of actors playing the iconic dunderheads.  Based on the trailers, it looks pretty bad.  Who are these guys playing the Stooges anyway?  Well, they’re all TV actors and not exactly household names.

So, the subject of today’s QUICK CUTS is this:  if you were in charge of casting a new movie about THE THREE STOOGES, who would you choose to play Moe, Larry, and Curly?  In other words, who’s your perfect cast to play THE THREE STOOGES?

Take it away Cinema Knife Fighters.  Mark, you’re up first.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  Can we resurrect the dead? Because I think Moe Howard, Larry Fine and Curly Howard are three “perfect” Stooges.

L.L. SOARES: Don’t forget Shemp! He was pretty cool, too.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Hmm, Zombie Stooges.  That might work.

L.L. SOARES:  Yeah, the original Stooges are the best, and I see no need for a modern day remake with new actors in the roles.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I agree, but since the new movie has already been made, let’s get on with our question.

MARK ONSPAUGH (Sighs):  I still say resurrecting the originals is the only “real” way to go – that said, I would go with these:

TOUGH OLD BIRDS
Clint Eastwood as Moe
Clarence Williams III as Larry
Michael Ironside as Curly

Clint Eastwood as Moe?

WOMEN CAN BE STOOGES, TOO
Lisa Lampanelli as Moe
Joan Rivers as Larry
Monique as Curly

WHY NOT HORRIFYING STOOGES?
Bela Lugosi as Moe
Lon Chaney Jr. as Larry
Tor Johnson as Curly

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Fun choices, although we might be seeing your last category, “Horrifying Stooges” for real in the upcoming movie!  Actually, I’m hoping it’ll be better than it looks, because I for one could really be into a goofy funny Three Stooges remake.

L.L. SOARES:  Dream on!

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Okay, Paul, what are your choices?

PAUL MCMAHON:  Having always been a huge fan of Dennis Dugan’s BRAIN DONORS (1992), a… remake?… reboot?… “appreciation…” of the Marx Brothers classic A NIGHT AT THE OPERA (1935), where Dugan used John Turturro, Mel Smith and Bob Nelson as Groucho, Chico and Harpo Marx, I would cast a similar “appreciation” for the Three Stooges.

Moe – John Leguizamo
Larry – Colin Mochrie
Curly – Gabriel Iglesias

Gabriel Iglesias as Curly?

To assure the derision I know will come, I would also cast Dwayne Johnson to play their nemesis, and I’d use his “People’s Eyebrow” at least twice.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I’ve never seen BRAIN DONORS.  I’m gonna have to check that one out.

PAUL MCMAHON:  Oh, it’s hilarious.  It’s a very underrated movie.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I love the Marx Brothers, so it sounds like fun.

Time for my Stooges picks.

The Deadly “Are you looking at me?” Stooges –   Robert DeNiro as Moe, Al Pacino as Larry, and Joe Pesci as Curly.

Al Pacino as Larry?

The “Night at the Museum” Stooges -   Ben Stiller as Moe, Owen Wilson as Larry, and Robin Williams as Curly.

The “Highbrow/We’d Like to Win an Oscar” Stooges – George Clooney as Moe, Ryan Gosling as Larry, and John Goodman as Curly.

The “Women/We’ll Take that Oscar First, Thank You, ‘Cause We Got Meryl” Stooges –   Sigourney Weaver as Moe, Elisabeth Shue as Larry, and Meryl Streep as Curly.

The “Expendables” Stooges- Sylvester Stallone as Moe, Jason Statham as Larry, and Bruce Willis as Curly.

The “Tim Burton” Stooges- Johnny Depp as Moe, Helena Bonham Carter as Larry, and Sacha Baron Cohen as Curly.

And last but not least, the “Slam Dunk/We Just Hit a Casting Home Run” Stooges -  Adam Sandler as Moe,  Mike Myers  as Larry, and Zach Galifianakis as Curly.

Colleen, you’re frowning.

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  Yes, I am.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  What’s the matter?  Sitting too close to L.L.?

(L.L. SOARES reaches for table behind him, grabs a cream pie, and flings it at MICHAEL ARRUDA who ducks out of the way.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Hey, it’s too early for that.  We’ve got a panel to run.

L.L. SOARES:  Remind me to murder you later.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I’ll make a note of it.  So, Colleen, you were frowning.

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  Well, I’ve been mulling over my answer— Okay here’s my answer…

I wouldn’t cast anyone to play Moe, Larry and Curly because I wouldn’t make this movie.

