The Reflecting Skin (1990)

The Reflecting Skin (1990)

Well folks, you asked for it. I have to start off with an apology though, words do not describe how gloriously f***ed up this movie is. I remember catching this flick originally on some late night channel, probably only 11 or 12 years old, and truly I have never been the same since. This is the one movie, that no matter how many times I watch it, it is pure and simply messed up.

In contemporary film where once brilliant auteurs like Lynch have become veritable hacks of their former selves, I can only imagine that Philip Ridley (who wrote and directed this film) is of the same cloth as Sartre. Lynch could only dream of being as screwed up as this film is.

Well what is so messed up about this film you say? Alright, I will give it the good ol college try here.

The film takes place in rural Idaho (as per wikipedia though I don't recall it ever being mentioned in the film) in the 1950s. We follow our young (10-11 year old) protagonist Seth Dove. Seth is the epitome of a serial killer waiting to happen as the screwed up stuff he experiences and does is definitely there to scar him for life.

But is Seth entirely innocent prior to what he witnesses? Nope, he's already well on his way to being screwed up. We first see him and his two friends inflating a bullfrog they find to the point of rupture. Instead of killing the frog immediately they set it on it's back on a hot rural road where a woman is approaching from the distance. When the woman nears and inspects the frog, our young protagonist Seth takes out his slingshot and shoots the frog, exploding it all over the woman and the road.

And that is pretty much the end of all semblance of reality in this film. Seth becomes obsessed with vampires after hearing his dad speak about a novel he's reading. More importantly, Seth becomes convinced that the woman from before, Dolphin Blue is her name, is a vampire herself.

In a nutshell, Seth experiences religious zealotry, self-immolation, murder, possible remnants of infanticide or a still-born baby, dead angels, possible pedophilia peripherally, homophobia and radiation sickness. Jury's still out on the whole vampire angle and I am sure entire papers can be written on the murmuring chirping twin ladies.

That's not a synopsis, you say? Fine. Seth is the central figure to a mysterious set of murders that begin with the children of his small rural community. Seth's brother Cameron returns about half way through the film (played by Viggo Mortensen) and is definitely affected by his time in the war, hinting at being in or near Japan after Nagasaki or Hiroshima.  This is not the 1950's of "Greece" or "Happy Days" this is more like the 1950's of the apocalypse meets the twilight zone.

Some readers on IMDB boards seem to suggest that the imagery in the film is an allegory for Seth's innocence slowly becoming lost, which is an admirable take on the whole thing, but I don't think that explains enough. I think Seth is already a lost soul, there is nothing absolutely nothing redeemable about any of the characters. Each are bitter, twisted shadows of human beings, but life has been a long time gone from these folks.

If you want purgatory, this is my definition of it. These is bleaker than The Road in many respects.


The good: Well, I've mentioned that the film is bleak and messed up, but is it any good? Yes, it still is. This is a film I could never fully de-construct. I would challenge both many of my former University peers, and established film critics alike to try and make sense of this film. I would love to have lengthy discussions about what transpires in the 95 minutes on screen. Standouts though? Seth. Creepy creepy Seth. Viggo is always good (*coughRolandtheGunslingercough*) and just for sheer absurdity the Sheriff is great too. Oh and creepy dead angel babies. Yep you read that right.

The bad: Sanity as we know it, has no place in this film. That can make for a paradoxical viewing experience in which you simultaneously are revolted, apalled and intrigued by what happens next.

Final thoughts: Not one for mom and dad or your kids. Know that if you put this into your dvd player or watch it on your computer (Authors Note: I don't condone that!) you will bear witness to one of the greatest wtf moments in film that I have ever known. Forget Eraserhead, forget Gummo, forget Blue Velvet. You'd have to go as far back as Un Chien Andalou (1929) for a film on par with The Reflecting Skin.