(A great cheer erupts)

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  For us older folks who grew up on the old movies and shorts, I don’t think this flick has any appeal because it isn’t the original. As for the younger audience, I think the Stooges, unfortunately, have no relevance.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Well, while I can’t argue with your logic that this movie shouldn’t be made, I do know a few middle school students who are interested in seeing this movie, so maybe it will strike a chord with younger audiences.

Okay, L.L., time for you to weigh in.

L.L. SOARES:  Well we kind of already have a new Three Stooges. It’s too bad they’re so lame.

Bella Swan as Moe
Edward Cullen as Curly
Jacob Black as Larry

Edward Cullen as Curly?

At one point, the Farrelly Brothers’ THREE STOOGES movie was going to star some A-list actors: Sean Penn as  Moe, Benicio Del Toro as Larry and Jim Carrey as Curly. I’m sorry that fell through, because even if it was bad, it would have been really interesting to see those guys play the Stooges.

But seriously, I don’t think anyone can replace the original guys. On the one hand, I would love to see a new Three Stooges movies, but since it can’t be the originals, it’s just not “real.”  I have really mixed feelings about this new movie, and I think chances are incredibly slim that it will be any good. But who knows? I’ve been wrong before.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  So, that wraps things up.  Thank you everyone, for joining us on this week’s QUICK CUTS.

(L.L. SOARES throws another cream pie.  MICHAEL ARRUDA again ducks out of the way, and the pie instead hits PAUL MCMAHON in the face.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Here we go.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  It’s show time!

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  I think I’ll pass on this segment.

L.L. SOARES:  Not so fast.  (He takes cream pie and squishes it in her face, while laughing.)

(PAUL MCMAHON hurls pie across panel and plugs L.L. SOARES in the face.  L.L. throws back, but blinded, hits MARK ONSPAUGH instead.  Everyone on the panel is throwing pies now, and strangely, MICHAEL ARRUDA has not been hit.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Well, it looks like I’m the only one to escape this cream pie madness, so once again, thank you all for joining us.  (Suddenly, Michael is hit by a barrage of pies.  He wipes cream off his face and licks his fingers. )  Mmm, this is pretty good!  Did Jenny make this?

—END—-

Will the real THREE STOOGES please stand up!

The David Lynch Chronicles Volume One: MULHOLLAND DRIVE (2001)

Posted in 2012, Art Movies, Classic Films, David Lynch, Experimental Films, Film Noir, Just Plain Weird, Plot Twists, Surrealism, The David Lynch Chronicles with tags , , , , , , , on March 21, 2012 by knifefighter

The David Lynch Chronicles Volume One:
Two Lynchians Take on MULHOLLAND DRIVE
By Nick Cato and Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel

Nick Cato: There are two kinds of people in the world: those who “get” and enjoy the films of David Lynch and those who think he’s simply filming whatever comes to mind in an attempt to con the artsy-fartsy crowd out of their money and validity.  When I was about 20 minutes into my first viewing of Lynch’s iconic ERASERHEAD (1977), on VHS back in the early 80s, I became fascinated with the surreal director, both by his demented images, and later with the craft of unraveling his stories: yes, I said the CRAFT, because a single viewing of most of Lynch’s films won’t reveal too much.  His films demand multiple viewings, and more often than not, major contemplation.  And while some of his films, such as ERASERHEAD and WILD AT HEART (1990), are easier to decipher than later titles such as THE LOST HIGHWAY (1997) and the super-brain twisting INLAND EMPIRE (2006), this first look for CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT at a David Lynch classic goes to 2001’s MULHOLLAND DRIVE, that, while head-scratching enough and open to various interpretations, does have several ideas running through it that a vast majority of the director’s fans agree on.

Sort of.

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: “Sort of” is right. When it comes to interpretations, we could spend days going over the elaborate details and symbols. I’ve seen Lynch films with people who insist he’s just messing with the audience. On the surface, perhaps that’s true. It might even be just another trick up the genius’s sleeve. My first Lynch experience was also ERASERHEAD. It was an English major’s dream come true. As someone who had been taught to look for symbols under every bed and in every corner, the film clicked with me. MULHOLLAND DRIVE brings me back to that experience, as do many of Lynch’s films, sitting in a darkened room, unraveling these intricate knots he’s woven for us.

Nick Cato: Like most of Lynch’s films, I didn’t even bother trying to interpret what was going on during my initial viewing of MULHOLLAND DRIVE.  I was taken aback by just how addictive this gorgeously-shot film was, plus, as usual, simply enjoyed Lynch’s surreal images and several scenes that are creepier than anything you’ll see in a solid, seriously made horror film.  But things began to take shape in my mind, even before the second screening.  A brunette woman (played by the beautiful Laura Harring) survives a nasty car collision, seconds before two men were apparently about to shoot her.  She stumbles out of the wreck and makes her way down the Hollywood hills, taking refuge in an apartment where she notices the owner (and older woman) is on her way out.  Another woman named Betty (played by Naomi Watts) arrives in Hollywood to take her first screen test, and stays at an apartment owned by her aunt.  She soon discovers the brunette woman in her aunt’s bathroom, and discovers she’s suffering from amnesia.

So far, MULHOLLAND DRIVE gives an interesting and some might say “normal” set up, despite the unusual opening credits sequence, where Betty is superimposed over what looks like some kind of 50s dance program, and the sequences of the amnesiac surviving the wreck and eventually meeting Betty are divided by one of the most head-scratching things Lynch has ever done: Two men are in a restaurant, one claiming he wanted to be there as he’s been having nightmares about the place, as well as a spooky figure who lives outside behind it.  The men discover that the figure behind the diner IS real, causing the one who dreamt of him to pass out.

During the early meetings of Betty and Rita (a name the brunette takes off a film poster when Betty asks her name), we see mysterious men talking on the phone, saying things like “she got away” and “we missed her.”  Evidently, someone is trying to kill Rita.  Lynch’s mystery is off.

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: There’s something dream-like about the opening sequences that really made me take note. To say the setup is “normal” would probably be misleading. Betty seems so saccharine that she can’t be real. Chipper to a fault, optimistic beyond belief, she charges into Hollywood, ready to take on her first audition with the kind of aplomb reserved for the mentally ill or children. She’s Dorothy headed down the Yellow Brick Road. Even the elderly people she meets on her flight out to Hollywood seem odd beyond imagination, excessively cheerful, nearly insane with joy, wishing their fellow passenger all the best on her journey to become a star. They also have the creepiest smiles this side of Mr. X’s in ERASERHEAD.

I found that even the scene in which Rita is about to be eliminated is so cliché as to be unreal. Lynch seems to be setting us up for something that is so far from reality that it has to be questioned immediately. Hit men only take beautiful women out in limousines to murder them in movies. It’s almost as if Lynch has established a film within a film. It’s even suggested early on that the real hit man in the story is a bumbling low-life who can’t even carry out a simple task without causing utter chaos. He’s no suave mobster in a limo, that’s for certain.

The man in the diner scene near the beginning gnawed at me for a long time. I have an idea that meshes with a sort of WIZARD OF OZ retelling, but to keep it simple, I feel he’s a cowardly lion of sorts.

Nick Cato: MULHOLLAND does a fine job of balancing suspense and straight drama, especially when Betty goes to her first audition, a sequence that not only displays the acting skills of Naomi Watts, but one that leaves me breathless every time I see it.  Between this scene, and the scenes of movie director Adam (Lynch favorite Justin Theroux) being threatened to alter his film by a group of gangsters and an extremely strange cowboy (played by real-life cult film producer Monty Montgomery), the film develops a deeper story on a few levels.  One classic Lynch staple put into play here are mysterious, underground people seemingly causing things to happen behind the scenes.  We’re never sure if they’re the mafia, or corrupt studio executives, or everyday goons hired out by a rival of the aforementioned director.  Either way, their presence here gives MULHOLLAND much of its mystery, and in the case of the cowboy enforcer, some latent humor that doesn’t take away from the film’s serious tone.

Betty (Naomi Watts) and Rita (Laura Harring) dealing with Rita’s amnesia

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: There’s certainly no shortage of suspense here. As a Lynch addict, I try not to take any plot point for granted. You never know when there’s a trick. I really do feel that Lynch is a magician of sorts. If you blink, you’re likely to miss something.

The cowboy is one of the more mystifying characters. He seems to be the enforcer for this whole underworld operation, at least on the surface. He tells Adam to pick a girl in a photograph, a blonde woman named Camilla Rhodes, to play the lead role in his film – the one that has been grabbed away from him by the Castiglione brothers (one of whom is portrayed by famed composer Angelo Badalamenti, who provides the chilling music to many of Lynch’s works). The brothers may be the leaders of this mob-like organization. Adam’s choices, the cowboy tells him, are to either pick that girl or have his career ruined. It’s the only option he has left after being kicked out of his house by his wife, who is having an affair with the pool boy (portrayed hilariously by Billy Ray Cyrus).