Add to the Vault? You know what? Yes. For the mere fact that this film is like a drug. How I imagine heroin would feel, getting under your skin and forcing you to want more despite the horrors you experience from it. Perhaps too strong of an allusion but I don't care, I have never done heroin and never will, so I will invoke creative license here. This film definitely should not disappear, but rather serve as the proverbial bar for films aspiring to be messed up pieces of art.

Trick 'r Treat (2007)

Trick 'r Treat (2007)

Ah Halloween. Such an under-appreciated time of year. Most people say they like Halloween, some even say they love Halloween, but few people LOVE Halloween. Don't get me wrong, I get it, I know I am old now, and I am not hip or cool, but very few kids these days seem to put in the effort to really warrant that bag full of candy. A hoodie or pony-tail on the side of your head does not make you a "gangster" or "80's girl" (both of which were observed in multitudes this year from the trick or treaters). I may have been the odd kid though who actually appreciated the mythos of Halloween, the merit of a costume you slaved over for the entire month, the fine details of pumpkin carving, and the splendour of a well decorated house. You can always pick out those who like Halloween more than others. They'll be the kids with really damned good costumes rather than store-bought discount masks. They'll be the youths in the group of ne'er-do-wells that has the actual costume in the bunch. Or they'll be the mothers or the father's that are wearing more elaborate costumes than the little princess or pumpkin they are carrying in their arms.

Where am I going with this you ask? Well this movie is made by folks who love everything about Halloween. This movie exists simultaneously as an homage to all horror films, Halloween lore and tradition, and a careful warning to those who dare disrespect the Halloween spirit.

By far one of my favourite films, the greatest travesty was that this film didn't make it to theatres. I can appreciate the SAW movies or the Paranormal Activity movies and how they are drivel to be tossed in to theatres to make a buck or two under the illusion of horror, but would it have so bad to have a clever, well-written tribute to Halloween be shown en mass in lieu of commercialized tripe?

Alas I digress, the show. So we know it's a tribute, but to offer you more detail, the movie takes place in the absolute coolest town in America (some place in Ohio I think) that goes absolutely hard-core for Halloween. It is several stories told and interwoven into one another. You have tales of the supernatural, you have tales of regular human horror, and you have tales that are so uniquely Halloween that they deserve their own category. All of them told together are a celebration of Halloween, and if anything deserves a franchise it would be this movie, with the only stipulation being an open invitation for directors to tell a better spooky story in keeping with the Halloween theme. Cinephiles will recognize a few faces including but not limited to Brian Cox and Anna Paquin who both turn in great performances (which is a lot to say about Anna, because though I am a fan of True Blood, Sookie is often an irritating character).


The good: Nearly everything in this movie. It is cinematic gold.


The bad: The fact YOU haven't already watched it.

Final Thoughts: This is the preeminent film devoted to all things Halloween. Forget the Michael Myers flicks, forget standard horror-movie-a-thons, and forget Romero-fests (another overly appreciated director who has not done anything decent since the late 70's). Add this film to your Halloween repertoire and be sure to show it to all your friends.

Add to the vault: As if you didn't already know, yes. Hell yes! Buy this movie before you watch it. You won't be disappointed and best case scenario it will send a message to Hollywood that quality over quantity will be better appreciated by audiences. At the very least, make this film a part of your Halloween traditions.

Halloween III (1982)

Halloween III (1982)

What the hell did I just watch? No seriously.... What the hell did I just watch? Wow.

Here's my line of thinking. "Hey, I am trying to run a bunch of Halloween and/or horror related films for review. I will try and run the gamut for types of films, and pick ones that some people may know, think they know, or not even have a clue about." Halloween III falls in category 3 for most people I think as typically the John Carpenter series is recognized solely by Michael Myers (not the comedian).

In this flick, which I am not even sure qualifies as post-modern or "meta", Michael Myers is only referenced by movies shown within the movie acknowledging that the first Halloween movies were movies, while simultaneously being a Halloween movie itself. Trust me, this flick is not nearly intelligent enough to make that a purposeful decision.