Nick Cato: When Betty and Rita visit an apartment that happened to pop into Rita’s memory, what they discover provides a turning point in the film, one that throws a curveball that put MULHOLLAND on a path I’m assuming most viewers never saw coming.  Now fully convinced someone is out to get Rita, they disguise her in a blonde wig, making the two look like sisters.

Shortly after they discover Rita’s pocket book contains $50,000 in cash, as well as a mysterious blue key, the women have their first sexual encounter, cleverly placed by Lynch where it is in the film’s progress; we’re so taken with the sight of these two beautiful ladies in bed together (and apparently falling truly in love) that the little hints Lynch has left for eagle-eyed viewers to notice are all but forgotten.  But it’s at this point where Betty and Rita really try to find out just WHO Rita is and where she came from.

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: I’m not so sure this steamy scene is intended as a way to distract viewers from the clues. I think it’s a very big clue in and of itself. Rita is a vulnerable woman, someone who has forgotten who she is. Betty plays a traditionally masculine role here. She’s sweeping in to save the damsel in distress. She is compelled to save Rita, to help her remember who she is. I think you’ll find this extremely important later in the film.

Nick Cato: Perhaps some of us guys became more easily distracted than most female viewers?

In one of my favorite sequences, Rita has a dream where she takes Betty to a vaudeville-style show at an old theater.  It’s here where we’re told “This is all a tape recording.  It’s an illusion,” as performers lip-sync to music and verse.  Perhaps Lynch is telling us that the events going on in Betty and Rita’s lives have been pre-recorded, maybe even by the same people who are attempting to control Adam’s new film.  As the women sit watching one opera singer pass out as her song still plays on, we’re left to wonder if Betty and Rita have been brought here as a way to accept their coming fates.

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: At the club, called Silencio, they encounter a dream-world emcee who firmly states, “No hay banda!” There is no band. It’s all an illusion. This seems to be the pivot point in the plot. We start to move into reality. Lynch is telling us, quite literally, everything leading up to this point has been an illusion. But whose illusion is this? Is it Betty’s illusion? Is there someone else pulling the strings?

Nick Cato: MULHOLLAND DRIVE really kicks into weird gear when Betty and Rita return home from the show.  Rita goes to get her hidden pocketbook from the closet, and when she turns around she discovers Betty is nowhere to be found.  Not knowing what else to do, she takes that blue key and sticks it into an odd, small blue box, and from her POV we’re sucked into the box, and then taken back to the apartment where they had just visited.  It turns out Betty is really named Diane and is in a relationship with Rita, whose real name we learn is Camilla, the same actress the corrupt studio execs were trying to force onto Adam’s film.

Don’t worry folks…it get’s even trippier from here.

Apparently Camilla is the real movie star, and has fallen for Adam, leaving Diane behind.  Diane acts out her rage in a furious masturbation scene, then the phone rings, and brings us back to an alternate (or is it the real?) opening sequence of the film.

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: Mr. Lynch really loves doubles. He’s used them in myriad films, and even in his seminal series TWIN PEAKS. When Betty and Rita visit the club Silencio, they look nearly identical, both sporting short, blonde tresses. I see this as a huge symbol of Diane’s own disgust with herself, and her desire to pull Camilla down with her. She wants Camilla to be just like her, a loser who can’t get a starring role. Instead, Camilla is a rising star, living out Diane’s dream, and now about to marry a man. I feel the box has a very obvious sexual connotation. There’s a key in Camilla’s box now, folks. And Diane is not happy about that. The box is reality.

Rita is Diane’s way of handling her lover’s decision to leave her for a man. Rita has forgotten who she is. As far as Diane is concerned, Camilla has also forgotten who she is. She belongs to Diane, not to Adam. This anger and frustration drives her to plot a very nasty demise for her former lover.

Nick Cato: In the circular final section of MULHOLLAND, we learn Diane/Betty had paid hit men to take out her girlfriend Rita/Camilla, and we see the creepy homeless man behind the diner now holding the mysterious blue box in his hands, perhaps a symbol of a supernatural string puller.

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: Everything up to this point is merely Diane’s way of justifying her decision to take a hit out on Camilla. She’s not the villain here. She’s really Betty, a confident, happy woman who will make her way in Hollywood. If only Camilla would remember who she really is, Diane wouldn’t be forced to hire that hit man. This is the story of a woman who has lost touch with reality.