The premise, ah who cares I am going to spoil it for you. An alcoholic doctor has some man wind up in his hospital who gets killed by some maniac who blows himself up. The doctor then proceeds to investigate the death himself (gawd knows the police are useless in such cases) and he goes to some small town where an eccentric mask maker controls the whole town. Blah blah blah, stuff happens, and... wait for it.... it is revealed that the crazed mask maker has a master plan using magic rocks from a stolen slab from Stonehenge implanted in all the masks he sold to children, which on Halloween night at midnight, he will air a special commercial that will set off all the microchip/rocks (???) and proceed to melt all the heads of the kids wearing masks and MAGICALLY make them start spewing snakes and insects. Did I forget to mention that all his minions are robots wearing masks to look like humans?

All run on sentences aside folks, I can't make this crap up.

The good: One creative death with a magic "lazer" that shoots from a microchip some chick is fiddling with that proceeds to rupture her face in interesting fashion. That and the one line where the doctor, after finding out the evil scheme, manages to call for help to his ex-wife (I think) and without hearing her part of the dialogue, he suddenly blurts out, "No, I am not drunk!" Man I wish I was watching this. I may have had more appreciation.

The bad: Truly there is nothing redeemable about this film. Though I think it does take top honours for the absolute most annoying musical plot device ever to be used in film.


Final Thoughts: Never would I have thought that the Halloween premise of demented man-child that is also an unstoppable killing machine would have seemed so much more plausible and welcome over the atrocity that I witnessed that is this film. Oh and this flick has sweet F all do with witches and/or seasons.

Add to the vault:  I think the only disservice to this film would be to NOT burn every single copy that exists and collectively pretend this film never happened.

Dracula (1931)

Dracula (1931)

Well they can't all be winners. Following up the great Frankenstein with Boris Karloff,, I took in Bela Lugosi's turn as Dracula.

All I can say is that the music is nice. I never really pictured Dracula as an opera before (despite it being a ballet) but the only real merit to this film was the score. One character I enjoyed that never really struck me as being that interesting before was Renfield. Usually played to the point of ridiculous, Dwight Frye's Renfield was interesting and complex. Which is more than I can say about Bela Lugosi's effort at Dracula. There is a reason Christopher Lee's adaptation is considered more of THE Dracula on which to meet or beat.

On the whole the flick is pretty boring. The rest of the characters are forgettable, and the only other remotely interesting thing was how Edward Van Sloan's role as Van Helsing looked remarkably like Anthony Hopkins.


In other news, Halloween is always a big thing where I live now, and this year, one house had Frankenstein projected on their living room window. Very cool.

Good: Renfield, and the music.

Bad: Everything else.

Final Thoughts: Yawwwwn!

Add to the thought: Only if it needs to be preserved as a classic, or comes as a two pack with Frankenstein.

Frankenstein (1931)

Frankenstein (1931)

Ah, classic cinema. In preparation for Halloween I have several horror movies still awaiting viewing, including 3 classics that I admit I have never seen. Frankenstein, Dracula and The Wolf Man.

First up, Frankenstein. Ah such an interesting movie. Far more interesting than I ever suspected to be honest. I can see why it has stood the test of time. There are essentially only 3 interesting characters in the film. The monster, The Doctor, and Fritz (who I imagine the majority of the public out there presume was always called Igor).

There are other characters but Colin Clive's turn as the Doctor, and Boris Karloff's as the Monster made this movie the gem in cinematic history it has proven to be. Everyone knows the tale, a brilliant but eccentric scientist plays god and creates a monster. Fritz is the hunchback and all-around bastard to the monster. Things go awry, monster escapes and well... go watch it if you don't know how it ends.

The parts that really stood out were when once the Monster escapes, he meets the young girl by the lake. Wow. Just wow. We have all seen the iconic scene or at least know the references when witnessed in other movies, shows, and what not, but seeing the original film version, powerful stuff. It was tragic and the viewer is absolutely forced to empathize with the monster. We question whether it is his latent predisposition to murder given that he is comprised of the parts of murderers, or is it merely the childlike innocence he seems to exhibit as an entirely new creature only a few days old?