Nick Cato: As Sheri mentioned, when Betty first arrived in Hollywood, she had befriended an elderly couple on the plane.  Now, they reappear during the final sequence, taunting Betty/Diane around her apartment to the point she blows her own brains out, falling onto the bed in the same manner they found the corpse upon their earlier visit in search of Rita’s memory.  While there’s plenty of discussion on who this elderly couple is, Betty had mentioned her parents during one conversation, making me believe this was her way of dealing with failing to do them proud.  And perhaps the entire film is a picture of Betty/Diane battling her demons as she tries to make a life for herself in Tinsel Town, the success of her lover making things that much harder.

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: Much like the WIZARD OF OZ, the story all starts and ends in a bed. In the very beginning, we see sheets and a pillow, and we hear someone gasping for air. This comes full circle at the end. We now know that Diane shot herself in the head and collapsed onto her bed after being accosted by these menacing elderly people. Could these older people be symbolic of her mental breakdown? The film up to this point, it seems to me, all comes from within Diane’s mind. Betty is her breakdown version of herself. Camilla has been successful, and she can’t handle that success coupled with her own failure. Like Dorothy, Diane discovers the truth about herself in the end. And it’s too terrible to bear. Reality is a tough pill to swallow.

Nick Cato: MULHOLLAND DRIVE is David Lynch’s love/hate letter to Hollywood.  It’s pretty easy to figure out Betty and Diane are the same person: Diane the real-life failure, with Betty being Diane’s fantasized version of herself, as well as her desired relationship with Rita/Camilla.  Lynch—an independent filmmaker using Hollywood actors and sets here—basically portrays his own apprehensions and pleasures as a director and as one trying to deal with the Hollywood system.  And though at first the film may seem like the tired “it’s all a dream” thing, it’s a bit more complex than that, especially in the light of Diane/Betty’s dreams possibly being manipulated by other entities.

 Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: It might be the clichéd “it was all just a dream” story, but the person dreaming it is significantly disturbed, if not destroyed. Hollywood is very much like the Emerald City. Betty took a jaunt to find her calling, her home in a sense. But Hollywood, not unlike the Emerald City, is not all that it seems. There are mysterious forces that determine who makes it big and who doesn’t. It’s a tough world, baby, and the guaranteed success that Betty hopes to find rarely happens in reality.

Nick Cato: MULHOLLAND DRIVE is basically a surreal, modern film noir, with an incredible performance by Naomi Watts, complimented by co-star Laura Hanning’s often speechless speech and deathly-sexy mannerisms.  While we could easily take up another 15 pages breaking down what the cowboy symbolized, who the homeless man behind the diner was, and just WHY on earth Billy Ray Cyrus was cast as Adam’s wife’s lover (!), MULHOLLAND DRIVE is one of those films that reveals itself more and more upon each viewing.  It’s like staring at a surreal painting for hours on end, when suddenly things start to appear you hadn’t noticed before.

And with each viewing the film seems to unravel itself a little bit more, almost like Lynch somehow caused the film to work over periods of time.  Am I giving him too much credit as a director here?  Maybe.  Some would say definitely.  Either way, this is how MULHOLLAND DRIVE happens to work.

There are few films like it.

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: MULHOLLAND DRIVE demands several viewings. Even taken at the surface level, it’s a thrill ride through a twisted world. The most cynical viewer will likely take something away from the film. Things crop up after a few viewings that never occurred to me before. Part film noir, part horror flick, part crime drama, it all comes together in a collage that sometimes leaves the viewer with just as many questions as they resolve.

The legendary Ann Miller makes her final screen appearance as Betty’s landlord.

© Copyright 2012 by Nick Cato and Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel

Meals for Monsters: THE WICKER MAN (1973)

Posted in 2012, 70s Horror, Classic Films, Cult Movies, Jenny Orosel Columns, Meals for Monsters, Pagans, Twist Endings with tags , , , , , , , on February 28, 2012 by knifefighter

MEALS FOR MONSTERS: THE WICKER MAN
Review and Recipes by Jenny Orosel

THE WICKER MAN (the original 1973 version —not the 2006 root canal of a remake) is a rarity among movies.  There’s a sense of playfulness to it, a little absurdity, Christopher Lee in a dress, a couple musical numbers…then an ending that completely blindsides you.  You can have as much fun the second time around watching, if not more.  Thus, it’s perfect to invite friends over for a flick and some food.

A police sergeant is called to a small Scottish island to investigate the disappearance of a young girl who may or may not even exist.  He finds the tiny village is run by gleeful pagans.  Being a devout Christian himself, he is immediately suspicious of them and knows their sacrilegious ways must mean a horrible fate awaits the child.  But can he discover what they’re up to before it’s too late?

WARNING—THE FOOD PREPARED HERE INCLUDE SPOILERS.  TRUST ME, DO NOT CONTINUE IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS MOVIE, OR HEARD ABOUT THE ENDING!

This time around, I will not be including a cocktail.  Just about everything drunk during THE WICKER MAN was ale.  A recipe for ale would be a bit boring: get bottle, open bottle, drink, repeat.  So instead, grab your favorite ale, and enjoy a two-part main dish.

As the harvest festival grows closer in the movie, there are loaves of bread made to look like a Sun God.  Why not have your own for the meal?

SUN GOD BREAD

All you need is a tube of refrigerated crescent dough.  If you find one that is uncut, simply unroll and get to work.  If not, simply unroll the whole thing and seal any perforations.  Preheat the oven to 375 degrees.  Cut a circle from the dough, place on an ungreased baking sheet, place triangles of dough around the circumference for the sun’s rays and create a face from any leftover dough (the amount of detail in the face is directly related to whatever artistic talent you may have).  Bake for approximately 13 minutes, or until golden brown.

#

I did some research into Scottish stews, and it seems there are two ingredients that separate it from other countries’ stews: red currant jam and oatmeal.  Sounds like breakfast, but, in fact, it makes for a tasty meal.

SCOTTISH BEEF STEW

Ingredients:

1 pound beef stew meat, cut into 1 inch pieces
1 pound tiny potatoes
4 carrots cut, into bite size pieces
4 stalks celery, cut into bite size pieces
1 onion, cut into large chunks
1 pint mushrooms, quartered
¾ cup red wine
2 tbsp tomato paste
1 tbsp red currant jelly
2 tbsp oatmeal
1 carton (32oz) beef broth

Directions:

Brown the meat in a large pot.  Add the red wine and bring to a boil.  Once it is boiling, add the jelly and tomato paste.  Stir until they are melted together.  Add the rest of the ingredients.  Bring to a boil.  Cover and simmer for two hours.  Enjoy with a slice of the Sun God bread!

#

Now, dessert is where the fun begins.  There is no better way to end this meal than with a Wicker Cake, and it’s rather simple.

WICKER CAKE

Prepare a box of cake mix (I used Duncan Hines Butter Cake) as directed on the package, and bake it in a 13×9 pan.  Have a baking sheet with sides ready.  Once the cake is cooled, cut into six pieces: a large rectangle for the body, four narrow rectangles for the limbs (cut an angle for the arms so they hang slightly at the body) and a small square for the head.  Arrange them on the baking sheet, trimming as needed to fit.  Congratulations—you now have a Wicker Cake. 

THE WICKER MAN is a truly scary movie that still has a sense of humor about itself.  There’s no reason not to share that good-natured fun with your meal as well.

© Copyright 2012 by Jenny Orosel

Criterion After Dark: GODZILLA (1954)

Posted in 1950s Movies, 2012, Classic Films, Criterion After Dark, DVD Review, Garrett Cook Articles, Godzilla, Japanese Cinema with tags , , , , on February 14, 2012 by knifefighter

CRITERION AFTER DARK: GODZILLA (AKA GOJIRA) (1954)
Review by Garrett Cook

Art snobs and Ebert acolytes were recently given what, for them, must have been a nasty shock. The company from which they bought their treasured Goddard Blu-rays had betrayed them. The chilled, sacred quiet of Bergman country had been broken by the sound of thundering pop culture stomping over their fantasy world of cinema segregation. Begging Jim Jarmusch to intervene with his newly constructed superbanality ray, they watched as their notions of cinematic purity came crumbling to the ground like so many Tokyo office buildings. Riding on the back of my childhood messiah, Godzilla, I laughed and laughed and laughed. And I know that a fair share of Criterion fans, horror buffs and geeks laughed with me.

The induction of Ishiro Honda’s  GODZILLA (1954) into the Criterion Collection seems like a strange decision. Some might think it was to pander to the mainstream or to get genre fans to start buying Criterion DVDs. Others may see it as a decision similar to Criterion’s choice to induct Michael Bay’s ARMAGEDDON (1998), as a chance to show them the rampant absurdity and kitschiness of a silly, silly genre. And what sillier genre is there than the Japanese giant monster movie? This is a film genre that brought us a towering Frankenstein monster tossing rocks at a triceratops/puppy hybrid, sasquatches wrestling in the sea with a running commentary by Nick Adams, and a fire-breathing turtle fighting a talking shark submarine. Putting one of these films on the same shelf as  8 ½ (1963) or PIERROT LE FOU (1965) is going to make some cinephiles cringe. Particularly those who instinctually check Roger Ebert’s website to find out if movies are any good. Ebert has led me to some fine films, and, during his Amazon Associate Days, my favorite brand of oatmeal, but those who read his 1 and a half star tirade against the film will be incredulous about its Criterion status and its merits.