I must also give props to this film for it's cinematic style and design. Obviously inspired by earlier works like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, the design of Frankenstein's lab is all distorted angles, deep lines, and impossible architecture.

The good: Karloff, Clive, and the design stand out the most. Fritz is arguably the catalyst that could have prevented the Monster from being a monster. The girl at the lake. And the final scene while quick, is cinematic gold. Also the scene with the father going down the streets through the German festival, again... just wow.

The bad: the rest of the cast is mostly forgettable. I don't believe any real relationship existed between Elizabeth and the Doctor. And the film feels like it tells it's story very quickly. Which is fine, but I felt I wished we spent more time with the Monster and his foray into the world, for good or for bad.

Final Verdict: Obviously in this day and age, not everyone will have the patience for a classic film that is from an entirely different era of mannerisms, horror, and life. Many people will be turned off by the mere fact it is in black and white. Which is a shame and makes it that much more important for film lover's to try their best to keep these classics from fading away into obscurity. Kids may know the references in modern film and culture, but without knowing the roots of film, how can you truly appreciate it?

Add to the vault: Not a repeat viewing in the same vein as Dawn of the Dead remake (which I can watch most anytime), but if I ever saw them on sale I would definitely buy them and keep them in my repertoire much akin to a treasured book in the library you only dust off and re-read every decade or so.

Halloween II (2009)

Halloween II (2009)

So I have been referencing remakes, sequels and such ad nauseam, so why not review one of those remakes. It would have been too easy to review some sloppy paint by numbers remake like Black Christmas, or My Bloody Valentine (3D!) but given the spirit of the season, and the actual effort that went into this remake AND sequel, why not given this an honest go and be fair.

To disclaimer, I have seen all of Rob Zombie's cinematic endeavours to date, and while I think he has a great sense of style, he's still finding his rhythm in regards to story and character but the passion is there. That in and of itself puts Zombie way above the competition and it makes it that much more depressing when his films do not do well.

In this particular instance, Zombie purely made the follow-up to his first Halloween effort, because he wanted to complete the story he wanted to tell. At least it feels that way. Most people could easily dismiss it as a cash grab, but when you compare the domestic and international numbers, this film was far from a commercial success.

So about the film, well the film basically picks up right from the ending of his 2007 Halloween film, and continues following Laurie (the female protagonist) as she tries (unsuccessfully obviously) to continue her life in lieu of the trauma caused by the first flick. Michael is back (OMG SPOILER!) and havoc ensues. Malcolm McDowell and Brad Dourif are back to reprise their roles as well, and Zombie still finds a way to have his wife Sheri Moon be in the film as well, although in a different capacity than one might expect.

The film does play with some interesting plots, such as Laurie's attempt to move on after trauma, and Dr. Loomis' capitalizing on the notoriety of Michael's killings. If it followed the standard formula for a slasher flick it would have been a bunch of forgettable college co-eds that you WANT to get killed in gruesome fashion, but here you have (for the most part) people attempting to be somewhat real, and having plausible relationships to one another, and how they are all victims in some fashion or another to the unstoppable killing machine of Michael. Again, character is not always Zombie's strong suit, so some are bordering on ridiculous, but otherwise it's a relatively solid effort.

The good: The imagery. Zombie is a horror movie aficionado and he nails aesthetics that again elevate this above the regular drivel that passes for horror movies these days. What I think he needs to do though, is reign in his thoughts, and go back to telling his own story. House of 1000 corpses and Devil's Rejects were okay films that were too much style over substance. So he's got that, but he needs to get another original story, and writer/co-director that will keep the story in check and provide the objective voice that Zombie needs to hear in order to really elevate him to quality film-making. As it stands now though, I worry that Zombie has attached himself too much to the whole 70's exploitation style of cinema (ala Devil's Rejects or Grindhouse) and he will pursue that instead of carving his own niche in the horror department.