GODZILLA is my idea of an art film. Crisp black and white, strong message, transgressive politics, mutable reality and moments of deep visual poetry. When a lot of us think of Godzilla, we think Technicolor stomping and giant spider wrestling. We think flying through the air on a cloud of radioactive fire toward a sentient Lovecraftian slag heap from space. But this is not where Godzilla came from. Godzilla, (or as I prefer to call it, GOJIRA, its proper Japanese title) is a film about impossible choices, forbidden love, social responsibility and questions of divine forgiveness.

The film begins on a shining sea, bathed in shadows. The sailors on a fishing boat gather around and listen to a melancholy tune played on harmonica. There is a flash of light and the boat is aflame. And lives are over. And nobody knows why. The opening goes beyond being an expressionistic portrayal of a fishing boat destroyed by bomb tests (one of the catalysts for the film), but a suitable metaphor for any number of the victims of war. Even soldiers find their lives snuffed out in short order—lightning-quick explosions of mines or IEDs ending their existence in the blink of an eye. The terms are clear; this is not a movie about a man in a rubber suit. Though when you finally get a look at Godzilla, you can see how it could be.

Godzilla himself looks nothing like most viewers will remember him. The creature is truly menacing in black and white, facial features vague, texture and topography cancerous, a creature of spikes and bumps and deformities. It is not dinosaurian, draconic or friendly or cute; it’s an abomination, a demon whose motives cannot be fathomed and whose primitive mind will not accept reason or compassion. The more I look at this creature, the more amazed I am that it became the kid-friendly critter I grew up with. The transition is something like Karloff’s creature’s evolution into Herman Munster. He looks as much like an irradiated dinosaur pissed off at being awakened by atomic tests as he could. It seems unlikely that this creature could be stopped by anyone, especially the film’s reluctant and traumatized heroes.

The film’s protagonists all have relatable real world problems. Doctor Yamane, the paleontologist (Kurosawa regular Takashi Shimura, who was sensational in 1952’s IKIRU) has to choose between knowledge and helping to keep his country safe. His greatest discovery is something unfathomably terrible and a threat to mankind itself and he goes through a great deal of anguish. His daughter Emiko (Momoko Kochi) is in love with sailor Ogata (Akira Takarada), but engaged to brooding one-eyed scientist Doctor Serizawa (Akihiko Hirata), who has drifted away from her, consumed with guilt over the military applications of his invention. Even with the apocalyptic threat outside, the love triangle manages to hurt, the ethical conundrums of the scientists seem meaningful.

Hirata’s performance as Dr. Serizawa has always been one of the most appealing aspects of this movie for me. A sad, Byronic, but loveable character—a Victor Laszlo with the finer points of Rick Blaine—Serizawa  has the weapon that can destroy the monster but hates himself too much to use it and hates what the world could do with a weapon like this. His concern is a valid one. If the atomic bomb could wake up and mutate a monster like Godzilla, then what could his more powerful weapon do? He’s terrific. It’s the kind of acting one would think wasn’t necessary in a giant monster movie, but the kind of acting that really makes it work.

GOJIRA stands out for showing the human costs of this devastation. Not just in the anguish of Serizawa, but in the damage caused by the monster. You see mothers clinging to their children, telling them it’s all right because “they’ll be with daddy now,” you see victims in a hospital, mutated, burning and dying. You see the land scorched and the city ruined. In most giant monster movies, you watch the creature stomp around awhile until somebody comes up with a clever idea and kills it. GOJIRA isn’t like that. The creature ruins a city until a ruined man can find the courage to fight it. It’s great horror and it hurts like hell.

You want to see the movie in the cleanest, best format possible. You want to get the full effect of Akira Ifukube’s iconic music with great sound. You want it to look as good on your shelf as a movie of this caliber can look. Sony’s previous release of GOJIRA and its American counterpart, GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS (the bastardized version we first saw in the U.S., with added scenes featuring Raymond Burr as reporter Steve Martin~ your intrepid editor), had good commentaries, slick packaging and good special features. If you have it or you would like a cheaper alternative to Criterion’s version, you may not feel inclined to purchase The Criterion Edition. But, Criterion provides great features, a no doubt beautiful transfer and cover art by Bill Sienkewicz.  This is very much on my list for the next 50% off sale. If you don’t have this movie and you want to see it the best way you can, get The Criterion Edition. The DVD version is only $23.98 at the Criterion Store and the Blu-ray not much more. This is geek culture history, a film that crosses the line between sci fi and art film, really getting the treatment it deserves. Criterion has done a great thing.