The bad: Characters and story are the only thing hampering this flick. As well I can't help but imagine how much better this would have been if it wasn't tied to an established franchise. Mike Myers and Jason, are ultimately weak antagonists. Zombie gets an "A" for effort in attempting to psychoanalyze Michael and give him a back-story, but ultimately no one seeing 'Halloween II' is going because they want to get into the head of Michael Myers. As much as I knock remakes and sequels, the fact is their target audience are audiences who want a throw-away movie. The same college co-eds that are epitomized on screen are the reflections of the typical audiences who go see these flicks. It's no wonder why Halloween II was not very successful for Zombie when you can imagine that most of the audience in attendance probably has the attention span of a toddler, and unless you can keep the kills or the T&A at a higher ratio than their text messages, you're gonna lose them in the exposition.

Final Verdict: I can appreciate Zombie's work here, but ultimately the film is a one off. It gets a passing grade for being entertaining enough to endure the 90+ minutes it takes to tell it's story, but it's by no means a classic in the making. Truthfully the failure can mostly be attributed to the very fact that Zombie pursued material that for many people is too established in pop culture. The very fact that the Halloween series, much like the Friday the 13th series, had become ridiculous caricatures of what they once were though the over abundance of sequels and increasingly absurd premises for stories, meant that Zombie had an uphill battle to tackle the material. He may not have been entirely successful, but working with what he had, he may as well have turned water into wine.

Add to the Vault? No. This is not going to be a Halloween regular (despite the irony), and I definitely won't be buying it. But I am still holding out hope for Zombie to make the one film that finally tells the story he needs to tell. Does that make sense? Please Rob, go back to telling original stories!

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

Le sigh. I like Jennifer Carpenter (see my Quarantine review or my general appreciation for Dexter) but even she could not save this flick.

What I mistakenly thought was a horror film, is a weak, vaguely supernatural knockoff of what is essentially a Law and Order Halloween special.

There is no tension, no scares, and nothing "new" other than the attempt to mix Law and Order with the Exorcist. Don't get me wrong, I "get" the film, and how they try to play on the ambiguities of the situation so that the audience can mull it over amongst themselves, "Was she or wasn't she possessed?" but really, I highly doubt many people were just out of sheer boredom.

I never found myself caring for any characters, the priest (character actor Tom Wilkenson) is uninspired and his whole "I NEED TO TELL EMILY'S STORY" was not convincing. It didn't feel like there were any stakes in the film. The threat of the legal proceedings is minimal given that the whole prosecution's case is purely circumstantial and that the likelihood of a criminal conviction (if this were true) would be minimal. I won't spoil it for anyone who actually cares about the outcome, but I was pretty bored, and I do like me some demon possession/ghostly tales.

The Good: Hmm.... not much. I wanted it to be good because it wasn't presented as another slasher flick, but really there isn't much going for it. I suppose Carpenter's investment in her character is admirable, but I hear that Ashley Bell's turn in The Last Exorcism (2010) much much more creepy.

The Bad: The overall story. I credit my degree in basket-weaving to knowing the value of stakes in a story, and this film just has none. You start the film off knowing the outcome. Sometimes it works, but here, it just has no place to build to.

Final Verdict: Not worthy of being part of any horror tradition. Great footage for Carpenter's resumé but little else to appreciate.

Add to the vault? Nope. Not even worth a late night cable viewing in the future. Unless you are suffering from insomnia, then by all means.

Friday the 13th (1980)

Friday the 13th (1980)


Ah the 80's, such a glorious time I wish I could have had the pleasure of enjoying at a later age than which I did. Infact, when this movie came out, I had yet to exist, but yet, a short 30 years later, I can still appreciate the work that went into this film and works of similar ilk that hearken back to a bygone era.

The 80's slasher film was a celebratory time for horror films that has yet to see similar resurgence and appreciation in this day and age. Sure we are inundated with knockoffs, remakes and so forth, but none of these films have the lasting classic feel that the 80's greats were able to establish. Films like Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Halloween. Classic B-movies that established the "rules" of self-referential slasher films of today, the films that created the clichés we know and love. I can appreciate films like SCREAM but in reality Scream was just a post-modern riff on the 80's slasher film without any genuine creativity.