© Copyright 2012 by Garrett Cook

The original Godzilla (1954) may not be as cuddly and kid-friendly as you remember.

Meals for Monsters: SANTA SANGRE (1989)

Posted in 2012, Classic Films, Highly Stylized Films, Jenny Orosel Columns, Just Plain Weird, Madness, Meals for Monsters, Religious Cults, Surrealism with tags , , , , , on February 1, 2012 by knifefighter

MEALS FOR MONSTERS: SANTA SANGRE (1989)
By Jenny Orosel

 

I have to preface this by saying just how much I love Alejandro Jodorowsky.  The man is insane.  Beautifully, wonderfully insane, and it’s reflected in his movies.  Watching one of his movies is like going to a four star restaurant in a foreign country—you may not understand all of what you’re consuming, but my God, it might be one of the best things you’ve ever consumed.  That’s how I feel about his movies.  And it thrills me to come up with a delicious meal for SANTA SANGRE (1989).

SANTA SANGRE was the last movie Jodorowsky directed (well, there was one work-for-hire the year after, but he refuses to acknowledge it, so I shall not) before moving into the realm of comics.  Our hero, the young Fenix, grew up in a circus but has been in a mental institution since, years earlier as a child, he saw his father cut off his mother’s arms before killing himself.  He stayed there in willing silence until his armless mother helps him escape.  They make a good living doing a mime act, but Mom’s got a grudge and, since she doesn’t have the hands to do it herself, forces the sad Fenix to murder beautiful women for her.  It sounds like a simple slasher flick.  However, this is nothing like any splatterpunk you’ve seen before.  There’s enough blatant symbolism to make Freud weep.  Temptation is a running theme (the family mime act is about the Garden of Eden), poor Fenix has strange hallucinations of white doves and giant snakes growing from his crotch.  And the ever-present holiness of blood.

It makes sense that, for a cocktail, to mix up a few Santa Sangrias:

SANTA SANGRIA

 

Ingredients:
Chopped fruit
Seltzer water
Cheap red wine.

Directions:

Drop a handful of the chopped fruit into the glass.  Fill half with red wine and half with seltzer water.  Enjoy.

The opening scene of Fenix in the institution shows them trying to get him to eat a meal like a normal person.  When that fails, they offer him a whole fish, which he devours.  While I’m not going to have you serve up anything with a face or eyes, I think fish would be an appropriate main course:

BLOOD ORANGE BAKED COD (serves four)

Ingredients:
4 pieces cod
2 blood oranges
1 stick butter
Salt, pepper & dried parsley to taste

Directions:

Preheat the oven to 350 degrees.  Melt the butter.  Juice one of the blood oranges and mix with the butter.  Dip each piece of cod in the mixture, coating it, and place in baking pan.  Drizzle some of the excess onto the fish.  Salt, pepper and parsley to taste.  Slice remaining blood orange and place one slice on each piece of fish.  Bake for 30 minutes.  Serve with rice, potatoes or toast.

With all the temptation symbolism, it should come as no surprise that apples are in a number of scenes.  Why not, for dessert, have some apple dumplings?

GARDEN OF EDEN APPLE DUMPLINGS: (serves four)

 

Ingredients:
4 apples
2 sheets puff pastry, thawed if frozen
¼ cup brown sugar
2 tbs cinnamon
1 beaten egg with a splash of water

Directions:

Preheat the oven to 425 degrees.  Peel and core the apples.  Cut each sheet of puff pastry in half.  Mix the brown sugar and cinnamon.  Place the apple in the center of the pastry, fill the core hole with the sugar/cinnamon mix, and sprinkle a little extra on top.  Bring the corners up, pinch them closed and seal up the sides.  Place on greased baking sheet.  Brush the egg over the dumpling and bake at 425 for ten minutes.  Lower the temperature to 375 and bake an additional 20 minutes.  Serve warm.

If you’ve heard of Alejandro Jodorowsky but never seen any of his movies, this is a great one to start with.  It has all his signature style and weirdness, but the plot is the most linear of any of his movies (minus that one film-that-shall-not-be-named).  If you’re willing to sit through a little weirdness, you won’t be disappointed.  Or, at least, you’ll have a yummy meal to get you through the night.

© Copyright 2012 by Jenny Orosel

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 LONDON6  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

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’ StevieMEME!  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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 40 other followers