What's even worse is the over-reliance on "torture-porn" films (a term I loathe by the way) like the Saw franchise. I loved the creativity of the first one but I admit I could care less for the seuqels. Same with Final Destination, an amusing flick that spawned uninspired sequels. Tiresome "jump-scare" flicks with an over-reliance on gore in lieu of creative story telling. Sure there is the odd gem thrown in here and there (I loved films like In The Mouth of Madness and Event Horizon) but really, 95% of "horror" films these days are forgettable, not worthy of being even in the same bargain bin as the classics.

Long rant aside, does that make this film good? Oh gawd no, not in the same sense as like the Godfather or anything, but yes it is good. The film is just as cheesy and ridiculous as it was back in the day but it conveys the, dare I say, innocence of the era. When kills occurred off-screen and the acts were left largely to the imagination. I know my imagination is much more vivid wondering where all the hapless camp counselors disappeared off to when they meet with the villain, and their demise is only hinted upon.

The age of the film only serves to make it more interesting in my opinion, as it shows what effort and story-telling can do in lieu of glossy graphics and an inflated budget.

As I write this, I am idly watching the second installment in the series courtesy of AMC's Fear Fest, but I won't write a review, because really this isn't a review for one particular film, so much as the entire era when horror meant something in film instead of cheap scares and commercialized tripe.

The Good: The 80's-ness of the film. Such a glorious time. The feel of the film breaking new ground before it became the crappy phone-it-in flicks we have today. Oh yeah, the film also sports vintage Kevin Bacon!

The Bad: Well sometimes the cheese-fest is a little much. "You're doomed! You're all DOOMED!"

Final Verdict: A classic. Need I say more?

Add to the Vault? Any self-respecting horror-nut should have this in their library, but truthfully you are probably safe from needing to buy it any time soon. There is a reason these films are considered classics, and why they are shown in abundance come every Halloween. Tis the season and all.


Till next time folks....

Quarantine

Before I begin, yes I know this is the Americanized version of REC, and no I have not watched REC or REC 2 yet. No I do not care about how they are the superior flicks. I will get into why below, but when I watch those flicks I will review them on their own merit as well.

Quarantine (2008)

As far as americanized remakes go, there are generally two forms of thought. One is that anything Americanized is a bastardization of the "original" making the efforts of whomever made the remakes rendered totally immaterial. OR one can appreciate both sets of films for what they are and what they strive to do.

Again, I have not seen REC, so I cannot comment, but as a standalone film, Quarantine is a pretty decent flick. It's scary, it's atmospheric and has a straight forward story that can be enjoyed on multiple viewings. A better comparison would be how this film holds up to other films of the "shaky-cam" genre such as Blair Witch, Cloverfield, Paranormal Activity and so on. Of all those films, the only one I did not overly enjoy, despite wanting to, was Paranormal Activity. I mean, if you are going to use the shaky-cam and try and tell a tale, it is best to explain right away why you have the characters doing what they do. In Blair Witch, they were making a documentary. In Cloverfield, they poignantly were self-aware and how in this digital age, SOMEONE needed to have the story told. In Quarantine, it was a reporter/camera man doing a special on firemen, when the crap hits the fan, the camera becomes a light source for which they use to navigate around them.

So onto the review. Plot synopsis, a reporter (Jennifer Carpenter of DEXTER fame) is a reporter in the vein of special reports and such. Obviously marginal, she and her lone cameraman are doing some coverage about a local firehouse. There we meet some bucket-heads, and before long, we are pulled along to a call out to a slum-style apartment building that has folks from all walks of life among it's tenancy. A few character actors met along the way and long before 28 days transpire, a rabies-like virus is swiftly infecting any and all of the residents with reckless abandon. The CDC swoops in and quarantines the building not letting anyone in or out and it becomes a race against time and the virus for our heroine to find a way out of the building.

The good: Jennifer Carpenter, it was a welcome change from her foul-mouthed Debra Morgan character on Dexter. Seeing her play a normal person in an abnormal situation, she was never annoying and audiences are able to invest in her character. Speaking of characters, the whirlwind story introduces many, but it's a testament to the film that the audience is able to follow along easily and adeptly despite the shaky-cam.

The bad: It is short. It is a quick little tale and given the subject matter, it may not be everyone's cup of tea.

Final Verdict: The film is definitely enjoyable. It very well may pale in comparison to the original but that shouldn't negate the effort that went into this flick. If you like scary movies, instead of watching some ridiculous slasher flick, rent this one and enjoy a good bowl of popcorn. Zombie enthusiasts should definitely give it a chance.

Add to the vault: I will wait to see REC before any conclusion here is made. With the fanaticism of film geeks, this is an affront to even review Quarantine, but if REC is that much more superior, I may let Quarantine go as just an enjoyable flick on the telly when it comes on.

Legion

In keeping with the Halloween theme, the reviews will be horror-centric or Halloween in nature for this month.

Fresh off the heels of the Monster Squad, I watched the next movie on the PVR list. In this case it was Legion.

Legion (2010)


Starring Paul Bettany, and Lucas Black, Dennis Quaid and Kevin Durand, the plot is a simple straight-forward apocalypse type film where God has basically decided to admit his mistake with humanity and start anew. But...BUT there is a child that could save all of mankind being born to basically some white-trash girl in a desert diner. Monsters and angels try to obliterate the place but through the perseverance of non-faith, and a cache of automatic weaponry, the eclectic mix of people hold the fort until.....

...well I guess you will have to watch and see.

I watched this movie wanting to hate it. I admit I was intrigued by the creepy ice-cream guy in the promos way back when, and I had a glimmer of interest that my cynicism tried to beat out of me and for the most part it won. Delegated to being a freebie on the movie channel, I thought, "Okay, I will give this an honest go." And I expected to be disappointed.... well more than I was.

Okay if I misled you, I apologize, the film isn't good. It isn't great. I am a fan of the actors Paul Bettany, Lucas Black (who I have enjoyed since his American Gothic days), Dennis Quaid (arguably phoning in a performance here, he was much MUCH better in Pandorum) and Kevin Durand (a local actor who despite being in mainstream films is still just on the fringes of being an "IT" actor). The film does try though, and while it is obvious not all the actors are trying in the film, it is a decent B movie horror/religion flick that isn't campy tongue-in-cheek and yet still is a little fun.

Is it ridiculous? Oh hell yeah. Note to the director: Don't show a scene of a LEGION of angels that are in the multitudes of millions, and then have the entire flick be about kinda possessed people who are easily killed, and then only ONE angel to finish the job. Just saying.

The good? Well not much. Without the religious angel aspect it could have been right up there with halfway decent zombie/demon apocalypse flicks but then it gets weirdly biblical and one can't help but lose a little interest. Don't get me wrong, it's not the religion per se, it's just the "rules" that suddenly the apocalypse is bound by. Never does it fully articulate how quite possibly the rest of the world is destroyed and yet a handful of people in a diner can fend off the apocalypse for any length of time. Some of the imagery is neat like the dude exploding in acidic boils, or the creepy people (before they just became punks and headbangers).

The bad? Pretty much the rest. It was enjoyable but I could not help but wonder about the movie "The Prophecy" which had a young Viggo Mortensen, and a fantastic Christopher Walken. I will need to re-watch it, but if you want bad-ass angels, watch that flick instead. Sorry Paul Bettany, but I hope your upcoming Priest flick fares better.


Final Verdict: If nothing else is on, and you want some mindless escapism, but make sure you turn your brain off before viewing.

 Add to the vault? Definitely not, but I may have to re-watch the Prophecy which if I recall correctly could be a worthy addition.

The Monster Squad

Well, it's full on into Halloween now that Thanksgiving is over. I wish I could devote my time to do a movie review a day ala the folks over at Ain't It Cool News for their old and obscure horror movies, but with French and life and such, I am not left with as much time. But I will barrage you with 3 back to back films. Starting with the Monster Squad!!

The Monster Squad (1987)

Ah, childhood. In 1987 I was no more than 6 years old, and yet I have strong memories of this classic film. Nary a film geek over the age of 30 would not be able to utter such classic lines as "Wolfman's got NARDS!" or "See ya later, Band-Aid Breath!". But does the film hold up to the test of time and prove to be as enjoyable as it once was?

Let me say a cautious, yes! My fears are that this film has not aged well, and despite some classic character actors which undoubtedly would have many people saying "Hey I know that guy." no one in the film has ever really gone on to anything famous. Without that star power this film exists solely on the fanaticism of the hardcore devotees who hearken back to a bygone era with the nostalgia. Does it appeal to today's youth? Not hardly in my honest opinion. Unlike movies like Legend or Labyrinth which have a definite whimsical value that can foster the imagination of even today's technology infused youth, this movie would only appear sad, pathetic and hokey.

Not to say that it is, mind you, just that if I remove myself from my obvious fandom with some objectivity, I can tell this film is destined to be forgotten once the fans are no longer able to keep breathing life into it.



 For those who lived under a rock and never saw this film, or are too young to appreciate it's splendor, here is the synopsis:



Way back when, Van Helsing found a way to banish Dracula via an ancient amulet to limbo, where he'd no longer be able to do the world any harm. Stuff goes wrong, Van Helsing gets sucked into the vortex instead and because of some ancient 100 year stipulation we cut to present day where it is only days before the same opportunity to banish Dracula is to occur.


Why the amulet is in 1987 middle America I forget but Dracula arrives (with Frankenstein's monster in tow and the wolfman) and stuff happens. Okay, Dracs also recruits a mummy from the nearby museum, and the creature from what I suspect is just a regular lagoon.


Luckily, for the human race, a hapless bunch of misfit kids, who have an improbable chance of ever hanging out together in a club at the same time, band together, get the amulet, find a virgin and battle the forces of evil.

So is it a good film? Well yes and no. Watching it I was overwhelmed with nostalgia like those aforementioned fans, and I found myself sitting bundled up late at night, covered in a blanket with a big bowl of popcorn, wide-eyed and all of 6 years old all over again. It did take me back to a simpler time, when magic, monsters and all things mythical held monopoly on my life. That is the true value of the film.

And yet the adult in me, with a sad smile watched a relic of a movie showing all the wear and tear of an antique. The plot was rushed, the characters were caricatures and the film on a whole felt like it was unsure of it's target audience. As much as I love it, I can see why it bombed at the box office and was destined to be just a cult classic. The movie did have several things going for it though. The creature and make up effects were astounding, and the movie did not pander to a child audience. A refreshing change of pace compared to the world of today that has such watered down patronizing tripe with talking gerbils and farting dogs, this film showed kids talking and behaving like kids. The part that made me weep though as I watched this on a late night cable channel (in HD mind you) was the little movie warning that said because of the language and horror themes shown that the following film is intended for adult viewing audiences. There is language, there is sexual references, and there is horrific themes, but my gawd, that's how kids are. Pretending kids aren't kids and that they live in some little protective bubble is only lying to yourself. At least back in the day before the internet kids had to discover all the bad words, and suggestive topics, kids now can just google much much worse.

For shame, people.

Some other interesting observations, the Frankenstein monster is a definite homage to Bub the zombie in George Romero's Day of the Dead, which is a great thing to see in a kids monster flick. The creature effects, as I said, were fantastic, and it was great to see that a film wasn't afraid to show scary things to kids. Hell, it's like the director knew that kids' imaginations can make much scarier monsters, so why not have them be real instead of cute and cuddly non-monsters.

Final verdict: The film is definitely aged and flawed, and yet despite that I can't help but love it and hold it near and dear to my heart. A definite must-watch for anyone who likes Halloween, and any true film geek. The rest of the world may pass it up, but that isn't to say you shouldn't.

Add to the vault? Definitely. If I don't who will?